Evening bus service cuts 'too sweeping’

Press, 10 November 1978, Page 4

Evening bus service cuts 'too sweeping’

Plans to cut evening busservices w'ere far too indis criminate and sweeping, said the secretary of the Christchurch branch of the Tram ways Union (Mr M. D. Daw son) yesterday. In his final submission to the No. 9 Transport Licensing Authority (Mr D. L. Hogan) Mr Dawson said the Christchurch Transport Board was using an “atom bomb remedy” for its revenue problems. He cited seven bus routes which made a profit on evening runs, and said that it would be bad business if the board cut these. The plans to cut the services needed further investigation, as the board had , failed to give sufficient evi- : dence to justify the cuts, he !said. If the system was wasteful, a study was needed of the ; needs of evening passsengers

so that a more suitable time .able could be drawn up. Mr W. Rosenberg, repre renting the Bus Action Group, submitted that the board had used “grossly mis leading statistics.” The board had asserted that it cost $50(: to retain each evening passenger. but the action group estimated that it would cost $1 per passenger at the most. The group had done case studies, presented a petition signed by more than 2400 people, and conducted a survey with the help of (he Canterbury Trades Council. These had shown that the

evening services were an essentia] part of the lives of many Christchurch people. “They are people who cannot be expected to change their fives at the whim of the board,” said Mr Rosenberg. On the financial side, the board had shown itself to be

tegligent to the point of irresponsibility, said Mr Rosen-! berg. It had not attempted' o estimate the loss in fares that would be incurred by' the cuts. Mr D. Adams, representing the Canterbury Trades Council, said the cuts would result in a further loss of passengers, as people would tend to use their own cars. This was not in the public interest. He said he would suggest an adjournment of 12 months, if it was within the authI ority’s power, so as to make a proper survey of the needs ■ of evening passengers in rtim- ; mer and winter. ; In his final submission fo>; ; the Christchurch Transport [Board, Mr J. Woodward said! [the decision to cut the ser- | vices had not been taken [lightly by the board. The board’s annual loss! was mounting each year, and! ratepayers were having to; meet. S2M to S3M to cover these losses, he said. He| acknowledged that toll operators at the Post Office would suffer from the decision, but! he said that their inconveni-! ence was outweighed by the interest of ratepayers. Mr Woodward said that [ not one private citizen had [ come to the hearings to complain about the cuts. All ob-; jections had come from board; employees and trade unionists, he said. The “silent majority of thousands of citizens” accepted the board's proposals! as realistic, said Mr Wood-! ward. Mr Hogan congratulated; the objectors on their pre-; paration. He reserved his decision.