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).
