Increase In Bus Fares From Monday

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31333, 1 April 1967, Page 14

Increase In Bus Fares From Monday

Increases in bus fares of 2d a journey for adults, and Id a journey for children, from Monday, were decided on, “with very considerable reluctance,” by the Christchurch Transport Board yesterday.

There were clear indications that the board was entering a difficult year financially, said Mr E. J. Bradshaw, chairman of the finance committee, and it must try to meet operating costs by revenue from fares.

Since the last fare increase on April 1, 1963 the board had failed to reach that target by £139,000, he said. In spite of the rise, Christchurch’s bus fares would remain among the cheapest in New Zealand, and the cheapest of the four main centres.

A one-section bus ride will cost 6d instead of 4d, and a

three-section ride Is instead of lOd. This 2d increase a journey applies on all routes, except the Lyttelton and

Templeton, where the increase is 3d, making the cost of these trips 2s. For children’s rides, the Id increase applies without exception. There are commensurate increases in the cost of 10ride and 20-ride cards. “The finance committee fteels, with me, no joy at all in raising the fares,” Mr Bradshaw said. “We know, as in the past, there will be a quite considerable fall-off in passengers, which has been automatic every time fares have been raised.” The motion was passed without dissent, and after the briefest of discussion. Mr R. H. Stillwell said he had one small comment. City business people would not welcome the increases, as tending to discourage shoppers coming into the city from the suburbs. And after all,

• the business people were pay- ; ing the most in rates. “I feel very, very uneasy ; with this increase, said Mr H. E. Denton, “but I don’t know the answer.” The only thing he could . suggest was preferential treatment by the Goverqpent for ; transport undertakings. £183,050 Deficiency Mr Bradshaw had earlier said that the board’s deficiency over 11 months of the financial year—to February 26—was £183,051, an increase of £28,415 over the same period the previous year. Revenue in the month to February 26 had increased by £B7B over the same month last year, but so had operating expenses—by £1730, which was £1552 ahead of the estimate. Greater operating expenses were largely accounted for by extra wages resulting from last year’s 2J per cent general wage order, Mr Bradshaw said. In the year ahead, a If per cent decline in passengers was forecast, Mr Bradshaw said. This would mean a decline of £9OOO in revenue. There would be a further loss of £9400 to the board in the change to decimal currency—£44oo consequent on conversion of pence to cents, and £5OOO expenses of machinery conversion, reprinting of stationery, and so on. Mr Bradshaw said it had always been the board’s policy—and that of previous boards—to try to meet operating expenses from fares, using rates to meet standing and other charges. “The present situation demands that we do something to close the widening gap between revenue and expenditure," Mr Bradshaw said. The new bus fares were deslghed to produce the revenue to meet the estimated loss of revenue this coming financial yer. Cr Brudshaw said that the gap b<‘ f r’een revenue and operating expenses over the four years since the last fare increase (April 1, 1963) amounted to £139,000. “Would Be Iniquitous” If the board were to call on rates to meet that deficiency, It would have to levy £240,000, compared with the £176,000 levied this financial, year. But it would be iniquitous, said Mr Bradshaw, to call on property-owners to meet the Transport Board’s deficiency. “And so, with very considerable reluctance, we have had to recommend an increase. in the bus fares,” he said.