"Roland Perry" wrote in message
news:1108538719.cafb1656c83909a1225e9e8e836cdca5@t eranews...
In message , at 00:15:03
on Wed, 16 Feb 2005, d remarked:

Roland Perry wrote:
Something like 90% of journeys in London are by public transport, so
the
remainder who are using their car have obviously got a very good
reason.
Often (amongst those I've asked) it's because they have had very bad
experiences with public transport in the past, and feel they need the
extra flexibility that a car provides.

That statistic does not really mean a great deal though; the fact that
the
public transport system can support that figure is because it is more
scalable.

Most of the commuter rail in and out of London is at bursting point, and
has nowhere to scale *to*. It is at maximum capacity.

The issue is that some individuals still appear to consider the private
motor vehicle (read: car), which is not scalable or anywhere near it, a
good way to get around London. A feel your statistic proves my point.

Only 10%, which means they are the real persistent people who must have
a
*very* good reason.

Some do, I'm sure, but have you considered some are selfish?

Some people would say you were selfish to buy your vegetables at the
supermarket, rather than spending several hours a week digging an
allotment. People's standards vary.

Why? Are supermarkets hideously overcrowded with runaway cans of tomatoes
killing people and ruining the athmosphere? Not having an alotment, or
even having access to one, that's not even possible. Public transport is
there and it works.

I know a
few... That's another, very realistic reason, surely. If they had a bad
episode when they couldn't get a seat between Leicester Square and Covent
Garden, then that's hardly a good excuse to put another vehicle on the
crowded streets of London. I've had some pretty awful experiences on
public
transport, but they're very rare, and I've had more in private transport.

I had more in mind the people who travel 50 miles in from their home town,
and had a bad experience (or two) with the railways. I went back to
driving to work (outside the London area) after Hatfield, for example,
when one day (not the first day after) it took me three hours to get to
work (instead of one).

I can appreciate that - I used to commute from West Berkshire to Hanger Lane
and back every day. I still used trains and the tube - it wasn't as fast as
a car, but it was a LOT cheaper, and kept another private, space-wasting
vehicle off the streets of London. Lots of the people you see driving round
central london are Londoners, too lazy to drive. There are thousands of
them. I know a bunch. Pseudostylish types who use their cars as status
symbols. My boss has a lambourghini, and he drives the 2 minutes from his
house (which we can see from our office) - he's not alone. Someone else I
know drives from west london to North London, practically following the tube
lines, yet still drives his car. It's not about needs for these people, but
wants. It's about image. It's sad

As an aside, where did you get that figure from? I've been looking for a
good stats site for a while.

From a LUL (or similar) survey done 5-8 years ago. I've no immediate
reference.

So it's bang up to date! Fantastic! Oh, I think you mis-spelled "my
ass".
joking

I don't think that kind of figure varies much from year to year. We'd have
noticed if cars in Central London had doubled (80% by PT, 20% by car) or
halved (95% by PT, 5% by car) from the underlying 90% by PT, 10% by car.

Maybe if nothing in London had changed in the time-frame, but with massive
projects like the congestion charge coming into play, those statistics must
be taken with a massive pinch of salt, as we simply don't know. I'm not
disputing them, I'm just saying these could be accurate figures, or they
could be inaccurate

--
Roland Perry