Phew – that’s quite the title, but what an amazing map!
Using a sort of azimuthal projection, it places Columbus seemingly at the centre of the world, with a “horizon” of 70 miles in all directions. Towns, natural resources and the many and varied railroads of the time all radiate out from this mighty epicentre in great detail, receding into the distance as the scale diminishes on the outer edges. Clever use of a limited colour palette – just black, gold and blue – helps to create a sense of depth, with subtle shading and the blue outer edges creating a very convincing effect. Of course, the main interest for me are the rail lines, with both steam and electric lines criss-crossing the landscape to distant points.
Our rating: A unique perspective, executed wonderfully. I’ve not seen many maps like this, and this is one of the finest examples I have. Four stars!
So, after almost a month, 32 matches, and some 37,000 votes, the inaugural Transit Maps World Cup has reached its conclusion. Unexpectedly, perhaps, the victor wasn’t London, Moscow or one of the other pre-tournament favourites, but the Santiago Metro of Chile.
Without a doubt, this win was engineered by a huge social media blitz within Chile which mobilized a large number of people to vote for “their” map. I don’t really think that the Metro itself was entirely responsible for this, as the groundswell of support started more organically than that and only spread to the Metro Twitter account in full for the semi-final and final. The Chilean Ministry of Transportation also got involved, and even the Mayor of Santiago tweeted about it. If that wasn’t surreal enough, Channel 13 produced a four-minute news report about the final result, and the tournament also got coverage in local press. No other city came close to matching the passion and word-of-mouth that Santiago produced, though Vancouver and Sao Paulo also had some good social media efforts. Unfortunately for Vancouver, they came up against Santiago in the Round of 16, so their efforts went in vain.
And therein lies the rub. I can’t exactly praise Vancouver for their outreach efforts (which included posting on their blog to give actual concrete reasons why their map was awesome) and then turn around and denounce Santiago for doing much the same. A huge part of winning any election is “getting the vote out”, and Santiago did that more effectively than anyone else. In a way, I set myself up for this with the format of the competition, as an open poll on the internet is always susceptible to some sort of manipulation. I guess I’m actually lucky that the winner didn’t end up being “Mappy McMappyface”.
Do I personally think that the Santiago map is the best rapid transit map in the world? Absolutely not. In my opinion, the Moscow map is head and shoulders above everything else that’s around at the moment, honed and battle-tested over years of revision and testing, complex yet clear, and future-proofed for the next few decades at least. It’s a phenomenal piece of work and I’m in awe of how good it is. The Santiago map is better than average, and I perhaps underestimated its clear simplicity, but I don’t see it as a world beater.
In the end, though, I’m not really sure that the winner even matters that much. For me, the best part of the tournament was the conversation and discussion that it created on the way. The often completely diametrical viewpoints on what makes a “good” transit map were fascinating and illuminating. Geography versus topology? Street grid or abstraction? Points of interest or a blank canvas? Some maps were definitely held to more exacting standards than others, being brought to task for blemishes that were excused on other “lesser” maps.
Size and complexity of networks was also a hot topic, with both large and small systems accused of having an inherent “advantage” over the other. Smaller systems are easier to depict neatly, said some. Complex networks look more impressive, others replied. It’s impossible to compare a large network to a small one, said yet others. I don’t really agree with this, otherwise almost seven years of giving maps a numerical rating on this blog would have been a complete waste of time. Regardless of network size, a map can still be terrible or amazing, depending on the design choices made. I’ve seen large systems made crystal clear and small systems made an incomprehensible mess, all because of decisions made by the map’s designers. Perhaps a better way to frame the voting would be to ask, “which of these two maps does a better job of representing/depicting/clarifying the transit network shown?” rather than the simple “which is better?” question used in this tournament. Food for thought!
So what now? First off – a break until 2020, I think. Like the real event, a World Cup every year would be too much of a good thing, and I don’t want to wear out my welcome too fast.
Also, a change of format from the 32-team knockout to a 16-team competition with four groups of four cities. The initial round would be round-robin within each group, with the top two teams from each group going through to knockout quarter finals. The top eight teams from this edition automatically qualify, with the other eight to be selected and seeded by some yet-to-be-determined means before the 2020 tournament starts.
Finally, the polling method needs a rethink. I like the immediacy of Twitter and the discussion it can instantly generate, but it’s obviously the easiest format to influence via retweets and social media interactions. I don’t want to make participation difficult or exclusionary, though, so I’ll have to put some thought into this…
Finally, an enormous thank you to EVERYONE who participated and made the tournament far larger and more interesting than I ever hoped it could be. And hang around, there’s lots coming up on the blog that I hope you’ll find interesting!
Hey there! Curious about your thoughts on what looks like BART’s decision to not show its new eBART line as a separate line.
If you haven’t been following it – instead of extending BART from its northeast terminus at Pittsburg/Bay Point, it instead built a two-station extension built to standard railroad gauge (BART uses Indian gauge) and running light rail DMUs. There’s a separate transfer platform at Pittsburg/Bay Point where you change from the DMU to a standard BART train, and in theory the transfers should always be timed so that you can just walk across the platform to switch trains immediately upon arrival.
I expected this line to be shown on maps sort of like Boston does with the Ashmont-Mattapan line – same color as the regular line but an indication of a discontinuity – but instead it seems they’re just showing it as a part of the regular line. Curious on your thought on this! My immediate reaction was that it’s smoothing over a sort of hack that allowed them to extend the line for cheaper at the cost of less than fully integrated service, and would cause confusion for people who don’t know the full story and who board the yellow line expecting a one-seat ride to Antioch. On the other hand, I’m not sure if there’s any decision a rider would make based on this map that would be incorrect. Since displays at BART stations show final destinations when trains arrive, maybe someone won’t get on a Pittsburg/Bay Point train because they’ll be waiting for an Antioch-bound train that never comes?
Transit Maps says:
I’ve talked about this on Twitter a couple of times, but I’ll say it again: I don’t like it.
My personal opinion is that if you make your customers physically get up, leave a train, cross a platform and board another train to continue their journey, then you need to show that on your map, even if only to help people with accessibility needs understand what they’re in for at Pittsburg/Bay Point. Note also that transfers there are only timed in the peak travel direction. Riders traveling the opposite way can be waiting up to eight minutes, according to BART’s FAQ.
Showing that discontinuity in the route could be as simple as butting two “terminus bars” up to each other at Pittsburg/Bay Point, as I’ve quickly mocked up in the right image above.
(Side note: why is the only map on the BART website a tiny 500×500 pixel PNG? That’s not even high enough resolution to work on my phone screen, let alone my Retina Display iMac!)
BART obviously has its reasons for deciding to show the trip as a seamless journey – I believe signage has also been altered to show Antioch as the “end of the line” – but I feel it’s a little bit disingenuous to do so. It’s not a “one seat ride” from Millbrae or SFO to Antioch, no matter how much they try to sell it as one.
I saw this map last year in Hoboken Station in NJ. I was rather shocked, I’ve never really seen a bus map quite like it. It appears that NJ Transit has made them for every county. I’m curious about your thoughts.
Transit Maps says:
I’ve seen these NJ Transit bus maps a few times over the years, and I’ve never really been impressed by them. For me, the colours have always seemed very muddy and strangely difficult to distinguish from each other. I wondered whether it was to aid colour-blind users, but a quick visit to the proofing mode in Photoshop shoots that down – the blue and purple end up looking extremely similar for such users. Finally, it dawned on me that the three colours – orange, purple and blue – are seemingly used simply because they’re in the agency’s logo… which isn’t necessarily a great criterion for selecting colour palettes for a map.
The actual mapping isn’t that great either: the different municipalities within the county are simplified to the most basic shapes, but the routes twist and tangle their way across the map in a very convoluted way. It’s just about okay in the less complex southern and western parts of the map, but the north and eastern parts of the map are an awful mess. That afore-mentioned low contrast between the route colours doesn’t help matters, either. Lots of tiny route numbers and callout boxes add to the chaos. There’s some rail services buried way at the bottom of all of this as well, but good luck working with those.
Our rating: There’s no doubt that NJ Transit is an unenviable position – their network basically covers the entire state, and finding an effective way of representing that in a cohesive and attractive manner across a number of county maps is a Herculean task. I do applaud them for trying something a little out of the box, but I just don’t think it really works as it stands. A rethink of the colour palette to provide contrast between adjacent route lines and even more simplification of the routes could help. 2 stars.
Sent my way by Roy himself are these two marvellous diagrams of bus routes in Nottingham, England. The first is from April 1975 and shows the two free downtown circulator bus routes, which certainly seemed to take quite the torturous route through some narrow old streets.
The second map is from July 1979, and shows the entire bus network in diagrammatic form. The routes are colour-coded based on their direction from the city centre, not unlike this contemporaneous Portland, Oregon TriMet bus map, with white routes indicating cross-town “suburban” routes.
Of particular note is the striking black background, bright colours and bold sans serif typography – this is very much a product of its era, though it still looks pretty fresh even today. The approach to locality names on the full map is interesting: they’re very large, but are layered behind everything else, even if that means that some of the label is obscured by route lines. Despite this, they’re still mostly legible because of the large font size. A clever touch to make things work with limited space. Possibly the least successful part of the map is the treatment of the River Trent: its crinkly “wave” edges seem a little light in comparison with the other elements of the map, and the whole element just recedes a little too far into the background for me.
The main map is also notable for offering the most apologetically British explanation of “Not to Scale” that I’ve ever come across:
Not to Scale To present the information on this map as clearly as possible, the bus routes have been drawn diagrammatically and the city centre has been considerably enlarged.
My university redid the branding of their shuttle service recently, officially called the BUS (Brown University Shuttle) but called just “the shuttle” by students. They color-coded the bus lines and put up new signs. The only thing the signs are missing, though, is a map. I took it upon myself to make one.
Because distances between stops are fairly short, having some streets and greens was important to help orient users. Another thing I struggled with was elegantly showing direction of travel. The arrow system looks fine, but I’m wondering if it’s clear enough.
One important thing to note is that the green and yellow lines only run during the day (for university employees/medical students to get between the main East Side campus and the Jewelry District site), and the purple and blue lines only run at night (for undergraduates to get around campus safely, quickly, and warmly). In fact, I think that the transport operator subcontractor may just switch the shuttles on the yellow/green lines to the blue/purple lines right at 7pm to avoid a trip back to the shuttle depot.
At a first glance of the map, it might seem like all the lines run simultaneously. I included the legend in an attempt to prevent this, but I’m not sure it’s enough. Do you know of a more intuitive, visual way to convey this information? Or is making two separate maps just the way to go?
Transit Maps says:
First off – nice work on this map, Michael! It’s very clean and simple, but with enough geographical detail to orient users, especially the campus greens. It does what it needs to do very efficiently. I think the arrows are fine, though you could experiment with a couple of alternatives to see if anything works that little bit better.
As for differentiating the daytime and nighttime routes, I think it would be weird to have two separate maps when they would only show two routes each. The colours do some of the work for you in that yellow and green are brighter, more “day-like” colours, while the purple and blue are colder, darker “night” shades. You could present the evening lines as dashed routes (or some other immediately obvious difference), but after some thought, I believe the simplest option is to just make your legend more explicitly obvious. A big heading that says “Daytime Routes, Monday to Friday, 7am–7pm” with the green and yellow routes underneath it, then another big heading that says “Evening Routes, Monday to Sunday, 7pm–late” with the information for the purple and blue lines following. Don’t make your readers search all four routes to find that information, present it up front. Hope this helps a bit!
Q Hi, do you have a map of Los Angeles back from the late 70s? Am looking for any kind of transit map but haven’t found anything yet. Would be a huge help. Thanks in advance!
A The LA Metro Archives has some 1970s bus maps available (there was no rail service in the 1970s, though there are some early planning documents). Specifically answering your request, here’s the SCRTD bus map from January 1979. You can see the entire list of maps available in the digital archives here (and there are a LOT, from 1880–2016).
Presented here are 32 cities from around the world (12 from the Americas, 12 from Europe and 8 from Asia), representing a wide range of rail-based rapid transit map design. They’re arranged into four groups of eight: the Red and Blue Lines contain cities from the Americas, while the Green and Orange Lines are comprised of European cities. The 8 Asian cities have been spread evenly across the four groups and seeded so that they can’t knock each other out before the quarter finals (if they make it that far!).
The mechanics are simple: it’s a straight knock-out tournament. Win your match and you’re through to the next round. Lose and you’re out.
Starting on Wednesday, April 4th, I’ll post a Twitter poll on my @transitmap account for matches using the hashtag #wctransitmaps. Each poll will run for 24 hours, after which a winner will be declared. I plan on doing two matches per weekday, at least in the initial rounds, just to keep the tournament rolling along at a brisk pace. Starting times will be at 6am and noon Pacific Daylight Savings Time precisely for each match – hooray for scheduled tweets! See the schedule for the Round of 32 match-ups below and get ready to vote!
When voting, I ask you to consider the design of the current official transit map for each city as found on the agency’s website and make your judgment as to which of the two maps you consider best. Of course, how you define “best” is entirely up to you. There’s a complete list of links to the relevant maps at the bottom of this post. Remember that this event is just for fun, and is wholly unscientific. Also remember that the more people who participate, the more fun the tournament will be – so be sure to retweet and share each match poll as it comes out to maximize the visibility of the competition.
The graphic at the top of this post will be updated as each match ends, reflecting the progression and elimination of cities from the tournament. If you’re so inclined, you can download your own copy of the bracket to follow along, or you can try to predict the final result by filling in the bracket before the tournament starts. Share your brackets on Twitter with the hashtag #wctransitmaps for everyone to see. Boasting rights for perfect brackets!
Schedule for The Finals
MONDAY, APRIL 30 6am: Third Place Playoff: Boston vs. London – LONDON WINS!
I’m quite taken by this interesting vision of Boston in an alternative future – one where the elevated rapid transit lines were never torn down, but instead upgraded to be part of a comprehensive and dense transit system. As well as these old lines (and the Watertown “A” branch of the Green line and the full length of the “E” branch!), Amy also adds in other proposed additions to the network like the Green Line Extension, the conversion of the Fairmont commuter rail line to rapid transit, the Circle Line and even the Seaport gondola from South Station to Marine Park (incorrectly spelled as “Millenium Line” in the legend).
There’s some nice design touches in the map: the even space between all the 45-degree lines running from SW to NE is very pleasing and sets up a nice internal grid for the whole map. The reflected “wing” pattern made by the loops at the end of the SL1 and SL2 lines – here promoted to full rail rapid transit – is likewise a great little visual hook and is executed very deftly.
There are a couple of problems in my eyes, though. The regular spacing over much of the map means that there’s a couple of places where things have to be spaced much further apart to make things fit: the northern half of the Red Line is the most obvious example, with huge gaps between Kendall, Central and Harvard before tighter spacing again up to Alewife. I also think the big gaps between labels on the Green Line branches as they change from a 45-degree angle to vertical need to be looked at and respaced. It is possible to get even spacing between labels when a line goes around a corner with a little thought and effort. I find that it often works best to get the labels looking right, rather than the “ticks”. The overall generous spacing between stations means that the labels are all perhaps a little small in the context of the while map.
Also, if the “Yawkey” on this map is meant to be connected to the current commuter rail station (and the light purple diamond indicating a rail connection seems to suggest that it is), then it’s in the wrong spot: It should be down between Kenmore and the Green Line “D” branch, which might require a little bit of reworking to make fit pleasingly.
Our rating: A solid effort with great visual appeal and some good research. Some uneven spacing here and there affects the overall balance, but not horrendously. Three-and-a-half stars.
Head over to Amy’s design site for more details on the project – there are also prints for sale.
Had a chance to visit Morocco last week; the Casablanca tram map has both a network map (operating and lines under construction) and a travel time map between key stations.
Transit Maps says:
It’s not really much to look at, and there’s some odd design choices as well. Whose choice for the first two lines in a network are orange and yellow? There’s definitely a little bit of Parisian influence to be seen in the round “T for Tram” logo and line number bullet, which is perhaps not surprising seeing as the RATP Group currently holds the contract for operation of the system.
The map struggles manfully with the need to label everything in French and Arabic (and the legend throws English into the mix as well), though there’s some weirdly angled type because of this. It all ends up looking a bit random and haphazard, unfortunately.
The travel time map, on the other hand, is actually quite nicely done. Neat and simple, it conveys information effectively with a minimum of fuss. Some of the labels are jammed in oddly because of the strange little shape the map has to fit into, but overall, I quite like this addition.
Our rating: The exceedingly average main map earns just 1 star, but the travel time map bumps the whole thing up to two.
