THE PRESS FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18. 1983. A brave experiment

Press, 18 February 1983, Page 16

THE PRESS FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18. 1983. A brave experiment

The Christchurch Transport Board's experiment with half-price fares during off-peak periods seems certain to end. The board will be told next week that the scheme has cost $12,000 a week in lost revenue since it began last August, but has improved passenger loadings by only 5000 a week. In the month before the experiment began, passenger journeys on the board's buses fell by 60,000. The loss in revenue from the half-price fares is too great to be justified and could not be borne by the board indefinitely. Nevertheless, the experiment was a bold attempt by the board to attract more passengers and deserved greater success. By comparison with cities of similar size, Christchurch is well served by its bus system. Progressive declines in patronage show a reluctance by Christchurch residents to use it. Falling passenger revenue throws an increasing burden on ratepayers who must subsidise the shortfall. This year ratepayers will be called on for almost $7.5 million to keep the system going, an increase of $1 million on the subsidy for the previous financial year. The board has attempted, unsuccessfully, to lessen that burden with an innovative approach to drum up business. If more people, including more ratepayers, had taken advantage of the experiment, the enforced contribution from the city’s property owners might have been reduced. Even at the normal rates, bus fares are

not expensive. An average trip can cost as little as the telephone charge for calling a taxi. Groups within the community such as pensioners and school children are eligible for concessions on these already moderate fares. The relative cheapness of fares is only one aspect of attracting passengers. Overseas studies show that passengers place great importance on the reliability of a service. Knowing for certain that a bus will arrive at a particular stop at a definite time encourages continued use of the system. In this respect the Christchurch Transport Board has a good record.

Public transport fulfils a social role, but the board also has a duty to be as efficient as possible in its finances. Declining patronage can create a conflict for the board in trying to meet both obligations when marginal services become economically unjustifiable ones. The lack of success of the half-price fare scheme should not dissuade the board from trying other imaginative ideas to boost patronage. Ratepayers could well reflect on the knowledge that they have paid already for half of their fares through rates. By using buses they get something back for their money. All residents might ponder the likelihood of reduced services as the ultimate answer to unfilled seats. As with many things, the real worth of the bus system would be best appreciated when it was no longer available, and by then it could be too late.