Dave Newt wrote:
Can anyone please tell me how counting the total number of stations one
could theoretically go to on one's journey can in any way be related to
the journey's cheapness?

I suspect it was done as a light hearted (I've not read the article so
cannot tell its tone) item.
However to try and justify it a bit I suppose the number of stations
could be a proxy for both network complexity and the probability that
you would have easy access to a station at your starting and finishing
point.

An alternative (involving other challengable assumptions) might be to
work out the cost of an 'average' commute of x miles on each network
including a cost of time calculation and a value of risk (of delay)
calculation and compare them - but somehow I cannot see that work being
much use in a 'popular' publication.


Likewise, how can a £1.35 fare be called "more expensive" simply because
there aren't as many stations you could go to than a £3.50 fare with a
wider choice of destinations?

It cannot literally. However if there are less stations in a given area
then, ceteris paribus, I would likely need to spend more time walking
for a given journey. If I valued my time sufficiently highly that might
make the whole commute "more expensive" even if the train fair were less.

If someone could define the extra-bizarre phrase "in real terms" in this
context, I'd be delighted!

I suspect it is just nonsense. Possibly the prices from other countries
have been adjusted for inflation (the usual meaning of "in real terms").
Possibly it could mean that prices were converted into £ using a PPP
exchange rate (although this would be an oddish usage of "real terms").



--
To contact me take a davidhowdon and add a @yahoo.co.uk to the end.