Cognitive mapping in Los Angeles

Following on from a post I wrote earlier this term, I have done a little more reading into how transport methods affect our knowledge of cities. In an article written for Access Magazine Mondschein et al. (2013) distinguish two general modes of travel. These are cognitively active, which includes walking or driving, and cognitively passive whereby someone is a passenger of a car or public transit.

They argue that cognitively active travellers are far more capable of generating mental maps of Los Angeles. This because the are constantly exercising their cognitive mapping abilities as they navigate through the city. This contrasts with cognitively passive travellers who do not engage as much with their routes or surroundings. This was demonstrated by cognitively active travellers being more able to estimate the distance between themselves and nearby locales. They were also more capable at describe the locations of their homes and workplaces using street names and intersections as opposed to local landmarks.

Cognitively passive travellers who focus on other things, such as texting or browsing the internet, create incomplete mental maps. They may therefore lose out on opportunities that ‘unknown’ parts of the city may offer. These include jobs, services or certain forms of recreation.

In line with my earlier post, Mondschein et al. (2013) argue that an active engagement with transport leads to a greater knowledge of cities. However we do not agree on everything. Namely while I believe that public transit facilitates the creation of better ‘mental maps’ of the city, they argue that such modes of transport are inhibitive of cognitive mapping. They instead argue that driving cars is more effective.

I can appreciate the reason for this argument. They suggest that while on a bus or tram, commuters pay no attention to what is around them. Inversely, they suggest that drivers are actively route planning and therefore more engaged with their surroundings.

However I believe that Mondschein et al. (2013) have ignored a key aspect of both modes of transport: the level of interaction with maps. As I previously argued, GPS systems used in cars limit a driver’s exposure of a city to their nearby surroundings. This prevents a more holistic, long-term understanding of the city. Users of public transport, on the other hand, are frequently exposed to maps of the whole city which I suggest is more conducive to effective mental mapping.

A map of Los Angeles' bus and rail systems

I would therefore be interested to conduct a slight variation on this research, focussing instead on how people's use of GPS affects their ability to cognitively map a city.

References

Mondschein, A., E. Blumenberg and B.D. Taylor (2013) ‘Going Mental: Everyday Travel and the Cognitive Map’, Access, 43: 2-7.

How do modes of transport affect our knowledge of cities?

Last week my History M155 (History of Los Angeles) professor, Dr deGuzman, asked if I had any feedback for his class. As a Geography student my response was immediate: I suggested that he use more maps. While listening to events that have happened in Los Angeles’ past, I had realised I did not know where in the city such episodes had taken place. Names like Olvera Street, Fort Hill and the Lower Plaza kept coming up, but I did not know where they were in relation to the rest of the city.

Picking up on my English accent, Dr deGuzman asked if I would need maps for a History of London class. ‘Of course not’ was my response, ‘I know the city like the back of my hand.’ He then asked whether I could study any other city's history without a map. After a little consideration I suggested a History of New York would be a possibility.

Last term I wrote an article about how available modes of transport in Los Angeles, London and New York have affected my ability to experience each city. My discussion with Dr deGuzman has pointed my attention to the impacts different modes of transport can also have on one’s knowledge of where things are within a city.

When travelling around London’s extensive public transport network, one is constantly forced to look at maps. The most prominent of these is Transport for London’s (TFL) famous Tube Map. Though the map is schematic rather than accurately geographic, it gives users a rough overview of where many areas of London are located. This can be the case even if such places are not a part of a traveller’s daily commute. A paper presented in 2008 by Katrin Dziekan (cited in Guo 2011: 2) confirms that transit maps are the ‘primary source of information for passengers traveling to unfamiliar places.’ The power of TFL's map to inform people of the city’s geography has been demonstrated by David Mullins et al. (2012) who argue that locales south of the River Thames, where tube connections are notoriously more sparse, are far less well known to London residents. Zhan Guo (2011) has also found that most commuters plan their routes using transit maps. This leads to many travellers taking routes that appear shorter on maps, but are in fact longer in terms of time and distance.

Transport for London's schematic Tube Map

New York’s MTA Subway map, which is geographically accurate, presents an even greater opportunity to learn how the city is laid out. Indeed every time one looks at the layout of the subway they are confronted with a map of the entirety of New York from Staten Island to Queens. This explains why, in only one week, I was able to quickly understand where everything within the city is located. On reflection, this was certainly one of the reasons I felt a much greater initial sense of belonging in New York than in Los Angeles.

New York's MTA geographically accurate Subway Map

Unlike New Yorkers and Londoners, residents of Los Angeles spend very little time interacting with maps of their city. Instead, with private vehicles comprising almost 79% of Los Angeles’ transport, a driver’s greatest exposure to the city is often through satellite navigation systems which tend to only show one’s immediate surroundings (USCB 2012). Ironically it seems that while commuters in London and New York spend more time underground, they have a greater understanding what is above them than residents of Los Angeles.

Satellite Navigation display whereby drivers can only see their immediate surroundings

I believe this could have quite a severe impact on the psyches of Angelenos. With such a restricted exposure to their city’s layout, I would argue that residents could have a weaker understanding of who and what lies around them. Without such an awareness I believe that residents generate a somewhat more insular outlook towards the rest of the city. This could potentially lead to the creation of more enclave communities as people try to cut themselves off from the surrounding city (Luymes 1997).

References

Bownes, D., O. Green and S. Mullins (2012) London Underground 150: How the Tube Shaped London, London: Penguin Books.

Dziekan, L. (2008) 'The transit experience of newcomers to a city – learning phases, system difficulties, and information search strategies,' paper presented at the 87th meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

Guo, Z. (2011) ‘Mind the Map! The Impact of Transit Maps on Path Choice in Public Transit’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45, 7, 625-639.

Luymes, D. (1997) ‘The fortification of suburbia: investigating the rise of enclave communities’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 39, 2, 187-203.

U.S. Census Bureau (2012) ‘2008-2012 American Community Survey’ (WWW), Suitland: U.S. Census Bureau (http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk; 18 November 2015).

Why I love New York

With time off school last week I was able to take a trip to New York. On my first night I walked from my apartment in Greenwich Village to the infamous Times Square. While others had warned me that I would hate this landmark for its crowds, commercialisation and tackiness, I found myself loving every bit of it. The reason was immediately clear: after two months living in the ‘archetypal automobile city’, it was a relief once again being able to get around by foot or public transport and to be sharing the streets with other pedestrians (Bottles 1992).

Looking at a comparison of the proportion of travel methods in Los Angeles, New York and my hometown London, it is immediately evident that the latter two are far more similar. Clearly I felt at home in a city that offered far greater transport autonomy to non-drivers than my temporary home on the West Coast.

% Method of Transport to Work in Los Angeles, New York and London

Los Angeles, a vastly spread out city with notoriously dire public transport, can only be experienced through the car. With plans needing to be made well in advance in order to find a car and to avoid traffic, the scope for spontaneity is severely reduced. Thus without being able to quickly and cheaply travel to places and events taking place across the city, I do not feel as well integrated into Los Angeles as I did in London and even New York. The introduction of transport and ridesharing companies such as Uber and Lyft have to an extent improved this. However these services, costing an average of $15 per ride, do not compare with the extensive New York Subway or London Underground which cost $2.75 and £2.30-4.70 respectively (UberPeople 2014).

The rest of my trip in New York was brilliant. In just a few days I was able to see a huge amount of the city with highlights including the Museum of Modern Art and the Guggenheim, a stroll through Central Park and the Upper West Side, a walk through the Meatpacking District along the recently redeveloped High Line, and coffees and dinners at numerous cafes and restaurants across the city. Thanks to marvellous transport links and close proximities this was all done at relative ease and little expense with each day planned at very short notice.

In addition to making it easy to see the city, New York’s transport and layout also forces people onto the streets. With Times Square epitomising this, everywhere is packed full with pedestrians which I loved. Indeed, the urban theorist and activist Jane Jacobs (1961: 107) states that while ‘streets in cities serve many purposes besides carrying vehicles’, so too do sidewalks ‘serve many purposes besides carrying pedestrians’. While she goes on to discuss the implications of busy or empty streets in creating a safe or unsafe environment for pedestrians, I believe walking through the bustling New York also allows you to feel a part of the city as you unconsciously interact with everyone around you. This experience contrasts heavily with Los Angeles where wide empty sidewalks and crossings make travel by foot an isolating experience.

Times Square buzzing with late night pedestrian visitors

A typically enormous yet empty pedestrian crossing in Century City, Los Angeles

A year abroad is a fantastic opportunity to experience new places and to learn how you react to them, either positively or negatively. There are many things I love about Los Angeles, as well as many I did not like about New York. However this trip to has highlighted to me that any city I settle in must have an accessible and extensive public transport network, as well as a layout that encourages people to walk around the city. I believe these two features, certainly present in London and New York, make it far easier to become part of the local milieu of the city around you.

References

Bottles, S.L. (1992) Los Angeles and the Automobile, Berkeley: University of California. 

Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York: Random House.

Office for National Statistics (2013) ‘Method of Travel to Work in England and Wales Report’ (WWW), Newport: Office for National Statistics (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/method-of-travel-to-work-in-england-and-wales/art-method-of-travel-to-work.html#tab-Commuting-by-public-transport; 18 November 2015).

UberPeople (2014) ‘What's your average fare?’ (WWW), UberPeople (http://uberpeople.net/threads/whats-your-average-fare.1174/; 18 November 2015).

U.S. Census Bureau (2012) ‘2008-2012 American Community Survey’ (WWW), Suitland, U.S. Census Bureau (http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk; 18 November 2015).

U.S. Census Bureau (2013) ‘Commuting/Place of Work/Travel Time’ (WWW), Suitland, U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/data/commuting.html; 18 November 2015).

Here are a few pictures of the many sights I got to see in only a few days in New York:

Upwards view from Times Square

The Lake in Central Park

The Guggenheim Gallery

View of Upper East Side across the Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis Reservoir in Central Park

Premium real estate shooting up in the now trendy Meatpacking District

Street art from the High Line

A typical water tower equipped apartment building in the Upper West Side