1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215 
Co* otitsia
Page 62
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I really must correct the news item on page 19 (CM April 22). It is not true that the relatively small reductions in the bus services in Suffolk are the result of the actions of the county council. The council have undertaken all along to meet any true losses on the agreed network of services in the county.
Up to December 31, 1976, these services were operating without true loss; however, some losses are anticipated in the final quarter of 1976/77, and the council have set aside the funds which might be needed to meet them.
The bus company, however, have asked the council additionally to provide them with a surplus. The county council considered that it would not be right to use public money for this purpose.
The company have therefore, apparently, aimed at achieving their surplus by making some reductions in their services. The company have defined a viable network which is broadly acceptable to the council, who will consider any social needs for additional services, and seek their provision in the most effective way.
You also mentioned the Transport Supplementary Grant. Your figures are not accurate, and in any case, as you will appreciate frommy earlier comments, they are not relevant. Your figure of £633,000 was, of course, purely a forecast of the possible total deficiency on all forms of public transport in the county. It was not, as you imply, a cash payment by the Government.
DAVID MYER, Chairman, Transport Co-ordination Sub-Committee, Suffolk County Council.
• There seems to be a difference of opinion between Eastern Counties and Suffolk County Council as to what are -relatively small reductions in the bus services in Suffolk".
In fact Eastern Counties are cutting 330 journeys per week. While these reductions do not completely cut off services from any area they do reduce facilities to such an .extent that it is impossible for people in Orford to spend a day shopping in Ipswich if they travel by bus.
These cuts in services also mean the loss of 15 buses operating in Suffolk and at last 25 job opportunities.
Eastern Counties claim that the council has not taken into consideration costs incurred by depreciation and its• need to replace to assets. -Editor.