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.