Bath CIS Review Summ Report FRIDAY copy ·...

Review of the Bath City Information System Summary Report Background to City Information System The Bath City Information System is designed to provide a multi-‐channel information and wayfinding system for visitors and residents, combining on-‐street wayfinding equipment with digital and paper mapping and information.

The design of the system has been informed by the Bath City Information System Pattern Book (2012). A system of on-‐street map points was rolled out across the city in 2013, consisting of fifteen large monoliths, known as Pedestrian Orientation Points Points (POP’s) and seventeen small monoliths, known as Pedestrian Focus Points (PFP’s) and one wall mounted board, all types as shown below in the same order.

Background to the 2016 Review

Since roll-‐out, three years ago, the system has received positive feedback and a number of views about perceived weaknesses in the system. In response, Bath and North East Somerset Council established a review of the CIS, led by Councillor Anketell-‐Jones and a project Steering with representatives from Bath Business Improvement District and Tourism Company together with Managers from The Council’s Environment, Planning, Heritage, and Regeneration services. The Steering Group resolved to commission an independent review leading to the appointment of Streetwise Orientation and Navigation Systems in April 2016.

The main purpose of this review was as follows;

-‐ Assessment of the existing scheme

-‐ Recommendations for potential signage improvements: Central Area

-‐ Recommendations for potential signage improvements: Edge of Centre

-‐ Recommendations for the potential of digital platforms

-‐ Recommendations on print options

-‐ Recommendations on funding and maintenance Consultant Team -‐ Streetwise Orientation and Navigation Systems Limited

The business commenced in 1998 and specialises in the design and implementation of visitor orientation systems. Its team come from backgrounds in design, business strategy, tourism development and tourism marketing. The company has been involved in the design of numerous city navigation systems in Edinburgh, Nottingham, Reading and Plymouth.

Review Approach

Streetwise has undertaken two main tasks.

1 Technical Assessment

Comprehensive and detailed desk-‐top and site technical review of the CIS Pattern Book and all the existing CIS wayfinding elements within the City.

2 Stakeholder Engagement

Streetwise undertook a two-‐stage programme of engagement with invited stakeholders from the business and tourism sector, surveys of residents and visitors and Council Officers. Draft analysis and recommendations were also posted on the Council’s website to enable feedback from interested parties.

Stage 1 Issues Analysis Focus Groups (June 2016)

Stage 2 Draft Findings and Recommendations Engagement

Engagement focused on six main topics that each group covered, as follows;

1. Network provision

2. Ease of locating the wayfinding elements

3. Ease of using the wayfinding elements

4. Information provision

5. Digital potential

6. Pre-‐visit information habits and needs Budgeted Costs Streetwise has produced an estimate for the costs of undertaking the improvements recommended and these have been the subject of a separate report for consideration by B&NES.

Summary of findings and recommendations

1. Network provision

Against the backcloth of the map based nature of the Bath CIS system, alongside the objectives set for it, we have established that in regard to the current network there are gaps where wayfinding elements should be provided. As detailed in the full report, in some cases we are recommending the addition of a Pedestrian Orientation Point (POP), which is the larger monolith with the full Bath City Centre Map; in some instances, we are recommending a Pedestrian Focus Point (PFP) the smaller monolith with the five-‐minute radius walking distance map. Details of these units can be seen on pages 89 and 90 of the full Report. In other situations we are recommending a new element which we refer to as a Column. There are also places where we are proposing that wall mounted or simple free standing frames are used to present maps and information. Summary of Action Points Add to the network to plug gaps as follows: High Priority:

➢ Main Exit from Rail Station – reposition existing POP or install new POP ➢ Southern Exit from the Rail Station 9 (point ‘r’ on the map, inner) – wall mounted or simple frame to

carry mapping ➢ Riverside Coach Park – New POP ➢ Bus Station, Dorchester Street – two wall mounted signs ➢ Car Park-‐ Charlotte Street – mount frames carrying schematic diagrams, four allowed for ➢ Kingston Parade at Tourist Information Centre (position ‘n’ on the network map) – New POP ➢ Gay Street/George Street (point ‘I’ on the map, inner) – New POP ➢ Broad Street/George St (point ’j’ on the network map, inner) – New POP ➢ Brock Street/Entrance to Royal Victoria Park (point ‘h’ on the network map, inner) – New POP ➢ James Street West, north side, west of New Street (point ‘I’ on the network map, inner) – New PFP ➢ Upper Bristol Road/Charlotte Street/Monmouth Street (point ‘e’ on the map)

– New PFP or Column

Medium Priority: ➢ South-‐West Corner of Queen Square (point ‘f’ on the network map, inner) – New PFP ➢ Exit from Royal Victoria Park, Royal Avenue to Queens Parade (point ‘g’ on the map, inner) – Wall or

simple frame mounted map ➢ North side of Churchill Bridge on A367 (point ‘q’ on the map, inner) – New POP ➢ Lower Bristol Road/Victoria Bridge Road (point ‘a’ on the map) – New PFP or Column ➢ Victoria Bridge (point ‘b’ on the map) – New PFP

Lower Priority:

➢ Upper Bristol Road/Nile Street (point ‘d’ on the map) – New PFP or Column Car Park -‐ Avon Street Car Park (point ‘o’ on the map) – New PFP or Column

2. Ease of locating wayfinding assistance

In broad terms, there was consensus that while the design of the monoliths provides a high level of compatibility with the environment of Bath City Centre, it was also felt that there is scope to improve their visibility on-‐street without being challenging to their environment. This was considered in terms of the position of each unit in their locations as well their design. Summary of Action Points

Ø Apart from the POP at the Rail Station and the unit at George St, the CIS units benefit from a prominent position. We have already recommended moving the POP at the rail station in section one but we do not feel the benefit from moving the unit in George Street is sufficient to justify the cost of doing so.

Ø When POP and PFP units are updated or upgraded, introduce an appropriately coloured strip at the top which will increase significantly the visibility of the system.

3. Ease of use of wayfinding elements

This topic is inextricably linked to point 4 below but was primarily focused on the mapping content. Our findings lead to my recommendation to retain the design look and feel of the map which provides the Bath CIS with its own unique style. There are, however, some small adjustments that should be made to help make certain things clearer. We have considered whether some locations would be better off having a POP, the larger monolith with the full map as opposed to the smaller PFP, and these are commented on in the full report. We are questioning whether the ‘Heads Up’ mapping approach is sustainable as it uses both sides of each unit for what is by and large the same content. We believe it may be better to use one side to tackle a wider range of requirements that have become evident as a result of our work, an example being the provision of local area maps and information. Summary of Action Points

Ø Retain the base map style which offers a unique ‘look and feel’ for the Bath CIS Ø Retain typography as currently used but consider how to make the text clearer where it crosses

different graphic elements Ø Consider whether certain locations would be better with the full map and not the five-‐minute radius

map, an example being the Bog Island PFP. Ø When carrying out the next major update, consider whether there is sufficient benefit from the full

‘Heads Up’ approach which essentially requires the same map to be on both sides of the monoliths or whether the space could be used differently to achieve other objectives

Ø Change the grid to an 8 x 8 grid to allow easier location of the destinations listed on the units Ø Retain the base colour palette for the map but adjust the colour strength of certain graphic elements

to help the reversal text to be read more easily.

4. Information provision; type, level of detail, map listings

This is where a lot of the focus has been. The issue that dwarfs all others is the lack of what we term a ‘quick reference’ capability for the system. The system that the Bath CIS replaced was dominated by a network of fingerposts, which fall into the ‘quick reference’ category. The reaction to the new system, which is devoid of any such capability, has been strongly negative from many quarters due to this. It is our conclusion that this needs to be rectified.

Quick reference, monoliths and fingerposts

While fingerposts may represent a quick fix for this issue, we are recommending what we believe to be a better solution and one that is more in keeping with the current system. We propose that an additional type of monolith be added to the range, one specifically aimed at providing quick reference plus local area information. Simple sketches of what we propose are shown below after the list of action points. In response to our recommendations and via the engagement process, we have been asked whether there would be any scope for fingerposts to be part of the system, for example in outlying areas where you may only wish to sign the City Centre. Bath BID, along with some local independent traders, are currently exploring an option with regards to fingerposts. Having been given access to what is being currently proposed we feel that the unit put forward is of a high standard and could be compatible with the current system for use in the circumstances outlined above.

Materials, Maintenance and Information Updating

Although there would appear to have been issues with maintaining the units in what would be seen as very good condition, it is easy to agree that the use of the patinated brass and vitreous enamel map panels provide a high quality distinguished finish which is in keeping with the values desired for the City Centre. There has been an issue over the effect of dog urine interacting with the surface to create indelible staining. In addition there can be similar issues with bird excrement. The cleaning procedures and process have failed to maintain the units in an acceptable condition and it is widely believed that these materials are indeed difficult to maintain.

Along with the changes recommended for the information provision, the relatively high cost of the materials currently in use and the fact that we have been told the available funding is limited, we are recommending a change of materials based on using toughened glass and reverse affixed vinyls or digitally printed metal panels which will provide an relatively economic solution to several issues as set out above.

Sketches representing the nature of changes recommended as set out in Summary of Action Points below Streetwise has not been tasked with undertaking any redesign of the system as such, we are only to make our recommendations. We did feel, however, that creating simple sketches would make it easier to understand our recommendations. The route we put forward for consideration as an alternative to fingerposts would be to retain the monoliths and add a quick reference element above the mapping. To allow the quick reference directional signage to be above the heads of those consulting the map, the monoliths need to be heightened by around 200 mm. At this point we are not going into the engineering considerations but having looked at the drawings in the pattern book, we believe this could be achieved though adaption of the existing units. This adaption could be applied to the POPs and the PFPs. Below is a sketch of what this could mean for the POP units.

On the same basis the PFPs could be heightened and a similar treatment applied along with the other changes referred to earlier. The sketch also depicts the introduction of a simple street index sitting alongside the Location Finder index. The UNESCO World Heritage Site reference has been relocated and the Visit Bath website address added. This sketch does not take account at this stage of all the potential measures recommended, it is purely to indicate how the quick reference requirement could be delivered while retaining the core presentation. You will also see we have shown a suggestion to improve the visibility of the monoliths by incorporating a colour strip at the top and applying an infill colour to the ‘walker’ symbol. The colour used for the ‘You are here’ has been selected but of course this would be considered fully and is only for illustration at this point.

Columns As we have said, Streetwise has no issues with fingerposts being part of any system but having looked at the Bath Pattern Book we believe that there could be an alternative that would fill gaps in the system and offer greater assistance than a fingerpost itself could do. In the Pattern Book there is a column used as part of the transport system elements.

We have used this form to provide a sketch of a potential ‘column’ that can do much the same job as a fingerpost but with the added advantage of allowing the inclusion of a local area map and supporting information, along the lines recommended earlier. In the sketch shown here, the dimensions of these columns would be around 430 mm wide as in the Pattern Book but with a reduced height of 2500mm. The use of columns to deliver this quick reference signage is increasingly common and indeed is part of what is still seen as one of the leading systems, TFL’s Legible London, as shown below, together with examples from Brighton and Ipswich. The fingerpost is certainly a cheaper alternative to creating these columns but we believe the latter can deliver significantly more to visitors than fingerposts, as well as bringing the system closer to meeting the broader desires of the various groups consulted. In terms of budgeting for the production of Columns, our estimate is that the cost will be the same or very similar to that of producing a new Pedestrian Focus Point (PFP) -‐ when produced using the new types of materials recommended. At this point we have not recommended any specific locations for these as they are only proposed. Where we have recommended a new PFP, these could be considered as an alternative but perhaps as importantly, the Column could be considered for use in new locations in response to demand for further assistance in areas not presently provided for.

Summary of Action Points

Ø Improve consistency of information provision between POP and PFP units by using lists and grids on both

Ø Introduce categories to the list of destinations Ø Mark destinations with a dot showing precise location as is already done on the hand-‐held map Ø Introduce an index of principal streets on the POP/PFP units plus on the hand-‐held map Ø Introduce local area maps on the POP units and provide some local area information Ø Mark the network of CIS points on all the on-‐street maps and the hand-‐held map Ø Promote the availability of the hand-‐held map on the POP/PFP units Ø Adopt a more dynamic approach to map provision in order take account of local needs such as areas

outside of the main area wide circular map Ø Allow, and even encourage, the extension of the CIS system by groups such as attractions/trader

associations to provide signs in their locality that give further useful information to visitors. These would need to be within the guidelines of an adjusted Pattern Book

Ø The Visit Bath website (and app) to be displayed prominently on all CIS Points. List also one or two key URLs on the system, specific to each location when appropriate; that would allow the visitor to find more information on the local area

Ø Introduce as matter of priority a ‘quick reference’ capability to the CIS system. All ways of achieving this should be explored. Our recommendation, however, is to develop a method of adding the ‘quick reference’ capability while retaining a close look and feel to the current system and not to add fingerposts. This would also allow local area maps and information to be carried which will more closely satisfy a wider range of stakeholder requirements than fingerposts are capable of.

Ø Reconsider the use of the materials to be used for the POP and PFP units and how they could be adapted to make them easier to maintain and more economic to update and to create new points in the network. Our recommendation is to examine the potential to use a similar approach to that used in Southgate which has successfully retained much of the overall look and feel of the CIS system. We believe the current POP/PFP units can be adapted to allow these new materials to be used while retaining the structure and foundations of the existing monoliths.

Ø Consider allowing fingerposts to be used in outlying areas where there is a simple requirement for signing to and from the City Centre to a particular destination, especially one that lies outside of the main CIS map area.

5. Opportunities for Digital From our discussions with all parties, it is clear that at this point there is still a strong appetite for on-‐street wayfinding/ information in all age groups, while it is also true to say that many are using digital resources in tandem to fulfil their information needs. The option of retaining the current Bath CIS system exactly as it is while focusing on developing digital resources would not satisfy the demands of any of the groups. There was, however, a broad consensus to extend the provision of the system through directing visitors to the appropriate digital sources. We refer to this as using the on-‐street system as a gateway to further information. Summary of Action Points

Ø View the CIS system as giving the visitor a gateway to any further information available via digital resources

Ø Retain the CIS map as the base mapping for the website but make it interactive Ø Retain the Visit Bath app and consider making it a more integral part of the CIS system Ø Do not introduce Wi-‐Fi, Bluetooth or Near Field Communication capability to the CIS system but

instead promote the free public Wi-‐Fi provision, when it is available, on all elements including the hand-‐held map

6. Pre-‐visit information habits and needs

There was relatively little comment gathered on this as sessions tended to focus on in-‐visit factors. The few comments that were expressed provided no surprises and the action points below stem from our own consideration. Summary of Action Points

Ø Promote the existence of the CIS system on the Visit Bath website Ø Consider the use of an interactive CIS map when presenting attractions and places of interest Ø Promote more prominently the availability of the hand-‐held map and the app on the Visit Bath

website

Funding the system

This is an important and complex area. We have considered this from a number of angles as the action points below illustrate. Fundamental to the future of the Bath CIS system is the control of costs. Just as important, however, is that B&NES look upon the development and maintenance of the system as fundamental to the City’s offer to its visitors and create a consistent budget for its ongoing development and upkeep. The full report goes into detail, but we feel that a significant source of funds could lie in the redevelopment of the hand-‐held Official Map and for its sale/distribution to be up-‐scaled significantly. Albeit we have used the ‘wet finger in the air’ technique, we believe it would be capable of selling in high numbers, given the right product and distribution. After all costs and reseller margins, it could yield upwards of £50,000 per annum which could be used to support the CIS system. On top of this figure, there could be the potential to gain advertising revenues from the hand-‐held map and also the possibility to sell advertising on a revamped app for Bath. As stated, there would be some up-‐front costs to revamp the current map and there would need to be allowance for a build-‐up of sales over say a two year period before income targets could be met. This is an area where there could be opportunity to invite third party organisations to bid for the production and sales of the map, as well as other aspects of managing the system. Business Case/Delivery Strategy

The recommendations we have made in this review point to what we believe should be implemented to create a much improved Bath City Information System. Stating what could be done is of course not to say that it will be done as there are a range of considerations, perhaps the most significant one being the funding of it. The next stage would be for B&NES to consider these recommendations, decide which should be delivered (if any), then put together the business case to justify the funding of any measures agreed and the strategy for implementation of them.

Summary of Action Points

Ø B&NES to develop the business case and delivery strategy Ø B&NES to accept that the CIS system is fundamental to Bath’s offering to visitors and allocate funds

on a long term basis for its development, updating and maintenance Ø Bath BID could consider whether it is able to use its funds to help meet the cost of some of the

added value elements that are of more direct benefit to its Levy Payers Ø Consider whether the Council’s partners, such as Bath BID and Bath Tourism Plus, could play a

central role in the Bath CIS system development and management Ø Explore the potential to attract sponsorship of the system to provide assistance with the funding of

its upkeep Ø Discuss with the Heritage Lottery Fund whether a proposal to upgrade the CIS system and include

interpretive materials would be viewed positively by them as a suitable project for their involvement Ø Redevelop and increase the pagination of the hand-‐held Official Map; improving its design and

information provision with the aim of making it a ‘must have’ both in terms of the wayfinding benefits it brings to the visitor and as an attractive souvenir

Ø Open up the distribution of this map and sell it through multiple outlets on a commercial basis, across the City and beyond. Use 25% of the space for commercial advertising

Ø Retain and develop the Visit Bath App and make it more a part of the CIS system, map based and interactive. Introduce the possibility of paid for advertising

Ø Promote the hand-‐held map and the app on all CIS points Ø Create posters/stickers for retailers of the map retailers to indicate that they are stockists Ø Consider who would manage the actions listed above and whether this would be a suitable project

for putting out to tender. The tender would be for the supply and management of the revenue generation elements of the CIS system

Map of signage recommendations

Bath CIS Review Summ Report FRIDAY copy ·...

Documents

Transcript of Bath CIS Review Summ Report FRIDAY copy ·...