Submitted by the photographer, Luis Alberto Alvarez. He dates the older one – which only shows a small section of the Metro on an accurate street map – from the 1980s, while the newer one is from 2010.
Source: laap mx/Flickr
Taken from Cambridge Seven Associates’ 1965 Manual of Guidelines and Standards. A design classic in its purest form, only slightly marred by the poor registration in the manual itself (the dots should all be centred along each route line).
Source: MIT Libraries
An (original 1992?) outdoor signage/map/wayfinding array at Baltimore’s Mt. Washington light rail station. While the main map on the central panel shows all the current stations and branches (dating it to after 1998), it looks as though there could be some patches or stickers on top of an older map to achieve this. To be honest, I don’t know why this map has to have any curves in its route line at all: I feel like it would just work better as a straight vertical line with evenly spaced stations along it, rather than unsuccessfully attempting to indicate distances and directional relationships between the stations. There’s a geographically accurate map just to the left if required, after all.
The notice boxes on the right panel that cover up the locality map and system/fare information are unfortunate, as is the old MTA logo – which I can’t help but see as “AATA” because of the horizontal strokes across it.
Source: ali eminov/Flickr
Question: Which of Beck’s maps of the London Underground do you most prefer, and what properties does it have that elevate it above the others in your opinion as a designer?
Answer: My absolute favourite Beck-drawn Tube Map is actually his unpublished 1961 Victoria Line proposal, which I wrote about in this post back in 2012. Go take a look at it – it’s simply gorgeous, with an arrow-straight lavender Victoria Line cutting directly across the map.
However, if we’re limiting ourselves to published Beck maps (those from 1933 through to 1960, when he was unceremoniously dumped as the diagram’s designer), then I’d have to give the nod to the 1954–1858 version. Really though, anything from 1949 onwards is top-notch work and I’m really splitting hairs to determine a winner.
How do I love this map? Let me count the ways:
This is the first version to represent the Circle Line as a perfect rounded rectangle, which looks fantastic. The 1949 and 1951 versions shoehorned the new line into the pre-existing setup, while post-Beck versions acquired the now distinctive “thermos flask” shape.
The spacing of stations across the diagram is nice and uniform, with very few cramped-looking areas, even in the busy central portion of the map. This is really noticeable on the Northern Line between Finsbury Park and Old Street, which is beautifully spaced when compared to the 1951 version.
Like that version, this one is also thankfully spared of having to show any of the planned extensions to the Northern Line that so cluttered up the map from 1946 to 1950: this is an immediate and obvious improvement!
Beck’s obsession with reducing the diagram to its barest rectilinear form – using an absolute minimum of diagonal lines – is starting to become evident, as he represents bifurcations of route lines completely equally, rather than presenting one as a branch line of the other. This is especially evident at the northern ends of the Northern and Metropolitan Lines. This approach is arguably less successful on the Thames than the route lines, as it looks a bit severe and fussy as it takes rigid 90-degree turns through London.
By this time, the diagram is really starting to look like what we expect a Tube Map to be, as viewed through our modern eyes. This version has thicker route lines compared to previous ones, and makes great use of the “white connector” interchange circles which are still in use on the Tube Map (and imitators!) today. Technically, the map is superbly drawn, with even, harmonious, flowing curves where the routes change direction – these curves also help the diagram look more like its modern counterpart. In short, this is where the last 20 years or so of Beck’s work on the diagram really, really gels into a cohesive, unified piece of design, and that’s why it’s awesome.
What’s your favourite Beck tube diagram?
I retweeted this hilarious (If somewhat exasperated) map of expected MBTA rail services last night, but it’s too good not to share properly on the site.
Apparently, there’s been a bit of snow in Boston lately.
Source: Sara Morrison/Twitter (sent my way by quite a few readers) – link no longer active
Submitted by corvusboreus, who says:
Replaying Deus Ex: Human Revolution and saw this map of the 2027 Detroit rail system. How much of a resemblance it has to the real rail system, I couldn’t tell you.
Transit Maps says:
Well, the short answer is that it doesn’t resemble it all.
The longer answer is that it doesn’t resemble it because Detroit doesn’t currently have any rail transit apart from its adorable people mover loop downtown. Work has just started on the M-1 Rail Line (also known as the Woodward Avenue streetcar), which is scheduled to open in 2016, but there’s a long way to go before Detroit has as comprehensive a system as glimpsed in the dystopian (but transit-friendly!) world of Deus Ex. Still, there’s twelve years to go yet!
The map itself is pretty bare bones and obviously not meant to stand up to any long-term scrutiny within the game. It appears to consist of a ghosted-back Google Maps background layer with some blue water scribbled on top and some randomly placed lines and stations that really don’t make a lot of sense operationally – what’s with the Red Line and that loop at the bottom of the map?
An audacious plan for expansion of rapid transit in Boston by electrifying the existing commuter rail lines. Bears quite a few similarities to this fantastic diagram from 1945, which also advocated rapid transit along railroad rights-of-way.
Map from a 1972 proposal for the Boston subway lines to take over the commuter rail lines far out into suburbia, with the Green Line reaching Newburyport, the Green Line reaching Haverhill, the Red Line Fitchburg and Ayer, and the Orange Line almost to Providence, amongst other branches. (via twitter user @sandypsj)
Question: Do you know what the organizational principle is for layering subway lines on the current NYC map?
I received a question from meltedchandelier yesterday that asked:
Hi, I’m hoping you can solve a query that a friend and I have been able to figure out forever. Do you know what the organizational principle is for layering certain NYC subway lines on top of others where they intersect on the current version of the map is? It’s not just BMT/IRT (I don’t think) and it’s not alphabetical/numerical. We’ve been trying to solve it forever, but can’t come up with a solution that satisfies all the intersections.
Now, I can’t definitively answer this question – as I’m not the designer – but I would hazard a guess that it’s simply based on what makes the route lines easier to follow, rather than any BMT/IRT/number/letter formula. This is the approach that I use myself when designing transit maps – it’s more important for the user to be able to trace their route easily, rather than trying to replicate the actual physical placement of intersecting lines. Once you’re in the subway, does it really matter that your tunnel passes above or below another tunnel? Not really: you just want to know what the next station is.
While examining the subway map while pondering this question, I did come across one rather nonsensical arrangement of lines that I feel really should and could be depicted more accurately. As seen above, the “D” and “N” lines interchange in Brooklyn at the New Utrecht Avenue/62nd Street complex. In real life, the “N” is in a trench that runs below the elevated “D”, and New Utrecht Avenue station is located to the south-east of the 62nd Street station.
However, on the subway map (rotated to put north at the top of the image), the “N” inexplicably crosses above the “D” and New Utrecht station is shown to the north-west of 62nd Street. I suspect the odd placement of the station is because of its label, which wouldn’t fit very neatly on the other side of the avenue (clashing with other labels, etc.). However, there’s no reason at all why the two route lines can’t be placed in their correct stacking order, with the “D” sitting properly above the “N”. In this location, there’s only one route line crossing one other, so there’s no design advantage to be gained by stacking them incorrectly for the purposes of legibility.
Sometimes ideas take a while to come to fruition… the subway section of Pittsburgh’s light rail line finally opened in 1985 and is not as extensive as this grand vision.
Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette via Mundania Horvath on Twitter
One last map from Sydney (for now!).
One of the great pleasures of summer in Sydney is catching a ferry across the beautiful harbour to destinations like Taronga Zoo and Manly. This is the current system map, introduced at the same time as the train and light rail maps that I’ve previously featured.
The seven routes, which used to be depicted in a rainbow of colours on previous maps, are now various shades of green, the colour used in the new “F for Ferry” circular symbol seen at the top left of the map. Blue might seem to be a more obvious colour for waterborne craft, but Sydney ferries are renowned for the deep green paint on their hull. Also, blue route lines on a blue (water) background could potentially cause some legibility problems.
Stylistically, the map matches the others in the series perfectly, although – like the light rail map – it lives in a complete mode vacuum, with no connecting services indicated at all. That great big train station right behind the Circular Quay wharves? Doesn’t exist according to this map. Same for all the connecting bus services at many of the other wharves. On a map with this much empty space, leaving out information like this is criminal.
The other thing I really miss from previous versions of this map is an indication of which wharf at Circular Quay each service leaves from. The F1 Manly service always leaves from Wharf 3, the F3 Parramatta River ferry always leaves from Wharf 5, and so on. Again, there’s plenty of room to work with, so I feel that this type of information could be incorporated easily.
One weird thing with the route lines is the way they join onto the main trunk line out of Circular Quay. The F4 Darling Harbour route forms a nice wide curve as it joins, but all the other routes have a much smaller joining curve, almost appearing to join straight on with no curve at all in some instances. It makes the design of the map look a little inconsistent. I’d also like to see a directional arrow on the two loop routes, just to make it clear which order the stops are in.
Finally, this map is a victim of a route designation scheme that works well enough on the main train map, but terribly here. Almost every line has a duplication of labels at the far terminus because the line name and the wharf name are the same. It’s redundant and ugly and creates visual clutter where there is no need. If the F7 Eastern Suburbs route was renamed as F7 Watsons Bay (the final destination) and the F3 Parramatta River line simply became F3 Parramatta, then all the names and lines would match, and only one label for each would be needed.
Our rating: More style than substance. Could easily show more useful information than it does while retaining the current look and feel. Two-and-a-half stars.
Source: Transport NSW Timetables and Maps web page
