MILAGE BASIS

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 85, 10 April 1935, Page 6

MILAGE BASIS

EASTBOURNE FARES

ALTERATION HELD OVER

'.I'hc tillonUlon oJ" Iliu JOunUjotii'iio bus ftu't'S to v rnllugc buttls, I'unglnn from Id « intla .('or dlatniiucs utidor live mile.-! lo IJd » mllo for tho full journpy, sußKoHtocl by tlio No. (I Transport Licensing Authority (Mussi's. G. A. Troup, chalnnan, W. I. Armstrong, and S. JlcitcU), wna not nppllod when tho hearing of llio nppllciUlon vvum rosumotl yostprdny afternoon. A revised i schedule of uireei wuh Bubniltted although it was not iiceoptublo. to the npplicnnt council, ond alter tho authority had considered it tho hearing was adjourned to cnublo tho coun> ell to bring down some other proposal. Mr. C. L. Bishop, Clerk of, tho Eastbourne Borough Council, said that he felt certain that the fares, as.worked out on the milage basis, would not be acceptable to his council. IJ! the authority decided on those fares he believed the council would appeal as the fares at present charged had never been questioned." After examining the amended schedule and comparing it with tho one in use, the chairman said the alterations would bo to the advantage of the council. . ■, ; Mr. Bishop: They would be very difficult to apply. „ Mr. Jickell: Ho\y would it complicate the position? The chairman said more tickets would be required. Mr. Bishop said the only complaint received was from York Bay. and the amended schedule of charges proved that, the complaint there ,was not justified. ' The chairman: You have knocked the ground from under their feet. Under the circumstances, said Mr. Bishop, the alteration to a milage basis was not justified. To make the alteraj tion suggested. would probably . disorganise the ■whole service. The ; fares had'been'based on the run to Eastbourne and .-Day's Bay and the passengers on the shorter distances could not expect to receive the same milage rate. The increased value of property at the intermediate bays was due to the service and those bays were not contributing to the, ferry service although the Eastbourne ratepayers were making up the losses 6n the ferry service. "The complaint; was apparently based on the Eastbourne fares, and he considered the complainants would be satisfied if the Eastbourne fares "were increased. The answer to that was that Eastbourne was supplying the bus and ferry services and was paying the losses on the latter service. Fares based on the milage might correct some anomalies but others would be created^ He submitted that the application should be granted and the question of anomalies investigated and a revised schedule submitted next year. ; '. : : The chairman: A year is a long time. We will adjourn the application sine die and you can submit a revised schedule to us in three .months' time. You will carry on in the meantime as you have been doing. Mi*. Troup added that the authority did not want to hamper the applicants in any way, but it wanted any anomalies removed. ' ; Mr. G.B. Wilson, of York Bay, asked if the residents of York Bay could have an opportunity to consider the council's;amended fares. The chairman said "the residents cpuld send a representative to the meeting of the authority when the amended schedule was considered. |-