The Master Traffic Plan—VI PUBLIC ATTITUDES EXAMINED

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30578, 22 October 1964, Page 20

The Master Traffic Plan—VI PUBLIC ATTITUDES EXAMINED

[Specially written for ‘'The Preee" by

A. J. DANKS,

Protestor of Economic*, t'niverjlty

The -Traffic-Problems-Don’t-Exist” Attitude Perhaps others will have noticed, as 1 have, that some motorists display a freeminded wilfulness of manoeuvre, a leisureliness of operation, a coyness about “parking snug,” which suggest that they are spiritually dwelling in a more spacious age. For them traffic problems don’t exist; they ignore them. The rest of us, steering around these islands of tranquillity, our teeth bared with rage, fear, and frustration, are all too aware that, month by month, almost day by day, the peak congestions are getting worse. Total immobility at bad places as a daily occurrence surely cannot be far away. Our traffic congestion is a problem which is real and worsening. The “It-Will-Cure-Itself” Attitude But surely, it may be argued, the cure for all this will come spontaneously with little effort or cost. All we have to do is wait until frustrations, delays, parking problems, and general inconvenience compel some motorists to leave their cars at home and travel by bus, bike, or afoot. We should not, however, under-estimate the power of the motorist to suffer in the cause of driving his own car about his affairs in town. In a car-owning democracy this persistence of the private motorist is an observed fact; experience overseas suggests that Christchurch has a long way to go in autostrangulation before the situation stabilises at a level of serious congestion, delay, frustration, and hazard. Reluctance by motorists to engage in the struggle is not going to solve our traffic problems. The “Why-Plan?” Attitude If motorists insist oh going on being motorists, despite multiplying delays and difficulties, why should local bodies have to accept a master plan for solving the transportation problem? Why should we not in this, as in so many other matters, adjust, modify, and change conditions as circumstances dictate from year to year—a street widened here, a corner rounded there, a new bridge across the river and so on? The trouble about this sort of approach is that traffic movement is a complex system of inter-relationships: my journey as a whole, other people’s journeys as wholes, and the association of these with city areas where we work, shop and play. An apparent cure at this particular place may merely

of Canterbury)

create a bottleneck somewhere else, and the coordination of remedies for traffic congestion is a painstaking operation involving much work in the collection and analysis of facts about communications and the related growth and function of the whole urban area.

The plan has done this exercise for Christchurch: in detail it is open to criticism and, presumably, amendment; and we cannot satisfactorily deal with our traffic problems without it

The “It-Will-Cost-Too-Much” Attitude The tentative cost figure for the master transportation plan over the next 20 years is £43 million in constant 1962-63 pounds. This fund will provide some 20 miles of new motorways with auxiliary improvements. Is an enterprise on this scale beyond the bounds of reasonable contemplation? Not in the eyes of England’s Steering Group on Traffic Problems, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Crowther, which reported last year on remedying traffic problems:— “It is clear that any attempt to implement these would result in a gigantic problem of urban reconstruction. We see no reason to be frightened of this. The central sections of most of our cities were very largely built in a few decades of the 19th century and the rebuilding necessary to implement the ideas of the Buchanan Report (on traffic in towns) —which would be very much less than total reconstruction—should not be beyond the powers of a few decades of our century.” Figures are relative: the plan's £43 million looks less formidable if it is considered in relation to New Zealand’s national roading expenditure in a single year, 1963-64, of £42 million, and the nation’s gross capital investment in the March, 1963, year, which totalled £321 million.

Furthermore, nobody should imagine that the total costs of the works proposed in the plan are net additions to the cost of road improvements made piecemeal. Indeed, one estimate shows that over the next 20 years “stop-gap” methods might cost £37 million, not much less than the amount the plan itself contemplates.

And consider the additional savings the plan can confer—in time, operating costs, reduced traffic risks, and, less tangibily, in lower wear and tear on human nerves.

The plan is not expensive on a comprehensive view of costs and benefits. Indeed, going without the plan is likely to be much more cost-

ly in total social outlay. But one thing is certain—delay is going to add to costs. The plan launched now is going to be much cheaper than a similar plan in 10 years' time. This is because acquiring land and clearing buildings will inevitably cost more as the city grows in size, rebuilding as it expands. The “It-Won’t-Work” Attitude Even if we are able to afford the transportation plan, some will argue that we should not—that a system of new motorways will destroy amenities and produce even more congestion of cars at the centre. Christchurch is not a very big city; nor will it become so for many years. Nor is it crowded when considered in relation to heavily-built-up metropolitan areas elsewhere. And Christchurch has no natural features in the way of hills, rivers or the like to force traffic flows into crowded defiles. Spaciously planned, easily traversed lightly built-up—Christchurch invites a system of motorways to facilitate and improve traffic flows into the centre and better distribute them into the existing road network. And with attention to parking off-street, the central area should be able to cope with much heavier motor traffic for many years to come. Our physical roading problems are much easier and cheaper to solve than those of, say, Wellington or Auckland. With the dividends planning and co-opera-tion can bring to Christchurch, motorists may for many years continue to drive their cars into the city. The “Hands-Off-Hagley” Attitude When I claimed natural advantages for improving Christchurch transport in a planned development I oversimplified. Hagley Park lies athwart the lines of communication between many of the rapidly-growing suburban areas and the city centre. And Hagley Park is easy enough to build a road across; it is just that so many Christchurch people cherish the idea of the park as an area inviolate to massive intrusions like motorways.

It is difficult not to be sympathetic with the view that Hagley should remain unchanged. But the unfortunate fact is that the logic of access from the north-west virtually compels a new motorway to cut across part of North Hagley. And so the immovable object of Hagley Park confronts the irresistible force of traffic congestion and north-west access to the city. We must grit our teeth and make the best of it, building a new highway across the park with minimal disturbance, proper landscaping, and graceful bridging. After all, do highways really detract so much from the park? I don’t think of Riccarton road or Harper avenue in this way, and I suppose most Christchurch citizens enjoy the park more frequently from behind a car windscreen than from any other aspect. The general case for the master transportation plan 'is sound. Investigations have been ttiorough and the costs are reasonable. Probably it is the cheapest way of coping with our growing traffic pains, and the Hagley intrusion is an unfortunate but necessary cost which the lay-out of cities and suburbs forces upon us.

The local bodies should surely confirm their acceptances and begin translation of the plan from paper into reality.