Overcrowding - could it be due to migration into this country?

[phil beard]

When discussing all the reasons for trains being so busy these days, I never hear anyone say that one of the many reasons is the high level of migration into this country. With eight million people in this country not having been born in the UK, there must be an awful lot of space used up that otherwise would not be taken. This is not a racist question, but I am surprised that I never hear anyone say that it is a contributor to the problem of overcrowding. Please discuss calmly and rationally.

 

[theironroad]

Does it matter who the passengers are and where they come from as long as they have a ticket and behave.

More people want to travel by train. End of.

 

[455driver]

No I don't think so, it is people's desire to work in Large Cities (for the extra money) but live in the Country, or the fact that there is a lot less employment outside of cities now than there was 20 years ago.

 

[RichmondCommu]

When discussing all the reasons for trains being so busy these days, I never hear anyone say that one of the many reasons is the high level of migration into this country. With eight million people in this country not having been born in the UK, there must be an awful lot of space used up that otherwise would not be taken. This is not a racist question, but I am surprised that I never hear anyone say that it is a contributor to the problem of overcrowding. Please discuss calmly and rationally.

Do you have issues with migrants using our rail network? My wife and I are economic migrants from the East Lancashire / East Midlands and have lived in London for many years, so I guess in your eyes we have made over crowding in the SE even worse. Assuming that the migrants that you mention have the right to live and work in this country, what makes them any different from my wife and I?

 

[TDK]

The more people in the country the more people travel and use public transport I don't think the influx of migrants comes into the equation.

 

[yorkie]

When discussing all the reasons for trains being so busy these days, I never hear anyone say that one of the many reasons is the high level of migration into this country.

Not all routes are overcrowded. Much of the overcrowding appears to be in the London & South East area, which is where the majority of journeys are made.

I know many people who have moved from Yorkshire (and other places) to London for work purposes, and I guess they have contributed to the imbalance.

With eight million people in this country not having been born in the UK, there must be an awful lot of space used up that otherwise would not be taken.

I doubt anyone has done an analysis to determine what proportion of passengers were resident in the UK but not born there, but I hardly think that this is much of a reason for overcrowding. There are many other reasons that seem far more plausible.

This is not a racist question

I'm not sure why you felt the need to say that?

but I am surprised that I never hear anyone say that it is a contributor to the problem of overcrowding.

Your surprise isn't shared by me.

 

[LateThanNever]

When discussing all the reasons for trains being so busy these days, I never hear anyone say that one of the many reasons is the high level of migration into this country. With eight million people in this country not having been born in the UK, there must be an awful lot of space used up that otherwise would not be taken. This is not a racist question, but I am surprised that I never hear anyone say that it is a contributor to the problem of overcrowding. Please discuss calmly and rationally.

If the UK is accepting immigration in the quantity of a town the size of Birmingham every year then of course that will be a major contributory factor. It keeps the economy going, but it can't go on for ever!

 

[phil beard]

My original question was not based on any ethnic criteria, it was just that if there are eight million more people here than there would be without migration then a fair number of those people are helping to over-burden the railways. I am in no way contending their right to do so, merely the fact that that no one ever mentions migration as a (not THE main) reason for increased numbers. It seems that people are afraid to ask the question as merely doing so labels one a racist bigot.

 

[yorkie]

My original question was not based on any ethnic criteria, it was just that if there are eight million more people here than there would be without migration then a fair number of those people are helping to over-burden the railways.

Which areas do you think this might apply to?

I think it's a fair point that there are more people living in the London area currently than in previous recent years, however this is also partly to do with people moving from elsewhere in the UK, as mentioned above by RichmondCommu and myself.

I am in no way contending their right to do so, merely the fact that that no one ever mentions migration as a (not THE main) reason for increased numbers. It seems that people are afraid to ask the question as merely doing so labels one a racist bigot.

Other than in your opening post, no-one here has mentioned anything about racism.

 

[Carlisle]

No I don't think so, it is people's desire to work in Large Cities (for the extra money) but live in the Country, or the fact that there is a lot less employment outside of cities now than there was 20 years ago.

When I was job hunting a few years back we were advised by the job centre there was a better chance of landing a job out of town than in the city centre which I found to be true but I don't know if it's the same UK wide

 

[Haydn1971]

No I don't think so, it is people's desire to work in Large Cities (for the extra money) but live in the Country, or the fact that there is a lot less employment outside of cities now than there was 20 years ago.

Bingo - I actually live in a biggish city but struggle for decent employers in Civil Engineering - I've either worked for them in the past or wouldn't wish to do the sort of work that they do. I've travelled in the last 15 years as far as Tamworth, Hull and Calderdale, but more recently Leeds and now Manchester - I travel by train because it's generally less stressful, I'd rather work in an office in Sheffield, but that option isn't available to me with my specific skill set. I'm probably earning £15k more than I would have been had I stayed with my first employer, the local council.

 

[cf111]

No I don't think so, it is people's desire to work in Large Cities (for the extra money) but live in the Country, or the fact that there is a lot less employment outside of cities now than there was 20 years ago.

This is a far more likely explination. Work is harder to come by in more rural areas, but rent in urban ones (specifically London) is so much higher.

 

[Robertj21a]

When discussing all the reasons for trains being so busy these days, I never hear anyone say that one of the many reasons is the high level of migration into this country. With eight million people in this country not having been born in the UK, there must be an awful lot of space used up that otherwise would not be taken. This is not a racist question, but I am surprised that I never hear anyone say that it is a contributor to the problem of overcrowding. Please discuss calmly and rationally.

Overcrowding on the London buses appears, to me, to be connected with increased migration (from outside the UK) but then so would higher birth rates and the significant migration of workers from other parts of the UK. I'm not sure that the same effect is quite so apparent on main line trains.

 

[jopsuk]

No. Just no.

the "8 million" includes the likes of Boris Johnson and Joanna Lumley. It includes all the children born at british forces bases overseas. It's a massively misleading figure batted about purely for racist purposes

 

[cb a1]

If you search the RAC Foundation website for On The Move, you'll find some discussion on migration and travel.

My recollection is that recent migrants tend to have lower car ownership and thus have a smaller choice set of travel modes.

That said, I'm sure I read that recent migrants tend to live in urban rather than suburban or rural areas and I can't remember if the researchers checked for the effect of where migrants live [large metropolitan areas have lower car ownership rates] and their incomes [do migrants have lower incomes and thus less able to own cars].

Just done a quick Google. There's also a report from 2011 by Rand Corporation on "The impact of migration on transport and congestion". I've not read it.

 

[AM9]

If somebody wants to presume that immigrants contribute to higher ridership on public transport, particularly in the peak hours, they should consider that a much higher proportion of them are working (that's a main reason why they come here). Many of the indigenous population either don't work or have cars to fill the roads up with.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's fairly obvious that an increased population in a city will increase pressure on transport. London's population rise tends to be internal migration as much as external migration, and trying to blame external immigrants for this is ridiculous.

 

[Antman]

When discussing all the reasons for trains being so busy these days, I never hear anyone say that one of the many reasons is the high level of migration into this country. With eight million people in this country not having been born in the UK, there must be an awful lot of space used up that otherwise would not be taken. This is not a racist question, but I am surprised that I never hear anyone say that it is a contributor to the problem of overcrowding. Please discuss calmly and rationally.

Seems a perfectly reasonable question and yes I'm sure that is a significant factor particularly in London and the south east just as it is on the buses.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When discussing all the reasons for trains being so busy these days, I never hear anyone say that one of the many reasons is the high level of migration into this country. With eight million people in this country not having been born in the UK, there must be an awful lot of space used up that otherwise would not be taken. This is not a racist question, but I am surprised that I never hear anyone say that it is a contributor to the problem of overcrowding. Please discuss calmly and rationally.

From observation on LM and VT, no it isn't, it's mostly British people. The main cause is that (a) the trains are getting better, and (b) driving is getting worse and (apart from a temporary blip) more expensive.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think it has, but perhaps not for the reason the OP thinks. My theory runs:

Very generally speaking, migrants tend to be younger, have less money (one of the common reasons for moving, it's not for the weather!), than the UK population on average, and for those from Europe at least, are used to using public transport.

They therefore are less likely to own a car, and come with a culture of using public transport.

So I would argue that migrants are more likely to use public transport in this country than the population as a whole; but that's not necessarily because they are migrants.

The culture of using public transport is an interesting one. I spent my formative years in Surrey and Birmingham, and from the age of 17 owned a car and used it for most travel. By the time I was 18, I knew no one who couldn't drive.

I know that if I lived in exactly the same place in Birmingham now, I wouldn't have a car, as the train service (and to a lesser extent, bus service) is considerably better. In some of the larger cities in this country (London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham) it feels like there is a whole generation growing up with the principle that they don't need a car. I'm still surprised when we get new graduates at work who can't drive, and that number is increasing proportionately.

 

[Robertj21a]

I think it has, but perhaps not for the reason the OP thinks. My theory runs:

Very generally speaking, migrants tend to be younger, have less money (one of the common reasons for moving, it's not for the weather!), than the UK population on average, and for those from Europe at least, are used to using public transport.

They therefore are less likely to own a car, and come with a culture of using public transport.

So I would argue that migrants are more likely to use public transport in this country than the population as a whole; but that's not necessarily because they are migrants.

The culture of using public transport is an interesting one. I spent my formative years in Surrey and Birmingham, and from the age of 17 owned a car and used it for most travel. By the time I was 18, I knew no one who couldn't drive.

I know that if I lived in exactly the same place in Birmingham now, I wouldn't have a car, as the train service (and to a lesser extent, bus service) is considerably better. In some of the larger cities in this country (London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham) it feels like there is a whole generation growing up with the principle that they don't need a car. I'm still surprised when we get new graduates at work who can't drive, and that number is increasing proportionately.

A very sound theory too.

 

[Philip C]

Just a thought. There may be a tendency for immigrants to settle, initially, in inner parts of cities. Additional accommodation for the overall rising population is met, in part, by new housing on the edge of cities and beyond; this is occupied, again in part, by people moving further from their place of work. Longer journeys to work (especially into city centres) lend themselves well to rail travel. Meanwhile rising population density in inner suburbs (through redevelopment, reduction in unoccupied properties and, perhaps, greater density of population within existing housing) leads to greater use of modes serving these areas (trams, underground, buses, bikes....). Thus we might see rising use of longer distance trains by non-recent immigrants and rising use of inner suburban modes by those more newly arrived.

 

[The Ham]

No. Just no.

the "8 million" includes the likes of Boris Johnson and Joanna Lumley. It includes all the children born at british forces bases overseas. It's a massively misleading figure batted about purely for racist purposes

Quite, I have come across various people who were not born in the UK but are British Citizens as most of the previous generation have all been born and lived in the UK. This include children of diplomats, children of british forces, children of people who lived abroad for a time for other reasons and have since returned to the UK.

Also, it should be pointed out that some of these people have been living in the UK for a significant period of time. For instance one person I worked with who was born overseas and returned to the UK in their 20's retired several years ago!

Whilst I can also give examples of young children who parents have recently returned to the UK, the ONS has the figures in 2011 as 7,505,000 (11.9% of UK population) compared with 4,896,600 in 2001 (8.3% of UK population) and 3,835,400 in 1991 (6.7% of UK population). Meaning that this group has been getting bigger faster than the UK population as a whole, however still not really a big problem. Especially as at the start of the 1960's there were about 2.5 million (5% of UK population).

Also it should be noted that getting on for 1 million of those currently from other countries come from predominantly white English speaking countries (such as; USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and to a lesser extent South Africa), making them probably very difficult to identify as non British unless the speak and their accent gives them away.

You will also find that there will be a number of international students within those figures who come to the UK and pay much more in tuition fees than their UK or EU counterparts (subsidising UK students) and pay for accommodation and food (contributing to the UK economy) before then often returning to their home countries to work unless they gain employment in the uK (further contributing to the UK economy).

Yes there are some people who loose out when there are large numbers of people come to the UK to work for lower pay that the UK workers would be willing to work for, however others then benefit due to lower costs when they purchase things. Sometimes, in the case of building works, people can benefit significantly.

It is very difficult to give a clear answer, as there will be some impact on the rail network due to non UK born, however would our network be noticeably less busy if only UK born people were aloud to use the network then probably, but mostly due to the lack of tourists. However, if it wasn't for non UK born people would the network be more or less expensive to run and/or more or less profitable; that is a whole other matter and almost impossible to know and even if an answer was possible to form I would suggest that it would probably be a little more likely to be positive (as I think that it would if you tried it with any other element of the UK you care to pick including the NHS and education).

 

[455driver]

No. Just no.

the "8 million" includes the likes of Boris Johnson and Joanna Lumley. It includes all the children born at british forces bases overseas. It's a massively misleading figure batted about purely for racist purposes

Are you saying the figures might have been 'adjusted' for effect?
What a surprise, there are lies, dammed lies and statistics.

The only way of knowing is to find out how many arrived in the Country (minus how many left), what their trades are (if any), where they live, where they work (if they work), how they commute (if they do), what times they commute and what days etc, and then you can make an informed decision.

I am sure some of you will read this next bit wrong and jump on your high horses but I am going to post it anyway-
Looking at the ethnic breakdown of the people waiting for my trains (both at my previous employer and now) the vast majority are white British looking people, not a lot of coloured or eastern European people so no, immigration has not added to overcrowding!

 

[Bletchleyite]

A very sound theory too.

I've noticed something similar and quite dangerous in Milton Keynes, which has a network of off-road cycle paths which are intended to be treated as car-free country lanes (cycle on the left, walk on the right). Because of the poor public transport, cycling is popular with non-car-owners, and many people who have just moved to the UK are non-car-owners, not only that but from countries where one drives/rides on the right, not the left.

Because on these cycleways there is little reinforcement of which side to ride on (i.e. you'll get flattened by a lorry), in some places it seems to be becoming usual to cycle/pass on the right, and quite dangerous not to do so.

 

[The Ham]

I am sure some of you will read this next bit wrong and jump on your high horses but I am going to post it anyway-
Looking at the ethnic breakdown of the people waiting for my trains (both at my previous employer and now) the vast majority are white British looking people, not a lot of coloured or eastern European people so no, immigration has not added to overcrowding!

I agree, however others may have a different view of their fellow commuters depending on where people live as London has a higher percent of non UK born people than most other areas whilst rural areas (and areas where the large towns tend to serve mostly rural areas, such as the south west) tend to have lower percentage rates of non UK born people.

 

[Saint66]

I think it has, but perhaps not for the reason the OP thinks. My theory runs:

Very generally speaking, migrants tend to be younger, have less money (one of the common reasons for moving, it's not for the weather!), than the UK population on average, and for those from Europe at least, are used to using public transport.

They therefore are less likely to own a car, and come with a culture of using public transport.

So I would argue that migrants are more likely to use public transport in this country than the population as a whole; but that's not necessarily because they are migrants.

The culture of using public transport is an interesting one. I spent my formative years in Surrey and Birmingham, and from the age of 17 owned a car and used it for most travel. By the time I was 18, I knew no one who couldn't drive.

I know that if I lived in exactly the same place in Birmingham now, I wouldn't have a car, as the train service (and to a lesser extent, bus service) is considerably better. In some of the larger cities in this country (London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham) it feels like there is a whole generation growing up with the principle that they don't need a car. I'm still surprised when we get new graduates at work who can't drive, and that number is increasing proportionately.

I would agree with this, having grown up 25 minutes from London, and now in my early 20's, I have not learnt to drive (as of yet), thanks to public transport and how easy it is to use (Plus relatively cheap with my railcard). Some of my friends have learnt to drive, but maybe only one of them actually drives regularly, the rest again rely on public transport to get around.

Like you said, there is a whole generation of people who are much more reliant on public transport.

 

[455driver]

I agree, however others may have a different view of their fellow commuters depending on where people live as London has a higher percent of non UK born people than most other areas whilst rural areas (and areas where the large towns tend to serve mostly rural areas, such as the south west) tend to have lower percentage rates of non UK born people.

Very true, we can only comment on our own bits of Britain and some areas are more 'popular' with immigrants than others!

 

[Blamethrower]

Are you saying the figures might have been 'adjusted' for effect?
What a surprise, there are lies, dammed lies and statistics.

The only way of knowing is to find out how many arrived in the Country (minus how many left), what their trades are (if any), where they live, where they work (if they work), how they commute (if they do), what times they commute and what days etc, and then you can make an informed decision.

I am sure some of you will read this next bit wrong and jump on your high horses but I am going to post it anyway-
Looking at the ethnic breakdown of the people waiting for my trains (both at my previous employer and now) the vast majority are white British looking people, not a lot of coloured or eastern European people so no, immigration has not added to overcrowding!

Not gonna get on my high horse but your location says South West, hardly a hot-bed of immigration is it? Try various locations around London, Birmingham and Manchester and you may change your opinion.

My opinion is yes, of course they have contributed to overcrowding, how can it not do? There are of course many other factors but where the number arriving means means we have to build a new city every year, then you have have to question the policy.

Also the person who said "migration keeps the economy going" raised an interesting point. If you mean "migration ensures that top executives salaries continue to rise whilst zero hours contracts are rife" then yes, it does keep the economy going.

But it just widens the gap between the rich and the poor. If UK workers (that includes all people that are here working) keep getting undercut by either a) outsourcing companies b) new cheap labour, where do you draw the line?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Looking at the ethnic breakdown of the people waiting for my trains (both at my previous employer and now) the vast majority are white British looking people, not a lot of coloured or eastern European people so no, immigration has not added to overcrowding!

Just a quick question, as a train driver who I'm guessing has little interaction with your passengers how can you differentiate between a white English person and a white eastern European person purely on looks?

One other point; you clearly not aware of this but its considered offensive call a black person coloured. Not only that but can all black / Asian people be considered to be immigrants?