Rail services

Press, 9 July 1983, Page 16

Rail services

Sir,—The Ministry of Transport is reported as saying that social reasons for keeping open the Christchurch-Picton railway service are hard to find. I can produce three. (1) Long bus journeys are a nightmare for parents with young children, whereas railways allow more freedom of movement and ready access to the toilet. (2) Many people suffer from travel sickness on buses but not on trains. (3) This route is notoriously subject to slips and the alternative is needed. Emphasis on the taxpayer subsidy to rail passengers misses the point that we also subsidise bus passengers in the maintenance of roads. If the 54,000 people who choose the railway (last year’s figure) are transferred to the road, that sure will cost us something — not to mention more noise and pollution for those who live along the route. Another social cost.—Yours, etc., ELSIE LOCKE. July 7, 1983.

Sir,—lt was in 1969 that Meadows et al showed that the world’s supply of resources, particularly fossil fuels, was finite and that continued extraction at the current exponential growth rate was quite simply not sustainable. More recent exploration and research has done no more than make the inevitable slightly later rather than sooner. In the light of that, it seems to me crazy in the extreme to propose either the abandonment of rail passenger services or the curtailment of rail transport services in this country. There is no doubt that railways offer the most energy efficient means of land transport yet devised by technology. To consider dumping rail in favour of vastly more energy wasteful alternatives at this stage of New Zealand’s economic and energy history is madness. Ash primary producers, we find efficient land transport

vital to us. We must not jeopardise that by short-term financial considerations. Let us not forget that the single most important reason for the current state of New Zealand’s economy is the continued cost of importing liquid fuels.—Yours, etc., TIM McMAHON. July 7, 1983.

Sir,—Your editorial article on July 7 sets out a reasonable format for discussion as to whether such services should be retained. But you have assumed that the figures presented by the Ministry of Transport are correct. You may care to look more closely at fully allocated costs versus costs saved if services were terminated. To say that the bus service is not subsidised is incorrect. The main subsidy to which I am referring is for the reading network. Certainly, bus operators pay road-user charges, but it is left to the taxpayer to make up the difference between the sum of all road user charges and total reading costs. You claim that the first step is to be sure that the public is aware of the real cost of passenger services. I could not agree more. — Yours, etc., W. W. DUDDING. July 7, 1983. [Revenue from the various taxes on road transport, including heavy

vehicles that cause much more wear and tear on the roads than cars, exceeds the amount spent by the State on building, maintaining, and policing the roads. We have found no element of subsidy; indeed, a common complaint is that more of the tax revenue from road users should be used on the roads, rather than on other areas of State spending. In practice, road users are subsidising other activity and the taxes are built into the fares we cited. We do not conclude, however, that the figures alone prove that the railway services should be scrapped, or that transport taxes should be employed solely for transport purposes.— Editor]