Here’s some interesting isometric-style maps that crossed my desk the other day. They’re part of a series of maps from the Sound Transit Federal Way Link Extension Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Summary that outline all the proposed potential alignments from the soon-to-be-completed Angle Lake station south to Federal Way.
I believe that the maps were produced by HDR as a consultant to Sound Transit, and they do quite a nice job of comparing and contrasting the different alignments in a simplified, visually interesting form. Each map shows the main route in its own distinctive colour, with “optional extras” shown in yellow. Elevated and below-grade track is easily shown because of the isometric format – an advantage over conventional “top down” maps, which have to resort to modifying the stroke of the route line and then explaining those changes with a legend. Remember: show, don’t tell!
Of course, I-5 and SR 99 don’t really run as neatly parallel as this map would suggest (they’re really quite close near the proposed Highline College stop), but for quickly comparing all the alternatives and reaching a diverse public audience – there are four maps like this in the DEIS summary – I think this format does an excellent job.
For the record, the I-5 Alternative with the Highline College station option – as seen in the second map above – became the Preferred Alternative for this project back in January 2016.
I’m loving this interactive map by Oliver O’Brien that uses entry and exit data direct from TfL to build a picture of how the Tube across the course of a typical day – with around 5 million rides or so. (The data doesn’t yet include the newly-introduced Night Tube, so things wrap up as the last “day” trains finish their journeys at the moment.)
Watching the day progress is mesmerising enough – especially the flow during the two major peak periods – but you can also drill down to see detailed information for individual stations, which is kind of amazing. Interestingly, while the map uses a heartbeat as a metaphor for the flow, I almost see it as breathing: inhaling (inbound) for the morning peak, and exhaling (outbound) in the evening. Either metaphor works to describe how vital the Tube is in making London a living city. This is really lovely work by Oliver, and definitely worthy of detailed perusal!
The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) recently added strip maps to its FrontRunner commuter rail trains. At first glance, the maps looked adequate to me. But after a few moments of thought, I have the following critique. First off, the N and S denoting north and south at the end of the route is a bit confusing. However, the biggest criticism I have is the lost opportunity to show connecting bus routes at FrontRunner stations.
UTA has been trying to find ways to encourage riders to make greater use of its bus system, and I feel that UTA really missed out on an opportunity to do so using the strip map. The strip map does show the three stations featuring transfers to UTA’s three TRAX light rail lines, but the map completely fails to specify which TRAX lines can be transferred to. Additionally, the strip map could have also highlighted non-UTA connections, such as Amtrak at Salt Lake Central and Provo and Greyhound at Salt Lake Central and Ogden, and should have highlighted the connection to the Salt Lake City International Airport via the TRAX Green Line at North Temple.
I took a few moments to mock up the map with my suggestions (second image above – Cam). Hopefully, UTA will give more thought to the maps they produce in the future.
Transit Maps says:
Mike’s summary is pretty astute – the official map does the bare minimum to be functional, but misses out on opportunities to be more useful. Visually, it’s simple enough, though I’ll never understand why the UTA feels it necessary to add leader lines between station symbols and their associated labels. On a simple strip map like this, there’s very little chance of mixing stations up.
The legend is a bit odd: it gives the full official name of the FrontRunner line (line 750), when it’s already completely obvious that this is what the map shows – the giant “FrontRunner” logotype is a dead giveaway, don’t you think? The legend also indicates that the “T” indicates a transfer to TRAX, without explaining what that is. You can’t just assume that everyone riding knows that “TRAX” equals “light rail”! And Mike is definitely right in saying that the colours of each connecting light rail line should be denoted, as well as other alternate modes of transport. I especially like his suggestion to add Amtrak and Greyhound connections, and an indication of the airport connection should be vital.
Mike’s own map is very obviously a quick and dirty mockup, but it does show how more useful information could be added to the map. It also shows how tricky it can be to add a lot of bus route numbers to a map like this: they can end up just looking like a long string of random numbers pretty quickly. I’d probably suggest that connection information be moved below the route line and be set horizontally, as reading that amount of small text with your head at an angle while riding a train is going to be hard work! The north and south arrows are a good idea, but I think that Mike’s implementation of them could be interpreted as further extensions of the line off the edge of the map. A good old-fashioned north pointer could actually do the job a little better here.
Our rating: The official map is about as average as you can get. Does the job and very little more. Two-and-a-half stars. Mike’s mockup is imperfect, but definitely food for thought on how the official map could be improved.
Everything about this rather fabulous mechanical route selector – a unique piece created to build interest and publicity for the eventually-cancelled rail project – just screams early 1970s modernist design. From the gaudily coloured stripes on the case, to the tightly-spaced sans serif typeface, to the very name itself: “Futuroute” – literally the route for the future! Although I keep wanting to pronounce it as “futuro-route” rather than the intended “futu-route” for some reason…
The unit is now part of the permanent collection at the Museum of Transport, Greater Manchester, and is apparently every bit as clunky to operate as it looks.
I don’t have any information about this map other than what’s on it but it appears to be an early version of the Independent Subway System which was built by the City of New York to force the existing private subway companies to sell their lines to the city (”recaptured” as is labeled on the key) . The plan clearly shows the first section of the 8th Ave Subway, the A/C/E trains, but the 6th Ave Subway, Queens Blvd Subway, Concourse Subway, Crosstown Subway, South Brooklyn Subway and the Fulton St (Brooklyn) Subway are shown only as “Projected”.
What’s most interesting about this map is that it shows alternative routes for the Brooklyn and Queens lines; the Queens Blvd Line does in fact split under Northern Blvd but there is a plan here to have the express and local tracks split once again along 69th St. While no explanation is given I can only asume this had to do with the proposed Windfield Spur, a local branch of the Queens Blvd Line which was to zig zag through Maspeth and Middle Village beforeheading to Rockaway Park. A station and tunnel provisions were built at Roosevelt Ave station for this line so this original alignment could have been related.
The South Brooklyn Line, the F/G trains, shows that it was originally going to run as a straight shot from 7th Ave in Park Slope to Prospect Ave in Windsor Terrace. This would have dove under Prospect Park and private property until it reached Prospect Ave. The IND planners (wisely) added a station at 15th St-Prospect Park which required bending the local tracks off from the express tracks which do make the direct path under Prospect Park but are rarely used.
The Crosstown Line, G train, has the most interesting path as it seems planners had not yet found a suitable route south of Broadway. The path appears to be a straight shot down to Fulton St and, even more puzzling, appears to terminate around Clinton Ave. Early proposals for a crosstown line by the BMT would have connected it to the Franklin Ave Shuttle and extended service to Brighton Beach; however this line was to be built as an elevated line which residents and business owners along the route opposed. It was not until the city stepped in with their own subway was a crosstown line reimagined as a subway. The Crosstown Line was eventually built along Marcy Ave, turning west under Lafayette St to connect with the Fulton Line at Hoyt-Schermerhorn station.
The Concourse Line, the B/D trains, appears to terminate at Bedford Park Blvd (where the local trains do currently). The right turn the D train makes was added later as a provision for a future extension to Burke Ave and Eastchester which was never finished.
Lastly the Fulton St Line, the A/C in Brooklyn, is only planned until Broadway Junction. It would seem that planners had not yet decided a suitable route past Broadway Junction at the time. Given that there were two elevated lines headed into Queens they would have still been determining which one made sense to replace. Eventually it was decided to continue the line under Pitkin Ave (with further plans to extend lines to Rockaway and Cambria Heights). At Grant Av the subway rose to connect with the end of the Fulton St elevated line. But another alternative exists where the Jamaica Line could have connected to the Fulton St Subway. Bell mouth portals were built just past Broadway Junction station in the tunnels should it ever be decided to reroute the J train along Fulton St.
Planners didn’t stop tinkering with their new subway because in just two years they had devised an even grander scheme; what they were building would only be phase one of a two phase plan, what has famously been remembered as the Second System where new lines like the 2nd Ave Subway and Utica Ave Subway were formally proposed.
Not really a lot to add after such a detailed summary…
Suddenly, it seems that “draw-your-own” subway maps are all the rage. Hot on the heels of Jason Wright’s fun Brand New Subway game comes this slightly more serious planning tool released by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) in conjunction with other local authorities.
The stated goal of the tool is simple: Where do you want subway transit in SF? Just draw lines on the map where you want ‘em to go, add some stations and hit “Submit”. From there, I’m guessing the SFMTA collates all the responses, eliminates the spurious ones and then looks for common corridors and station locations in those that remain. It’s certainly an interesting way of soliciting initial community input, if nothing else.
It does seem a little odd that the currently under-construction Central Subway isn’t included on the map as a given element, seeing that it’s already part of the future of subway transit in San Francisco, but maybe this way gives users more freedom to express their ideas?
My favorite from Israel: the Carmelit. The Carmelit is an underground funicular in Haifa, Israel, which traverses the city’s primary geographic feature, Mt. Carmel. The Carmelit, opened in 1959, is one of the world’s shortest subways at only just over a mile, and is the only subway in Israel. The map shows notable attractions near each stop.
Transit Maps says:
This is a great submission, Adam. It combines two rarities: a fully-underground funicular system and an illustrated map, so it scores double points!
I definitely enjoy the “naive art” illustration style – check out the adorable trains, cranes and ships along the waterfront – but do the names of the actual stations have to be so darn small? Thank goodness for the six giant logos and the secondary list of station names off to the right, without which there’d be an awful lot of squinting going on.
Our rating: A charming illustrated map that suits the touristic nature of the line these days. The minuscule labelling isn’t ideal, but there’s only six stations to remember, so it’s not really a huge problem. Three stars.
Long-time readers might remember Nick’s fantasy Connecticut transit system (April 2015), so it’s nice to see a new “companion piece” from him that reflects the real world situation of the not-too-distant future when the Hartford Line opens in early 2018.
As most of the rail in Connecticut runs along the chiefly east-west Northeast Corridor, Nick has come up with the rather clever idea of rotating the whole map 30 degrees counter-clockwise, which allows him to place his station labels far more efficiently than if the lines just ran horizontally across the map. The rotated angle also gives a nice dynamic energy to the whole map, which I find quite pleasing.
If it was me, though, I’d nudge all the labels along the main trunk up and to the right just a tad. As it stands, the label for the next station up the line almost sits on the same horizontal axis as the lower station’s dot, which could cause some readers to misinterpret which label belongs to which station, especially in the more crowded parts of the map. It’s certainly nowhere near as bad as the recent terrible Washington DC strip maps, but why take chances?
Nick’s map shows the different Connecticut-serving services efficiently, wisely breaking the New Haven Line into New York up into its separate branches, which has the added benefit of showing how the Waterbury Branch operates (almost entirely) as a shuttle service. His cased “peak service only” line is a little difficult to make out at smaller reproduction sizes: perhaps the central white stroke needs to be just a little thicker? I like the inclusion of connecting CT Fastrack BRT and Amtrak services to complete the “bigger picture”.
Nick’s used the Google Font Roboto for his map, which is nice and clean and has a very “DIN-like” feel to it. It perhaps doesn’t gel that well with the appropriated official CT Rail branding, but Nick seems to indicate that an imaginary rebrand is in the works, so perhaps this is only temporary.
Overall, this is very solid work by Nick, with a good solution to the problem of having the majority of the stations arranged along one axis.
I’m absolutely loving this framed “mini map” and ticket display by Peter Dovak, whose work we’ve featured here on Transit Mapspreviously. A neat idea, executed very confidently. Hopefully, his collection can grow to showcase even more maps and tickets in the future!
While the purpose is noble – to inform riders of alternative transportation methods while vital trackwork is performed on Metro’s Red Line – this map is a hideous mess. I certainly doubt that Lance Wyman would approve of any of the additions, which look like they’ve been simply slapped on in Word or PowerPoint (the use of the standard Windows typeface Calibri certainly points that direction, anyway).
The wobbly lime green MARC route line (with no fewer than three MARC logos!) is the most obvious offense, but the “Q” Metro bus routes are also so poorly drawn that an explanatory table of the stations they serve has had to be added. The map also never quite explains what the dashed Red Line between Shady Grove and Twinbrook actually means. By implication, it would seem that this is the section of track that’s closed in this time period, but it never hurts to make this information completely explicit.
