The Official MBTA System Map

Riverside said:
For better or worse, the Mattapan Line has been branded as part of the Red Line since the MBTA adopted the Cambridge Seven rebranding in the 1960s. To the T's credit, it's never been shown as contiguous -- there's also been a gap or other visual discontinuity to imply the need to transfer.
Click to expand...
I just was wondering aloud if Red is the best branding or if — especially now — there might be other benefits to coloring it a different color. For example, as a transit map nerd, I get extra little adrenaline boosts when I look at a map of transport for London and go “ahhh the Croydon Tramlink”, just like seeing the map you shared that has special colors for high frequency bus lines. While not everyone is like that, I do think there is a certain visual impression that seeing “more lines” on a map makes. It visually signals that this is a robust and comprehensive transit system, and for mattapan, could signal that the T has special lines in special urban districts. And it also might reinforce the idea of mattapan and Milton as their own transit district, which expands the viewer’s impression of how big the overall city is (eg, seeing the croydon tramlink way down south of London reinforces just how vast greater London is).

I suppose that would come at the expense of visually signaling that if you use the mattapan line, you’re physically connected to the benefits of the Red, and might suggest to many that the service is “inferior”. But since this is a maps thread, and maps are all about what they convey to the reader symbolically, I think this is an interesting concept to think about.
 
For a very brief time (less than a year, I believe) after the 2006-2007 renovation, the signs were green:
1735066159301.jpeg

(Source: https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?79139 )

Clearly that's not the right choice, but I do agree that some kind of visual differentiation might be good. Maybe two thinner red stripes (ala some Tube lines) rather than solid red.
 
I don't think it's possible to take the war on 45° angles any further. Courthouse, WTC, Bellingham Sq, and 5 GL surface stops are the only ones left, even fewer than the official map.
Illustrator_Realistic_Map_dumas_edition.png

Edit: It can in fact be taken further. I'm down to just 3 GL surface stops now. I did need to sacrifice the better Harvard for it though.
Illustrator_Realistic_Map_dumas_edition.png
 
Last edited:
TheRatmeister said:
The thick line style really doesn't lend itself well to this, unfortunately. I don't have a better idea though.
Click to expand...
TfL does this with many lines and for varying reasons. I think a hollow red line would work well for this. The T has also done this themselves before, look no further than the old maps back when the Arborway line was “temporarily discontinued”.
IMG_0520.jpeg
IMG_0521.jpeg
 
TheRatmeister said:
If this isn't final form it's got to be pretty close. Further spaced out the OL/GL-E, plus a minor rework to the northeast quadrant with a straighter 109 and 110.
Click to expand...

Incredibly nitpicky, but will the Watertown Square redesign be done by the timeframe in your map? They're planning to extend the 71 to Watertown Yard as part of that project is completed.
 
TheRatmeister said:
If this isn't final form it's got to be pretty close. Further spaced out the OL/GL-E, plus a minor rework to the northeast quadrant with a straighter 109 and 110.
Click to expand...
This is incredible and, for my money, is the best version of the rapid transit and bus lines map that has ever existed. I liked the parks version too, but this is undeniably cleaner.

My singular tiny nitpick: Revert the 96 south of Davis back to the Christmas version where it is closer to the commuter rail. The new one doesn't convey how close the 96 is to Porter and the visual language of the rest of the map conveys bus lines of similar distance to the commuter rail line as closer. Some examples include the 101 (which is further away in real life), the 16 (which is approximate to the 96 south of Elm), and the 7 (approximate). You're now displaying it as even further apart than the 110 which has a much larger gap than the 96. It was perfect before the change; change it back.
 
jbray said:
This is incredible and, for my money, is the best version of the rapid transit and bus lines map that has ever existed. I liked the parks version too, but this is undeniably cleaner.

My singular tiny nitpick: Revert the 96 south of Davis back to the Christmas version where it is closer to the commuter rail. The new one doesn't convey how close the 96 is to Porter and the visual language of the rest of the map conveys bus lines of similar distance to the commuter rail line as closer. Some examples include the 101 (which is further away in real life), the 16 (which is approximate to the 96 south of Elm), and the 7 (approximate). You're now displaying it as even further apart than the 110 which has a much larger gap than the 96. It was perfect before the change; change it back.
Click to expand...
I've actually been convinced to show the 96 as actually interchanging with Porter. In terms of the question of "Is it a useful connection?" I think the answer as it relates to the 96 at Porter is yes. For people coming into Boston on the CR and headed to Tufts, it is a very useful connection that is worth showing. (In fact it's actually a bit closer than the connection between the B and 47, also very useful and thus shown, even if it's somewhat sub-optimal.)
 
JeffDowntown said:
Given traffic conditions I don't see how your South Station layover point is going to work, but sure it crayons. JFK Surface Road at Summer St is a perpetual traffic clusterf..k.
Click to expand...
I would assume it won't be laying over on John F Fitzgerald Surface Road. It likely will only do that at Nubian Square, whereas South Station will be a drop-off/pick-up and go location.
 
HenryAlan said:
I would assume it won't be laying over on John F Fitzgerald Surface Road. It likely will only do that at Nubian Square, whereas South Station will be a drop-off/pick-up and go location.
Click to expand...
Today SL4 does layover/schedule correction at South Station at the Essex Street stop. Even without schedule correction it is a long dwell stop with everyone exiting then a large crowd from South Station boarding. That is not a very good location for a long dwell stop -- there are only travel lanes on that part of the surface artery.
 
Can I just say: Are we at a point where the non-accessibility should be labelled instead of the accessible? All that's left on the map is Boylston, Valley Road, Belmont, and Waverley. What is the point of flagging every station because 4 will not be. Even with the current map you'd just be adding a handful more to the list over everything else.
 
jbray said:
Can I just say: Are we at a point where the non-accessibility should be labelled instead of the accessible? All that's left on the map is Boylston, Valley Road, Belmont, and Waverley. What is the point of flagging every station because 4 will not be. Even with the current map you'd just be adding a handful more to the list over everything else.
Click to expand...
Waverley and Valley Road have plans to be made accessible, at that point it’s just Boylston, Bowdoin, and Belmont. Anyone know why there are no plans to make Boylston accessible?
 
jbray said:
Can I just say: Are we at a point where the non-accessibility should be labelled instead of the accessible? All that's left on the map is Boylston, Valley Road, Belmont, and Waverley. What is the point of flagging every station because 4 will not be. Even with the current map you'd just be adding a handful more to the list over everything else.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately not ADA compliant. (Also it's five including Bowdoin)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top