Am 11.01.2013 00:12, schrieb Clive D. W. Feather:

147. A 2011 study suggested 30 per cent of passengers take longer routes
due to the out-of-scale distances on the Tube map.

I'm very skeptical of that claim.

It may be true for the isolated case Paddington to Bond Street via Baker
Street/Notting Hill Gate: "Although the second route is considerably
slower (by about 15 per cent), some 30 per cent of travellers chose it,
Professor Guo found."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2000847/30-passengers-longer-routes-Londons-Tube-map-misrepresents-distances-stations.html
--
Kai Borgolte, Bonn

In message , at 16:59:18 on Fri, 11
Jan 2013, Kai Borgolte remarked:
147. A 2011 study suggested 30 per cent of passengers take longer routes
due to the out-of-scale distances on the Tube map.

I'm very skeptical of that claim.

It may be true for the isolated case Paddington to Bond Street via
Baker Street/Notting Hill Gate: "Although the second route is
considerably slower (by about 15 per cent), some 30 per cent of
travellers chose it, Professor Guo found."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2000847/30-passengers-longer-routes-Londons-Tube-map-misrepresents-distances-stations.html

As there's a sidebar with nine of the other "fascinating facts" in that
article I think we can conclude it's the source of the 30% figure.

However, it's by no means clear if the 30% is an overall figure (as
suggested at the start of the article)

"Experts who have studied the network, which has been growing
since 1863 when the Metropolitan line opened, have found that as
much as 30 per cent of the network's passengers take the 'wrong'
- or longer - route between two stations."

Or simply conflated with the figure from the later 'illustration' of
Paddington to Bond St.

So we'd have to read the full study (which does seem to be more than
just a handful of trips).
--
Roland Perry

Am 11.01.2013 17:24, schrieb Roland Perry:

So we'd have to read the full study (which does seem to be more than
just a handful of trips).

ftp://ftp.hsrc.unc.edu/pub/TRB2011/data/papers/11-0419.pdf

Lots of models and coefficients in few pages, but I can't spot the 30
percent result. "The main dataset is the Rolling Origin and Destination
Survey (RODS), conducted by Transport for London (TfL) or its
predecessor organization London Transport from 1998 to 2005. RODS
records travel paths including the access, transfer, and egress stations
for more than 250,000 trips in the Underground network."
-- Kai Borgolte, Bonn

"Kai Borgolte" wrote in message
...
Am 11.01.2013 00:12, schrieb Clive D. W. Feather:

147. A 2011 study suggested 30 per cent of passengers take longer routes
due to the out-of-scale distances on the Tube map.

I'm very skeptical of that claim.

It may be true for the isolated case Paddington to Bond Street via Baker
Street/Notting Hill Gate: "Although the second route is considerably
slower (by about 15 per cent), some 30 per cent of travellers chose it,
Professor Guo found."

I don't see that he can conclude that it's got anything to do with the
journey "looking" shorted. In the case of catching a train from Padd it
could easily be because access to the circle line platforms is simpler.

Here's another one:

What's the optimum route from Waterloo to King's Cross? The shortest route
on the ground (whichever way that is) or the cross platform connection at
Oxford Circus? And does knowledge about that connection make pax who go
this way count as the "wrong way" or does lack of
knowledge about the connection make pax who go another way count as the
"wrong way"?

tim

In message , at 18:20:45 on Fri, 11
Jan 2013, tim..... remarked:

147. A 2011 study suggested 30 per cent of passengers take longer routes
due to the out-of-scale distances on the Tube map.

I'm very skeptical of that claim.

It may be true for the isolated case Paddington to Bond Street via
Baker Street/Notting Hill Gate: "Although the second route is
considerably slower (by about 15 per cent), some 30 per cent of
travellers chose it, Professor Guo found."

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.

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.

Here's another one:

What's the optimum route from Waterloo to King's Cross?

Well known to be via Oxford Circus. Because of the cross-platform
change.

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

Did you read the article *at all*? 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.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:20:45 on Fri, 11 Jan
2013, tim..... remarked:

147. A 2011 study suggested 30 per cent of passengers take longer
routes
due to the out-of-scale distances on the Tube map.

I'm very skeptical of that claim.

It may be true for the isolated case Paddington to Bond Street via Baker
Street/Notting Hill Gate: "Although the second route is considerably
slower (by about 15 per cent), some 30 per cent of travellers chose it,
Professor Guo found."

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.


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!

Here's another one:

What's the optimum route from Waterloo to King's Cross?

Well known to be via Oxford Circus. Because of the cross-platform change.

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.

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.

Surely the "right way" is the quickest including average connection time(s)
regardless of the length of track that is traversed.

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.

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? Via Oxford Circus is not the shortest route.

Surely the "right way" is the quickest including average connection
time(s) regardless of the length of track that is traversed.

Most of the time, yes, but there are other considerations such as
reliability of dwell time (no use if the route is the quickest, but the
connections only work between xx.20 and xx.30 because of the timetable),
how crowded they might be if it's rush hour and so on. I'd also look at
whether the robustness - having a plausible "plan B" if I encounter
disruption en-route.
--
Roland Perry

"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

In message , at 15:26:17 on Sat, 12
Jan 2013, tim..... remarked:
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.

I can't see where. The only discussion of distances "on the ground" is
in terms of making the entire trip on foot, not comparing the track
miles.
--
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