MBTA Map Contest Finalists

Try upping your map size too, it will make the layout easier. IIRC the in-station system maps are 3'x3'. Start there and see how much you can fit in, then work backwards to get the smaller sized maps.

BTW, is this MS Paint? If so it looks really good. I worked on mine in sketchup, which has tons of flaws working in 2D, but every time I try to learn a vector graphics program I want to put my fist through the screen.
 
Additional thoughts/questions:

I've used standard sans-serif Arial font, but it looks too stark to me. Any fonts you might additionally suggest? Also, not all fonts look great printed vertically or at 45 degrees (no matter what, I wouldn't be able to get in all the text straight and horizontal without making the font way too small.)

Realistically, how would you represent the SL Dudley? The route is inane, and makes the map look inane. I would need to free up a ton of space in the central diamond in order to represent it, which is something I specifically don't want to do in order to represent the proximity of those stations in relation to each other.

As you can tell, the GL branches are giving me problems. I know getting every station name on there should be a goal, but it's not going to be attainable in this format whee I'm prioritizing size of font and lines for clarity. Do you think an inset with all stations listed on every line would be worthwhile?

I experimented with only showing CR lines that show intra-urban connections that the T doesn't otherwise make. The two that came to mind were SS-BBY-Yawkey and NS-Porter. Of course that's a bit disingenuous and also starts to clutter things up. What do you think?

Finally, the buses - ugh. I tried bringing in, like the above philosophy, the buses that provide intra-urban connections like the 1 and 66 (so, for example, not Chelsea buses etc that go to other non-T destinations). Whatever I tried I couldn't figure out how to integrate it appropriately. What's best practice here?
 
If you do add the Northeastern stop to E, you can show the walkable connection to Ruggles on the OL. Also on the E, "Heath St." might be better placed due south of "Riverway" so that Jamaica Pond is clearly to the SW of it. And the "Government Center" label is a bit indistinct given the centrality of the station to the system. It also occurs to me that the Fens might be "greened in" as parkland. I like the representation of beaches. Nice map and superior to the current and future version in many respects.
 
Last edited:
Shepard said:
Thanks - just to clarify - this isn't a crazy transit map, but actually trying to map the existing the system. Where the connection is marked by a "barbell joint" it's indicating a walkable out-of-system connection. I do think many of these are useful - I have seen a fair number of tourists make a ridiculous connection from green to orange at Haymarket just to essentially double back on their journey entirely.

The only "fantasy" features here include the SL connection to Airport BL station - sort of silly that it doesn't exist already. I also assume Faimount will have rapid-transit-ish headways, which we'll see about.

I don't see how any simple map would include key bus routes, or even commuter rail. No matter what I do, it's just too messy., Suggestions?
Click to expand...

I really like the use of parallel "Green Lines" and agree you can probably make them thinner in the parallel section. Actually, I would really like 4 different colors for the "Green Lines" -- like almost any other subway system in the world would use (each distinct terminus is a line, regardless the tunnel it uses -- that is the norm). So Red would get a parallel lines as well.

You might try Ariel Narrow for the text -- it is a lot skinnier than full Ariel, and is still very readable.
 
Excellent. Lots to think about here - hoping to have a 2.0 out over the coming week or two.

davem said:
BTW, is this MS Paint? If so it looks really good. I worked on mine in sketchup, which has tons of flaws working in 2D, but every time I try to learn a vector graphics program I want to put my fist through the screen.
Click to expand...

I am actually using Sketchup, exporting a 2D pic top-down and then adding the text in PowerPoint. I agree with you about the vector software. I've become fairly competent with Inkscape (that's an open source one) but I really like the Sketchup UI even if there are certain pains to doing 2D.
 
I have an example of branches being sized according to frequency that I drew up a few weeks ago, but I must have left it on another computer. So, next week.

I use inkscape for just about everything now, except bitmap editing which is what GIMP is meant for. Though, I used to draw my diagrams in xfig, so I guess that makes me old fashioned.
 
Shepard said:
Additional thoughts/questions:

I've used standard sans-serif Arial font, but it looks too stark to me. Any fonts you might additionally suggest? Also, not all fonts look great printed vertically or at 45 degrees (no matter what, I wouldn't be able to get in all the text straight and horizontal without making the font way too small.)

Realistically, how would you represent the SL Dudley? The route is inane, and makes the map look inane. I would need to free up a ton of space in the central diamond in order to represent it, which is something I specifically don't want to do in order to represent the proximity of those stations in relation to each other.

As you can tell, the GL branches are giving me problems. I know getting every station name on there should be a goal, but it's not going to be attainable in this format whee I'm prioritizing size of font and lines for clarity. Do you think an inset with all stations listed on every line would be worthwhile?

I experimented with only showing CR lines that show intra-urban connections that the T doesn't otherwise make. The two that came to mind were SS-BBY-Yawkey and NS-Porter. Of course that's a bit disingenuous and also starts to clutter things up. What do you think?

Finally, the buses - ugh. I tried bringing in, like the above philosophy, the buses that provide intra-urban connections like the 1 and 66 (so, for example, not Chelsea buses etc that go to other non-T destinations). Whatever I tried I couldn't figure out how to integrate it appropriately. What's best practice here?
Click to expand...

Helvetica is the official MBTA font from the Cambridge Seven Assoc. motif. Arial is a poor, poor, poor knock-off that has all the scaling issues you note. Helvetica doesn't do that, so any pro-caliber designs or publication-grade renderings will use the real thing. Note that Apple's the only OS maker that ponies up the licensing fees and includes it by default. You're out of luck on Windows or Linux, but try searching for an open source faux-Helvetica font because there are far less-shitty workalikes out there than brain-damaged Arial.

SL Washington isn't going to work on every map. Neither will the key routes. You made the decision to show subway interconnections, which is probably a design choice that precludes any neat-and-tidy inclusion of the bus-only routes. That's not a problem if you're consistent about it. SL Waterfront is the only one with a fare-controlled transfer to begin with.

I wouldn't do the commuter rail lines beyond the Fairmount Line. For the same integrity-of-concept reason of only doing stuff that's on subway fare or subway fare control (only exception here being Zone 1 Readville, which is required if showing any other Fairmount stops). If stuff like inner Worcester stops or Track 61 get added later...of course put those on. But today the only one that jibes with the mobility choices you've made with this design is Fairmount. And anything more would be an overreach. Integrity of concept is crucial...the map gets all murked up if there isn't a unifying focus.

The official T system spider maps have rarely through history attempted to include every single GL branch stop. Especially on the B, C, E. I think it's justifiable on GLX because those are all fare-controlled, but since you are showing interconnections as an explicit choice I would stick to the key branch stops only. Maybe choose a small font size to make the labels fully consistent.


I'd also try to keep orientation of the labels consistent wherever possible. Typography's really important. Kenmore, the surface stops, the Ashmont Branch should read top-down like the downtown stops and attempt wherever possible to be angled at the same 45-degree angle instead of straight vertical. Avoid 2-line labels when you have the space (i.e. Wood Island, Assembly, SS...+ drop the Somerville from Union Sq.). Orient on the same side of the stop when possible (i.e. Harvard vs. all other Cambridge RL stops, Oak Grove and Wonderland vs. the rest of the Blue/Orange north stops, SL Way vs. the other Transitway stops). And use correct punctuation. Apostrophes and periods on Gov't Ctr., and anything with an "Ave." or "Sq.". Consistent spacing on the labels (see "Charles/MGH" vs. "JFK / UMass" with the slashes). Bring the Blue Line North Shore labels in closer to the stops, consistent with the others.

Make exceptions only when readable placement is impossible and it forces unresolvable conflicts with your basic design.
 
If you're just looking for a decent legible open font, try Open Sans (there is also a condensed version).
 
Last edited:
Here's a revision that I think takes into account nearly all of your collective comments. Still working on the fonts.

One judgment I'm still making is to branch a single Red Line while showing separate lines on the Green. Showing two parallel reds makes for a lot of clutter, and I also don't think there's any inconsistency with showing a single RL. I think there's a fundamental difference to be conveyed between the RL which simply branches, and the GL which especially after the GLX will act like separate lines running through a single tunnel. (After all, we talk about the C Line, not the C Branch.)

Let me know if you have any more thoughts. Big improvement from the last version thanks to all your comments.

w87mNgb.jpg
 
Here's the example I mentioned last month. It's just a sketch of some idea I had a while back. Plenty of flaws. But the point was that it represented the Red line branches separately, and it attempts to do some form of frequency mapping. The widths of the lines are roughly proportional to the frequency. Commuter rail is strongly de-emphasized, and only highlighted at stations, really. Because that's its nature. Certain bus routes were to be added, with more emphasis than commuter rail, but less than rapid transit.

11246425166_e9c3298937_b.jpg


I do think that the current style of representing the Red Line does confuse people. Look at this guy's complaint: he doesn't realize that the Red Line is supposed to have an 8.5 minute headway at North Quincy. Because he thinks it is supposed to be as frequent as it is at Andrew or Kendall. Because the map shows it the same.

Other choices about the map were made to emphasize connections, both in and out of system. That's why there's some geographic elements to it, to try and position lines closely that have walking connections, and also to help thread bus lines through.
 
Very nice improvements. I have a question and a suggestion: 1) I'm sure it's noted somewhere earlier in the thread, but why is the one commuter rail shown from South Station? Is is possible to use regular passes on that branch? 2) I wonder if shrinking the Downtown/East Boston section between the Charles and the Channel by about a third would provide better proportionality vis as vis Back Bay and the West. This would raise the Green Line core closer to the Esplanade and give more room for the Ashmont/Braintree extensions of the RL. Of course, maybe you are leaving room for the labelling of downtown stations and I realize that proportionality is not the holy grail.
I like the addition of the Muddy River but still think showing the Fens (maybe just widening the Muddy in that area) would be a good idea as it has important psycho-cultural significance to the human geography of the area (and no, I have no idea what I'm saying but it seems true ;)).
 
Tombstoner said:
Very nice improvements. I have a question and a suggestion: 1) I'm sure it's noted somewhere earlier in the thread, but why is the one commuter rail shown from South Station? Is is possible to use regular passes on that branch? 2) I wonder if shrinking the Downtown/East Boston section between the Charles and the Channel by about a third would provide better proportionality vis as vis Back Bay and the West. This would raise the Green Line core closer to the Esplanade and give more room for the Ashmont/Braintree extensions of the RL. Of course, maybe you are leaving room for the labelling of downtown stations and I realize that proportionality is not the holy grail.
I like the addition of the Muddy River but still think showing the Fens (maybe just widening the Muddy in that area) would be a good idea as it has important psycho-cultural significance to the human geography of the area (and no, I have no idea what I'm saying but it seems true ;)).
Click to expand...

Fairmount Line @ Zone 1A is comparable to the subway fare...and intended to be so since it's an intra-city line. They were, after all, branding it the "Indigo Line" for many years until that nomenclature fell out of official favor. Readville is the only station on the route that jumps to full Zone 1, and that's more because the Franklin, Stoughton, etc. lines are Zone 1 at all schedules that stop there and there were no other attractive options for hacking all lines in fare sync at that stop.

It isn't interoperable with subway fares because the T has given up getting the commuter rail on Charlie Cards. That's a bureaucratic hurdle they have to find a solution for. It is very feasible to streamline that interoperability to be much more seamless; they've just got back-end hurdles to solve with the fare collection systems between modes, and have to show they want to solve those. For example, Franklin trains do thru-route over Fairmount several times per day and the official Foxboro commuter rail study specs routing all F'boro trains over Fairmount. So the regular 495-oriented CR trips are going to gradually increase in number inbound intermixed with the local "Indigo" trips, and that's a little awkward for fare syncing if the commuter rail isn't Charlied but "Indigo" is. Certain trains would require paying a Zone fare with a commuter rail pass while others would require tapping a subway card. Awkward when it's the same trip and local riders are going to be grabbing a Franklin/Foxboro to get to/from Hyde Park (that being the whole point of thru-routing more of 'em...it boosts Fairmount frequencies a little bit more by mixing in some limited-stop expresses).

Lots of little quirks like that they have to make fully sympatico in the fare collection before it's all truly seamless.


Should additional urban core "Fairmounted" routes get rolled out such as that BCEC-Back Bay shuttle or Riverside via the Worcester Line, those would thematically belong on the map. Maybe more appropriately than SL Washington St. since they are true fixed routes fare-comparable (note: Transitway/SL1 are still fully appropriate to call fixed routes).

Personally, if they're going to be gung-ho about giving Silver rapid transit branding on the official map they should've stuck with the Indigo branding for Fairmount. Or "Indigo Lines" if it grew into a small network of fare-comparable, heavy-frequency DMU lines. That would've had more thematic continuity with the spider map than continuing to call it the Fairmount Line or Readville Shuttle as a distinctly commuter rail entity. I'm not sure why that name fell out of favor internally in the last couple years before the new station construction started; it was a very good idea the public would've embraced.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
I'm not sure why that name fell out of favor internally in the last couple years before the new station construction started; it was a very good idea the public would've embraced.
Click to expand...

I suspect it was precisely to prevent the public from expecting transit-level service. This way, they can play with frequencies more freely and say "what did you expect, it's commuter rail..."

EDIT: Also, is the bureaucratic hurdle to Charlie Cards on the commuter rail still an issue on DMU lines? Does MBCR have exclusive rights to run on all commuter rail track, or can the T handle the DMUs in house and give them Charlie equipment?
 
Thanks guys! So here's the newest revision with station names. I avoided vertical text since that's where the real problems with the font seemed to come into play. I have to say I like this version a lot. Areas for improvement I think include 1) Surface stations have smaller font, will be very readable on 3x3 foot maps, but maybe it looks incongruous; 2) I can't figure out how to place the Government Center text to be clear, and 3) I know it's a stretch to aim the Riverside line downwards, but it seems hard to avoid on this scale.

Also, I'm curious, what do you think of the walking connection between Charles MGH and Bowdoin? I think that visual realization will shorten some people's trips if only by a few minutes, but I don't want to overstate the proximity.

AaQd5DO.png
 
IMO the walking connection from Bowdoin is longer than doing the double transfer. Also Bowdoin is closed most of the time (although that will change soon, at least temporarily). So I have never really considered it to be a significant connection.

I think the fact that Bowdoin is really close to Gov't Center may be more important to represent, so that people don't get too worked up about trying to reach that particular station.
 
Equilibria said:
I suspect it was precisely to prevent the public from expecting transit-level service. This way, they can play with frequencies more freely and say "what did you expect, it's commuter rail..."

EDIT: Also, is the bureaucratic hurdle to Charlie Cards on the commuter rail still an issue on DMU lines? Does MBCR have exclusive rights to run on all commuter rail track, or can the T handle the DMUs in house and give them Charlie equipment?
Click to expand...

MBCR is just a management and operating contractor doing the T's bidding with the T's staff and equipment and the T's chosen fare structure. The terms of the contract are what the T wants it to be every 10 years or so when a new contract is drafted. Early on in the T-ownership CR era the northside and southside each had separate operators under separate contracts. So it's been done before, albeit a lot more clear-cut with the north/south divide than multiple contractors intermixing at one terminal on same track. That would be really messy. Although if they did the sensible thing and brought the whole CR in-house like their national counterparts of similar heft there'd be no middleman to begin with.

The reason for keeping the RR mode self-contained is primarily the union contracts. Very different labor pool running on a common-carrier RR that draws its talent pool from the entire North American regulated RR industry. And very different skill sets. The Carmen's Union folks on the rapid transit and bus systems might as well be from a different industry altogether vs. the commuter rail where there's very competitive hiring to and from MBTA/MBCR, CSX, Pan Am, Amtrak, and even job relocation offers to/from Metro North/Long Island RR and the T. As an example, PATH and MTA Staten Island Railway--two real-deal heavy rail systems--are still under grandfathered FRA oversight from their ancient past lives as common-carrier RR's and are under totally different labor structures from MTA Subway and its ilk. Which is weird because the Staten Island operators run EXACTLY the same cars in exactly the same way as their MTA Subway counterparts on the other side of the ferry.

So for that reason commuter rail's always going to be lumped with commuter rail whether the T is running it in-house or contracting out to an MBCR. There's just no way to roll back 150 years of common-carrier RR legacy and cross-pollenate with the rapid transit division. SEPTA tried to do exactly this with Regional Rail in the 1980's with its "rapid transitization" scheme, and it nearly sank the entire agency and every mode it ran.

That doesn't mean you can't make the fares sync even if hard-to-change rules like the 1 conductor per 2 cars requirement stays in place. The back-office computer does the math and apportions the proceeds by mode totally transparent to the commuter. That's how combo passes work. That's how Charlie can expand almost infinitely elastic to other uses like paying for parking, paying bus fares on nearly every other Regional Transit Authority in the state, paying for bike storage, or even gain future uses like a prepaid charge card for the retail/food kiosks in stations. A lot like how EZPass is used to pay for road tolls in umpteen totally different states and be used for parking. The back-end system just has to be able to figure the math between the different uses and present an interface that's totally seamless to the commuter. i.e. Tap-on, tap-off everywhere.

They can do it. They just have to put in the elbow grease to debug it and make all their various fare-handling departments and modes talk to each other through that system.
 
The E Branch is going to terminate at Union Square and the C Branch is going to terminate at College Avenue as far as I know.
 
E - Union Square, D - College Ave (future Medford), last I checked.
 
datadyne007 said:
Michael Kvrivishvili's map has officially been launched. First sighting was in GL trolley #3673.
Click to expand...

Now we can officially review the MBTA's brilliant plan for a better map:

1) Launch a contest to crowd-source a new transit map, insisting that all submissions become property of the MBTA without any remuneration to the designer. In the process, offend every single graphic artist and cartographer in Boston and the US, ensuring that all of your entries come from inexperienced amateurs.

2) Post a bunch of submissions, consisting of the map you've already decided on plus some other interesting concepts that generate discussion but are clearly inferior to your chosen design in that they look less like the current map. Ensure that the pre-selected design was made by someone who lives halfway around the world and has never set foot in Boston, ridden the T, or designed a subway map.

3) Present the results of the public vote which SHOCKINGLY SELECTED THE PRE-DETERMINED DESIGN! Claim that you will now get your graphics team to make it look professional, doing things like, say, making it clear that stations located literally feet apart are not portrayed as being separated by many ZIP codes, or removing the right-angle curve in one of the lines apparently done in PowerPoint.

4) Do none of these things, and present the same design you received from an amateur graphic artist with a few minor tweaks, in one stroke dismissing your graphics department as worthless (since some random dude from Russia literally just did their most important job for free), and producing a map which fixes basically none of the wayfinding issues with your current map, since you made all of the flaws requirements for competition submissions.

Great job, MBTA! Let's hit the pub!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top