Following up on the previous post about the “mobile” version of the Rail Runner map – the one that gets served to smartphones and tablets when they’re browsing the mobile version of Rio Metro’s website – here’s the “desktop” version (what you see on a real computer).
Overall, it’s a little better in my eyes. The similar-looking connection icons are a little larger on this map (big enough that I can see it’s a pair of dice on the casino shuttle, not poker chips as I previously thought!), so they’re not as much of a problem here. I still think that simpler, less literal icons would work better – just the dice without the clutter of the bus for the casino connection, for example – but it’s an improvement of sorts.
On this map, each station is represented by its own unique icon – mainly architectural, but with a few historical or flora/fauna icons thrown in as well. They’re nicely drawn, but a little indistinct at smaller sizes. It took me a while to make out the “hummingbird drinking out of a flower” icon, for example.
The one really glaring aspect of this map is the decision to make the Rail Runner’s route line exactly the same colour and thickness as the highways, making them almost impossible to tell apart. The route line would look great in red on the nicely textured grey background.
I’m also not really in favour of the all caps Bank Gothic labels for the station names: it takes up a lot of room and makes things harder to read, and also clashes stylistically with the Myriad used elsewhere on the map.
Our rating: Better than the mobile version: a pretty solid effort. Three stars.
If you ever wanted your own copy of the latest iteration of this design classic, here’s your chance. The newly-formed design firm of Waterhouse Cifuentes (founded by Massimo Vignelli’s collaborators Yoshiki Waterhouse and Beatriz Cifuentes) is now offering superb prints on their SuperWarmRed Designs website.
As the description on the website says:
This poster of the MTA New York City Subway Diagram was designed in 2012 by Vignelli Associates and is used in the MTA’s Weekender website and app. Using concepts from Massimo Vignelli’s iconic Subway Map design of 1972, the new diagram was informed by satellite data and rebuilt for greater clarity and legibility. Revised to reflect the current subway system, colors and nomenclature, the poster has been printed in vivid Pantone and Hexachrome inks on acid-free archival cover-weight paper. While supplies last. (36″ x 45″ unframed)
These stunning posters are priced as you might expect a highly collectible, limited edition print of a design classic to be: standard posters are $300, while a poster signed by Massimo Vignelli, Waterhouse and Cifuentes will set you back $1,200. Sadly, out of my price range unless all my readers want to chip in a few dollars each and buy me a nice Christmas present (a man can dream, right?)
One thing’s for sure: the print quality is absolutely impeccable. PANTONE inks plus Hexachrome inks! As a tweet from the firm to me says, this was a very deliberate decision, designed to escape the very limited colour gamut of traditional CMYK printing. It’s a decision that has paid off, as the colours look super vibrant and crisp in the preview images.
The New Mexico Rail Runner has two versions of the system map. This version (a few years old; the Montaño station is now open) is my favorite – I definitely approve of Rio Metro’s design style. However, I have a few issues: first, the thin, gray lines shown in the background are bus routes. Since the train route is presented as a straight line, this makes it difficult to make the bus routes correspond to the train. (Albuquerque is all right, but in Santa Fe they had to rotate the entire bus network, and they had to make NM-599 a horseshoe shape.) What do you think of the map? And what do you think of the conflict between the linear route and the actual geography?
Transit Maps says:
Interestingly, the New Mexico Rail Runner website serves up two completely different system maps depending on whether you access the site on a desktop computer or a mobile device.
This is the “mobile” map, and while it makes sense to have a simpler map for smartphones/tablets, it’s never a great idea to have an out of date map (like this one) on one platform but not on the other (the “desktop” map shows the open Montaño station). It’s also arguable as to whether this map is actually simpler. It does have a nice straight route line (which is great in theory but spoiled somewhat by the hackneyed “railroad track” effect applied to the path), but the road grid/bus routes behind each stop are simply ludicrous. They’re of absolutely no use at all and simply serve to add background clutter to the map. The connecting bus service icons already do the necessary work, and they could be further enhanced with the addition of route numbers instead of the ridiculous background web of bus routes.
Speaking of the icons, they could really use some work to simplify and differentiate them from each other. Three very similar bus icons and three very similar shuttle icons don’t make for immediate comprehension. And what is that superimposed over the casino shuttle icon? I’m guessing poker chips based on context, but visually it could be just about anything circular. The circular shapes are all of 8 pixels high on the final map – simplify, simplify, simplify!
Our rating: I’m certainly not as happy with this as Isaac is, as I feel that the designer has taken something very simple and overworked it a bit. The end result is tolerable, but there’s a lot of unnecessary background noise and visual clutter. Two-and-a-half stars.
These have started appearing on METRO trains in Minneapolis-St. Paul. I’d love to hear your opinion of them. Previously, the only maps which appeared in stations/trains were the strip maps (March 2014, 3.5 stars) you reviewed earlier this year.
Transit Maps says:
Unfortunately, this map seems like a bit of a backwards step from those previously featured strip maps, which were quite excellent. While I appreciate that the map is trying to show the locations of the stations in a more spatially accurate manner – the Green Line runs east-west, the Blue Line runs to the south, etc. – it’s not a particularly elegant or visually pleasing solution. There’s a lot of wasted space, and the neighbourhood labels are too vague to be of any real use. Adding the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers to the map would have helped a lot in giving context and scale to the layout of the routes. It would also be nice to know where the Northstar Commuter Rail Line actually goes (either in the legend, or as a pointer off the top of the map), and I have no idea why you’d order the routes as LRT/BRT/LRT in the legend (group like services together!).
Our rating: Certainly usable, but disappointingly plain, drab and uninspiring. Two-and-a-half stars.
While doing research for my recent 1947 Interstate Highways map recreation, I stumbled across some scans (PDF link – 0.3MB) of American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) road sign specifications dated from the 1920s. The very first page has a dimensioned drawing of the then brand new U.S. Highways shield that I find extremely interesting, as it doesn’t quite match the the shield as it actually first appeared on real world signage in 1927. Some further research seemed to reveal that this drawing is of a design prototype (of a theoretical Route 56 in Maine) that AASHO discussed in meetings during 1926. The drawing itself is pretty rough, with dimensions that don’t match the actual size of the drawing and completely different shapes for each side of the now-familiar six-point shield, so I redrew it accurately according to the given dimensions in Illustrator.
I had to compromise a bit with the shape of the shield because the left and right sides were drawn so differently in the original drawing, but it seems to be a very similar shape to the final 1927 specifications; perhaps with just a little less scalloping with the top curve on each side. As seen in the comparison image above, the main differences between this prototype and the 1927 version are the thickness of the black borders, which are 3/4″ and go right to the edge of the cutout shield shape. By 1927, these had been reduced to just 3/8″ and were inset a further 3/8″ in from the edge of the cutout. I suspect that this was a production-based decision, as many early shields were embossed by a die before being painted, and embossing right to the edge of the shield may have been problematic.
The 1927 shield also uses a simpler, squared off “S” instead of the rounded version seen in the 1926 prototype, and the height of the “US” lettering was reduced to 2″ from 2-1/8″. The height of the route number remains constant at 5″, but the form of the slab type is a little different. Overall, the prototype looks a bit dark, heavy-handed and unbalanced compared to the “classic” 1927 version, but it’s certainly interesting to see one of the earliest steps in the shield’s evolution.
1948 saw the replacement of the simple “slab” typeface with the Standard Alphabet for Roadway Signage (also known as the FHWA Series or Highway Gothic), while the 1961 revision dropped both the state name and the cutout shield in favour of a larger route number and a square sign with a black background behind the shield shape. The last revision in 1970 changed the shape of the shield itself, allowing for more usable width (and wider numbers) within the shape.
Having found and digitally restored the fantastic 1926 map of the U.S. Highway system, I started to look around to see if I could find a similar map from the advent of the newer Interstate Highway network. However, all my usual sources (the Wikimedia Commons, the Library of Congress and other online research libraries) came up with either nothing or only low resolution scans — certainly nothing suitable for reproduction.
So, what’s a map-obsessed graphic designer to do in this situation? Why, redraw the whole thing faithfully from scratch in Adobe Illustrator, of course!
Getting started, I was very fortunate to have some great assistance via Twitter that helped me on my way. Firstly, big thanks to Eric Fischer, who kindly uploaded a decent resolution scan of the 1947 Interstate Highways planning map to Flickr for me. The image isn’t perfect by any means, being spliced together from two separate scans of photocopies from a library book, but was more than good enough to act as a template for this.
Then, Brad Mohr pointed out that the strangely-regular-but-not-quite-typeset labels on the map looked like they’d been made with a Kueffel + Esser Leroy lettering scriber and templates, which was a huge breakthrough for matching the map’s aesthetics. A quick search on MyFonts revealed Planscribe NF, an almost perfect match for the labels (based as it is off those original K+E templates).
After that, it was just a matter of carefully replicating the map. I tried to do much of the work manually – without resorting to defaults in Illustrator – in an attempt to capture the spirit of the original as much as possible. This meant that I manually letterspaced all the labels to match the (often idiosyncratic) spacing of the original, and drew the dashed state border lines without using Illustrator’s automatic dashes function at all. This allowed me to see where the original designer had made decisions on where to shorten or lengthen dashes to fit around labels or add definition to where multiple states abut. All up, this recreation probably took me about 15–20 hours to complete, and most of that was drawing fiddly coastline. The only change I made from the original map was to correct the spelling of Coeur d’Alene in Idaho.
If anything, my version is just a little too perfect, as the modern tools at my disposal make everything so easy. If I want to draw a 3-point wide line for one of the proposed highway routes, I just set the Pen Tool up in Illustrator, and away I go, drawing bezier curves to my heart’s content. I can continue to tweak and edit my path long after I’ve initially drawn it to make things perfect. So easy. Meanwhile, the original cartographer almost certainly used a ruling pen (which is basically a set of calipers with ink manually inserted between the two blades, held there by surface tension alone – every bit as difficult to use as it sounds) and a set of good old french curves to draw his route lines. One mistake, and the whole map could be ruined.
Even the K+E lettering scriber – an amazing tool in its day – seems ridiculously awkward and clumsy today. Tracing letterforms one by one, moving the whole set up after each letter, filling the tiny ink reservoir again and again, meticulously cleaning it all up after you’ve finished… absurd. Recreating this map has definitely given me a greater appreciation of the skills and patience that cartographers of the day possessed… and thankfulness that I live in a digital age with tools that don’t need cleaning fluid applied after each use.
This map was so good, however, that when they needed a map in 1957 to show how the Interstates would be numbered, they just dusted this one off and plopped the route numbers on top, even though some of the routes had been modified in the intervening decade.
Great photo of the remnants of an old Metro map. The original poster of this photo on Flickr notes that it’s normally hidden behind advertisements these days. The best I can do with dating is pre-1967, as Line 7 has yet to be split into 7 and 7bis north of Louis Blanc station, instead being branches of the same line.
Submitted by long-time correspondent, Edward Russell, who says:
Finally got a chance to see the updated BART map with the Oakland Airport Connector in person (see Edward’s photo below). Unlike the online map, they do depict Coliseum station as a transfer point with circles instead of just a dash.
[Editor’s note: BART’s simpler online map has now also been updated to show the OAC transfer at the Coliseum station in the same style as this map, so at least they’re consistent now.]
However, they shade the circles slightly – compared to white for other transfer stations – and do not use a circle for the actual OAC terminus. I’m of the opinion that a transfer is a transfer and there’s no need to depict the Coliseum station a different colour than other transfer points. I also think the OAC line should have a circle as well. Thoughts?
Transit Maps says:
I totally see where Edward is coming from, but I actually think there is a difference between the two kinds of transfer stations, even if it’s only very slight and not actually explained that well on the map itself.
First off, let’s look at why certain stations are designated as transfer stations in the BART system – as all the trains stop at all the stations, you could technically transfer between the different lines at any of them. However, it’s not necessarily advantageous to do so for the rider: you might have to wait a long time for the next train, or you might have to go up to the concourse and down to another platform. As I understand it, each of the five “white” transfer stations in the BART system were specifically chosen because they’re the most convenient for riders. MacArthur and 19th St/Oakland stations even denote this reason on the map: they offer timed cross-platform transfers to other lines (in one direction at each station). Balboa Park is designated as a transfer station over Daly City because it offers better connections to Muni services. Bay Fair and San Bruno are a little less useful than the others, simply being the last stations before two routes diverge, but at least that’s pretty logical.
My theory is that as Coliseum station is not the preferred transfer station for the three “main” BART lines that pass through (Bay Fair fulfills that role) but is only for transferring to the OAC, a visual distinction is made between the two “types” of transfer to reinforce that concept. In short, “Transfer here ONLY for the OAC”.
However, I definitely agree with Edward that the Coliseum end of the OAC route line should be a “transfer circle” instead of a “terminus bar”. I guess the map could be trying to suggest that riders emerging from the OAC “choose” one of the circled main line routes, but I’d prefer consistency in the approach to iconography myself.
Side note: it’s really nice to see these newer in-station BART maps acknowledge the other rail transit options in the Bay Area – Muni Metro (even the historic F line!), Caltrain and Amtrak are all shown (but not VTA light rail or the cable cars).
Another great map from the New York Public Library archives. What was there before the advent of the subway? Familiar routes, perhaps, but above-grade rather than underground. As the legend says, “Except as noted, all lines are on iron viaducts over public streets.”
The Electric Railroader’s Association’s 54 x 41 cm hand drawn map shows the various elevated railroad lines and rail yards that existed in Manhattan and the Bronx 1893 -1903, before the construction of NYC’s subway system.
