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/...are-my-voters/
http://labourlist.org/2012/02/relati...s-senior-tory/
and lots of other political blogs adapting the quote to suit their agendas.



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Feb 10, 12:02*am, Arthur Figgis
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
any great 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?

See TfL's "Travel in London Report 4" (it's the most recent one),
which "draws on the latest available data, generally reflecting the
2010 calendar year, or the 2010/11 financial year, and sets these in
the longer-term context of the evolution of transport and related
trends in London" (as per the report's overview).

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...n-report-4.pdf

Previous reports available he
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/abou...ions/1482.aspx

Particularly relevant is section 2.10 - "Travel by London residents –
TfL’s London Travel Demand Survey
(LTDS)" - starts on page 38 (PDF page 30).

Table 2.6 is perhaps the most helpful? For the year 2010-2011,
Underground/DLR and bus/tram had a combined modal share of trips by
London residents of 23% - note this does not include National Rail
(and the NR figure of 5% presumably encompasses London Overground pax
numbers), also worth noting that walking counts as a mode here and so
makes up for 30% of trips.

Some of the (diagrammatic) Figures in that section of the report are
quite interesting too (e.g. Figures 2.4 to 2.7). In Figure 2.7 it's
not entirely clear (to me at least) whether or not bus trips made
*outside* Greater London count, for instance a bus trip to get to/from
the railway station from which the passenger then reaches London.

Also worth a gander is Table 2.8, the "distance travelled per day by
London residents" by different modes.

So a spattering of damn lies for you - though it doesn't perhaps
really cover how often those more infrequent users make use of the
system (FSVO 'system'). Plenty more apparently resides on TfL's
'Romulus' web portal (http://romulus.tfl.gov.uk/webview/), but to
access it you need to get a login from the she-wolf first.

I think I have to find Tony Arbour's claim wanting, not least because
of (what seems to me at least) the internal inconsistency between the
first sentence and the second. But 23% of trips - or 28% if including
NR - isn't "relatively few" in my books (and taking walking out of the
picture it's 33%, or 40% including NR).

Someone will be along shortly to rubbish my cack-handed interpretation
of the stats...
(...in my defence, I did at least give the world of empirical evidence
a shot, which is perhaps more than can be said of Mr Arbour's
effort...)

In message , at
00:02:31 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Arthur Figgis
remarked:
"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?

If "most" is to have the classic meaning, we'd be thinking of the
whether or not more than 50% use it 'regularly', which I'd suggest means
something like 'at least once a week' rather than 'only every 29th
February without fail'.

The "relatively few... in any way" is a much harder test, because then
you might be looking at showing that perhaps two thirds of Londoners
hadn't used a bus or tube at all in the last year (leaving the one third
who had). Of course, London is a big place and out in the suburbs there
might be a lot of people who only walk or drive.

Having looked at the report MizerT pointed us at, I wonder if it's
missing a large number of walking trips (despite having walking as quite
a large number). For example, is going to the corner shop for a sandwich
at lunchtime included?

The methodology says "A trip is a one-way movement from one place to
another to achieve a specific purpose (eg to go from home to work)", so
perhaps it wouldn't.
--
Roland Perry

I agree that the first thing is to establish our terms of reference. I also agree that "most" and "majority" mean 51% or more and that "regularly" should mean quite often.

It is true that many people in the outer suburbs do not use public transport frequently unless minicabs are regarded as public transport. These tend to be people who do not work in Central London. The majority of those who do work in Central London travel by public transport. What is quite certain is that buses in the outer suburbs are used by only a small minority which is why buses are almost empty for much of the day.

Any proper, rational attempt to understand the use and potential of public transport in London should take into consideration the fact that London has large numbers of elderly people who prefer door to door transport, who can no longer tolerate extreme weather and who find standing at a bus stop stressful. This is why minicabs are so prevalent in the outer suburbs. (If anyone doubts this, go to a suburban hospital or supermarket and watch)

I sympathise with Mr. Arbour's contention that for the most part public transport should be paid for by the people who use it. Although in general I am critical of Boris Johnson, I support his efforts to shift the balance of the burden from tax payers to users.

On Feb 10, 8:47*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
00:02:31 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Arthur Figgis
remarked:

"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?

If "most" is to have the classic meaning, we'd be thinking of the
whether or not more than 50% use it 'regularly', which I'd suggest means
something like 'at least once a week' rather than 'only every 29th
February without fail'.

The "relatively few... in any way" is a much harder test, because then
you might be looking at showing that perhaps two thirds of Londoners
hadn't used a bus or tube at all in the last year (leaving the one third
who had). Of course, London is a big place and out in the suburbs there
might be a lot of people who only walk or drive.

Having looked at the report MizerT pointed us at, I wonder if it's
missing a large number of walking trips (despite having walking as quite
a large number). For example, is going to the corner shop for a sandwich
at lunchtime included?

The methodology says "A trip is a one-way movement from one place to
another to achieve a specific purpose (eg to go from home to work)", so
perhaps it wouldn't.

To some extent this reflects the issues raised by transfering the
boroughs south of the Thames from Surrey to London (1889 London County
Council and its successors).

With a few exceptions like the Northern Line to Morden and two
District Line Branches, the Southern Electric System (as was) does the
same job as LUL North of the Thames. Both are Rail, both are public
transportation. The statistics fail to reflect this reality.

"77002" wrote:

On Feb 10, 8:47 am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message ,
at 00:02:31 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Arthur Figgis
remarked:

"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?

If "most" is to have the classic meaning, we'd be thinking of the
whether or not more than 50% use it 'regularly', which I'd suggest
means
something like 'at least once a week' rather than 'only every 29th
February without fail'.

The "relatively few... in any way" is a much harder test, because
then
you might be looking at showing that perhaps two thirds of Londoners
hadn't used a bus or tube at all in the last year (leaving the one
third
who had). Of course, London is a big place and out in the suburbs
there
might be a lot of people who only walk or drive.

Having looked at the report MizerT pointed us at, I wonder if it's
missing a large number of walking trips (despite having walking as
quite
a large number). For example, is going to the corner shop for a
sandwich
at lunchtime included?

The methodology says "A trip is a one-way movement from one place to
another to achieve a specific purpose (eg to go from home to work)",
so
perhaps it wouldn't.

To some extent this reflects the issues raised by transfering the
boroughs south of the Thames from Surrey to London (1889 London County
Council and its successors).

With a few exceptions like the Northern Line to Morden and two
District Line Branches, the Southern Electric System (as was) does the
same job as LUL North of the Thames. Both are Rail, both are public
transportation. The statistics fail to reflect this reality.

I will just point out, for those reading this on uk.r and m.t.u-t, that
this discussion of statistics has leaked over from uk.transport.london -
the fullest iteration of said discussion, including a link to a report
of London transport stats and some thoughts on definitions and meanings
of phrases used, as well as links that source the above quote, can be
found on said newsgroup.

FWIW, in contrast to the (cross)poster above, I would disagree that the
"statistics fail to reflect this reality" - the stats in the 'Travel in
London' report in question include National Rail travel as one of the
modes of travel, and furthermore the report does consider public
transport in London holistically (i.e. including NR). What is unclear is
what the London Assembly Member responsible for the quote actually
intended when he used the phrase "London transport" - but other parts of
his statement aren't exactly models of clarity either (points already
made in the utl discussion).

On Feb 10, 12:02*am, Arthur Figgis
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. 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. 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.

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. However
are roads and pavements not part of "London's transport" even if
maintained by the Boroughs? Are there no bus or train or tube users
in Richmond, Kingston or Hounslow that he is concerned about
representing? 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?

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

It would be nice to see some consistency ;-)
--
Paul C
via Google

In message
, at
02:55:54 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Paul Corfield
remarked:
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.

Well spotted. If (say) 75% of Londoners stay at home every day, and all
those who go out use public transport, that would still only be
"relatively few Londoners" using public transport.
--
Roland Perry

In article
,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

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?


http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press...ews-tony-arbou
r-move-surbiton-and-kingston-stations-zone-5-and

It would be nice to see some consistency ;-)

You don't ask much, do you! He's got a lifetime's experience of not
providing it.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:44:50 -0600,
wrote:

In article
,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

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?


http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press...news-tony-arbo
ur-move-surbiton-and-kingston-stations-zone-5-and

It would be nice to see some consistency ;-)

You don't ask much, do you!

Well someone has to have unrealistic expectations!

He's got a lifetime's experience of not providing it.

Well he is a politician ;-)

Some of us like to think we can do better than that!

--
Colin Rosenstiel