MASTER TRAFFIC PLAN

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30626, 17 December 1964, Page 20

MASTER TRAFFIC PLAN

Overseas Consultant To Be Engaged

The City Council agreed last evening to engage an overseas city planning consultant to study the Christchurch Regional Planning Authority’s master transport plan in relation to the general planning of the city.

Once again, the proposed Fendalton road-Avonside motorway as it affected North Hagley Park, was the main topic of the debate.

Cr. N. G. Pickering and his Labour Party colleagues sought to revoke the decision of a fortnight ago adopting the plan; but a majority of the Citizens’ Association councillors favoured retaining that general approval, while bringing in a consultant.

As the main spokesman on the Citizens side, Cr. A. R. Guthrey said they accepted the proposal for a consultant. He also agreed to incorporate a suggestion from Cr. P. J. Skellerup chairman of the reserves committee, that the council emphasise its determination to safeguard Hagley Park.

The motion finallypassed by 10 votes to nine was:—

“That the council engage the services of a worldrenowned city planning consultant to study the master transportation plan in relation to the general planning of the city of Christchurch and suggest any modifications or alternatives with a view to providing for the maximum possible needs of traffic and the welfare of the commercial community while preserving and enhancing good environment; and that the Regional Planning Authority be asked to take careful note of this decision: that this council wishes to emphasise its determination to safeguard Hagley Park; and that the City Planning Study Group’s proposals be included in the terms of reference to be presented to the planning consultant.”

There had been insufficient Information given on the type of motorways to be introduced to the city, Cr. Pickering said. They had to be elevated or go underground and if they were elevated there would be a jungle of concrete through the city.

“The public is buying nothing more than a pig in a poke,” he said. “Because of the reluctance of the Regional Planning Authority to produce a model of what is proposed I can only conclude they don’t want the people to know.” The present plan had not taken into account the welfare of the commercial community and the preservation of good environment, he said. If the scheme went through, there would be a danger of the city dying at its heart. “There is a need for the plan, but there is no need to rush it,” he said. “The problem is not acute as yet, so we could bring in an outside man.”

Citizens’ Policy Citizens’ Association councillors were quite agreeable to having an overseas consultant advise on the plan as it affected Hagley Park and any other matters affecting the city, especially the need to preserve good environment, Cr. A. R. Guthrey said.

The Citizens’ councillors were not accepting a road through the park, but were prepared to have a realignment of Harper avenue at park level which would not be a concrete monstrosity and which would enable some land to be given to the park. Cr. Guthrey said. The plan had been evolved over six years as a result of painstaking investigations involving thousands of traffic counts and forecasts based on reliable information of the future growth of the city in terms of population, motor vehicles and town planning, Cr. Guthrey said. “So far these investigations have cost £50,000 of which the city council has contributed £30,000,” he said. “If this motion is carried the plan could be wrecked and all this money wasted."

No one person or group had tried to impose their ideas or tried to influence the planners in any one direction. The planners themselves had no preconceived ideas on the location of roads or any other details.

The cost of investigating alternative suggestions, including the City Planning Study Group’s plan, had cost £BOOO, so it was obvious that the group's suggestions had not been discarded lightly.

Overseas Experts During preparation of the plan numerous overseas experts had examined the work, Cr. Guthrey continued. They included Professor W. R. Blunden, head of the School of Traffic Engineering, University of New South Wales, Professor H. M. Mayer, professor of geography at Chicago University and director of research for the Chicago Planning Authority, Mr J. W. Meyer, project manager in New Zealand for the American consultants who prepared a plan for Wellington, Professor H. E. Davis, director of the Institute of

Transportation and Traffic Engineering at the University of California and chairman of the United States Highway Research Board, and Mr E. Frazer, formerly the city engineer of Melbourne and the leading traffic engineering consultant in Australia. There was no basic difference in councillors’ thinking except a political difference, Cr. Guthrey said. Many Labour councillors were originally in favour of the plan and approval of it in principle was carried unanimously by the council. On a number of occasions at committee meetings individual Labour councillors had supported the plan.

“Emotion, Sentiment”

“There is no doubt in the minds of those people who have given the plan any serious thought that this city will not progress unless the plan is adopted. It is obvious that the Labour Party has taken advantage of emotion and sentiment to gain a political advantage. “Their whole attitude is a flagrant case of political opportunism. They have shown by their actions that they are not remotely interested in the future of the city. They are prepared to allow the master transportation plan costing nearly £50,000 to be discarded to gain a cheap political advantage.” Cr. H. E. Denton: You’re getting pretty low. “Labour members have admitted that they will lose no support from their own followers, but they stand to gain politically by the fact that the majority of people who are concerned about a road through the park are not normally Labour supporters,” Cr. Guthrey said.

“Citizens’ councillors stand to lose these people’s votes, and we accept these things because we are prepared to stand by our principles. “Although we know the master transportation plan is right in principle, we are prepared to concede that there could be scope for an outside expert to advise on the implementation of the plan,” concluded Cr. Guthrey. The plan was out of date, Cr. R. H. Stillwell said. The citizens were entitled to the most up-to-date planning and the best possible environment in which to live.

Many meetings had been held to consider the plan, and it was wrong to say there had not been time to study it, Cr. R. M. Carter said.

“Lined Up”

“At the last meeting the other side of the table were lined up,” said Cr. Denton. “They are lined up again this evening, but they are floundering like a fish out of water. The reserves committee voted unanimously for hands off the park, but at the last meeting they had voted for the road.” There must be a master plan, Cr. Denton said, but no-one would say how much of the park would be taken. He envisaged Hagley Park being cut up at the Fendalton road corner and the bridge and he envisaged a lot of concrete overhead. He wanted the public to be told just what was involved. Cr. W. P. Glue offered to bet Cr. Denton £lO that he had not voted at the reserves committee against the park motorway.

Harper Avenue Harper avenue had to cope with an area which housed 40,000 people who wanted to get into the city, Cr. Glue said. If it was wrong to provide a proper road for them, then the pioneers were equally wrong in putting other roads through the park. “Before you have finished you will have isolated one side of Christchurch from the

other,” he said. “You’ve heard of the Berlin wall: for goodness sake don't have an east and west Christchurch.” The Labour Party was irrevocably opposed to anything that was going to cut up the playing fields of Hagley Park, Cr. R. M. Macfarlane, M.P., said. Apart from the park aspect there were other factors such as the demolition of houses and buildings which should be studied, he said. The plan could increase the traffic problems of the city instead of relieving them. The motorways would bring an influx of traffic to the city. “I cast doubt on the opinion of the experts who have produced the plan,” he said. “What would you do if the consultant said there was no other way?” Cr. Glue asked. Cr. Macfarlane: We will have to see first. Cr. P. J. Skellerup said there must be a plan as a basis. He was determined to see that Hagley Park was not chopped about, but if there had to be some minor amendments they might have to be accepted.

“Over-Roaded” If the plan went through as proposed the city would be “over-roaded,” he said. Traffic would be funnelled on to the motorways and in time would create problems of their own.

Not only Hagley Park was affected, Cr. Skellerup said. Latimer Square was affected as was St. Albans Park, Addington Park, Westminster street reserve, Innes road reserve and another reserve not yet developed. Cr. Skellerup recalled the controversy over the town hall site which had been resolved by Professor Gordon Stephenson, and said he would like to see him engaged. “If we have to pay another £lO,OOO or £15,000 it will be well worth while,” he added. “I am sure the answer is there. We are just waiting for someone to show it to us.” He would not be a party to taking one acre of an area that was God-given, said Cr. A. E. Armstrong. It was a great pity that some councillors had made no effort to study the plan and had made no contribution to the discussion beyond saying “hands off the park,” Cr. H. P. Smith said. Anyone could

say that without offering any alternative. The council could reject approval given to the plan, which left no plan, or affirm the approval and seek an overseas expert to advise on the implications for the city, at the same time emphasising that Hagley Park must be safeguarded.

‘Will Alert Sydenham’ There was no political advantage to the Labour Party, Cr. M. B. Howard, M.P., said. She had spent hours studying the plan. It was a start and from that start the plan could be amended in the light of the study or in the light of public opinion. “There are 20 acres of the best land in Sydenham to be taken for a darned roundabout,” she continued. “1 will alert the people of Sydenham to that.” “I have never seen so much hysteria about a simple thing,” Cr. M. McLean said. “We are not thinking about cutting up the park. We are going along Harper avenue, or so they say.” Harper avenue could be regraded and made a four-lane road, she added. He had voted against adoption of the plan because 400 householders had signed a petition against a motorway going from Winters road to Bealey avenue, Cr. R. G. Brown said.

Approval of the plan should be revoked so that a consultant would have a free hand to study the plan and the scheme of the City Planning Study Group along with any other information, Cr. Brown said. Any realignment of Harper avenue must go through the park, Cr. Pickering said. A petition had been presented with 10,000 names, he continued. Cr. T. D. Flint: Four per cent.

The petition had been signed without canvassing, Cr. Pickering said. Voting on the final motion was:—

For: Crs. W. P. Glue, H. P. Smith, M- McLean, A. R. Guthrey, M. R. Carter, P. J. Skellerup, A. Schumacher, H. G. Hay, G. D. Griffiths, and T. D. Flint.

Against: Crs: R. G. Brown, A. E. Armstrong, H. E. Denton, L. Christie, R. H. Stillwell, M. B. Howard, R. M. Macfarlane, N. G. Pickering, and the Mayor (Mr G. Manning).