On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:02:31 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 13:31:23 on
Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Basil Jet remarked:

Some fascinating flows, who would guess that Stratford was the #1
destination from Knightsbridge.

That might be something to do with the Olympics.

It seems unlikely that travel patterns for a couple of weeks would
produce such a huge blip (the annualised flow is at least 5x what you'd
expect from looking at other stations in the vicinity).

The Olympics and Paralympics were about five weeks, plus there was
plenty of Olympics-related traffic before and after the games
themselves.

In message , at 15:27:53 on
Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Recliner remarked:
Some fascinating flows, who would guess that Stratford was the #1
destination from Knightsbridge.

That might be something to do with the Olympics.

It seems unlikely that travel patterns for a couple of weeks would
produce such a huge blip (the annualised flow is at least 5x what you'd
expect from looking at other stations in the vicinity).

The Olympics and Paralympics were about five weeks, plus there was
plenty of Olympics-related traffic before and after the games
themselves.

Still not enough to boost the annual ridership figures compared to
adjacent stations.

You are talking about around half a million extra trips *for that exact
pair of stations* crammed into 5 weeks.

The more I think about this, the more I suppose it must be a typo.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:15:24 on Mon, 27 Jan
2014, Roland Perry remarked:
Some fascinating flows, who would guess that Stratford was the #1
destination from Knightsbridge.

That might be something to do with the Olympics.

It seems unlikely that travel patterns for a couple of weeks would
produce such a huge blip (the annualised flow is at least 5x what you'd
expect from looking at other stations in the vicinity).

The Olympics and Paralympics were about five weeks, plus there was
plenty of Olympics-related traffic before and after the games
themselves.

Still not enough to boost the annual ridership figures compared to
adjacent stations.

You are talking about around half a million extra trips *for that exact
pair of stations* crammed into 5 weeks.

The more I think about this, the more I suppose it must be a typo.

Looking at the dis-aggregated figures (which don't have any A-B numbers
but still purport to show relative numbers with different-sized circles)
the only time that Stratford looks interesting, ie could perhaps be near
the top of the table rather than some way down, is: Weekday early entry
(but itself a tiny proportion of the total)
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 16:15:24 on Mon, 27 Jan
2014, Roland Perry remarked:
Some fascinating flows, who would guess that Stratford was the #1
destination from Knightsbridge.

That might be something to do with the Olympics.

It seems unlikely that travel patterns for a couple of weeks would
produce such a huge blip (the annualised flow is at least 5x what you'd
expect from looking at other stations in the vicinity).

The Olympics and Paralympics were about five weeks, plus there was
plenty of Olympics-related traffic before and after the games
themselves.

Still not enough to boost the annual ridership figures compared to
adjacent stations.

You are talking about around half a million extra trips *for that exact
pair of stations* crammed into 5 weeks.

The more I think about this, the more I suppose it must be a typo.

Looking at the dis-aggregated figures (which don't have any A-B
numbers but still purport to show relative numbers with
different-sized circles) the only time that Stratford looks
interesting, ie could perhaps be near the top of the table rather
than some way down, is: Weekday early entry (but itself a tiny
proportion of the total)

Thereby proving that 35% of statistics are wrong.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 2014\01\27 17:44, wrote:

Thereby proving that 35% of statistics are wrong.

Is that all? I would have thought it was more like 40% or 105%.

On 2014-01-27 18:09:04 +0000, Basil Jet said:

On 2014\01\27 17:44, wrote:

Thereby proving that 35% of statistics are wrong.

Is that all? I would have thought it was more like 40% or 105%.

No, 110%.

E.

"eastender" wrote in message
news:201401262349108838-nospam@nospamcom...
http://oobrien.com/2014/01/london-tube-stats


can't make it work on IE8

tim

In article ,
(tim......) wrote:

"eastender" wrote in message
news:201401262349108838-nospam@nospamcom...
http://oobrien.com/2014/01/london-tube-stats

can't make it work on IE8

Fine in Firefox. I gave up IE8 in its favour because IE8 is so useless these
days.

--
Colin Rosenstiel