Category Archives: Projects

Hamilton water to wastewater spend 2018/19

Posted on by 0 comment

Disclaimer: the numbers used in this post come from council fund project lists. It looks to me that the way people analyse the counting changes, also my data is copy and type, not copy and paste. So please do a check;

In the briefing note for the Council meeting on Wed 6th Dec 2017 – 2018-28 10-year Plan – page 172: The funded Capital Programme spend on wastewater and water for the plan for 2018-28 was $457,508,506. The 27 March Council Report Attachment 8 Draft Capital Projects List 12-3-18 (D2625967) spend totals $592,820,000; a 29% increase in just 3 months.

The 10-Year Plan 2018-28 Consultation Document (page 11) puts water at $285m & wastewater at $358m, totalling $643,000,000. This post uses funded project lists for benchmarking, see end of post for examples from 1999-2019, 2009-19 & 2012-12.

Back last century, Hamilton’s Strategic plan 1999-2019 budget for year 2018/19 (page 70 & 71) approved a budget for water $4,274,000, wastewater $2,954,000: total $7,228,000 ($10,788,392 inflation added).
Looking back a decade, in the 2009-19 long term plan the spending for year 2018/19 on wastewater and water was $20,167,000 ($23,252,760 inflation added) compared to the latest plan for year 2018/19 of $72,319,000 which is an increase of over 200%.

Year 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2018-25
Long Term Plan $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
1999-19 $10,788
2009/19 $23,253
2012/22 $31,894 $31,740 $32,654 $24,494
2015/25 $243,781 75% Increase
2018/28 $72,319 $90,311 $73,974 $58,923 $427,917

The numbers above shown as single years don’t give a balanced picture, as long term plans are rewritten  and projects’ funding dates change, so below I’ve graphed each long term plan’s budgeted total 10 year spend on Water and Wastewater as single $k values along with population data, and the future population council is planning for as stated in the 2018/28 long term plan.

What I’m seeing is a growth plan that pulls the trend line up away from population growth, but even more concerning is the accelerating cost of adding new water/wastewater infrastructure.

The challenge of ‘Deciding where our next big housing area will be’ should not be about pushing the city wider and wider; it is about when do we start looking at slimming existing properties that are close to existing shopping and service centres, so that they are used more frequently and their efficiency will rise.

Link to Former 10-Year Plans

Examples of project list I’m using for benchmarking.



Grey St too be 75% safer

Posted on by 1 comment

Over the past 7 years no less than seven people have died travelling to/from/within the Hamilton CBD.
Grey St, Hamilton East has recorded ZERO fatalities.

Better than that, the people from the Hamilton East Community Trust teamed up with HCC, NZTA and WRC to be one of six case studies around Australia and New Zealand being assessed by a team of Austroads traffic safety experts.
The outcome of the team work-shop was that safety improvements were identified that could easily halve the risk of serious injury to people visiting and moving through central Grey St.

Key safety improvements included treatments that helped to manage vehicle speeds, such as raised platforms, gateway treatments, road narrowing, textured surfacing and additional measures.

In fact the Hamilton East team clearly are looking for transformational change – they have a tick for every box.

The ticking of every box is the right thing to do; this allows different treatments to act together to give the greatest overall benefit.
Here are concept drawings showing how different treatments could give a reduction in the risk of fatality or serious injury of up to 75% for many road users.

Lastly page 14 of the Technical Report tells us we can do better than 75% safer:
“Typically this requires speeds below 30 km/h to avoid death if a collision occurs, or even lower speeds (around 20 km/h) to avoid serious injury. For a speed choice of 30 km/h instead of 50 km/h, the estimated reduction in fatal crash risk is 95%”

But this would be a political decision as it was in Helsinki in the 1990s. “The optimal speed limit on an urban street is the lowest limit the political decision makers can accept”

Link to report – Safe System infrastructure on mixed use arterials