> "the guy who crosses the city has paid more (by spending more time) for what he received, and so you still assess him as having valued the trip more than the

> "the guy who crosses the city has paid more (by spending more time) for what he received, and so you still assess him as having valued the trip more than the one-stop guy." No, I think you misread or misunderstood what I wrote. My point is that the "value" derived from a trip is _not_ proportional to the distance travelled. > "Not really; as you just noted, the subway is a very slow method of covering distance. If you're in a hurry, it's not going to beat the alternatives." In London, the tube or train is often the fastest way to get somewhere, particularly at rush hour. But if I place a high value on comfort, perhaps I'd consider that I get more value from a taxi ride even if it takes the same amount of time: the tube can be very hot and crowded! I'd then have to consider whether the extra value gained is enough to justify the higher cost of the taxi ride.