Yet that is what the Otago Regional Council (ORC) is doing when contemplating what public transport services we will have around Otago, and who will pay.
To make good, transparent, possibly principled decisions, councillors need more information than they have available.
In Dunedin, buses cost over $22.5 million to run. They are paid for by a combination of an NZTA contribution of $11m, fares of $3.4m, and the balance of $8.1m which is paid 20% as a general rate by ORC ratepayers and 80% by Dunedin ratepayers via a targeted rate.
There have been local challenges, such as whether $2 bus fares should be available for cruise-ship passengers, and whether the same uniform fare should be applied to trips such as to and from Palmerston.
On a national level, in November the government signalled that it expects councils to increase their private share of the cost, that is the share excluding rates and government funding. This is essentially fare income.
For us in Otago that means increasing this share from 18% to 42% in the next three years. (In the 2018-19 year passengers paid 35% or so, but we have been shifting this burden to ratepayers recently).
Our councillors need to know enough detail about what is going on to decide what the best way forward is.
To help them decide, they were given information late last year. As an example they were given options involving extending the bus services. The impact on the rates for one option were described as an increase being required.
The other information given was about reducing the carbon footprint both for the ORC and for the Dunedin Zero Carbon Plan 2030.
This information comes nowhere near addressing the issues faced by councillors around funding buses.
To make good decisions around the buses, the councillors need to balance any thoughts they have on zero carbon with what to do about the government expectations about user-pays and whether some services are being used enough to warrant the services being made available.
They need to think about whether a flat fare is fair. They need to think about subsidising cruise-ship passengers, and whether some services could be dealt with using vans thereby reducing costs per trip.
I asked for the costs of providing each service, the average passengers for each service, a breakdown of which type of passenger they were and which services had more passengers than can fit on the bus(es) provided.
The ORC told me this information was unable to be provided without substantial collation and research. I am guessing that this means councillors do not know either.
So what are councillors to make of the information available?
The best information available suggests that ratepayers pay $6.60 per $1 the passengers pay. The average cost of a bus trip is close to $10.
Even when paying an average of only $1.45 per trip, the number of bus users in Otago who consider buses value for money has reduced to 92%. The views in value for money may change if people knew the actual cost was $10 per trip.
If, as the government prefers, the average amount passengers pay will more than double, we should be thinking about whether we can get better bangs for bucks, including fewer empty or nearly empty buses.
In any case, how can councillors decide whether the $8.2m subsidy from ratepayers is worth the carbon reduction (the only strategic reason for deciding on services apparently) without knowing a whole lot more information?
There clearly is more information available to the ORC staff.
Recently, when people in Mosgiel complained about changes to services, the council said that on average only one person per trip used the current service.
We can only assume that when council staff wish to justify a change being proposed they are in a position to provide information about numbers of passengers per trip.
Councillors should demand from staff more useful information about which services are being used and the costs of each service. This would be particularly useful around the Palmerston buses and the Port Chalmers cruise ship buses.
It may well be that ratepayers are happy to seriously subsidise Palmerston buses, and to put in extra buses for cruise ships so they don’t have to pay private bus companies.
But we should all know what choices are being made by those who represent us.
Now would be a good time to do this. The pressure from the government to charge passengers more, and taxpayers and ratepayers less, will only increase.
And the money ratepayers have to balance unknown advantages around carbon-zero aims against unknown demand for particular bus services is not a bottomless pit.
• Hilary Calvert is a former Otago regional councillor, MP and Dunedin city councillor.
