2

Dave

Yes but it has nothing to do with inflation. The reason for the hike in fares was to clear the deficit they have somewhere else within the States. Nothing to do with the bus service at all, therefore RPI figures don’t make a blind bit of difference.

Report abuse

4

GG

Are free drinks being given on the bus now? Included in this fare?

Report abuse

6

Geezerboy

i will not be useing the bus again, about time the drivers started charging everyone, i was on the bus tuesday, and i saw a person get on without paying, even our mr. gollop was on the bus, don t know if he noticed it, this is not the first time i have seen this happen, after all it is some of our taxes supporting the services??

Report abuse

8

Dave Jones

I think Matt is being honest and doing what he believes is right and there is nothing wrong in an elected member of the States doing that, He is one of our bright young stars and feels passionately for his island and its democratic process. I don’t agree with him on this issue however, which is why I am backing the rises because I believe they are fairly modest, the problem is the States can’t win, if there are no rises for years and then they suddenly go up by 3 or 4 hundred percent in an effort to catch up, then we are quite rightly criticised by the public. The cost of running the buses has risen significantly, just the fuel costs alone in the last year or so have risen dramatically. On top of that there are wages, insurance, tyres and increasing maintenance costs. No government can carry on absorbing those increases. I went to a café in town the other lunch time and paid £1.50p for a cup of coffee, 50p more than a trip on a bus, we have to get real. The percentage rise looks high but the actual cost to the bus user is still fantastic value for money and unfortunately making the Environment department the villains of the day does not get away from the true costs of running the bus service.

Report abuse

10

Jack

Dave – with you on the fares, states members need to grow up (certain ones, literally!). But if Mat is one of the rising stars, god help us – unfortunately he is going to be a career politician with no life experience who loves the sound of his own bloney voice – he appears to want to be on the board of every committee and does not like anybody taking responsibility. He is in effect the Minister for Education as i’ve been told “the sexy babe” is in awe of him and wont disagree with him!

Report abuse

12

carts

I agree with Dave Jones (second time in 10 years).
£1 for a bus ride is hardly a rip off and, if it’s too much to pay then try walking or using your bike. The fact that the bus service is subsidised at all is a benefit that often gets overlooked, especially by a government who’s mantra for everything else is “user pays”.

Report abuse

14

The Man

Problem is Simon we are only 2 years away from 2012.

Expect to see a big rise in these type of populist debates over smaller issues :(

Report abuse

16

Steven

As I recall, tax on fuel went up in order to subsidise the bus service. Therefore if there is a rise in the cost of using the service above RPIX should there not be a decrease in fuel tax.

Report abuse

18

jack

So it looks like Mat is now bringing in Executive Government by the back door – no committee can do anything anymore unless he and his cronies say they can – well done mate and your spineless non-entities of an excuse of politicians. please someone Can we have an election now to get rid of these bloney idiots before they do anymore damage

Report abuse

20

Paul Le Page

I agree with James, the single tariff fare is what people should be complaining about. £1 to get from Forest to town is pretty reasonable, whereas £1 to take the journey from the Bridge to Town is less so.

Surely a zone system could be put in place (similar to the London Transport system) where longer journeys cost more and shorter journeys cost less? You would probably only need 2 or 3 zones on an island this size.

Report abuse

22

GG

WATM, I just lol’d. So you don’t think that the 70%+ rise is too small?

I thought the States wanted less people to use their cars and more to move to public transport? If they want people to do that they need to decrease the fares, not increase.

Until they reduce the tax on fuel I’ll keep using Marine fuel in my vehicles, with an added ingredient it makes it all ok to use if caught by the rozzers.

Report abuse

24

Steve

I can’t understand why they just spent thousands upgrading to the latest hi tech ticket machines, to continue charging a flat fare.

Environment Dept at its best again

Report abuse

26

Matt Fallaize

I will do my best to respond to the many points raised above. In trying to do so in one post, I apologise for its length.

Simon,

I can understand that the setting of a bus fare at £1 may not look like the greatest cause to fight against, but that is to consider the fare increases in isolation.

In a relatively small, affluent and arguably over-populated island, the transport infrastructure and culture have a considerable impact economically, socially and environmentally. For that reason, the integrity and success of the so-called Road Transport Strategy matters very much, and it is the gradual undermining of that Strategy over the past two or three years – exemplified most recently by this increase of up to 67% in bus fares and the reduction of nearly 20% in the States subsidy of public transport – which has provoked the attention of so many States members.

You ask why the bus service cannot be funded by passengers only. The answer is very simple: history has demonstrated that this community cannot sustain a comprehensive bus service without government subsidy. We could, of course, make a conscious decision to withdraw the subsidy in order to reduce the expenditure of the States, but only if we are prepared to accept the disintegration of the service in no time at all.

In a later post, you speak of accountability. That is precisely what I and 22 other deputies have been trying to do: to hold Environment to account for their management of the Road Transport Strategy and their cavalier disregard for States Resolutions in respect of bus fares. It is ironic that you are calling for accountability and transparency, and at the same time criticising me and others for trying to hold to account a recalcitrant States Department, and doing so publicly.

Dave,

Yes, it is true that the increase in fares has nothing to do with funding improvements to the bus service. Its sole purpose is to cut the States subsidy of public transport with the money saved being returned to general revenue. There are no efficiency savings to speak of: nobody is working harder or smarter, but 20% of the burden of funding is being transferred from the taxpayer to the bus user. The reason that RPIX appeared in the requête at all was that it would have been unreasonable to prevent Environment from increasing bus fares in line with inflation, especially since that was the policy intention to which the States agreed the last time the matter was debated, in 2006.

Jane/WATM/Paul,

I think you make very valid points about the merits of exploring variable fares dependent on the type and length of bus journey. Perhaps that may have been investigated further, had we succeeded in our objective of provoking a comprehensive review of the Road Transport Strategy.

Jack,

I appreciate, and do not object to, the fact that I am a politician whose views and approach you clearly strongly dislike. However, can we not fiercely disagree on here without the need for you to attack me quite so personally, as you have in your three posts above?

I am sorry that you do not regard politics as a “proper job”. I am also sorry that you consider that I have insufficient ‘life experience’, but I suppose the same could be said of any 29-year-old. I certainly do not wish to be on every board and committee. And my minister at Education is most definitely not in awe of me – remember that her political experience stretches back to when I was four years old. The notion that I am “in effect the minister for Education” is as wide of the mark as it is possible to be – the reality is that in many of the major areas of policy I am often in a minority on the Board. When the post of Deputy Minister became vacant, I was the only Board member who didn’t stand.

Your associating me with “bringing in” executive government is utterly ludicrous. More than any other States member, I have, and will continue to, fight against replacing the present system of government by consensus and committees with a cabinet or ministerial system. The few States members who actively support a more centralised, top-down system would probably tell you that I would be the last colleague they could imagine supporting them in making the case for executive government. You may think I am wrong, but I don’t think I am spineless on that subject.

Martino,

As I replied to Dave above, you are correct in assuming that the circa £400,000 per year ‘saving’ to the States from the increase in fares is not being re-invested in the bus service. But you are incorrect in assuming that the money will be retained by Environment, the department which is responsible for the increase. The money will be returned to general revenue to be spent on what the States now calls ‘new service developments’ through the annual States Strategic Plan.

The consultants Tribal are not receiving 10% of the circa £400,000, but unfortunately they are receiving 6.5%. T&R seems to have managed to get the States into a position where a consultancy firm is to receive thousands of pounds for including in a fairly superficial report an area of spending which might be cut and which the relevant department had already identified, and which in any case is not an efficiency saving but a transfer of the funding burden from the taxpayer to the service user.

I am not the only States member growing increasingly concerned at the prospect of Tribal effectively assuming significant control over the policy-making of the States. For all their faults, politicians are directly accountable to the electorate; consultancy firms are not.

Carts,

I suspect that the concept of ‘user pays’ will be extended further into Guernsey society as the journey with Tribal along the so-called Fundamental Transformation Programme continues. It is deeply regrettable because ultimately it will transfer the burden from those most able to bear it to those least able to bear it. But politics in Guernsey has moved inexorably to the right in this way in recent years, and one cannot dispute, and indeed has to respect, that that is the choice the electorate has made.

The Man,

A campaign against increasing bus fares in isolation may have been populist. And because of the way some of the media have chosen to report these events, the perception of populism on this issue may be hard to shift. However, it is certainly untrue. The objective, as I have explained above, has been to provoke a comprehensive redesigning of the island’s Road Transport Strategy, which is hardly a simple, populist cause. The announcement of the increase in bus fares provided members with a window of opportunity [probably the last opportunity in this term actually] to propose a different course in an area of transport policy that has manifestly lost its way in recent years.

Steven,

The additional 1.2p duty on a litre of fuel, agreed in February, 2009, was to be a source of funding for the Road Transport Strategy, not a source of funding for the States subsidy of public transport.

However, the two are plainly linked, and one of my frustrations is that Environment has chosen to address all such issues in a piecemeal rather than holistic fashion. Their disjointed approach leads inevitably to poorer policy-making and, as your post demonstrates, allows some people to form the impression that government is trying to be less than transparent with the public.

Chris,

I agree. The repeated failure to introduce kerbside collection of recyclables demonstrates a disjointed approach to waste policy, and a one-off increase of up to 67% in bus fares and a reduction in the States subsidy of the bus service by around 20% demonstrates a disjointed approach to road transport policy. It is very frustrating indeed.

GG,

Yes, one of the headline policy objectives of the Road Transport Strategy is to encourage use of public transport. When deputies were invited to meet Environment earlier this week, I did ask the department how it envisaged that an increase of 67% in bus fares would help to fulfil the policy objective, but I was told that the motivation had nothing to do with the Road Transport Strategy and everything to do with desperately scratching around for ‘savings’ here and there to fund so-called ‘new service developments’ to help mask the deep, underlying problem which none of the relevant departments seem to have any appetite to tackle as expeditiously as they should: the £40m annual deficit as a result of the corporate tax reforms of 2008.

Jimm,

Sorry, but I am confused by your post. You are critical of what you say is a ‘substantial’ rise in bus fares and then go on to criticise what you call ‘stupid underhand tactics by deputies such as Matt Fallaize’ when I was actually doing everything I could to try and prevent any substantial increase in fares until a comprehensive review of the Road Transport Strategy had been undertaken.

Finally, and at the risk of making this post look far too long, I shall post below a copy of the requête which I and 16 other States members submitted on Tuesday, before Environment announced that they would not delay implementation of the increase in fares. It may help to clarify the objectives of the requêrants. I should add that, although it is not referred to in the requête, it has become clear in my mind that Environment has also, and perhaps most importantly of all, disregarded the most-recent States Resolution on bus fares, which dates back to March, 2006, when the States agreed to a proposal from the department that fares may increase “to assist in the ongoing funding of the [bus] service and, in particular, additional and improved service initiatives…[and] so they keep up with inflation so that the real cost of the current services to the taxpayer does not increase further.” It is plain that the increase being introduced on Sunday neither assists in the ongoing funding of the bus service nor keeps fares in line with inflation.

THE HUMBLE PETITION of the undersigned Members of the States of Deliberation

SHEWETH THAT:

1. On 25th June, 2010, the Environment Department announced proposals to increase bus fares by up to 67% with effect from 1st August, 2010.

2. Although the Department has indicated that its proposals were developed in conjunction with the Financial Transformation Programme, it appears to your Petitioners that they cannot be classified as efficiency savings. The proposals should, according to the Department, generate additional income of around £400,000 per year towards the operational costs of the bus service, allowing for a reduction in the States subsidy from around £2.14m. to £1.74m. per year, according to the 2010 Budget. The proposals represent a straightforward transfer of the financial burden of funding public transport from the taxpayer to the user of the service.

3. At the time of the debate on whether to establish the Financial Transformation Programme, the States of Deliberation resolved to establish a governance structure which ensured that the Assembly would “…make key decisions in the programme such as material capital items, policy changes and politically sensitive issues…”

4. In the opinion of your Petitioners, cutting the States subsidy of Guernsey’s bus service by just under 20% and increasing fares by up to 67% represents a change in policy direction and is politically sensitive, and should therefore be referred to the States of Deliberation.

5. In February, 2009, the States of Deliberation debated proposals from the Department concerning the funding of the Road Transport Strategy, and resolved that “…the island’s Road Transport Strategy shall be funded by a combination of a) the increases in bus fare revenues, administration charges for residents’ parking permits and vehicle registrations approved by Resolution 21 (a) and (b) on Article VIII of Billet d’Etat VII of 2006, and b) an increase of 1.2p per litre in the duty on petrol and gas oil other than fuel used for air or marine navigation…”.

6. Your Petitioners are of the opinion that there is an important relationship between the policies and funding of the Road Transport Strategy and the public subsidy of scheduled bus services. Therefore, your Petitioners contend that if the States had envisaged at the time of its debate in February, 2009 that within 18 months the Department would seek to increase bus fares by up to 67% and cut the subsidy of public transport by just under 20%, the outcome of that debate may have been quite different.

7. The last occasion on which the States of Deliberation considered the underlying principles of the Road Transport Strategy was at its meeting of March, 2006, when it approved a range of proposals from the Environment Department which refocused and broadened the purposes of the strategy.

8. One of the proposals approved on that occasion increased the basic fare for a single bus journey from 50p to 60p. The States Report of March, 2006 stated: “The Department will also seek to increase fares so they keep up with inflation so that the real cost of the current services to the taxpayer does not increase further.” Had inflation been added between 2006 and 2010, the basic fare for a single bus journey today would be about 68p, which your Petitioners note is only about two-thirds of the £1 fare now proposed by the Department. That States Report also included analysis which indicated that the demand for public transport is relatively price elastic. The Report stated: “[The effect of price increases]…can lead to a ‘vicious circle’ of passenger decline, in turn necessitating further fare increases or reductions in service levels.” Your Petitioners are not confident that the Department has given appropriate consideration to this matter in the formulation of its most-recent proposals.

9. The States Report also included the following: “The Department believes that, as a matter of principle, the main objectives of the strategy should be to reduce the adverse environmental, economic and social impacts of vehicle use in the island, in particular, by: encouraging the use of alternative forms of transport; discouraging unnecessary motor vehicle usage; promoting more responsible use of vehicles; and promoting more efficient use of the island’s transport infrastructure.”

10. Your Petitioners are of the opinion that a one-off increase in bus fares of up to 67% and cutting the States subsidy of public transport by just under 20% runs the risk of compromising the policy objectives of the Road Transport Strategy.

11. On 13th July, 2010, 19 members of the States of Deliberation wrote to the Environment Department. That letter concluded thus: “We respectfully repeat our request that this matter be placed before the States of Deliberation. In the event that the Department does not provoke such a debate of its own volition, we will give serious consideration to the lodging of a Requête before the end of this month.”

THESE PREMISES CONSIDERED, your Petitioners humbly pray that the States may be pleased to resolve:

That there shall be no increase in bus fares above RPIX until the Environment Department has laid before the June, 2011 meeting of the States of Deliberation, or sooner if possible, a report which:

a) provides an update of all progress made against the objectives of the Road Transport Strategy since March, 2006; and

b) sets out proposals for a comprehensive, sustainable and integrated road transport strategy, including the rôle and funding of public transport in any such strategy, for a period of at least the next five years.

AND YOUR PETITIONERS WILL EVER PRAY

GUERNSEY

This 27th day of July, 2010

M J Fallaize
A H Adam
B L Brehaut
D de G de Lisle
M H Dorey
G P Dudley-Owen
L R Gallienne
M G G Garrett
J A B Gollop
M P J Hadley
S L Langlois
A R Le Lievre
T M Le Pelley
R R Matthews
S J McManus
I F Rihoy
C A Steere

Report abuse

28

Martino

Thanks for your fulsome reply Matt Fallaize.
At the end of the day I have no problem, looking at the bus fares in isolation, with the cost being £1 per journey (only 50p per journey with an Ormer Card). I must admit I agree with Dave Jones that this feels about right. It’s the lack of any strategic thinking behind tomorrow’s (Sunday’s) price rise that I and many others do have a problem with, however.

Report abuse

30

Dave Jones

geezerboy

Not long ago actually and I don’t park at Lukis house, as any of the Vale deputies will tell you we car share and as I have a respiratory problem my fellow deputies are kind enough to drop me of near the Royal Court building.

Jack
Matt reminds me of me 10 years ago a feisty bloke anxious to get things done, He has a real passion for the role of being a deputy and he can’t help letting that passion show. His he wrong on this issue I think he is but I will defend his right to put forward a well argued, forceful case of why he believes he is right. I do however worry when we get a continued stream of letters signed by deputies trying to short circuit government business. Finally In politics you have to do what you think is right I wouldn’t call anyone who has had the courage to stand for public office spineless

Report abuse

32

Jack

good evening Sean, in terms of the political point see Dave Jones post. We have a political party forming in guernsey called the Fallaise Fan Club.
Dave – fully agree with your post (apart from the spineless bit, IMHO we have a flock of sheep in the states at the moment, surely 2012 has to be better?), nothing wrong with passion, and hear hear about stream of letters.
Mat – first post I can agree with you on.

Report abuse

34

WATM

Jimm, it’s called Freedom of Speech. I lived on Guernsey for 12 years & still visit 3 times per year to see friends. I think that more than entitles me to an opinion. You guys have no idea how good you have it over there. You guys should get a grip and join the real world instead of expecting everything for nothing. You’re arguing over 40p for crying out loud…..

Report abuse

36

Jimm

Matt Fallaize – Very sorry, I completely misunderstood the article, well done!

Apologies once again.

WATM – 40p doesn’t sound like a lot, but then it goes on 60p, which makes 100p (£1) 2 bus journeys a day (there and back) is £2, working 5 days a week that’s £10 alone and then perhaps town on a Saturday? That’s a further £2, we’re at £12 a week already.

Ok, still not a lot but the service isn’t great, there isn’t a lot of legroom, there’s always a crying baby and some of the drivers are very moody and don’t say hello, even if you say hello first.

So yeah, I will object to the substantial rise.

Report abuse

38

simon

Matt Fallaize
Thanks for the detail it gives me a better understanding of your reasoning…
Unfortunately it reads like the unravelling plot of of a sinister political novel!
In itself maybe that would not be a bad thing if it was a significant issue, but Matt this is about bus fares! and yes yet again our elected members are getting all wrapped up in a trivial issue when surely such a matter should be within the remit of the relevant department?

As for accountability, you have had many bigger issues to challenge that on, yet you choose this one!
I find that very selective and for me is seems politically selective, not very appropriate in my view.

Report abuse

40

Jimm

MRSB- I don’t know which buses you go on but the buses I go on certainly have no legroom, it ideally means I need to use 2 seat spaces because I need to place my legs in a diagonal position so that I’m not actually in severe pain.

Report abuse

42

Tony

Once upon a time the States had a transport strategy.

It sought to encourage people out of their cars ….. one way was with cheap bus fares.

To pay for these it was agreed to take a bit of tax paid on fuel and charge people to park their cars . This, as well as raising money, would also hopefully persuade people not to use their cars.

Enough of the fairy tale … now back to present day reality.

The States has repeatedly refused to allow the introduction of paid parking. So there goes that cornerstone of the strategy – by will of the States, not the whim of the Environment dept.

There has been Zero 10 and a global recession, both of which mean we don’t have the millions to throw away we used to. So Environment is seeking to save some money – by charging bus users more.

Deputies – I appreciate you may not agree with the rise, but please either put up an alternative revenue stream ( like that paid parking you kept voting AGAINST in the past ), or shut up – oh and go back to your own departments and look about saving some money yourselves ……

Report abuse

44

GG

It’s cheaper to run a car, if you drive a small hatchback and something with good economy, £1 will buy you a litre of fuel, and will most probably get you a good 10-15 miles.

Report abuse

46

Dave Jones

This is really a battle about paid parking which the States has rejected on several occasions. It is absolutely pointless having paid parking if the lion’s share of the revenue it generates is swallowed up administering the thing. If you have ticket machines you will need people to service and replenish them with tickets and empty the cash, you will still need parking controllers to make sure the cars are displaying tickets and to see if they have run out of time. Paid parking will also be discriminatory against the shop workers, while hundreds of people have private parking spaces beneath the buildings they work and civil servants and States members enjoy free parking on other government car parks in the area. If the whole purpose of paid parking is to reduce traffic into the town, then everyone who brings a car into St Peter Port must be affected by it, otherwise it won’t work at all. In any event you will have those on really good salaries who could afford to pay for parking whatever the charge and you will have others that work in town on fixed incomes who won’t be able to afford weekly parking fees. So already a them and us situation has arisen. If you are a shop worker in Creasey’s for instance then you will be forced to walk to a major bus route to get the bus into work come rain or shine. In effect you will be forced out of your car by financial apartheid. On other reason I don’t really want paid parking is because I don’t believe that the States can be trusted with this kind of revenue raising schemes simply because the motorist will be see as a convenient cash cow and parking rates will increase with every budget on environmental grounds or some other spurious reason for putting them up year on year. It is for this same reason I wont support a GST my prediction that Jersey would use this more and more for raising revenue instead of cutting government spending has come to pass and I have absolutely no doubt that it would happen here if we were ever dumb enough to go down that route.

This is what my last manifesto said on the subject and my views haven’t changed.

I refuse to join the ranks of those who want to un-invent the car, bringing in measures that are designed to batter people into submission rather than providing a decent alternative, that simply is not a sensible position to take. People have to go about their daily lives and failure to recognise that personal transport plays a big part in that daily routine is simply not living in the real world. I am only in favour of paid parking and I repeat what I said in the States, providing it applies to everyone and that includes civil servants at Frossard house and all government buildings, excluding that is the Emergency services. States members should not be exempt either, parking at Lukis House on States days should incur a parking charge or do what the Vale deputies do and car share. If the object of paid parking is to truly encourage people to car share or find alternative means of transport to their places of work, then it should apply to everybody, not just the shop assistant who works in Woolworth or wherever.

Report abuse

48

Toby

Deputy Jones, I appreciate that you tirelss work as a States member and commenter on just about any subject can eat into your time, but please try and keep up with current ( and indeed ancient ) affairs – there hasn’t been a Woolworths for well over a year you know ….

( I think it’s high time I shelled out for that sarcasm mark thing you can buy nowadays .. )

Report abuse

50

Dave Jones

Toby that manifesto was written in 2008 when the Woolworth store WAS still trading, try and keep up, there’s a good boy

Report abuse

52

terry g

As i have tried using the buses to work i found them not reliable and having to stand 15 mins early just incase it is early thats two and a half hours waisted a week and now the price rise i will be back in the car which is less agro. i must congratulate the states of another bad move.

Report abuse

54

Matt Fallaize

Truth Man,

You have made the same points under another thread, and I have tried to address them there.

You say: “Problem is, the bus service is appalling. I would welcome paying more if the service deserved it.” But what comes first: additional investment or service improvements?

Replacing the fleet of buses, as you suggest, would require significant capital investment. And since most of the cost base is staff and fuel, few efficiencies would be realised year-on-year.

Even with smaller buses, more of them serving more routes more frequently, as you suggest on another thread, would require higher (not lower) fares and a greater (not smaller) subsidy from the taxpayer.

Report abuse

56

Gilthead

Truth Man – excellently put!

I’d also add: replace Guernsey Bus with Aurigny. Similar scenario similar mess.

I also think that some of our leaders need a quick lesson in basic accounting – massive capital expenditure affecting the balance sheet coupled with expenses greater than income….what have you got?

Answer – tax payer bail out.

And sorry Matt I’d rather pay my taxes to get the fantastic treatment my dear old mum had recently after a stroke than watch an empty bus rumble past.

Report abuse

58

Truth Man

Matt:

Yes, I am promoting further funding, either via a capital investment or via increased fares BUT this must reflect a serious change in strategy and quality of service. I do believe more, smaller buses would be used more frequently, negating the need for a significant fare increase. It is a business model that has proven to be a success throughout the world in varying business environments. Why would Guernsey be any different? Are you looking outside the box?

Report abuse

60

Truth Man

Matt:

You may be right, however please note, I am talking about a major strategic change to the public transport infrastructure. This cannot be an amendment to our failing service, this needs to be a total rethink and start anew.

I believe with the correct strategies (and by stealing best practice ideas from other businesses & countries) we can come up with a solution that is fairly priced whilst giving the island a fantastic service.

Report abuse

62

Martino

Em
The Ormer card itself costs only £1 and to get the most out of it you don’t have to find £50 – just £25, which will buy your son 50 journeys. Instead of wasting your time and petrol driving him to work why not buy him the card as a present and lend him the £25? He’ll be paying just 50p a journey that way – less than the 60p he was paying before.

Report abuse