"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

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.

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

"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