This is the official network map of Bogota’s Transmilenio, I wanted to know what do you think about it. I think this one is useless, we don’t use it a lot because it doesn’t show the routes.
Transit Maps says:
This is an interesting one. While the map is executed quite nicely with bold lines and clear labels, it is – as okamijishi says – almost entirely useless for actually navigating Bogota’s extensive BRT network.
Leaving aside the fact that north is to the left, not the top, which is instantly disorienting, the main problem is that the map only shows zones (or corridors) within the system, with no indication of how routes interact with them. By my count, there are well over 100 different routes, which can travel over a combination of different zones on their journey. The C15, for example, uses four zones on its journey from Portal del Tunal in Zone H to Portal de Suba in Zone C… but it doesn’t stop at every station on the way, as it’s an express service. At least the letter in the route numbers seem to match the destination zone!
There are lots of tools on the SITP website to help riders find the right route – including a 13-page “cheat sheet” PDF of routes that riders can print out and put in their pocket for reference (no, seriously!) – but it all seems insanely complicated and arcane to me. And this map certainly isn’t going to help on its own. Looks great, not much help. 1 star despite the nice design sensibility.
I have a love-hate relationship with Santiago’s Metro map. The current one excludes very useful information (particularly important for migrants and tourists) such as the existence of private buses to the Airport, or the commuter rail service to Nos (run by another company) that’s been working for more than a year now. It works just as well as the Metro using the same card and price, but for some reason is not mentioned.
This map was made from scratch by comparing distances between existing elements on it with the actual geography, not with the intent of being 100% geographically accurate, but to better show the relationship between the Metro and the Mapocho river (on the original one, for example, Plaza de Armas seems closer to the river than Baquedano, but in reality the opposite holds true). This map is currently being independently developed with the purpose of being distributed as a pocket map.
Transit Maps says:
I’ve actually had this map in my queue for quite a while – it came in during the Transit Maps World Cup, as Santiago’s official map was making its way to its eventual (and perhaps controversial) victory. Not wanting to post anything that could be seen as influencing the voting one way or another, I’ve held onto it until now. Hopefully you’ll agree that it was worth the wait, as Laura’s Vignelli-like diagram is really quite lovely.
The underlying street grid of the official map has been removed, with only the river remaining as a geographical landmark. All the lines have been straightened as much as possible, although some curious changes in direction still remain. Personally, I would have gotten rid of the changes in direction at the ends of the 2, 3, 6 and N lines… if feel that this has crossed the line from being a map to being a diagram, and should be treated as such – which means no changes in direction along a line unless absolutely necessary.
The comprehensive legend and list of stations is most welcome and well laid out, and the inclusion of icons denoting “Ruta Roja” and “Ruta Verde” stations – a peak hour skip-stop service pattern much like Chicago’s old A/B service – adds another layer of useful information.
Our rating: A clean and clear alternative to the official map. Three-and-a-half stars.
This is my version of the tramway and metro network of Marseille, France. It is one of my recent maps and I have tried to give it a 80s look but I am not sure I got it right. Overall, it’s not necessarily a map for daily use but more an interpretation of the system.
Transit Maps says:
For a relatively simple network like Marseille’s (with just two Metro lines and three tram lines), a diagram like this is perfectly workable for daily use, Chris. It’s simple, clear and still retains a good sense of how the lines fit together spatially… perhaps with the exception of the way that the M1 Metro dips inside the T2 tram line between Réformés/Canebière and Cinq Avenues. In the end, the way you’ve shown it allows your labelling to remain consistent and all the stations are still in the right place, so it’s really not that big an issue.
I really like the distinctive “X” interchange symbols on the map, though they’re deployed a bit inconsistently. Joliette and Belsunce Alcazar get one for each line, but nowhere else does. I’m not entirely convinced by the way that the tram lines are overlaid on top of the Metro lines at Noailles and Castellane, especially at the former where there’s little contrast between the red and orange colours. Personally, I’d prefer an “X-marker for each line” approach at all the interchange stations.
I’d also like the labels for all the intermediate stations to be a bit larger, and I’m not sure about the coloured text for terminus stops… the red on blue is pretty hard to read, and I’m not sure the combined yellow/green type at Arenc Le Silo really works. I’d also be interested in seeing what a darker blue background would look like… I think it could help the other colours pop out of the page a bit more and help you achieve that 80s look that you’re after. The typography is also something you could look at there… it’s executed quite nicely, but there’s nothing notably “80s” about it for me.
Overall, I really like this map. It’s visually striking and different, while still being very usable as a navigational tool. It’s certainly miles better than the stodgy official map (PDF link), that’s for sure!
Readers of Transit Maps will know that I recently featured some awesome concept artwork by Massimo Vignelli for the Washington DC Metro map that was created as part of an unsuccessful bid for the map’s contract in the early 1970s. (See the posts here and here). Interestingly, the Vignelli Archives – the source of the material – made a great deal about these being “new” discoveries, unearthed for the first time in nearly 40 years. However, I’d seen many of the concepts in Peter Lloyd’s excellent 2012 book, Vignelli Transit Maps – so they’d been pulled out of the archives at least once before now. Peter’s book also contains a further set of concepts using a hexagonal grid, but only as black and white photocopies. There were two variants: one showed an initial system of two lines (left), while the other showed a hypothetical full network, based mostly on a 1967 WMATA alternatives map. The copy of this map in the Vignelli Archives has its routes traced with coloured pencil – the colours used match those in the concept maps developed.
Once I saw this planning map (left), I suddenly realised that I could use it to interpret and redraw the “missing” hexagonal concepts featured in Peter’s book. The initial system was easy enough with just two lines and easy-to-read labels, but the full system concept was reproduced at too small a size to be able to read any station labels. I suspect that most of them were just repeated placeholder names anyway, as this was only ever a conceptual mock-up. So, using the names from the planning map and the route colours from the maps in the Vignelli Archives, I set to work recreating both maps in Adobe Illustrator.
The initial system map was quick and easy. I defined the hexagonal grid and constructed the whole thing mathematically (no eyeballing!) in around half an hour or so. The names are all as found on the original concept map, except that I corrected the inexplicable use of “Tacoma Park” instead of “Takoma Park”. Oddly, most cross street-named stations are expressed as being “at”, except for “Benning & Oklahoma N.E.”, which gets an ampersand for “and” instead.
The full system diagram took a little more time, though I’d done most of the hard work with the first map. Pleasingly, all the design rules carried across to the more complex map nicely, with only one station name – McPherson Square – being forced to cross a route line. Because this map was based on a planning map that shows alternatives for routes, there are some oddities in the network, not the least of which is the presence of four separate Gallows Road stations to the left of the map. Two alternate Green Line terminus stations, a standalone station on the purple commuter rail line out to Herndon and an interchange station between the commuter rail line and the Green Line. In reality, only one of these would have ever been selected and built. There’s also two Glenmont stations on the Red Line for much the same reason. I couldn’t find a name for the station immediately to the left of the Anacostia interchange on the Yellow Line, so I gave it the modern name of Congress Heights, as the other obvious choice of Alabama Avenue was already in use.
Curiously, the diagram omits the branch of the Blue Line down to Beacon Hill. Whether this is an oversight or just because the diagram was simply a proof of concept is unknown, but it would only take a simple reconfiguration of the Yellow Line branches to include it.
These concepts are an interesting example of a truly nodal topological diagram, with little indication of distance (or sometimes even direction), and were certainly fun to recreate. The major shortcoming is that they doesn’t seem to be able to handle multiple routes along the same track (see the double labelling of stations on the Purple and Green lines from Patrick Henry Drive to West Falls Church – these are actually shared stations, but the design doesn’t allow them to be shown in the same location). Of course, this means that this mapping style would be hard-pressed to depict the modern Metro network where the Blue, Orange and Silver Lines all run concurrently across much of the map.
As always, comments (and the inevitable corrections!) are most welcome!
While copyright precludes me selling prints of these exact maps, I have applied the design principles to the modern-day Metro network, and prints of that are available for purchase in the Transit Maps store.
Yesterday we shared some newly uncovered Vignelli designs for the Washington DC Metro subway system. And you were so excited about that we couldn’t resist sharing a few more related items.
Although Massimo Vignelli, while at Unimark International, designed the signage for the Washington DC Metro subway in 1968, he didn’t design the map (which was designed by Lance Wyman). But we recently uncovered a variety of ideas mocked up on these presentation boards.
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority map design design process Massimo and Lella Vignelli papers Vignelli Center for Design Studies Rochester, New York
The Vignelli Center is the gift that just keeps on giving today. Wonderful stuff!
Unrealized DC Metro map designs. Although Massimo Vignelli, while at Unimark International, designed the signage for the Washington DC Metro subway in 1968, he didn’t design the map (which was designed by Lance Wyman).
But we recently uncovered a variety of ideas mocked up on these presentation boards. We also found some original sketches for the signage! Stay tuned!
It’s well known that the signage and wayfinding system for the DC Metro was designed by Massimo Vignelli while at Unimark. It’s less well known that Vignelli Associates (the company Massimo founded after he left Unimark) put in a bid to also design the system map.
The above are early exploratory concepts for the “Diagram of Lines”, as Vignelli preferred to call the map, probably dating to 1973. They range from sparse and minimalist to completely abstract, and definitely represent a very different approach to the thick, playful route lines of the eventual official map, designed by Lance Wyman.
Although Vignelli didn’t end up winning the contract for the map, he still had a huge effect on the way it looks today. Wyman originally planned to insert icons inside the circular disks that are used to denote stations on the map, but Vignelli argued that such an approach ran contrary to his (already approved) signage system. The WMATA board listened to Vignelli, and the icons were deleted from the map forever.
This is my first attempt at drawing a transit map (or using Inkscape for that matter). It’s Amsterdam’s metro system, which is a relatively simple system. The zones, on the other hand, are not! You can check out the outrageous zoning of Amsterdam’s public transport system here. Some stations lie on zone borders, which means you can travel from within either of those zones to that station while staying in a single zone. Other stations lie very close to borders, but are not on it. All very confusing, but with some help of the Amsterdam public transport company (GVB) I figured it out.
Transit Maps says:
For a first effort, these are rather lovely, Michiel! I like the intelligent use of 60-degree angles to mimic the real-world layout of Amsterdam, and the way that the new Noord-Zuid line slashes through the centre of the map, and the way that that diagonal then continues all the way down to Westwijk… a great visual axis for the whole map.
Of the two, I have to say that I prefer the zone-free version, although I can understand the usefulness of the one featuring zones. I find the colours a little too bright, and the shapes a little too blobby… smaller corner radii might help here. The zone colours are unfortunately at their worst in the Amsterdam Centrum zone, where the grey is so tonally similar to the blue of the canals that it makes them difficult to make out. One has to ask why this zone needs a background colour at all. It’s surrounded by other zones and the IJ, so it could quite easily remain white. This would also draw attention to its pre-eminence as the most important/most central zone of the network.
While we’re speaking of zones, is it necessary to show zones that can’t be reached by Metro on this map? See 5710 and 5714…
Now the big problem: for three-quarters of the map, you do a great job of labeling all the stations horizontally… but then you get to the south-east corner and everything is suddenly angled. It looks strangely inconsistent, and it’s pretty much the first thing I noticed about the map. With some tweaking, I think that you could get everything nice and straight. The hardest part will be Veensepolder and Diemen Zuid, but once you solve that, everything else should fall into place pretty easily.
I was compelled to redesign my town’s transit map after reading a comment on LA’s map during the World Cup that said a detracting feature was that it looked “empty.” I try to solve this problem by both bringing more balance to the arrangement of the lines and giving a sense of geographical context with regional borders. I tilted north 45 degrees to create the pleasing visual effect of the two longest lines, the A and E, diverging to each side of the map in an even split, and did the same for the branching of the A and C. It really drives home the radial nature of the network, along with the large geographical distortion of the compact downtown core, which is meant to have a distinctive, almost symbolic shape. The two major diversions from geographical accuracy are the G portrayed as going north at first, the K going southwest south of Inglewood and LAX, and the A east of South Pasadena. The first two done for aesthetic purpose and balance; the last for lack of space (if you look at the current and future foothill extension on an actual map you’ll see why it’s so hard to fit in).
Metro already has a system of showing neighborhoods and regions on its map, but with labels floating freely in a vast white space detached from each other, they almost do the opposite of provide geographical context. Dividing the map into sectors divides the big white space into more manageable sections that can be understood in relation to what they border. Lastly, the river unified the map and further deters the notion that the service area is a vast space devoid of distinguishing geographical features.
Transit Maps says:
Yes, I recall this map being brought to my attention during the Transit Maps World Cup, with the note that it portrayed the Regional Connector particularly well, and it certainly does do that. What people think of the rest of the map probably directly relates to where they fall on the geographical map versus schematic diagram scale.
Topologically speaking, there’s nothing wrong with this map at all – everything connects properly to everything else and it can easily be used to navigate the network. However, Greater Los Angeles is pretty much defined by its long north-south avenues and boulevards, especially to the south of the central business district, so tilting most of the map at a 45-degree angle is quite jarring. It’s especially noticeable on the “D” Metro Line and the “J” Busway, as they run on I-105 and I-110, which go straight east-west and north-south respectively. Sometimes this kind of distortion is forgiven (see Boston’s schematic treatment of the Green Line branches), but sometimes it just messes too much with people’s perceptions of their city.
That said, the diagram itself is rather wonderful, with some great use of reflected symmetry and some very languid curves. I like the idea of visually breaking up the map into discrete sectors (not cities, thankfully, as that could quickly get messy), though I think the labels along the boundaries are probably a little small. Labels are a bit on the small side overall, and there’s a little bit of uneven spacing. The “A” line between Slauson and Willowbrook stands out the most in that regard.
If nothing else, this is a confidently unique take on the LA Metro map, and that has to be applauded. More unofficial maps should push the boundaries a bit more instead of treading the same old path… see what can be done!
Attached is a redesign of the Israel Railways map – which was a mess when you reviewed it in 2013 and has only gotten decidedly worse since the system has expanded (most recent here). There are some glaring issues with the official map, such as the mix of angles and the terrible spacing of the lines and stations, but also geographically it is starting to make less and less sense, and some stations are no where near their labels in the area south of Tel Aviv. I decided to tackle a redesign as my first ever map, and even though I only have InDesign to work with I think it did the job.
For my version, I decided to rely on the coast line as the main geographical marker and anchor to the other lines head inland, and felt that the two night lines would be a nice visual cue to the coast as well (with the added benefit of showing the transfer between the two lines). Despite the curve the map didn’t seem to work as as a radial map, so instead the coast is 1/8 of a circle and all diagonal lines on the map match the angle in the center at HaHagana (22.5*), which allowed the main bunch of lines turning inland using a nice 90* angle. I also worked to declutter some of the map by making the only line crossings be south of Tel Aviv and having the main “through lines” from Tel Aviv to Haifa be adjacent. It seems that since you reviewed the map in 2013, it seems that they moved away from bilingual maps (they have Hebrew, English, Arabic, and Russian). Still, my feeling was that they did this more out of laziness, and that it should be possible to have 3 maps, with other translations replacing the English on my version. The system is rapidly expanding – I added on the new High Speed Line that was just delayed from opening this summer to 2019, and the map is mostly future proof for new tracks being built. One final note is that while the jog up north by Haifa is not necessary, any Israeli drawing a map of Israel starts by drawing the coast and the jog for the Bay of Haifa, so it is actually a pretty defining geographical feature which was simple enough to include. The seas on the far right are really for fun, although future lines will go right up to the Kinneret up north and close to the Dead Sea down south, so eventually they would be more helpful geographic markers than they are now. Would love to hear your thoughts!
Transit Maps says:
Wait, you did this in InDesign?! That makes this map even more note-worthy than it already is, because I find drawing in InDesign to be a right royal pain in the behind and will go out of my way to avoid it as much as possible (and I spend a lot of time in InDesign!).
As for the map itself – this is phenomenal work, David, and is far more worthy as a national rail system’s map than the official version, which has definitely degenerated since my last review. Almost everything in this works well, especially the frankly inspired use of the large arc to define the Mediterranean coastline and the yellow boxes to group and denote the major urban areas. Spatially, the whole thing just makes far more sense than the scaleless official diagram.
The area just to the south of Tel Aviv is a little chaotic with the red and lime green route lines criss-crossing on top of each other and hiding the night line out to the airport in the process. If these could be staggered a little bit from each other, crossing adjacent to each other instead of on top, that might help a bit.
There’s only two things I don’t really like – the traditional “railroad” ticking on the planned high-speed line (this type of ticking always makes me think of old steam trains, which is hardly what you’re after with an HSR line!), and the leader line pointing to Hod HaSharon-Sokolov station. It’s the only one on the map, and it just stands out like a sore thumb.
However, these are very minor quibbles – I really, really like this map and it is a billion times better than the official one. Great work, David!
An imaginary interpretation of of what a fully fledged underground rapid transit system and rail map would look like in Bogotá, Colombia.
I designed the map with heavy influence from the London Underground. The system has 9 lines named after events, places and famous people.
I designed it as an experiment in art in design for a city that needed a cathartic respite from a daily life of stress and lousy public transportation. It is not designed with any technical knowledge or with professional considerations. It is essentially a map drawn from the gut.
The black lines representing commuter and intercity rail are mostly laid out over existing but abandoned track from almost a century ago. Rehabilitating these lines for modern transport is borderline impossible. Thousands of cars cross over these lines daily and the space around them has become so tight that laying down standard-gauge double track would severely disrupt city life.
The city has been squabbling and delaying plans for rail transport since the 60’s. Almost all administrations in the last 30 years have promised to build a subway/underground system but have fallen short of their promises.
The current administration has proposed an overground system that is certain to disrupt the current cityscape in a way the majority of the population is deeply concerned about. It has been labeled a ‘immediate and pleasing’ initiative meant to calm the masses instead of committing to a long term underground solution that could mean a better quality of life in the future. An underground line would only open as early as 2026, but the current overground plans would be ready by 2021.
Transit Maps says:
A nice effort here, though I have to say I actually get more of a Madrid Metro vibe from this than a London Underground one… something to do with the shapes made by the lines interacting, perhaps?
I do think that the heavy black lines used for the commuter rail services are too dominant compared to the actual rapid transit lines, and there’s also a bit of a contrast problem when they run adjacent to the dark blue Bochica line – the lines are very similar tonally and seem to bleed into each other. Best practice these days leaves a thin gap between adjacent lines to prevent this from happening (although incidentally, London is actually one of the few maps that still butts colours right up to each other). As this map is pure fantasy, you could also look at swapping the colours on a couple of lines to achieve maximum contrast here – it looks like the only place where the commuter rail runs directly next to another line.
The icons for accessibility and bus stations don’t scale down that well, especially compared to the thick, simple, lines of the bike parking icon. Work at bringing more consistency to your icons so that they’re a cohesive and unified set.
Overall, this is a good solid effort, and is obviously a work of some importance to you. Keep refining this, trying to simplify as much as possible – less wiggles in the routes! – and this could be really nice.
