THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1977. A policy on transport

Press, 1 June 1977, Page 16

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1977. A policy on transport

Mr Muldoon has promised important changes in the Government’s transport policy later this year. In the meantime, a distinct impression has been left that the Government has been making decisions in this field less to ensure that the country has an adequate, balanced system of transport than to restrain public spending Trimming Government subsidies for specific forms of transport was necessary’ to clear the field for a thorough revision of transport policies. A transport system which continues to work only when it is supported by large sums of money from the taxpayer will almost certainly not be the best system for the country But the suspicion remains that the full effects of some measures to save money have not been given due attention.

Making all forms of transport pay their own way has meant steep increases in rail passenger fares and freight rates and in air fares. It has meant reducing the alternatives that customers have enjoyed for a long time. In some instances these have been costly alternatives to maintain. Nevertheless, the lack of choice and the cost of travelling between the islands has been roundly criticised by the Opposition spokesman on transport, Sir Basil Arthur. Hints were given at the recent Labour Party conference that if the party regained power, it would use public money to bolster certain transport services, particularly those which proved uneconomic but were socially desirable.

If the Labour Party proposes firmly to pay large transport subsidies, the public will want assurances that the subsidies are being paid to good effect. If they encourage people to use public transport, and particularly forms of public transport which are not extravagant in consuming fuel, they may be

acceptable. If the Labour Party merely offers a cheap passenger and freight service between the islands without regard for the effects on the transport system as a whole, the Labour Party will be just as open as the Government to criticism.

At the same time as Sir Basil has been criticising the Government for the negative effects of some of the decisions it has made, other groups have been expressing impatience at the Government’s failure to make decisions at all on some other matters. Specifically, the Christchurch Road Transport Association has criticised the Government for not vet making a decision about retaining, or changing, the 64 kilometre limit for road transport in competition with rail. This is not a decision to be taken lightly, for it will determine the extent of the country’s reliance on rail or heavy road transport for some years to come. Some of the Government’s actions have given the impression it would not mind if rail transport continued to decline in favour of road transport, particularly for the carrying of passengers. This impression may be gained in spite of the promise by the Minister of Transport (Mr McLachlan) last year that there would be no waste of the country’s historic investment in its railways. The comprehensive transport policy which Mr Muldoon has promised mav resolve this and many other doubts about thorny transport questions. Sir Basil Arthur may have failed to offer any clear picture of what he has in mind himself: but his chivvying of the Government for its delay in producing a transport policy is a fair reminder of the need to get a proper balance of investment and to have regard for social effects, regional development. public expense, and energy conservation.