And they've been pushing for it not to be released until sometime after the upcoming local body elections, because the new council 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 elections because they say it talks about "new and radical initiatives". That's a direct quote - "new and radical initiatives".
Mauger thinks the objective of the transport plan is to take the city "towards no cars of any sort".
According to him and Keown, not only does the draft plan include congestion charges and road tolls, but it also proposes charging parking fees in areas where there's currently free parking; and charging employers who provide car parks for staff.
Sounds to me like a pretty concerted effort to stop people taking cars into town.
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 Keown and Mauger are right when they say it should be made public. Having said that, I also think councillor Mike Davidson is right when he says Keown and Mauger are electioneering over this.
But show me a councillor anywhere who isn't electioneering in some way, shape or form at the moment. They're all doing it.
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 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 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 cycleways and footpaths chewing up so much road space.
Not to mention the number of on-street car parks 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 have created. What's more, whenever congestion charges have been introduced around the world, it's been done because - as the name suggests - there is an issue with congestion.
Aside from morning and evenings, I don't think there is a major problem with traffic congestion here. Certainly not on the scale to warrant a congestion charge.
And as for the idea of road tolls and charging parking fees in areas where there is currently free parking, I just don't know where this council gets off. For years, it's been banging on about attracting more people into the central city.
The Central City Business Association has been crying out for support from the council to get more people into town. And, granted, the council has responded with various initiatives - mostly through its economic development arm, ChristchurchNZ.
But how the council sees road tolls, congestion charges and more parking fees fitting in with that, I'll never know. Because, by their very nature, these sorts of things won't attract people to the city - they'll put people off.
And I think the council needs to be told loud and clear that it's dreaming if it thinks this is what's needed.
