The Press THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1958. New Transport Board

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28604, 5 June 1958, Page 12

The Press THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1958. New Transport Board

The new Christchurch Transport Board seems to have made

a reasonably good start at its first meeting. Both the chairman (Mr H. E. Denton), as spokesman for the Labour majority, and Mr W. S. MacGibbon, as spokesman for the Citizens’ Association members, appealed for unity and cooperation in the board’s task of maintaining an efficient public transport system; and it is to be hoped that the good spirit of their remarks will. continue to characterise the board’s discussions. Mr Denton was perhaps a little bold in his reference to “ a motion of * confidence ” by the public in Labour control of the board. At the recent election, the “ motion ” was carried by so slender a majority that the less the Labour Party says about it the better. In effect. Labour gained control because, in the central district, Mr J. Shankland, jun., had a majority of 221 votes over Mr J. R. Smith (Citizens’ Association). That was not a very striking expression of confidence, as Mr Denton realised when he assured the board that their success would not go to Labour heads. The moderate tone of his statement justifies the hope that Labour

members may avoid the errors of the previous Labour administration. Since five new members were elected to the board at the recent polls it is only right that they should have the opportunity of becoming conversant with the board’s business. To that extent, the proposed survey of “the whole “ undertaking from top to “ bottom ” may serve a useful purpose. Though beset with financial and other problems common to most public transport operators, the previous board had a sound record of management. Its successor inherits a modern, well-planned transport system? capable of ready adaptation to the needs of a rapidly-growing city—a system with which the facilities provided before the Citizens’ Association assumed control would not bear comparison. It may be possible to improve services, though how it is to be done without increasing costs remains to be seen. The board cannot, for instance, afford to impair an excellent modernisation programme by false economies in workshop and office planning. The Labour members probably have no thought of this, in spite of the carping tone of some of Mr N. R. Forbes’s comments.