Research study:
Information design in public transportation
2019Paris
Extract from my research done in 2019.
You can read the complete research on Medium
1 - The story behing Paris’ transit map
2 - Analysis of travelling behaviour
3 - Research insights
“92 minutes is the average time people in the Paris area spend on public transport. As transportation infrastructure is pushed to its limit, demand for an alternative means of transport has emerged and pressure to optimize the existing system continues to grow.
Schematic diagrams are a popular and efficient way to map the transit system of urban cities. However, with the increase in the number of stations and the rapid development of infrastructure, it got me wondering if this representation is still up-to-date and if it is the best way to help passengers navigate.
If we take a look at current maps, such as the metropolitan network of Paris, it is difficult to find any white space at all. There is so much information that you do not really know where to look. In fact, the Paris transit map is represented in the form of a “schematic diagram”, a term generally used to illustrate the link between symbols and lines in order to highlight the basic functions of a system. It is a simplified and geometric representation of the city, which helps us navigate through the different lines and branch points that make up the larger urban network.
This diagrammatic approach was first introduced by Harry Beck in 1933, who is famous for creating the current London Underground tube map. Beck’s assumption was that it is more important for Londoners to know how to get around the subway (ie. how to get from one station to another) than to know the geographical accuracy of each station. Therefore, he suggested highlighting the nodes and links of each line introducing a colour code, straight lines (horizontals, verticals and 45-degree angles) and a scale distortion in order to place all the stations at equal distances from one another.
It was rather difficult for Beck to convince the municipal authorities, who only accepted the diagrammatic representation in 1999 — long after Beck’s death. And it’s not like he didn’t try. Despite numerous iterations and two proposals to the city of Paris, Beck never managed to convince the French during his lifetime.
First of all, the Parisian subway is denser than the London one. The lines intersect more between each other and this gives rise to more knots and exchanges, at the time there were about 50 in Paris compared to “only” 40 in London.
Secondly, Beck skewed the scale and opted for the massive expansion of the city centre involving the condensation of the suburbs. At that time, it was simply not necessary in Paris, because the whole system was already in the “centre” and they were only a very few stations in the suburbs.
It was only in the 1980s that RATP (the state-owned public transport operator of Paris) tried out pocket maps, which required the lines to gradually be straightened, equalizing the spacing of the stations and allowing a certain degree of abstraction.
[...]
First of all, the Parisian subway is denser than the London one. The lines intersect more between each other and this gives rise to more knots and exchanges, at the time there were about 50 in Paris compared to “only” 40 in London.
Secondly, Beck skewed the scale and opted for the massive expansion of the city centre involving the condensation of the suburbs. At that time, it was simply not necessary in Paris, because the whole system was already in the “centre” and they were only a very few stations in the suburbs.
It was only in the 1980s that RATP (the state-owned public transport operator of Paris) tried out pocket maps, which required the lines to gradually be straightened, equalizing the spacing of the stations and allowing a certain degree of abstraction.
[...]
From left to right, top to bottom: Paris’ schematic map in 1914, 1930, 1939, 1967, 1978, 1980
As a designer, I am wondering how could we simplify the transit map of Paris which — I think — has now become too complex.
I think the problem is that there is one single map that displays different kinds of information: subway lines, bus lines, RERs, tramways, links and changes, touristic highlights, access to airports,… — definitely too much information! And if you look at each individual, they only use a very specific part of this information and have no need to know about the whole infrastructure.
How might we better use transit maps to encourage passengers to use public transportation in the most convenient way?
Assumption 1: People only use a limited number of stations in the entire network
During one month, I reported every single path I took with the sequence of departure stations, transfer stations and arrival stations (D-A pairs). If I was walking or biking, I just reported the closest metro station.
Assumption 2: Some stations are overly full and others are completely empty
In the diagram below you can see the different stations I used according to my travelling report. The top left stations are my most 20 visited stations whereas the other ones in the circle represent the stations I have to go through to reach the final destination. By matching my most visited stations with the other ones on the lines they belong to, a network of connections emerged.
