MP urges bus fares rethink

Mike Keegan

January 21, 2009

| Submit Comments | Comments (22) | Previous | Next

Graham Stringer

AN MP has launched a bid to bring bus fares under control after the latest price hike.

Graham Stringer has taken his fight to Westminster by tabling a Commons motion.

He wants bosses at First Bus to reconsider recent increases that have seen some passengers hit by rises of 10.7 per cent. Mr Stringer, Labour MP for Blackley, has hit out at the spiralling fares claiming they come after reductions in fuel prices and healthy First Group profits of £180m for the last six-month accounting period.

He wants the region's transport chiefs to use new powers to consult with passengers in an attempt to re-write contracts with bus operators.

Mr Stringer said: "These increases will hit the people of Manchester hard.

"It is clear that buses should be re-regulated, giving control of routes and fares to the Passenger Transport Executive.

"The powers established in the Local Transport Act 2008 makes it easier than ever to bring bus fares and routes under local democratic control."

He said the move was the first part of the `plan B' launched in the wake of the failed Transport Innovation Fund bid. The bid would have seen nearly £3bn invested in transport but would also have seen the introduction of a peak-hour congestion charge.

The plan was rejected by a huge margin in a referendum last year.

Mr Stringer, a senior member of the House of Commons transport committee, will use a meeting between local MPs and leaders of Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority to demand that they use the new powers to set the fares.

Bosses at Oldham-based First have defended the rises.

Managing director Andrew Scholey said: "First in Manchester is facing a 10 per cent rise to its business costs in 2009 in areas such as fuel and staff costs."

| Submit Comments | Comments (22) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 22 and replies | View All

citycentre, manchester (21/01/2009 at 07:52)

Is the same MP who just led a campaign to vote against powers that would have allowed GMPTE to do just this?

Black Flag (21/01/2009 at 08:42)

As always, politicians think that the way to make things better is to give more power to them. You'd think that they'd learn from the fact that whenever they get more power, they make things worse.

Jay B, oldham (21/01/2009 at 08:51)

er no citycentre! in all of the con charge liturature did it say they would control fares!

you too where fooled by them!

Malcolm Amersham (21/01/2009 at 09:31)

Its not only bus fares,rail fares are also Sky high. I cannot afford to travel by train anymore.

MPs gravy train, UK (21/01/2009 at 10:35)

Andrew Scholey of First Bus should be sacked. He is the Managing Director and is unable to control his costs. He says he is having to pay 10% more for staff and fuel in 2009. Rubbish. And if true you should be sacked for doing such a poor job.

Inflation is now 3%. Wage demands are lower than that. Fuel prices are at a 3 year low. You must think we are stupid.

Jay B, oldham (21/01/2009 at 11:04)

even though people are telling us that the car is on its way out it still remains the cheapest and most reliable form of transport for long journeys.

glad we dont have an impending extra tax on us!

citycentre, manchester (21/01/2009 at 12:12)

Jay B

the TiF bid included provision for the use of Quality Contracts which allow much greater control over the running of bus services by local authorities and capped fares with discounts for some users, as well as road use management.

we voted no to local governemnt involvement, encouraged by this man, so we are left with what the market decides, which appears to be fare increases.
to complain now when we had the choice about a month ago is astonishing

Black Flag (21/01/2009 at 12:38)

This is a typical populist knee-jerk politician's response, which focuses on the benefit of taking a particular course of action, but ignores the downsides.

If you force a fare reduction, some of the less profitable routes will cease to be viable, so we'll end up with fewer buses serving the less popular routes.

Thanks for bringing your genius to the table Graham, but why not go the whole hog and suggest that the maximum fare be set at 0p so we end up with no buses at all?

we deserve better (21/01/2009 at 12:41)

'Quality Contracts'

How would that have worked under Tif then?

Are you saying we would have had the glorious opportunity to give these bus companies even more money in exchange for a better service (that should have already been) and should continue to be provided in any case?

I'm glad I voted no.

Frostee, Oldham (21/01/2009 at 12:51)

Anybody who thinks that if the TIF had been voted in the consequences would be lower fares is living in La La land.

The only effective way to good bus services is to bring them back into public ownership so they can be fully regulated.

Pippa, Manchester (21/01/2009 at 12:56)

If First (and other companies) need to raise fares in order to cover their costs (I am assuming that they are telling the truth), then what will happen if they aren't allowed to do this ? Will they have to have further subsidies from the taxpayer, or will they have to cust down on their costs - ie manpower and fuel ?

Black Flag (21/01/2009 at 13:12)

Frostee: "The only effective way to good bus services is to bring them back into public ownership so they can be fully regulated."

I think that should be "The only effective way to destroy bus services..."

Peter Mc, Manchester City Center (21/01/2009 at 13:46)

Iam glad we in the greater manchester area all voted NO to the congestion charge as we would have been handing a muti national company ie First, some of the 3 billion pounds for what ? high bus fares. And for black flag to say that the bus company would stop less profitable routes If you force a fare reduction, WELL THATS WHY YOU HAVE GMPTE or GMPTA as they pay the bus companys money to run buses on less profitable routes and at night time ie late buses friday and saturday night untill 3.30am in the morning. Before you go saying anything check your facts out black flag. Google GMPTE or GMPTA and first group.

Black Flag (21/01/2009 at 14:11)

Peter Mc: "And for black flag to say that the bus company would stop less profitable routes If you force a fare reduction, WELL THATS WHY YOU HAVE GMPTE or GMPTA as they pay the bus companys money to run buses on less profitable routes"

Ok, so at least you acknowledge that the service wouldn't be made any cheaper by capping fares, it would just take some of the cost off the passenger and pass it on to the taxpayer.

For starters, I don't see why it's fair to make people pay for a service which others are using, when it works perfectly well without that kind of subsidy. I wouldn't expect other people to contribute to my bus fare any more than I would expect anybody else to contribute to my petrol if I have a long drive to work.

On top of that, the more that the bus companies demand on revenue from politicians, the less control the customer has. Bus go where it is politically expedient to have them, rather than where the demand is. People living in marginal seats may do well, but those living in safe seats where votes aren't particularly valuable could happily be left with a poor service.

In short, you would get a service which is more expensive (once you add in the cost of bueaucracy) and delivers a poorer service. Doesn't sound like a great option to me.

Mike S, Manchester (21/01/2009 at 14:11)

No, they have not invested enough (if any) money in improving their buses and services, leading to fewer people using them. Therefore, they have to raise fares to keep profits up.

Answer - invest more profits in buses and services. More people will use them, fares can stay lower to achieve the same level of profitability.

Better still - renationalise, take shareholders and dividends out of the picture so that all the profits can be put back into improving the service.

Black Flag (21/01/2009 at 14:33)

Mike S: "invest more profits in buses and services. More people will use them, fares can stay lower to achieve the same level of profitability."

I imagine that, while the bus companies may be grateful for your input, they've probably already considered what level of investment is optimum and will have done some research, rather than just making blind assumptions.

"Better still - renationalise, take shareholders and dividends out of the picture so that all the profits can be put back into improving the service."

Which would leave the service being run according to the same populist over-simplifications that Graham Stringer has been trotting out. Again, not a great idea.

citycentre, manchester (21/01/2009 at 15:05)

I am not sure exactly how quality contracts would work, but there is ample information about them on the DoT website and internet; I tried to link to some, but it didnt appear.

In principle it seems to allow local authorities to decide on bus routes and timetables and allow bus companies to bud to run them on a franchise basis; certainly a much greater amount of management by the authority would have resulted had the vote been yes

Mike S, Manchester (21/01/2009 at 15:14)

Who here thinks Black Flag is a shareholder of First Group?

Black Flag (21/01/2009 at 15:28)

"Who here thinks Black Flag is a shareholder of First Group?"

I'm not. If I was and I was looking for extra profit, I'd be all for an increase in public sector involvement in the bus network, because I imagine its a lot easier to get subsidy from a local authority than it is to attract and keep customers.

Jay B, oldham (21/01/2009 at 16:04)

Quality Contracts which allow much greater control over the running of bus services by local authorities and capped fares with discounts for some users, as well as road use management.

all that was only if the bus companies agreed to it though!

capped fares where only in for 3 years.

and discounts for some users where for minimum wage earners. which isnt that many people in reality

Schwyz (21/01/2009 at 17:12)

Oh happy days! I remember way back in the early 1980's, in Greater London, when Ken Livingston and The GLC halved the fares over night. It was overturned, by the Law Lords, but made him very popular with us hard pressed commuters. He cared! Here today we are at the mercy of the likes of First who just want to make as large profits as possible. I live on a so called "every 10 minutes" route. Some joke! Even during rush hour, in the morning, you can wait for 20 minutes or more!
I suppose we should be happy Mr Stringer is making some sense, unlike his silly outburst about dyslexia!!

citycentre, manchester (21/01/2009 at 19:47)

Schwyz,
it was overturned as all the rate payers of london who didn't want to subsidse yourr bus fares objected, ans as i recall what mr livingstone cared most about was fighting national government, to the extent that his organisation was disbanded; maybe not in the best interests of his followers in london.

proposals were put forward to reduce congestion, so improving the reliabilty of your buses and re regulate them; we voted no; the battle is over its time to move on

what i find suprising is that those most agaisnt all this last year are now leading the charge for what they fought against.

()

Report

News