Not every transit map has the multiple lines and complex interchanges of the London Underground, Paris Metro or New York Subway. Many systems have but a few lines which interact with each other in very simple ways: either crossing at a central point, or – as in this map’s case – sharing a common alignment for most of their length. But just because the map is simple doesn’t mean the designer shouldn’t pay attention to the small details. If anything, they should pay more attention, as the errors become easier to spot!

Have we been there? No.

What we like: Clean design, nice and airy. I’ll never be totally convinced by Gill Sans on transit maps – it’s too idiosyncratic, and it looks worse the bolder it gets – but it does a passable job here.

What we don’t like: Attention to those small details! For some reason, the distance between station names and their dots on the route lines varies quite a lot. To illustrate, compare “East Riverfront” and “Emerson Park” stations. The latter’s name is much higher above the route line for no discernible reason. That they are only separated by one other station just makes the difference more obvious.

The logic behind using a smaller type size for the second line in a station name is questionable. It works well when there’s an obvious subtitle in the name, such as UM-ST. LOUIS (North), but ARCH-LACLEDE’S (Landing) makes no sense, while RICHMOND (Heights) is just weird. And is it just me, or is the size of the subtitle font inconsistent?

Finally, I find the inclusion of the “P” in the icon for “Primary Transfer Station” brings some ambiguity to it. Does the “P” stand for “Parking” (as it does elsewhere), or does it mean “Primary” in this instance? Good information design should remove ambiguity, not introduce it – even if it is a minor instance like this.

Our rating: Clear and easy to understand, but let down by a lack of attention to detail. Three stars.

Source: Official Metro Transit website