Great Western Coffee Shop

Look around at a transport user group meeting and gauge the mix and diversity of people there.  Look around on a piece of transport that the group is about, and you're likely to see a very different mix and diversity.

I know this, and indeed it's commonly known and appreciated.   You may well hear the words "something must be done" - but what?

I was struck yesterday by Bignosemac's post in response to my flagging up of TravelWatch SouthWest's meeting on 7th October, choosing to pick up on the point that our demographic is not as diverse as perhaps it should be.


TWSW's general memberbship is open to all user and specilist interest groups across the South West, and should (and does) accept just about any new members who feel tht TWSW is revelant to them.   In many way's that's like this forum, where we welcome anyone "on topic" even where views differ (see here (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=1761.msg218111#msg218111)). Since user groups tend to me biased towards the senior white male demographic, there tends to be a similar bias in the people that the groups send to the meeting - and there have been moves in the direction of diversification over the years in some aspects, in particular an increase in representation by ladies rather than gentlemen.  But it remains a very very long way from the mix I see on our TransWilts trains.

TWSW's board needs to be, and is, drawn from the very best, most experienced, most forward looking and widely respected people who have the time to fulfil this role as volunteers. On the rare occasions that a vacancy comes up, diversity in the commonly accepted areas is very much considered, together with geographic, skill and background diversity too.  Looking at the board, you might be surprised at a couple of revelations I could make but won't as they would invade privacy - but then the great thing is that these are people who have great thinking depth to them, and being great people overrides the visibility of some of the diversities.

The Women in Community Rail (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=18397) group says it makes every attempt (except its title) to be Diversity in Community Rail (just prefers Wicr to Dicr as its abbreviation), but that's not in itself a truley diverse public transport diverse demographic - looking only at rail, and then only at "Local" lines (the ACoRP definition).  The encouragement is good, and really more can and could be done at many local group and community levels; positive discrimination in order to achieve results is a thorny subject I'm going to leave others to discuss.  Ironically, community rail is VERY MUCH about diversity - of one rail line from another, and local tuning and solutions. And one of the things I notice as I travel around is the diversity between lines of the passengers carried; the TransWilts has a far greater ethnic mix that do the communities it serves, which are themselves far more mixed that some of the other community rail line served communities - another interesting topic!

Anyway - that's my initial input to start the discussion



I look forward to seeing inputs from BigNoseMac - and from other members.   Real gains to be had by everyone who gets involved, and the groups for the most part have open arms to welcome diverse new members, even though they're not very good at showing their open arms sometimes.

Step 1 for TWSW. Put the subject of diversity in Rail User Groups on the agenda of a future meeting. I don't recall it ever being mentioned in previous public meeting minutes. Nor at the few TWSW meetings I've attended.

Better - put Diversity in all groups represented at TWSW general meetings on a forthcoming agenda....it's not just RUGs that are represented by White British....although the female/male ratio is better generally, it's nowhere near 50%

For reasons I do not fully understand, a representative cross section of rail users does not seem to represent the local population.
Observation seems to suggest that black people are less likely to use trains, preferring busses, driving or cycling. When I lived in South East London, very few black people were waiting at the station for trains, on busses or at bus stops the position was reversed.
Some black people do use trains of course, but I suspect in smaller numbers than would reflect the local population.

So if minorities are under represented among rail users, AND those minorities who DO use the train are then under represented on passenger groups, there is not much of accurate representation of minorities.

OTOH, does it matter ? many rail services and other public transport leave a lot to be desired, and campaigns for improved or additional services will hopefully concentrate the minds of those in charge. Not certain that the skin colour or gender of those wanting better services is very relevant.

I put this and the earlier comments aside as worth of a longer answer which needed a quiet hour or two to write.  It follows later in this post - my personal writing, but reflecting what I understand to be thw TWSW views which have been discussed.

Picking up a small part of broadgage's comment - but on age - I would suggest that rail user groups are heavily biased towards the older generation because they've the time to put in / volunteer / attend meetings.   The middle aged generation who commute are busy rushing home to see the children before they go to bed / to catch us with a partner they've missed all day, and the younger (education age) generation are to busy studying / don't want to stay up late for meetings.  That's just an example of how the "natural" mix of a user group differs from the actual mix of train travel.

---

I've pointed out before that I can sit in the back of a transport user group meeting looking forward over a sea of balding white men, yet when I sit in a train there's a far greater variety.  And if you have a group of senior representatives of groups to help them co-ordinate, you'll fin that the same demographic is over represented there too.

Is this something that should be a concern?  Should we simply let those people who are interested and have the time get the more involved, should we look to making efforts to pull in more varied people, and indeed should we make those efforts to the extent that we provide a route for them to contribute which wouldn't be available to them if they fitted the typical stereotype?

The word "diversity" is popular - but diversity of what?

* Ethnic Background; * Language; * Nationality; * Religion; * Gender; * Sexual attraction; * Physical Ability; * Mental Health; * Fitness; * Intelligence; * Temprement; * Size; * Age; * Typical travelling group; * Wealth; * Social Status; * Adherence; * Current Life Role / Work Status; * Relational Status; * Location; * Education; * Ability to Volunteer  (happy to expand on any of those to explain what I mean - want to avoid too long a post)

Most user groups, specifiers and operators would probably like - in an ideal world - to have members that represented element of diversity, and to invest and provide in proportion to the size of the specific grouping.  But problem is that it's far from an ideal world, and we currently have severe biases within our groups.  Should we (a) make every effort to encourage underrepresneted groups to ge involved, even if that means choosing people we wouldn't otherwise choose or (b) market and promote to underrepresented groups to encourage far more of them to come forward or (c) Welcome newcomers from underrepresented groups with open arms, but treat them simply as people and choose the best people for roles and membership, irrespective of age, gender or creed or (d) carry on in ways comfortable to the current members, only adjusting ways as membership changes over time.

Within aspects dictated by the law, it's up to user groups to make their decisions on these matters.

At TravelWatch SouthWest, I can tell you that efforts have been made as board members come up for (re)selection to provide for a wide diversity.  But that's not easy when looking at the need to find people with the time available to perform a voluntary role, and the background that will enable them to do so consistenly and well.  One of the other things that I note is that board members actually fit a far wider diverse range than you might imagine, but they are first and foremost people with a particular background and interest, with their diversity not even being generally appreciated.

The board would very much welcome a greater diversity within itself and within user groups it represents where they wish to become more diverse (and the majority do, in principle) and it's very much something to consider at a forthcoming general meeting.   However, unlike some of the operator companies, we don't have the benefit of a big operation which can support significant expenditure of time and money on schemes to actively attract lots of diverse members; we have to be careful not to spend so much on this that the work for people in general, irrespective of any diversity groups they happen to fall into.