Bus firm cuts services

Paul R Taylor

May 20, 2008

| Submit Comments | Comments (36) | Previous | Next

A BUS operator has pulled eight services from routes across Greater Manchester - removing almost 400 buses a week from the roads.

Vale of Manchester withdrew all its services at short notice yesterday, without giving a reason.

No-one from the company was available to comment.

Other operators are being offered emergency contracts in a bid to reinstate the services and the case will be reported to the Traffic Commissioner.

The routes withdrawn are: daytime, hourly services from Monday to Saturday - 72 Pendleton to Clifton; 276 Trafford General to Wythenshawe Hospital; 512 Bury to Bolton; 513 Bury to Bolton; 521 Little Lever to Blackrod.

Also the 345 Ashton to Denton; 54 Cheetham to the Trafford Centre; 272 Sharston to Trafford Park.

| Submit Comments | Comments (36) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

Timberman, MANCHESTER (20/05/2008 at 10:23)

I bet the pro c-charge lobby all went running for their cars when their bus failed to turn up.

The Karney & Leese Ego Show [formerly Scrotnig] (20/05/2008 at 10:28)

Not to worry, when the CON charge comes in, if this happens anyone affected will just have to go on the dole!

A Bus Driver (20/05/2008 at 10:35)

i doubt it. It's only a few wrinklies that don't pay fares any more that use these services so not a big deal really.

Mr Angry, Bury (20/05/2008 at 10:36)

Why should this suprise anyone? It is the brave new world of the private sector running the buses now

Bring back Selnce/GMT

jomov, Manchester (20/05/2008 at 10:40)

"i doubt it. It's only a few wrinklies that don't pay fares any more that use these services so not a big deal really."

Really? So how are they supposed to get around then?

They have a free bus pass, why shouldn't they beable to use it!!

The Karney & Leese Ego Show [formerly Scrotnig] (20/05/2008 at 10:40)

"A Bus Driver", I am sure your comment is tongue in cheek, as many of mine are. However bus services should exist for everyone, including a "few old wrinklies", for them it's a lifeline.

There you go, I bit!

Graeme, Manchester (20/05/2008 at 10:56)

a sad reflection on the state of our public transport, and the planning of it

jomov, Manchester (20/05/2008 at 11:02)

Sounds highly suspicious to me!

Black Flag (20/05/2008 at 11:03)

I think that's a bit melodramatic, Graeme. It's a relatively small number of services and if they’re viable routes, I’m sure another operator will quickly step in to serve them.

Anthony, Accrington,Lancashire (20/05/2008 at 11:06)

When you have private companies running the buses,they are a law unto themselves and think they can do whatever they like!

Chris, Irlam (20/05/2008 at 11:18)

Fast-forward a few years into TIF La-La land and if you had ditched you car & relied on these buses to get you to work you'd be well & truly snookered now wouldn't you?

Nice.

Graeme, Manchester (20/05/2008 at 11:24)

"I think that's a bit melodramatic, Graeme. It's a relatively small number of services and if they’re viable routes, I’m sure another operator will quickly step in to serve them."

I reserve the right to be melodramatic occasionally :) I hope another operator does step in but, in my humble experience of these things, GMPTE will likely end up subsidising a slightly reduced service (similiar thing happened with the 53 service through Longsight). but anyway, fingers crossed that another company picks them up and runs them well

The Karney & Leese Ego Show [formerly Scrotnig] (20/05/2008 at 11:34)

Black Flag, when you say services must be "viable", you really mean "profitable".

Taxing people out of their cars won't work if having an alternative depends on its profitability.

Black Flag (20/05/2008 at 11:39)

Graeme, I think your point about subsidised services is a good one. GMPTE does itself no favours subsidising routes in this kind of situation, because the operators will just sit around waiting for the handouts, rather than stepping in.

If an operator has failed (which it appears might be the case here), at most, GMPTE should step in and contract an operator to run the route for a month, to give the market chance to react.

If, after that, nobody steps forward to operate the route, it's probably because it isn't viable.

ace, manchester (20/05/2008 at 12:00)

Sounds familiar dosnt it.Get people to buy diesel cars then wind up the price of diesel until its more expensive than petrol.the same will go for public transport ,they will get everybody reliant on busses then wind the fares up so mthat were all working just to pay the bills with nothing left.The british way.work work and then work some more .

Black Flag (20/05/2008 at 12:04)

Scrotnig, by viable, I mean that it must be able to carry enough passengers to be worth running. As part of that, yes, in general, it must at least not be loss making, unless an operator is using it to feed other routes.

I don't think that running empty buses is a good thing. It's a waste of resources and road space.

As for taxing people off the road, I assume you are talking about the congestion charge, which isn't something I support. The only thing along that line I've said I would definitely support is putting a big increase on fuel duty and using the extra funds to reduce the lower end of income tax.

If that causes people to move from using cars to using buses, the increased number of passengers will mean that more routes will become viable and the number and frequency of services will increase. It's basic supply and demand.

Calamity (20/05/2008 at 12:11)

I would not allow a company that does this to run buses on the profitable routes that they all seem to chase. It should be a condition as part of their license that that they all run buses on some non profitale routes, and if they won't take the license off them. "public" transport. what a joke, it does not serve the public at all.

Karney for head of GMPTA(formerly MC Spanner) (20/05/2008 at 12:29)

Graeme

"a sad reflection on the state of our public transport, and the planning of it "

So why in gods name would we give those same planners £3bn extra of our money?

Ex Bus Driver 118 118, Manchester (20/05/2008 at 12:44)

The company went bust over the weekend, now the regular users of these routes will find it very hard to get a replacement as they were only running these routes as no other companies wanted them

First Manchester Wont run minibus work they had a disagreement with the PTE a few years ago which in return they gave up the tenders and all the mini buses they used to run

Stagecoach MCR wont venture that far out

Arriva may be their only hope

alvinlwh (20/05/2008 at 14:08)

More good news for Manchester's public transport system. I was just wondering why there was not much congestion these few days and now I know!

Graeme, Manchester (20/05/2008 at 14:30)

Karney, I'd certainly do not think the proposal is give the money to these companies, no strings attached. If TIF is going to work there will have to be a lot improvements in the way things are coordinated in Greater Manchester.

Chris, Irlam (20/05/2008 at 15:03)

"If TIF is going to work there will have to be a lot improvements in the way things are coordinated in Greater Manchester."

But what if the roads become charged and no such improvement happens?

There are no such guarantees with the TIF bid - no guarantees on cost, coverage, privacy, fairness, etc etc etc.

Snake oil salesmen springs to mind!

Graeme, Manchester (20/05/2008 at 15:22)

Chris, that's the point of the TIF bid: to have combined improvements in public transport alongside congestion charging

polkyb (20/05/2008 at 15:38)

Graeme, Why should the tax payer buy these companies new rolling stock to run, when they should be providing it themselves by re-investing profits?

You will no doubt see that, in the year that they receive their 'tax rebate' they will be posting record profits.

The fact is that until the GMPTE can buy back the privately owned services, there is NO hope for a decent transport infrastructure in Manchester.

Black Flag (20/05/2008 at 16:08)

polkyb, I don't see how putting public transport (particularly buses) into the hands of the government (be it local or national) would be anything other than a disaster.

Compare the cost of transport in London (which has been much more heavily regulated) to Manchester and you'll see that we tend to get a much cheaper deal.

Privately owned transport has to pull its weight. It either carries enough passengers to justify its existence, or it disappears.

Put it in government hands and decisions start getting made for political reasons. Routes start being run to keep voters happy, even though there may few people using them, which results in the costs gradually getting pushed upwards on the heavily used routes to subsidise them. Eventually the costs will get pushed so high that people will stop using the buses, even on the heavily used routes, so the costs then have to get moved onto Council Tax in order to keep ticket prices low, which means that everybody ends up paying more tax to fund empty buses.

It ain't broke and we shouldn't be trying to fix it.

()

Report

News