Just three passengers per journey on parish link bus

THE parish link bus service will be retained, despite an average of just over three people per journey.

P2 at Maraitaine RoadParish link busSmall buswhite busP2

The P2 service, which links the north of the island across the centre on a 90-minute cycle, was introduced by CT Plus last November, targeting community-based facilities.

Around 6,500 passengers have used the service to date.

The route includes the Princess Elizabeth Hospital, L’Aumone, Landes du Marche, Capelles, L’Islet and Maraitaine Road.

Despite averaging just3.19 passengers on each 90-minute journey, Traffic and Highway Services said gradual growth in the service was to be expected.

It said that the service provided valuable access to both key locations and less-frequently-served routes.

‘The community-based P2 bus service was introduced on 16 November 2015 and has carried in excess of 6,500 passengers to date,’ it said.

Comments for: "Just three passengers per journey on parish link bus"

John West

Gradual? I think the word here is 'glacial'!


I am all for the buses and believe that it is an essential community service. But this is ridiculous.

A bus service is a necessity but it does not have to serve every nook and cranny - concentrate on the key routes !

It would be interesting to get the stats for other routes as well - as I think one or two others could be cut.



Absolutely but its not being run as a commerical concern so why would they cut routes?!

Key routes, key times on at least a fare that makes some commerical sense.

If you have a card you are effectively being charged 55p (I believe) per journey....nuts!


LOL...did they mean to say glacial growth!

Though I think I have never seen more than 2 old ladies on it so that is a plus!

While on this subject perhaps CT Plus should remove the Summer 2016 timetable from the front page of their website and perhaps bring the Winter one forward!

Devil's Advocate

Winter and summer timetables are the same these days.

Donkey Boiler

Barry Brehaut is a fan of the Fiat 500, remember that childish photo in the Press? He could use one on this route, could save us a few bob. Who voted for that clown?

Trevor Hockey

Donkey Boiler

What, you mean the resignation king of the States of Guernsey.? After the 60% overspend fiasco at La Salerie, which I remain totally unconvinced was needed in the first place and I believe will cause even more traffic holdups, perhaps he should be considering his position at Environment.

donkey doos


I heard it first hand that 50k was the budget but it is going to hit 100k so a bit more than 60%, for what has been done down there this is a joke and tax payers money being spent by CS again as they please.


I have been told by one of Times men, it is £85,000 in extras plus the 50k budget making it 135k in total. Some of this will be hidden in the Environment maintenance.

Some of these extrasensory are because the consultants are frequently changing their minds and things are put down, dug up and resurfaced time and again.


I've seen this coach half a dozen times on my journeys, and have never ever seen anyone on it.

wasn't there a figure banding around that it had cost something like 168 thousand pounds to run yet had made only a few grand in fairs??


Those stats were probably for the ill-fated P1... not that this one will do any better.


It the little bus has gone a slightly different route, I think that it might have collected enough fares to cover the costs of markB's fairs, whenever he intends holding them :-)

Unhappy Guern

Just over 6500 passengers in a year, at £1 a trip, £6500, taken at what cost?? How about we scrap this route, use part of our subsidy given to the bus company and pay for those 3 people to take a taxi, be cheaper in the long run!


£6500 ?

I don't think so. Maybe some passengers paid the full fare, some paid the reduced fare with their Puffin pass and then there were, apparently, kids and OAPs on the route. So your £6500 might not even been half that.


It's an ideal size bus for most routes then


I've used this bus in the past and it was perfect for me, both my house and work are on the route.

One of the main things holding people back from using the buses is that if you don't live or work in town you'll most likely have to take 2 buses and have journey times of over an hour.


This is less of an outrage than the massive buses we're getting to replace the existing massive buses...

Mike Clarke

That's fine, us motorists will pay for it, we don't mind.

Seriously, when will the group of disjointed, independent deputies that we laughingly call our government STOP spending money that WE don't have.



But we do have money

Remember the bond?

What do you mean we can't afford it, we can use the bond money which is just sitting there!!

Oh, but do you mean we have to repay the bond, with interest?

I'm sure I heard Lyndon on the radio earlier saying that the bond had made us a profit, but I am not clever enough to work out how he arrives at that conclusion.

Trevor Hockey


You must consider a career in politics when you retire, St. Peter Port desperately need someone with your common sense views. We have to get rid of Gollop and Brehaut before they bankrupt us.


I wonder if someone could invent a spam filter which could be attached to the mouths of certain deputies a so that we don't have to listen to their endless drivel churned out day after day, at our expense!


I am sure I heard Lester Queripel say he is all for the user pays, how does he square that with me I don't use the bus service yet I pay for it twice I believe first with the fuel tax paid and secondly thru income tax.

I don't use it so should not pay for it.

If they must have a bus service and I think they should then it should come out of general revenue have a realistic fare structure and no more subsidising by car owners.

A a parting shot after listening to the States debates I am losing the will to live they are a bigger shambles than the previous bunch.


Sentinel. Your fuel tax all goes into general revenue. Car owners are subsidising the service no more than anyone else who is paying tax.

With your logic, I shouldn't have to pay for the schools which I no longer use. Public services are just that..... services for the general public that we all pay for. They are there to provide a benefit for the whole community whether you choose to use them or not and for some people they provide a lifeline.

Donkey Boiler


You have surpassed yourself, this is beyond your usual piveleged cloud cuckoo land views. We all pay tax, yes, income tax, TRP, etc. etc., but motorists pay way beyond any road tax element to subsidise others. We need cars in order to work in many cases (yes, work, remember that?), I certainly CANNOT use a bus in my employment, yet I and others are penalised every day because we are an easy target, Fool Gollop's cash cows.


D.B. In what way does being ‘privileged’ change the facts that I pointed out to Sentinel…. that fuel tax goes into General Revenue the same as all other taxes? It doesn’t, so why say it? Or is it only certain people that meet your approval allowed to comment on here?

You are right that the amount of fuel tax taken will exceed the amount that is used to maintain the roads. But does it cover the costs of policing traffic; of attending accidents; of clearing up traffic accidents, the resultant medical bills, repairing roads, walls etc; of all the legal costs /court time for traffic related incidents; of maintaining all the car parks; of traffic related pollution and all the other externalised costs? I think not!

Fuel tax comprises roughly about 5% of the islands overall tax take. Income tax accounts for about 70%. We all pay our taxes so that public services can be provided for the benefit of all the community.... whether you choose to use those services or not.

Donkey Boiler


Privileged means that you simply do not live in the same world as the rest of us. The wealthy in the island pay nowhere near their fair share of tax. It falls disproportionately on we low and middle earners. The fuel tax is far higher than it should be, and penalises those who have to use fuel in order to earn a living. Yes, we all pay tax for public services, including the unfair States Insurance (tax) that favours the rich. However, buses are not a public service that must be provided by the state. Meanwhile islanders are afraid to visit a doctor, go to A&E, or use an ambulance in an emergency. Those are the services that should be made cheaper, not the buses.


If one of these three old ducks got sick of using this feeble bus service, bought a little car and gave the other two a lift, they would all be on Rosie's hate list. But so long as they tootle around on a great big stinking diesel guzzler it is perfectly OK! Especially if it costs Joe Public £5 million a year. What a pathetic joke her twisted greenie logic is. I'm still waiting to hear how she can possibly justify turning agricultural land into extra runway we don't need. Something other than "I can't contradict hubby's Chamber of Commerce pals " would be nice.


Beanjar... to be fair to Rosie... you are not listening : she already answered you on that point on the other thread, ( more relevant than this one ), and clearly shows her opposition to the runway extension.



Thanks for pointing that out, Alvin, I thought that thread had just died as I never saw any fresh posts. My mistake, apologies to Rosie as I have indeed misunderstood her position on the runway extensions and been unfair.

I still think she is besotted with ludicrously subsidised buses for the plebs whilst passenger numbers barely justify the use of a small car. Nevertheless, at least she is consistent and I am sorry for thinking otherwise.


To be even fairer Beanjar we have had this out elsewhere as well, the bus subsidy costs £3.4 million, not £5 million.

Feel free to criticse Rosie for her environmental agenda, but continuing to push innacurate inflated figures to try and boost your side of the argument does you no favours.


Yes, we did discuss this Alvin. You are focussing on the nett annual trading loss as pushed by Environment's propaganda dept. That is not a realistic way of portraying the profitability of any business. It makes no allowance for the cost of the buses, States staff cost of anybody other than CT+ own people. What else doesn't it include? I don't know but I don't trust trust these partial figures that Environment put forward to soothe

taxpayers who they know generally oppose these huge annual losses.


It's not a trading loss, it's a subsidy.

The States hands over £4.3 million a year to the bus operator, regardless of the profitability of the service. For all we know they are actually running it for £2.5million a year and laughing all the way to the bank .... ( doubt it though ... Has anybody seen CT Plus latest set of accounts ? )

Even if you allow for the purchase cost of the fleet ( £4million over 13 years ) it will only push the annual subsidy up by £300k or so .... Still nowhere near £5million.

Even if there were no subsidy at all there would still be staff costs overseeing and regulating the bus operator ( the Environment department is mandated by States resolution to ensure that the service is in place and run to their satisfaction ) Indeed these staff oversee all public service vehicle operators, taxis coaches and buses. That is a cost of running government, and is pretty much irrelevant to the bus subsidy.


I disagree, the total, massive, cost of the bus service is very relevant. That is why we should be given the true figures instead of these partial numbers which are provided only for propaganda purposes. Hence the triumphant press releases about increased passenger numbers when they provide an extra bunch of people with free or virtually free fares.


just read the first line, "user pays" well I don,t use the chuffing buses but I pay twice, income tax and fuel tax.


Is it the Donald trump supporters campaign bus


Happy to be corrected but if my memory serves me well the old "ghost bus" P1 generated around £1700 worth of revenue and cost about £140k

Don't worry though - it's only public money ;/

Island Wide Voting

Yes tothevale

£144,000 cost and £1,700 generated in fares.The calamitous losses were recognised many months prior to the P1's final demise but it was left to leach public money because "the timetable had been printed"

At least we can take our pick out of a hotchpotch of excuses for the Salerie Corner farce.Clearly some departments could have their budgets slashed by 5 -10% without too much of a detrimental effect

PS. Have they given you a job yet? Someone is needed to head up a common sense department very very soon


IWV, what makes Salerie Corner a farce? It took a death at that junction (through no fault of anyone's according to the court) for any changes to be made. Safety improvements to stop a repeat of this are not farcical, quite the opposite in fact.

Island Wide Voting

Not saying that there was no for improvements.The farce is the political and CS management of those improvements

Isn't there supposed to be a dedicated team of three additional CS to plan,cost and oversee such works? Still trying to mend their three second delay computer prog I presume


The farce is that a simple , planned, approved project has escalated to a potential 100% overspend. We need a transparent explanation why that is the case. Barry Brehaut insists that the Police have somehow come out of nowhere and insisted that cameras need to be installed, I find it hard to believe that these concerns would not have been raised earlier and why when the cycle lane is supposed to make the area safer, for cyclists, there is a further need for safety measures which would only be of use after any incident has occurred. More worryingly is why a budget overspend of such a% is argued to be ok from a department that says they have NO budget to improve pedestrian safety on main roads with no pavements.

Election Issues

"It took a death at that junction"

The unfortunate death of the cyclist did not occur at that junction though did it? The accident occurred further round where there was a hole in the wall near the slipway into the marina.

This Salerie Corner project was a knee jerk reaction and now the project has cost a huge amount of money with an overspend.

Will it actually be safer?

Donkey Boiler

SteveX, as EI says, there was no death at Slarie junction. This fatality was caused when a truck illegally crossed the pavement to enter the hole in the wall adjacent to the QEII marina slipway, and that access is now closed, job done. That sad event has been used by BB's Environment to justify this expensive farce.

Trevor Hockey


I simply cannot understand how a cyclist could not notice a blooming big lorry, but I also cannot understand how a lorry driver could not see the cyclist. As many posters are saying, this unfortunate accident did not happen at the junction which is being worked on and I echo the massive cost of the project.



It happened because the lorry turned left over a pavement which to do so probably meant him taking a wide turn into the entrance and meant the cycle was in his rear blind spot.

For the cyclist the last thing he was probably expecting was the lorry to make such a turn and when it did it was too late to brake and fell under it.

The problem with that section is that it's too narrow.

Common sense

The death was a sad event and safety issues always needs to be reviewed and in this case was, as the exit/entrance where the accident took place has now been signed and made to have limited access.

In the situation of Salarie corner by simply paining a yellow line on the cycle path each side of the Salarie exit would have provided an adequate solution and not cost over £100,000.

This is a prime example of where the states could have selected a cheaper option and saved the taxpayer money but the environment departments determination to encourage people to use cycles had lead to an unacceptable waste of money, of course greener forms of transport should be encouraged but any projects must be subject to a cost/benefit analysis and represent true value for taxpayers money which this clearly dose not.


Too narrow? Yes far too narrow for pedestrians who have to step into the cycle lane to pass each other, cycles can silently be going in excess of 20 mph. If that's not an accident waiting to happen what is? Improve safety for cyclists but don't bother about pedestrians yet use every eco argument in the book to justify 100% overspends. BB wrong man for the job please don't procrastinate States move him on ......fast.


As someone who cycles that way very regularly, it is all part of the same junction and has been dangerous for a long time, there have been a few accidents there from memory and a lot of near misses and IMO we have been lucky in that regard.

Trevor, the cyclist did not notice the lorry because it crossed a cycle path in front of him. RobB sums it up perfectly.

It is clear that road users could not use this junction safely so changes had to be made, which I fully support. IWV - I take your point re CS management/mismanagement though.