snip
I'm used to both systems, and don't have a problem with the Métro signs.
The main difference is the use of (to give a Piccadilly line example)
"Uxbridge/Heathrow" and "Cockfosters" instead of "westbound" and
"eastbound". In what way did you feel the signage was incomplete?

I find the description of the northbound Piccadilly line from Kings
Cross to Cockfosters as "Eastbound" to be utterly counter-intuitive.

Peter

Clive Page wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 30 Oct 2004:

The Paris system of naming directions by the terminal stations isn't at
all bad, in my opinion.

It's very much a case of what you are used to. As a young adult, I
lived in Paris for some years, and found the Underground very confusing
on my infrequent visits to London. Now, of course, having lived in
London for many years, I can cope with the Tube - and find the Metro
very different. Not difficult, just different. For a start, the network
is a lot bigger than it was when I lived there!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 26 September 2004

(James) wrote in message . com...
Some
things aren't intuitive. If you arrive by TGV at Montparnasse and want
to go to CDG Airport, most people would look at the map, take the 4 to
St-Michel or Châtelet, then transfer to line B. For a start the RER's
nearer Halles than Châtelet (and don't even think about St-Michel),
but why walk all that way to line 4 (and it IS a VERY long way to
lines 4 and 12 at Montparnasse) only to sit on a slow packed train
anyway. The answer is, if you didn't know, line 6 towards Nation,
changing at Denfert-Rochereau onto the RER.

Yes, but that's the same as knowing 'if you're going from Victoria to
Heathrow, don't change to the Picc at Earl's Court or South Ken -- use
Hammersmith or Barons Court' or 'by far the easiest way from Waterloo
to King's Cross is to take the Bakerloo and change at Oxford Circus'.
London has its share of counterintuitiveness too...

In message ,
Morton writes
Just come back from Paris for a couple of days and had my first metro
experience. A few comments:

1. The Metro trains are better than London Underground. All I saw were wider
(holding more people) and much cleaner. Some trains had a rather quaint
flick-switch opener to activate the door opening rather than all
automatically opening.

You didn't mention the upholstery - spartan, hose-down plastic covers.
I've always liked the door-openers, they're so . . . well, French. Like
a 2CV.

2. Signs on the Metro are much inferior to the Underground. I've been in
London for 4 years now so perhaps am used to the Underground but I felt the
Metro's signage was really confusing and incomplete.

I've never had a problem on the Metro, but then I'm going slower and
being more attentive. After thirty years, there's still bits of the Tube
that confuse me i.e. finding the right platform at Baker Street; getting
the right direction Jubilee train at Westminster; remembering which exit
to use at Oxford Street to avoid the crush.

5. Surprisingly the Underground is cleaner and brighter than the Metro.
While Paris is spotless compared to London, I thought the Metro was drab,
uninspiring and could do with a good clean.

. . . and smells of ****, while the Tube just smells of centuries-old
air.

And don't forget the entertainment. I heard my first carriage-wide
begging announcement on the Metro in the 70's, years before it started
on the Tube.

--
Martin @ Strawberry Hill

Clive Page wrote:
In article ,
Morton writes

I may be wrong but I think London Underground is extremely fool proof. As
long as people can distinguish North from South, East from West. LUL make
the signage 'really ****ing obvious'.


I don't entirely agree, especially with the Circle Line. Not long ago I
arrived at Liverpool St somewhat tired, and getting down to the Circle
Line saw that the directions were marked as "Eastbound" and "Westbound"
and was momentarily confused. Most tube maps show Liverpool St as the
extreme eastern end, with the line running north-south, so how is the
poor foreigner to work out which way is clockwise and which
anti-clockwise? If only they used those terms all every Circle Line
station all would be much clearer.

Another case: take the Northern Line northbound from Kings Cross one
stop, switch to the Victoria Line and take it one stop again northbound:
where do you end up? Back at Kings Cross.

Also I recall seeing several stations where the two opposite directions
are called "Westbound" and "Northbound". There may be good reasons for
these, but they are guaranteed to confuse. The Paris system of naming
directions by the terminal stations isn't at all bad, in my opinion.

At least people have a general idea of the direction they're travelling
in (e.g. if you're in west London, you know east goes towards the
centre). Infrequent users don't have a clue what terminal station they
should be heading towards, as it has no relevance to their journey (if
you're travelling from Heathrow to central London, do you care that your
train is going to Cockfosters?).

The line diagrams on the platforms are invaluable for the user who isn't
sure which direction they want.

The only way I can think of making it more intuitive is to use
"citybound", or perhaps to highlight Zone 1 stations on the line
diagrams. Then again, using citybound would probably add new confusion,
and it would only work for non-central stations.

Some of the Circle line signs do leave a lot to be desired.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Some of the Circle line signs do leave a lot to be desired.

The signs at Euston are a joke as well. That problem would go away if the
Northern Line were rebranded as two separate lines (one through Charing
Cross and one through Bank) without changing the current service patterns.

sits back and waits for people to suggest that such a rebranding would
cause Camden Town to get overcrowded

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Dave Arquati writes:
The only way I can think of making it more intuitive is to use
"citybound", or perhaps to highlight Zone 1 stations on the line
diagrams. Then again, using citybound would probably add new confusion,
and it would only work for non-central stations.

On the MBTA subway system in Boston, known as the T for short, they
do in fact use "inbound" and "outbound" as directions on most of the
system. In the city center they switch to some sort of destination-
based signage. But their city center is a lot smaller than Central
London, so a large proportion of the stations are outside it.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto This is a signature antibody. Please
remove any viruses from your signature.

Usenet wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 31 Oct 2004:

In message 4182a361$0$43610$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-
reader04.plus.net, Morton
eg.com writes

You didn't mention the upholstery - spartan, hose-down plastic covers.
I've always liked the door-openers, they're so . . . well, French. Like a
2CV.

Back in my day you still had wooden seats, except in 1st class! The old
Sprague trains were being replaced, but only on a few lines by then. I
think the 2 classes on the metro were abolished in the 1980s, but I
don't know the exact date - I was very surprised to come back to Paris
in 1993, after an absence of more than 20 years, and find there was only
one class!.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 31 October 2004

I'm finding this an interesting thread as I get to work in both London
and Paris pretty frequently and consider that I know both systems well.

They both have their ups and downs.

The "space trains" on Paris's Line 1 are - I think - magnificent.

The distinctive smell of the Paris Metro - variable thought it is - has
never gone away since my first visit in the early 1980s.

London's classic tube map is unsurpassed. None of the Paris versions
really achieves what Beck and Garbutt did, in my view.

The Bullseye/Roundel is *far* better at marking out stations in crowded
streetscapes. Exactly as people like Pick and Holden intended, there
it is to assure you that you're near somewhere where you'll be able to
"get your bearings. The "ME" symbol in Paris is much poorer at this
and its use is very much intermittent. (That said, I love the classic
"bouches de metro" Art Nouveau entrances!)

In message ,
Morton writes
I may be wrong but I think London Underground is extremely fool proof.
So did I until I worked in tourism. Some people get *very* confused or
simply refuse outright to use it "because they won't know where they're
going or where to get off". Curiously, it is often people from other
parts of the UK that are the worst for this. (I met a charming French
family in Spitalfields yesterday afternoon trying to get to Tower
Bridge. They took my advice and set off armed with a map and a sense
of determination; the people I'd had the day before from another part
of the UK didn't venture outside Covent Garden during the r free time
because they wouldn't have dreamed of getting a tube or bus......)

As
long as people can distinguish North from South, East from West.
You would perhaps be surprised how few people can. I am constantly
*staggered* at how many people don't seem to know that North is usually
at the top of a map.

LUL make
the signage 'really ****ing obvious'. The line colours, North V South, East
v West means I could jump onto an unfamiliar station and flow through it
without much brain power.
I would agree but many wouldn't!

At various stations in Paris, signs would point to
different lines, I'd walk via the directions then come to an intersection
but less obvious pointers. I'd wander around for a few minutes until I catch
sight of a poor sign then move on. The Underground has flow. The Metro
doesnt.
Once you master the metro's system for always guiding you with the Line
Number, the "direction" and the "Correspondance" then that too is very
easy. Paris and London just have different solutions to the problem
but I wouldn't; say that one was necessarily easier or harder than the
other.

Just my view.....

--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Ian Jelf wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 1 Nov 2004:

The distinctive smell of the Paris Metro - variable thought it is - has
never gone away since my first visit in the early 1980s.

I can assure you it was there in the 1970s! In fact, it was the thing
that "took me back" more than anything else when we went back for the
first time in 1993 (it might have been 1994, now I come to think of it,
but would swear to neither!).

the people I'd had the day before from another part
of the UK didn't venture outside Covent Garden during the r free time
because they wouldn't have dreamed of getting a tube or bus......)

I can never understand this attitude - for me, part of the challenge of
a new city is working out how to use it's public transport!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 31 October 2004