EASTBOURNE ACCESS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 41, 17 August 1926, Page 8

EASTBOURNE ACCESS

BUS OWNERS' EVIDENCE FERRY SERVICE CRITICISED SHIFTING THE BLAME FROM THE BUSES. With the object of proving that his Eastbourne bus service did not come under the bus regulations, and should not be brought under them, Mr. C. Bosher, of Eastbourne,. in'giving evidence before'the Select Committee today, took exception to the attitude of tho Mayor of Eastbourne regarding the bus service. "Tho Mayor of Eastbourne," said Mr. Bosh or, "in giving evidence before the Select Committe last week so far forgot himself as to call our service a 'pirate' service. That statement is very funny because his council is still paying us tho subsidy for connecting our local service with all steamers at Eastbourne, thus employing tho 'pirates' for the council's convenience. I fail to understand why the Mayor of Eastbourne —a borough not possessing or running any motor-bus service—should be called on for evidence in a tram v. bus controversy. Waterborne traffic is a matter .quite apart. . . . We agree to systematise traffic, but certainly do object to any licensing body being concerned in the running of any vehicular traffic. ... The Mayor of Eastbourne has stated that the buses were 'pirating' on the ferry service. We give that statement an emphatic denial." The witness strongly objected to the insurance proposals in the regulations. IN UNIQUE POSITION. "Wellington is seven miles from Eastbourne by water and sixteen miles by road. We are not running in com; petition with the Wellington Tramways nor the New Zealand Bailways, and possibly in that respect our service is unique. And we are not running in competition with tho Eastbourne Council's steamer service, -as that service only supplies the wants of the residents .o» Day's Bay and Rona Bay, whereas wo convey the bulk of our passengers from Mahena Bay, York Bay, Lowry Bay, Howard's Point, Gracefield Estate, and Petono East near the' racecourse. Since we commenced our service many people have settled in these bays, which they could not otherwise have done because there were no cheap means' of transit. We know that our service is satisfactory and desired by many residents of the eastern bays. The York Bay residents have had" srected by the Hutt County Council for their comfort at the roadside a fine waiting-room shelter, and we understand that several other bays will likewise bo provided. The ferry steamers do not serve these bays." Tho witness alluded to financial matters, and said that if harsh Government regulations prevented the continuance of his Wellington service the local service would have to be stopped. Taking exception to the evidence tendered by the Mayor of Eastbourne, Mr. Bosher stated that the greater part of his passengprs from the bays to Wellington werh outside the Eastbourne Borpugh Council area, and he considered it quite unfair for the Mayor of Eastbourne to blame the bus service to Wellington for the losses incurred by the council in the running of their ferry steamer service. FERRY MANAGEMENT ATTACKED. A strong attack was made by Mr. Bosher on the management of the ferry service. "Should the council find it necessary to dispose of the steamer service," he asked, "how are the residents to journey to Wellington if the bus service is discontinued owing to harsh and unreasonable regulations? Tho residents are vitally concerned, as in a sense they collectively own the steamers, and if they patronise our buses because of better service they do so with their eyes wide open, ' . "It may not be out of place to ask you to ascertain the age and condition of at least two of the Eastbourne steamers, rid why the other oue bought at an exorbitant cost is not run during the major portion of the year. Furthermore, it has been admitted to you that the Eastbourne Borough Council, parted with £5600 worth of debentures for nothing. ... "Some few years ago the council bought a- cargo boat named Orari, which proved to be a failure and not warranted. This transaction meant the loss of £1000. The accrued ferry profits earned prior to the purchase of the Muritai were used towards the building of the kiosk, land purchase and the making of tennis courts, fencing and reconditioning of the Eecreation Ground, etc. The argument in support of that expenditure was that it would assist to popularise the ferry - service and increase tho traffic. This expenditure was a violation .of the express policy of every previous Mayor and councillors, who maintained that ferry profits were to bo used solely for the purchase of a new boat when necessary and other ferry purposes. Now, I put it to this committee that if this reserve of somewhere about £9000 had been held intact, bearing interest at 4J per cent., it would have been available to meet interest on ferry loans and for any occasion when ferry revenue fell below normal; instead of which the ratepayers have been called upon to meet the interest of these loans by being rated to the extent of 7Jd in tho pound, on the unimproved rateable value of the borough. The totalrates, I am informed, are about Is 2d in the pound. BUSES NOT TO BLAME FOB LOSS. "From the above facts it will be admitted that the council's inefficiency and bungling methods are the cause of their present position, which cannot be attributed to tho bus service. OTHER FACTORS RESPONSIBLE. "At the time when tho ferry service was a paying concern tho Day's Bay road was practically unformed and unfit for motor traffic, and the main access to the eastern sido of the harbour was -by water. Several factors have to be taken into account. (1) The rapid growth of tho motor industry in recent years; (2) the bitumen "track on the Day's Bay road was formed a year earlier than schedule time; (3) it is admitted on all sides that our route Ms one of the finest observation drives in Australasia. "I submit to you that tho loss of revenue to the ferry service as stated b.y Mr. Jones is due to several causes and not altogether to our motor buses."