By Andrew Bydder, Hamilton City Councillor
Hamilton City Council has begun consultation on a cycling safety upgrade to an arterial route, Morrinsville Road. It has a significant impact on the residents including the loss of 20 street parks in an area which already has a shortage, but it also has a significant benefit to hundreds of children attending Berkley Middle School.
Consultation is required by the Local Government Act section 78, subject to section 82 Principles of Consultation. Where people are affected, they should be provided reasonable access to relevant information, and they should be encouraged to present their views.
Common criticisms of council consultation, apart from the alliteration, is that information is biased, outcomes are predetermined, choices are limited, and leading questions are used to influence the response.
In this case, the design has already been approved in principle by council, and the benefits are listed in a bold highlighted balloon at the front of the page while the drawbacks are small bullet points buried halfway down. The illusion of choice is given by 2 options for areas A, B, C below, but no opportunity exists to challenge the cycleway itself.
Graphic from the “Morrinsville Road fit for purpose upgrades” consultation webpage.
Nice pictures are used to focus attention on the good areas with ‘artistic licence’ to obfuscate the bad areas. My red circle in the picture below contains something that is hardly noticeable, but the fineprint reveals it is a cycle separator. Sounds benign, but Hamilton’s Rifle Range Road was blighted with them. Even cyclists hate them, yet locals are about to be tricked into “supporting” them by supporting the cycleway option. If the question was “Do you want the horrible concrete barriers that destroy rims, trip up people crossing the road, and make rubbish collection impossible at great expense?” then there would be no support.
Graphic from the “Morrinsville Road fit for purpose upgrades” consultation webpage.
Photograph of the concrete cycle lane separators installed on Rifle Range Road
However, this article’s main focus is not the poor consultation practices, but the fundamental conceptual flaws. The purpose of the project is supposedly safety.
One of the two options is a “shared path” – a wider footpath but letting kids cycle on it. The picture looks nice and friendly.
Graphic from the “Morrinsville Road fit for purpose upgrades” consultation webpage.
There is a reason that cyclists are not allowed on footpaths. Here is another section of Morrinsville Road that doesn’t make a friendly picture.
Examples of the high fences, retaining walls, and concealed driveways along Morrinsville Road
Fences and retaining walls cut down visibility for cars exiting driveways. It is not a problem at pedestrian speeds, but middle-school kids on cycles with poor situational awareness are going to be hurt. This is an example of ideology leading to bad decisions. Shared paths are “good” therefore we will throw a shared path at this problem without doing the on-site research.
Speed bumps (raised safety platforms) are also “good” according to council ideology, so council has thrown one at the intersection of Berkley Avenue and Morrinsville Road.
This means drivers on the busy single-lane arterial route have to slow down sharply in the traffic flow before turning. Panelbeaters will be very happy with the design.
Graphic from the “Morrinsville Road fit for purpose upgrades” consultation webpage.
We’ve all been middle-school-aged kids. We know they will get a false sense of security from the green cycle paint and use the raised crossing, which is level with the footpath, without checking. Kerbs would actually make them stop and think. If this was truly about safety, then crossing lights for the same cost would help. This gives safety when it is needed, which is between 8.30 and 9am, and 3 to 3.15pm when school is out. The speed bump succeeds in irritating drivers 24/7. Could that be the real reason for this design?
When you come across poor consultation, give your feedback direct to your local councillor.
[The content of any Opinion pieces represents the views of the author and the accuracy of any content in a post labelled Opinion is the responsibility of the author. Posting of this Opinion content on the CityWatch NZ website does not necessarily constitute endorsement of those views by CityWatch NZ or its editors. CityWatch NZ functions to provide information and a range of different perspectives on New Zealand’s cities and local councils. If you disagree with or dispute the content, CityWatch NZ can pass that feedback on to the author. Send an email to feedback@citywatchnz.org and clearly identify the content and the issue.]
Further reading on this issue
Consultation Closes 9 November 2025: Morrinsville Road upgrades, Hamilton
What are the disadvantages and negative impacts of “traffic calming”?
