"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 13:31:19 on Sat, 12 Jan
2013, tim..... remarked:
I don't see that he can conclude that it's got anything to do with the
journey "looking" shorted.

That's what academics do - they study things and come to conclusions.

Yes, but that doesn't make those conclusions right.

But it does mean they are likely to be embarrassed if it's wrong, and
spend more time on the research than the average tabloid journalist.

Surely you've been around long enough to know that all such reports only
come to the conclusion that the writer thinks that his audience wants.

In the case of catching a train from Padd it could easily be because
access to the circle line platforms is simpler.

Erm, both routes he was comparing were from the Circle platforms.

Oh

Who would do that, now that you also have to change at Edgware road?

Surely anyone deciding that "change at Baker St" is the way to go is then
going to seek out the platform that has direct trains. And the circle
line isn't it!

Perhaps the journalist (not the academic) got the map wrong. Like much of
the rest of this report, plenty has got lost in the retelling.

The shortest route on the ground (whichever way that is)

Did you read the article *at all*?

Yes.

Hint: it includes a geographic map as well.

ps The shortest route on the ground is probably via Leicester Square
(second shortest via Warren St) in both cases the Beck map quite closely
resembling the geographic one.

I'm not suggesting otherwise.

The "whichever" above implies you weren't sure (or hadn't looked).

I'm only questioning this assertion that the "right" way that people
should choose to go can be usefully constructed from the shortest route on
the ground, and that if they don't do this they have done something wrong.

Who was asserting that?

The article did.

Via Oxford Circus is not the shortest route.

I know, but it is probably the quickest. So in my book, that makes it the
"right" way

tim