Here’s a transit map that can’t seem to make up its mind whether it is a rectilinear diagram or a geographically accurate map, and it ends up paying a price for that indecision.
Overlaying the routes on a city-wide street grid can work well (see the Barcelona map posted previously), but here it seems to force the routes to be subservient to their geography, rather than the other way around. The labelling of the roads is also far too small to be really useful, and they often struggle to stand out from the oppressive grey background the map is placed on. There’s also some odd design choices, like placing the routes on the south-eastern leg out of alphabetical order: “H”, “E” and “F”, when it would be very easy to run the blue “H” line to the right of the red “F” line and maintain the correct order.
Have we been there? I’ve been to Denver, but haven’t ridden the train.
What we like: A nice, distinctive transfer station symbol works well and is a different approach to most other transit maps.
What we don’t like: A lack of craftsmanship in the drawing of the route lines. Spacing between the lines varies widely and curves are very uneven, creating a very slip-shod feel to the map. Extremely cramped downtown area and heavy-handed treatment of the free mall transfer bus service. Legend and fare boxes look very tacked on.
Our rating: It is clear and easy to understand, just unexciting and technically poor. Needs to evoke “Denver” a lot more to be truly successful. Two stars.
This is possibly the best transit diagram I have seen submitted to Wikipedia. Lovely, minimalistic design with bright, eye-catching colours and good typography. No geography at all, which is actually appropriate for a heavy rail system like this – used most by commuters who travel the length of their line from their home station (on a spoke) to the city (hub).
Have We Been There? I’ve been to Boston, but haven’t travelled on the commuter rail system.
What We Like: Clean design, bright colours, easy-to-read all-horizontal type.
What We Don’t Like: Not a lot to dislike about this. Some people may want an indication of connections to Boston’s subway lines, but that would ruin the simplicity.
Nicely done fantasy map showing the route of the famous Oregon Trail. Very much in the style of H.C. Beck’s famous London Underground diagram, but with some lovely humorous touches.
Have we been there? Kind of. Living in Oregon means I’ve driven or hiked along long stretches of the old trail. Wish I could catch the train there, though.
What we like: Lovely homage to the original source, fantastic sense of humour – “hire Indian for safe passage”, ha!
What we don’t like: The rivers just end, looking like big blue sausages. It’s The Dalles, not Dalles. Doesn’t tell me where I’m likely to get dysentery or break a wagon wheel.
An attractive and easy to follow map with a few unusual features. At first glance, it appears to be a diagrammatic map in the form of the London Underground Diagram, but it’s actually overlaid on a simplified, but accurate street grid, allowing easy reference to the features of the city. Especially prominent is the Avenue Diagonal – a major feature of the city emphasized by excellent design. It also cleverly rotates the map to fit the available space (note that north is not to the top of the page), instead using the coastline as the major reference point. Finally, it shows every form of rail transport used in the city – Metro, tram, commuter rail, funicular and cable car.
Have we been there? Yes
What we like: clean design, integration of all services, markers for multi-line stations give at least some indication of length of walk between lines (the walk between the two furtherest platforms at Passeig de Gracia is looooong!)
What we don’t like: No indication of how ridiculously steep the walk from Leseps or Vallarca stations to Parc Guell is.
This is it. My final take on a redesigned Washington, D.C. Metro Map. This is my third major revision of a project that began in February of last year, and won the People’s Choice Award in the Greater Greater Washington“Redesign the Metro Map” contest earlier this year. I’ve taken time away from this diagram to work on a few other projects recently, but the release of Lance Wyman’s draft diagram has inspired me to finish an “ultimate” version of my vision of the diagram.
This version looks quite similar to the previous two, but has been reworked to take into account comments that I received after the GGW contest, and also incorporates some successful elements from other entries in that contest, such as subtitles for lengthy station names. (Best. Idea. Ever.)
Some of the bigger changes include a thickening of the route lines, “tick” markers for stations that point towards the station’s label (to combat some criticism that it was sometimes difficult to determine which label belonged to which station in my previous versions) and a general tightening of the layout to be more compact. Type size is also increased throughout. I’ve also dropped the separate full route lines for the new peak-only services that I used in the contest: general consensus seemed to indicate this was more confusing than helpful. The peak extensions to the Yellow and Orange lines are now shown as spurs of the main line, as on Lance Wyman’s new draft diagram. I’ve also come up with a much better device for showing the out-of-system transfer between Farragut West and Farragut North than my contest version.
Working on this diagram has been great fun, and I’m incredibly proud of the reaction and attention it has got. My reasoning has always been that there is more than one way to solve a design problem, and if I’ve been able to make people think about why they like the current one, or if they find they like this one better, then that’s just a bonus! As always, comments are welcome!
One thing I often get asked regarding my transit diagrams is how I go about actually creating them. Originally, I just jumped right in and pushed things around on a page in Illustrator until it looked okay. These days, I’m far more organised, meticulous and precise with my work and I think it shows in the quality of my diagrams. Here’s a few tips and tricks that I live by when working on them:
Plan Before You Start
Take time to consider everything about your diagram. How thick do you want the route lines to be? Are they touching, or is there a slight gap between them? Are you going to use curves or straight edges where a line changes direction? Consider your station markers – will they be ticks, dots or something else? Think about how you would like to differentiate interchange stations or transit centres as well. Consider the typeface you’re going to use for station names – it should be legible and simple. When you’ve considered all these points, you’ve given yourself a set of rules that you will use to construct the diagram. Every design decision you make should be evaluated against these rules: sometimes, you can break them if needed, but it definitely helps to have them in your head as you work.
Look at an actual map of the area you’re converting into a diagram. Draw rough route lines onto it if needed. Look to simplify the routes down to their essential elements: horizontal, vertical and 45-degree angles. Identify the most complex interchanges as they almost always need the most work. Solve them first, and the rest of the diagram often builds itself. Look for interesting compositional shapes or strong vertical or horizontal axes to build your design off. Some diagrams incorporate geographical idiosyncrasies as an identifying part of the diagram, such the DC Metro diagram’s retention of the “jog” along the western Red Line between Tenleytown and Van Ness.
Use the Right Software
Creating a transit diagram is a very precise task, with route lines and curves that need to match up with each other perfectly to look right, an underlying grid that holds the diagram together and professional-looking typography for station names and legend. For this kind of work, you must use a vector graphics editor like Adobe Illustrator, CorelDraw or Inkscape. When I see diagrams done in Photoshop or MS Paint, I wonder how the creator even started the project, let alone finish it!
Define Your Grid
From experience, I’ve determined that the most useful grid to have is one that equals the distance between the centre lines of two adjoining route lines. This equals the thickness of those lines if they are touching each other, but if you want a bit of a gap between your lines, then this isn’t true. So, if you have 12-point lines that touch, use a 12-point grid. If you have 10-point lines with a 2-point gap between them, then you’d also use a 12-point grid. I often leave the lines at the full thickness of the grid while I work to ensure everything is lining up right, then make them thinner as required at the end.
Carry the grid through to other elements in your design: use a multiple of it to space your stations evenly along a route. If you have a 12-point grid, you might space stations 48 or 60 points apart. If you want to have curves instead of angled lines where a route changes direction, you may want to set them up as a multiple of the grid as well, although this can often be an aesthetic decision. The bigger the radius of the curve, the more elegant your diagram can look.
Let the Software do the Work for You…
Try to do as little manual placing or editing of your routes as possible. Snap paths to the grid to ensure precise placement. Use numerical values for transformation and movement functions as much as possible, especially when you’re moving things at angles other than right angles, as lines may not conform exactly to the grid in these situations. I love using Illustrator’s Smart Grid (Cmd/Ctrl-U) overlays when working on my diagrams, as it shows me when paths snap to points and angles.
…Except When Doing it Manually Works Better
One thing that Illustrator can’t help you with is adding curves to route lines. You might think that the “Round Corners” effect would be perfect for this task, but it simply doesn’t work. It can do 90-degree corners well enough, but its algorithm doesn’t work as well with 45-degree curves: if you have two or more route lines going around a corner together, they don’t line up with each other at all.
What I do is create a set of master curves that I then manually cut and paste into place once I’ve laid out the overall design of the diagram. Draw as many concentric circles as you need – if your diagram has a curve where five routes change direction together, then you’ll need five circles – then cut each circle into four sets of 90-degree curves. Repeat, except this time, cut your circles into eight sets of 45-degree curves. Keep these master curves off to the side and use them as required. Copy the curves you require, place them precisely over the corner you’re working on (having those Smart Guides on works really well here), cut out the straight lines underneath your new curves and delete them, then join the curves with the remaining segments of the route lines. Time consuming, but absolutely the most accurate way to add curves.
Note: this part of the tutorial is no longer true for users of Adobe Illustrator CC and above, as Adobe has integrated the excellent “Live Corners” tool into the program. See this post for more information.
Consider Typography as an Integral Part of the Design
Labelling of stations is one of the most difficult parts of creating a transit diagram. Whatever you do, don’t leave it until the end. Ensure your design has enough space so that type isn’t crammed into an inappropriate space.
Erik Spiekermann once told me – in typically forthright manner – that “a designer who cannot make all the type horizontal is a loser”, and I’m definitely inclined to agree with him. Labels that are set in entirely horizontal type are far easier to read. You can alternate station names above and below a horizontal route line to save space. If you must angle your type, try and do it from one direction only to minimise the amount of head turning that people have to do. Having your type read from the right (tilting the head to the left) is preferred.
Use Layers
I can’t stress this enough. Each route line should be on its own layer. Stations should be on their own layer. Text should be on its own layer. Any geography should be on its own layer. You can thank me later.
Use Global Colours
I don’t understand why Illustrator even lets you make non-global colours. This is such a useful feature to quickly tweak the look of your diagram. Want your Red Line to become a Green Line? Use global colours and simply edit the swatch: that colour changes everywhere in the document.
That’s it! If you have any questions or comments on these tips, let me know about it.
Somewhat related to my previous post, here’s a new transit map of Portland for your perusal. This piece was born out of two things – a friendly after-work chat with the immensely talented Ryan Sullivan of Paste In Place, where we discussed a concept similar to this; and a chance discovery of a high-resolution scan of a 1943 streetcar/trolley map on the amazing Vintage Oregon site.
Based on that map, and information gleaned from too many other sources to mention, I have created a map that compares the passenger rail network of Portland from three different eras – 1912, 1943, and 2015, when the Portland–Milwaukie MAX line will be completed.
In this case, “passenger rail” is defined as streetcar (both old and modern), the once-plentiful interurban trains (a precursor to today’s light rail that once ran down the Willamette Valley as far as Eugene and Corvallis), MAX light rail and long-distance passenger trains (Amtrak and its precursors). Due to the somewhat incomplete nature of what my research uncovered, there may be a few little gaps and errors, but I believe what I show is a good representation of the services offered in each era.
Visually, the overlaid routes present a very compelling story. 1912 (white) was the heyday of Portland’s streetcar network and shows a dense, compact and comprehensive service for a city that covered a much smaller area than it does now. By 1943 (cyan), many of those routes had been supplanted by cheaper to run trolleys or buses. The automobile was gaining in popularity, and by 1958, the once ubiquitous streetcar had totally disappeared from Portland’s streets. Finally, the modern revival of Portland’s rail system is illustrated in the magenta overlay of 2015, which shows he new streetcar system, MAX light rail and today’s urban sprawl into once-distant suburbs – look at the vast distances the MAX lines cover compared to the compact streetcar routes of old. And I’m not even showing the whole extent, preferring to concentrate on Portland’s inner core so that downtown can still be made out.
Some other points of interest: two of the 1912 interurban routes through southwest Portland mirror the modern day I-5 and Barbur Boulevard almost exactly – rails have been firmly supplanted by road here. The Springwater Corridor which can plainly be seen swooping through southeast towards Gresham and beyond in 1912 and 1943 is now a popular bike path and part of the 40 Mile Loop, while other old rail corridors have been reused by modern-day MAX alignments. Also of note is the Council Crest route into the Southwest Hills. Now just a small city park with a view, up until 1929 Council Crest boasted an amazing amusement park and an observation tower!
As always, comments are welcome. I’d particularly like to know if anyone can see any obvious errors, as I’m almost certain I’ve missed some smaller parts of the early networks.
Here’s a new transit diagram that I’ve been working on for a while now – a unified rail transit map for the place I live, Portland, Oregon. Portland is blessed with fantastic public transportation, but I’ve always felt that the official TriMet system diagram fails to fully show this, even after its recent redesign.
The official diagram only shows TriMet’s services – the MAX light rail and WES commuter rail – relegating the important Portland Streetcar to a pathetic, unlabelled, light brown squiggle through downtown. As the Streetcar is currently expanding across the Willamette River in the form of the Streetcar Loop, I feel it is even more important to show its full extent and interaction with TriMet’s services. As both systems honour each other’s fares, there’s absolutely no reason not to show both systems on one diagram.
So that’s what I’ve done. My diagram shows the TriMet/Streetcar system when all currently proposed work has been completed. This includes the Portland–Milwaukie light rail extension, the full Portland Streetcar loop and the extension of the MAX Yellow Line into Vancouver over the new I-5 bridge. Works in very early planning stages, such as the Lake Oswego Streetcar extension, are not shown. I’ve also shown Amtrak routes and the Aerial Tram for the sake of completeness, even though they fall somewhat out of the scope of the main purpose of the diagram.
Although many people are unofficially calling the Portland–Milwaukie light rail project the “Orange Line”, I’ve decided to show it as extension of the Yellow Line. Arbitrarily ending the southbound Yellow Line at Union Station and changing the train to an Orange Line train for the rest of its southbound journey doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If the Blue Line can keep the same colour for its entire length, so can the Yellow Line.
Unusually, I decided to use 30- and 60-degree angles for this diagram, instead of the usual 45 degrees. This more accurately reflects the geography of Portland’s downtown, where the MAX tracks form a distinctive “cross shape” as they all converge on Pioneer Courthouse Square.
One minor problem with the diagram is the huge amount of distortion the further away from the city centre you get: Wilsonville should be way off the bottom of the diagram, and should be shown as being on the banks of the Willamette River, as should the stations near Milwaukie. However, these diagrams are always a trade-off between geographical accuracy and clarity – I think I’ve struck a good balance between the two.
My original design for this looked much different (see the third image in the gallery above), but when I reworked it in a second draft to tighten up some spacing, I decided to work with a black background that is somewhat reminiscent of TriMet’s new signage on the downtown Transit Mall (see the last image above).
Recently, I entered a friendly contest organised by the Greater Greater Washington website to redesign the Washington, DC Metrorail map. With the recent appointment of the original designer, Lance Wyman, to renew the real map, there’s a lot of interest in this subject at the moment.
I had already done a lot of the hard work with my previous redesign, although a few of the contest’s new requirements definitely necessitated a lot of rethinking. Overall, I thought my design was very successful and I was absolutely thrilled when I learned that my design (Map C) placed first in the People’s Choice awardand had earned second place from the jury. To me, it was justification that new and fresh, well-considered design can overcome the status quo and be accepted by a large base of people, despite the obvious attachment to the old map that people have.
I waited with bated breath for the next day, when the judges’ number one choice was to be revealed. There were quite a few designs that I considered to be excellent, and I wondered which of those had taken the prize. To say I was surprised and disappointed when the winning entry was revealed to be an absolute clone of the current map with the Silver Line and new peak services grafted on would be a huge understatement.
I’d like to point out here that I have absolutely nothing bad to say about the designer of the winning entry – he thought that this was a valid approach to take, executed it well, and the jury agreed with him. Design is a very subjective thing: everyone approaches the same problem differently, and all viewers react to that solution differently.
However, I do feel that the winning entry once again shows all the flaws of the current map that I have previously discussed: huge callout boxes about timetabling that unattractively cover half the map, inconsistently angled type, the “ugly Volvo” parking symbols, a “District diamond” that somehow doesn’t form an exact diamond (the left side is much lower than the right), huge transit station circles that no longer work with the additional Silver Line and thick route lines that now obscure the landmarks shown on the map with that added line.
The jurors even point out many of these critical flaws in their notes, yet still awarded their prize to it. In short, the judging panel is saying, “This really doesn’t work, but we still think it’s better than anything else presented”. Familiarity and the status quo wins over innovation, fresh thinking and strong design. Or the combined reaction of a group over the individual? Maybe as a group we want that familiarity; while as anonymous voters, we can appreciate and advocate new ideas without being influenced by others’ thoughts.
I’m certainly under no illusions about the future of the Metro map. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the map is so ingrained into the psyche of people from the greater DC area that any change will only ever be gradual and incremental. I guess I was just hoping for a more dynamic decision from a contest that has little or no bearing on how the real-life map will evolve.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
My original Eisenhower Interstate System in the Style of H.C. Beck’s London Underground Diagram is one of my most successful pieces of design, with countless posters sold, and inclusion in the excellent book Mapping America: Exploring the Continent (highly recommended for map geeks!).
However, since I completed it, I have produced quite few more transit-styled diagrams and have learned a lot about the design skills required to produce them. As a result, some elements of the original poster began to grate on my nerves—poor design choices and sloppy technique had produced something that was no longer up to my own personal standards.
So I started again from scratch. Although the two diagrams may look superficially similar, almost every aspect was reevaluated and reworked. Route line colours, line thicknesses and corner radii were tweaked to more closely match the diagram’s inspiration: the London Tube map, and a logo that playfully echoes (without being derivative of!) the famous London Underground roundel was created.
Accuracy is greatly improved on this version, with every endpoint being rechecked: I-55’s southern end is now properly in LaPlace, Louisiana, rather than my previously lazy choice of New Orleans. Similarly, I-93 now threads its way through Boston to rejoin I-95 in Canton, and I-64 extends past St Louis to terminate in Wentzville. I was also able to show the unusual east/west splits in I-35 in Fort Worth/Dallas and Minneapolis/St Paul, and have added more intermediate cities to many of the route lines. Finally, I addressed perhaps the biggest complaint I received on the first version: the omission of Pittsburgh. It now sits nestled between its surrounding interstates (I-70, I-76 and I-79, which form a neat triangle around the city, just as in real life).
