By Mesh MacDonald: Council Candidate Hamilton East

Hamilton’s recent surge in speed bump installations (often built as flat-topped “raised safety platforms”) is driving heated debate across the city. Intended to improve pedestrian safety and reduce vehicle speeds, they are instead creating vehicle flow problems and growing dissatisfaction, all while consuming a large share of public funds.

High Cost, Limited Transparency

Official project data shows that each raised platform can cost over $300,000 once materials, labour, traffic control, design, contingency, and internal administration are factored in. Materials such as asphalt and paint might be a small fraction of the total, but traffic management, consultancy, and staffing make up the bulk. Worth noting, around half the cost is subsidised by Waka Kotahi, which is recorded as income in council budgets.  This is a hazard because it presents an incentive that fuels continued roll-out despite mounting public concern.

Design Failures at Roundabouts

One of the most contentious elements is the placement of raised platforms on the exit lanes of roundabouts. Roundabouts are designed for continuous, yield-based flow; placing a raised crossing at the exit forces drivers to brake mid-circuit, often with vehicles still circulating behind them.
The result: congestion, confusion, and in some cases gridlock when pedestrians are crossing and exiting vehicles are forced to stop, choking the roundabout entirely. This disrupts intuitive driving patterns and increases collision risk.  The location and design of these installations subvert the intended priority logic of roundabouts, turning them into waiting traps instead of efficient junctions.

A Lived Example: Queens Ave

I drive along Queens Ave most days. There are raised crossings on all four sides of the roundabout, but I have yet to actually see a pedestrian using them. What I do see, day after day, is a line of cars being jolted over the bumps, slowing to a crawl for no apparent reason. I’ve never known that intersection to be a heavily used pedestrian route, nor one where traffic barrels through at unsafe speeds. The roundabout itself manages flow well. The speed bumps feel unnecessary.  They seem like a thoughtless roll out, rather than a thoughtful and intentional placement. Was that a practical use of ratepayer money? I’m not convinced.

Community Dissatisfaction

Residents are vocal, and angry. Across social media and community forums, drivers express frustration at what they describe as illogical placements of speed humps, particularly where they choke roundabouts and confuse traffic patterns. One Hamilton resident on Facebook shared a visceral experience:

“I drive a small car… I have to slow down almost to stop, otherwise I'm airborne.”

One resident on Reddit summed it up:

“They have put them at all the big roundabouts in Rototuna. The one heading towards Chartwell is the worst. … Where they place the speed bump, it’s … [chaotic].”

Another user added:

“The exits from roundabouts are often less safe than the entrances because drivers don’t indicate and accelerate out…”

Such feedback highlights the real-world confusion caused when designers override known roundabout usage patterns with mandatory slow-downs mid-exit.  

Impact on Vehicles and Emergency Services

Beyond inconvenience, speed bumps carry hidden costs in vehicle wear, especially to suspension, tyres, and brakes, and they delay emergency services. International data shows each hump can add 3–5 seconds to fire truck response times and longer for ambulances with patients onboard. If you’re nursing an injury or other issue, the discomfort from crossing speed bumps is significant.  

While Hamilton City Council maintains there is no local data proving delays, emergency service crews have raised concerns about the cumulative effect across multiple bumps on a route.

Spending vs. Core Needs

The rollout of these high-cost installations comes as Hamilton City Council’s debt has risen to almost $1 billion by mid-2025, a massive increase in debt in only a few years. Residents are rightly asking whether expensive traffic-calming measures are the best use of funds when essential infrastructure - roads, water, and waste - is under pressure.

Conclusion

What began as a safety initiative has become for many Hamiltonians, a case study in manufactured priorities. Few residents were asking for raised platforms, yet millions have been poured into them because central government subsidies reward councils for building them. The result is frustration on the roads, not safety in the streets. Ratepayers want their money spent on real, pressing needs: maintaining roads, upgrading water networks, improving waste services; not on projects that solve problems nobody was asking to fix.

‍