THE decision to reduce the subsidy for off-peak rail fares in Greater Manchester will save the taxpayer very little, if any, money.

Most of the subsidy for public transport goes on ensuring services run at all, and much of the remainder on supporting concessionary fares.

Neither is it true that the peak-time commuter is not subsidised — the busiest lines cost more to run and the more services required, the more subsidy is needed.

Further, anyone who has travelled on the last evening trains from Manchester to Daisy Hill will know that they are often standing room only, with many people taking advantage of the incredibly cheap evening return fares.

When the fares are doubled in September, I cannot see anything but an overall decline in passenger usage.

The railway company is contractually obliged to run these evening trains, even if empty, so fewer passengers, with the resultant revenue loss, must surely lead to greater subsidy or services will be cut back.

I believe the off-peak fare changes will put paid to the startling growth in rail usage in our area over the past 10 years, perhaps pushing usage figures towards serious decline.

The low fares have been a success in encouraging rail usage. The trains at off-peak times have given many thousands of people a quick, comfortable and reasonably priced method of transport, saving petrol, car parking costs or incredibly long bus journeys. It is such a pity that this welcome change in public transport habits will be stopped in its tracks.

High rail usage benefits us all — even if we are road users. More people opting to go by train makes the roads less congested.

Businesses such as restaurants and cinemas benefit from cheap fares bringing in custom; cheap fares enable their customers to travel safely and legally back home with a little wine or beer inside them.

Finally we must question how much Transport for Greater Manchester gives to the railway companies? The process seems obscure.

For example, to run the eight trains each way on Sundays between Wigan, Daisy Hill, Atherton and Manchester costs an alarming amount of money. Is anyone questioning this amount? It is only by asking questions that significant subsidy savings can be made. That is the way to save money for taxpayers. Be firm and challenge the figures — do not double fares.

Julian Myerscough Westhoughton