| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Time to reconsider the west london tram scheme | |
| Posted by: | David Bradley | |
| Date/Time: | 10/08/10 15:24:00 |
| I think I ought to respond to the last paragraph in this posting where the assertion is made that the MORI survey showed a positive for the tram. I don't see it that way and give my reasons below. Polling for a subject like WLT is very complex and that is why there is always a full report given by the polling organisation. If you are going to comment meaningfully, all of this should be read carefully in detail. A one liner headline does not really do justice to the report or the authoring organisation. The report is available publicly at: www.tfl.gov.uk. Transport for London issued a press release on this report on 17 June 2005. Some parts of the detail which have not received the same level of publicity as the headline used by TfL, 'Support for West London Tram strong as awareness grows' together with comment are given in what follows. If you want to be 95% certain of the final result [note still not 100% certain - that's never possible] you cannot just take the 'much publicised 48% pro and 37% against'. The figures are actually 48+/- 5 pro and 37+/-5 against [Top of page 8 of the report]. So although its is less likely than 48 to 37, it is still within the 95% probability that the result was 43% pro and 42% against. This of course is a rather different picture. Of probably much greater significance is the information contained on page 12 which states that only about 25% of respondents, by their own judgment, considered that they had a good understanding of the scheme and 38% stated that they only had a limited understanding. Note that the 'undecided's' were only 15% so even if all of those were in the 'limited understanding' group, there was still a significant percentage [23%] who definitely voted one way or the other based on what they themselves stated was 'a limited understanding' of the scheme'. Note also the comment on page 13: "Opponents of the WLT are more likely to have a 'good' understanding of the scheme than those who are in favour of it [35% and 22% respectively]." We can deduce therefore that many of those who voted in favour had by their own admission actually a 'limited understanding' of what they were voting for. If we assume that this group is only slightly more than half of the 23% [as seems reasonable from the statement quoted from page 13], let's call it 13% and that if they had a 'good understanding' then they would have voted against, then the end result would have been 35+/-5 % for and 50+/-5 % against - a totally different result. The results on the bottom of page 9 and the top of page 10 are also very telling and they are quoted in full below: "Among those residents who support the WLT scheme, the main reasons relate to the perception that it will lead to less congestion, journeys will be quicker and that trams are more environmentally friendly. In contrast, the most common spontaneous reasons for opposing the scheme are the view that it will lead to greater congestion in other areas as cars divert to side roads, that it will not provide a solution to transport problems and that roads are not wide enough to support the WLT. In addition, when prompted, 71% of residents agree that the tram will cause too much disruption whilst building work takes place. When presented with a number of potential benefits of the WLT scheme [e.g. reduced pollution, more reliable than current bus services, lead to more jobs in the area] the majority of residents say they would be more in favour of the scheme if these scenarios transpired; Similarly, when presented with a list of potential drawbacks of the scheme [e.g. increased congestion, parts of the Uxbridge Road being closed to traffic], the majority say they would be less in favour of it. Of note, seven in ten would be less in favour of the scheme if it resulted in increased congestion, including 57% of those who currently support the scheme; On balance, more residents disagree than agree that they would personally benefit from the WLT scheme [47% and 38% respectively]. Despite this, 59% say they will actually use it. Of note, 28% of those who oppose the scheme say they are likely to use the scheme. In effect the respondents supporting the scheme are saying that they recognise that there is a problem and that the tramway scheme has been stated to be the only way of solving that problem. They therefore feel that they should support it. Note of course that no possible alternative options are presented in the poll. So in effect the question is, 'This is the only solution to the Uxbridge Road congestion problem - do you support it?' If you consider that this is in reality the question being asked, even the headline quoted '37% against' is actually very high. It is also worth noting that the three main reasons for those polled supporting the scheme were: 'Less congestion' [which could be described at the very least as contentious!] 'Journeys will be quicker' [Long distance journeys will actually be slower than the current 607 bus route whilst the difference on short journeys against the current 207 is not likely to be noticeable even if actual in practice]. This tram is proposed to only achieve a mean 13 m.p.h. so the perception clearly does not match the factual reality. This misapprehension has possibly arisen by misleading propaganda concerning the scheme or by the admitted 'limited understanding of the project' by a significant number of the respondents or a combination of the two. 'More environmentally friendly'. Compared to diesel buses this is true but trolleybuses are at least as an environmentally friendly but of course respondents were never asked whether they would support any other environmentally friendly option either equally or more than a tramway scheme. It should be specially noted that 71% of all those responding [nearly three in four] understood and 'agree that the tram will cause too much disruption whilst building work takes place.' It is undeniable that the digging out of all utilities and the installing of the tram track, stops and other infrastructure along the Uxbridge Road will result in traffic chaos of immense proportion for very many years. This is quietly swept under the carpet by those supporting the tram. It has been said by some that a trolleybus solution would require similar disruption but a manually steered trolleybus option would no more need this than a motor bus option. There is another statistic of great interest at the end. Cynicism has led even many of those supposed 'supporters' to believe that the tram scheme is really not going to work because they say that they will gain no personal benefit from it. Note that 70% would be less in favour if they were convinced that the scheme was not going to deliver its promoted benefits. So if the scheme were to be built and did not deliver on its grand promises, there would be a very large number of unhappy residents. If 70% of those who were pro scheme for instance were to become agnostic because of such conviction, then the overall result would be 15+/- 3% in favour, still 37+/-5% against and nearly half not sure at all! We would venture to suggest that if far people were more honestly informed and therefore better understood the issues and also that there were other [cheaper] options available, this latter result might actually represent residents' views far more accurately. The bottom line is that policy in regard to an issue as important and complex as WLT should be based on all information [and that includes the full detail of the MORI report]. What appears to have been done is that one headline statistic has been extracted for political expediency. To quote Andrew Lang: "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts for support rather than illumination" |