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.