On 10/02/2012 10:55, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Feb 10, 12:02 am, Arthur
wrote:
quote [1]
"It is a fact is it not that relatively few Londoners use London
transport in any way. Most people don’t use London transport with any
sense of regularity."
/quote

What do we reckon of the claim?

There is little context, but the use of the term "London (t/T)ransport"
suggests that he might be excluding National Rail.

A lot of Londoners - which I assume means residents rather than
specifically people who eat jellied eels and talk like Dick van Dyke -
aren't regular commuters. A lot of people don't use buses or the
Underground (especially in south London, obviously) very much, and many
people are only dimly aware that the trams exist.

The claim strikes me as at least plausible (excluding the benefits to
motorists of public transport freeing road space), but has anyone got
any hard numbers?

[1]http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/02/no-one-uses-tfl-tory-users-sho...http://labourlist.org/2012/02/relati...use-london-tra...
and lots of other political blogs adapting the quote to suit their agendas.

As Mizter T has already pointed you at the TfL Travel Report I won't
repeat that.

I'd found it, but couldn't spot the stats I wanted (at least at a
late-night glance). It seemed more about journeys, rather than people.

A big question is how many people don't travel much at all. I know a
number of pensioners who zip around London every day pretty much for the
fun of it, but they are almost by definition the sort of person I am
going to meet. I guess lots of kids don't wander far.

Croydon is often said to have more people travelling in than out
(however this is calculated), and obviously Underground is not going to
be a major mode there. A while ago I overhead some Croydon yoofettes
telling a visiting northerner how they "never" go into central London,
which amazed him, but might well be common.

Mr Arbour is probably correct that "relatively few
Londoners" (however you define "relatively", "few" and "Londoners")
use London transport (definition please) in any way (definition
please). However you can twist and turn the definitions any way you
want to prove almost anything here.

Which is what makes stats fun!

As Mizter T and Mr Perry have said
you need to be fairly careful about what is included and excluded when
looking at the stats and if you're trying to identify people rather
than passenger journeys.

People in this case.

In the leafy parts of South West London that Mr Arbour represents he's
probably right that more people use their cars or might walk.

In this context the leafy suburbs count just as much as the inner bits,
of course (and perhaps more so than the City itself?).

However
are roads and pavements not part of "London's transport" even if
maintained by the Boroughs?

In context, probably not.

Are there no bus or train or tube users
in Richmond, Kingston or Hounslow that he is concerned about
representing?

There might be more people who aren't users.

The thrust of his message is that non users should not
subsidise those who do use public transport. Would this be the same Mr
Arbour who campaigns to move various Kingston area stations into Zone
5 thus increasing the level of taxpayer susbidy paid by everyone so
his "minority" public transport users can have lower fares?

There perhaps is an argument to be had about whether someone who walks
to work, or is one of the Poorest&MVIS(tm), or whatever, should pay for
someone else to travel long distances.

http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press...ons-zone-5-and

It would be nice to see some consistency ;-)

I doubt it would be possible under a democratic system, with a free
press, with everything run by humans...

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK