The Official MBTA System Map

[Riverside]

Unlike some of us (ahem, see my signature), @vanshnookenraggen is classy enough not to hawk his wares here on the forum. But he recently did a really excellent redesign of SEPTA's new map, and his blog post lays out a lot of his theory of transit diagrams -- quite relevant to the discussions in this thread.

I haven't time to do as close of a read as I would like, but on my quick initial read, I was interested to note his firm opposition to non-BRT bus lines on subway maps (which I think is a generalized opposition, not just for SEPTA), and his use of green, brown, and grey, not just to mark parks, but also to mark universities and other key landmarks.

(Years ago, I played around with an MBTA diagram design that would mark nearby colleges/universities; unsurprisingly, it got busy way too quickly. One interesting point, though, is that the MBTA has explicit names for many of its prominent colleges/universities; Philadelphia's most prominent university, UPenn, doesn't actually have a station named after it, which creates a more acute wayfinding need.)

The non-BRT bus line question is a sticky one for Boston, as we've discussed above: to any external observer, SL4/5 is not BRT. And yet, it makes for a very strong (though very reasonable) political statement to visually demote it from the rapid transit style. (I would enjoy making a diagram that demotes both SL4/5 and the B & C -- my own personal preference, my efforts to Do All The Things notwithstanding.)

The emphasis on parks raises an interesting question to me, @TheRatmeister: Boston actually has a notable number of linear parks, and parks which form distinct networks:

• Greenway
• Esplanade
• Emerald Necklace: Boston Common -> Public Garden -> Comm Ave -> Charlesgate -> Back Bay Fens -> Muddy River -> Jamaica Pond (plus arguably the Arborway -> Arnold Arboretum, then a break at the NEC, and then Forest Hills Cemetary + Franklin Park)

I wonder if there would be a way to (subtly) indicate those network-like qualities, particularly the Emerald Necklace; even without the originally planned Dorchesterway, the string of parks really is remarkable, and it could be lovely to have a map that evokes that quality.

(Of course, as with other things, this may just be too hard to include on the map.)

 

[TheRatmeister]

But he recently did a really excellent redesign of SEPTA's new map

That is a very good map @vanshnookenraggen, I love it. I think it also highlights a fairly major difference between Boston and Philly, where the regional rail in Philly works a lot more like a European S-Bahn than the CR, which even with NSRL would mostly still be a suburban rail system, albeit with throughrunning in downtown.

haven't time to do as close of a read as I would like, but on my quick initial read, I was interested to note his firm opposition to non-BRT bus lines on subway maps (which I think is a generalized opposition, not just for SEPTA)

I generally agree, with the potential exception of useful crosstown routes like the 1, 47, and 66.

and his use of green, brown, and grey, not just to mark parks, but also to mark universities and other key landmarks.

I've experimented with this a little bit by adding a little Sox logo around Fenway Park but that area is already very busy and that did not help. I might play around with it some more. As you mention Boston is pretty good about having stops named for most of its landmarks, but small icons for things like the North End, Fanuiel Hall, TD Garden, and Fenway could be nice.

I wonder if there would be a way to (subtly) indicate those network-like qualities, particularly the Emerald Necklace; even without the originally planned Dorchesterway, the string of parks really is remarkable, and it could be lovely to have a map that evokes that quality.

That is an interesting idea but I have absolutely no idea how to do it. If anyone has any suggestions for how this could work I'd be open to giving it a go.

(Of course, as with other things, this may just be too hard to include on the map.)

But this is of course always a problem.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I got extremely tired of dealing with all the ferry terminals and finally got around to making this:

 

[TheRatmeister]

I got extremely tired of dealing with all the ferry terminals and finally got around to making this:

And the current state of things with the inset and @Riverside's suggestion for Franklin Park

 

[TheRatmeister]

And one last thing before I got, alternate version of the GL, yay or nay? I'm torn, personally.

 

[BentFryingPan]

I think I like the alt more, but really excellent work either way

 

[Arenacale]

Definitely the alternate. The essence of transit maps is making reasonable compromises on geographical accuracy for overall legibility.

 

[Riverside]

I got extremely tired of dealing with all the ferry terminals and finally got around to making this:
View attachment 54248

Love it. Two suggestions (one of which may be rendered moot by the other):

I would add a medium thin (loosely geographically accurate) Blue Line to the inset. Right now it looks like it was unintentionally omitted IMO. I do see what you were going for -- it evokes the neighborhood maps in stations, which emphasize the physical locations of station entrances (or the old Arrow Street Atlases I pored over as a kid) -- but the rest of the diagram includes transit lines in addition to all the elements included in the inset (water, land, park, station, label, accessibility icon, ferries), so I think there isn't enough "simplification" otherwise within the inset to make the absence of the subway line make sense. (Even the official neighborhood maps include the lines.)

Second, the Aquarium icon and label feel a bit disconnected and distant. I realize that it's probably geographically accurate in its current position, but I think the visual effect exaggerates the distance between the entrance to Aquarium and Long Wharf (South), which are pretty darn close. That being said, my gut tells me that the inclusion of the Blue Line would mitigate this (somehow, idk why).

And one last thing before I got, alternate version of the GL, yay or nay? I'm torn, personally.

View attachment 54260

In isolation, I think it looks pretty good, and I personally like the simplification of the two lines down to their topologies. That being said, I'd want to see the overall effect across the map (which I suspect would be positive).

And the current state of things with the inset and @Riverside's suggestion for Franklin Park

Despite all of my comments above, though, this really does look excellent!

 

[TheRatmeister]

Second, the Aquarium icon and label feel a bit disconnected and distant. I realize that it's probably geographically accurate in its current position, but I think the visual effect exaggerates the distance between the entrance to Aquarium and Long Wharf (South), which are pretty darn close. That being said, my gut tells me that the inclusion of the Blue Line would mitigate this (somehow, idk why).

I literally just drew over a screenshot of google maps, the T logo for Aquarium is where it is on there. I'm pretty sure it directly corresponds with the closest entrance to the ferry piers (The fancy glass one) but if there's a closer one I can move it.

 

[Equilibria]

So one question that's surely already been answered... why include the current bus routes and not the BNRD ones?

 

[jbray]

And one last thing before I got, alternate version of the GL, yay or nay? I'm torn, personally.

I like the geographic one more, personally. The way it cuts through "Dean|Rd" is cleaner and more legible than diagonally through both Dean and Englewood. I also don't feel that the switch back and forth between 45 degrees and horizontal is bad especially because it happens elsewhere on the same map so I've never thought the official change that sacrificed the geography for "legibility" rang true. It's legible both ways and the mildly easier line of stations isn't worth the trade off in my opinion. Your map is also embracing some busyness as part of it's MO and so sacrificing that for this one section feels out of place. For example: what's the point of curving down to Heath Street for geographic fidelity but not for the B and C?

This one is super small and probably because it's an demo alt: It's probably easyish to move Chandler pond a little to distance it from the H in "Hill" but its unnecessary on the geographic one.

Franklin Park and the whole Emerald Necklace looks great! I'm sure all of the detailing on this was exhausting, kudos.

I do have a piece that I don't quite like: The T96 coming out of Davis. Could not the line follow red to Porter without connecting, follow the Fitchburg line, then dip down? The word "Davis" could be moved accordingly? Perhaps not as neat, but that southbound angle is both harsh and incorrect to the geography.

The Legend is missing the icon for the bus route lines and there's nothing to explain the bus terminus numbers.

So one question that's surely already been answered... why include the current bus routes and not the BNRD ones?

It is the BNRD ones at least for the lines I'm familiar with.

 

[TheRatmeister]

The Legend is missing the icon for the bus route lines and there's nothing to explain the bus terminus numbers.

I have not really even started on the legend yet. I think I'm going to do something similar to the legend on my CR map, but we'll see.

Franklin Park and the whole Emerald Necklace looks great! I'm sure all of the detailing on this was exhausting, kudos.

Credit to Riverside for Franklin Park, I could not get it to look good. The Emerald Necklace though surprisingly just worked out on the first attempt with a little bit of minor adjustment. The Charles on the other hand...

 

[ritchiew]

And the current state of things with the inset and @Riverside's suggestion for Franklin Park
View attachment 54259

Do you have some thinking on which parks and water you're including and why?
This sounded like a good idea, but I'm getting warry. Some parts look alright, but I'm starting to think the parks especially are distracting detail.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Do you have some thinking on which parks and water you're including and why?
This sounded like a good idea, but I'm getting warry. Some parts look alright, but I'm starting to think the parks especially are distracting detail.

For now I'm (generally, there is not a lot of process aside from me just doing whatever I feel like) including any reasonably sized parks or woods and most ponds. Once I've finished I'll probably make 3 versions, one with all the parks, one with no parks, and one with only some of the parks because I think you're right in that including everything may be a bit much.

For now, here's what I haven't done yet that I would like to include in the 'maximalist' version:

• Harvard Yard/Cambridge Common Done
• Mt Auburn Cemetery Done
• Fresh Pond Done
• Magazine Beach
• Alewife Brook Reservation
• Spy Pond
• Moakley Park
• Clean up the Mystic River
• Clean up the Neponset River
• Carson/M St, Revere, Orient Heights, Pleasure Bay, and Wollaston beaches

 

[TheRatmeister]

Okay I don't want to reveal too much since this is definitely not public information, but I have seen a photo of what appears to be an official map featuring the BNRD. I'll be brief and say a few things:

1. It's extremely fugly. Like, however bad you're imagining, it's worse, so much worse.
2. This map demotes the Silver Line to a thinner line, and it doesn't actually show all the stops, even on the Transitway and SL3 busway. This is such a bizarre choice that makes me doubt this map will ever see the light of day, but apparently this is an option that's on the table, at least to some degree.
3. They're doing the dumb stupid thing where the SL4/5 combined route gets SL5 rather than SL4, leaving a nice gap in the naming scheme.
4. Chinatown is shown as a transfer on the Silver Line, but DTX is not for some inexplicable reason.

 

[Riverside]

Okay I don't want to reveal too much since this is definitely not public information, but I have seen a photo of what appears to be an official map featuring the BNRD. I'll be brief and say a few things:

1. It's extremely fugly. Like, however bad you're imagining, it's worse, so much worse.
2. This map demotes the Silver Line to a thinner line, and it doesn't actually show all the stops, even on the Transitway and SL3 busway. This is such a bizarre choice that makes me doubt this map will ever see the light of day, but apparently this is an option that's on the table, at least to some degree.
3. They're doing the dumb stupid thing where the SL4/5 combined route gets SL5 rather than SL4, leaving a nice gap in the naming scheme.
4. Chinatown is shown as a transfer on the Silver Line, but DTX is not for some inexplicable reason.

I appreciate that you may have more context and so can’t confirm or deny, but this definitely sounds like an internal draft that is still WIP, possibly testing some other aspect of the map while leaving things like the SL in an unfinished state.

That said, if they demote the Silver Line, I will have to eat my own words from just a few days ago.

Something to consider with the visual language of the SL: IIRC, transitway services pay a rapid transit fare, while SL4/5 pay a bus fare. If it were me, I would keep the transitway lines thick for this reason.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Something to consider with the visual language of the SL: IIRC, transitway services pay a rapid transit fare, while SL4/5 pay a bus fare. If it were me, I would keep the transitway lines thick for this reason.

Oh absolutely, I strongly disagree with this choice.

but this definitely sounds like an internal draft that is still WIP, possibly testing some other aspect of the map while leaving things like the SL in an unfinished state.

It's for sure an internal draft, but it does appear to at least be complete as far as I can tell. The way the SL is done doesn't leave room for more stops to be easily added. There are a bunch more interesting (and I would argue, bad) changes to the style but I have been sworn to not share the photo so that's all I can really say.

 

[ritchiew]

For now I'm (generally, there is not a lot of process aside from me just doing whatever I feel like) including any reasonably sized parks or woods and most ponds. Once I've finished I'll probably make 3 versions, one with all the parks, one with no parks, and one with only some of the parks because I think you're right in that including everything may be a bit much.

For now, here's what I haven't done yet that I would like to include in the 'maximalist' version:

• Harvard Yard/Cambridge Common Done
• Mt Auburn Cemetery Done
• Fresh Pond Done
• Magazine Beach
• Alewife Brook Reservation
• Spy Pond
• Moakley Park
• Clean up the Mystic River
• Clean up the Neponset River
• Carson/M St, Revere, Orient Heights, Pleasure Bay, and Wollaston beaches

Just a suggestion, but you might want to really consider why you're adding water and parks. I think there are a few possible reasons. Mostly, I think you should keep them off.

One reason to put them on is highlight possible "destinations." NYC does this. Basically only NYC does this. I mostly think it's a bad idea because it distracts from the basic purpose of a diagram like this, which is to easily show the transit network and help people get around quickly. And if adding "destinations" is your goal, at the very least I don't think spots like the Brookline Reservoir or Allandale Woods are really "destinations" for a general purpose map, as nice as those spots might be. Plus, you might consider adding other destinations that aren't parks.

Another reason to include water and green space is just to make the city look prettier, because these maps can kind of act as city promotion by themselves. If that's the case, there are lots of ways to make this prettier, especially just cleaning up the shoreline (Pleasure Bay is so ugly on the official map, it bothers me so much). And also, this goal can conflict with the primary purpose of being a useful navigation aid. Green blobs scattered around the city can be more confusing than helpful. If someone doesn't know exactly what the green blob is, then they might wonder if it is really important, or maybe it's the small park they just passed.

I think a very good reason to add parks and water is because they can be useful for basic orientation for a city. People might have a fuzzy mental map of how a city is laid out, but big geographic features can give it some shape. That's usually why rivers are so important, and why it matters for a Boston map. The general shape of the downtown is formed by the rivers, so that really needs to be included. Parks or rivers can also be useful on a map when big areas can be described relative to that geographic feature. Again, the rivers are important here. You could usefully describe a point, a neighborhood, or a whole city as "north of the Charles," so that's a pretty good indication it's important for the map. (Rivers are also especially important on a transit map because they indicate where there is a likely break in the street grid, so you might need some transit to traverse it.) The various points along the shoreline are useful for figuring how north or south you are in the Boston metro area.

DC has the only US, Harry-Beck-style transit map I can think of that prominently includes green space, and for DC it makes a lot of sense. The Mall so good for orientation. It is a huge linear space at the center of the city that splits the city between north and south. It's got tall monuments you can see for miles, so you always know what direction it is. It is deeply ingrained in people's mental map of the city and directions can be given relative to it. The Mall has to be on their map. The other green blobs are less useful, but still good. Rock Creek Park is huge, pretty important for city layout, and people will describe destinations or whole neighborhoods relative to Rock Creek Park. If you quickly squinted at a map of the DC area, Arlington Cemetery and the Anacostia parks are the kind of big green blobs you'd recall for sketching out some general outline of the city. (I'd say the green space shown along the Anacostia is redundant because the river itself is what's useful for orientation, and if they want to include those parks then they should also include the National Arboretum because it's similarly large, but that's nitpicking). All of that green space on the transit map works well for orientation and navigation at a rapid transit scale.

I'd say Boston (like most cities) doesn't have any green space that is that good or useful for orientation or navigation on a map like this. Except for giving very, very local directions, people won't give directions with reference to any park around here. I think the Common is certainly in people's mental map of the city, but if you were trying to give directions around there, you'd just say "go downtown," and that's already clear enough on the existing transit map. The Emerald Necklace is not especially good for wayfinding because it's really not that big, and it's really meandering. I think those are your top two candidates for inclusion on a transit map and neither seem especially useful for orienting people around the city. Certainly getting down to things like Belle Isle Marsh Reservation or Chandler Pond is straying pretty far from being useful for navigation.

All that said, I still kinda like the idea of putting green space on the map. It'll be challenge to get right, but I hope you can do it. But you might benefit from really considering why you're adding these to the map, and maybe figuring out some thresholds for inclusion.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Just a suggestion, but you might want to really consider why you're adding water and parks. I think there are a few possible reasons. Mostly, I think you should keep them off.

One reason to put them on is highlight possible "destinations." NYC does this. Basically only NYC does this. I mostly think it's a bad idea because it distracts from the basic purpose of a diagram like this, which is to easily show the transit network and help people get around quickly. And if adding "destinations" is your goal, at the very least I don't think spots like the Brookline Reservoir or Allandale Woods are really "destinations" for a general purpose map, as nice as those spots might be. Plus, you might consider adding other destinations that aren't parks.

Another reason to include water and green space is just to make the city look prettier, because these maps can kind of act as city promotion by themselves. If that's the case, there are lots of ways to make this prettier, especially just cleaning up the shoreline (Pleasure Bay is so ugly on the official map, it bothers me so much). And also, this goal can conflict with the primary purpose of being a useful navigation aid. Green blobs scattered around the city can be more confusing than helpful. If someone doesn't know exactly what the green blob is, then they might wonder if it is really important, or maybe it's the small park they just passed.

I think a very good reason to add parks and water is because they can be useful for basic orientation for a city. People might have a fuzzy mental map of how a city is laid out, but big geographic features can give it some shape. That's usually why rivers are so important, and why it matters for a Boston map. The general shape of the downtown is formed by the rivers, so that really needs to be included. Parks or rivers can also be useful on a map when big areas can be described relative to that geographic feature. Again, the rivers are important here. You could usefully describe a point, a neighborhood, or a whole city as "north of the Charles," so that's a pretty good indication it's important for the map. (Rivers are also especially important on a transit map because they indicate where there is a likely break in the street grid, so you might need some transit to traverse it.) The various points along the shoreline are useful for figuring how north or south you are in the Boston metro area.

DC has the only US, Harry-Beck-style transit map I can think of that prominently includes green space, and for DC it makes a lot of sense. The Mall so good for orientation. It is a huge linear space at the center of the city that splits the city between north and south. It's got tall monuments you can see for miles, so you always know what direction it is. It is deeply ingrained in people's mental map of the city and directions can be given relative to it. The Mall has to be on their map. The other green blobs are less useful, but still good. Rock Creek Park is huge, pretty important for city layout, and people will describe destinations or whole neighborhoods relative to Rock Creek Park. If you quickly squinted at a map of the DC area, Arlington Cemetery and the Anacostia parks are the kind of big green blobs you'd recall for sketching out some general outline of the city. (I'd say the green space shown along the Anacostia is redundant because the river itself is what's useful for orientation, and if they want to include those parks then they should also include the National Arboretum because it's similarly large, but that's nitpicking). All of that green space on the transit map works well for orientation and navigation at a rapid transit scale.

I'd say Boston (like most cities) doesn't have any green space that is that good or useful for orientation or navigation on a map like this. Except for giving very, very local directions, people won't give directions with reference to any park around here. I think the Common is certainly in people's mental map of the city, but if you were trying to give directions around there, you'd just say "go downtown," and that's already clear enough on the existing transit map. The Emerald Necklace is not especially good for wayfinding because it's really not that big, and it's really meandering. I think those are your top two candidates for inclusion on a transit map and neither seem especially useful for orienting people around the city. Certainly getting down to things like Belle Isle Marsh Reservation or Chandler Pond is straying pretty far from being useful for navigation.

All that said, I still kinda like the idea of putting green space on the map. It'll be challenge to get right, but I hope you can do it. But you might benefit from really considering why you're adding these to the map, and maybe figuring out some thresholds for inclusion.

I have just been made aware of this guide to touching grass via the T, that's likely going to shape my "balanced" map quite a bit. I don't quite agree with everything they've chosen to include/not include so some modifications will probably get made but I think I'll mostly be sticking to their list.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I would add a medium thin (loosely geographically accurate) Blue Line to the inset. Right now it looks like it was unintentionally omitted IMO. I do see what you were going for -- it evokes the neighborhood maps in stations, which emphasize the physical locations of station entrances (or the old Arrow Street Atlases I pored over as a kid) -- but the rest of the diagram includes transit lines in addition to all the elements included in the inset (water, land, park, station, label, accessibility icon, ferries), so I think there isn't enough "simplification" otherwise within the inset to make the absence of the subway line make sense. (Even the official neighborhood maps include the lines.)

I tried this but it really doesn't work. The neighborhood maps show enough detail to make it less overwhelming, but this inset doesn't, which is by design, so you just end up with a weird blue line stretching across it. Maybe there's a middle ground but I'm not really seeing it right now.