MBTA Map Contest Finalists

If I were a tourist I would have no idea wtf is going on with the Silver Line on that map.
 
Green Line is a step improvement on the current map. Silver Line is a disaster, but I don't blame the artist. It's a disaster of a service and therefore virtually undiagramable. The solution is to rationalize the "line" (i.e. series of discontinuous bus routes) rather than rationalize the map.

Overall it's hilarious how similar this is to the current map. Reminds me of when Homer wins the design-a-better-power-plant competition for kids by adding a nifty racing stripe to the cooling tower.
 
FenwayResident said:
If I were a tourist I would have no idea wtf is going on with the Silver Line on that map.
Click to expand...

From South Station to the Airport and South Boston is fine. But in DTX and Chinatown it gets a bit confusing.


It's too bad the MBTA did not have slim monitors mounted on the walls of subway cars displaying the maps. That way it would be very easy to make changes and updates without having to re-print them.
 
Shepard said:
Green Line is a step improvement on the current map.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree.

The main issue I have with this map is that the pinch point at (D) Reservoir, (C) Cleveland Circle, and (B) Chestnut Hill Ave is not properly represented. This is a critical meeting of the branches and the previous map emphasized that it existed. Overall, the entire western portion of the Green Line geographically is sacrificed for a diagrammatic representation which plays into the debate that has been raging for a century about whether transit maps should be geographically accurate/proportionate or purely diagrammatic. I personally take the side of a mix of the two.

I was in the shower a few minutes ago and was staring at the Green Line on my shower curtain (which has the 2009 map). I realized how much better the old Green Line format was with the vague geographical proportions and routing. Even minor things like junctions were accurately depicted on the previous map (B splitting before C and D). This new one just obliterates all geography and honestly it's for the worse.
 
Mikhail wanted to depict out-of-system connections but I think that the T overruled him.

Yet another case of the T being willfully stupid.
 
Matthew said:
Mikhail wanted to depict out-of-system connections but I think that the T overruled him.

Yet another case of the T being willfully stupid.
Click to expand...

I've seen Mikhail's comment on the TransitMaps feature about this. A walking line showing the connection between the BCD would have been meaningless with the lines all represented equidistant from each other and stops not physically lined up. The lines NATURALLY CONVERGE. They should be depicted that way on a transit map. The transit lines should speak for themselves.
 
datadyne007 said:
I've seen Mikhail's comment on the TransitMaps feature about this. A walking line showing the connection between the BCD would have been meaningless with the lines all represented equidistant from each other and stops not physically lined up. The lines NATURALLY CONVERGE. They should be depicted that way on a transit map. The transit lines should speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

The completely diagrammatic representation only works underground, where you have no reference points and don't care where you are except in reference to your destination and transfer points. This map not only fails to acknowledge that riders on the D can see the C and vice versa, but it actively distorts reality to omit key wayfinding information, namely that a transfer is possible between CC and Reservoir.

Distortion in the name of improved wayfinding is good. Distortion in the name of artifice is bad. This is the latter, and because of that it should never have seen the light of day. I'm sorry, because I know that the designer visits message boards, but the distorted Green Line makes this a complete failure of a map.
 
I think the T's insane desire to have EVERY station represented equally also led to this idiotic design.

The surface stations are only slightly better than bus stops. Worse sometimes.
 
Upon closer inspection, it also seems that this map omits the letters for the GL branches in the subway, implying that every branch terminates at Lechmere by placing the "GL" indicator there. Of course, the T chose to launch this map during a period of time when 2 branches terminate at Park Street and GC is closed, making it fundamentally flawed for the first two full years it's in use (at which point Lechmere will close for a year and a half). At least it also leaves out Bowdoin's limited hours, so it's not totally blanking on the current situation.

Also, GLX is not displayed as future service, nor is SL Gateway, despite both projects being firm commitments and the shovels for GLX already being in the ground.

Seriously, did anyone at the MBTA look at the map? I'm starting to wonder if they even opened the file. These people aren't idiots, and the T had two years of GC construction to perfect this before they really had to implement it. Mikhail isn't dumb and his work isn't inherently awful, but this map needed SOME review. Had it been posted here as so many have done, we would have pointed out all of these obvious errors within hours.
 
Note that this map has only been spotted in one slot on one trolley. They don't seem to be rushing to replace the maps system wide. I suspect that they will release new ones when Assembly Square opens, GLX, and eventually SL to Chelsea.
 
datadyne007 said:
I completely disagree.

The main issue I have with this map is that the pinch point at (D) Reservoir, (C) Cleveland Circle, and (B) Chestnut Hill Ave is not properly represented. This is a critical meeting of the branches and the previous map emphasized that it existed. Overall, the entire western portion of the Green Line geographically is sacrificed for a diagrammatic representation which plays into the debate that has been raging for a century about whether transit maps should be geographically accurate/proportionate or purely diagrammatic. I personally take the side of a mix of the two.

I was in the shower a few minutes ago and was staring at the Green Line on my shower curtain (which has the 2009 map). I realized how much better the old Green Line format was with the vague geographical proportions and routing. Even minor things like junctions were accurately depicted on the previous map (B splitting before C and D). This new one just obliterates all geography and honestly it's for the worse.
Click to expand...

In response to this and other similar posts... Just some advocacy on behalf of the devil here. Yes, the curvy lines on yesterday's map showed some confluence of GL branches, but did anyone who didn't know the geography actually navigate by that? I doubt it. No firm connection was ever shown. A tourist might infer a relative proximity between stations there but have no sea about actual proximity. Meanwhile, having every station name IS useful. I don't see the point of arguing otherwise. People go to stops like Brandon Hall. People want reassurance to know Brandon Hall is on the C train they're boarding. It solves more than it obscures.
 
If the B and C Lines had some stop consolidation it would allow for a lot more leeway in representing them on a map.

I wonder if when the T gets around to doing stop consolidation on these lines if they would go back to having the B-C-D converging at the reservoir or just stick with the current map. Probably the latter, lol.
 
Omitting station names is a different matter from just making the font size smaller.

I meant the latter. "Park St" and "BU West" are not anywhere close to being equal in importance and the MBTA's insistence on making them the same font size is silly. "BU West" has about as much importance as a bus stop, which, by the way, are not shown on this map at all except for the Silver Lie.
 
Equilibria said:
Upon closer inspection, it also seems that this map omits the letters for the GL branches in the subway, implying that every branch terminates at Lechmere by placing the "GL" indicator there. Of course, the T chose to launch this map during a period of time when 2 branches terminate at Park Street and GC is closed, making it fundamentally flawed for the first two full years it's in use (at which point Lechmere will close for a year and a half).
Click to expand...
Hard to tell from the photo, but it looks like maybe the branches are indicated on the line between stations; I see some white marks that I'm guessing are letters. If so, it looks to be accurate with respect to the current GC situation, too. (There are four marks between Boylston and Park, but only two after Park.) That said, branch labels on the stations, NYC style, would probably be clearer.
 
Matthew said:
Omitting station names is a different matter from just making the font size smaller.

I meant the latter. "Park St" and "BU West" are not anywhere close to being equal in importance and the MBTA's insistence on making them the same font size is silly. "BU West" has about as much importance as a bus stop, which, by the way, are not shown on this map at all except for the Silver Lie.
Click to expand...

The font size issue is tough. It's easy in theory to diminish stations with a smaller font size, but there are strict guidelines on minimum type sizing in order to maintain accessibility to the visually impaired.

For visual accessibility in typography see: http://www.textmatters.com/resources/pdfs/visImpd_typogTM.pdf
 
About the B/C/D convergence, it's nice to show but I agree with Shepard above that few people are actually helped by seeing it. A much more useful proximity to show would be Green and Orange: Symphony/Mass Ave and Copley/Back Bay in particular. Those serve a lot more people who aren't already familiar with their transit options (tourists, etc.).
 
^ That's an excellent point. I have literally seen tourists in Copley charting their journey on the map via Haymarket to... Back Bay station. I've seen similar things at Hynes where tourists are looking to get to Prudential or Symphony.

Then again, I often just wonder - why don't these people use their smartphones or carry maps?

First few days when I lived in London I was extremely Tube-dependent. Then I swore off the Tube for lack of A/C, took out my battered map, and realized all the absolutely ridiculous trips I'd been taking just in order to traverse a matter of blocks.
 
Survey%20Map%203%20lg.jpg


This is the map they should have gone with.

Micheal's map is horrible. Very confusing and still doesn't explain where the Green lines terminate downtown, which is a very "key" thing to specify. The fact that the MBTA went with this map goes to show how incompetent they are and how much they lack taste.

Why does "OL" "BL" GL" RL" need to be illustrated at every terminal? To someone that is visiting from another country, this must look like gibberish. This new map is painful to look at.
 
I like the style of your map but I think it's really weird that the Orange Line has such tiny width while the commuter rail is drawn so thickly.

Should be the other way around, to indicate that the Orange Line runs very frequently.

Why does "OL" "BL" GL" RL" need to be illustrated at every terminal?
Click to expand...

Accessibility requirement I think.
 
Matthew said:
I like the style of your map but I think it's really weird that the Orange Line has such tiny width while the commuter rail is drawn so thickly.

Should be the other way around, to indicate that the Orange Line runs very frequently.



Accessibility requirement I think.
Click to expand...

Color blind feature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top