Legible London Walk 21 Txtfinal

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


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


2


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.


3


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.

4


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


5


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


6


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.


7


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.


8


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

9


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

10


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


11


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:


12


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.


13


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.


14


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.


15


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)


16


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)


17

Legible London Walk 21 Txtfinal

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Legible London Walk 21 Txtfinal

Similar to Legible London Walk 21 Txtfinal (20)

Legible London Walk 21 Txtfinal