By Don Hewison (ScEdD, ChEdD)
Introduction
Hamilton City Council (HCC) declares on page 26 of its 2024-2034 Long-Term Plan that:
“Our vision for Hamilton Kirikiriroa
Everything we do is aimed at improving the wellbeing of Hamiltonians.
Our vision for the future of Hamilton Kirirkiriroa is guided by five priorities that keep Council’s decisionmaking focused on improving Hamilton’s social, cultural, economic and environmental wellbeingOur priorities
Our priorities describe what we aim to achieve for our community and what you can expect us to work towards. These outcomes were used to shape the development of the 2021- 31 Long-Term Plan and this 2024-34 Long-Term Plan. All our activities contribute to the overall achievement of our priorities and reflect our purpose and mission – to improve the wellbeing of Hamiltonians and to help build a more vibrant, attractive and more prosperous city.”
The five priorities which council considers will improve the wellbeing of the community) are:
- “A city that’s easy to live in | Ahuahungia teethi taaone e tau ai te noho ki roto
- A city where our people thrive | Ahuahungia teetehi taaone e puaawai ai ngaa taangata katoa
- A central city where people love to be | Ahuahungia te pokapuu o teetehi taaone e arohaina ai e te taangata
- A fun city with lots to do | Ahuahungia teetehi taaone ngahau e tini ai ngaa kaupapa papai hei whai
- A green city | Ahuahungia teetehi taaone tiaki taiao”
Therefore, our council has decided that everything they do will improve the wellbeing of Hamiltonians through these five principles.
Given the meanings of ‘agenda’ from the Cambridge Dictionary (online) are:
- “a list of matters to be discussed at a meeting”.
- “a list of aims or possible future achievements”; or
- “a secret aim or reason for doing something”,
Using the meaning of agenda as b) ‘a list of aims or possible future achievements’, then the above vision with a claim to do everything by focusing on five priorities to improve the well-being of Hamiltonians, must be considered as Council’s agenda.
Unfortunately, throwing money around in selected areas without the required consultation, can lead to negative consequences and the deterioration of wellbeing.
An Example
In the Northeast of Hamilton is a suburb – if you want to call it that. Suburbs generally have a name – yet this one is confused by names such as Rototuna, St James, Huntington North, etc.
In the midst of this is a roundabout – the intersection of Thomas Road and Hukanui Road/Horsham Downs Road. On the four corners there is, to the:
- NW housing,
- NE Rototuna Shopping Centre (with New World Rototuna and other shops etc., the Rototuna Bus Terminus, and a Petrol Service Station).
- SW St James Shopping Centre (with Woolworths St James and other shops, McDonalds, etc),
- SE a third shopping centre and about two hundred metres away are two entrances to Rototuna Primary School.
Associated with these shopping centres and the school are the numerous entrances to and exits from these places.
Up until a short while ago the roundabout served its purpose reasonably well with some buildup of traffic at busy times. It was essentially a two lane entrance into the roundabout for each road and no pedestrian crossings next to the Give Way sign.
Recently council decided to radically change the layout to one lane entrance on all four roads in the name of ‘safety’ each with a speed bump/pedestrian crossing (a raised zebra crossing with the black and white posts and orange discs at the top). These pedestrian crossings are located a few metres before the white line that is associated with the Give Way sign.
Some of the comments regarding this roundabout are:
- “There is more buildup of traffic congestion now than there was before the changes.”
- “A driver needs to be very careful if entering and immediately exiting left because there is now a pedestrian crossing just after the exit which may have a pedestrian on it – this is out of the driver’s original ‘line of sight’ for the Give Way”.
- “The pedestrian crossings are dangerous, so I won’t use them.”
Observations
To get a better sense of this roundabout two visual checks were made at the roundabout – one during the weekend when traffic is reasonably quiet, and the other on a weekday morning during the busy period.
Weekend
Traffic was quiet and there wasn’t any significant buildup of traffic – until a large truck and trailer made itself known and blocked access to the pedestrian crossing.
Upon exiting the roundabout after the ‘U’ turn, the need to stop for the pedestrian crossing would have probably blocked half of the whole intersection,
Other observations identified the lack of correct driver behaviour with small vehicles, those that chose to stop on the pedestrian crossing instead of waiting until the road ahead was clear.
Weekday
Upon walking along Thomas Road a large buildup of traffic could be seen from the roundabout east along Thomas Road to the bridge over the stream…
And continuing east up to at least the roundabout into St James (a total distance of 1 km).
Traffic was moving slowly, and a jogger would not have had difficulty keeping up the traffic.
At the roundabout busses needed to block the pedestrian crossing to wait for a gap in the traffic to enter the roundabout.
Findings
Other than making sure that particular attention was paid to traffic when attempting to use a pedestrian crossing, and the problem with keeping traffic moving, the main problem is the speed bump/pedestrian crossings just before each Give Way zone. There promote three significant problems:
- a) Approx 40% of the vehicles stopped on the crossing thus blocking a pedestrian’s right to use the crossing, b), It is virtually impossible for a large vehicle (e.g. bus, truck and especially a truck and trailer) or a small vehicle with a trailer (e.g. trailer, caravan) to navigate an entry onto the roundabout without stopping on the pedestrian crossing.
- Long vehicles exiting the roundabout and who have to stop for a pedestrian, block the movement around the roundabout, effectively making traffic buildup worse.
- Raising the level of the pedestrian crossing (by the use of speed bumps) also provides a reasonable level crossing – i.e. there is no ‘drop’ over the berm to the road surface and no rise up to the footpath level on the other side. There is now a problem with the speed scooters and cyclists approach and use of the crossing in that they approach and ‘scoot’ across the crossing with hardly, if any, glance at the traffic situation. It was scary to watch.
The question ‘is it OK to stop on the pedestrian crossing?’ must also be asked.
We read from NZTA— Sharing the road with pedestrians – Pedestrian crossings,
“When coming up to pedestrian crossings:
-slow down and be ready to stop for any pedestrians on or stepping onto the crossing – this also includes people obviously waiting to use the crossing
-if there’s no raised traffic island in the middle of the crossing, stop and give way to pedestrians on any part of the crossing
-wait until the pedestrian has crossed in front of you and is clear of your vehicle before you proceed.
If you’re in a queue of traffic near a pedestrian crossing, don’t move onto the crossing if there isn’t enough room for your vehicle on the other side of the crossing.”
We read from the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004:
6.5 Parking on or near pedestrian crossings
(1) A driver or person in charge of a vehicle must not stop, stand, or park the vehicle on a pedestrian crossing.
Summary
Usually a small vehicle can avoid stopping on these pedestrian crossings. However, in the case of a driver of a long (and probably large) vehicle (buses, trucks, etc), the driver would have to stop before the crossing to watch for clear road on the roundabout, some metres away. If the driver starts to move towards the give way line and then has to stop because another vehicle has entered the roundabout, they will stop on the pedestrian crossing – which they must not do under the road rules.
Evaluation against council’s priorities:
As for council’s clear statement of agenda that “Everything we do is aimed at improving the wellbeing of Hamiltonians”, which is done through a focus on the five priorities, there is now a need to evaluate the council’s changes to this roundabout.
| Priority | Comment |
| A city that’s easy to live in | It is not easy to live in an area when the significant roundabout is poorly designed. |
| A city where our people thrive | Would a person thrive when stuck in slow traffic due to a poorly designed roundabout? |
| A central city where people love to be | Not applicable – it would be good if council paid some attention to all those areas outside of the central city. |
| A fun city with lots to do | Dodging traffic, waiting for traffic to move, etc is not likely to be fun. |
| A green city | This is not promoted or achieved when the amount of pollution caused by idling or stop/start vehicles is considered. |
Did council promote wellbeing?
The design of this roundabout can now be considered as forcing a driver of a long vehicle to break the statutory requirement “A driver or person in charge of a vehicle must not stop, stand, or park the vehicle on a pedestrian crossing”. Forcing people to do the wrong thing by poor engineering, will not promote, provide, or enhance wellbeing. Who then is responsible for this – the driver (who has no other option) or council?
Conclusion
Given that Council’s clear statement of agenda is that “Everything we do is aimed at improving the wellbeing of Hamiltonians”, which is done through a focus on the five priorities, has not achieved this aim, then Council must have a hidden agenda for this roundabout and probably all those other road changes such as roundabouts, in-lane bus stops, etc.
What is that hidden agenda? You decide.
[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.]
