Damnit!

I cannot get the photo to display! I'm retarded!

[Page for Printing.jpg]http://www.roninart-chitecture.com/Page for printing.jpg[/img]

just can't get it! Maybe later!

change [page for printing.jpg] with [img]
the code is at the bottom of the screen

Tried that before. I was just trying anything. Here it goes again.

Rename the file so that it doesn't contain any spaces.

Just tried that too.

Closer. I will edit it and get it right in a second.

Interesting numbers so far, but Chicago and Washington both have the exact same number of route miles, down to the tenth of a mile? I'd re-check your figures.

I will stop trying to show a blow up of the graph in 3d. Its not showing up for now. The thing that I thought was very interesting is/was the relationship of square mileage to the number of stations and directional mileage. It really gives an understanding of how extensive the trains are and how convenient these cities are.

Ahhhh!!!!! There we go!

i think as display of information its not very compelling and actually quite hard to read. why are you turning data into glossy 3d blobs that bear no relevance to the information you are trying to explain. somewhere tufte is crying.

I agree. While the numbers are interesting, I don't really see the connection between them and the 3D shape.

Well, I don't see one curve. I haven't ever seen angular blobs, first of all. Also, the information isn't very interesting if you are not interested in urban issues and public transportation. I think that all of this data in a 3d graph really displays how the most populated cities in the US really have little to no sustainable or energy efficient public transportation.

Look at LA in all of its smoggy glory! Its about efficiency in cities.

If it is just a matter of graphics. I decided to make it 3d and use the numbers to plot the graph 3 dimensionally to see what their relationships are rather than just making a series of graphs. I don't think the form of the 3d graph is what is important. It may as well not be there. Its just another way to understand the data in relationship to the other cities.

Each of those ten cities has a unique geography and historical background... I'm not sure it's possible to make any generalizations based on lumping all of them together.

Of course we need better public transit and less automobile dependence, but we already know that. What new information is the 3D shape giving us?

yes! so why is it there? same goes for the plasma in the background of the 2d graph.

now on to the information itself. what are you trying to tell me? that there is more mass transit in new york than in houston. hmmm...not exactly profound. i feel like part of the problem with this goes back to the graphic design. there is no hierarchy to the information, so its almost impossible to know what we are supposed to be getting out of this comparison.

(really not trying to be rude; just giving my honest criticisms of the graph.)

I am not sure why the 3d shape is even being discussed. It is a topographical graph of the data in the flat graph. The data is simply given z coordinates based on the data. The flat graph is one way of understanding it and the 3d graph is another way of understanding the same set of numbers. It was not generated to create a beautiful image. It was created to study the transportation systems of provided cities and the glossy finish only helps to see angles and the relationship from one coordinate on the surface to the next.

As for the numbers. They were checked and rechecked. If you think they are inaccurate, check with the Census. I believe you can use these numbers to compare contrast the cities and how to improve them. Of course cities have their own history and geography. Or else, they would be the same city. You can compare east coast cities to southern, western and midwestern cities and it would give pretty clear goals to improving public transportation systems.

The graph supplies the information and the 3d graph gives it space. Each line on the 3d graph is either row of a city or another stat. If you follow one white line, you are either following one city or one statistic related to other cities. Its pretty simple.

Perhaps ordering the categories/cites so that there is some sort of hierarchy/preference given to one variable would be sensible. If not, the cities should at least be in alphabetical order, or if they are ranked by population that data needs to be shown.

You could colour code so that miles are in one colour, and number of station in another, and the derived figures in a third.

You could make the numbers visible against the background.

You could be consistent in the use of the '#'. Either it belongs in front of stations and ADA compliant stations, or neither, but certainly not one just one of the two.

Honest criticism is fine. It is not intended to be ground breaking. It is supposed to give interesting information that is not always laid out in one place.

The value of the graph is between the lines. I was not interested in making a graph that spells out my opinion. It is there to provide information. Frequency, density, accessibility, range, expansiveness, usage are all connected.

The LA train is used more frequently with respect to Chicago, but Chicago has 164.4 miles more of track. This could be an area to study. I think it is very interesting that LA's 1 train is more efficient than Chicago's entire L. I think if you told people that LA (out of everywhere in the US) has a train system that is more efficient and used more often than Chicago's, I think most people would not belive you.

Everything cannot be laid out. It is up to the reader to compare, contrast and investigate the numbers.

As per the post above, you need to read some Tufte.

Also, what relevance the ADA data? That might be interesting in relation to number/percentage of registered disabled inhabitants.

Also your units suck: in 0.1 millions? have you ever seen that anywhere else, and does it actually save you using the decimal point? no.

and what is being used in the "number of times used (0.1millions)". If there is no rail in Houston how are they using it 969,000 times?

Go and take Statistics 101, and a class in Human Computer Interaction, and a maths class would help.

I should say, I like the spiky shape, but I fail to get anything from it.

The justification on your figures is also out of whack. The point of lining things up in columns is to make them easier to compare. Having the decimal point move left to right within the column is inhibiting understanding. Also if you give two digits after the decimal, you should (within that column) stick to it. not 3.5, but 3.50

Wow. The intention of posting this graph is to share interesting information. The graph says Public Train Systems in the 10 most populated cities in the US. The oder of cities is ordered by population (in decending order). Would it have been clearer if the cities had numbers (1-10) in front of them? Should it have a map locating where these cities are in relationship to each other as well?

Do too many people have a stick up their ass? I could have put "#" in front of the miles, but I used the "#" sign to replace writing the word "number". Was the "directional route (miles)" confusing?

Is it a poor decision to show a graph and assume that people have prior knowledge of the topic?

PsyArch, are you an engineer?

I guess my calculus in high school didn't do the job did it?

I think what inhibits the understanding is that some cities have such low numbers. Thanks a lot Texas!

Surely interesting statistics would be "journeys made per mile of track", or "journeys made per head of population", or "journeys made per number of stations", or "average distance between stations". That information is available within the data that you had, but you have not made it available (put it in formation. You have presented raw data, and drawn no correlations, The mathematics involved is only addition.

You don't even tell if the rail is in miles (did you mean 0.1million miles)

Sorry if this sounds like a rant.

What grade did you receive for this?

The information provided could very easily start an interesting conversation that people notice about the statistics. Instead, it has been a critique of where a decimal point is, whether I used the "#" symbol or not and the order that I put the columns. How about you make a graph that is much better looking, technically accurate and then post it to this blog. Maybe we can have a discussion when you have made the graph yourself. There were reasons for every move. Whether you think it was the right move or not is not interesting to me. Is there anything that you can pull from the numbers that can generate a conversation?

how about journeys per head of population etc as above. You give no anchor figure. your numbers are incomparable (until you do a per head of population or similar).

You present raw data in a confusing manner. It is not information. With key data like population it might be interesting. Also it would be normal to remove outliers. Why have three cities in a sample of ten that do not have the key feature of a rail network.

Where is the average, what is the standard deviation, how do these figures relate to gas consumption, how do they relate to urban density, how do they relate to grid pattern or age of city...

Many questions that are interesting, but not directly stimulated by your graphic.

How does car ownership and miles of road/square mile of city vary with availability of rail

All of the statistics in .1 millions are usage.

To make the calculations that you speak of, "average distance between stations", it would take an actual map of each city. Or you could average it and be completely inaccurate. The graphs are more about the train systems compared by city (as stated in the title).

So, what can a city do to efficiently expand its rail system in a city like LA? Do the high numbers in times used (in LA) show a need for more rail lines? Understanding the urban landscape of LA, would building density be supplied with adequate transportation? I think this information is intended to generate questions and start conversations, not stand alone as a jewel. At no point, was it intended to qualify as the best graph in the world and it was not intended to be the best graphic design either. Can you stop being a pompous asshole and have a conversation like a person?

Oh, or would it be better to restate the intro to the conversation?

"This is a diagram that I produced for a studio a couple years ago. In another discussion several weeks ago, I said that I would post the diagram for people to see.

What do people think?

We were studying systems (no parameters of course becuase we were in architecture school) and I decided to study the public transportation systems (focusing on rail). There are several categories that I think display the effectiveness of the public transportation systems. There is also a 3d graph giving spatial representation to the short study. "

Or should I have asked, what do people think about scooter usage in Boise, Idaho? Maybe then we could talk about public rail transportation in the most 10 populated cities.

so are you telling me that in Washington DC there are:

243,000 usages of heavy rail?

What does that mean? journeys or miles ridden?




if there are x miles of directional route, and x no. stations, divide the former by the latter and get an interesting statistic that allows comparison of the cities, that probably correlates highly with city density.



If you stopped making pompous graphics, I would not have to make the mirror criticisms...

You say the graph:

display the effectiveness of the public transportation systems

it doesn't at all. It gives raw data on number of stations and journeys. It doesn't give any data on effectiveness whatsoever.

Note: I have not read the entire thread, only about 70% of it (skimming).

I am intrigued by the idea of the blobby graph, the one laid under the traditional graph, not the spiky one. The blobby one seems to show recesses and protuberances. I think the parts where it recesses back to being non-existent could show - if one starts with the supposition that "transit use = good" - instances of lack of use so significant as to make the city, well, disappear, become meaningless. I think, as propaganda (not necessarily as clear analysis), this is a workable symbolism for a graph to use. Parts of the graph are "swelled with success", and other parts are "disappearing into irrelevance".

But isn't Phoenix in the top 5 American cities? I'm pretty sure it is, as when I left Philly the two cities were duking it out for fifth place. Though that may be "metropolitan area" not "city limits".

Ronin: Don't be so defensive. You posted some material and asked what people think, and we're telling you. If you don't want honest feedback, don't post it.

PsyArch's comments about the numbering format are right on. If you're going to present numerical information in a chart format, you need to use standard conventions for doing so. Otherwise it's no different than writing an essay with sloppy grammar and spelling. It's difficult to understand, and hurts your credibility.

Now, you're saying that the transit systems of Chicago and Washington each have exactly 206.3 route miles? That's one hell of a coincidence, and leads me to suspect that the number for one or both of those cities is incorrect, and immediately casts doubt upon the rest of your numbers. If these are the numbers given by your sources, then it should have raised a red flag and warranted further research.

Unfortunately, you didn't cite your sources ("The Census" doesn't cut it), so there's no way we can independently verify your numbers. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you cited sources when you turned in this project at school, but I know that in my classes I'd receive an automatic F and possibly be subject to university disciplinary action if I presented a bunch of numbers without citing my sources. For scholarly work, you pretty much need to cite a source even if you're asserting that the sun rises in the east.

You mention "heavy rail" and "commuter rail", but don't provide definitions, nor do you define what you're counting. .1 millions of what? route miles? track miles? passenger journeys? railroad spikes? We don't know.

Also, you neglected to include numbers for light rail transit, which forms a significant part of the transit systems in several of those cities. See my recent posts on the "CTA doomsday" thread for industry definitions for these terms. For the record, Houston has had a modest light rail system for several years now.

While I recognized that you sorted the cities in descending order of population, there's no particular order to the categories across the top of the chart. Change the order of these categories, and you'll get a radically different 3D shape, which sort of defeats any meaning you're trying to derive from the shape.

You also mention "efficiency" a number of times, but I haven't seen a definition for it. How do you define transit efficiency?

Finally, it would have been helpful to include the population numbers of these cities, as some real comparisons could then be made between them.

For example, let's say we're defining "efficiency" based on the percentage of population of each city that lives within one mile of a transit station. You'd then have some compelling comparisons to make that could be presented in a graphically interesting manner.

Just my two $.02 worth.

"Above all, this object is meant to convey a poetic interpretation of a unique market occurrence."

I think this is what you are trying to do, not actually present information as such, but make a poetic interpretation of it:

From their homepage:

"WRLDs undertakes a series of projects exploring diagrammatic studies of information; translating it into both virtual and material objects. Our first project explores the financial markets.

Changing data into visual information is nothing new, but it is usually done to quantify information. Edward Tufte calls such translations Beautiful Evidence.

At WRLDs, our interest is not to quantify data, as much as it is to shift the focus and location of that information. Shifting abstract data into physical forms places it within a social context and this shifts the expectations surrounding it; objects are shared, handled, and placed in the spaces where we live and work. "

Bottom line: the graphs should tell us EVERYTHING you've had to explain to us here your posts. Otherwise, what's the point? You're not showing us anything we can't find out in 10 minutes of our own research.

If it's not about the spiky blob, why make the 3D graph in the first place?

The information for Dallas is either completely outdated or irrelevant, unless taken circa early 90's.

...yet another case of architecture students being utterly infatuated with imagery sans content. sometime i just don't understand it (us).

C-