Submitted by Chris, who says:
Here’s a map I’ve done that presents a vision for Wasatch Front rail transit in the year 2050. It’s done in the style of the London Underground map.
Possible future lines are shown with dashes and are based on various proposals throughout the years. Some are very likely to be built fairly soon, while others are not. For instance, some parts of the Wasatch Line (my name) have been proposed, but not in a unified line as I’ve chosen to do.
Transit Maps says:
This is a very competent map that Chris has made, with nice clear labeling and well-spaced stations. The downtown area is particularly well handled, as it always has the potential to look extremely cramped. The colours for the mountains and lakes are well chosen, and successfully don’t look like fare zones, which is nice.
There’s a few places where the labels could be improved a bit: “West Jordan City Center” could be set on two lines, and “Park City Main Street” could be slotted into its natural position to the right of the route line if all the stations below it slid down a bit more. It looks very odd as the only station on that section to be set to the left and above the line.
The pecked lines indicating future additions to the network work well, but I would like to see some mode differentiation between light rail and the FrontRunner commuter rail: they’re very different services in terms of frequency and operating hours and need to be shown as such. Working within the Underground theme, cased lines like the London Overground would seem to be the best choice.
Speaking of the Underground theme… unless a map is meant to be a direct homage to or a deliberate pastiche of that venerable icon, I’d really like to see designers come up with their own design language for their maps. The best transit maps from around the world always have their own unique identity, and I don’t think that you learn as much about what makes a transit map tick when you simply copy the style of such a well-known map. I’d love to see Chris rework this map into something more uniquely “Utahn” – thinking about the font choices, colours, station markers, everything! The framework of the map is very solid, but (for me, at least) the style has been seen and used too many times before.
Hi, I’m the author of this map. You’re the first person to give me a real design critique. It’s well-thought-through and impartial, and I appreciate that you took the time to review my map. With that said, I have a few things of my own to say.
I basically agree with the first two paragraphs of your review. The first paragraph was all praise, of course. 🙂 And the second paragraph took issues with alignment of labels and station placements, minor issues that are easy to fix.
I’ve come to the conclusion that I agree with your third paragraph, but not for the same reasons you mentioned.
I don’t think FrontRunner will remain “commuter rail” for long. I think it will become the main high-throughput service in the system – it will provide a way for people to transfer between all of the local (light rail) lines.
The geography of the Wasatch Front plays a role in this – the cities (Ogden to Salt Lake to Provo, an 80-mile distance) are basically arranged linearly, north to south. The mountains and lakes on the east and west serve as natural boundaries, making the Wasatch Front a narrow (east/west) but long (north/south) metropolitan area.
Because of this, I think the FrontRunner north/south line will, by 2050, evolve into a sort of BART/Caltrain hybrid, or (better) a Crossrail-like part of the network. At that point in time, FrontRunner would become the “backbone” of the service.
I agree with your statement that these lines should be indicated differently. After some reflection, I think I should make them thicker (still solid), emphasizing that they’re “backbone” lines. It could well be that by 2050, there won’t really be a need for “local” lines – self-driving cars could fill that gap, but projecting 30 years ahead is hard, when it comes down to it.
On to your fourth paragraph…
Design language works both ways. I chose to use the Underground style for a very specific reason. Part of my intent in designing this map is to get the people of the Wasatch Front to think of the system more like the London Underground and less like a typical American transit system. Design language is a means to that end.
I had a conversation about this map with the Mayor of Riverton (southwest corner). Riverton has seen a lot of growth over the last 10-15 years and it’s developed some major traffic problems. In one of my conversations, I mentioned that Riverton residents could (in the future) take “the Tube” to downtown Salt Lake, the ski resorts, the airport, the University of Utah, BYU, etc. with only one change.
I think it’s easier to imagine taking “the Tube” when the map is presented in the style of “the Tube”. I want people to imagine what the Alta station platforms might look like, for instance. I’m thinking of launching a 3-D rendering design contest on this front, actually.
I hope you recognize that in terms of paying homage, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I think my design is closer to Beck’s original than TfL’s is, these days. They’ve deviated quite a bit from the original design. I’ll grant that it’s convenient for me that all the UTA/TftWF stations have step-free access, so I don’t need to include that information on the map – the TfL designers don’t have this option.
You mentioned that you’d like to see this map look a bit more “Utahn” – I’m not entirely sure I know what you mean. Beehives instead of circles for the interchanges? That could work… or not. Icons for Mormon Temples? Or maybe State Liquor Stores? I’ll have to think about this a bit more, and design (or choose from open source) carefully…