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.

Official Map – Interactive “Flatiron Flyer” Trip Calculator Map

January 7, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Official Maps, Visualizations
Tags:

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

Submission – Official Map: Denver–Boulder “Flatiron Flyer” Express Bus Routes

January 7, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Official Maps
Tags:

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.

Website: The Memory Underground by Brian Foo

January 6, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Fantasy Maps
Tags:

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.

Submission – Photo: Amsterdam Metro Line Map

January 5, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Official Maps
Tags:

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.

Dezoning the London Tube Map?

January 4, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Unofficial Maps
Tags:

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?

Historical Map: Eastern Michigan Bus System Map, August 1935

January 3, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Historical Maps
Tags:

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.