The Official MBTA System Map

Per Reddit, there is a new MBTA map out there, featuring a significantly de-weighted Silver Line, and phase 1 BNRD in a style not dissimilar to what @TheRatmeister has done.
View attachment 55289
Changes I like:
  • Thinner bus lines
  • More accurate depiction of Logan Ferries
  • Thinner Silver Line, at least on Washington St and past SLW. If it's on the table then I'll definitely make the change.
  • Arlington Heights is finally fixed
  • No more "multiple stops" text at Design Center
  • 39 is shown accurately
  • They didn't add a 90 degree bend in the Red Line in Cambridge like the draft version did, that was horrific
Things I'm indifferent about:
  • Terminus dots, I don't think it's necessary but it's also not terrible
  • Chinatown Gate gets a dot but no text (Why bother with the dot, or lets face it the stop, at that point then?)
Things I don't like:
  • Further de-emphasis of the Commuter Rail, and especially the Fairmount Line.
  • Related, but the CR text is too small.
  • BNRD Phase 1. Oh god, it's horrible. If you ever wondered why that section is pretty liberal with geographic accuracy, that's why.
  • 109 transfer at Union Sq isn't shown
  • Why are the airport terminals and social media logos B&W?
  • Why does the media relations email need to be on the map? Like, really?
  • Why did they change Hawes St and St Marys St to be like that? They look terrible.
  • The bus lines are very squiggly and often hard to follow. The 104 and 1 are especially bad
  • The bus/subway transfers are not shown well. It's actually quite similar to what @Riverside has done previously, but worse.
but I definitely think mine is still better
 
Last edited:
Illustrator_Realistic_Map_V7.png

Alright banged out a quick thin Silver Line version, now with the same thickness as the "Rapid Busway" designated corridors. I've kept the Transitway and SL3 as the Rapid Transit width however, unlike the new map which demotes those further than I think is justified.
 
Last edited:
  • 109 transfer at Union Sq isn't shown
Maybe because the walk is deemed sufficiently long that it wasn't counted as a transfer? Somewhat similar to 110 at Revere Beach.

  • Why did they change Hawes St and St Marys St to be like that? They look terrible.
My first guess is to make the 66 look nice (straight line from Harvard Ave), but I haven't compared it with the original official map yet.
 
Maybe because the walk is deemed sufficiently long that it wasn't counted as a transfer? Somewhat similar to 110 at Revere Beach.
It's about 4 minutes which is just about the same as the walk to East Somerville. If you count one I don't see why you shouldn't count the other.
My first guess is to make the 66 look nice (straight line from Harvard Ave), but I haven't compared it with the original official map yet.
It's already straight on the original map

1725868922009.png
 
Alright here's my version of the new map, with BNRD phase 1, updated social media in the legend, and West Medford accessibility improvements (Edit: And some new/recurrent mistakes. I've already fixed the 39, phantom 117, holdover transfers from the full BNRD version at MFA, Herald St, and Union Park St, and a weird color mismatch on the Commuter Rail with yet another revision)
current_map_redesign_BNRDPhase1.png

Now just for some side-by-sides with the new official map:
1725916808574.png
1725916831595.png

1725916900997.png
1725916924227.png

1725916981676.png
1725917014100.png


1725917060346.png
1725917085003.png
 
Last edited:
Wow, looks fantastic. Is there any way you could get Franklin Park closer to the OL?
Without making it even larger, and compressing the Columbus Ave stops as well, not really. The preferable way to do it would be to bring the OL and SL4/5 closer together, but because of how this map has the GL and OL close together that isn't really possible, Back Bay is already crammed in there and there isn't any more space to take.
 
I finished the revisions on my diagram and posted it on my blog. Hi-res at link, low-res screenshot here:

View attachment 56340

View attachment 56339
I definitely like this iteration more. I still generally have to say that I disagree with the tradeoffs made but fitting in all the labels horizontally is no easy feat, excellent work with that. And now for an incredibly long list of nitpicks ranging from fairly significant to insanely minor.

Things I find too disagreeable to ignore:
  • This map makes no distinction between the Fairmount Line and the Rapid Transit Lines, which I think is more than a little misleading. A 30 minute wait and a 5 minute wait are significantly different and the map should reflect that.
  • There are a couple places where geographic accuracy is prioritized over clearly showing information. The worst for me is at Union Sq/East Somerville where it looks like there is a bus/CR interchange, which could be avoided if the Lowell/Fitchburg Line split happened between East Somerville and Gilman Sq, for example.
  • Okay this one is super minor, but while I get that you're doing all the labels so they're on a white background, Harbor Point looks really silly being that far inland.
  • Again a minor one, but Charles/MGH is a lot further inland than it needs to be.
  • Giving the 57 detailed stops but not giving any bus route the same treatment still feels very silly to me. Again, the only reason we consider the 57 to be any different from routes like 116/117 or 22 is that it had streetcar service for 10-15 years more than they did
  • Not showing Lynn on the map is a very significant tradeoff
  • The MBTA website should be highlighted more, and I'd suggest also adding something for the See Say app
  • I'm not sure Bicknell Sq and Oak Island are relevant enough to warrant 'via' text on their respective bus routes
  • Arrows on the CR lines and bus routes that leave the map borders would be super useful and make the cutoff feel less abrupt
The always inevitable mistakes in a nonsensical order:
  • Social media handles are wrong or at least not the versions used by the MBTA, they are now @TheMBTA on every platform except ex-Twitter. Should probably change the logo there as well. Oh and Threads is also on the new map.
  • There are no arrows showing which way the Silver Line goes at Logan. Omitting them for the shuttle might be okay since the patterns there are all over the place but they are necessary for the Silver Line. There's also some weird overlap going on at Airport Station.
  • The CR stops at North Station, Ruggles, and Forest Hills aren't placed correctly. I'm guessing you moved the CR at some point but forgot to move the stops.
  • The 9 stops at E. Berkeley St going inbound, and Herald St going outbound
  • Through-running onto the Fairmount Line at Readville isn't shown
  • Interchange bar/line things: Why is the one at Tufts thicker than all the other ones? Also the ones at Bellingham Sq and Airport are off-center
  • Font issues: It seems like there are multiple fonts in use, and something is weird with the lowercase 'r' for the labels.
  • The wheelchair symbols are all over the place. At Andrew/JFK the distance between the symbol and the line suddenly changes, lots of stations have their label slightly offset for no apparent reason, and the distance between the text and symbol is also very inconsistent. For my map I generally used ~0.07 inches between the symbol and lines/text, for bigger font .1" is probably better
  • Lewis Mall is mistakenly called Lewis Wharf, also why does the seasonal East Boston ferry get to be on the map but not the Lynn/Quincy/Winthrop ferries?
  • The use of the T logo violates the style guidelines which specify a reserved white space around the logo, see the style guide for more details.
  • The CR text for the Haverhill and Framingham/Worcester lines is inconsistent. They should either both be to X via Y or to X and Y
  • There are visual gaps if you really pixel-peep on the 12 through LMA and at Bellevue station
  • Copley/Back Bay should have a walking transfer, that's a pretty important CR/Green Line one.
  • Missing white border for the 35/36 at Forest Hills where it crosses the CR
  • Off-center stops at Green St, Back of the Hill, Melnea Cass Blvd, Chelsea, and probably others
Not really mistakes but things that could be improved:
  • I think more care should be put into the dashed lines for the walking connections. If you look at the ones on my map you'll see that I've tried to avoid the weird half-length dashes and overlap with the lines where I can
  • If you were to swap the positions of the 1 and 12 around Nubian you could keep the 12 completely straight rather than the little bend it does now between Melnea Cass and Lenox St
  • It certainly seems like you have enough room to keep the CR stations at JFK, Quincy Center, and Braintree on the inside for shorter connection bars.
  • Similarly, I think if you moved the 35/36 to the other side of the Needham Line it would look better. You could also move the bus dot up to where the 39's is to avoid crossing the CR line.
  • I think you can make SL3 work without the two 90º bends if you're willing to sacrifice the end of the SL3 being parallel with the CR.
 
Whoa! Thank you for taking such a detailed look! I appreciate it, and am glad it was interesting.

I'll respond to some specific points below. I do want to be upfront that, you know, I do this for fun, and so some of the nitpicks you've rightly pointed out aren't ones that I'm going to spend time fixing -- at a certain point, that's just not something that's gonna give me my jollies. (Though, if I ever do make maps professionally, I would absolutely want to hold myself to the standard you have laid out!) But, responding to some specific items that might be interesting to discuss:
Things I find too disagreeable to ignore:
  • This map makes no distinction between the Fairmount Line and the Rapid Transit Lines, which I think is more than a little misleading. A 30 minute wait and a 5 minute wait are significantly different and the map should reflect that.
I've tried to be pretty up front that this map has intentionally been designed to be "future-proofed" for the eventual rapid-transit-ification of the Fairmount Line. Perhaps that means I am drawing a map for a system that will never actually exist. But designing around a "fully sized" rapid transit line through Dorchester seemed like a more difficult challenge than doing so around a commuter rail line, so I opted for the former.
  • There are a couple places where geographic accuracy is prioritized over clearly showing information. The worst for me is at Union Sq/East Somerville where it looks like there is a bus/CR interchange, which could be avoided if the Lowell/Fitchburg Line split happened between East Somerville and Gilman Sq, for example.
Yes, I was actually just looking at that part of the map this morning, and noticed that the commuter rail lines could've been simplified.

(Unrelated, but Union Sq/East Somerville is always going to be awkward to map -- the 96 and 109 almost have a transfer to Union Sq, and the 96 and 47 will almost have a transfer to East Somerville, and yet in both cases will require a ~5 minute walk.)
  • Okay this one is super minor, but while I get that you're doing all the labels so they're on a white background, Harbor Point looks really silly being that far inland.
Yeah, this hadn't crossed my mind, but I do agree it could be less pronounced.
  • Again a minor one, but Charles/MGH is a lot further inland than it needs to be.
There actually was a lot more trial and error that went into this than might be obvious. Visualizing the Charles River actually was a big challenge in this design -- it was very easy to make it look distractingly large ("Lake Charles"), and likewise easy to make it look too small. The positioning of Charles/MGH was part of an effort at an overall gestalt effect to make the river as a whole be less distracting on the map. I definitely agree that its current position looks somewhat odd, but it also definitely was the compromise among a number of (IMO) unsatisfactory options.
  • Giving the 57 detailed stops but not giving any bus route the same treatment still feels very silly to me. Again, the only reason we consider the 57 to be any different from routes like 116/117 or 22 is that it had streetcar service for 10-15 years more than they did
Yeah, I don't have particular justification for this, other than "I like it like that". Which I grant is wholly arbitrary.
  • Not showing Lynn on the map is a very significant tradeoff
Agreed.
  • I'm not sure Bicknell Sq and Oak Island are relevant enough to warrant 'via' text on their respective bus routes
The "via" stuff is definitely a personal idiosyncrasy -- I do just like it. Oak Island is harder to justify, but Bicknell Sq is worth marking explicitly because it'll be a significant "waypoint" in that the frequencies drop beyond it.
  • There are no arrows showing which way the Silver Line goes at Logan. Omitting them for the shuttle might be okay since the patterns there are all over the place but they are necessary for the Silver Line.
This was not intentional, and I may do a minor revision to add them.
  • The CR stops at North Station, Ruggles, and Forest Hills aren't placed correctly. I'm guessing you moved the CR at some point but forgot to move the stops.
So, this was intentional, albeit not necessarily consistent in an obvious way. The "center-running tab" was used in locations where the CR line has close parallel lines on both sides. For example, using the "side tab" at Ruggles would've mostly obliterated the walking transfer indicator, and abutted the station directly against the Green Line. Forest Hills arguably could've accommodated the side tab, though.
  • The 9 stops at E. Berkeley St going inbound, and Herald St going outbound
It also stops at Arlington going outbound but I didn't show that either. I really did not want to deal with the one-way pairs on the 9 (or the 111, for that matter), so I simplified.
  • Through-running onto the Fairmount Line at Readville isn't shown
I definitely do admire your map's accuracy/precision on this point. You'll notice that the alignments on mine are such that it would be trivial to add in some sort of connecting line from the Fairmount to the Franklin, if needed. It seems to me, though, that the necessity of showing that connection varies widely, depending on the eccentricities of any given timetable revision. (Sometimes it matters a lot, and sometimes it barely matters.) Given that, I editorially chose to show a simpler configuration.
  • Interchange bar/line things: Why is the one at Tufts thicker than all the other ones? Also the ones at Bellingham Sq and Airport are off-center
Out and out oversight there, and I'm not even quite sure how I did that at Tufts -- I don't think I had thicker lines in an earlier draft.
  • Font issues: It seems like there are multiple fonts in use, and something is weird with the lowercase 'r' for the labels.
Multiple fonts, yes, and intentionally. Yeah, the r's do look weird, I wonder if something happened during the export process -- they seem to look more normal in Illustrator.

  • Copley/Back Bay should have a walking transfer, that's a pretty important CR/Green Line one.
Someone recently suggested that, based on their own experience doing this walk, that it's actually not a particularly fast nor friendly transfer. I haven't had a chance to look more carefully into the question, but that was why I excluded it.
  • Off-center stops at Green St, Back of the Hill, Melnea Cass Blvd, Chelsea, and probably others
This was something I struggled with. I feel like there must be an easy way in Illustrator to align the center of a polygon to the centerline of a path? But when I've tried it, it'll align it to the center of the overall path (e.g. if the path is C shaped, the polygon will get aligned into the center of the C). Any suggestions?
  • I think more care should be put into the dashed lines for the walking connections. If you look at the ones on my map you'll see that I've tried to avoid the weird half-length dashes and overlap with the lines where I can
I felt the half-length dashes were needed to more visually "anchor" the connection to its endpoints (which I think may be otherwise unclear in some places). Agreed that the overlap with lines would've been better to avoid as much as possible.
  • If you were to swap the positions of the 1 and 12 around Nubian you could keep the 12 completely straight rather than the little bend it does now between Melnea Cass and Lenox St
Yes, the challenge here was actually about aligning the bus stop indicators at Nubian. In the current layout, there's an implicit dogleg created by the line of "east-west" stops, combined with the pair of "north-south" stops on the SL4 and 1:
1727747657710.png

It's a little awkward that the 1 has a stop but the 12 appears to go by without stopping, but overall the stops contiguously connect all the way to the label. Swapping the 1 and the 12 would orphan the 1's stop off to the side (forgive the crude Paint.NET mockups):
1727748049459.png


What I might eventually do (if I come back to revise this map further) would be to have the 1 hook around and line up its stop with all the others:

1727748324915.png

The downside here is that the SL4 stop indicator is moving problematically close to the Roxbury Crossing label. So maybe that would need to move up, or maybe the Silver Line would need to extend all the way to the bottom of the Nubian cluster, etc etc etc.
 
I love seeing all these maps, and am always impressed by what you guys are able to do. I have a consistent nit pick, though, which is really more a commentary on the MBTA system you have to portray, than it is with the maps themselves. But it seems to me, that any bus corridors with frequent service due to line overlap should be highlighted in some way, even if none of the individual routes are themselves frequent enough for inclusion. I'm specifically thinking about Washington St. in Roslindale. It's covered as far as the Square, but in fact, frequent service continues further south, just not by any individual route. I consider at least as far as Metropolitan to be close to show up and go level service, but no map will ever indicate that if we focus only on route numbers that achieve that mark, rather than overall service level.
 
I love seeing all these maps, and am always impressed by what you guys are able to do. I have a consistent nit pick, though, which is really more a commentary on the MBTA system you have to portray, than it is with the maps themselves. But it seems to me, that any bus corridors with frequent service due to line overlap should be highlighted in some way, even if none of the individual routes are themselves frequent enough for inclusion. I'm specifically thinking about Washington St. in Roslindale. It's covered as far as the Square, but in fact, frequent service continues further south, just not by any individual route. I consider at least as far as Metropolitan to be close to show up and go level service, but no map will ever indicate that if we focus only on route numbers that achieve that mark, rather than overall service level.
The problem is that the schedules of the 34 and 34E are no longer coordinated on weekdays. 25 minute gaps followed by 2 buses in 5 minutes in scheduled service, not service in practice, isn't frequent service. Service has also been massacred on the 34/34E routes since Fall 2021, and even under the Eng era post-Spring 2023, the MBTA under Eng has continued to slash service on the 34/34E.

The T hasn't restored bus service in the slightest back to pre-COVID levels, we're still worse off today in bus service cuts, than the 2021 service cuts.

I quote this from another AB user:
Similar rant: the 34/34E has taken a disproportionate hit from multiple rounds of the post-2021 service cuts, and it almost feels like someone in Scheduling is trying to single-handedly kill ridership.

For those who are not familiar, the 34/34E averages ~5K riders/day as of Apr 2024, which is comparable to the 86, 70, and 77.

From the December 2021 version of the MBTA map, the 34 was scheduled at ~11min headways in the AM/PM peaks, and the 34E at ~20min headways.
View attachment 55077

Fast-forward to today, the 34 is now scheduled with 24min headways in the AM peak, 35min (!) headways in the PM peak, while the 34E is at ~25min for both AM and PM peaks. Across all other time periods, service has been reduced as well.
View attachment 55078

One might think there's a few possible explanations for this:
  1. Ridership has declined and no longer warrants the frequency. Not true: current ridership is ~5k/day, which is the same as the 86, 70, and 77. Proportionally, this is ~80% of pre-Covid levels, which is consistent with the rest of the bus system.
  2. Ridership is a bit elastic on the Forest Hills-Roslindale Sq corridor. Could be true, but the data does show steady ridership on the 34/34E despite the cuts. Also, the other routes on that corridor have seen only cuts too, so regardless, riders are worse off.
  3. Trip coordination has improved. Also not true; somehow, it's actually gotten worse. There are now gaps of 20-30 minutes outbound from Forest Hills in the afternoon (e.g., 3:58 to 4:27pm, 6:35 to 7:00pm, 7:05 to 7:30pm - see below).
View attachment 55079

View attachment 55080
Besides the terrible scheduling, T dispatchers add to the problem. Whenever there is a disabled Arborway bus, especially on a less-frequent route like the 14 or 52, dispatchers tend to pull vehicles from the 34/34E to plug the gap -- they seem to be under the impression that the 34/34E still has the same frequency as 2021 (and pre-Covid). What this means for the rider is a 20+ minute wait suddenly turns into 30+ on the main trunk, and 50+min at Dedham Mall.

To make matters worse, the T has disclosed that as part of BNRD, service will be reduced even further. The "Bus Priority Toolkit" (released Oct 2023) shows a significant decrease in bus service in the future state, from 119 trips/day to 101 trips/day (a further 15% cut) on the 34/34E/40 routes:

View attachment 55081

It's also important to note: the 34/34E are not going to be designated as high-frequency as part of the BNRD. Sure, the 35/36 will be, but that is meaningless because of the "-67" above -- at the end of the day, total service on the Forest Hills-Roslindale Sq corridor will decrease 20% (from 335 to 268 trips per day).

All this to say: it's worrying that the T can (and has) butchered a major bus route, and the BNRD is only going to make it worse -- especially if they can't fill in the personnel gap.
 
This was something I struggled with. I feel like there must be an easy way in Illustrator to align the center of a polygon to the centerline of a path? But when I've tried it, it'll align it to the center of the overall path (e.g. if the path is C shaped, the polygon will get aligned into the center of the C). Any suggestions?
I generally use paths to create the lines but then use outline path to make them into shapes and I've never had this issue. Maybe try that? It also makes it easier when you want to select it because you can just click on the line rather than trying to find the middle clickable bit.
What I might eventually do (if I come back to revise this map further) would be to have the 1 hook around and line up its stop with all the others:
I do quite like that version. It seems like you have room to shift the whole Silver Line further away from the OL to get some more clearance at Roxbury Crossing with only a couple other minor adjustments.

Oh and one more minor mistake I forgot to mention, for whatever dumb reason the combined SL4/5 is called SL5. Why? Who knows.
 
Multiple fonts, yes, and intentionally. Yeah, the r's do look weird, I wonder if something happened during the export process -- they seem to look more normal in Illustrator.

Might be Illustrator having trouble rasterizing the lower-case "r"s on export. The angled terminals of the lower-case R in Arial don't play very nice with adjacent letters, especially at small sizes, and I think having to rasterize that text is making the problem worse.
Someone recently suggested that, based on their own experience doing this walk, that it's actually not a particularly fast nor friendly transfer. I haven't had a chance to look more carefully into the question, but that was why I excluded it.

My commute used to run from BBY past Copley every day, albeit a while ago. Going BBY to Copley-Outbound is particularly unpleasant because of the need to cross Boylston. I hope (but kind of doubt) that they've fixed that godawful traffic light at the Dartmouth/Boylston intersection, because inevitably once the homicidal taxis stopped taking the right onto Boylston without yielding on the green, everyone would start crossing and Boylston would get the green (with at least two articulated #39 buses in the traffic immediately bearing down on you), and that was on the days that didn't involve terrible weather, massive snowbanks, or atrocious slush puddles.

Is it a useable transfer? Sure. Is it one that you'd particularly want to have to make regularly? No. I don't think it's really one to emphasize on the map, with the exception of during service disruptions of course.
 
I generally use paths to create the lines but then use outline path to make them into shapes and I've never had this issue. Maybe try that? It also makes it easier when you want to select it because you can just click on the line rather than trying to find the middle clickable bit.
Ah, yeah, Outline Path is not something I've tried yet, so thank you for that!
Oh and one more minor mistake I forgot to mention, for whatever dumb reason the combined SL4/5 is called SL5. Why? Who knows.
FWIW, the official name for the combined SL4/5 seems to be SL5.
In that case, consider my map a political statement in favor of calling it SL4.

(Between this, SL3 disappearing and then reappearing years later [City Point, Chelsea], and of course the age-old "Why is there no A Line?", we seem to have a theme going.)
My commute used to run from BBY past Copley every day, albeit a while ago. Going BBY to Copley-Outbound is particularly unpleasant because of the need to cross Boylston. I hope (but kind of doubt) that they've fixed that godawful traffic light at the Dartmouth/Boylston intersection, because inevitably once the homicidal taxis stopped taking the right onto Boylston without yielding on the green, everyone would start crossing and Boylston would get the green (with at least two articulated #39 buses in the traffic immediately bearing down on you), and that was on the days that didn't involve terrible weather, massive snowbanks, or atrocious slush puddles.

Is it a useable transfer? Sure. Is it one that you'd particularly want to have to make regularly? No. I don't think it's really one to emphasize on the map, with the exception of during service disruptions of course.
Right. Now, the question I need to ask myself (and I'm surprised @TheRatmeister hasn't rightfully parried back to me :)) is whether I'm holding Copley <> BBY to a higher standard than the other transfers I've shown. For example, the DTX -> State transfer is either about 5 blocks outside, or is 1 block outside followed by a winding journey through the labyrinth of Orange Line platforms at State. Brookline Village -> Riverway requires you to cross six lanes of traffic on Route 9, go under the Jamaicaway viaduct, and then dart out into traffic on South Huntington to actually board your train.
 
Right. Now, the question I need to ask myself (and I'm surprised @TheRatmeister hasn't rightfully parried back to me :)) is whether I'm holding Copley <> BBY to a higher standard than the other transfers I've shown. For example, the DTX -> State transfer is either about 5 blocks outside, or is 1 block outside followed by a winding journey through the labyrinth of Orange Line platforms at State. Brookline Village -> Riverway requires you to cross six lanes of traffic on Route 9, go under the Jamaicaway viaduct, and then dart out into traffic on South Huntington to actually board your train.

I think it's a higher standard, but maybe it should be. That might depend on, practically speaking, whether southern/western-originating riders would be significantly better-off time-wise taking that transfer versus transferring downtown. (Northern end riders would be way better off going Orange <-> at NS/Haymarket versus Copley)
 
Right. Now, the question I need to ask myself is whether I'm holding Copley <> BBY to a higher standard than the other transfers I've shown. For example, the DTX -> State transfer is either about 5 blocks outside, or is 1 block outside followed by a winding journey through the labyrinth of Orange Line platforms at State. Brookline Village -> Riverway requires you to cross six lanes of traffic on Route 9, go under the Jamaicaway viaduct, and then dart out into traffic on South Huntington to actually board your train.
Let's go back to the root of why we want to show the Brookline Village -> Riverway connection. It's because it's useful. If you're commuting from Newton or Brookline to anywhere along Huntington it's usually the fastest way to get there. So what about Copley? I think the same thing is true there. For Franklin, Providence/Stoughton, or Needham Line riders coming up along the CR, the fastest way (or at least one of the fastest ways) to get to places like BC, BU, St Elizabeths, etc is to transfer at Copley. I think we have established a very clear use case for this connection as well, and therefore I think it also belongs on the map.
 
A little while ago now I made a few changes and fixed a couple mistakes. Changelog:
  • New non-blurry See Say app icon
  • Escalator icon and Transit Police logo in the legend
  • Bold test title
  • Cut back parks further (No SW Corridor, Magazine Beach, or Millennium Park)
  • 9 now has its inbound and outbound routing shown
  • Reworked Dorchester (again), now with Codman Sq, a straight 16, and a more accurately placed Grove Hall
  • Thinned out the Ted Williams Tunnel bit of the SL1/3
  • Fixed Roxbury Crossing erroneously showing a stop on Columbus Ave and through service from the 22 to Ruggles.
  • Fixed a couple sloppy joins and export oddities
  • Changed the pedestrian icon from one I found on some stock website to the one from the MBTA style guide
  • Fixed up the Airport a little bit
Illustrator_Realistic_Map_V8_lowres.png
 
Last edited:
Seeing this map makes one realize how dumb and silly it is for the MBTA to have the 22 duplicate the Orange Line between Ruggles and Jackson Square. We already have the Orange Line between Ruggles and Jackson Square, so the MBTA's decision to keep the 22 between Jackson Square and Ruggles is redundent and an unnecessary waste of buses, with how anemic the bus network is. If you want to get between Ruggles and Jackson Square, the Orange Line already exists as the more reliable option. Huge missed and wasted opportunity for the MBTA reroute the 22 from Jackson Square to Brookline Village to alleviate pressure off the 66 and provide the extra crosstown connectivity.
 

Back
Top