Friday Reads – 17 March 2023

1. The Travelwatch article seems like a load of bunk. Headline figures of “1 in 6 Londonders” and “1 in 5 Londonders”, upon deeper reading, are actually revealed to be just among those who self-selected responding to a survey. The 1 in 5 figure specifically claims they paid more because they don’t have internet access, despite the Oyster rate, available from any ticket machine with just cash, is the same as any digital method. Another claim is that people without internet access don’t plan to get it “because they don’t see it as necessary” — but that’s a tautology when used as an argument to avoid making internet access necessary.

   I could see myself being sympathetic to the needs of people who are actually affected by TfL’s digital progress, but that article has not only failed to convince me that such people exist, but in fact has convinced me that they DON’T exist — because otherwise, Travelwatch would not have needed to rely on such flimsy data!

2. A note on “left-behind” Londoners & Digital Exclusion….
   There are ongoing proposals to extinguish all ticket offices, in favour of both “apps” & suitable machines, which are, supposedly, going to be able to dispense any ticket, provided the user has the available hours to work out how to use the damned things!
   { Not as sarcastic as you might think – the hoops one has to jump thrpugh, to get anything other than a ticket for the simplest journeys is remarkably obscure }
   This ties in with an ongoing court case about “double charging” & other ticketing problems.
   How does one ask a ticket machine for: “Boundary Zone 6 to $_Destination” I wonder?

   – replying to Ryan:
   There are quite a few people who have “Non-smart” mobile phones, they simply want a phone & don’t need a “smartie” – until something like this happens.

3. Although it “looked like a good idea at the time” …
   The supposed arguments in favour of diesel buses over “Trolleys” must have been one of the worst ever made in public transport in this country.
   Routemasters carried fewer passengers than a Trolley, were slower, noiser, & vastly more polluting.
   Those of us who remember them have always regretted their passing.

4. The Travelwatch page you’ve linked to barely mentions TfL going paper-free but is the output of research on “Digital Exclusion in London Transport” (a sloppy choice of title – they mean all public transport in the London area) by a consultancy who appear to get paid by the word. As Ryan notes, the report is pretty poor; much of it is unrelated to public transport (reading the news, accessing healthcare information, banking etc), and the headline 1 in 5 or 1 in 6 figures about paying more or being unable to travel are presented as though they mean complete exclusion but may refer to a single instance. They shoehorn in lots of digs at London’s transport operators that are at best tenuously linked to the subject in hand.

5. Is it just me or is there something odd about this extract from The “London Travel Watch” publication:

   “Worryingly, 1 in 6 Londoners who answered our online survey said they had been unable to buy a ticket without a smartphone or internet connection”

   second page of the foreword.

   I wonder about the appropriateness of the use of an online survey for this purpose.

   I’m also not really able to connect the suggestions in the report to TfL in any way.

   I would agree that “Digital Exclusion” makes it considerably harder to access long distance rail fares (also every train operator wants you to have a ticket in their app) but TfL tries hard to allow multiple ways to engage.

   While you can’t use cash on TfL services, I see a wide range of travellers tapping various cards and passes to travel.

   More generally in society, “Digital Exclusion” is a thing with banks shutting branches and pushing you towards their online services a prime example but I really don’t see this with TfL.

6. @Ryan, Andrew S, Mark H

   The shortcomings of London Travel Watch’s report are noted, and I shall look more critically at any potential link from them. LBM

7. Given that London Travel Watch is an official body, aren’t its publications still interesting as such, even if open to discussion or criticism?

8. @Ronnie Mb

   We always strive to use factual and accurate links, unless it is to point out inaccuracies thereof. LBM

Comments are closed.