On the interpretability of log-scaled charts

A previous post featured the following chart showing stock returns over time:

Unbeknownst to readers,  the chart plots one thing but labels it something else.

The designer of the chart explains how to read the chart in a separate note, which I included in my previous post (link). It's a crucial piece of information. Before reading his explanation, I didn't realize the sleight of hand: he made a chart with one time series, then substituted the y-axis labels with another set of values.

As I explored this design choice further, I realize that it has been widely adopted in a common chart form, without fanfare. I'll get to it in due course.

***

Let's start our journey with as simple a chart as possible. Here is a line chart showing constant growth in the revenues of a small business:

For all the charts in this post, the horizontal axis depicts time (x = 0, 1, 2, ...). To simplify further, I describe discrete time steps although nothing changes if time is treated as continuous.

The vertical scale is in dollars, the original units. It's conventional to modify the scale to units of thousands of dollars, like this:

No controversy arises if we treat these two charts as identical. Here I put them onto the same plot, using dual axes, emphasizing the one-to-one correspondence between the two scales.

We can do the same thing for two time series that are linearly related. The following chart shows constant growth in temperature using both Celsius and Fahrenheit scales:

Here is the chart displaying only the Fahrenheit axis:

This chart admits two interpretations: (A) it is a chart constructed using F values directly and (B) it is a chart created using C values, after which the axis labels were replaced by F values. Interpretation B implements the sleight of hand of the log-returns plot. The issue I'm wrestling with in this post is the utility of interpretation B.

Before we move to our next stop, let's stipulate that if we are exposed to that Fahrenheit-scaled chart, either interpretation can apply; readers can't tell them apart.

***

Next, we look at the following line chart:

Notice the vertical axis uses a log10 scale. We know it's a log scale because the equally-spaced tickmarks represent different jumps in value: the first jump is from 1 to 10, the next jump is from 10, not to 20, but to 100.

Just like before, I make a dual-axes version of the chart, putting the log Y values on the left axis, and the original Y values on the right axis.

By convention, we often print the original values as the axis labels of a log chart. Can you recognize that sleight of hand? We make the chart using the log values, after which we replace the log value labels with the original value labels. We adopt this graphical trick because humans don't think in log units, thus, the log value labels are less "interpretable".

As with the temperature chart, we will attempt to interpret the chart two ways. I've already covered interpretation B. For interpretation A, we regard the line chart as a straightforward plot of the values shown on the right axis (i.e., the original values). Alas, this viewpoint fails for the log chart.

If the original data are plotted directly, the chart should look like this:

It's not a straight line but a curve.

What have I just shown? That, after using the sleight of hand, we cannot interpret the chart as if it were directly plotting the data expressed in the original scale.

To nail down this idea, we ask a basic question of any chart showing trendlines. What's the rate of change of Y?

Using the transformed log scale (left axis), we find that the rate of change is 1 unit per unit time. Using the original scale, the rate of change from t=1 to t=2 is (100-10)/1 = 90 units per unit time; from t=2 to t=3, it is (1000-100)/1 = 900 units per unit time. Even though the rate of change varies by time step, the log chart using original value labels sends the misleading picture that the rate of change is constant over time (thus a straight line). The decision to substitute the log value labels backfires!

This is one reason why I use log charts sparingly. (I do like them a lot for exploratory analyses, but I avoid using them as presentation graphics.) This issue of interpretation is why I dislike the sleight of hand used to produce those log stock returns charts, even if the designer offers a note of explanation.

Do we gain or lose "interpretability" when we substitute those axis labels?

***

Let's re-examine the dual-axes temperature chart, building on what we just learned.

The above chart suggests that whichever scale (axis) is chosen, we get the same line, with the same steepness. Thus, the rate of change is the same regardless of scale. This turns out to be an illusion.

Using the left axis, the slope of the line is 10 degrees Celsius per unit time. Using the right axis, the slope is 18 degrees Fahrenheit per unit time. 18 F is different from 10 C, thus, the slopes are not really the same! The rate of change of the temperature is given algebraically by the slope, and visually by the steepness of the line. Since two different slopes result in the same line steepness, the visualization conveys a lie.

This situation here is a bit better than that in the log chart. Here, in either scale, the rate of change is constant over time. Differentiating the temperature conversion formula, we find that the slope of the Fahrenheit line is always 9/5*the slope of the Celsius line. So a rate of 10 Celsius per unit time corresponds to 18 Fahrenheit per unit time.

What if the chart is presented with only the Fahrenheit axis labels although it is built using Celsius data? Since readers only see the F labels, the observed slope is in Fahrenheit units. Meanwhile, the chart creator uses Celsius units. This discrepancy is harmless for the temperature chart but it is egregious for the log chart. The underlying reason is the nonlinearity of the log transform - the slope of log Y vs time is not proportional to the slope of Y vs time; in fact, it depends on the value of Y.  

***

The log chart is a sacred cow of scientists, a symbol of our sophistication. Are they as potent as we'd think? In particular, when we put original data values on the log chart, are we making it more intepretable, or less?

 

P.S. I want to tie this discussion back to my Trifecta Checkup framework. The design decision to substitute those axis labels is an example of an act that moves the visual (V) away from the data (D). If the log units were printed, the visual makes sense; when the original units were dropped in, the visual no longer conveys features of the data - the reader must ignore what the eyes are seeing, and focus instead on the brain's perspective.

Logging a sleight of hand

Andrew puts up an interesting chart submitted by one of his readers (link):

Bruce Knuteson who created this chart is pursuing a theory that there is some fishy going on in the stock markets over night (i.e. between the close of one day and the open of the next day). He split the price data into two interleaving parts: the blue line represents returns overnight and the green line represents returns intraday (from open of one day to the close of the same day). In this example related to Tesla's stock, the overnight "return" is an eyepopping 36850% while the intraday "return" is -46%.

This is an example of an average masking interesting details in the data. One typically looks at the entire sequence of values at once, while this analysis breaks it up into two subsequences. I'll write more about the data analysis at a later point. This post will be purely about the visualization.

***

It turns out that while the chart looks like a standard time series, it isn't. Bruce wrote out the following essential explanation:

The chart can't be interpreted without first reading this note.

The left chart (a) is the standard time-series chart we're thinking about. It plots the relative cumulative percentage change in the value of the investment over time. Imagine one buys $1 of Apple stock on day 1. It shows the cumulative return on day X, expressed as a percent relative to the initial investment amount. As mentioned above, the data series was split into two: the intraday return series (green) is dwarfed by the overnight return series (blue), and is barely visiable hugging the horizontal axis.

Almost without thinking, a graphics designer applies a log transform to the vertical axis. This has the effect of "taming" the extreme values in the blue line. This is the key design change in the middle chart (b). The other change is to switch back to absolute values. The day 1 number is now $1 so the day X number shows the cumulative value of the investment on day X if one started with $1 on day 1.

There's a reason why I emphasized the log transform over the switch to absolute values. That's because the relationship between absolute and relative values here is a linear one. If y(t) is the absolute cumulative value of $1 at time t, then the percent change r(t) = 100(y(t) -1). (Note that y(0) = 1 by definition.)  The shape of the middle chart is primarily conditioned by the log transform.

In the right chart (c), which is the design that Bruce features in all his work, the visual elements of chart (b) are retained while he replaced the vertical axis labels with those from chart (a). In other words, the lines show the cumulative absolute values while the labels show the relative cumulative percent returns.

I left this note on Gelman's blog (corrected a mislabeling of the chart indices):

I'm interested in the the sleight of hand related to the plots, also tying this back to the recent post about log scales. In plot (b) (a) [middle of the panel], he transformed the data to show the cumulative value of the investment assuming one puts $1 in the stock on day 1. He applied a log scale on the vertical axis. This is fine. Then in plot (c) (b), he retained the chart but changed the vertical axis labels so instead of absolute value of the investment, he shows percent changes relative to the initial value.

Why didn't he just plot the relative percent changes? Let y(t) be the absolute values and r(t) = the percent change = 100*(y(t) -1) is a simple linear transformation of y(t). This is where the log transform creates problems! The y(t) series is guaranteed to be positive since hitting y(t) = 0 means the entire investment is lost. However, the r(t) series can hit negative values and also cross over zero many times over time. Thus, log r(t) is inoperable. The problem is using the log transform for data that are not always positive, and the sleight of hand does not fix it!

Just pick any day in which the absolute return fell below $1, e.g. the last day of the plot in which the absolute value of the investment was down to $0.80. In the middle plot (b), the value depicted is ln(0.8) = -0.22. Note that the plot is in log scale, so what is labeled as $1 is really ln(1) = 0. If we instead try to plot the relative percent changes, then the day 1 number should be ln(0) which is undefined while the last number should be ln(-20%) which is also undefined.

This is another example of something umcomfortable about using log scales which I pointed out in this post. It's this idea that when we do log plots, we can freely substitute axis labels which are not directly proportional to the actual labels. It's plotting one thing, and labelling it something else. These labels are then disconnected from the visual encoding. It's against the goal of visualizing data.

 

The message left the visual

The following chart showed up in Princeton Alumni Weekly, in a report about China's population:

This chart was one of several that appeared in a related Scientific American article.

The story itself is not surprising. As China develops, its birth rate declines, while the death rate also falls, thus, the population ages. The same story has played out in all advanced economies.

***

From a Trifecta Checkup perspective, this chart suffers from several problems.

The text annotation on the top right suggests what message the authors intended to deliver. Pointing to the group of people aged between 30 and 59 in 2020, they remarked that this large cohort would likely cause "a crisis" when they age. There would be fewer youngsters to support them.

Unfortunately, the data and visual elements of the chart do not align with this message. Instead of looking forward in time, the chart compares the 2020 population pyramid with that from 1980, looking back 40 years. The chart shows an insight from the data, just not the right one.

A major feature of a population pyramid is the split by gender. The trouble is gender isn't part of the story here.

In terms of age groups, the chart treats each subgroup "fairly". As a result, the reader isn't shown which of the 22 subgroups to focus on. There are really 44 subgroups if we count each gender separately, and 88 subgroups if we include the year split.

***

The following redesign traces the "crisis" subgroup (those who were 30-59 in 2020) both backwards and forwards.

The gender split has been removed; here, the columns show the total population. Color is used to focus attention to one cohort as it moves through time.

Notice I switched up the sample times. I pulled the population data for 1990 and 2060 (from this website). The original design used the population data from 1980 instead of 1990. However, this choice is at odds with the message. People who were 30 in 2020 were not yet born in 1980! They started showing up in the 1990 dataset.

At the other end of the "crisis" cohort, the oldest (59 year old in 2020) would have deceased by 2100 as 59+80 = 139. Even the youngest (30 in 2020) would be 110 by 2100 so almost everyone in the pink section of the 2020 chart would have fallen off the right side of the chart by 2100.

These design decisions insert a gap between the visual and the message.

 

 

Swarmed by ants

Andrew discussed the following chart in a recent blog post:

Alert! A swarm of ants has marched onto a bubble chart.

These overlapping long text labels are dominating the chart; the length of these labels encodes the length of country names, which has nothing to do with the data.

We're waiting - hoping - for the ants to march off the page.

***
Andrew's blog post is about something else, the use of log scales. The chart above is a log-log plot. Both axes have log scales.

Andrew's correspondent doesn't like log scales. Andrew does.

One problem we encounter in practice with log scales is that people without science background can't read them. Andrew's correspondent said as much, while also misinterpreting the log-log chart. He says the log-log chart "visually creates a much stronger correlation than there actually is".

But that's not what happened. It's more appropriate to say that the log transformations allow us to see the correlation that exists. The correlation is not linear which is why the usual scatter plot does not reveal it. 

Nevertheless, I agree with the correspondent on avoiding log scales in data displays because most readers don't get it.

***

Consider the following pair of plots.

The underlying data follow the pattern Y = 0.003 * X^2.5 but for what we're talking about, the specific pattern doesn't matter so long as X and Y has a "power" relationship. 

The left plot directly shows the relationship between X and Y using regular scales. Readers see that Y is running away from X. The slope of the line increases as X increases. The speed of growth of Y exceeds that of X. This relationship is curved, which can't be described in words succinctly.

The right plot visually shows a linear relationship between X and Y but it's not really between X and Y. It's between log(X) and log(Y). Note that log(Y) = log(0.003*X^2.5) = log(0.003) + 2.5*log(X), which is a straight line with slope 2.5 and intercept log(0.003). The gap between gridlines now represents a 10-fold jump in value (of X or of Y). The linear relationship is between X and Y in log scale; in linear scale, it's a power relationship, not linear.

The practice of printing axis labels in the original scale, rather than log scale, adds to the confusion. On the right plot, the points labeled 5,000 and 50,000 do not actually lie on the line; what fall in line are the points log(5,000) and log(50,000). The reason for this confusing practice is that humans have trouble understanding data in log scale. For example, if $50,000 is the GDP per capita for some country, then log($50,000) = $4.5 which can't be interpreted.

Whether we are talking about the gaps between gridlines or about specific points on the line, what readers see on the log-log chart is only part of the story. Readers must also recognize that for the log-log chart to work, equal gaps between gridlines do not signify equal gaps in the data, while the linear relationship is between the log of the axis labels, not the labels themselves.

The X-Y plot can be interpreted visually in a direct way while the log-log plot requires the reader to transcend the visual representation, entering an abstract realm.

 

 

The reckless practice of eyeballing trend lines

MSN showed this chart claiming a huge increase in the number of British children who believe they are born the wrong gender.

The graph has a number of defects, starting with drawing a red line that clearly isn’t the trend in the data.

To find the trend line, we have to draw a line that is closest to the top of every column. The true trend line is closer to the blue line drawn below:

The red line moves up one unit roughly every three years while the blue line does so every four years.

Notice the dramatic jump in the last column of the chart. The observed trend is not a straight line, and therefore it is not appropriate to force a straight-line model. Instead, it makes more sense to divide the time line into three periods, with different rates of change.

Most of the growth during this 10 year period occurred in the last year, and one should check the data, and also check to see if any accounting criterion changed that might explain this large unexpected jump.

***

The other curiosity about this chart is the scale of the vertical axis. Nowhere on the chart does it say which metric of gender dysphoria it is depicting. The title suggests they are counting the number of diagnoses but the axis labels that range from one to five point to some other metric.

From the article, we learn that annual number of gender dysphoria diagnoses was about 10,000 in 2021, and that is encoded as 4.5 in the column chart. The sub-header of the chart indicates that the unit is number per 1,000 people. Ten thousand diagnoses divided by the population size of under 18 x 1,000 = 4.5. This implies there were roughly 2.2 million people under 18 in the U.K. in 2021.

But according to these official statistics (link), there were about 13 million people aged 0-18 in just England and Wales in mid-2022, which is not in the right range. From a dataviz perspective, the designer needs to explain what the values on the vertical axes represent. Right now, I have no idea what it means.

***

Using the Trifecta Checkup framework, we say that the question addressed by the chart is clear but there are problems relating to data encoding as well as the trend-line visual.

Don't show everything

There are many examples where one should not show everything when visualizing data.

A long-time reader sent me this chart from the Economist, published around Thanksgiving last year:

It's a scatter plot with each dot representing a single tweet by Elon Musk against a grid of years (on the horizontal axis) and time of day (on the vertical axis).

The easy messages to pick up include:

• the increase in frequency of tweets over the years
• especially, the jump in density after Musk bought Twitter in late 2022 (there is also a less obvious level up around 2018)
• the almost continuous tweeting throughout 24 hours.

By contrast, it's hard if not impossible to learn the following:

• how many tweets did he make on average or in total per year, per day, per hour?
• the density of tweets for any single period of time (i.e., a reference for everything else)
• the growth rate over time, especially the magnitude of the jumps

The paradox: a chart that is data-dense but information-poor.

***

The designer added gridlines and axis labels to help structure our reading. Specifically, we're cued to separate the 24 hours into four 6-hour chunks. We're also expected to divide the years into two groups (pre- and post- the Musk acquisition), and secondarily, into one-year intervals.

If we accept this analytical frame, then we can divide time into these boxes, and then compute summary statistics within each box, and present those values.  I'm working on some concepts, will show them next time.

 

Dot plots with varying dot sizes

In a prior post, I appreciated the effort by the Bloomberg Graphics team to describe the diverging fortunes of Japanese and Chinese car manufacturers in various Asian markets.

The most complex chart used in that feature is the following variant of a dot plot:

This chart plots the competitors in the Chinese domestic car market. Each bubble represents a car brand. Using the styling of the entire article, the red color is associated with Japanese brands while the medium gray color indicates Chinese brands. The light gray color shows brands from the rest of the world. (In my view, adding the pink for U.S. and blue for German brands - seen on the first chart in this series - isn't too much.)

The dot size represents the current relative market share of the brand. The main concern of the Bloomberg article is the change in market share in the period 2019-2024. This is placed on the horizontal axis, so the bubbles on the right side represent growing brands while the bubbles on the left, weakening brands.

All the Japanese brands are stagnating or declining, from the perspective of market share.

The biggest loser appears to be Volkswagen although it evidently started off at a high level since its bubble size after shrinkage is still among the largest.

***

This chart form is a composite. There are at least two ways to describe it. I prefer to see it as a dot plot with an added dimension of dot size. A dot plot typically plots a single dimension on a single axis, and here, a second dimension is encoded in the sizes of the dots.

An alternative interpretation is that it is a scatter plot with a third dimension in the dot size. Here, the vertical dimension is meaningless, as the dots are arbitrarily spread out to prevent overplotting. This arrangement is also called the bubble plot if we adopt a convention that a bubble is a dot of variable size. In a typical bubble plot, both vertical and horizontal axes carry meaning but here, the vertical axis is arbitrary.

The bubble plot draws attention to the variable in the bubble size, the scatter plot emphasizes two variables encoded in the grid while the dot plot highlights a single metric. Each shows secondary metrics.

***

Another revelation of the graph is the fragmentation of the market. There are many dots, especially medium gray dots. There are quite a few Chinese local manufacturers, most of which experienced moderate growth. Most of these brands are startups - this can be inferred because the size of the dot is about the same as the change in market share.

The only foreign manufacturer to make material gains in the Chinese market is Tesla.

The real story of the chart is BYD. I almost missed its dot on first impression, as it sits on the far right edge of the chart (in the original webpage, the right edge of the chart is aligned with the right edge of the text). BYD is the fastest growing brand in China, and its top brand. The pedestrian gray color chosen for Chinese brands probably didn't help. Besides, I had a little trouble figuring out if the BYD bubble is larger than the largest bubble in the size legend shown on the opposite end of BYD. (I measured, and indeed the BYD bubble is slightly larger.)

This dot chart (with variable dot sizes) is nice for highlighting individual brands. But it doesn't show aggregates. One of the callouts on the chart reads: "Chinese cars' share rose by 23%, with BYD at the forefront". These words are necessary because it's impossible to figure out that the total share gain by all Chinese brands is 23% from this chart form.

They present this information in the line chart that I included in the last post, repeated here:

The first chart shows that cumulatively, Chinese brands have increased their share of the Chinese market by 23 percent while Japanese brands have ceded about 9 percent of market share.

The individual-brand view offers other insights that can't be found in the aggregate line chart. We can see that in addition to BYD, there are a few local brands that have similar market shares as Tesla.

***

It's tough to find a single chart that brings out insights at several levels of analysis, which is why we like to talk about a "visual story" which typically comprises a sequence of charts.

 

Fantastic auto show from the Bloomberg crew

I really enjoyed the charts in this Bloomberg feature on the state of Japanese car manufacturers in the Southeast Asian and Chinese markets (link). This article contains five charts, each of which is both engaging and well-produced.

***

Each chart has a clear message, and the visual display is clearly adapted for purpose.

The simplest chart is the following side-by-side stacked bar chart, showing the trend in share of production of cars:

Back in 1998, Japan was the top producer, making about 22% of all passenger cars in the world. China did not have much of a car industry. By 2023, China has dominated global car production, with almost 40% of share. Japan has slipped to second place, and its share has halved.

The designer is thoughtful about each label that is placed on the chart. If something is not required to tell the story, it's not there. Consistently across all five charts, they code Japan in red, and China in a medium gray color. (The coloring for the rest of the world is a bit inconsistent; we'll get to that later.)

Readers may misinterpret the cause of this share shift if this were the only chart presented to them. By itself, the chart suggests that China simply "stole" share from Japan (and other countries). What is true is that China has invested in a car manufacturing industry. A more subtle factor is that the global demand for cars has grown, with most of the growth coming from the Chinese domestic market and other emerging markets - and many consumers favor local brands. Said differently, the total market size in 2023 is much higher than that in 1998.

***

Bloomberg also made a chart that shows market share based on demand:

This is a small-multiples chart consisting of line charts. Each line chart shows market share trends in five markets (China and four Southeast Asian nations) from 2019 to 2024. Take the Chinese market for example. The darker gray line says Chinese brands have taken 20 percent additional market share since 2019; note that the data series is cumulative over the entire window. Meanwhile, brands from all other countries lost market share, with the Japanese brands (in red) losing the most.

The numbers are relative, which means that the other brands have not necessarily suffered declines in sales. This chart by itself doesn't tell us what happened to sales; all we know is the market shares of brands from different countries relative to their baseline market share in 2019. (Strange period to pick out as it includes the entire pandemic.)

The designer demonstrates complete awareness of the intended message of the chart. The lines for Chinese and Japanese brands were bolded to highlight the diverging fortunes, not just in China, but also in Southeast Asia, to various extents.

On this chart, the designer splits out US and German brands from the rest of the world. This is an odd decision because the categorization is not replicated in the other four charts. Thus, the light gray color on this chart excludes U.S. and Germany while the same color on the other charts includes them. I think they could have given U.S. and Germany their own colors throughout.

***

The primacy of local brands is hinted at in the following chart showing how individual brands fared in each Southeast Asian market:

 

This chart takes the final numbers from the line charts above, that is to say, the change in market share from 2019 to 2024, but now breaks them down by individual brand names. As before, the red bubbles represent Japanese brands, and the gray bubbles Chinese brands. The American and German brands are lumped in with the rest of the world and show up as light gray bubbles.

I'll discuss this chart form in a next post. For now, I want to draw your attention to the Malaysia market which is the last row of this chart.

What we see there are two dominant brands (Perodua, Proton), both from "rest of the world" but both brands are Malaysian. These two brands are the biggest in Malaysia and they account for two of the three highest growing brands there. The other high-growth brand is Chery, which is a Chinese brand; even though it is growing faster, its market share is still much smaller than the Malaysian brands, and smaller than Toyota and Honda. Honda has suffered a lot in this market while Toyota eked out a small gain.

The impression given by this bubble chart is that Chinese brands have not made much of a dent in Malaysia. But that would not be correct, if we believe the line chart above. According to the line chart, Chinese brands roughly earned the same increase in market share (about 3%) as "other" brands.

What about the bubble chart might be throwing us off?

It seems that the Chinese brands were starting from zero, thus the growth is the whole bubble. For the Malaysian brands, the growth is in the outer ring of the bubbles, and the larger the bubble, the thinner is the ring. Our attention is dominated by the bubble size which represents a snapshot in the ending year, providing no information about the growth (which is shown on the horizontal axis).

***

For more discussion of Bloomberg graphics, see here.

Small tweaks that make big differences

It's one of those days that a web search led me to an unfamiliar corner, and I found myself poring over a pile of column charts that look like this:

This pair of charts appears to be canonical in a type of genetics analysis. I'll focus on the column chart up top.

The chart plots a variety of gene functions along the horizontal axis. These functions are classified into three broad categories, indicated using axis annotation.

What are some small tweaks that readers will enjoy?

***

First, use colors. Here is an example in which the designer uses color to indicate the function classes:

The primary design difference between these two column charts is using three colors to indicate the three function classes. This little change makes it much easier to recognize the ending of one class and the start of the other.

Color doesn't have to be limited to column areas. The following example extends the colors to the axis labels:

Again, just a smallest of changes but it makes a big difference.

***

It bugs me a lot that the long axis labels are printed in a slanted way, forcing every serious reader to read with slanted heads.

Slanting it the other way doesn't help:

Vertical labels are best read...

These vertical labels are best read while doing side planks.

***

I'm surprised the horizontal alignment is rather rare. Here's one:

 

Excess delay

The hot topic in New York at the moment is congestion pricing for vehicles entering Manhattan, which is set to debut during the month of June. I found this chart (link) that purports to prove the effectiveness of London's similar scheme introduced a while back.

This is a case of the visual fighting against the data. The visual feels very busy and yet the story lying beneath the data isn't that complex.

This chart was probably designed to accompany some text which isn't available free from that link so I haven't seen it. The reader's expectation is to compare the periods before and after the introduction of congestion charges. But even the task of figuring out the pre- and post-period is taking more time than necessary. In particular, "WEZ" is not defined. (I looked this up, it's "Western Extension Zone" so presumably they expanded the area in which charges were applied when the travel rates went back to pre-charging levels.)

The one element of the graphic that raises eyebrows is the legend which screams to be read.

Why are there four colors for two items? The legend is not self-sufficient. The reader has to look at the chart itself and realize that purple is the pre-charging period while green (and blue) is the post-charging period (ignoring the distinction between CCZ and WEZ).

While we are solving this puzzle, we also notice that the bottom two colors are used to represent an unchanging quantity - which is the definition of "no congestion". This no-congestion travel rate is a constant throughout the chart and yet a lot of ink of two colors have been spilled on it. The real story is in the excess delay, which the congestion charging scheme was supposed to reduce.

The excess on the chart isn't harmless. The excess delay on the roads has been transferred to the chart reader. It actually distracts from the story the analyst is wanting to tell. Presumably, the story is that the excess delays dropped quite a bit after congestion charging was introduced. About four years later, the travel rates had creeped back to pre-charging levels, whereupon the authorities responded by extending the charging zone to WEZ (which as of the time of the chart, wasn't apparently bringing the travel rate down.)

Instead of that story, the excess of the chart makes me wonder... the roads are still highly congested with travel rates far above the level required to achieve no congestion, even after the charging scheme was introduced.

***

I started removing some of the excess from the chart. Here's the first cut:

This is better but it is still very busy. One problem is the choice of columns, even though the data are found strictly on the top of each column. (Besides, when I chop off the unchanging sections of the columns, I created a start-not-from-zero problem.) Also, the labeling of the months leaves much to be desired, there are too many grid lines, etc.

***

Here is the version I landed on. Instead of columns, I use lines. When lines are used, there is no need for month labels since we can assume a reader knows the structure of months within a year.

A priniciple I hold dear is not to have legends unless it is absolutely required. In this case, there is no need to have a legend. I also brought back the notion of a uncongested travel speed, with a single line (and annotation).

***

The chart raises several questions about the underlying analysis. I'd interested in learning more about "moving car observer surveys". What are those? Are they reliable?

Further, for evidence of efficacy, I think the pre-charging period must be expanded to multiple years. Was 2002 a particularly bad year?

Thirdly, assuming WEZ indicates the expansion of the program to a new geographical area, I'm not sure whether the data prior to its introduction represents the travel rate that includes the WEZ (despite no charging) or excludes it. Arguments can be made for each case so the key from a dataviz perspective is to clarify what was actually done.

 

P.S. [6-6-24] On the day I posted this, NY State Governer decided to cancel the congestion pricing scheme that was set to start at the end of June.