John MacDonald: Forget the naysayers and build the cycleway

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

What’s the thing you hear people say time-and-time again about the way we seemed to just get on with the job of building infrastructure back in, say, the 1970s?

What’s the most common thing you hear people say about that?

They say “our forebears had the foresight”. And that’s what I hope Christchurch city councillors have when they decide whether or not to press-on with the controversial Wings to Wheels cycleway on Harewood Rd.

Because,believe it or not, it’s back on the table after costs have skyrocketed and the government money that was originally going to be coming to help pay for it has been pulled.

The overall gist is that if the council wants to go further with this particular cycleway project, it’s going to have to come up with about an extra $10 million over and above what’s already been spent and what’s left in the budget.

So far, the council has spent $6.2 million on the project without any shovels hitting the ground and it’s only got $18.5 million left in the budget. And there’s a gap of about $10 million.

Nevertheless, I hope our councillors have this “foresight” that people like to credit past leaders with.

And I hope they have the fortitude to say, ‘you know what, this is going to cost a truckload more money than we thought we’d have to spend and it’s a truckload more money than we want to spend - but we’re going to do it, for the generations to come’.

That’s what I hope they do.

You might remember that it was back in 2019 when the council came up with the plan for the 4.5 kilometre cycleway on Harewood Rd.

The cost back then was expected to be $19 million, with half of the money coming from the Government, through NZTA.

Naturally, costs went up. Initially, they went up to $22.7 million and now it’s expected to cost $28.5 million all up.

So the council has just put out a range of options to be considered, which range from pressing-on and spending millions more than they expected to putting the thing on hold indefinitely.

And, in the middle of those two extremes, there are other options. Such as building a shorter cycleway - which would still cost about $20 million.

The council is also suggesting that, instead of going for what we like to call the “over-engineered” options, it could just paint lines on the road and put in traffic lights at three intersections.

But that option would still cost $10.5 million, anyway. So why would you bother with that half-hearted measure?

I’ve often said ‘what’s wrong with a few white lines?’. But if you’re going to spend $10 million, you may as well spend $28 million. There are some other cheaper alternatives too.

I see councillor Victoria Henstock is saying that she’s pleased to see there are several options on the table, because she’s been opposed to the Harewood rd cycleway from the get-go.

But this is where she’s wrong. She’s saying today: “This is a sensible approach. We cannot keep pouring money into projects that we cannot afford and are not wanted by the local community, as they keep telling me.”

And that’s the problem right there. When you get politicians who are only interested in what the people in the here-and-now think. And, in particular, the people in the here-and-now who complain.

Because, of course, Councillor Henstock is going to hear from people who are anti the cycleway.

She’s not going to hear from the people who, in 10 years time, are going to think this cycleway is absolutely brilliant.

The people who, in 10 years time, will be saying ‘wasn't it great that our city leaders had the foresight to bite the bullet; they had the fortitude to spend the extra money, and make sure we can ride our bikes safely”.

That’s what I hope people will be able to say. And that’s why, instead of tinkering around the edges and coming up with some sort of half-hearted alternatives that will still cost a lot of money, I hope the council doesn’t give in. And I hope it presses-on, as planned. And certainlydoesn't pull the plug altogether.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.