Legible London Walk 21 Txtfinal
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Legible London Walk 21 Txtfinal

on

  • 1,092 views

Presentation paper submitted to Walk21 Toronto 2007.

Presentation paper submitted to Walk21 Toronto 2007.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,092
Views on SlideShare
1,087
Embed Views
5

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

2 Embeds 5

http://www.linkedin.com 3
http://www.lmodules.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Legible London Walk 21 Txtfinal Legible London Walk 21 Txtfinal Document Transcript

  • Walk 21 Toronto 2007 Legible London Developing a Single Walking Wayfinding System for London Adrian Bell, Active Travel Development Manager, Transport for London London a Great City to Get Lost In In his ‘Public Spaces and Public Lifei’ report, Professor Jan Gehl suggests that while London has a wealth of assets in its heritage and architecture, parks and squares, it does not respect the value of pedestrians or cyclists for the role they play. His recommendations to rebalance street use in favour of human scale movement over motorised traffic offered a vision of London where walking could be a choice of preference. No city can thrive without street level activity, the animation of streets through pedestrian activity provides for commerce, security, character and much more. London however, despite the attractions it holds can be intimidating to navigate whether visiting or considering other ways of travelling to work. Recent survey work for Transport for Londonii estimates that some 25,000 a day get lost in Central London. That Central London on represents perhaps 10% of Greater London suggests there are huge issues to overcome in making the city easier to understand and walk around. But this is certainly not an indication of a lack of information. Conservative estimates suggest there maybe over 100 different formal street signing or information systems in existence across the capital and countless maps and guidebooks. The real difficulties that Londoners and our visitors face are inconsistency, unreliability and gaps in information. As a result there is little reason not to rely on the more trustworthy modes, the car or the public transport system. While we could ruminate on whether the car really is a trustworthy and stress free mode in London, the fact is that there are alarming signs that short journeys are increasing being undertaken by motorised transport. Data from the 2001 London Area Transport Survey (LATS) indicates that half of all car trips in the outer London suburban area are under 2km. The loss of walking trips to public transport has one more iconic villan; the Underground map. Harry Beck’s design classic was originally rejected by London Transport because it was not geographically accurate. He was inspired by electrical wiring diagrams to reduce the complex tunnel routes to a system of straight lines and 45 degree angles. To assist with definition he enlarged the central areas and shrunk the outer areas. Despite reservations from the authority, the public loved the stylish simplicity of the map and many other cities have copies adapted for their own metro systems. However, the approach whilst ideal for a get on and get off service, distorts the spatial arrangement of places identified by station names. This causes classic problems like those somewhat affectionately referred to in Bill Bryson’s Cycling, Walking & Accessibility, Transport for London, Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, LONDON, England SW1H 0TL, e: adrianbell@streetmanagement.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7027 9181 w: www.tfl.gov.uk 1
  • Walk 21 Toronto 2007 travel book ‘Notes From a Small Island, “an out-of-town visitor using Mr Beck's map to get from, say, Bank Station to Mansion House, would quite understandably board a Central Line train to Liverpool Street, transfer to the Circle Line and continue for another five stops to Mansion House. At which point they would emerge 200 yards down the street from the location they'd started at.” This could be dismissed as an amusing anecdote about unwary tourists but TfL’s own customer surveys found that the Underground map is reported to be used by a quarter of Londoners to plan their journeys on foot. This reliance on Beck’s map as a ‘structure guide’ to the layout of much of central and north London should be considered against the fact that live testing for the wayfinding project found 109 station to station pairs on the underground network in central London could be walked quicker on the surface. These 109 links were confirmed to have been walked at the Department of Transport approved average pace of 4.6km/hr allowing for most of the able bodied community to achieve considerable savings, reduced stress and the pleasure of being above ground. While it is not expected that people would necessarily interchange between lines above ground, it is estimatedii that 18,000 passengers a day use the underground when they could walk the same journey in less time. Of course not only could they benefit by walking the ‘tube’, those left on the underground making longer journeys would have a little more space. The quality of service factors for the underground are expected in business case planning to far outweigh lost revenue from shifting these passengers. Increasing Walking in London The first strategic document produced by the Mayor of London Ken Livingstone was his 2001 Transport Strategy. To produce a policy statement about transport ahead of the land use strategy reflected the dialogue with Londoners during the election campaign. Transport policy is a major issue in the capital not only with the public but with business. Indeed over 40% of London organisations in a 2003 poll claimed that improving transport was the factor that would have the biggest positive impact on their businessiii Examining policy options for the period up to 2025, recent TfL work has determined that there is a potential to increase walking to some 7m trips per day, giving walk- all-the-way trips an absolute modal shift of +1% against an overall growth in travel from 27.2m trips/day today to 31.2m trips/day by 2025. To increase walking ahead of growth is not purely a policy aspiration it is a necessity to maintain transport resilience under the intense pressure of new residents and jobs. This growth can be put into perspective as a city the size of Greater Leeds arriving in London over the next 16 years. Amongst the landmark policies in a transport strategy which brought forward congestion charging and reversed the decline in bus use, the Mayor also set Cycling, Walking & Accessibility, Transport for London, Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, LONDON, England SW1H 0TL, e: adrianbell@streetmanagement.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7027 9181 w: www.tfl.gov.uk 2
  • Walk 21 Toronto 2007 out a vision for making London on of the most walkable cities in the world. One can only wonder if the scale of this task registered when the Mayor set out his ambition to “create and promote a connected, safe, convenient and attractive environment that encourages people to walk”. Perhaps the implications are reflected in the horizon for world class walkability being set at 2015, and that the delivery document, the 2004 ‘Walking Plan for London’ included 29 actions under 6 themes. Aspects which define the concept of walkability were described as the five C’s by the London Planning Advisory Committee in 1997iv. The Committee described that cities where people choose to walk over other transport are connected, convivial, conspicuous, comfortable and convenient. The ability to find ones way efficiently when striding or to explore confidently when strolling, is a key element of both connectivity and conspicuity. Next to, rather stereotypical complaints about weather, albeit only the worst weather, the reported deterrents to walking more focus heavily on a lack of confidence. Figure 1 - Current Barriers to Walking in Londonv Rational Emotional Bad weather Feeling lethargic Only heavy rain or Walking can sometimes Safety (a rational feel too much effort in snow would be concern but based on sufficient to deter terms of distance and not ‘feeling’) knowing location them from walking and choose another mode Although, most areas Lower confidence levels in ‘central’ London are Not having the faith in felt to be safe other their ability to find their areas are thought to location (no matter how be unsafe esp. at confident they are as an night for females individual) Implications People can be encouraged to walk by increasing their confidence that:  It’s safe to walk  They have a better sense of the scale of the city  They can be reassured about the location The emotive responses to walking are in stark contrast to the barriers to cycling in London which TfL surveys found rely much more heavily on more physical constraints such as segregation and parking. This general differentiation highlights the rather more fundamental difference between these often partnered modes. Walking is not perceived and perhaps should not be categorised as transport. Cycling, Walking & Accessibility, Transport for London, Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, LONDON, England SW1H 0TL, e: adrianbell@streetmanagement.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7027 9181 w: www.tfl.gov.uk 3
  • Walk 21 Toronto 2007 Walking Infrastructure - Improvements to walking conditions in London are delivered through three key routes; i) Annual capital funding grant from Transport for London to the 33 London boroughs through the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) process. It is notable that the London boroughs have highway authority responsibility for around 95% of roads in the capital ii) TfL maintains a strategic network of roads (Transport for London Road Network - TLRN) in the capital (the remaining 5%) and invests under its own highway authority powers. iii) Boroughs also commit local tax revenue investment through Asset Management Plans to maintain local highways. In addition, investment occurs through development where local planning negotiations can obligate developers to contribute to public highway works. The major effect of this investment has been in hard infrastructure improvement – primarily public space and safety schemes. It is estimated that TfL investment over the next three years in the walking environment will be around £126m.1 Pedestrian Safety - Reducing road casualties is a major focus of transport investment. Across London pedestrian casualties have fallen by over a quarter (26%) between the base years of 1994-98 and 2006 and child pedestrian casualties have fallen by 55% over the same periodvi . The Londonwide target for pedestrian casualty reduction is 50% by 2010. There is also a stretch target for child pedestrian casualties of 60% over the same timescale. Confidence to Walk - TfL and the boroughs are actively working to mitigate the issues around the safety and comfort of walking but are yet to coherently address the issues related to feeling equipped to walk. Towards a Solution for Wayfinding Initial assessments of the business case for improving wayfinding for walking suggest a wide-range of benefits (Figure 2) City wayfinding is a subject with a strong theoretical basis in the analysis of human spatial and cognitive function but little hard evidence to guide development. In London, while policy supported the principle the drive to more serious consideration had to come from demand. An important first step was a TfL funded report by Central London Partnership (CLP) to investigate the issue of how people find their way within the Congestion Charge Zone. CLP are a non governmental partnership of local authorities, land oners and business in central London concerned with all issues regarding development 1 Figures combine investment streams for borough roads and TLRN in respect of walking, areas based schemes (town centres, interchanges and ‘streets for people’) and accessibility. Cycling, Walking & Accessibility, Transport for London, Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, LONDON, England SW1H 0TL, e: adrianbell@streetmanagement.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7027 9181 w: www.tfl.gov.uk 4
  • Walk 21 Toronto 2007 of that area. CLP engaged information designers, Applied Information Group (AIG) to study this issue partly on the basis of their previous work on the European Union funded Bristol Legible City project. Figure 2 Business Case Assessment of Legible London Objectives Starting with an overview of the situation, AIG found that within the Congestion Charging Zone (figure 2) at least 32 different street signing systems exist in addition to hundreds of paper and web-based maps and guides. Apart from sharp differences in information, design and quality, maintaining such a profusion of systems is enormously costly. Figure 3 – London Central Congestion Charging Zone Boundaries Cycling, Walking & Accessibility, Transport for London, Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, LONDON, England SW1H 0TL, e: adrianbell@streetmanagement.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7027 9181 w: www.tfl.gov.uk 5
  • Walk 21 Toronto 2007 The variation of information is bewildering ranging from inconsistent approach to destination names and metric, imperial and time based indications of distance (sometimes all on the same sign post). Designs vary widely in terms of colour, shape, typeface, materials and branding. Systems are maintained by various agencies with inconsistent standards and maintenance regimes, sometimes encouraging graffiti and vandalism. There is also no common standard for where in the street signs should be positioned. While there is an acknowledgement of good individual executions of local walking signage and mapping, the haphazard nature of wayfinding provision is not best suited to the needs of either pedestrians or the sign providers. In public questionnaires only 4% described London as having a ‘world class’ street signs system2. It is little surprise that street signs are currently the last point of reference mentioned when Londoners were asked how the plan to walk in London. Table 1 Unprompted Public Responses on Walking Wayfinding Tools source: TfL market research by Synovate 2006 Most ‘top of mind’ Underground map/London ‘A-Z’ Streetmap Landmarks Asking for directions Internet Phone a friend (mobile) Other maps (stations, bus stops) Least ‘top of mind’ On-street signage To raise the value of signs in a comprehensive wayfinding system, it was found that they need to offer predictability, consistency and authoritativeness. To deliver these requirements, the failings in the existing system needed to be seen as fragmented parts of a possible whole. The information trail ranges from pre-planning (in the home), personal plans (maps/ tailored directions), orientation, support while travelled and recovery systems in the case of getting lost. Initially, the areas within scope for the system include: • On street signs and information • TfL web applications (London Journey Planner) • Local information maps within TfL public transport • Paper maps/guides produced by TfL or partners 2 Information collated from 3,500 visitor feedback forms at the Legible London exhibition between September and November 2006 Cycling, Walking & Accessibility, Transport for London, Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, LONDON, England SW1H 0TL, e: adrianbell@streetmanagement.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7027 9181 w: www.tfl.gov.uk 6
  • Walk 21 Toronto 2007 In addition, a wide range of other outlets would need to be considered, including: • Future proofing - satellite navigational aides and mobile telephone technology • Sharing or commercial relationships with existing publications such as the London A-Z street map, tourist guides etc • Relationships with heavy rail stations (not within TfL’s remit) • Relationships with private land developers With the requirements and tools in place it was important to take a step back and consider the scope and brief for wayfinding. Scope - It was clear that to provide a contribution to the Mayor’s ‘walkable city’ vision the system would need to consider London-wide application. This itself creates difficulties not only because of the need to co-ordinate the interests of 32 individual highway authorities, but also because a system which might work well in dense central London might simply be unaffordable and the same specification in suburban London. A solution which was strongly branded but flexibly applied was a key requirement to allow variations in scale and application under a recognisable style and quality. Time - Timescales were also critical. Alongside the horizon for the Mayoral vision of 2015, it was essential to consider the demands of the 2012 London Olympic Games. The milestones quickly became to complete any new scheme for central London and the Olympic park area (in east London) by 2012 with roll-out to the rest of the capital by 2015. This created a drive for a modular system which could be implemented in several places at once and one which could be varied to include temporary information (such as Olympic venue guidance). Principles Any single system requires the definition of conventions – naming, placement; and interventions – maps, signs. Working from a low base of pubic confidence in terms of changing to walking, it was essential that the system: built confidence in assessing walkability and to pre-plan; enabled people to build and expand their mental map of London; and, created a central and updated data system for all information used in the system. Cycling, Walking & Accessibility, Transport for London, Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, LONDON, England SW1H 0TL, e: adrianbell@streetmanagement.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7027 9181 w: www.tfl.gov.uk 7
  • Walk 21 Toronto 2007 These requirements provided the basis for the design principles that were adopted: • Don’t Make Me Think – learn one system and remember how it works • What I Need When I Need It – provide just enough of the right information at the right place; adopt the approach of ‘progressive disclosure used in road signing • Connect Areas – join up understood nodes (places, transport hubs and attractions) • Clean Up – remove unnecessary clutter, reduce the need for new street signs as far as possible • Invest Wisely – consider economies of scale but strive for high quality The architecture defined by these design principles built on the distinct advantage of TfL’s existing public information services. As the regional transport authority, TfL provided the natural central resources and the important ability to provide the walking wayfinding as a component of the already successful ‘Journey Planner’ real-time trip information system. The Journey Planner system already provides mapping, albeit with limited data for walkers. The addition of walking specific route guidance would enhance the value of Journey Planner by a informing the journey stages leading to or from public transport links as well as walk only trips. The key was to provide a mapping system which could both meet user needs and integrate with existing higher systems. To meet user need an understanding of how walking is planned is necessary. The cognitive process involved in understanding spatial distribution is the idea of mental maps. Mental Maps - Building Better Knowledge Mental maps are inherent in the way humans think. We all know from our usual modes of transport that we use our own mental maps to get about. Examples might include drivers navigating by landmarks and, from this simple memory technique, may develop an (often advanced) vocabulary of favoured routes. Rail or underground travellers see London as a collection of points, lines and intersections. The mental map we build is not strictly geographic, but it revolves around the relationship between memorable locations and routes insofar as they are relevant to our needs. Cycling, Walking & Accessibility, Transport for London, Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, LONDON, England SW1H 0TL, e: adrianbell@streetmanagement.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7027 9181 w: www.tfl.gov.uk 8
  • Walk 21 Toronto 2007 Figure 4 – Example Mental Map of Covent Garden True north Neal Street The mental map in Figure 4 shows the basic node and path structure of the famous Covent Garden area of London. It is interesting to note the geographically incorrect length of Neal Street. The author has drawn the start and end points with little regard for the length of the road. Also note that Holborn and Leicester Square Underground stations are disconnected from the Covent Garden area. The owner of this mental map arrives and leaves by Covent Garden station in the centre marked (‘Tube’). The arrival mode may also indicate why the drawing is not ‘north up’ (actual north points towards the top right hand corner). Note here the difficulty of orientation when emerging from the underground system. To create effective support for pedestrians to develop their mental maps it is necessary to simplify London in a way that is useful for walkers. London has plenty of memorable areas – Soho, Camden Town, Covent Garden, Chinatown; landmarks – the London Eye, Big Ben, Tower Bridge, Canary Wharf; streets, stations and squares – all of which can assist the mental mapping process. But the walker needs to break them down into manageable and identifiable nodes, routes and areas. The study work identified 6 potential levels of information as shown in figure 4. The implication was that a map based system offered the scaleability and interpretive flexibility to offer wayfinding for walking. This was supported by TfL customer researchvii which found that over half (54%) of people claimed Cycling, Walking & Accessibility, Transport for London, Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, LONDON, England SW1H 0TL, e: adrianbell@streetmanagement.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7027 9181 w: www.tfl.gov.uk 9
  • Walk 21 Toronto 2007 they would be motivated to walk more if they had better information about what was local to them and 47% if they had better knowledge of London generally. Figure 5 – Proposed levels of Information to Support Mental Map Development for Walking in London Mapping also supports a diverse community more inclusively than written signposting where language or reading skills may present a barrier. Even ignoring the 15 million annual foreign tourists, over 200 languages are spoken in London and 4 in 10 Londoners are within a minority ethnic group. Even accepting this, maps are not well-understood by all and great care would be needed to ensure that this approach would not itself exclude those with differing cognitive abilities. Field testing of graphical approaches suggested that the street signs should contain ‘place’ level or 5 minute walk information and ‘village/area’ or 15 minute walk information in denser central London areas. In less dense suburban areas the signs might comprise 15 minute village/area maps only. Scaleability of on-line resources and map products might be represented at all six levels of detail in order that the information could be used to educate about spatial arrangement at the largest scale and identify specific locations at the smallest. 15 minutes was adopted as a guide for maximum map distance on this basis that this represents an easily achieved walk and one which This process led to the need to classify London into a series of village sized nodes. Using a 15 minute walking distance it is possible to see that most of Cycling, Walking & Accessibility, Transport for London, Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, LONDON, England SW1H 0TL, e: adrianbell@streetmanagement.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7027 9181 w: www.tfl.gov.uk 10
  • Walk 21 Toronto 2007 the denser parts of London can be covered providing the possibility of guiding trips by ‘stepping stones’ between neighbouring nodes as shown in Figure 5. Breaking London down like this offered the chance to reduce the spatial barriers to considering walking into more meaningful and achievable stages. Figure 6 – Diagrammatic Representation of 15 minute Walking Nodes Measured from Underground Stations in Central London Three stage trip The representation of the node based mapping was a graphic design issue which required consideration of many constraining factors. Developing a Consensus on a Design Of course, the theory is only one part of developing the system. The design process has necessarily been highly consultative. To deliver a single scheme in London it is essential to account of the views and advice of all 32 local highway authorities, a range of private land owners and non governmental agencies with interests ranging from pedestrian rights to urban design. This is not simply to ensure transparency but because much of the public side of the system would be implemented in streets outside of TfL’s control. Similarly, the richness of information and co-ordination can only come about through consensus around ideas and principles. It is also essential that the mental mapping approach is informed by an agreed system of local nomenclature. Issues such as naming local areas, identifying attractions and product design for on-street installation have been discussed in structured workshops between and TfL. This dialogue is also supplemented by the results from two desk feasibility studies of areas of inner and outer London to particularly Cycling, Walking & Accessibility, Transport for London, Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, LONDON, England SW1H 0TL, e: adrianbell@streetmanagement.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7027 9181 w: www.tfl.gov.uk 11
  • Walk 21 Toronto 2007 examine issues of scaling and transferability between these very different environments. For the internal side of the system, essentially its mechanism; issues concerning integrating the walking wayfinding system into TfL’s existing public transport information have been considered in a parallel series of discussion with TfL’s teams. This consultation process is helping develop the scope and details of the draft system specification and also informing the project management process for future delivery. It is also helpful to understand issues around brand identity given existing public confidence in TfL public transport information. In recognition of the risk in adopting a single design solution, TfL has also asked the regional urban design agency, Design for London, to host a peer review process which provides access to design experts as a critique. The Peer Review Group has particularly helped to identify the balances between function, aesthetics and identity discussed above. This group will continue to advise TfL as the design moves through piloting and prototyping into major delivery. Virtuous Triangle One of the key aspects that has emerged in the process of consulting on a map-based system, has been the tension been the functionality, aesthetic treatment and strength of local identity. Each of these aspects is interrelated in a map-based wayfinding system and might be considered as follows: Functionality – the extent to which the system provides the support whether, in pre-planning or while travelling, to make effective choices and maximise trip efficiency. Aesthetic – the extent to which the product(s) are attractive, including clarity of information, stylistic interpretation, product design and materials Identity – the ability of the system to represent local identity and diversity, brand recognition (for instance local authorities or land owners) These elements have been considered as a triangle or objectives. The ideal system will sit at a certain point in this triangle representing the optimum balance of objectives, whereby the system reflects and secures local identity but not at the extent of functional coherence and remains attractive to users. This idea is a theoretical device and may be explained by subjective assessment of some examples of existing products: Cycling, Walking & Accessibility, Transport for London, Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, LONDON, England SW1H 0TL, e: adrianbell@streetmanagement.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7027 9181 w: www.tfl.gov.uk 12
  • Walk 21 Toronto 2007 Figure 7 – Examples of Relationship Between Objectives Objectives Example Triangle Function Underground Map F Identity Aesthetics I A F F Example Possible Walking London Bus Map Wayfinding Map ? I A I A This is yet to be tested, but even this sketch assessment indicates the tensions between objectives. In the case of Beck’s Underground map, local identity is almost entirely subordinate to aesthetic and functional considerations in light of the limited interaction between users and the external environment. It meets these objectives very well. However, as with many cities, the local bus map is a very complicated diagram partly because bus stops are located at street level as well as the fact that routes and stops are relatively frequent. The scale, density of information and need to relate to local areas produce a map which is complicated and relatively unattractive. The result of this illegibility was for TfL to produce ‘spider maps’ for bus services with the area at the centre and bus routes radiating from it. Evaluation of the wayfinding system will assess the balance between the three factors and through observational surveys, mystery shopper type test journeys and depth interviews or focus group work. This evaluation process will help to define both the ideal balance and the relative performance of successive iterations of the design through pilot schemes. Cycling, Walking & Accessibility, Transport for London, Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, LONDON, England SW1H 0TL, e: adrianbell@streetmanagement.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7027 9181 w: www.tfl.gov.uk 13
  • Walk 21 Toronto 2007 Design Prototype The parallel development of theory and intensive consultation has enabled rapid development of a prototype system. The system proposes a central ‘living map’ which is driven by new, accurate information on the walking infrastructure of London and manipulated through bespoke software to provide mapping, for a range of products from street signs to personal journey guides and sign placement plans to accessible information for people with disabilities. These multi-media outputs are a technological tool to flexibly provide a graphical solution to wayfinding in a complex city. The first live test of the system will be a full prototype of street map signs, bus stop and underground station maps (illustrated at Appendix I). The street maps signs will test forward up design in light of the situated logic they provide, that is, the map is orientated to the direction it is viewed in the street. Logic aside, it is recognised that the convention for mapping of ‘north up’. Because of this convention, a north point will be etched into the baseplate of each sign unit in the prototype scheme. This maybe particularly useful for signs near to underground station exits where orientation is difficult. The prototype scheme is centered on Bond Street Underground station in Westminster City Council’s borough. This was selected, by virtue of Westminster targeted actions to improve the understanding of the routes between Bond Street Station and the Bond Street itself and because, being in London’s West End near to Oxford Street it was seen as a strong test of the design. Literally, ‘if it can work in one of the busiest shopping areas in the world it should work anywhere’. Evaluation It is not proposed that the Bond Street evaluation framework attempt to capture all of the benefits shown above in figure 2. As many of the benefits are expected to build up cumulatively as the Legible London system is rolled out across London, it would be virtually impossible to attribute these impacts to the small prototype area. For example, many of the health and environmental benefits rely on a gradual mode shift to walking. Therefore the evaluation framework focuses on those factors that can be reliably measured locally. Time savings and connectivity -Improved wayfinding and connectivity should enable users to make better decisions about where they go and how they get there. The evaluation will focus on two measurable groups: pedestrians who are lost or unintentionally walk a longer route than they wish to, and people who take the Underground between station pairs where walking would be a quicker mode. The evaluation framework provides an opportunity to quantify the degree of change that can be achieved by a localised intervention. Cycling, Walking & Accessibility, Transport for London, Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, LONDON, England SW1H 0TL, e: adrianbell@streetmanagement.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7027 9181 w: www.tfl.gov.uk 14
  • Walk 21 Toronto 2007 Quality of legibility and walking experience - The Legible London approach may impact on the quality of the pedestrian environment in a number of ways besides improved legibility. For example, reducing street clutter and through increased pedestrian numbers having a positive effect on perceived personal security. This element of benefit will be tested through qualitative evaluation following later removal of redundant street items. User confidence - Wayfinding is also about giving pedestrians confidence in their ability to get lost and find their way again by giving them an integrated and identifiable visual language. The evaluation will generate a qualitative measure of this confidence effect. User perception and satisfaction -The evaluation will provide an opportunity to test qualitative changes in user perception of the ease of wayfinding in an area as a whole. This may be influenced by a wide range of signage and mapping “brands” in the area, along with physical factors such as the availability of adequate sightlines. Next Steps The prototype provides a critical developmental step for Legible London. A positive confirmation of business case assumptions indicated through both public behavioural and attitudinal responses will be reported to the Mayor in April 2008. If the Mayor confirms the project a major procurement exercise will be started to produce the living map and to deliver the larger programme. Confidence is high that Legible London will provide a useful and cost-effective component of the Mayor’s vision of a more walkable London. Cycling, Walking & Accessibility, Transport for London, Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, LONDON, England SW1H 0TL, e: adrianbell@streetmanagement.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7027 9181 w: www.tfl.gov.uk 15
  • Walk 21 Toronto 2007 Appendix I Prototype Signing Elements ‘Mini lithe’ Forward-Up direction sign Underground exit signs and (below) bus shelter area sign Local area sign (with information) Cycling, Walking & Accessibility, Transport for London, Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, LONDON, England SW1H 0TL, e: adrianbell@streetmanagement.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7027 9181 w: www.tfl.gov.uk 16
  • Walk 21 Toronto 2007 Appendix II References i Towards a Fine City For People – Public Spaces and Public Life – London, Gehl Architects (2004) ii Legible London Initial Business Case – Colin Buchanan (2007 unpublished) iii Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (survey of 500 senior financial managers and directors) - MORI (2003) iv Advice for a Strategy of Walking in London - London Planning Advisory Committee (1997) v Walking and Wayfinding – Focus group research by Synovate for TfL (2006 unpublished) vi Towards the year 2010: Monitoring Casualties in Greater London – London Road Safety Unit, TfL (August 2007) vii Attitudes to Walking – Synovate for TfL (May 2007 unpublished) Cycling, Walking & Accessibility, Transport for London, Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street, LONDON, England SW1H 0TL, e: adrianbell@streetmanagement.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7027 9181 w: www.tfl.gov.uk 17