Death knell sounded for city motorways?

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34147, 7 May 1976, Page 14

Death knell sounded for city motorways?

A report that could sound the eventual death knell for planning of expensive, elevated motorways through the city was received yesterday by Christchurch councillors.

Instead of motorways, developments to ease heavy traffic congestion could be restricted to limited access arterial streets. Because of the dim future for full-fledged and controversial motorways, the term ‘motorway corridor”

should be replaced by “transportation corridor”, said the town-planning report released yesterday to the City Council. Planners said it would be risky to phase out corridors altogether. The council could do nothing about developing wider streets for traffic flows, but it would have to offset such a policj’ with severe limits on growth. L i m i t e d-access wide streets would have provisions for cyclists and landscaping. Failure to separate heavy traffic from neighbourhood streets “would be irrespon-

sible on the part of the council,” the report said. One alternative to building motorways would be permanent clearways on all arterial roads and one-way streets so that they could carry more traffic. Parking would be prohibited.

Another alternative would be to scrap less essential sections of the motorway corridors. In some corridors, the council could buy required properties and develop them as pensioner housing, offstreet car parking, or for some other community use. Other deterrent actions suggested in the past have included decentralisation of industry and businesses, to reduce pressure on central district development. That would also reduce traffic into the central area.

The report said there was no realistic alternative — at least none the council could afford — to constructing some wider arterial streets for motor vehicles. For example, a rapid-rail public transport system might cost about s2som.

The motorways report will be discussed at the townplanning committee’s June meeting.