Accessibility of Paris' subway network

[oargueso]

Story issue checklist

My pitch was: #103

• [x] My pitch has been approved (see PITCHING.md)
• [x] My story issue links to my pitch issue
• [x] I link to my finalized (ish) data source(s)
• [x] I've included a brief summary of my story
• [x] I've included some possible headlines or findings
• [x] I've included some links or images as inspiration (if you have any)
• [x] I have received two comments of peer feedback
• [x] I've included an update of my visualization/story in a comment
• [x] I have received two comments of peer feedback after posting an update
• [x] I have received editorial feedback

Pitch #103

I am using data from the open data portal of RATP.fr (http://data.ratp.fr/explore/dataset/accessibilite-des-gares-et-stations-metro-et-rer-ratp/) to check how many stations in Paris' subway network.

After a first rough analysis, I found out that 83% of the stations in Paris' subway are not accessible. Lines 7, 8 and 9 concentrate one third of these stations.

I have plotted the data in a very simple bar chart, which I will polish in the coming days. In fact, these data show the number of stations per line which are not accessible, but I want to know the percentage of stations per line. So I will need to work a little bit more on the data.

I also would like to make a map deleting the non-accessible stations, just like I did for Madrid.

[mercybenzaquen]

I really liked that you chose a beat for your first 3 projects. It is evident now that you know a lot about the subject and that knowledge gives you a lot of flexibility at the time of making design and plotting related decisions. I like your idea of comparing the three subway systems you have been working on in one chart. I was impressed to hear the different percentage of accessibility you mentioned each of them have. And I am sure this difference would be even clearer in a chart.

[kbennion]

I think your plan to make it as a percentage of overall stops is wise -- gives it context. And since you have already done work on Madrid and have NY data, comparing the three cities might be a neat side graphic (maybe with pie charts?).

[skkandrach]

I really like that you have continued exploring different aspects within your original pitch. I agree with Kate, it would be very cool to see a comparison of all three cities, but the direction you're headed with this specific graph sounds great if you can get the data.

[playfairbot]

Hi there, I'm the Playfair Bot! Would you mind posting the appropriate checklist in the main body of your issue? You might have posted it as the first comment, but it turns out it works way better in the actual body of the issue - just go up to the veeery top right and click the pencil icon to edit. You'll probably want to edit the comment to copy the checklist, then edit the original issue to paste it in. Thanks! :pray:

[oargueso]

This is un updated version of the ugly bar chart above:

Not sure if it works very well, though.

I have also worked on this one, which compares the % of accessible stations in Madrid, NYC and Paris. Guess who does better? :)

[mercybenzaquen]

I like the colors and the distribution of info in the charts I think it looks very subway-like. I would suggest you to use the percentage of accessibility instead of percentage of inaccessibility for the second chart. How it is right know makes sense if you read the title, but it is visually confusing because even though Madrid is doing better it has the lower percentage (well duh, because you are talking about inaccessibility, but you get what I mean :) ) Awesome work!

[barjacks]

I really like the way you have given your graphs a metro look and feel. In the second graph, however, I would turn it around and show the amount of subways that are accessible. This will put Madrid on the top and make is easier to read. I would stick to bar graphs. But if you do stick with the stairs, I would make Paris a little bigger (or smaller, if you turn it around.

[jsoma]

I agree with the other posters that accessibility is probably what you want to outline, not inaccessibility. Two reasons: 1) longer bars are better, but 2) there is more of something if the bars are longer. "More inaccessibility" is tough since it's a double negative 😉

It's kind of boring to talk that way, though - "such and such percent is accessible" because the point is the inaccessibility. One option might be to treat it as a 100% stacked bar chart with the inaccessible stations stacked on top of the accessible ones. color the accessible ones a friendly color, the inaccessible ones a bad color (gray, I guess!) - that way you get the point across that the area not covered by the accessible bars actually stands for something (inaccessible stations) instead of just being a smaller bar. Let me know if you want more clarification, I feel like I'm explaining it poorly!

For the Paris graphic, I'm wondering whether the 40% line (the gray part) is meaningful, or if it's just decoration? It looks like from your initial draft the other subway lines have different accessibility ratings, but in that chart there are only bars for the (mostly) inaccessible ones.

Definitely replace the words underneath with the labels of the trains! Some people might think it's useless chartjunk, but iIt'll help people immediately make the association about what the line is :)

[playfairbot]

Closing since pull request #187 has been accepted