Cheaper public transport

Press, 7 October 1987, Page 8

Cheaper public transport

’ Bus. passengers .from ' outer 'suburban Christchurch and Some nearby - towns will have their • fares reduced next year > — by up to half. I This is because the way - public transport in the region is funded will be t Changed next year, says ;• the Canterbury United Council. ' people living in parts of • Paparua County, Waimairi • ! District, and Heathcote J Valley who have to pay $2 |to travel into 2 hrlst ,: » Ahuroh city centre at peak j'i time at present should be i paying about lor the' ' Sna toip by April next ’ 7 'Jirea to ptooes further • out oTChiWclwrc’* were > also expected to drop, : 2S MrSM> Wn. the J council ‘ trfct, Eyi US2? y

about 25 per cent, he said. The changes will result from the reorganisation of funding for bus services •in Canterbury. Since 1908 Christchurch public transport has been funded by rates charged to those living in the inner city and suburbs. The act governing the Christchurch Transport Board, the Christchurch Tramways Act, requires people living inside what was the city’s boundary about 1908 to be rated. In recent times the Transport Board has charged higher fares to those living in places -served by but not rated for public transport. Mr Hasell said “this distorted the system by unduly discouraging. passengers” and encouraged people to walk to bus stops within the rating . area. The policy formulated by the council was

finalised this year and the constituent councils affected by the new rating were invited to make submissions about the new levies * Mr Hasell said no submissions were forthcoming, therefore the new levy structure would became law on April 1, 1988.

Central to the new levy was a division of the benefits people gained from public transport. The council’s transport planning department said thene were three areas of benefit from bus services. They were: • An area-wide, benefit not specifically defined by any one locality, with the basis that “everyone benefits from public transport whether they use it or not”

• A community benefit derived from users of public transport — children, elderly, and those other transport

This is mainly in the inner districts of the city.

• A business benefit which employers and businesses get from public transport allowing better access to labour, tourists and customers. Once again only inner districts are included in this category.

The method of charging local authorities the levy for the service is worked out using these criteria. It is spilt 10 per cent, 60 per cent, and 40 per cent across the area-wide, community aad business benefits.

From that formula, the council worked out areas within the urban transport area would have to pay a percentage of the annual cost of running a bus service* related to what each area got from the service.

For example, areas such as

and Kaiapoi, Lyttelton, Malvern, Mount Herbert and Ellesmere will pay only a share of the areawide benefit — 10 per cent of thd total cost — based on each authority’s population. All other areas getting bus service will contribute their share of 100 per cent of the cost

The community benefit is based on the number of kilometres of bus travel in each authority’s area during peak morning times and the business benefit on the number of people who indicated in the last census that they took a bus to work.

The outer districts paying just the area-wide benefits will contribute about 5 per cent of the expected cost of running the service in the 1988-89’ period. The rest will be made up from the inner areas.