"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
...
Ian Jelf wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 2 Nov 2004:

That said, do bear in mind that by definition I tend to deal with people
who book guided tours, so they tend to be the ones most likely to want
everything arranged for them. The problems arise when they want to do
something that isn't in an itinerary or is during "free time" but want
to be hand held to that, too.

That's true. And I am the kind of person who would only book a guided
tour of a city if I only had a couple of days there and wanted an
overview! Otherwise, I'd figure out how to use local buses, and copy a
tour using them (we did that in Hong Kong, and it was half the price a
city tour would have been, and a lot more fun!).

I got quite a reputation during a visit to Venice for negotiations with a
company at Porto Marghera. I got hold of a water bus timetable and we had a
great time using different routes. The cross-platform change at Fondamente
Nuevo got them moving. Later enhanced by using the public transport in
Moscow and Leningrad. With a party of eight in tow, it required a long
string of tickets to get them to our destination by tram and trolley bus.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

In message , Terry Harper
writes

I got quite a reputation during a visit to Venice for negotiations with a
company at Porto Marghera. I got hold of a water bus timetable and we had a
great time using different routes.

Connecting with another thread here about "lollipop" bus routes, this
reminds me that ACTV in Venice have, in probably a majority of cases,
vaporetto services in both directions from the same stop - to the
perpetual confusion of many tourists.

--
Paul Terry

patrick wrote:

I've lived in London for several years now, and lived in Paris before.

Me too.

The Metro needs a bit of maintenance and rework, but let's face it, the Tube
needs to be started from scratch again. Which will never happen, since my
fellow Londoners will never admit to having an inferior network to anyonein
the world.

Eh? All Londoners (like Parisians) do is moan about how crap it is.

It's not that signage is confusing (I never had any problem with it, but

Nope - me neither. A few teething problems while you get used to it, but
that's not the same as bad design. Complex things need a little learning.

For instance, the Paris local maps show exactly where the Metro exits are,
and what you face when you get out. In London, someone decided it would be
better to just show a big round Tube sign, and once you get out you are
totally lost as to which street is which one.

Agreed. Totally. Some of them aren't so bad. But then remember that
orientation-information is much better in Paris generally. Almost
wherever you are in the central area, you'll find one of those
billboards with a Plan du Quartier on it. There are virtually none of
these anywhere in the whole of London.

Having said that, some of the tube-exit Continuing Your Journey maps are
not too bad, but it's not rare to be unable to find one. Some exits just
don't seem to have them. I also like how in Paris the equivalents are
also down on the platform - this can often be useful (as the stops are
so close together) to decide which exit to use. In London, for most of
them, you have to have already chosen your exit before you can find the
map. (And then, as you say, the existd are often not well-marked anyway.)

Most of the trains don't have their directions written anywhere else than in
the front. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when on a platform, what you see of
the train is not the front, but the side.

The answer is, of course, when the train is arriving, and you remember
to look for it, in the two seconds it's readable.

But then there is usually the dot matrix on the platform. Paris doesn't
have these, but then it doesn't really need to, as trains generally go
to the terminus all the time. (I can't ever remembering one in Paris
terminating early in the two years I worked there. Of course there are
early and late exceptions, so that there is a Line 3 train in République
overnight, for example.)

In Paris, directions are on the
sides,

Only for trains that have two branches, so two possible destinations.
(e.g. Line 7 - "Ivry" vs "Villejuif". Of course, these destination lamps
on the side are also coloured (Blue and Yellow I think), so even if you
can't read them, you learn which colour light to be looking out for.)

But then, they are the only trains that need them of course!

and inside. Simple and logical.

Inside? Is this a new thing on the new trains I have not seen or
forgotten about? Like I say though, there is really no need for them
anyway in the Paris system.

Colour coding vs. numbers: colours are ok for locals (I tend to prefer
nicknaming the lines myself), but please note that tourists don't remember
the colours anyway.

Paris has colours, numbers or names (Yellow/1/Chateau de Vincennes-Le
Défense).

London has colours and names (Green, District).

So, from that point of view, Paris has three options to choose whichever
one you prefer; London has two.

I would argue about tourists not remembering the colour - in my
experience people who have not used it for long are more likely to use
the colours as an aide memoire.

A good point for London: everybody understand the concept of "keep right" in
the escalators. A major pain every time I take the Metro Or maybe it's

Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but I don't ever really
remember it being that much of a problem. However, I don't think Paris
has signs all over the place telling you to keep to one side, so there
is no reason (apart from common sense!) for people to do so.

Also, flow is generally better because they have those one-way doors, so
you *have* to go down the correct side of the corridor before it splits
up, or you will get stuck on the wrong side of a one-way door.

the ratio of tourists to locals, higher in Paris?

I think not.

On the other hand, Londoners tend to disregard the fact that in order for
them to board a train, they have to let people off first. Very impolite, in
Paris it doesn't happen that much - but maybe it's more because of the
general crampness in the Tube, its very narroy platforms?

I think also partly because the doors are almost always on the same side
in Paris. Many people automatically go to the other side as soon as they
get on. In London, this wouldn't help much. The funny thing is that you
would expect the London model to work better (i.e. not have one side
really crowded all the time), but it doesn't seem to work like that.

I actually have my own theory on the human aspect of letting off/pushing
on/standing aside in Paris vs. London, but it's not one I've ever tried
to formally explain, so I'm not going to start now. However, one
striking difference is that temporarily stepping off the train to let
other people get off and then getting back on is (a) sensible, (b)
utterly normal in Paris and (c) virtually unknown of in London.

International signs: the RATP made a real effort in adding ES, IT, DE and EN
signs here and there.

There was hardly any up to about 1997, but they have done a lot since
then, yes.

Apart from station names in Hindi in Southall and
Ealing,

Which are not for the same purpose at all.

LU doesn't seem to care and assumes everybody speaks English.

Perhaps partly, but what would you say is the "obvious" languages to put
these signs in?

French? German? Yep.
Spanish? I think so.
Japanese? Would definitely be useful.

You could go on with many more too though - where do you stop? How many
would be too many for a simple sign?

If you are going to include languages which are used by citizens of many
other countries as lingua francae, then you could definitely add Russian
to the list too. Then again, English is the lingua franca between lots
and lots of countries too.

Which languages would you have (and why)?

Which
is true, but it says a lot about the London state of mind vs. the Paris
state of mind.

Oh, absolutely, but don't get me started on that! (Despite the outward
appearances and general opinion of The Man In The Street, I find the
Parisian way of negotiating public transport a LOT more polite than that
of the average London user.)

Dave Newt writes:
... orientation-information is much better in Paris generally. Almost
wherever you are in the central area, you'll find one of those
billboards with a Plan du Quartier on it.

Which extends as far as the nearest arrondissement boundary. And since
arrondissements are bounded by main streets, which is where you probably
are, there is an excellent chance that you're standing at the edge of
the map, and whatever's just off the other side of the street isn't shown.
Good idea, but not the best implementation.

On the other hand, I do love the local-area maps in Metro stations. We
have 'em here in Toronto now too, but ours don't show the building numbers.

(Okay, maybe not an "excellent" chance, but it *seems* like it...)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto Don't put all your X in one window.
-- Peter Neumann

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Mark Brader wrote:
Dave Newt writes:

... orientation-information is much better in Paris generally. Almost
wherever you are in the central area, you'll find one of those
billboards with a Plan du Quartier on it.


Which extends as far as the nearest arrondissement boundary. And since
arrondissements are bounded by main streets, which is where you probably
are, there is an excellent chance that you're standing at the edge of
the map, and whatever's just off the other side of the street isn't shown.
Good idea, but not the best implementation.

Is that true? To be honest, I can't remember for sure, but don't the
maps show the edges of the surtrounding arrondissements, but slightly
greyed out? A bit like:

http://libsys.lib.uic.edu/paris/maps...3/Arrond03.jpg

but obviously more recent!

I have a feeling this is the case, as I don't remember ever encountering
this problem (and I lived right on the boundary of two arrondissements,
and used the maps around my flat an awful lot.

In fact, even if what you say is correct, then what I was saying before
still holds true - there are so many of those maps around the junctions
that you rarely have to walk more than a couple of minutes to find the
next one.


On the other hand, I do love the local-area maps in Metro stations. We
have 'em here in Toronto now too, but ours don't show the building numbers.

Oh yes, I had forgotten they have the numbers too. They really are good.
It would cost a fortune to set them all up in one go now, but why the
hell doesn't London have them (there are a very few I think, but not many).


(Okay, maybe not an "excellent" chance, but it *seems* like it...)

Dave Newt and I (Mark Brader) write:
... orientation-information is much better in Paris generally. Almost
wherever you are in the central area, you'll find one of those
billboards with a Plan du Quartier on it.

Which extends as far as the nearest arrondissement boundary. And since
arrondissements are bounded by main streets, which is where you probably
are, there is an excellent chance that you're standing at the edge of
the map, and whatever's just off the other side of the street isn't shown.
Good idea, but not the best implementation.

Is that true? To be honest, I can't remember for sure, but don't the
maps show the edges of the surtrounding arrondissements, but slightly
greyed out? ...

I remember it because it seemed a distinctively silly way of doing it.
I can't find any maps on the Web that are the same as the ones posted
on main streets, but these maps on two arrondissments' official web
sites are somewhat similar (and show that arrondissments seem to find
this a sensible style of map):

http://admin.mairie7.paris.fr/mairie...que/carte7.gif
http://www.mairie13.paris.fr/mairie1...e/carte13e.jpg

I have a feeling this is the case, as I don't remember ever encountering
this problem (and I lived right on the boundary of two arrondissements,
and used the maps around my flat an awful lot.

Well, there are some cases where two or three arrondissements have gone
together to produce a single map showing all of them. If you were on one
of the boundaries where two such arrondissements meet, you'd be okay.
This still doesn't help if you're at the boundary of the combined map.
If the 5th and 6th are on the same map near the 5th/6th boundary, say,
then the maps near the 4th/5th boundary would also show the 5th and 5th.

In fact, even if what you say is correct, then what I was saying before
still holds true - there are so many of those maps around the junctions
that you rarely have to walk more than a couple of minutes to find the
next one.

Yes, if you're at the boundary it's typically just across the street.
It's not a *major* annoyance, just an annoyance.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "To great evils we submit; we resent
little provocations." -- W. Hazlitt, 1822

My text in this article is in the public domain.

"patrick" root@localhost wrote in message ...

For instance, the Paris local maps show exactly where the Metro exits are,
and what you face when you get out. In London, someone decided it would be
better to just show a big round Tube sign, and once you get out you are
totally lost as to which street is which one.

This is not always the case; some of the stations have Way Out signs
with street names listed, but it's few and far between. I suppose the
tourist punter is supposed to have a look at the Street Map posted
outside the barriers.


Most of the trains don't have their directions written anywhere else than in
the front. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when on a platform, what you see of
the train is not the front, but the side. In Paris, directions are on the
sides, and inside. Simple and logical.

Now this is something that needs addressing! The D78 refurbishment
folks have figured it out, and have mounted the scrolling info screens
seen on the 1973TS, 1995TS and 1996TS on the other axis, so that
people standing in the carriage simply have to look up instead of
peering sideways.

I guess they didn't want to cut holes in the sides of the trains for
displays though, so I suppose that side destination listings will have
to wait for the new rolling stock.


Colour coding vs. numbers: colours are ok for locals (I tend to prefer
nicknaming the lines myself), but please note that tourists don't remember
the colours anyway.

Colours are useful. "Take the Green Line to this station, then get off
and follow the signs to the Blue Line..."


International signs: the RATP made a real effort in adding ES, IT, DE and EN
signs here and there. Apart from station names in Hindi in Southall and
Ealing, LU doesn't seem to care and assumes everybody speaks English. Which
is true, but it says a lot about the London state of mind vs. the Paris
state of mind.

Wouldn't mind seeing this either, especially at Kings Cross St.
Pancras.


Just my 2 pences.

Brad

Mark Brader wrote:

Yes, if you're at the boundary it's typically just across the street.
It's not a *major* annoyance, just an annoyance.

At least they've *got* the bloody things! :-)))

In message , Richard J.
writes
When did they bring space trains on to Line 1? Last time I was
there, a couple of years ago, we travelled on both lines, and line
1 still had 2nd-generation rubber-wheel trains.
Does this mean they've done away with the rubber tyred trains?
--
Clive Coleman

Clive Coleman wrote:
In message ,
Richard J. writes
When did they bring space trains on to Line 1? Last time I was
there, a couple of years ago, we travelled on both lines, and line
1 still had 2nd-generation rubber-wheel trains.

Does this mean they've done away with the rubber tyred trains?

No, the new MP89 trains on both Lines 1 and 14 have rubber tyres. (The
'P' in MP89 stands for 'pneu'.)

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)