Bus service

Press, 24 July 1986, Page 24

Bus service

Sir, — Linda Purves (July 19), like myself and other employees of the Christchurch Transport Board, is concerned for her job. Over the last year we have watched Mr P. V. Neary, chairman of the Transport Board, plead public poverty and at the same time employ a public relations firm which shows Disneyland videos in its training-conditioning programme, and in its implementation has the C.T.B. spending ratepayers’ money as if it is going out of fashion. Any driver could tell the board what produces customer, dissatisfaction better than an outside firm. With reference to the $lOO,OOO to be spent on management training this year, I also question the decision of Mr Neary and any other board members and management involved in a report presented at the board meeting of July 15 that gave the nod to employ yet another four new inspectors. The reason given was to save $50,000 a year in overtime. The cost of wages for four new inspectors is $90,000 a year. Bus-driver Linda Purves as a Transport Board member? Why not? At least we know her arithmetic is sound. — Yours, etc.,

P. J. NISBET. July 22, 1986.

Sir, — I agree with Mr P. V. Neary (July 22) that the public deserve a good standard of service from the Christchurch Transport Board, but I must point out that he does not have the financial resources at present to enter into such an expensive training programme. Over the past five years management has increased so much that the saying “Too many chiefs and not enough Indians” could be the Transport Board’s motto. With 41 inspectors receiving between $25,000 and $36,000 a year, not including overtime, it is easy to see why services are being cut and some off-peak fares removed. As a bus-driver and a Transport Board candidate, I can assure Mr Neary that I am objective in assessing passengers’

needs as I come into contact with them every day. I am sure that they would like to retain the present system as an alternative to a reduced service, which is the inevitable result of fare increases. — Yours, etc., LINDA PURVES. July 22, 1986.

Sir,—The news that the Transport Board has decided to cut the off-peak service as an economy measure comes as no surprise. Throughout its tenure, this board has continually shown that its only response to a “financial crisis” is to increase fares, thereby making the public transport system of this city a less viable alternative for the travelling public. Surely a better alternative would be to pull out all stops to increase patronage rather than putting additional cost on those who do support the service. If it is really interested in economy, perhaps it should start by looking at the amount it paid last month to various business consultants in an attempt to be told what is wrong with the Transport Board system. That sum would have funded a 10 per cent reduction in fares. — Yours, etc.,

CHRIS CONSTABLE. July 17, 1986.

[Mr P. V. Neary, chairman, Christchurch Transport Board, replies: “The fare increase of January, 1985, was the first since the price freeze, whereas the 1986 fare increase reflected the loss of patronage due to the Tramway Union’s strike. Since the decision of the Government to fully fund urban passenger rail in Wellington at the expense of funds previously used to subsidise city buses, the Christchurch Transport Board has lost the equivalent of SI.SM in Government grants. The latest award settlements mean that wages will cost $170,000 extra annually and GST must also be provided. The colloquialism “pull out all stops” could be misinterpreted. We have concentrated on sales promotions such as “Bus ’N Win.” These promotion schemes seemed successful the

strike. The consultants are advising on staff training, not the whole transport system. We seek advice on better ways of selecting, training and supervising of our bus drivers. Already the new training scheme shows improvement on our earlier one and, ultimately, all existing bus drivers will be retrained. Inspectors have already had additional training to put new supervisory procedures into operation. Had we not employed consultants, it may have been possible to reduce fares by 0.5 per cent, but not 10 per cent as suggested. After nearly two terms on the board, I believe the public is well served by our staff. Yet I believe investment in modern staff training will lead to an even better service and, hence, greater patronage. Passengers appreciate the quality of service provided by the individual bus driver and we want all travellers to be made welcome on our city buses.”]