Cycle network route planning guide

The cycle network planning process

Print version: Chapter 14: Consultation (PDF, 53 KB, 2 pages)

Consultation

14.1 Introduction

This section describes the consultation that is appropriate at all stages of the planning process.

14.2 Why consult?

Consultation underlies governance in a democratic society, and the Local Government Act 2002 emphasises a partnership with the community in everything local government does.

Also, most politicians and officials do not rely on cycling as everyday transport. This means they have no recent personal cycling experience on which to assess proposed cycling measures. In addition, consultation is a way of accessing cyclists’ extensive local cycling knowledge and experiences and identifying their, and potential cyclists’, attitudes.

14.3 What is consultation?

Consultation may mean informing the community, or being informed by it, or both. It may range from informing the public and asking for their consent to the public owning the strategy formulation process and contributing their own perspectives.

Consultation is distinct from survey work or information gathering, which are controlled by cycle planners and essentially focus on factual data. Consultation, by contrast, seeks to give others a voice and to focus on views and perspectives contributed to the cycle planning process.

14.4 Who to consult

Cycle planning expertise frequently rests with a small group of specialists and cycling advocates. Strong dialogue is required with cycling advocacy groups and specialists to ensure this expertise is incorporated and to test the technical aspects of cycle planning. Cycling advocates will need to be informed by technical perspectives.

Because cyclists’ needs vary, a range of cyclist types will need to be consulted. Confident and less confident cyclists, those cycling longer distances (often at higher speeds), local commuters, school cyclists and those cycling for sport or leisure, should all be included.

Other transport stakeholder groups and the wider community will also need to be consulted on cycling-related proposals. These will include representatives of car drivers, truck operators, public transport operators and users, and pedestrians. A balance will be frequently needed to ensure each group’s needs are appropriately met without unreasonably disregarding those of others.

14.5 When to consult

Consultation is required throughout the cycle planning process (see Table 14.1).

It is important to consult when proposals are still at a formative stage. Although consultation is often seen as an extra expense, it is usually repaid many times over in avoiding inappropriate design and sometimes the need to retrofit later.

14.6 How to consult

• The requirement to consult is more important than the precise way in which consultation takes place. The following are some avenues that have been found useful. They are not exclusive, often needing to be used in combination:
• Cycling working parties or advisory groups, usually comprising technical and professional staff from a range of official stakeholders (for example, local authority and Transit New Zealand, LTSA, New Zealand Police, and the regional council) along with cyclist representatives.
• Public workshops, open forums or focus groups.
• Formalised submission processes (for example on annual plans or LTCCPs).
• Public notices, letter-drops of proposals, and internet-based information and response opportunities.
• Cycle audit and cycle review processes (see section 9.4).
• One-on-one meetings with individual stakeholders as required, on specific subject matter.
• Cycling planners or champions employed by the RCA, whether fulltime, part-time or incidental to another role, who can act as brokers between their employers and local advocates. Strong support to this role is important because otherwise impossible pressures may be generated by unrealistic expectations (especially if, as often is the case, the person is at a relatively junior position within the organisation). Professional ethical issues need to be recognised and this role needs to supplement, not replace, support for cycling across the wider organisation.

14.7 What to consult on

The full range of road and transport proposals affects cyclists, not just cycling facilities. Care must be taken to avoid cycling facilities being rendered of limited use, or even dangerous (for example, a cycle path emerging where motorists will not be expecting it on a busy road). Formalised cycle audit processes are helpful in relation to specific projects, and avenues such as those outlined above can be used for a sample of projects. General lessons learned can be incorporated in wider cycle planning.

14.8 Resources for consultation

Cycling advocates generally contribute to the consultation process in their own time. This is appropriate in their role as customers, but there is a case for supporting them with public resources if they provide specialist expertise that contributes to the public benefit.

Direct payment for consultation creates a precedent that may be best avoided, except in cases where clearly a form of expert consultancy service is being provided through formal contractual arrangements. However, RCAs often support cycling advocacy groups through small grants, in kind, or for specific services (such as a rideover of routes to test maintenance from a cyclist’s perspective).

In Europe, some RCAs pay cycling advocate groups for auditing projects, condition surveys and benchmarking performance.

Table 14.1: Consultation that cycle planners should undertake during the implementation phase

WHEN?	WHO?	WHAT ABOUT?
Annually	Local and neighbouring RCAs	Forward programmes for infrastructure works to identify opportunities to incorporate provisions for cyclists in those works
Detailed investigation of individual cycle projects	Existing and potential cycle route users Origins, destinations and routes	Origins, destinations and routes Trip purpose and user types Hazard location Route and facility preferences
	Other road users including pedestrians Owners and occupiers of adjoining properties Other affected stakeholders	Hazard location Effects of proposals Route and facility preferences
	Existing and potential cycle route users Other road users, including pedestrians Owners and occupiers of adjoining properties Other affected stakeholders	Effects of proposals

< previous | next >

Page created: 30 September 2004