Bus patrons get priority over residents

Press, 15 May 1985, Page 9

Bus patrons get priority over residents

Bus passengers are the Christchurch Transport Board’s main priority, not street residents, says the board’s chairman, Mr Patrick Neary.

It was the Christchurch City Council’s job to argue whether or not buses should use certain streets, he told a board meeting yesterday. “We pay a considerable amount of road tax. In our own hearts we know there is no reason why a bus should not go along a certain street,” said Mr Neary. He was commenting on three proposals for bus route extensions which had had to be deferred after opposition from groups of residents.

Mr Neary accused the City Council of “fobbing off” the board by not taking responsibility for the residents’ complaints. “We are here to cater for bus passengers. The City Council is there for street residents,” he said. The board’s general manager, Mr Max Taylor, said that residents’ opposing bus routes on their street

had been almost unknown in the past.

He suggested a change in the board’s procedures for adopting route changes to allow for more public comment and participation. The process of consultation did not, however, take away the board’s right to run buses on any road where it was legally entitled to do so. “It is better to alienate 10 non-bus users to give a service to one bus user. That is what the board should be doing,” said Mr Taylor. “When there is opposition to a proposed change we have to try to evaluate the numbers, not by the volume of voices heard but through a statistical survey.” Public participation was now far more important than it had been in the past, said Mrs Honor Bonisch.

“If local bodies are going to have the confidence of the public, public participation must been seen as a good thing,” she said. GST

The board will write to the Ministers of Finance

and Transport, registering its opposition to the goods and services tax because of the tax’s effect on ratepayers and bus users. Taxing bus travel was to tax what had been largely a method of travel for working people. This was a very serious matter, said Mr Neary.

“Indirect taxation is a regressive tax. A tax on rates is very bad indeed,” he said.

Mr C. L. Sugden has estimated that even a 10 per cent goods and services tax will cost the board $1.5 million.

“I am extremely concerned about the impact this tax will have on ratepayers and farepayers. There is no way the board can pay this anticipated $1.5 million without increasing rates,” he said.

The board also agreed that a survey be done to determine the use of free staff travel passes, in an attempt to cut the board’s fringe benefit tax.

The board could have to pay $50,000 a year in fringe benefit taxes.