Locals without a bus due to cruise passenger day-trips

She asked the driver if he would allow a 93-year-old lady who had been waiting on to the bus, and I believe someone got off the bus to let her on.

Now my neighbour would not mind me saying she is on the wrong side of 70, and with two shopping bags full she could not easily walk home, but this situation is clearly unacceptable. If CT Plus want to let cruise passengers on their routes then they should leave the terminus with some seats reserved for locals, perhaps no more than 70% capacity.

Ultimately it is the locals who are financing their contract and their new buses, so they should put the locals first, particularly so when visitors are getting their travel very much on the cheap. Perhaps it was a mistake to do away with the two-stage bus fares?

If we cannot provide transport for local residents over the needs of people who can afford cruises, then someone needs to address this as no one will take a bus somewhere if they cannot return within a reasonable time.

TREVOR HOCKEY,

Trev's Motorcycles.

Editor's footnote: A spokesperson for the Environment Department replies:

The Environment Department shares Mr Hockey's concern on this matter. It is quite true that buses, especially the round island 91 and 92, are sometimes full of tourist passengers loading at the bus terminus and staying on the bus for the full round-island journey. This then denies other passengers the opportunity to board at other stops. It could be argued that this is a success story with buses full to capacity but the department does recognise it as a problem, it is one we are aware of and one we very much wish to resolve.

It is wrong, however, to lay this problem at the feet of CT Plus or to assume it is a new occurrence. Certainly the move of cruise ship passengers to the Albert Pier directly opposite the bus terminus has not helped the situation, but this has been a problem for some years. It is a problem that has grown as the number of cruise passengers have grown and resolving it is proving to be rather difficult.

Unless we are to have locals-only buses, with entry to certain buses reserved to those able to prove their residential status, something the department would not consider supporting, then there appears to be no simple way to resolve the matter. Mr Hockey suggests limiting occupancy to 70% which is an idea that has some merits. However, as residents and tourists queue together it is just as likely that the 70% occupancy would be reached and the doors closed denying access to the elderly Guernsey resident with their shopping bags as it would the tourist with their camera. Similarly it would be very difficult to justify buses leaving the terminus 30% empty when queues of passengers are waiting to board. Such a system would be bound to raise numerous complaints and would not portray Guernsey in a good light.

If the 30% vacant seats are not then filled at the other island stops the department would be further accused of transporting air while leaving passengers at the terminus.

The department has considered starting and terminating the round-island buses just outside of the Town area, making these round-island trips less attractive to tourists in order to give residents a higher chance of boarding the buses. However, residents largely wish to travel to and from Town, not to and from a location just outside of Town and the tourists quite rightly expect a service from Town to and from the west coast locations. This 'out of Town' option is, therefore, not a viable solution.

We have also considered splitting the round-island route into two or more parts, thus requiring any person wishing to go on the full round-island journey to change buses at out of Town locations. Again the logic being to make the route less attractive to tourists and to give residents a greater chance to board buses. However, such practices will equally inconvenience residents seeking to travel beyond the bus change points and will inconvenience hotels and their guests on the west coast.

The department, along with CT Plus, has attempted to make other routes attractive to cruise ship passengers in order to reduce demand on the round-island routes, but the passenger demand at the busiest periods still outstrips supply, with other routes also then suffering as well.

In order to ease the situation to some extent, extra buses are run at the busiest periods but the department and CT Plus do not have a limitless supply of buses and drivers, and even with extra services provided the problem described by Mr Hockey remains.

Increasing fares has been, and continues to be, given consideration, but care must be exercised in this respect. The department operates a scheduled bus service not bus tours. The two are treated quite differently legally. It would be quite wrong for the department to operate the 91 and 92 more akin to tour buses in competition with other tour providers. As such the fare charged must be proportional to all other routes.

It would certainly be possible to introduce a two or three stage fare thus making a round-island trip cost £3, but this would still be a small fraction of the cost of a private hire island tour and would do nothing to deter cruise ship passengers and other tourists from taking these round-island buses. The increased charges would obviously hit local residents as well. Other than raising a small amount of extra revenue the proposal would do nothing to resolve the problem.

Short of introducing a preferential boarding system for local residents able to prove their residency status the department has not yet found a workable solution to this problem, but we are happy to receive sensible suggestions as this is very much a problem we would like to resolve.