In message , at 13:31:19 on Sat, 12
Jan 2013, tim..... remarked:

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

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

A kind person has emailed me the original report, and it was published
in July 2010, based on data collected by LUL from 1998 to 2005 - when
the Circle was still a circle (and not a teacup).

The full report is 22 pages long, but doesn't seem to have "30%" in it
anywhere, although it's full of very jargony/geeky statistics and
terminology.

In terms of "proving what the funders wanted", the main objective
appears to be to investigate why travellers don't make the best
decisions about where to change trains, and how things like the
presentation of the map could be altered to help make their journeys
quicker.

One example that chimes well with me is the way Green Park looks like a
good place to change trains, but isn't (very long walks). It actually
deserves the dumbbell-icons even more than Baker St and Euston, and
about the same as Bank/Monument.
--
Roland Perry

Changing at Green Park is okay as long as one always changes by going up to ticket hall level and back down.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 13:31:19 on Sat, 12 Jan
2013, tim..... remarked:

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

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

A kind person has emailed me the original report, and it was published in
July 2010, based on data collected by LUL from 1998 to 2005 - when the
Circle was still a circle (and not a teacup).

The full report is 22 pages long, but doesn't seem to have "30%" in it
anywhere, although it's full of very jargony/geeky statistics and
terminology.

In terms of "proving what the funders wanted", the main objective appears
to be to investigate why travellers don't make the best decisions about
where to change trains, and how things like the presentation of the map
could be altered to help make their journeys quicker.

One example that chimes well with me is the way Green Park looks like a
good place to change trains, but isn't (very long walks). It actually
deserves the dumbbell-icons even more than Baker St and Euston, and about
the same as Bank/Monument.

perhaps a blow-up map of the central area with walking times between
platforms would be useful (in addition to the current full map, not squeezed
on the same map)

tim

In message , at
19:02:28 on Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Offramp remarked:

Changing at Green Park is okay as long as one always changes by going up to ticket hall level and back down.

Yes, and changing at Warren St is a bit like that too.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:02:28 -0800 (PST), Offramp
wrote:

Changing at Green Park is okay as long as one always changes by going up to ticket hall level and back down.

Obviously that applies to people changing to/from the Picc. It's a
perfectly good interchange station between the Victoria and Jubilee
lines.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
19:02:28 on Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Offramp remarked:

Changing at Green Park is okay as long as one always changes by going up
to ticket hall level and back down.

Yes, and changing at Warren St is a bit like that too.

no, you only have to go to the "half" landing.

And it's a damned sight shorter that the walk at many other stations.

tim

In message , at 12:12:18 on Sun, 13
Jan 2013, tim..... remarked:
Changing at Green Park is okay as long as one always changes by going
up to ticket hall level and back down.

Yes, and changing at Warren St is a bit like that too.

no, you only have to go to the "half" landing.

That's why it's "a bit" like Green Park, not identical.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:03:57 on
Thu, 10 Jan 2013, David Walters remarked:
If you have a desire to avoid lifts and escalators then a lot of the
underground is off limits and it is very hard to plan a route with
available information.

There's a list of "Stair equipped" stations he

http://www.geofftech.co.uk/tube/facts.html
--
Roland Perry

On 12/01/2013 15:26, tim..... wrote:

"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.

News reports certainly, but less so with academic studies; or at least
it is a different sense of what the audience wants - "this needs more
research/a grant/rethinking/whatever, rather than "... is the only
language they understand".

I did get hold of a copy of the paper when it came out. Based on my
knowledge of the relevant branch of mathematics, erm, it had some long
words and looked convincing. ISTR the study was supported by TfL.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 14:03:57
on Thu, 10 Jan 2013, David Walters remarked:
If you have a desire to avoid lifts and escalators then a lot of the
underground is off limits and it is very hard to plan a route with
available information.

There's a list of "Stair equipped" stations he

http://www.geofftech.co.uk/tube/facts.html

That is very confusing when the information required is whether steps have
to be negotiated to reach platforms as well as or instead of lifts or
escalators.

--
Colin Rosenstiel