John MacDonald: What is the Christchurch City Council thinking? - Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Do you think the Christchurch City Council should make it easier or more difficult for you to drive your car into the central city?

From what we’re seeing, it looks like it’s setting out to make it more difficult with what a couple of city councillors are describing as “radical initiatives”, including congestion charges and road tolls.

Councillors are deciding whether or not to publicly release what’s known as the “Draft Christchurch Transport Plan”. Apparently, city council staff don’t want it released right now because they think it could be taken out of context.

And they’ve been pushing for it not to be released until sometime after the upcoming local body elections, because it’s going to be the new council that will decide whether or not the plan goes anywhere.

But two councillors - Aaron Keown and Phil Mauger - are saying that’s rubbish, and they want it released before the local body elections because they say it talks about “new and radical initiatives”. That’s a direct quote - “new and radical initiatives”.

Phil Mauger thinks the objective of the transport plan is to take the city “towards no cars of any sort”.

According to him and Cr Keown, not only does the draft plan include congestion charges and road tolls, it also proposes charging parking fees in areas where there’s currently free parking; and charging fees for employers who provide carparks for staff.

Sounds to me like a pretty concerted effort to stop people from taking cars into town.

Personally, I think the draft plan should be released before the elections because it would mean that if you wanted to find out what your local council candidates thought about congestion charges, road tolls, and more parking fees, you could.

If it isn’t released and you ask them, they’ll be well within their rights to say they can’t discuss it because it isn’t in the public domain yet.

So I think Aaron Keown and Phil Mauger are right when they say it should be made public. Having said that, I also think city councillor Mike Davidson is right when he says Keown and Mauger are electioneering over this.

But then show me a councillor anywhere who isn’t electioneering in some way, shape or form at the moment. They’re all doing it.

Cr Davidson is talking about it because he runs the council’s urban development and transport committee, as well as a working group that’s had oversight of the transport plan’s development, and he says if the council released the plan now there’d be a risk of us getting a bit confused because it’s a working draft and the plan could change.

He claims that it’s not about removing cars but creating choice.

But from where I’m sitting, what he means by creating choice is taking us to a point where we can decide whether we take our car into town and pay a congestion charge or a road toll, or catch a bus or a taxi or an Uber.

Technically, yes, that’s creating choice - but I think he’s pushing it a bit.

I also think Cr Davidson is being a little bit patronising saying we might get a bit confused if the plan’s released now, because that doesn’t really stack up with how the council releases draft plans all the time when it wants us to get on the consultation merry-go-round. So, nice try councillor, but that doesn’t wash with me. And I don’t think it’ll wash with anyone.

The broader question, though, is whether we think congestion charges are needed and/or wanted in Christchurch. If we’re talking about the central city, I think any congestion of any sort has been created by the council itself with the cycleways and footpaths chewing up so much road space.

Not to mention the number of on-street carparks that no longer exist. So if there is any congestion, it’s not because of the cars - it’s because of the way some roads in town are little more than two-lane alleyways.

So they can forget about charging me to fix a problem they themselv