HARBOUR FERRY FARES

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 8, 10 January 1925, Page 13

HARBOUR FERRY FARES

■ ---.■ • ■ i •. — * — .. - - IO IHB EDITOR.. ..". Sir,—ln your last night's issue':" Sunday Tennis """goes off at a tangent on the above question.' May I be permitted to give an idea of how your correspond-i ent's ['.grouse " appears to a mere noaccount Eastbourne resident? ' I ■ I find it hard to believe that the little 3d extra involved in,"Sunday Tennis's." one-a-week fare hits'him or her'as hard as the complaint suggests, and rather incline to the belief that Eastbourne and its affairs 'have been so- much in the public eye lately' that your''Ssbbath-' breaking correspondent imagines he or, she is, catering to the popular fancy. 1-in '' having -a 1 smack " at Eastbourne, its management, its council, and incidentally its residents. I'm.not admitting or denying;" past blunders " just now, but would like/to ask "Sunday Tennis" a few iquestions: When the Wellington City Corporation found its trams ■. were not paying and '■■ bumped the fares up, were they not justified ? \' ; The majority of Eastbourne residents have to earn ; their. living in the city and use the trams; did " Sunday Tennis ";, hear' any- squeals from^Eastbourne over the rise; in .tram "fares ?''.'. '.' ■." • ■ .■' ■-.■; -... :■ If the extra threepence asked .for on the boats makes all' the difference between a non-paying and a paying proposition, is not the Eastbourne Council justified in making" the charge? If Eastbourne residents don't squeal when they're asked to pay . extra on the city trams six. days in the week (in the case of the old one penny section 100 per cent, additional), should "Sunday Tennis " squeal at paying, one-sixth extra one day in the week? " Sunday Tennis " says "Wellington citizens should have access to Day's Bay at reasonable rates."] Well, what's he growling,about? So they do! If he or she wants more than a mile-of lovely, comfortablo harbour excursion for a penny halfpenny he or she wants "a lot for his or her money i . ' ■As for Wellington citizens always being " at the mercy of the-borough," this sounds very dreadful; but have not the same conditions ruled for many years past without any evil 'result 'to - Wellington folk (except perhaps an occasional touch of mai-de-mer) 'I ■ ' Why suddenly make the. Eastbourne Council the villain in the- plot when it has served the city: faithfully through good and bad (mostly bad or worse) tor so-long?.-.; ■--. : . -.. . . ■■'. i And all for the sake of a humble tray-bit!" No, i we don't mind' being p .fair i game " for the newspaper, but we've been " game "enough to run' the: boats .on our own hook, and we want; the correspondents to be "fair" as well'as." fp,re." . " • As .regards parents, the little extra may be felt a. bit by some, but let them consider this: On all trains, trams, most'boats, and in'many picture shows, etc; > half -fare is charged for children. On the ; Eastbourne boats only a third fare has been charged, and no extra is , being asked now. How's that for splendid and generous treatment? Cart you show us any better treatment for kiddies anywhere? What other pleasure resort can your kiddie get. to by train or tram for 6d return? ' . Mr. Editor, Wellington parents have nothing to " grouse at " but should consider themselves jolly lucky m having a service that caters so generously and willingly for their children,.in providing a beautiful, unique,, and interesting harbour trip at such a nominal sum. Therefore I would .ask parents and Sunday tennis players not to moan, but to count their blessings, pay up, and look pleasant, just as we folk.across the harbour are doing.—l am, etc., . ■"•... M. KING. 9th January. ■ ■ ' ' . '