Prague Metro Plans Extension To Airport + New Line

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" wrote in message
...
Bolwerk wrote:

Terry Richards wrote:
"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
...

Around where I live, there are people who take express busses to
Manhattan even though they are slower and have higher fares than the
subway. Maybe someone can win a Nobel someday by finding out why
they do it.

So they can see out of the window? The bus air conditioning / heating
works?
They feel they have less chance of getting mugged?

I don't know about the express buses as I never took one, but it seems
to me that buses are less comfortable than subways in just about every
way, right down to the heating/cooling systems. At rush hour, I'd
rather be on the Lex line than the B61 in Brooklyn.

I took the bus a few times because I thought it was easier. I needed to
get from JFK to Penn Station. It is easier in that you don't have to
change the train. However, recently, I left from Penn Station, and found
it easy to take the LIRR then the Skytrain. That's how I'd do it in the
future. The last time I flew into JFK I was picked up by a paid for
limousine, so I didn't complain about that!

Maybe you're right about the perception (probably not in NYC, but
elsewhere sure) that transit is full of muggers, but the reality is
you're more likely to get run over by that bus or a car than mugged on
the subway.

Indeed- NYC is a very safe city nowadays.

The NYC subway may be fast and cheap but it's hardly a pleasant
experience
for many people.

It's probably not a constant unpleasant experience.

Actually, for its size and number of people using it, I find it one of
the better subways I've used in the world. The stations can seem a bit
grim and dimly lit (though there have been lots of improvements) but the
trains themselves are generally very good.


I used to use the subway on a daily basis back in the 80's and that was when
it probably deserved its reputation. I didn't find it that bad and I hear it
is now much improved. I wouldn't personally have any qualms about using it
today but I still wouldn't call it a pleasant experience. It may be
efficient, safe and relatively fast but I can see how some people would
prefer the bus. In a city like NYC there's plenty of room for more than one
alternative and each solution has its trade-offs. Sometimes those trade-offs
are enough to swing the decision between the choices. Each to their own.

T.

Bolwerk wrote:
Peter Schleifer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:40:30 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:

Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:

Jack Campin - bogus address writes:
Comfort and space also enters into the equation as well.

If you get on a general public transportation service (bus or subway or
whatever) in some cities, dealing with crowded conditions will be a
major
headache.
Funny, the Nobel Prize guy at UC Berkeley that studied selection of
travel mode never found people deciding except by the cost of the
ride plus the cost of time.

Nothing in there about comfort or space. You are free to try to get
your own Nobel Prize with your theory, but the chances are not good.

If you are carrying luggage or small children to/from the airport,
these certainly are factors. Your Berkeley prof probably didn't
include those types of trips in his study. I personally have taken
taxis under circumstances where transit was faster and much cheaper
because I needed space for luggage.

Around where I live, there are people who take express busses to
Manhattan even though they are slower and have higher fares than the
subway. Maybe someone can win a Nobel someday by finding out why
they do it.

The results of the study he's talking about have to do with the BART
system in San Francisco, which seems like a hybrid urban metro and
commuter rail line. The method may work elsewhere, but the results have
no wider application than the San Francisco metro area.

Basically, the study said that x% of people in San Francisco will travel
by transit (the local government predicted x would be around 15, but it
turned out to be like 3 or 5). Whether the method is good or not, the
results would vary in Manhattan, Prague, London, and Peoria.

This the kind of stunt Jack pulls all the time. teh pos hname for it is
sophistry.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

"Jack May" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:

Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:

Jack Campin - bogus address writes:

Comfort and space also enters into the equation as well.

If you get on a general public transportation service (bus or subway or
whatever) in some cities, dealing with crowded conditions will be a major
headache.

Funny, the Nobel Prize guy at UC Berkeley that studied selection of travel
mode never found people deciding except by the cost of the ride plus the

Then I'm suprised that he got a passing grade.
There is certainly a connection between passenger
willingingness to choose public transport or not,
for a specific journey, based upon the type of vehicle.

Fixed links score highly, precisely because they are
fixed. Buses have the possibility of not going where
they say that they shoud go, trains/trams don't.

There are many examples of fixed links being built
to serve places like airports whos usage far exceeds
that of the previously provided bus.

Of course, you have to conduct your survey by asking
the people who aren't currently using the bus. Asking
the ones currently on the bus is pointless.
But creating a represenative sample of people who
are effectively invisible to you, is very hard

cost of time.

This is, without doubt, connected with the type
of vehicle.


Nothing in there about comfort or space. You are free to try to get your
own Nobel Prize with your theory, but the chances are not good.

I very much doubt that he received his Nobel prize
for a survey on transit usage. Being good at one
thing does not automatically make everything you
do turn to gold.


tim

"Jack May" wrote in message
...

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
Peter Schleifer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:40:30 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:



The results of the study he's talking about have to do with the BART
system in San Francisco, which seems like a hybrid urban metro and
commuter rail line. The method may work elsewhere, but the results have
no wider application than the San Francisco metro area.

Basically, the study said that x% of people in San Francisco will travel
by transit (the local government predicted x would be around 15, but it
turned out to be like 3 or 5). Whether the method is good or not, the
results would vary in Manhattan, Prague, London, and Peoria.

The guy got his Nobel for a life time of work trying to determine how
people make economic decisions in the real world. I doubt he got the
Nobel for just work on BART. People value their time all over the world
and I doubt that his results are SF only applicable. The Nobel Prize is
nowhere near that trivial

His result was putting a value on the amount of money place on their time.
The amount is normalized to their income which is applicable world wide.

and will likely change considerably in a country where
the cost ratio between taxi/bus is an order of magnitude
higher to that in the USA, which IME is the case.

tim

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Jack May" wrote in message
...

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
Peter Schleifer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:40:30 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:


and will likely change considerably in a country where
the cost ratio between taxi/bus is an order of magnitude
higher to that in the USA, which IME is the case.

The goal is to predict how many people will use transit, a car, taxi,
walking, a bike. Obviously transit is used more heavily in low income
third world countries than in the US. A prediction equation is used, not a
fixed ratio for all places.

The equation says people use the transportation mode which is lowest cost to
them for the trip they will be taking.

The cost = out of pocket costs + half hourly pay rate while in a vehicle +
full hourly pay rate for walking to /waiting for the vehicle.

"Martin Edwards" wrote in message
. uk...
Bolwerk wrote:
Peter Schleifer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:40:30 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:

This the kind of stunt Jack pulls all the time. teh pos hname for it is
sophistry.

So a Nobel Prize and presenting what the prize was for is just a stunt? The
rest is unreadable.

I guess there is nothing acceptable to you except the constant stream of
lies from your fellow train fetish losers.


The Nobel Prize was won by Dan McFadden at UC Berkeley in 2000 as I have
posted many times
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkele.../mcfadden.html

"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:26:24 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:40:30 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
In article ,
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:

Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:

Jack Campin - bogus address writes:

If you are carrying luggage or small children to/from the airport,
these certainly are factors. Your Berkeley prof probably didn't
include those types of trips in his study. I personally have taken
taxis under circumstances where transit was faster and much cheaper
because I needed space for luggage.

Around where I live, there are people who take express busses to
Manhattan even though they are slower and have higher fares than the
subway. Maybe someone can win a Nobel someday by finding out why
they do it.

He probably used statistics that included all cases as is typically done.
The results are a statistical determination of the most significant
factors
that people use to select a mode of transportation.

Finding some counter examples does not disprove a statistical analysis.
In
a statistical analysis a small number of cases just do not have a
significant effect on the analysis result.

If he aggregates commuting trips with airport trips taken with 3 kids
and 8 pieces of luggage, then the result is not really meaningful for
determining what choices either group will make.

Again you are trying to find exceptions in a tiny number of possibilities in
a statistical analysis. Not useful at all in trying to counter a large
sample analysis.

wrote in message
...
In article , "Jack May"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:

Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:

Jack Campin - bogus address writes:

Comfort and space also enters into the equation as well.

If you get on a general public transportation service (bus or subway or
whatever) in some cities, dealing with crowded conditions will be a
major
headache.

Funny, the Nobel Prize guy at UC Berkeley that studied selection of
travel
mode never found people deciding except by the cost of the ride plus the
cost of time.

Nothing in there about comfort or space. You are free to try to get
your
own Nobel Prize with your theory, but the chances are not good.


Well then, obviously he needs to start is own no-frills airline company!

Think of the additional seats that could be crammed onto each plane since
obviously first class is worthless. In fact, think of all the advantages
of eliminating seats completely and going with standing-room only
positions like some of the amusement park rides.

You obviously don't realize that people often work on an airplane which is
extremely difficult in coach.


Why, we could even shut off the plane's pressurization systems and make
everyone wear masks since obviously the comfort of a pressurized cabin
makes no difference at all to people.

Since luggage space obviously doesn't matter, we could just eliminate that
all together and go with three decks of standees and send the luggage by
parcel post.

Why, you could even create more space by eliminating the lavatories and
just giving everyone a jar or two.

Again just trying to find a few possible exceptions to a statistical
analysis which is essentially a useless exercise.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Jack May" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:

Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:

Jack Campin - bogus address writes:


I very much doubt that he received his Nobel prize
for a survey on transit usage. Being good at one
thing does not automatically make everything you
do turn to gold.

A summary of his work that resulted in the Nobel Prize is at
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkele.../mcfadden.html

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:21:08 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:26:24 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:40:30 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
In article ,
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:

Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:

Jack Campin - bogus address writes:

If you are carrying luggage or small children to/from the airport,
these certainly are factors. Your Berkeley prof probably didn't
include those types of trips in his study. I personally have taken
taxis under circumstances where transit was faster and much cheaper
because I needed space for luggage.

Around where I live, there are people who take express busses to
Manhattan even though they are slower and have higher fares than the
subway. Maybe someone can win a Nobel someday by finding out why
they do it.

He probably used statistics that included all cases as is typically done.
The results are a statistical determination of the most significant
factors
that people use to select a mode of transportation.

Finding some counter examples does not disprove a statistical analysis.
In
a statistical analysis a small number of cases just do not have a
significant effect on the analysis result.

If he aggregates commuting trips with airport trips taken with 3 kids
and 8 pieces of luggage, then the result is not really meaningful for
determining what choices either group will make.

Again you are trying to find exceptions in a tiny number of possibilities in
a statistical analysis. Not useful at all in trying to counter a large
sample analysis.

No, I'm saying that a statistical analysis that is not broken down by
group of passengers tells you nothing useful about any one group.
Since this started with a discussion of a line going to an airport, an
analysis that consisted of just _airport_ travelers is going to be
much more useful, Nobel or no Nobel.

--
Peter Schleifer
"Save me from the people who would save me from myself"