I made an animated visualization of the light rail infrastructure of San Francisco from 1850–to–nowish. I was wondering if you would be interested in posting!
Transit Maps says:
I sure would be, Travis! This is a great 15-minute video that succinctly outlines the rise and fall of rail-based street transit in San Francisco, Oakland and even Marin County. The sheer number of competing companies in the early years is quite staggering! The impact of the Great Earthquake is covered, and there’s even a look at a couple of “alternate future” San Franciscos – one dominated by all the freeways that were once planned, and another where much of the rail infrastructure had been kept. Nicely animated and clearly narrated, it’s well worth a look to get an overview of transit history in the Bay Area.
Note: Travis acknowledges his error regarding San Francisco’s current population at the beginning of the video; don’t hold it against him!
Hello Cameron! Last week my WiFi was out so I was disrupted from my usual cartographic routine and decided try something outside the box. What I ended up coming up with was this cartogram showing travel time between light rail stations in the Twin Cities. I always find it to be a creature comfort when transit maps tell me travel time between stations, and it can really highlight some advantages (or disadvantages) of a system. It was a fun little endeavor and I wanted to share it!
Transit Maps says:
This is a sweet little visualization that almost seems willfully minimalist, even down to the choice of a “typewriter” font for the station labels. An unconventional choice, but I think it works given the immediacy and simplicity of the graphic. I have to admit that I never really know whether or not I’m meant to count the station dot as a “minute” with this type of graphic, although it probably doesn’t matter too much one way or the other if you account for the dwell time at each station.
There’s only one slight problem that I see: because the Mall of America and Union Depot terminal stations are the same distance down the page from the top, it could be assumed on a casual glance that it takes the same amount of time to reach both stations from The Interchange. However, because the Green Line takes a dogleg across the map, it actually takes quite a bit longer to reach its final destination. It’s not a big deal, but it does mean that the information contained in the diagram takes a little longer to parse.
Our final word: Simple and to the point, with an execution to match. Fun!
If the previous RideKC map is an example of a system diagram that doesn’t quite reach its full potential, then this is an example of one that surely does.
Really, every system map should strive to be this excellent: a simplified bespoke base map allows just the right amount of geographical information to be shown. The intelligent rotation of the map slightly counter-clockwise to match the local perception of “north”. The use of colour to enhance meaning and comprehension of the different services, including those from other transportation agencies at the bottom of the information hierarchy. Clear and stylish labelling. Great mode differentiation – there’s absolutely no doubt which lines represent the more frequently running light rail, even without consulting the comprehensive legend.
I could go on, but you get the idea – this is great transit map design. It definitely puts SacRT’s bland and generic light rail diagram (below) to shame, that’s for sure – one wonders why the latter hasn’t been updated to at least attempt to match the style of the system map?
For the record: the system map was designed by those fine folk at CHK America, and bears many of their design hallmarks.
I’m curious to get your thoughts on the full RideKC Regional Transit Map. RideKC debuted in 2015 as part of the KC Streetcar project [review of the original Streetcar diagram here – Cam], and the RideKC branding is now used for the buses on four transit systems across the metro area, in order to better unify transit across five counties and two states. This map does not show the streetcar extension from Union Station to Country Club Plaza, which will replace the MMAX bus rapid transit route when it opens in 2025.
Transit Maps says:
Before we get into the review proper, it’s interesting to note that even though is the current official system map available on RideKC’s website, it seems to be out of date. There should be three red MAX bus lines (Main, Troost and Prospect), but the map only shows the first two, with bus route 71 running along Prospect instead. Prospect MAX started running in 2019, so it’s pretty poor that the map hasn’t been updated since then (note the January 2018 date at the top right).
As for the map itself, one really has to wonder just why it’s so blue? It seems to me that the RideKC branding – which is predominately blue – has influenced this look, but not really for the better. The background is two different tints of blue (one for each state!), rivers are blue, highway shields are blue, the streetcar line is blue, bus lines are blue… the whole map is almost entirely monochromatic except for the afore-mentioned MAX lines, which cut overly-dominant red slashes across the map. For me, an instant improvement to this map would simply be to make the background a warm light yellow: it would give some much-needed colour contrast to the map, and the blue route lines would then have more “pop” against it.
Although the map is obviously meant to be viewed as a large printed poster (the PDF dimensions are 36″ x 48″), elements do seem to be very thin and spindly throughout. The sprawling nature of the network doesn’t help and creates a lot of dead space around the edges of the map, despite the welcome presence of inset maps for the far-flung destinations. I’d probably have liked to see a darker blue used for the titles of these insets to draw the eye to them better, and perhaps even a subtle drop shadow behind them to lift them off the page a bit.
Our final word: A competent system map that’s let down somewhat by the insistence on using blue for just about everything on it.
Hello, months ago I designed a curvilinear version of Barcelona’s railways and proximities. I think it’s interesting because it gives a new vision of the lines, and also I tried to make it satisfying to watch. I’d like to receive professional opinions of my works, so I send it in this interesting website.
Transit Maps says:
This is a really interesting design experiment, and Frank has executed it expertly – the curves are nice and smooth throughout with some lovely transitions. The right hand side of the diagram does become noticeably busier than the left because of the proliferation of Metro lines and stations there, though I imagine that it would take some serious reworking to expand that part out more. Curvilinear diagrams are pretty unforgiving if adjustments are needed – it’s not just a matter of moving a line or two over a bit like on a “traditional” rectilinear diagram, but instead completely redrawing the arc – or arcs! – that are affected.
The main problem I have with this diagram – as lovely as it is – is that it just doesn’t match my mental picture of Barcelona, one of the most famously gridded cities in the world. The coastline and surrounding rivers give some geographical cues, but I wonder if some more might come in handy – areas of green parkland at Montjuic and Parc Guell, for example. Without the straightness of Barcelona’s grand avenues to provide context, the curvaceous rail lines just seem to meander from station to station, often taking a fairly circuitous route to get there. Some people think curvilinear route lines are easier for the eye to follow, but it’s definitely a balancing act to usefully convey information while still looking aesthetically pleasing.
Our final word: Definitely interesting and quite graceful, though I still have my doubts about the overall utility of curvilinear diagrams like this.
I got interested in a historical map of the Moscow Metro featured on this site some time ago (November 2012, 4 stars). The radical simplicity of the visual language, using only straight lines and circles, gives a unique quality to the map, both in its high legibility and evocative power.
Realizing that it would be geometrically impossible to recreate this design to fit today’s expanded Moscow metro network, I started to apply a similar design language to a series of metro systems around the world, selected for the intermediate complexity of their network, allowing for a compact and unique-looking map, yet somehow challenging design-wise.
Building upon the original map of Moscow, I tried out ways to display additional layers of information: branching lines, route numbers, and interchanges to other public transit networks.
Transit Maps says:
This is a great little project, Cédric! I have to admit that I’m a little surprised at how well this style adapts to all the different networks, though Munich is probably pushing it to the absolute limits of what it can achieve. As you rightly say, this technique really works best on networks of “intermediate complexity”.
Of all the examples you’ve shown, I think Milan is my favourite: a series of similar interlocking arcs all connected by the straight line axis of Line 3… wonderful! Montreal is also quite lovely, although I could imagine that people who live there could take issue with the representation of “north”, which they generally take as meaning “away from the river”.
Our final word: Great work all around, and I look forward to more diagrams made in the same style in the future!
I’d like to submit an official map of public transport in Wrocław, Poland. The network consists of 23 tram lines, 61 city bus lines and 18 suburban bus lines. The most interesting is the circle tram line 0 which in fact is divided into two lines 0L (counter-clockwise) and 0P (clockwise). Inside the city of Wrocław it’s also possible to travel by train having a city’s public transport ticket.
Transit Maps says:
Fitting over 20 tram lines and almost 80 bus lines into a compact canvas like this is an almost impossible task, so you’ve got to admire the herculean effort made here. However, it’s undoubtedly difficult to use: there are only two colours for routes (magenta for trams and blue for buses) and you have to find and then painstakingly follow route numbers across the map. It’s one of my least favourite methods for marking routes, and this execution certainly doesn’t change my mind.
Unsurprisingly, the map gets quite cramped in places, and the labelling suffers a bit because of it – though I’ve definitely seen worse. Some good design discipline has been used to set up the major route axes of the map along 30°/60° angles, though the effect is somewhat spoiled by the dashed green fare zone boundary, which weaves its way drunkenly around the edge of the map. It even takes a little detour around some explanatory text at the bottom centre, which I find strangely amusing. The main rail lines are also drawn in a different style, taking naturalistic curves through the city. It does set them apart from the bus and tram lines, but it’s also stylistically a little jarring.
Our final word: A diagram like this might just work in the hands of a skilled designer like Jug Cerovic, but this attempt falls short for me.
Milan’s Metro has grown since I last reviewed the official map (way back in March 2012), with Line 5 now being open and Line 4 under construction – so a new review is long overdue.
The first thing I noticed is that the suburban lines have all been upgraded to have their own colour-coded route line instead of sharing a common colour as on previous maps. This makes them easier to understand and follow across the map, and certainly highlights the importance of Garibaldi station as the major suburban transportation hub. Garibaldi itself gets a unique diamond station marker and is situated at the dead centre of the map, so it really can’t be missed!
The Metro lines are nice and thick, and now have curves when they change direction instead of a hard corner, which make the map flow a bit better for me. However, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of rhythm or order to the layout and everything just seems a little messy to me. The angled labels aren’t helping matters, and are particularly unfortunate seeing as previous versions had labels that were all set horizontally. Condensed all-caps labels also aren’t the easiest to read.
Other notes: Quite a few stations seem to have secondary labels for nearby business headquarters – Bluvacanze, Widiba, etc. – though I don’t know if this is informational or as a result of commercial sponsorship deals. Whatever the reason, it’s just another layer of information that makes the map a little more crowded.
The addition of fare zones in fairly bright colours also introduces more visual noise, though it’s probably handled about as well as it could be. Most of the zones only apply to the eastern end of Line 2, though, so maybe there’s a cleaner way to apply this information.
Our final word: Feels a bit loose and unformed to me, though it’s perfectly usable. I always have difficulty relating Milan Metro maps to the historical centre of the city, and this one is no different. Haphazard labelling is probably its biggest downfall.
Source:LineaDiretta/Medium – click through for a brief history of the Milan Metro map from 1985 onwards.
I’m an amateur designer and, having had some free time during the pandemic, decided to try and make my first metro map. I found your site very useful while making the map. Thank you for your amazing collection of helpful tips and examples that helped me avoid many first-time mistakes I would otherwise have made.
This map is based on official info and speculation. My speculations and assumptions are based on press releases and official statements, so nothing in this map is too unreasonable. In all likelihood, about 80% of this map may be a reality in 10 years’ time.
I’ve designed it to be used by regular commuters, and not necessarily to sell the idea to people. Therefore, I’ve tried to design it for practical use and I’ve tried to make it minimalist but not boring. I’d love to hear your thoughts and ways to improve it.
Transit Maps says:
I’m so glad that this website was helpful in your first transit mapping endeavour, and I think it’s turned out pretty nicely as well! You’ve definitely done a good job of untangling the denser parts of the proposed network, and the mode differentiation between metro (solid lines) and commuter rail (cased) works well. Overall, it perhaps leans a little too much on the much-imitated London Tube design style, but I think almost everyone starts there before developing their own style: I know I did!
The full list of stations and their grid reference are a nice addition to a comprehensive legend, though I think the type is a bit small and could fit into the available space a bit better. Also, be wary of old style numerals (where the descenders drop below the baseline) in tabular information like this: it can make those grid references harder to read. If the font supports it (and many modern OpenType fonts do), set this information using tabular lining numerals instead. None of the digits will drop below the baseline, and all of them will take up the same width, making those grid references line up underneath each other far more neatly. This setting can be found in the OpenType options palette in InDesign and Illustrator, so check it out.
The complaint about small type continues to the labelling, especially the tiny text naming the lines – for something that’s meant to aid accessibility, it’s just far too small to be useful. Many transit maps use larger bullets with a letter or number representing the line’s designation at each terminus, which I generally think is more effective than tiny labels along the line itself.
Finally, I’m not entirely sure about the typeface used for the map’s title – Montserrat is a hard-working sans serif, but its alternate characters are definitely an acquired taste, especially that capital-slash-lowercase “M” and the curved “T”.
Our final word: For a first effort, this is really rather good! The bones of the map are solid, and most of the improvements really have to do with typography – which is often underlooked in transit map design. Keep at it!
Here’s a simple diagram for a hypothetical Seattle where Forward Thrust (the original ’60s subway) was actually built and where we would be today. If only we really had this level of transit.
I tried to make this kind of look like a diagram you might find in a newspaper, so it’s not super detailed with a legend and stuff. Or at least that’s my excuse for being lazy!
Transit Maps says:
A nice “what if?” map here from Henry, envisioning a Seattle where construction on a light rail network began in the 1960s instead of later… much later. It’s the little touches that I like, like the latest work package being called Forward Thrust 3 (or FT3) instead of the real world Sound Transit 3/ST3. It seems that in this alternate world, Sound Transit was never formed, as Henry places the ownership of the network with King County Metro.
The diagram itself does have that “newspaper infographic” feel, so I’d say it works as Henry intended. While simplification is good for that purpose, I’d still like to see a version with the bodies of water that do so much to define Seattle – Lake Union, Lake Washington and the Puget Sound itself. The reason this network looks so similar to the planned ST3 configuration of the real world is simply because Seattle is hemmed in by water and there’s very few viable routes.
One little technical thing I’d like to see fixed is the divergence of the red and blue lines south of Jackson station: if Henry nudged the change of direction on the red line down and to the right a bit more, the lines would change direction at the same point, which always looks a bit cleaner to me.
Our final word: A simple diagram of what could have been, made with a minimum of fuss. Works for me!
