Avonside expressway

Press, 31 March 1980, Page 20

Avonside expressway

The basic .objection to the Avonside-Woodham Express-, way is that the flow of traffic in the area does not warrant such a project, according to Mr Geoffrey Palmer, member of Parliament for Christchurch appeal. Mr Palmer was replying to a leading article in “The Press” of March 28, “Express environment.” In his statement Mr Palmer writes: “The editorial contains a serious distortion of my views on the AvonsideWoodham. expressway. It implies that I regard the main, or only weakness of the proposal as environmental. While I totally reject, ‘The Press’ analysis of the environmental considerations,

T wish my views had not been distorted. “Part of a statement I made on the question was published in ‘The Press’ on March 24. In part. of that statement which was not published I said: ‘The basic problem with the expressway has always been the same: why is it needed? Existing traffic flows do not warrant such a project.’ “That remains the basic issue and defence of the plans made at the public meeting on March 24 did nothing to answer, the issue. The objections to the project are many: High cost for little benefit. Urban blight promoted by decades of designations over house properties. Human and social problems

caused by uncertainty. Destruction .. of historic homes. Spoiling of the river aspects. “None of the. objections is relevant to the main issue. Why is the expressway needed? The burden of proof fes on the authorities who proposed it, not the citizens who object to it. Engineers can de- 1 sign highways. They cannot tell us why we need them. “The city traffic engineer at the meeting on March 24 said the traffic along Avonside Drive has dropped by 8 per cent. Everyone is agreed the Expressway will not be' needed for years on the basis of tfrafic flow. The fact makes imperative the lifting of the designations.”