Minibus service seen as help

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33384, 16 November 1973, Page 8

Minibus service seen as help

The concept of a minibus service had merit — it would alleviate congestion in the city centre — but all vehicles could not be prevented from entering-, an American transport expert said in Christchurch yesterday.

Mr V. R. Desimone, the transportation planning engineer with the Automobile Club of Southern California, said that legitimate users of the central city area would include delivery vehicles and cars used as part of the job, which in the United States was 15 per cent of private car-users. Also, parking buildings already in the city centre had to remain in use to be economical. Los Angeles had had a minibus service for two years and a half. It served an area of a mile by a mile and a half, and it cost 10c a trip anywhere within that area, with buses four minutes apart, Mr Desimone said. The service had to be heavily subsidised because a minibus did not cost a great deal less to run than a conventional bus, particularly as there were no “mini drivers getting mini pay.” In the United States drivers’ wages accounted for more than half of public transport costs. The minibus service was subsidised four to five times more than the conventional bus service. The service had done little to reduce the “home to work and back” private car traffic, said Mr Desimone. It was used more by shoppers going between stores, by solicitors going from their office to court, and by businessmen going to lunch. ■ Once a person got in his car there was a tendency for him to get as close as possible to his place of work, said Mr Desimone, explaining why minibuses were not used more by commuters. “Having to park his par, (leave it, and having to wait Tor a bus, even for a short [time, is considered an incon-■ ivenience,” he said. “Bad; weather is an added discour-1 iagement to using a bus.” ; Economic considerations ; had to be taken into account.? [lf private vehicles were pro-; [hibited in a city centre? 'people would decide it was! (too much trouble to go into’ town and would go to a [supermarket in a suburb or: (wherever parking was available, with a subsequent loss (of business for the city store, i Both public and private [transport were necessary, [said Mr Desimone. Public transport could not cater for all the needs of a community (but the higher the density of a population with a large ■number of people being I nicked up in one area and ilet down at the same destination. the less uneconomic la service would be. ‘ Mr Desimone said that the

seriousness of the petrol shortage in the United States was still speculative, and the authorities were only talking of a 3 per cent reduction. The average occupancy of cars used to go to work was only 1.2 per cent, and this would need to be raised very little to cause a considerable reduction in petrol use. Price increases were more likely to be imposed than fuel rationing, and with higher prices being paid for oil it would be economic to exploit previously uneconomic oil sources.