Part 2: What’s wrong with transit maps

Last week we talked about some of the issues in transit maps today. We are going to go over some of those same issues and talk about how to fix them in a broad sense, creating a new strategy for building transit maps. Some of this will cover some specific techniques that can be used, but for the most part we are going to expand upon the idea of creating a system of maps and how to best achieve this.

_____________________________

To wrap up last weeks post many of the points that we made about issues with transit maps can be fixed quite simply, and to start we are going to talk about the few small changes that can be made to fix transit maps (take a look at last weeks post to learn more about the different points). We’ll talk about two major points, diagrams and a system of maps, later in the post.

1) Too many roads: Remove smaller roads and only keep the major roads in the maps to help with. All roads should only be shown in neighborhood maps to help with the gap between the bus/train stop and the riders final destination.

2) Busy areas and transfer hubs: Use a simple transfer symbol to show these key transfer points and remove the detail of how busses turn around – keep this information at a high level on system diagrams and use detailed maps area maps to show the surrounding geography at the bus stops near the hub.

3) Add bus stops: Include, at a minimum, major bus stops at key intersections and transfer opportunities  Try to include all stops in the map. Even if all the stops aren’t labeled these points let the rider know that there is a stop there, where they can look for it, and how many stops it will be to their destination.

4) Remove bus “turn arounds”: Don’t show where or how the bus makes a loop to make it’s return trip if there aren’t any stops there. This isn’t information the rider needs and may in fact be confusing for the rider.

The Vancouver transit system which shows frequent bus routes highlighted to differentiate from local bus service.

5) Frequency mapping: Showing how often a rider can expect a bus is key. Having a map just for this purpose is great, but simply using a higher line width or highlighting frequent bus routes helps the rider greatly. Read more about this at Human Transit as well, which has written extensively on the topic.

6) Transit Options: Show more options for transit. On a high level adding bike share, bike friendly road connections that bridge transit, bike parking, car share, etc. is one place to start. On a area or neighborhood level, show these same things in a geographic context for that area.

7) Use GIS to ensure data accuracy: GIS in transit mapping should be used to create base maps to build diagrams, as bases to build geographically accurate area maps, and to make sure your data is correct.

8) Use area maps not inset maps: We will talk more about diagrams later but instead of showing inset maps in high level system diagrams, use these at specific stops and shelters, where riders will need them most.

_____________________________

Building a system of maps

Take a look at the photo above. Put yourself in the shoes of any of the riders waiting for the train to come. What information do you want when you are waiting at the station? What type of information would you want to find the station in the first place? What would you want to know when you are on the train?

More than likely you thought about several different things: knowing the extent of the rail system, how many stops until you need to depart, are there busses I can take to the train, etc.

The common scenario in many US cities currently depends on the rider to sift through the system map to find information specific to them, and then find the specific route map they need. As we pointed out before many system maps are cluttered and can be difficult to read. Taking a reverse approach that allows the rider to sift through multiple maps and find one specific to their needs is what we mean by having a system of maps.

By giving riders an ecosystem of choices, riders can find a map that they need. This should be a simple process since we are already assuming that they will be able to find their choice from an overly dense system map. A few examples of these maps could be:

• Neighborhood maps: showing routes and stops in a detailed geographic view for a selected area
• Stop diagrams: maps at stops that show routes that serve that stop and where they go before and after that stop
• Transfer hubs: showing services leaving major transfer hubs
• Frequent network maps: routes that make stops at frequent intervals (usually every 15 to 30 minutes depending on the city)
• Late night services: transit options after normal operating hours
• Express services: busses that serve suburbs and towns outside of the main metro core
• Accessibility maps: create maps specific for those with needs for accesible services
• Bike connections: show a network of bike friendly roads that connect to rapid transit services
• Frequent transit networks: build a map of frequent bus and rail routes, showing the rider a network which they can depend upon to run at specific intervals

There are more examples that can be created for specific networks and cities but this is a basic list of options to start creating a system of maps. This may seem like a lot of work to create this many maps, but by creating a well organized base file diagram it is easy to turn layers on and off and create a new map that fits it’s necessary parameters.

This would be our first idea to make better transit maps. Give riders a tool kit (something we talked about in our white paper) rather than a bulky swiss army knife. This would be a great first step to helping riders discover transit.

Note that many cities are doing this for light rail stations and some major transfer hubs, but other bus stops on key corridors outside of city centers are lacking this type of information at the stops themselves. Neighborhood maps like this one from Portland’s city center can help a great deal in areas outside of the city center.

Spider maps do a great job of showing both the routes in a specific area and where these routes go when leaving that area, but by adding a frequent network map and other details can help create a better experience for the rider at a bus stop.

Human Transit has a great post which talks about what types of maps should be at bus stops, and addresses some of the issues with “spider maps” which can be found at almost all bus stops in London. These are great maps but adding some other maps can help significantly with way finding.

_____________________________

Diagrams: when and where to use them

In this post and our previous posts we talk about diagrams and their importance in mapping quite a bit. There is a reason for this and why diagrams are a huge part of transit mapping. That is because it makes a large scale transit system manageable for the rider. Take a look at the two maps below.

These maps come from Fathom Design and you can play around with the interactive version of this map here which shows you the basic differences between geographic mapping and diagrammatic mapping using Boston as a base.

What you should ask yourself is that, if you were looking to get a quick overview of a transit network which map would you rather be looking at?

If you picked the diagram that is because visually this map simplifies the system and makes it easier to grasp as a network. As we said there is a reason why transit maps are built as diagrams to show a full system.

Yet this isn’t the best solution for all maps at all points of a riders trip. Diagrams should be used to show what they are best for, simplifying complex networks. As we stated above neighborhood and area maps should be geographically accurate so they can fit more information in them that is specific to that location.

Diagrams should be used to show both high level views of the system and should be split to show different service types in different maps. Instead of creating a system map with too much detail or something that is half a diagram and half a geographically accurate map, build a real diagram showing the full scope of services in the transit system.

By keeping different service types in different layers, you can then make an express service, local service, late night service, and high frequency service map from the same diagram. This achieves two goals: it creates much simpler and digestible views of the transit system and it helps create specific maps for specific riders.

As we stated in our first post transit diagrams can be beautiful designs that many people are attracted to and want to look at. Having a well designed and thought out diagram can draw more riders to your system and can act as a stand alone advertisement and brand for any transit system. There is a reason why over 200 CTA Maps were found in DePaul students dorms in Chicago: they are really cool to look at and they represent the city (also it’s cheap art – but we don’t advocate stealing maps from trains).

_____________________________

In the end there are minor problems that can be fixed in many transit maps currently in use in the US, but looking beyond those few changes there are two major things that all transit systems can and should do to improve their way finding for all citizens.

Start creating a system of maps for riders that give them the proper tools where they need them and create diagrams to help riders familiarize themselves with the system and ultimately encourage them to use them.

In Part 5 we will talk more about what some of these standards should be, how and why this information is important to have, and how to effectively create a system of maps and diagrams. But next in Part 4 we will talk about how transit maps play a bigger role in the expansion of transit in the US.

The article goes along with this FOIL request for the NJ Transit Hurricane Plan.

Put the two pieces together and a compelling story of poor planning, mismanagement, disaster and ignorance emerges. While the article details the variety of the poor choices and bad leadership before (and after) Hurricane Sandy, the map is the true giveaway. The map was first produced in November 2012, but the recent facts about NJ Transit leadership has given it new life.

When you look at the map as a whole put together by WNYC, you can see how eerily accurate it was in its predictions and how it confirms the report on storm surge that was never read by NJ Transit leadership.

NJ Projected vs Actual Sandy Storm Surge

Why is this important? Well, for at least three reasons: 1) it affects the immediate quality of life of the people who are dependent upon NJ Transit to get around, which is now operating on reduced resources; 2) The Stafford Act will call upon federal dollars to pay for it (that is part of where all our tax dollars go), 3) while it seems harsh that many are calling for resignations and firings, the blatant ignorance

and inability to admit fault put not only local riders at risk, but federal dollars and the regional transit culture and connectivity as a whole.

In short, a beautiful map that was made several months ago has taken on a new political life and meaning. Hopefully this one little map can help to bring improved accountability and a better understanding of how to use predictive mapping for the common good.

In the second installment in our series about making the case for better transit maps we are going to look at some of the common mistakes that are made in transit maps. We are going to point out what, in our opinion, are some of the most common mistakes in transit maps in the US. When approaching any mapping project there are different challenges that come with the way a city or transit system is built, however we are going to focus on mistakes that we have seen that tend to show up across the board rather than mistakes that are specific to certain cities and instances. A bit of background to start this post:

_____________________________

Some of the most timeless transit maps were not made by cartographers

In many posts about transit mapping the first example writers point to when talking about iconic transit design is the London Tube Map by Harry (Henry) Beck. Usually shortly thereafter there is a note that he is not a cartographer but an engineer who based his design off of an electrical circuit diagram. A quick read of his Wikipedia entry will also point out some interesting facts as well. He did this project in his spare time (similar to many other designs being distributed online today) and there was a lot cynicism to adopting the map. It wasn’t until the 1990s that a gallery was opened at the London Transport Museum to showcase his designs and not until 2001 when he was officially credited as the creator of the concept for the map.

This trend is one that continues in the 1970s with Massimo Vignelli’s design of the New York Subway. He is an accomplished designer, in graphics, branding, architecture, and interior design. This map, which is still pointed to as an iconic design of the system despite not being the official map (outside of the weekend service update map “The Weekender”) was only around for a few years. The main issue that is commonly citied with the map is it’s geographic inaccuracy. Vignelli is quick to point out that this is the whole point of the map. It’s a simplified version of showing how to get from Point A to Point B, and was intended to be used in conjunction with a series of three other maps, mostly geographic.

The DC Metro Map, designed by Lance Wyman who created the branding for the 1968 Olympics, icons for the Mexico City Metro, and icon design for many other projects, designed the DC Metro map. This map has been in the news recently since it seems to be suffering from some “growing pains” as described in an article by the Atlantic Cities. The map has its fair share of critics, but it has been able to stand as one of the few modern diagrammatic designs that has stood the test of time and acceptance in the US.

We can pull three lesons from these maps. First, is that designers who aren’t classically trained in cartography have made some of the most iconic transit maps and can add a lot of value to creating maps. Second, there is a barrier of acceptance of maps of this type, by the public at times and by transit agencies, and third that iconic maps stand the test of time.

There is no comprehensive guide to designing transit maps

We have yet to find a guide, book, or educational packet that details all the ways to make transit maps. Speaking from personal experience transit map design isn’t something that was covered in our educational textbooks when studying geography. Information design, as it related to specific types of maps was but not how to create a diagrammatic map. Cartographic rules and principals exist in abundance and most cartographers can explain to you these rules (ask almost anyone who has studied cartography and they can tell you the hierarchy of the 8 positions used to label a point feature).

These books and guides can be found about how to create maps, one of the simplest versions of this is the short guide Cartography: An Introduction published by the British Cartographic Society. There are many blog posts describing how to make transit maps, this one from Cameron Booth is a great guide around techniques for making the maps. There is a guide on overall design of information guides published by the University of South Florida which lays out a few base rules when it comes to colors, route styling, base colors, etc. But at a core there isn’t one place where you can go to learn about designing a system of transit maps.

_____________________________

Overall we can learn a few things from the points above. There are barriers to acceptance and education when it comes to designing transit maps, and to a degree these issues go hand in hand. If designers and cartographers aren’t learning a the key principals to designing transit maps you will land where we are now – with a vast array of transit maps each with their own principals and rules that govern them. On acceptance if there aren’t these base rules that govern what transit maps should look like it’s a big leap for individual riders to know what to expect each time they approach a transit map. Think of any road map or online map that you have seen. You can pretty much look at any of these and figure out what a highway is on that map, or what a park is. There is a reason for that – there are guidelines around how to design road hierarchy and parks. Having the vast array of transit maps that we do is almost synonymos to coloring water green and parks blue on any other type of map. Or using Comic Sans in corporate identity.

This is part of the joy of making transit maps. The lack of rules that allows for designers to set their own standards and each instance of a transit maps let’s the designer be creative and explore how they want to show a system. This shouldn’t go away. Killing creativity is never a good thing. But having some guidelines helps the entire community of designers out because it builds acceptance amongst the public of what to expect when they see transit maps and in the end helps make better maps.

This post is dedicated to the mistakes in transit maps. Setting up some basic guidelines that should be avoided, so that riders can better use transit and find similar experiences when they approach a transit system.

_____________________________

1) Too many roads (at least the one’s that don’t matter)

This pertains specifically to the System Map. Many system maps show a classically designed road maps with the routes drawn on top of the maps. From a technical cartographic background this is the way one might approach making a transit map. This creates a few major problems however.

The base map approach creates a lot of clutter. It’s not particularly easy to find my exact location on the map of an entire city from a map like this, then see which routes I need to take or transfer to, and then find the precise location I am looking to travel too. Most of the smaller roads on the map aren’t labeled and you can’t find where the stop actually is. Now the system map isn’t intended to do this it is only supposed to the overview of the system then help me find my route and direct me to an individual route map for this information. Unfortunately most new riders may not know this.

Overall the point is that the system map is meant to show a high level overview – the “cliff notes” – of the system. These maps don’t do that. They add clutter and distract from the valuable details of the system: where routes go, transfers, where to catch the bus, and what I should do after finding the route I need. It should open up the system, be a starting point, not the whole navigation process in one place. And if you can’t label all the roads there really isn’t a need for them there.

On another note these maps try to replicate what Google, Open Trip Planner, and other trip planning apps and services do. Don’t. It may be tough to accept but paper maps can’t route your ride at the specific time and date you want to take the bus. Make something that trip planners aren’t able to do and something that adds value to their valuable service.

2) Stop building one system map

As Vignelli said about his NYC Subway Map, it wasn’t meant to be the one system map but part of a system of maps. This is the way designers should think about transit maps, a system of maps. The system maps is a predominant feature of almost all US transit systems. It shows every service that could be used. And in turn this fails many times on providing riders the information they need. It’s too much all in one place.

The current New York subway map is an example of this. It layers roads, points of interest, parks, and other information into the map. It also adds the JFK AirTrain, Long Island Railroad, Metro North Railroad, Amtrak, and key bus services (Q60 to LaGuardia) all into one map. What results is a fair amount of clutter. Stripping down a lot of this information into other maps would make navigating this system much easier.

Simply labeling connections to the commuter rail networks and then directing the rider to another map would be much more useful since many riders know that they need to go out to Long Island and new riders can consult a new map, opening up new transit options for them. Having “neighborhood” maps in stations will help riders once they depart. And having maps that detail accessibility within the subway is much more useful than a small wheelchair icon next to every accesible stop. On the subway (which is what this map is built for) I would much rather know how many stops until I need to get off and if I can switch over in stations (which is an issue in the subway) rather than all this data in one place. Stip maps help (showing the stops of the line you are on) but if I miss a transfer you will want to have a system diagram handy.

Now since many transit systems don’t have the reach of the New York MTA you will need to modify this for your system. We will touch more on the specifics of how to do this later in the series but this point should be taken to show that breaking apart services can do a better job of showing a truly robust transit system than one map can alone. It will also help your riders find the specific information they are looking for.

3) Don’t rely on geography

This is a bit of a carry over from our first point but it’s one that needs to stand on it’s own as well. Looking at the timeless maps above what stands out the most is that they aren’t tied to the street geographies of the cities they represent. Nor are they tied to the physical geographies either. Areas are expanded or condensed to show the system better.

This is not a common concept in bus maps but one that can be used to efficiently show a bus network. Relying on geography, strictly speaking, would mean you have to show multiple routes running on one street. Since that wouldn’t achieve any clarity many times you end up with something like this:

Under most of these routes which are stacked over one road there are generally a few hidden roads, labels, and details that would be key for the rider to know. On the other hand there is a danger of trying to combine a diagrammatic map and keeping some geographic base as well.

Coming from experience (yes we have made this mistake) it makes it much more sense to pick a diagrammatic style for a system overview map than a geographically accurate one. To do this however you need to give up some of the constraints that geography places on the map. Expand the cluttered downtown areas and condense the routes that reach far out into suburbs and other communities. Mixing the two won’t allow you to do this and won’t always relieve the issues you are looking to solve. Fortunately for almost all US cities this is an easy thing to do. Most of our cities are built on a grid system so creating a diagram that uses only 45 and 90 degree angles is a fairly easy task to accomplish.

Note: this isn’t to say that there isn’t a place for geographically accurate maps in transit. There is but generally time and money are better spent creating tools that will help add value rather than replicate something that exists (i.e. online routing tools)

4) Busy areas and transfer hubs

This is a simple one to fix but it is a common mistake that shows up on many transit maps. Cleaning up major transfer areas, downtown routing, and transit hubs is something that needs to be fixed on a lot of transit maps. Most transit systems route the majority of their routes through downtown and to major areas such as malls, campuses, and city centers. This creates another layer of clutter that can be cleaned up using a few simple techniques such as stylized transfers. Inset maps help but when building the highest level of map, the overview, the rider just wants to see that the route goes to that area, not how it routes around there. Other maps, such as individual route maps and more importantly area/neighborhood maps, are better to show the intricacies of the route.

5) Where does the bus stop?

Subway maps need to have stops on their maps. It’s a physical feature of how trains are built. Bus maps generally lack all stops for two reasons: they are too close together or there is other text information on the map that says to look for a stop about every block or so.

The only major difference between busses and trains is that busses are much more tied to the street geography than trains. However on a core level they function the same way. They make a trip along a fixed route and make stops at predesignated points. Mapping bus stops should be an integral part of bus diagrams. This is more achievable for some bus systems more than others (depending on size, reach, and other factors). Given this however there are ways to achieve this. Creating a high level diagram with only major stops labeled and other stops with a simple stop symbol is one possible solution and then creating more “service specific” maps/diagrams with all stops can achieve the same result.

6) Route details the rider doesn’t need to know

Some maps show details about the system and routes that do not need to be a part of the map. This includes two major errors: “select service” portions of the routes and route terminals, or where the route ends. If a bus makes one or two trips a day to a school or mall, this is information that is best to display in a map specific to those trips and not on a system diagram, which adds clutter to the map.

Additionally, and possibly more importantly, having the route terminals on the map don’t add value for the rider. Showing how a bus turns around and makes its loop to start the route again, specifically when there aren’t any stops being made, only adds unnecessary clutter to the map. These details are for the drivers to know, not the rider.

7) When will the bus come (Frequency Mapping)

The case for frequency mapping has been made quite heavily by many planners and designers, most prominently Jarrett Walker who documents the need in this post and others on his blog Human Transit. This is something that many transit maps can benefit from. The basics are that the rider can see where the bus runs but not when or how often. By using a few simple styles a map can easily show how often a bus will come to each stop, adding more information to the map without adding clutter.

8) Show me my options for transit

This argument fits in with creating a system of maps and may be best used when creating an area view map or smaller scale map for bus stops. The goal here is to show more options for transit beyond just the bus or train. Taras Grescoe talks in his book Straphanger (mentioned in our first post) about how, in Copenhagen, Denmark, bikes play a significant role of connecting the rider from the gap between their home or final destination and the transit stop they are using.

Showing things like bike share locations (which only applies to a handful of cities currently but is an expanding transportation tool in the US), bike friendly streets, comfortable walking streets, and other features adds to the map and helps to bridge that “home to stop” gap. As we said these items are better suited for smaller scale maps within the system of maps, but by using clever iconography calling out these features next to stops is a simple task on a system diagram. An icon showing a bike share, or a stop near a pedestrian zone can add a lot of small but important detail to a map.

9) Dependence on GIS

GIS, or Geographic Information Systems, is the name of the ecosystem of files and software programs used to make maps. In a cartography course this is probably one of the first things that would be taught, and rightfully so. However leaning on GIS or similar software can be a major hinderance to creating a useful diagrammatic map. Using GIS as a way to check your work and have reliable data is good but when you start to design the diagram you are working in a completely different sphere. Use your rules you have set up (more about what these rules should be later in the series) within the design software and use GIS to check that the data you are showing is accurate. And above all don’t build a transit map in GIS, export it, move the routes around, and then use that as the map. A few hours designing a diagram can create a much more useful tool for riders.

10) Fewer inset maps

Inset maps will never be avoided in transit maps, and it isn’t the most important thing to change in the full scope of the transit mapping world. But by removing map insets you can help to eliminate one more step that the rider has to take, eliminating the jump from one map to another.

The nature of most transit systems is to route many routes to downtown areas or central business districts which leads to many routes running down a few key streets. However by using a few key rules and diagram schemes you can expand congested areas on a grid to create a simplified layout by expanding the geography. Vignelli achieved this in his NYC Subway Diagram and the same basic principals can be applied to almost any street grid. Using the geographically acurate maps in other places (at bus/train stops, neighborhood maps, and individual route maps) is better than in the system diagram.

_____________________________

Overall these common errors are caused by the lack of basic technical guidelines as we stated above. They definitely exist and many transit designers know them, but they aren’t always implemented and executed the same way. Additionally there isn’t a common acceptance amongst the public the way other mapping commonalities are. We will pick up more on creating some of these guidelines in Part 5 of our series but in Part 3 we will be talking about some ways to fix these errors and more about creating a system of maps, which in turn allows for the creation of more functional and timeless system maps.

Today we are starting a new series on the blog, one that we (and many readers and followers of the transit industry) have been researching and discussing for a long time: why we need better transit maps.

At Carticulate a lot of our core work is around building better maps and tools for cities and their citizens to use to make their urban landscape easier to navigate and a big part of that is around public transit. In turn we spend a ton of time looking at transit maps, learning new techniques. coming up with our own, and practicing them on a daily basis.

And it’s not just us – the interest in mapping transit around the US and the world is growing. Many artistic posters are made and being sold to show artistic portrayals of transit systems (Line Posters), theoretical systems, and new transit being built in cities (Mapping Twin Cities Blog). The popularity of the Transit Maps Blog run by Cameroon Booth shows the ever growing interest in this form of mapping among individuals and those in the transit field. All in all, people seem to really like a well designed transit map.

But one thing that the Transit Maps Blog shows quite clearly is that there is still a ways to go for many cities and transit systems in improving their maps and way-finding. Designers are taking it upon themselves to make their own maps and guides, but there is still a huge gap in terms of these techniques being adopted as an official map. And there is a major value in having a transit map be an official map, both functionally and culturally.

This series will focus primarily on the United States for two reasons. The first is that this is where we have the most knowledge about all aspects of transit (planning, funding, cultural acceptance, etc.). The second being that US cities are planning and building massive transit projects over the next several decades to catch up with counterparts in Europe, Asia, South America, and all over the globe. This change allows for change in all aspects of transit planning and acceptance, including mapping.

And that is what this series is about, making the case for having better official transit maps in the United States. This series will be broken into six parts:

• Part 1: Where we are now

• Part 2: Whats wrong with transit maps

• Part 3: Simple changes and ideas

• Part 4: Thinking of Transit as a Necessity

• Part 5: Education and Mapping Standards

• Part 6: The Case for Mapping Planned Transit

Over the next few weeks we will dive into each facet of what it takes to make a better transit map, why its valuable, and why we should strive to make these maps better. Today however, we start with where we are now.

_____________________________

When comparing transit systems in different nations to each other there are several ways one can go about this. Looking at numbers alone the US is far behind many of our counterparts in Europe, Asia, and cities like Bogata, Columbia which has developed a wide reaching Bus Rapid Transit system in only a few years. But most people want some sort of visual representation of this, and will start with maps.

There are many comparisons you can make but we’ll start with London and New York. Two cities with similar populations, historical development of rapid transit, and similar weight on the global stage. Here are those two maps:

The diferences between these two maps start to sum up the differences between transit maps in cities in the US to those of other cities around the world. The London Tube map has long been the standard for mapping transit (rail, subway, and busses) across the globe (we recently talked about this in this post). Most official transit maps in the US show much more than that.

Roads, points of interest, parks, and government buildings are often present on these system maps. The main issue here is that these maps try to accomplish everything in one document, show everything a rider could possibly need to see in one place. This usually is not the route to go.

The system map is an overview of the system, or as Nate Wessel of the Cincinnati Transit Blog stated on Human Transit, “Maps are like Cliffs-Notes for the physical world.” This, in almost all circumstances will be the place riders will go to see how they can move about the city. System maps, on their highest level, should be the introduction to the system, providing the most basic and necessary information for riders, cutting out visual clutter we don’t need.

A hand-rendered map must necessarily simplify a system, showing only some lines and only some landmarks. To do so it makes value judgements, something a computer has never yet been capable of. It does most of the hard work of understanding for us because a map-maker must understand the transit system before he can make a map of it; it’s not just a matter of dumping all the routes into a GIS program. That deeper understanding of the transit system is an experience most people don’t yet have and it’s exactly what they’re looking for when they explore a system map. Similarly, when they explore a novel they may be looking for a deeper understanding of the human condition, history, or their own lives. In either case, they’re most essentially looking for their possibilities. “What is there?” “What is within my reach?” What is possible for me?

As Nate states in the same post is that a lot of cities in the US miss this mark. They show too much information and the the schematic overview of the system that is necessary, not only to navigate the system, but to captivate new riders to give it a try.

_____________________________

Our maps can tend to reflect that image of what we think transit is: tough to use, confusing, and a troublesome part of getting from A to B. They don’t act as the “cliff notes version” of a system that can open a rider up to their city with a fare often less than a gallon of gas. The maps present the image that it is a tough choice to make. Between lack of funding, public acceptance of transit, and a lack of broad design standards our transit maps are not up to par with what our transportation systems actually do for riders.

This series will include quotes and articles that state that there is a bigger argument for why our transit is lagging behind. We want to show how to avoid showing those issues and perceptions in the most prolific visual representations of our transit systems: our transit maps.

Using this as a base we will explore what are some of the common errors in transit maps, how to fix them, how to use them as promotional tools of transit systems, creating a set of standards around building transit maps, and why we should use maps to communicate transit improvements.

Note: This series isn’t meant to call out specific maps as “bad maps” or say that all transit systems aren’t doing enough, but act as a resource for all designers (working at transit agencies and making maps in their homes after work hours) to help make all transit maps better and help show that each transit system is a valuable part to any community.

In Part 2 we will start to show some common mistakes that tend to show up in transit maps and how to avoid them.

In a recent article by the Atlantic Cities, it is clear that balloon maps from across the US are being integrated into Google’s massive online tool. To date, Google has integrated over 100 maps from Public Laboratory, the open source platform for creating these DIY maps. The high resolution maps created by balloon mapping are fantastic for users, providing high resolution images for users. Some areas are so detailed small plants, cars and even shadows can be detected. Check out some of the other Public Laboratory maps that have been integrated into Google:

Let’s look at it from a technical perspective: 45 and 90 degree angles, thin lines, circular transfers, and no reference to geography other than the Thames are key elements. The London Map owes more to an electric circuit board than to a map, Beck’s inspiration:

Gorgeous design sure, but this map has gone so far in its persuasion, that it effects travelers’ decisions twice more than their own experience, evidenced in Guo’s study of the map.

Designer Massimo Vignelli of the 1972 NYC Subway Map follows the Beck model in his design and follows the mantra of, “Sifting until you get the essentials.” But in NYC, a city so tied to its own street detail his map can’t win – neither a diagram like Vignelli’s, nor a map – what’s currently in use – works for everyone.

But what about telling us more? Do we crave maps that show us city details, points of interest, and icons that tell us what it’s really like to live there? We love Lance Wyman’s designs that speak loudly and clearly about what cities like Washington DC and Mexico City are like on the ground through pictograms.

In working on our own transit map designs, we realize that listening to the needs of 0f each city we work with is  the key to finding the solution. Just like fashion trends, what works for some types doesn’t work for others. Each city has its own personality and deserves a map that tells its own personal story.

Welcome to what hopes to be the first of many WWJJDs – “What Would Jane Jacobs Do?”

While a cursory google search will show that I am not the originator of this phrase, this series hopes to pose legitimate, modern planning/cartography questions to one of the most famous planners ever. And intimate at the late Ms. Jacobs response.

This issue poses the question: What would Ms. Jacobs think of the New Yorker’s recent interactive subway map which shows income inequality based on subway station?

I’m sure that firstly Ms. Jacobs would be less than thrilled to see that the Christopher Square stop (the station nearest her former home at 555 Hudson) has a median income of $104,000, significantly higher than what true bohemians should be earning…

While the income disparity is less than ideal, and the wealth gap seems to grow exponentially, the egalitarian subway system still has its upsides. The beauty of New York’s single pay subway system is that it offers the opportunity for income inequalities to exist without creating social, racial and access inequalities. That isn’t to say that these things don’t exist and that they aren’t necessarily related, just that $2.50 can transport a rich person to a poor neighborhood the same way it can transport a poor person to a rich neighborhood (though not necessarily equally well or as accommodating, as evidenced by the upper west side being the pilot location for improved cell service in subway stations).

Simultaneously, she would probably say that access and proximity to the single fare subway system is what allows for greater amounts of diversity to spread throughout the city.

The New Yorker’s map takes the viewer on a ride along the subway and an insight into what a zone based system might do to New York. Considering that the largest incomes are all clustered in Manhattan and all but the G go through Manhattan before going borough to borough, a zone based system would generally weigh heavier on those with lower incomes. It is beautifully done, and maps actually places, but changes spatial relationships to economic ones. Furthermore it is well done because it doesn’t lie, meaning that all of the forms of the data are equally represented so that a person isn’t duped by what they are looking at.

She would probably sum it all up with something like: “cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” (Death and Life of Great American Cities) Kudos to the New Yorker for reminding us that despite our bank accounts we are all the same in the eyes of the train gods.

Becky Cooper has taken this work in a new direction in her latest book Mapping Manhattan: A Love (and Sometimes Hate) Story in Maps. She asked random strangers on the streets of Manhattan to fill in blank maps of the island with their personal memories and understanding of the city. Here are a few creative examples of what Manhattan means to its citizens:

Read more at the Atlantic Cities.

In making maps, we often encounter the question of what geography really means to people, and how do they want to interpret it. Do they want to see roads and intersections, or is there more said by landmarks and historical context?

Urban artists and explorers have found new ways to discover cities. The French began the Situationist movement in the early 1950s, aiming to create modern landscapes fueled by current trends and sensory needs.

“All cities are geological. You can’t take three steps without encountering ghosts bearing all the prestige of their legends. We move within a closed landscape whose landmarks constantly draw us toward the past”

The Situationists wanted to construct a world the way they saw it, un-attached to the gothic cathedrals and prisons of centuries ago.

The modern artist and urban explorer, Neil Freeman, takes on his work in the same vain. Leading sensory artist walks through Bushwick, he has his group draw with chalk on asphalt whatever catches their eye.

Freeman seems to be devoted to a modern geography and has redesigned the US electoral map to be accurate to population:

“We create a fantasy of what it’s going to be like and we all agree to it… It’s kind of a shared dream.” – NEIL FREEMAN

The need to embed physical culture into our surroundings is a movement gaining force. Check out how New York artist Jay Shells brings hip hop lyrics to locations all over the city, we think it’s awesome.

Source: The New Yorker, Situationists, The Atlantic Cities

This photo set shows a brief history of the CTA ‘L’ System map. These maps and map covers range from about 1915 to 1999.

What stands out most in the older maps is that there are lines there that don’t exist in the current CTA system. Additionally there are none of the colored routes that Chicago residents have come to know. From what we can tell the colored lines didn’t show up until sometime around 1985.

Another interesting trend is the full system map, which hasn’t changed much since the map changed from having Lake Michigan at the bottom of the map to having a geographically accurate map sometime around 1950. Take a look at this 1954 map and the current map and you’ll see the map layout hasn’t changed much at all besides regular changes to the map background and other elements such as line weight and typeface.

As you browse through the history of the maps you can see major trends in graphic design in the past 100 years, especially in the covers. Yet the map itself only makes about three major changes. The map with Lake Michigan at the bottom (1900s-1950s), the System Map (1950s-Present), and the CTA Diagram (1980s-Present).

The big question is what is the next big trend for the CTA map?

Maps from:

PrintMag

ChicagoL.org