Going Underground - London Transport Maps

Harry Beck's map of the London Underground network, first released in 1931, is rightfully recognised as a design classic.  However, when Beck first mapped out the Underground network only seven lines existed.  Since this time numerous lines have been added as well as Zone boundaries, information on disabled access and connections to additional public transport.  Yet the tube map still remains an excellent piece of design and a key information resource.

Despite this many tourists can still be found with a look of puzzlement in station ticket halls across the city as they plan their journey to Buckingham Palace and Harrods.  What the tube map gains in design quality it lacks somewhat in geographical representation.  A test site has therefore been established to present a geographically accurate map for all London Underground and Overground lines. The map can be found here and while some tube lines retain their original depiction, the proximity of Central London stations becomes crystal clear. 

A geographically accurate depiction of the London Underground in Central London

Central London is spoiled for choice with access to different tube lines, a situation that would not be repeated today if the tube was planned from scratch (as I have discussed before here).  Therefore this geographically accurate map could save commuters (Londoners and non-Londoners alike) from switching between lines when on the surface it would be more efficient to walk for a few minutes.  Overall I have found the level of public information on the London Underground very impressive (especially compared to Vancouver - see here) and this new map could complement Beck's original map to avoid people having to reach for Google Maps at the first sign of being lost.

The Subjective Perception of Bus Stops

With the City of Vancouver currently engaged in a long-term strategic transportation plan up to 2040, it could be easy to forget the everyday transport issues that appear relatively minor in scale.  Yet these so-called minor issues are often the key to unlocking vast improvements in the transport network.  In the current issue of PORT, advertising guru Rory Sutherland writes an excellent article on our perceptions of value.  He argues that value is as much a function of subjective perception as it is of actual material form.  Sutherland questions whether the UK should be spending £15bn on a high-speed rail link when it would cost 99% less to upgrade the carriages and stations in order to make the journey more pleasant. 

Where to go? A bus stop in Vancouver.

This got me thinking about small improvements that can be made to transport infrastructure which often get drowned out in the call for new roads or railways.  I am slowly becoming familiar with the public transport system in Vancouver and cannot help make comparisons with where I have just arrived from, London.  With very low rail coverage, Vancouverites rely heavily on buses yet I have noticed a distinct lack of public information at bus stops.  Having already traveled around Downtown and some key routes in the Lower Mainland, I have yet to find a bus stop with a timetable or map!  It appears that the transport operators expect bus riders to either know their route in advance or rely on a friendly bus driver for directions.  This compares to London where I have always been impressed at the level of information provided at a bus stop/shelter.  This information often includes geographical maps of local buses, timetables, expected duration between stops (see below) and finally the electronic countdown.  

An information sign found on all London bus stops

I accept the argument that many people have smartphones and can track routes on Google Maps, but not everybody has internet access and neither should they be expected to.  I would not expect Vancouver to provide all this travel information as it is a much smaller city than London.  Yet even the addition of a route timetable could increase the bus experience by much more than the minor costs involved.  If the city is to achieve the ambition of being the Greenest City in the World by 2020 it should start paying attention to the smaller things in life.  

Learning from Paris.....

Behind the unfortunate language used by Boris Johnson, there is a serious debate being waged about the Coalition policy on housing. Whilst the debate specifically stems from the proposed cuts to housing benefit, the argument draws out interesting questions on what we want our cities to look like.

In cities with high rents such as London, the danger is that the poor could be pushed to the outer suburbs and beyond, creating a 'doughnut-effect'. London is rightfuly proud of its mixed-communities, which have developed more through chance than direct intervention, and it would be a mistake to ignore the role they play in social cohesion and economic diversity. Labour MP Chris Bryant is cleverly evoking the dystopian image of the 'banlieue' in Paris to warn against segregation. Reference is also being made to the block-booking of B&Bs in Hastings as a way for London councils to rid themselves of unwanted residents.

As house prices show, London operates in some-what of a bubble and it is wrong to have a standard cap on housing benefit across the country that ignores this anomaly. Whilst housing benefit has got out of hand, much to the benefit of private landlords, it serves a purpose and must support mixed communities. Areas in Hackney and Islington have gentrified over the years precisely because they are mixed communities and poorer residents should not suffer from the associated price rises. Boris has tried to make these points, but unfortunately his argument has been derailed by unhelpful language.

The argument about housing benefit cannot be decoupled from issues surrounding the ever-worsening housing shortage. House building is at a record low and with schemes on hold and significant applications being refused in light of the removal of targets, the future looks no brighter. The Coalition harks on about reforming the planning system, but the New Homes Bonus is not due until April 2011. Plus, where is the evidence that localism will change the mind-set of local Councillors who often campaign on a stance of no development? If growth is to be accepted in key areas of the country, the benefits must be better articulated.



A complete reform of the Green Belt is required to increase land supply and stimulate house-building. I am not advocating endless sprawl that is dominated by road transport, but calling for a public transport based spatial planning. Unfortunately in the rush towards localism, a gap in strategic planning has been left which we may come to regret.

Debate Review - Is London Growing Too Big Too Fast?

The Musing Urbanist attended a debate on Tuesday evening at the British Library as part of the Story of London festival. The talk was part of the Future City lecture series and entitled ‘Is London Growing Too Big Too Fast?’ The debate was chaired by the excellent Austin Williams and panel members included:

• Sir Terry Farrell (Terry Farrell and Partners)
  

• Peter Bishop (Director of Development at the LDA)

• Chris Luebkeman (Head of Foresight, Incubation and Innovation, Arup)

• David Green (Director at Civitas)

• James Heartfield (author 'Let's Build!')
  

With a title this broad it was unsurprising that the discussion cut across many themes, including: immigration, density, planning, infrastructure and housing. After a few days to digest the event I can add the following musings:

1. There is a world outside London!

I was left more than frustrated by James Heartfield’s blinkered view that housing growth must take place in the South East and for London to keep sprawling out towards Southampton, Southend and Sussex. It would be naïve to doubt the economic strengths of the South East region and the global appeal of London, but support for London should not be to the detriment of the rest of the UK. An economic strategy of supporting the city-regions of Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds would not necessarily harm the capital. It would raise competition, take pressure of London’s infrastructure and allow a mixed national economy. Whilst the regional policy of New Labour did have weaknesses, I can see the benefits of supporting urban areas outside of London and now worry about the current vogue towards localism which could reduce strategic thinking. For me, the major boost will come with High Speed 2, which thankfully had a recent funding commitment from the Coalition Government. But it also shows the requirement for a National Planning Framework, something the RTPI has rightly championed (for once!). A National Planning Framework could foster a network approach to UK urbanism and avoid regional cities suffering in the shadow of London and the South East.

2. Planning’s bad reputation

It became clearly evident in the Q&A session that planning was taking the brunt of most people's frustration. Very few seemed to deny that London needed to grow, but many (including the speakers) felt that the planning system was acting as a barrier. Heartfield put it best when he stated that planning must be the only discipline that sets out a vision for the future then actively does its best to stop this from happening. Putting the strengths and (many) weaknesses of planning to one side, it is obvious that the profession has a serious reputation problem. The public hates it. I've always thought that the general public see planning as embodying the worst aspects of petty Council bureaucracy.....and the debate only reaffirmed this view. Any planning reforms must tackle why the public views the profession in this negative manner. Apparently in some countries planning is seen as a trendy profession! Perhaps a radical break with a system that dates back to 1947 may help the UK and London?!

3. The never-ending Thames Gateway

I won't hark on too much about this here as it will be subject to a forthcoming Musing Urbanist article, but the Thames Gateway beggars belief. The growth of London cannot be discussed without mentioning 'Europe's biggest regeneration project'. Judged as a floodplain by planners but a solution to the country's housing shortage by politicians, the TG stumbles from one shambles to the other. Now the London TG Development Corporation is to be scrapped as part of Eric Pickles' 'bonfire of the quangos'. The TG was meant to be the centrepiece of London's future, but unfortunately it got less than 30 seconds mention in the debate!

Post-Olympics Planning - Lessons from Vancouver

With concerns having already been raised about the post-Olympics planning in London (here), it is prudent to look at the example of Vancouver and the current problems with their Olympic Village. Vancouver hosted the 2010 Winter Olympics and by all accounts was judged to have done an excellent job, despite some early reservations (here). The Olympic Village is part of an area known as South East False Creek and follows a long line of large planned mixed use neighbourhoods close to Downtown. The Millennium Water's sustainability credentials have been much trumpeted and is talked of as a 'model of sustainability'. But here is the problem. Whilst 257 of the lower end apartments have been sold, there are still 480 unsold! The remaining apartments were built to high end specifications with the latest fixtures and fittings and were expected to sell at close to $2,000 per sqft. But so far no buyers.


The City Council are in a tough postition as they lent the developer $731 million, of which only $200 million has been recouped. With sales flagging it looks as though apartments may be sold at a fire sale price in order for the City Council to try and recoup some value. So what was once seen as the jewel crown of the Olympics legacy is now threatening the political careers of many involved. There are some excellent articles on www.citycaucus.com which focus on the past politiking surrounding the village and the current troubles with how best to progress the scheme.

Any lessons for London? Vancouver couldn't have predicted the apartments would go onto the market at a time of economic downturn, but this argument falls down because prices appear to have remained strong across the wider city despite global financial troubles. A key lesson is the level of affordable housing. Whilst initial policy referred to a 60% provision of affordable units, the final figure appears closer to 10% in Vancouver. For a city with problems of affordability and homelessness this is particularly disappointing. With two years to go, London is promising 50% affordable units for the athletes village - it will be interesting to see how this develops post-2012.

What is the role of planning....an example from Portobello

I came across this opinion piece in the Evening Standard last week and it pulls no punches in criticising the role of a Local Authority planner.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23854142-if-town-hall-planners-cant-save-portobello-what-are-they-for.do

I was less interested in why the antiques market is worth saving and more so on what powers planners should have to control development. The article's author calls the planner 'spineless' which I think is unfair as the problem lies within planning law. If the developer wants to change the market to high end retail units then he is fully within his rights. Plus, if the planner does refuse permission and the case ends up at appeal (as the author suggests he should do) the Local Authority will lose and the tax payer will foot the bill for wasted time and resources.



At a higher level the argument is with capitalism and the desire to increase surplus value from land. But what about the view from the street? Clearly the antiques market is prime real estate and could be turning over a greater profit for the owner and/or the shareholders if redeveloped. But what would be lost if the antiques market were to disappear? Character? Heritage? Tradition? Maybe all these things.

The article suggests that planning decisions should take greater account of the number of objections. I would prefer to see this the other way around. What about if policy took a greater account of local opinion in the first place? Alot of time and struggle could be saved later on when controversial applications like this arise.