Before and After – Karlsruhe’s Transit Map Goes All Curvy!

January 26, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Official Maps
Tags:

Big news out of Germany, where Karlsruhe’s KVV becomes one of the first European transit agencies to adopt a fully curvilinear diagram instead of the almost ubiquitous octolinear “Beck-style” diagram. The new map is shown here, with the old map for comparison beneath it. 

The old one is a solid, well-executed map, very much in the usual German style of transit map design – although perhaps a little too indistinguishable from many other very similar maps (Frankfurt, Munich, Berlin, et al). Personally, I don’t see much wrong with it at all, though it’s certainly not exceptional.

The new one… well, I don’t know. It certainly stands out simply because of its unusual design! Maxwell Roberts (name-checked in KVV’s press release about the new map, now deleted) champions the curvilinear map, and has done some pretty extensive usability tests showing that route finding can be performed faster with them, but I just can’t warm to their aesthetics. They just always look really messy and disorganised to me, which isn’t what I want from a map that’s meant to be representing sleek and modern transportation services.

Definitely interested in hearing others’ thought on this. What do you think of this new curvy transit map?

Washington DC Metrorail Snow Service, Monday 25th January, 2016 

January 25, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Unofficial Maps
Tags:

Submitted by Mark Greenwald, this map shows the reality of trying to operate rail rapid transit after a major blizzard – it’s underground or nothing, it seems! Map by the erstwhile Peter Dovak.

Source: Metrorail Info Twitter feed

Question: Do You Have a Map of London Transit Now That TfL Have Taken Over All Suburban Rail?

January 22, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Future Maps, Questions
Tags:

Got this question from an anonymous follower:

Would you have or be able to mock up a map of what the London transit map would look like now that TfL have taken over all suburban rail traffic?

For those not in the loop, Transport for London (TfL) will be bringing the operations of all the various train franchises that currently provide suburban or commuter rail service in the Greater London area under the “Overground” umbrella as their contracts expire. This means the changeover will be staggered up through 2019 or 2020, so any new unified map will change incrementally. But basically, the map below (available on the TfL website here) already shows the system, and it’s quite the tangled web.

Of course, the fact that all the rail services will be branded as the Overground has caused many to wonder if all these myriad lines will be recoloured in that service’s distinctive orange. (Dear god, I hope not!) I would like to think that the Overground and Underground will be separated out into two distinct maps, as (as the image above shows), the whole network is too much for the genteel old world style of the Beck map to handle.

Maybe TfL’s map designers might just lose their minds:

Submission – Official Map: Rapid Transit of Cleveland, Ohio, 2016

January 22, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Official Maps
Tags:

Submitted by Phil K, who says:

On my recent trip to Cleveland, I had a chance to check out their new rapid transit system map, and was pleasantly surprised. It’s not perfect, but it’s a pretty big upgrade from the previous version (reviewed July 2012, 1 star).

A few major changes to note:

  • Awkward angles have been straightened and geography has been simplified even further in in favor of a more schematic approach; this is particularly noticeable on the waterfront Line and the eastern portion of the Red Line
  • They’ve transitioned away from the awful multi-coloured line transfer nodes to a more uniform, black transfer node/lozenge
  • Though I’m not a huge fan of diagonal station labels, the new labels are also a big upgrade from the previous, haphazardly-placed leder line and inconsistent spacing approach
  • They’ve also removed the far-too-dominant “P” at the park and ride stations, opting instead for a clean icon placed consistently on the opposite side of the node from the station label

I’m not loving the increased size type for terminus stations, particularly for Tower City-Public Square, but I suppose they serve as a bit of an orienting feature. The terminus stations – and especially the Tower City hub – are very heavily referenced throughout the system on other wayfinding signage, so they are definitely strongly-embedded in riders’ mental maps.

I also don’t care for the bubble labels on the HealthLine and Cleveland State Line BRTs, as I think these could have easily been explained by the legend, but the labels aren’t egregious.

Overall, despite some flaws, I think this is a major step up from the previous version. It’s clean and communicates just enough information in its simplified format to be useful without being overly designed. 

Transit Maps says:

This is a pretty accurate summation from Phil – the map is much improved from the previous version, but still isn’t outstanding. I know that Tower City-Public Square is an important transportation hub and a defining part of Cleveland itself, but that label size is simply ridiculous. 

Some more consistency in the labelling of the stations could have been good: they’re horizontal on the Red Line down to the airport, but angled on the Waterfront section of the Blue/Green lines – seemingly to avoid clashing with the coastline, but that could easily be avoided with some reworking. I do give credit for the consistent and regular placement of the parking icons, though.

The inclusion of the two “rapid” bus routes is still pretty desultory: the Cleveland State Line doesn’t even join onto the main trunk properly, so I’m not sure of how it actually interfaces with the other lines. If it goes to Public Square, then that needs to be shown properly. 

Also, the legend for the map describes these two routes in possibly the most confusing way ever: “These routes operate on the roadway.” Wait, what? All the other routes are trains, so are these also trains, but running down the middle of the street? It’s all very weird, and it almost seems that the map is intentionally trying to not refer to these lines as bus routes. Mode stigma is alive and well in Cleveland, it seems.

Our rating: Definitely an improvement, but there’s still a way to go to be really good. Two-and-a-half stars.

Submission – Historical Map: “The Short Way” Lines Map, Michigan, 1935

January 18, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Historical Maps
Tags:

Submitted by xoverit, who says:

There was one other map inside of the 5 August 1935 Michigan Official Motor Bus Guide, and it’s quite different [to the Eastern Michigan Bus map previously featured – Cam], though suffering from the same cheap paper. Charmingly over-ornate, my favorite detail is that Poseidon seems to have taken up residence off of the Sleeping Bear Dunes.

As for the map’s practical purpose, I guess it gets the job done. And the other bus lines shown (without any specifics) at least show where you could go once you’ve reached the end of the service of the Short Lines (which are indeed short).

Transit Maps says:

I think this map is absolutely delightful, full of charming little details and excellent illustrative work that puts it far above the other map you sent me previously. Although it predates it by about 20 years, the style of the map reminds me greatly of Pauline Baynes’ illustrations and maps for C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia, which is never a bad thing in my eyes.

Each of Michigan’s major cities is represented with an appropriate icon – Detroit as a thriving metropolis, Pontiac is represented by its eponym, Ann Arbor by the Big House (then only 8 years old and in a horseshoe configuration, apparently), Battle Creek by a cannon, and Grand Rapids by… a comfortable living room setting. This seems very odd until you remember that Grand Rapids was a major furniture manufacturing centre at the time, even earning the nickname of “Furniture City”. Look around and you’ll see plenty more details like this, like the convict breaking rock near Ionia!

Our rating: A charming and breezy illustrated map, full of historical interest. Quite lovely. Four stars!

Fantasy Map: “Arabi City” Metro by Max Krueger, Age 5

January 16, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Fantasy Maps
Tags:

Submitted by Max’s proud dad, Charles, who says:

Sorry to be the doting parent, but I couldn’t resist submitting this map by my 5 y.o. son, Max, tangentially in connection with recent discussions of Philadelphia, as this is where we live and on which Arabi City is loosely based. But there are also stations from Jersey City, New York and the names of Max’s kindergarten classmates.

I think we can criticize his non-standard choice of font and the irregular pattern of the metro lines themselves. Also, Arabi City is behind in its program to make all its stations ADA-compliant – and this is given a cursory treatment in the map, as well. Still, I think this is a decent first off attempt from a young, creative mind. How many stars?

Transit Maps says:

Awesome work, Max! Keep this up and you’ll be a fine map-maker in the years to come. It’s a lot of fun to look at all the station names and wonder what your inspiration was. I see that Barnes & Noble has a station just for itself – that’s pretty neat. I wish my local bookstore had its own subway station, although the streetcar does go pretty close to Powells, a famous bookstore here in Portland.

You’ve done a good job with fitting the names of the stations onto the map, only using two directions for the type – across and up. Lots of real subway maps have text going all over the place and I think it looks really messy when people do it like that. You also have great handwriting for a five-year-old! My son is also five, and he likes to write his letters REALLY BIG. His name is Ryden: he thinks that maps are silly, and he would much rather go and build Lego instead.

I also really like your little wheelchair icon: it helps people who can’t use stairs work out where they can take the train to. Maybe the people of Arabi City can tell the mayor that they’d like more wheelchair-friendly stations that can help these people get around better?

I really like your map, Max, and I hope you think of even bigger, more exciting ones in the future! I give this 5 stars for creativity – keep up the great work!

All the best,

Cameron from Transit Maps

Submission – Unofficial Maps: Bay Area Rail Transit by Lyle Simmons

January 14, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Unofficial Maps
Tags:

Submitted via email by Lyle, who says:

The Bay Area has one of the most complex and diverse urban transit systems in the world, including three commuter rail systems, one metro systems, two light rail systems, one heritage streetcar line, and four major bus agencies. Unfortunately, there isn’t an official map linking any of these services together, so I thought I might make one myself.

Transit Maps says:

There’s a lot to like about the look that Lyle has created for this series of maps – it’s more curvaceous and spacious than many diagrammatic transit maps, which gives everything a nice languid, flowing feel. That said, there’s a few usability and design issues that I can see, not the least of which is the relative spacing of stations on the maps.

Let’s start with the first map of the whole Bay Area. The relative simplicity of each of the individual systems means that they can each be shown with a minimum of fuss – only BART needs to have its lines enumerated, as Muni Metro and VTA light rail are expanded upon in the two following maps. If the three maps are to be presented as a series, then an outline around the SF peninsula and Santa Clara areas pointing people to those more detailed area maps could be a nice addition.

The end points for Muni could be handled better: the inclusion of major stops down Market Street after Church and the scale of the map means that the lines overshoot Balboa Park station by a long distance. Lyle’s attempted to mitigate this by including destination notices – “To West Portal”, “To Balboa Park” – but they’re not much help to those unfamiliar with Muni. Similarly, the “To Fisherman’s Wharf” label isn’t really really required on a map of this scale: just loop the line around a bit and add a terminus station marker for it.

Muni’s “T” line down to Sunnydale Avenue reveals the biggest problem with this map (and to a lesser extent, the other two as well) – the relative location of stations. Lyle’s dropped the “T” straight down, and as a result, Sunnydale is nowhere near the Bayshore Caltrain station (they’re about half-a-mile apart in real life, and the previous Muni stop at Arleta is directly adjacent to the Caltrain station!). Yes, this is a diagram, not a map, but care still needs to be taken to retain some semblance of spatial awareness. This is even more obvious over on the east side of the bay, where the Fremont BART and Amtrak/ACE stations are shown a huge distance apart, when they’re actually just two miles apart and on a direct east-west line from each other. The two Hayward stations are even closer – less than a mile! – but Lyle has placed the Amtrak Hayward station level with the South Hayward BART station instead.

This placement problem is repeated on the San Francisco peninsula map, with the “T” line still out of whack with the Caltrain station at Bayshore: Arleta should be directly adjacent to Bayshore on the left side of the Caltrain tracks, with Sunnydale a little further south. There’s plenty of room to adjust the location of the Bayshore station along the length of the line to make this work without seeming cramped.

There’s also a slight problem with the interesting approach to the Muni Metro Duboce & Church stop, as it makes it look the historical streetcar “F” line also stops there. The Muni lines at Balboa Park are still a little unclear: we can work out that the “M” travels past San Francisco State, but which branch do the “J” and “K” take to get back to the city? Minor error – Lyle corrected his spelling of “Embarcadero” on the actual map, but left it as “Embarkadero” in the legend.

The Santa Clara map probably works the best because of the simplicity of the light rail system: it’s still easy to work out where each light rail route goes, even with the one common colour. However, don’t VTA’s light rail route numbers start with “9”, not “5″? I probably would have dropped both the Amtrak and ACE route lines to the south side of the Caltrain line through Santa Clara, rather than hacing one on either side. This would have put the label for College Park closer to its station dot, and prevented the awkward crossover of the ACE and Caltrain lines just before San Jose Diridon. 

This map will certainly become more interesting once BART finally makes it down to San Jose, that’s for sure.

Our rating: I really like the visual style that this series of maps has, it just needs some tightening up – especially when it comes to the location of stations – to make it really sing. Two-and-a-half stars in its cirrent form, but I see lots of potential here. Keep working on this, Lyle!

Fantasy Map: “The World Metro Map” by ArtCodeData

January 13, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Fantasy Maps
Tags:

I just came across this while doing my regular Twitter keyword search (how else do you think I keep track of all the cool things out there?): a Kickstarter project for a poster of 214 of the world’s rail/metro/subway/rapid transit systems combined as if they were one enormous interconnected system. That’s over 790 lines and more than 11,900 stations all told.

To be honest, I don’t personally think that this is the most original idea out there – I’ve already featured xkcd’s irreverent “Subways of North America”, and Mark Knoke’s detailed but raw “North American Metro Map” – nor does the tangled web of routes really appeal to my particular design sensibilities. It just looks like a big, unstructured mess to me, but the poster easily reached its Kickstarter funding goal, so I guess that others out there really like it. Design is a very subjective thing, after all!

Source: Kickstarter

Submission – Updated Official Map: Sydney Trains Network, 2016

January 12, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Official Maps
Tags:

Submitted by Thomas Mudgway, who says:

The third version of the new TfNSW style Sydney Trains map has just been published, due to the integration of the recently completed South West Rail Link into the T2 line. It is leagues better than the original map (September 2013), and just looking over it by eye it appears most of the technical errors are gone. The only label I can see obviously out of place is Cherrybrook, which is not terribly important anyway as the station is still under construction. In addition there have been some design changes, the most evident being that line names have been deleted from the terminus stations, leaving only the number. However, there are also other small alterations, such as the addition of “beige-space” where the lines cross, and the reworking of the T3, T6, and T7 around Lidcombe, which has eliminated the last crossing of station labels over route lines on the map.

Transit Maps says:

This is much, much better – a far more considered and polished map than the original version I reviewed (and redrew as an instructional exercise) back in 2013. It almost makes me feel that the first version was rushed out to meet a deadline before it was quite ready, and incremental changes have been made to it since to gradually clean it up. 

Almost all the changes made improve the map, especially the removal of the completely redundant route names from all the terminus stations. This is something I advocated for on my reworked map, although the placement of the T-numbers on this new map is often different to where I chose to place them. 

I also like the new placement of Lidcombe, which cleans up the area around Olympic Park quite nicely, even allowing the Carlingford Line to have a little more space so it doesn’t have to run directly alongside the main line as it heads north-east. The weird little spur line for Homebush has also thankfully disappeared – it was never a very convincing way to show service to that station, so I certainly won’t miss it at all.

I’m definitely in favour of the new doubling-up of the T2 line from Glenfield to Campbelltown, so long as it accurately reflects the new service patterns there. The map clearly seems to indicate that trains from the City via East Hills will always continue on to Campbelltown and Macarthur and never head out to Leppington along the South West Rail Link. Leppington will apparently instead be served by trains coming via Granville. Can any Sydney-siders confirm that this is the case?

Other good things: more harmonious spacing of stations overall (although there’s still some big gaps here and there), some improved label placement (Sydenham looks much better in its new position), the addition of an appropriately-sized grid for the station index on the second page of the PDF to cross-reference, and the “beige space” (as Thomas so rightly calls it) between route lines that cross but don’t interact with each other.

The map’s not entirely perfect, however. I’m still not convinced by the T3′s snake-like path from Marrickville to Sefton – I really do think that a straighter path like the one I created on my reworking would be preferable on a stylised diagram like this.

The placement of the T1 symbol above the station at Epping is perhaps problematic, as it sits right on top of the planned Sydney Metro North West line. It’ll probably be fixed when the line opens and the map has to change again, but I always prefer these things to be planned for right from the start, rather than rejigging things with each revision.

I’d still like to see some curves in the route lines to properly indicate direction of travel where the T1 joins onto the North Shore Line between Roseville and Chatswood, and where the Airport branch of the T2 rejoins the main line between Wolli Creek and Turrella. It’s a subtle visual thing, but it can help reader flow a lot.

Speaking of the Airport Line, the station access fee labelling is terrible. Couldn’t we have an icon for it explained in the legend like the old CityRail maps used to have?

Our rating: Incremental changes have improved this map greatly. Looks far more polished, and is much improved from a technical standpoint as well. It’s not perfect, but it’s the closest thing Sydney has had to an iconic map that it can truly call its own for quite some time now. Three-and-a-half stars.

Source: Official Sydney Trains website

Unofficial Map: Chicago “L” as the London Underground by Kara Fischer

January 9, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Unofficial Maps
Tags:

Submitted by Kara, who says:

I know you’ve reflected less than favorably in the past on maps done “in the style of” the London Tube map, but here’s a piece I made redrawing Chicago’s CTA routes in the style of the current edition of London’s iconic map, complete with a hybrid TFL/CTA logo. I lovingly refer to the result as “TF-‘el’.”

The style is not transcribed perfectly, I’m aware – perhaps, in light of the most recent edition, I should include all the Metra routes in order to add further clutter – but I intended this more as a fun exercise rather than an attempt to copy the style perfectly. But I’d still love to hear what you think about this one! Thanks again for everything you do!

Transit Maps says:

“Tf-el”… I like that name! And the hybrid logo is pretty clever too.

This definitely looks like fun, Kara! Of all the U.S. rail rapid transit maps, I think that Chicago is one of the most suited to be converted to a tube-style map. The already grid-like nature of the network suits the rectilinear style of London’s famed diagram, and the Loop is a great place to practice the principles of expanding the central part of the map for clarity. 

It’s in the Loop that you have run into a bit of a problem, though, as your labels for a few stations cross over the route lines. Amazingly, this never occurs on the real Tube Map, so you might want to look at how you can tweak and tease the route lines into position so this doesn’t happen.

The other problem—as you’re no doubt aware—is the dichotomy between Beck’s principle of evenly spacing stations as much as possible, and the need for stations to properly align with the underlying street grid. You’ve chosen the former, which means that all your Pulaskis, Ciceros, Kedzies, etc. don’t line up properly with each other. The underlying tube map-style grid only draws attention to this anomaly, which I feel most native Chicagoans would dislike as the grid is such a fundamental part of the city.

A minor fix: Cottage Grove is jammed up tight to the right edge of the map when there’s plenty of room to the left… I’d just move everything left until there’s an even margin to the left and right.

I’d certainly be interested in seeing another version where you’ve pushed the Tube Map style as far as you can. For me, that’s the fun and challenge of making an “in the style of” map: using the established design rules from another network’s map and applying them rigidly to a different network. What works? What doesn’t? What compromises do you have to make to end up with an effective map? Use it as a learning tool, not just a bit of fun, and your understanding of designing transit maps grows.