I found out that back in 1959, there was a proposed Subway system for Winnipeg, but it got scrapped in favor of busses. Most maps that exist of the routes are low-res or not very detailed, so I made one (One such map here – Cameron). I used nonconventional colours, and utilized patterns to help people with colour vision deficiencies read it. Any feedback is welcome.
Transit Maps says:
Overall, I really like this a lot… and not just because I’m a sucker for isometric-style maps. The one thing I absolutely adore is the combined interchange symbol/label. It’s not a device I’ve seen before, and it would only really work in a relatively simple system where two lines cross, but here it’s pretty much perfect.
While a simple network like this doesn’t really need to have to patterned route lines to aid colour-blind users – three colours can easily be selected to provide enough contrast – I do appreciate the thought behind the concept. If nothing else, it’s good to see an alternative approach to this design problem.
I’m not quite so keen on the leader lines for the normal stations. They seem a little unnecessary and busy, and I think that labels could be made a little larger throughout if the lines were deleted. Larger labels and no lines would also be a bit more in keeping with the mid-century minimalism suggested by both the date of the proposed subway and the rather wonderful stripped-down version of Winnipeg’s coat of arms at the top left.
allGo is the new name for the public transport in Almere (The Netherlands). With some rather special transit maps.
Transit Maps says:
Yes, these certainly are interesting, Arjen, and continue the recent trend towards more organic-looking stylised maps (see also the recent curvilinear redesign in Karlsruhe, Germany). It’s probably important to note that both of these diagrams are meant to be secondary overviews to a fully-geographical system map (PDF here), which – for me at least – does a perfectly good job all by itself for a system of this size.
It’s also interesting that the designer seems to have hedged their bets with the labelling: the day-time map has labels that follow the curve of the line they’re on (looks attractive, but definitely harder to read at a glance), and consistently angled labels on the night map (perhaps less aesthetically appealing, but easier to read).
Generally, the curves and arcs are executed quite well – apart from a few awkward transitions between curves in a few places – though I think the day-time diagram works better. First, the “spine” of the NS rail line through the map helps to link all the sections together, and the NS stations also give a centre to each of the neighbourhood “hubs” that the Metro bus lines are named after. In other words, the content of the diagram drives the thematic styling of it and it all makes ties together. The night map carries across the style but not the theme, so it looks more like random arcs and curves for the sake of it.
These diagrams were designed by Oog Design in Apeldoorn. Interestingly, both versions of these on their project page have labels that follow the curves, so the change to angled labels on the night map may be a late change, perhaps requested by the client. There’s also a look at some strip map and bus stop maps as well, just to complete the suite.
Blue Crow Media is an independent publisher of beautifully designed city guide maps on many subjects – you may be familiar with their “Brutalist Architecture” series – and this new map is the first in a planned series of maps about public transportation networks around the world.
Edited by Mark Ovenden (of Transit Maps of the World fame) with some lovely photos by Will Scott, the map promises to be an authoritative guide to the design and architecture of the world’s oldest rapid transit system. While it falls a little short of those lofty goals – there’s only so much information you can show on a two-sided sheet – it certainly provides a salivating overview of the highlights that should pique just about every transport and design lover’s interest, from the best of Charles Holden’s Art Deco stations to the locations of Underground roundels that use Gill Sans or Arial in place of Johnston Sans and even oddities like a connection between the Underground and the evil Daleks from Doctor Who! The text is just a short paragraph or so for each entry, but does a good job of pointing out why each example has been included, whether it’s for historical or aesthetic reasons.
The geographical map of the Underground on the reverse side is serviceable, but I feel like a little more could have been done with it. The stations listed in the text are highlighted on the map, but it’s quite subtle and could perhaps have been made a little more obvious. I’d also have liked to see some more photographs or pertinent facts incorporated into the map itself, as there’s quite a lot of empty space due to the geographical format. Still, it’s a handy overview of the whole network, and is executed quite nicely.
Best of all, at just £9.00 (around $US12), it’s a perfect stocking stuffer for the transit, travel or design aficionado in your family. Very definitely recommended.
This is the network diagram of the first company identity ever created for the São Paulo metro by Brazillian design agency Cauduro Martino, back in the late 1960s, when the network was still being conceived – you can see several stations and line branches that didn’t succeed. Alongside with the map, they also delivered to the metro a big project of visual communications involving the logo – which is still used today – station signage and information guidelines. However, in 1971, the São Paulo metro company decided to ditch the project and switch firms to Unimark, where the present-day identity was (for the most part) created.
Although I personally like the São Paulo metro identity (except for the map, which I find very confusing), this one feels so much more special and unique. It’s a shame that it never could happen.
I found both the map and its history in a master’s degree thesis by Olivia Chiavareto (PDF) on the metro’s signage design. Portuguese speakers should check it out, it’s very interesting – the map is on page 64.
Transit Maps says:
This is a great find, Frederico – a look at what might have been if Cauduro Martino had been allowed to continue their work, which I believe began in 1967.
This is a pleasingly modernist diagram, with a distinctive diamond shape – one that echoes the Metro’s logo almost exactly – serving as the main design focus… the “visual hook” that I so often encourage in diagram design. Interestingly, it would seem that even though this map was discarded, part of it still lives on through the Metro’s logo, which is rather neat. And of course, it’s always interesting to look at early conceptual renditions of networks and compare them to the current versions some 50 years later! (Last reviewed in 2012, though the current version is stylistically very similar.)
Here’s a fun little project: an interactive timeline of Amtrak’s passenger rail routes from its inauguration in 1971 through to the current day. Using the extensive Amtrak timetable archives over at the Museum of Railway Timetables (well worth a visit!), I’ve created maps in five year increments – 1971, 1976, 1981, etc. – that show the changing face of passenger rail in the United States over the last 40-plus years. Five year periods seemed to be a good compromise between showing long term trends and an awful lot of hard work. As it is, I still had to draw 12 separate maps! Similarly, the maps do indicate frequency, but only in very general categories of “Multiple Services Daily”, “Daily Service” and “Less than Daily Service”… thick, thin and dashed lines respectively.
The slideshow above allows you to compare years by clicking on the dots below the map. The slideshow doesn’t automatically advance, so you can take your time looking at each one. Flip back and forth between two different years if you want!
Some notes:
The first map reflects the services as advertised in Amtrak’s inaugural timetable booklet from May, 1971. As the timetable had to be prepared, printed and distributed in advance of opening day, it doesn’t reflect the fact that some railroads – notably, the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad (D&RGW) and the Southern Railway (SOU) – decided at the eleventh hour to not join the new national rail corporation. As a result, some of the lines didn’t operate as shown on this map when Amtrak commenced service. In some cases, it took several years before these routes came under Amtrak’s full control or were abandoned completely. I decided to include this map as a reminder of the original operating plan, sort of an unfulfilled Utopian dream.
As a result, the second map (from July 1971) better reflects what Amtrak actually looked like in those early times, with those few holdout competing railroads also indicated in grey.
Because of the five year increments, it’s possible that some short-lived routes have slipped through the cracks. I apologise in advance if your favourite is missing.
I’ve tried my best to indicate major route changes – such as the Sunset Limited‘s 1996 change from Phoenix to Maricopa – when they’ve occurred, but please do let me know if I’ve missed any.
It’s very notable that changes to the network have slowed over the last 15 or so years, with only some very modest extensions and additions in that time, as well as the continued absence of the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans.
The 1991 map probably shows the network at its absolute zenith, with multiple routes out of Salt Lake City to the West Coast, multiple international routes to Montreal and Toronto, service to Mobile, AL and more! Note also the route to Atlantic City (now run by NJ Transit)… the 1991 timetable promotes the absolute heck out of this connection at every available opportunity.
As always, comments and corrections are most welcome!
After a year and a bit of following this blog I’ve finally decided to make my own map!
As you may know, the city of Christchurch, NZ is currently going through a massive rebuilding effort following the quakes of 2010 and 2011. There are constant conversations around what to do with the future of the city’s transport network, with talks of trains appearing here and there in media (and most recently as election promises). Soon, the crown agency Regenerate Christchurch will release a shortlist of proposals for the ‘red zoned’ land in east Christchurch, and this will likely include some form of mass transit.
Inspired by all this chatter I made a map of what I think could be the future of Christchurch’s rapid transit! I tried to make it in a 45 / 90 grid but eventually went with a 30 / 60 / 90 just because I wanted to show more detail of the bus routes. The CBD has been enlarged, but still maintains the ‘four avenues’ that surround it to make the differing scale obvious.
Transit Maps says:
Congratulations on your first map, Sam – it’s a great start and I really like quite a few things about it. First off, I think I definitely notice the influence of Jug Cerovic’s work on this… and that’s never a bad starting point. Your station markers that match the width of the lines passing through are pretty neat as well, and everything is neatly drawn. The use of 30/60-degree angles is effective and creates some nice shapes, though you could perhaps look at finding ways of making things more stylised. For example, the “W” shape the orbital line makes at the bottom is so close to being symmetrical, and the fact that it isn’t keeps catching my eye and drawing it to that area.
However, your type is way too small and absolutely has to be larger to be legible. A general starting point is giving your letters an x-height (that is, the height of the lower-case letter “x”) that’s equal to the thickness of your route lines, so I’d start there and adjust as necessary. There’s plenty of wide open space, so enlarging the type shouldn’t be too difficult. I think you’ll find this one change will make a huge difference to the effectiveness of the map. Try printing your map out as big as you can and sticking it to a wall. Walk back a few feet and see if you can read it. If you can’t, make the type bigger!
Speaking of wide open spaces, I have to say that I think that your initial sketch map (as shown above) actually uses space more effectively. It’s more pleasingly compact in shape and yet retains the same level of information. And, even in this rough drawing, the larger hand-lettered labels show you how effective they can be.
I’d also suggest labelling major roads that the bus routes travel along to help orient users. Otherwise, the twists and turns they make just look a little random and you may as well straighten them out to make the shapes simpler.
Our rating: A great start that just needs a bit of refinement to make it sing. Bigger type is a must!
Maxwell Roberts just posted about this on Twitter, and I have to share. A bit of poking around on the Internet found a slightly better image than his, so enjoy!
This is a diagram of the routes of Imperial Airways in 1935 by none other than Henry Charles Beck (yes, that H.C. Beck). I had no idea that he’d created such a diagram up until now, but it clearly bears many of the hallmarks of his work. Cleverly, he’s used different route line treatments to indicate frequency of service –weekly, twice-weekly, daily, etc. – which works well in the context of this two-colour only poster. One could say that southern Africa is a little crowded compared to the rest of the map, but it’s really the only part where there’s any real complexity: much of the rest of the diagram is a single long line of “stops”.
While I don’t know if this map was ever actually officially used by Imperial Airways in this form, it clearly serves as the direct inspiration for the schematic diagram on this poster by Laszlo Maholoy-Nagy from 1936 (September 2015, 4 stars).
Our rating: A lovely piece of airline ephemera and a rarely-seen addition to Beck’s body of work. Wonderful – 5 stars!
A stylish little diagram of trolleybus routes in the Estonian capital. It’s from later than 2000, when Line 8 was abandoned, but also from before December 2012, when Line 2 was replaced by regular buses. Today, only lines 1, 3, 4, 5 and 9 remain. Can anyone date this even more precisely?
Stylistically, the diagram reminds me a lot of these 1990 diagrams of trams and trolleybuses from Kaliningrad, with some interesting abstract shapes and a slightly rough, “hand made” feel to the whole thing. Interestingly, the diagram uses the line numbers as station markers, reinforcing which route you’re following every step of the way. It’s not an approach I’ve seen often, but on a relatively simple network like this it’s actually surprisingly effective. Having less than 10 lines certainly helps!
Despite only having eight lines, two colours get reused: lines 6 and 9 are both light blue, while lines 1 and 7 are both pink. However, these pairs of lines only cross each other instead of running parallel, so there’s no real ill effects from this approach.
Our rating: A little rough and ready, but nicely compact and very cheery. Three-and-a-half stars.
Here’s an absolute gem, a surprisingly modern-looking diagram of trolleybus and tram routes in post-war London. Drawn by cartographer Fred J.H. Elston, the map employs 30-degree angles and radically straightened roads to great effect. All roads are clearly labelled, as are the different neighbourhoods of London, so orientation isn’t a problem. I also really like the way all the bridges are shown crossing the Thames: another effective orientation method.
Underground and main line stations are denoted by a small blue roundel and a black diamond respectively, though the lines between the stations aren’t indicated – which gives the outer edges of the map a bit of “connect the dots” feel with blue roundels seemingly just scattered around.
Even the route number bullets serve a purpose – each different colour and shape indicates which day different routes run on. For example, a white circle indicates a route that runs all day, while a red square means the route runs on Saturday and Sundays only. A blue square indicates all-night routes. Though I have to say that I’m a little confused as to what the difference between “Weekdays Only” and “Monday to Friday Only” is. There’s obviously some subtle thing that I’m not picking up on, but I’ve got no idea what that is.
EDIT: Thanks to those suggesting that in 1947 a “weekday” could mean Monday through Saturday; that could explain the difference.
Our rating: Seems to have more in common with modern best practices for transit diagrams than with something that’s now 70 years old. Quite wonderful: 5 stars.
A great old map of transit from Salt Lake City, showing bus lines (in green), trolleybus lines (in red, and curiously referred to as “electric coaches”, a designation that only seems to have been used here), and the one last remaining streetcar line (in blue). Even that seems to be on its last legs, as the legend says that Line 5 could be served by “street car or gas bus”. I believe the last streetcar ran in 1946 – that is, until the UTA’s S-Line opened in 2013.
The map certainly highlights Salt Lake City’s rigid street grid, though it wisely omits showing all the cross streets without service, simply naming them instead. In effect, it mimics a modern rail-based transit map, as the street names would also almost certainly indicate stops as well.
Though the map is dated to 1940, this particular example seems to have seen use to a later date. Someone has made hand-drawn edits to routes 18 and 19 to the upper left of the map, reflecting service changes made after the map’s issue.
Also of note are the UL&T Co. car barns, seen at the intersection of 5th South and 7th East, which have now been incorporated into the fabric of the aptly-named Trolley Square shopping mall.
Our rating: A great little slice of Utah history, and quite a handsome map as well. Four stars.
A cleaned-up version of this map is now for sale in the Transit Maps print store. Click here to buy a print!
