pedestrians in central london lost and found: the legible london wayfinding … · 2015-10-15 ·...

PEDESTRIANS IN CENTRAL LONDON LOST AND FOUND: THE LEGIBLE LONDON WAYFINDING SYSTEM

Dave Arquati

Transport for London

1. ABSTRACT

Transport for London (TfL) worked with consultants AIG, Westminster City Council and numerous other stakeholders to develop a prototype standard wayfinding system for pedestrians, integrating on-street mapping with information at bus stops and London Underground stations to provide an intuitive way for pedestrians to navigate the Bond Street area. The results after six months included a high level of awareness of the system, an increase in pedestrians’ knowledge of their location, time savings for foot journeys, high satisfaction in the system and strong support for its wider rollout.

2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 The walking problem

London is like some of its European capital-city counterparts in some respects. It has a fairly high density of development, both residential and employment; it has an extensive, multi-modal public transport; and some 89% of city centre employees use that system to get to their jobs each morning (Transport for London, 2007). Going further than many other capitals, London introduced a road congestion charging system in February 2003 which by 2006 had reduced motor traffic levels in the city centre by 21% over pre-charge levels (Transport for London, 2007).

Whilst at first glance this might suggest some sort of transport and land-use planning utopia from a transport planning viewpoint, it poses both significantly

Figure 1 - People entering central London in morning peak

© PTRC and Contributors 2008

problems and unrealised potential. In the 1990s, walking journeys reduced by 20% in inner London (Transport for London, 2001).

In the city centre, these journeys have not necessarily switched to private car – which is an unattractive mode in that location in any case – but public transport (London Underground and bus) trips have increased dramatically, along with crowding levels, particularly on the Tube.

2.2 Benefits of walking

Modal shift from both car and public transport back to walking has significant benefits. Reduction in congestion on all motorised modes would be highly beneficial, particularly on the Tube which is operating at capacity in many locations and thus where a relatively small reduction in crowding would enable stations and trains to operate closer to their guideline capacities (avoiding closures at the stations and improving reliability of train services). Looking at it the other way, the marginal cost of increasing peak Tube capacity is exceptionally high compared to the potential cost of switching some users to walking.

Whilst the Tube suffers reliability issues from operating close to capacity, pedestrians rarely suffer such issues. Walking is the most reliable form of transport, whilst also improving the health of its users through improved fitness levels and reductions in the risk of obesity and heart disease (Department of Health, 2004).

These healthier walkers also benefit the city and its economy. More pedestrians make the streets safer (by providing passive surveillance) and they provide more passing custom for retailers.

2.3 Potential for shift

There is a significant potential for many trips by all modes across the city to switch back to walking and realise these benefits. In central London, many public transport trips are short; outside the centre, car trips are often short too, and many of these could switch to walking (Mackett, 2000).

2.4 The next steps

Having identified these problems, TfL and the Central London Partnership (CLP) – a group of central London boroughs – wanted to understand what the barriers to walking were – particularly the informational ones – and what could be done to bring about mode shift. To this end, they commissioned consultants the Applied Information Group (AIG) to study these issues and propose ways of dealing with them.

3. SCHEME RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

AIG carried out an extensive amount of research on what the existing situation is in London, and on how people build up mental maps of the city and used them to navigate (A wayfinding study).


They studied the existing situation in the central London congestion charging zone (CCZ), and managed to identify no fewer than 32 existing pedestrian wayfinding systems, all using different colours, shapes, typefaces, materials and branding, and even with inconsistency of destination naming. There were a wide variety of maintenance regimes for these systems, not all of them good – meaning that in some places, signage was in quite a state of neglect,

contributing to a poor image of both walking and the city itself.

As for the way pedestrians actually navigate, AIG found that there were two categories of navigation strategy – planning (i.e.

using maps) and doing (i.e. looking for landmarks and signs along the way). Pedestrians used a mix of these two categories.

For advance planning, the most commonly-used tool in London was the Tube map (44.7% of those studied), followed by internet tools (20%) and A-Zs or guidebooks (8.5% for each). Only 3.7% of people used on-street signage in general. This compares strikingly with research done by MORI into the new pedestrian wayfinding system in Islington which had been seen and used by 49% of people that they studied.

For navigating-as-they-go, pedestrians use a wide variety of urban characteristics, including landmarks, lighting schemes, urban landscaping, public art and more.

A large potential for shift to walking was highlighted in AIG’s report. Previous work by AIG had shown that 40% of Tube journeys taken from Moorgate Underground station were to destinations less than 2km away. Across the entire Tube network, 10% of journeys are that short; and for bus trips, this rises to nearly 50%. In fact, some 5% of central London Tube trips are to destinations less than 800m away, or within ten minutes’ walk.

These people are often willing to walk. In a study by Research Business International, after being shown a walking map, 66% of those studied said they would consider walking instead, with numbers even higher for tourists. AIG spoke to people exiting Leicester Square station and found that 90% of them said they enjoyed walking in London – and improved signage was the third most frequently cited way of encouraging them to walk more (after better weather and less traffic).

Figure 2 - AIG uncovered a plethora of existing wayfinding systems


It was also notable that journey time is a more important factor for pedestrians than distance. Three-quarters of those studied cited journey times in minutes rather than any distance.

AIG carried out detailed studies on how people form their mental maps of the city. This work confirmed what is often taken as read – when people use the Tube, they form a fragmented picture of the streets above based on each Tube station, without really connecting them together (and thus realising how close stations are to each other).

This perception holds true for areas and is an excellent way of identifying smaller areas familiar to a user in order to present to them ways of moving between them. Users will identify areas such as Mayfair or Soho, and can link them together when shown how.

This results in a good argument for a single wayfinding system that is common across many areas, as it will encourage people to walk between them, as opposed to individual wayfinding systems for each area which are good for local navigation but don’t build up the knowledge of how they link together, thus encouraging longer walking trips.

The need for a superior wayfinding system that allows people to navigate and reduces the confusing profusion of navigational tools available can be clearly demonstrated.

To this end, TfL and CLP commissioned AIG to take their work forward to a street prototype which could be used to assess how this need might be met in the real world.

4. PROTOTYPE 4.1 Objectives

Based on the issues highlighted above, the project had four stated objectives.

Journey time savings and connectivity improvement

A successful wayfinding project will allow users to cut the length of their journeys by finding the most appropriate route to their destination. It will also show users that they are closer than they think to the places they would like to get to.

Change in quality of the environment

A successful wayfinding system will contribute to its urban environment by consolidate many items of street clutter into a single point of reference for wayfinding.

Improve pedestrian confidence

Members of the public are put off walking because they are afraid of getting lost and don’t have an attractive-enough way of avoiding that fate. A


successful wayfinding system provides the confidence that not only will they be less likely to get lost because they have been given good information, they will be more able to orient themselves correctly if they do get lost.

Improve pedestrian perception and satisfaction

A successful wayfinding system contributes to a better feeling amongst its users – both of the environment they are in, and of the transport system enabling them to get around it. This improved satisfaction means more confident pedestrians who are willing to come back, explore on foot – and no doubt contribute more to the local economy.

4.2 Mapping

AIG’s study and the Legible London exhibition held at the New London Architecture centre on Store Street identified that people readily disaggregate London into a series of “villages” – areas which they navigate within and between. These are often, but not always, centred on Tube stations – so for example Brixton, Clapham Common, and St Paul’s; but also Soho and Mayfair. People also make frequent use of landmarks and key nodes on the street network as navigational aids when moving between villages – such as the London Eye, Piccadilly Circus and Trafalgar Square.

The approach to the mapping for Legible London is to exploit these navigational methods as far as possible to make a map that is intuitive. As people navigate from village to village, these need to be identified on the map and the geographical relationship between them identified. The mapping took the approach of “stepping stones” – identifying areas around 400m (or 5 minutes’ walk) apart, so that people can “hop” between them as part of a longer journey.

This hierarchical approach is echoed throughout the system – dividing “areas” (such as the City, the West End, and South of the River) into more manageable “villages” (such as Soho, St Paul’s and Bankside), and even further into “neighbourhoods” (such as Berwick Market, Old Bailey and Coin Street).

These allow maps at different scales to be offered, so that users can navigate both locally and to destinations outside the immediate vicinity. Local maps show all the streets within their neighbourhoods and their village, whilst wider-

Figure 3 - "Stepping stones" allow easier navigation


area maps show the main streets and stations within a 20-40 minute walk across the area.

AIG used a virtual model of the prototype area to carry out “rapid prototyping” – by testing different styles of on-street sign and different styles of map on users in a virtual environment before the expense of going to a real-world system. One of the most influential outcomes of this work was to easily identify appropriate locations for signs – and in fact to discover that fewer, more carefully-located signs were as effective as a larger number of signs.

The following elements are key to the prototype design:

• Clear and recognisable typography for maximum legibility (TfL’s iconic New Johnston font was used, as a proven example of this)

• Linked appearance of street names – the typography of street names reflects that of street name plates, which helps recognition – especially by visitors who don’t use the Roman alphabet

• Useful details – the map includes the locations of pedestrian crossings, steps, station entrances, bus stops and toilets

• Colour and contrast – key buildings and landmarks are picked out in high contrast colours

• 3D landmarks – landmarks with strong visual importance such as the BT Tower are represented more literally, in 3D drawings. This makes the maps more intuitive and assists users who normally struggle to read maps

• Wider area maps – these show a larger area of up to about 20 minutes’ walk from the present location, marking out main thoroughfares for pedestrians (as opposed to A-Zs which mark out main thoroughfares for cars) and plotting time circles which show how far you can reach within 5, 10 and 15-minute walks.

• Accessibility – all of the important information in the on-street signs is located between 900mm and 1800mm off the ground

• Audio information – each sign has a number which can be called by phone for an audio description of the surrounding area

4.3 Signs

The Legible London signs are a family of different types – fingerposts, miniliths, monoliths and megaliths.

Figure 4 - Rapid prototyping in a virtual world


• Fingerposts are traditional style direction signs integrated into the Legible London system, but used sparingly at specific locations.

• Miniliths are more common, offering a small-footprint but reasonably detailed information board about person-width, with a Finder map showing the immediate area (5 minutes’ walk), accompanied by a street index, and a Planner map showing the wider area (15 minutes’ walk). They give directional information to adjacent neighbourhoods and stations.

• Monoliths are also commonly-used. They are larger than miniliths, offering all the information that miniliths do but showing a larger Finder map that covers a ten-minute radius around the sign’s location. They also list walking times to certain key locations such as Tube stations and important attractions.

• Finally, megaliths are wall maps to be used in Tube stations and on bus stops, offering a large Finder map. Tube station signage at Bond Street has been adapted to be integrated with the Legible London system of naming villages and neighbourhoods, pointing the way to the right exit for each adjacent neighbourhood.

All of the signs are headed by a recognisable black-on-yellow walker, designed to attract attention to the signs in a consistent way similar to the way that Tube stations and bus stops can be recognised by their respectively distinctive roundel signs.

The signs also use heads-up mapping (with the top of the map being the direction you are currently facing when you are reading it). This allows users to instantly make the connection between what they see beyond the sign, and what is on the map – avoiding the extra step of having to get their correct orientation before they can relate routes on the map to those on the ground.

The signs have been designed to be hard-wearing – London’s streets are not a forgiving environment. For the prototype, this means vitreous enamel panels and shot-penned steel – although they are adaptable enough so that the map panel can be prints behind glass instead.

They also include accent lighting for viewing at night, powered using a small set of solar panels on the top of the sign. This avoids the need for mains power, making them much easier to install and maintain, although they can also take mains power at a later date if it is needed for more advanced functions (such as transmission of maps to mobile phones). The whole sign is modular, allowing damaged parts to be replaced cheaply and easily.

Figure 5 - Legible London minilith


4.4 Location

The Legible London prototype needed an intensive road test. High footfall, existing difficulties in navigation and integration with public transport were all factors to be incorporated.

It was therefore extremely helpful to the Legible London project that Westminster City Council were developing their ORB (Oxford, Regent and Bond Streets) Action Plan, a strategy for tackling some of the problems that were preventing this West End shopping area from exploiting its full potential as an international shopping destination. The ORB Action Plan recognised that improving pedestrian wayfinding was a key element of the mix of actions required to rejuvenate the West End, and so Bond Street was chosen as the prototype area to address both Westminster City Council’s goals and those of the Legible London project. Both worked in conjunction with the New West End Company, a consortium of local retail businesses.

Bond Street can be difficult to find – probably because there is no Bond Street. The Tube station is named as such, but the famed retail destination is actually New Bond Street, and is a short distance away from the station. Legible London provides the opportunity to address this wayfinding worry by pointing visitors in the right direction.

The area experiences massive footfall; 200 million people visit the West End every year, and spend over £4.7 billion in the shops, particularly those on Oxford Street, Bond Street and Regent Street. 87% of these visitors move around the area on foot but some 40% of them never venture off the main streets; this presents an excellent opportunity to improve their experience and allow them to discover the other retail opportunities available in the area, such as St Christopher’s Place, Marylebone High Street, and South Moulton Street, all with unique businesses. Improved wayfinding in this area will provide a boost to the economy by encouraging spending to take place more widely and by supporting a diverse retail sector.

The prototype in the Bond Street area consists of 19 on-street signs (replacing 46 existing items of street furniture), plus maps on bus stops within the study area and at the Tube station itself. It launched on 27 November 2007.

5. RESULTS

Extensive evaluation work was carried out on the Bond Street prototype for Legible London – it is thought to be one of the largest evaluation exercises ever undertaken for this kind of system.

5.1 Perception surveys

Outlook Research were appointed to look at how users responded to the Bond Street prototype, compared it to how users perceived wayfinding experiences outside the prototype area, and suggested what improvements might be made based upon their experiences. This study took the form of 36 accompanied walks of up to 60 minutes – one third taking place in the


prototype area, with the others taking place across Camden, the South Bank, and Elm Park in outer east London. The participants included those with journey purposes related to work, leisure and tourism, as well as some who were encumbered.

The study confirmed that the barriers to walking vary between user groups, but generally relate to lack of knowledge – commuters don’t know the quickest route, leisure travellers don’t realise how close locations are to each other, and tourists understand the Tube much better than the layout of the streets. All of these groups could be encouraged to walk with the right information.

The study showed that information must spread beyond the immediate vicinity of Tube and railway stations if people are to be encouraged to walk, and that on-street signage must be visually consistent (so it can be recognised) and predictably located, at regular intervals. Reminder/carry-with-you maps must be wallet-sized.

Whilst the Bond Street prototype area was too small to address the fragmented views of London identified by the study, it provided evidence that more consistent information would have a positive impact.

It noted that even “mundane” landmarks would be especially important outside central London (e.g. pubs), but confirmed that walking times were very valuable, as was visual simplicity, clear graphics, moderate use of 3D, an index with a grid, colours that “bring the map off the page”, and as large a font size as practical.

Legible London performed well against these objectives (particularly the colours and fonts, highlighting of landmarks/shops, depictions of walking times and the index on the wall/on-street maps), but some areas of improvement were noted – detail of pedestrian crossings and station exits was too small, and the hand-out maps didn’t have an index. “Secure” walking routes could also be identified on the maps.

5.2 Fieldwork surveys

Fieldwork was carried out by Colin Buchanan alongside Accent and The Access Company to see how the system worked on the ground. This included a questionnaire survey with a sample size of 1,200; a mystery shopper survey; a pedestrian tracking survey with a sample size of 300; a full audit of signage across the study area; and “walkability” audits using the established Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS).

The survey results showed that between 50-60% of those visiting the area every week had noticed the Legible London signs and maps in place, whilst even 40% of less frequent visitors (including those visiting less than once a month) had also noticed them. This was truer of younger visitors than older visitors, and of men more than women.

The results also showed a very high level of usability of the system. In all age groups and both sexes, over 80% of those surveyed said they were “easy” or


“very easy” to use. This was slightly lower for those whose English was not native or fluent, but this was attributed more to a higher proportion of these users finding the system “neither easy nor difficult” to use rather than those actively finding it difficult.

On average, over 60% of those surveyed said they would walk more or further if such maps and signs were available throughout London. This was higher amongst 14-34 year olds but dropped off for higher age groups. Slightly more women than men said this statement was true, as did more of those with poorer English.

Between October 2007 (before the prototype was unveiled) and January 2008, there was about a 5% increased in the number of people who agreed that they knew their way around the Bond Street area. Interestingly, there was also a change in the name people used to describe the area. There were 10% fewer people calling the area “Oxford Street” (down to 38%), whilst 6% more people were calling it Marylebone (up to 15%) and 3% more were calling it Mayfair (up to 7%). This potentially reflects the impact of the “village”-based naming system of Legible London which gives prominence to the names Marylebone and Mayfair for the areas to the north and south of Oxford Street respectively.

The study noted a 16% time saving improvement for pedestrian journeys with the study area based on its pedestrian tracking survey, and an increase from 9% to 15% of pedestrians’ knowledge of their local position.

The pedestrian tracking survey observed a small increase in the number of people using on-street wayfinding (i.e. using Legible London signs in January compared to the old on-street fingerposts before) and in those looking at the local area map in the Tube station (replaced by a Legible London map), as well as a larger increase in the numbers using street name plates. The mystery shopper survey showed a much larger increase in people using the maps inside the station, but conversely (and counter-intuitively) fewer people using the on-street signs.

In general, there was a very positive reception for the system, with 91% of interviewees agreeing that the system should be rolled out across the capital. A final positive result from the notes was that, whilst it was not a scientific study in itself, the interactive website at www.legiblelondon.info did not receive any adverse comments about the system.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The results show that the Legible London prototype has met its four main objectives. It has improved pedestrian journey times by providing a navigational aid for the quickest route. It has changed the quality of the environment by consolidating 46 items of street furniture into 19. It has improved pedestrian confidence by allowing them to locate themselves more easily; and it has improved pedestrian perceptions and satisfaction by providing a system which encourages them to walk more and further.


http://www.legiblelondon.info

The results are a clear signal for expansion of the system and testing on a wider scale in inner London, and piloting the system in outer London too.


7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Applied Information Group (2006) Legible London: A wayfinding study, London.

Applied Information Group (2007) Legible London: The yellow book, London.

Department of Health (2004) At least five a week: Evidence on the impact of physical activity and its relationship to health, London.

Mackett, R. L. & Ahern, A. (2000) Potential for mode transfer of short trips: Report on the analysis of the survey results, UCL, London.

Ove Arup & Partners (2008) Legible London prototype implementation report [unpublished], London

Transport for London (2007) Central London Congestion Charging Impacts Monitoring: Fifth Annual Report, London.

Transport for London (2007) London Travel Report, London.

Transport for London (2001) London Area Travel Survey, London.

Transport for London (2004) Making London a walkable city: the Walking Plan for London, London.


pedestrians in central london lost and found: the legible london wayfinding … · 2015-10-15 ·...

Documents