Chch buses best

Press, 27 March 1980, Page 6

Chch buses best

A recent report of the Energy Research and Development Committee that described buses as the least-liked means of transport in New Zealand cities has come under fire from the Canterbury Promotion Council. The council’s executive officer, Mr Bruce Dunstan, said that the report seemed to have been.based on an Auckland survey while purporting to cover all New Zealand cities. It was not really applicable to Christchurch.

The report, published in “The Press” of March 25, mentioned individual experiences of rude and abusive drivers. Some people claimed to have been sworn at by drivers. Mr Dunstan, “speaking

with 12 years experience of Wellington buses,” said that Christchurch was noteable for a predominance of responsible, mature, and courteous drivers who tended to have been of long service. Unlike Wellington, the local service did not suffer from drivers not knowing the route or failing to turn up when suffering from “Mon-dav-itis”.

Figures supplied by the Christchurch Transport Board showed that for the 12 months to February, 1980, there had been only 38 “terminations” out of 289 drivers employed. This showed a turnover rate of about 13 per cent. “I would be surprised if the northern cities had a turnover of under 50 per cent,” said Mr Dunstan. Northern services were

constantly short of drivers while Christchurch’s had a waiting list. Wellington and Auckland both had unique problems in terms of geography and work-force but Christchurch could be especially proud of its bus service and drivers. The airport run, maintained by the board’s most senior drivers, reflected this. His personal experience in Christchurch was of drivers who always greeted each passenger and helped where necessary. The Transport Board received about five written complaints a week and about half of these were found to be justified. “I received a great first impression of Christchurch through her bus drivers,” said Mr Dunstan. “Courtesy is their byword.”