THE PRESS MONDAY, JUNE 12, 1978. Modifying transport plans

Press, 12 June 1978, Page 16

THE PRESS MONDAY, JUNE 12, 1978. Modifying transport plans

No city traffic scheme should be considered beyond modification or improvement, yet some stability within a transport plan is necessary; otherwise nothing can be done in an orderly fashion. Temporary enthusiasm for changing plans must be resisted unless the advocates for changes produce a compelling argument.

Last week the Christchurch City Council began to come to grips with some proposals to modify plans for main traffic routes through the city. The engineers have described the reductions in the scheme as the most that can be recommended to meet the city’s needs for the next two decades. Such a period is a very short time in the planning of a city. Anyone who reflects on the debates of the 1950 s and early 1960 s can observe that many of the works envisaged then are still a long way from fruition. Some were foreseen as essential and urgent They have been completed and no-one seriously argues today that the work would have been better left undone. In almost every respect the work has been beneficial and the arguments of those earlier planning days, important as they were then, are virtually forgotten. Success with past efforts is not a guarantee that today’s town planners and councils are bound to do right in the future. But in spite of some leeway that has been given by a slower growth in traffic volume than was expected 20 years ago, the fundamental needs for main traffic corridors through and around the city are virtually unchanged. Heavy traffic is hammering the life out of many streets that were not designed for such traffic. Thousands of people are living on roads that were once relatively peaceful and are now bearing huge

flows of heavy vehicles. When citizens are sufficiently stirred to combine in protest their councillors are quick enough to recommend relief. A respite from complaint and a period of financial difficulty conspire to allow councillors to assume that nothing has to be done. At the same time some political groups talk lightly of using more railways to move people and goods around New Zealand cities. Of course there are good reasons for encouraging the use of railways; the more efficient use of fuel is among these reasons and the avoidance of air pollution is another. Yet none of the advocates of railways show a plan of railway lines carving through Christchurch suburbs, claiming land and disturbing householders just as surely as new roads.

Failing to come to grips with alternatives is just as serious a fault as neglecting the need to proceed with a plan that continues to show its worth. One of the traps into which it is easy for local politicians to tumble is to point to the benefits of past work and then not to acknowledge that these are the direct results of foresight and action on a traffic plan. The benefits of a transport plan should be acknowledged for what they are; they should not be converted into reasons for taking no further action. The latest proposals within the City Council for modifying the transport plan in Christchurch may have a thoroughly sound base. They still deserve the most critical scrutiny by other councils and the Regional Planning Authority to ensure that neither these changes nor any extensions of them deny Christchurch the benefits it should have in the next 20 years and beyond.