The Traffic Plan

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30631, 23 December 1964, Page 12

The Traffic Plan

Sir, —I am at a loss to understand the attack on me by “Experto Credite.” Let me again state my views, which are those of many citizens. I do not want to see traffic given first consideration in the planning of Christchurch. I do not want to see a highspeed motorway, and highspeed elevated motorway it must be, in the central city area or through Hagley Park. I do not want through traffic in Rolleston avenue. I want to see Christchurch planned in areas which cater for all aspects of living, and for the beauty and the trees it has always had. In these views 1 support the City Planning Study Group, and know that such views concur with overseas up-to-date city planning. If it will reassure “Experto Credite,” I think an overseas consultant of standing with up-to-date opinions would come in with a fresh view and an objective outlook, and, as in the matter of the town hall, would satisfy everyone. —Yours, etc.,

RUTH FRANCE. December 22, 1964.

Sir, —The self-righteousness of some of the critics of the traffic plan is amazing. Their holier-than-thou attitude is again reflected in “Twoeyed’s” letter, acclaiming the Planning Study Group, inspired, it is alleged, not by “selfish reasons” but by the “welfare of Christchurch.” This, of course, is in many cases questionable, but even if it were completely true it would not make their plans, such as they are, necessarily better than those of the Planning Authority. The plain fact is that the Study Group, selfappointed arbiters of the development of Christchurch, appeals to prejudice, ignorance, and emotion, and through its supporters threatens councillors with their votes. The personnel of the Planning Authority, whose vision, honesty, and integrity at least equal those of the Study Group, are, of course, not in a position to threaten councillors with votes.— Yours, etc.,

OBSERVER. December 22, 1964.