While we’re talking about the Flatiron Flyer, I do like this simple little interactive map on the RTD website about the project. You simply click on your start and end destinations and it tells you which route(s) you can catch and what your fare options are. Neat!
(Again, I think that the numbering would have worked better if the current FF5 had slid down to be FF3, moving FF3 and FF4 up one spot each, but I guess it’s too late for that now!)
Source: RTD Flatiron Flyer website
Submitted by Steve Mohan, who says:
RTD just began Service on the Flatiron Flyer, which is a basically a rebranding of all the Denver-Boulder routes. As part of this, they updated the timetables system-wide to include a map of the route. Because they’re selling this as BRT, they’ve added this rail-like route map.
Personally, I like it. It’s simple and easy to read. The color coding of each route corresponds to the color of the text in the timetable.
Although the map is very simplified, it does a good job of showing the general routes – including the NW/SE route of US36. The one thing I don’t like is how it shows routes 4/6 going along the same route, as the FF6 deviates through a nearby business park.
I think it’s fit for purpose and one of RTD’s better efforts, but I’m curious as to your thoughts.
Transit Maps says:
RTD may be trying to sell this as BRT, but don’t be fooled by the hype. Because the buses travel in the High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes on US 36 with general traffic, rather than having dedicated lanes, the Institute of Transportation and Development Policy has rated it as “Not BRT”. Personally, I think “express bus” would be a better indication of the service.
Anyway, on to the map! I’d agree with most of Steve’s points: the map provides a good overview of the six new routes and has a nice, dynamic feel to it because of the angled main trunk (representing the US 36 section). The colour-coding works well and is carried across all media (schedules, website, etc.). I don’t necessarily mind the FF4 and FF6 following the same path on this very simplified overview map, as the extra “local stop” dots on the FF6 indicate the difference in the routes.
Now, if it had been up to me to designate the route numbers, I would have made the current FF5 into FF3, moving FF3 and FF4 up to a new FF4 and FF5, respectively. This would logically group all the northern termini together on the map: FF1 through FF3 going to Boulder, FF4 being the short turn-around route on US 36 (making a nice visual delineation between the two northern endpoints), with FF5 and FF6 going to Boulder Junction. The only drawback with this would be that the new FF3 would have to cross over three route lines at the southern end of the map, but I think the payoff would have been worth it.
Our rating: A solid overview map of a new and potentially confusing system (the six Flyer routes seem to replace nine old US 36 bus routes). Nothing flashy, but it looks modern, dynamic and direct – everything you want out of a BRT express bus service. Three stars.
An interesting concept that automagically generates a subway map-style timeline graphic based on the names (subway lines) and events (stations) that you input. You can even download a decent resolution PNG of your map when you’re happy with it.
The style of the map is obviously influenced by the Vignelli New York Subway diagram, and makes about as good a design as can be expected from an automated tool like this. The typography and placement of labels seems to be a little average – for some reason, the font stack uses Open Sans before the more obvious Helvetica (or even Arial), and the labels clash with the route lines a lot, as can be seen in the image above. It is a lot of fun watching the website “draw” your completed map, though!
All in all, though, this looks like a lot of fun and an easy way to make a memory timeline that you can share with friends or make as a gift. Give it a try here.
Submitted by themaysooproject, who says:
A rather odd way of showing the same line going in two different directions. This layout suggests there are two different lines, splitting in two separate branches from the current station. This photo was taken at Amstelveenseweg metro station, Amsterdam. It’s part of the new route signage.
Transit Maps says:
This certainly is a peculiar way to indicate travel in two completely opposite directions from the one station, and I’m guessing it’s been done because of physical space limitations on the signage. As Amstelveensewag only has a single island platform, I don’t actually see this diagram causing too many problems in this instance… but I’d be interested to see how (or if) it works at a more complex interchange station.
There’s a new version of the London Tube Map out for 2016, and it looks like things are getting worse for our venerable friend. With every revision, it’s being asked to do more and more in the same amount of space – Underground, Overground, DLR, TfL Rail, that darn aerial tram, zone information and more – and it’s definitely beginning to groan under all that weight.
A London blogger by the name of Diamond Geezer has written a couple of cracking reviews about the litany of problems facing the newest iteration of the map: a general overview and a post specifically about the required zone information, especially now that there’s a combination “Zone 2/3″ area on the right hand side of the map, that uses an ever-so-slightly darker shade of grey than Zone 2 to denote itself. It’s hard to argue with most of his observations, but it got me thinking: what if the standard Tube Map did away with visual zone information altogether? The map normally appears with a full index of stations that includes zone information (either underneath the large maps at stations or on the reverse side of the pocket map), so the information isn’t being lost at all, just presented separately to the map.
So that’s all I’ve done here and nothing more. I simply opened up the 2016 Tube Map PDF in Illustrator, deleted all the elements to do with zones and re-exported as a JPG. (Okay, I also had to substitute an unofficial cut of Johnston Sans in for the real thing, so please forgive any typographical crimes that have been committed as a result.)
The difference is quite remarkable, with the map immediately becoming far more reminiscent of the classic Beck diagrams. Without the alternating white and grey bands behind the map, everything becomes much easier to read and follow. It’s certainly much more restful to my eyes! Removing the zones also allows you to see where elements of the map have had to be moved out of their natural position to accommodate the zone divisions – note the huge gap between Hounslow West and Hounslow Central on the western end of the Piccadilly Line, for example. The weird jog in the Overground Line between Surrey Quays and Queens Road Peckham actually has nothing to do with the zones boundaries, and I really wonder why it’s needed at all.
Maybe getting rid of all the zones is too much: the “tourist area” of Zone 1 might be useful to retain, but this is certainly an interesting example of how one single change to a transit map can make a very big difference to how it looks and works. I’d certainly advocate redrawing and reworking the diagram fully if zones were ever removed.
What single element of the Tube Map would you change or remove to improve it?
Submitted by xoverit, who says:
I found this interesting thing inside of the 5 August 1935 Michigan Official Motor Bus Guide. It’s not a particularly good or notable map, but the logo of the Eastern Michigan System was obviously inspired by the London Underground!
Transit Maps says:
I’d say you’re almost certainly right… the “bullseye” (as it was called in those days, though it’s now commonly referred to as the “roundel”) was seized upon by transit agencies worldwide as a de facto symbol of rapid, frequent and excellent service and was copied almost exactly from Michigan to Sydney and everywhere else in between. Of course, London Transport and its successor, TfL, eventually asserted their copyright over the symbol and use elsewhere virtually disappeared.
As xoverit says, the map itself is pretty unremarkable except as an historical record: it’s crudely drawn and the printed reproduction is pretty poor as well. One little detail does make me laugh, though – the town of “Chelsea” lies to the west of Ann Arbor, with the town of “Clinton” to the southwest: but their labels are so close together that there appears to be a single town called “Chelsea Clinton” upon first viewing of the map.
Submitted by mactire, who says:
I’d be interested to know your opinion of the updated Manchester tram map, a different version of which was featured earlier this year (August 2015, 4 stars)? Personally, although I can see the need to accommodate increasing complexity in the system, I don’t think the route indicators are easy to follow, and the placement of symbols and labels seems just a bit messier in fitting around them.
Transit Maps says:
I’d have to agree with mactire – this is definitely a retrograde step in the evolution of this map.
I can see why it’s been done, as some unusual service patterns and terminal stations have been introduced while the last connecting piece of track in the city centre is being constructed, but it’s just not very intuitive to use. Finding both ends of a given route can take quite a while, and then you have to retrace the route between them to make sure you’ve got things right. Then there’s the daily service patterns (every day, Monday through Saturday only, Sunday only) to factor in as well… it’s a headache-inducing mess.
The route designation arrows do seem a bit tacked on, especially at Victoria, and their colourfulness means that the other informational icons have all been reduced to black and white so they don’t compete visually. I actually thought the previous versions of the icons were very successful – the blue backgrounds for the park-and-ride icons worked particularly well as a contrast to the brown backgrounds of the other “connection” icons – so it’s a shame to see them reduced so much in importance here.
Our rating: An experiment in presenting route information differently, but I really don’t feel it’s that successful. Takes far too long for the user to parse route and schedule information. Hopefully will revert back to something more like previous maps when construction work is complete. Two-and-a-half stars.
Source: Official Metrolink website (PDF link)
A page from the 1977 MBTA Standards Manual showing the specifications for a map panel as installed at the entrance level of a station, using Kendall inbound as an example. Signage much like this can still be seen across most of the rapid transit network.
Interestingly, there’s no Kickstarter campaign to reissue this particular standards manual, perhaps because it wasn’t created by a famed Italian modernist designer and is typeset in the most basic manner possible, but there’s no shortage of fascinating information available in it: the PANTONE colours used for each of the rapid transit lines, for example, or why there’s no Yellow Line (the colour was reserved for bus services). Best of all, the PDFs are available for download from the MBTA’s website (Part 2 contains the graphics standards pages if that’s all you’re interested in).
Submitted by Mike, who has a lot of good things to say, much of which I agree with. Hopefully, the official map once the line is up and running will tone down the sponsorship a lot (the way the Quicken Loans logo covers up the label for the Greyhound Bus Station is particularly awful) and focus more on how the line creates vital transportation connections for the people of Detroit.
Here’s Mike’s full submission text:
First, I do not think this is a good map. The focus is on the individual sponsors of the various stops as a way to garner more commercial support for the project instead of it being an actual map. The points-of-interest are faded out or non-existent, the People Mover is thrown in there, and without knowing the city you have no sense of scale for this 3.3-mile stretch of Woodward Avenue.
But I like the map, not for what it is, but for what it represents. Detroit, being the Motor City, has long been the domain of cars with just the laughable People Mover and a horrendous bus system as the only daily mass transit in the area. What this map is is what this map represents: the city moving forward into a future where people will take mass transit downtown, that people will actually want to go and stay downtown for more than just a show or Red Wings game, that the city will once again be a living and vibrant center for arts and industry.
This past Thanksgiving, I ran a 10K downtown with my dad and wife, and the route (like almost all races in Detroit) included a stretch along Woodward. Yes, the same Woodward known for the Woodward Dream Cruise for people to drive their classic cars all week just to show off and burn fuel. Instead of focusing on that aspect of Detroit culture, the race organizers and speakers instead highlighted that we were starting at the southern terminus of the M-1 streetcar line, and what it meant for the city moving into the new century. Sure, it also came with a note to be careful around the extended construction site and on the slippery rails (it had rained that morning), but it was still a highlight.
Growing up outside of the city, I rarely ventured downtown with my family. We’d go to a Wings or Tigers game, or watch my dad run the marathon, but that was it. Now, with work continuing and me being hopeful for plans for expansion, I’ll be visiting downtown more frequently with my wife when we head back to Michigan to visit my family.
I like this map, not for what it shows, but for what it means for the future of Detroit.
Note: the M-1 streetcar was originally planned to the a 9-mile light rail system, stretching closer to the suburbs, but this is a start. Plus, being connected to Amtrak is a plus.
A question from Richard Archambault via Twitter: how many metros/subways have you personally visited? Favourite?
Answer: Oooo, good question! Using the full list of rail rapid transit systems in Mark Ovenden’s Transit Maps of the World gives this list (in approximate order of first use):
That’s it, I think. I’ve also traveled extensively around Europe by train, but that’s kind of outside the scope of this question. And there’s lots of cities I’ve visited that have rail transit that I just haven’t used yet – Los Angeles, Brussels, Marseille, Munich, etc.
I have a few favourites for different reasons: London because it introduced me to real rapid transit and the H.C. Beck map; Paris because of how integrated into the fabric of the city it is; and Barcelona because of the awesome wayfinding signage. Honourable mention to New York for just being the New York Subway (for better and for worse).
Oh yeah, and a a huge shoutout to Freiburg, where the tram operator not only shouted out his window to me that his tram was the right one to catch to get to the youth hostel on the edge of town, but also made a pitstop at the information center to dash inside and get me a map and information on ticket discounts. Operator of the year, 2003!
