The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 1970. New Complication For Traffic Plan

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32386, 27 August 1970, Page 14

The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 1970. New Complication For Traffic Plan

The story of the diversion of a few chains of Harper Avenue moves from one perplexing legal complication to another, no doubt to the delight of those who oppose the change and obviously to the despair of the Mayor, City Councillors and (most of) the citizens of Christchurch. The City Council can hardly be expected to view with equanimity further delays that will obstruct action on this and other parts of the city’s traffic plan and lead to higher costs and to a worsening of the already’ serious traffic congestion before anything is done. But if, on the best advice to hand, the law is against proceeding, impatience will not solve the problem. It is unfortunate that so many of those who oppose the resiting of part of Harper Avenue—and object to other parts of the transport plan—appear to be convinced that the plan has been expensively contrived to destroy those features of the city that are most agreeable to residents and pedestrians, and to encourage the invasion of the city centre by everincreasing numbers of motor vehicles. The plan was conceived with precisely opposite purposes in view. Without some drastic planning the city will soon be overwhelmed by the growing number of vehicles on central and suburban streets; their movement must be channelled, concentrated, and, where possible, isolated from other city activity if the city is to remain worth living in; and the motorway scheme is essentially a plan to keep through traffic out of the central streets and off the residential streets of Christchurch. But even if all this were thoroughly understood and accepted it would still be necessary for the Christchurch City Council, and other local authorities that might be affected, to work within the law. It seems that Harper Avenue was put through Hagley Park more than a half century ago without hindrance; familiarity with this road since then appears to excuse it from objection. Indeed, most people would probably agree that this stretch of road is a source of very considerable pleasure to those who use it. But now, while there is no evidence to show that shifting part of the avenue would diminish the satisfaction of those who use either the road or the park, it appears that the council must promote a local bill in Parliament to facilitate the change. The one practical advantage of the earlier move to invite the consent of the Minister of Lands for the change was that it would entail further technical advice on the traffic plan—perhaps advice that would produce an alternative scheme not hitherto considered. The Minister of Lands has an evaluation of the plan in his office; and it is to be hoped that it will be available to the local bills committee of Parliament, which now will have the unenviable task of ruling on the extent to which reserve land may be used for reading and bridging. The committee, and Parliament, will probably not feel very happy about ruling on the domestic concerns of a local community; but perhaps they will see the question in a clearer perspective than is readily obtainable in the midst of local controversy. Perhaps they will see the destructive absurdity of such proposals as file one put earlier this year by a member of the council who would rather see all the trees in Bealey Avenue and Fitzgerald 6OO in all-cut down to make room for traffic than have the road in the park shifted from one place to another. Perhaps they will see with greater clarity than seems generally possible in Christchurch that in the absence of any other plan, it is better to make a small sacrifice of reserve land in the interests of controlling the motor vehicle than to have the whole city gradually decline in both efficiency and amenity.