The Official MBTA System Map

Relocating this glorious post to this thread. @jass

Someone on Reddit made an "improved" version of the map. I like the ida of noting the distance between stations.


5q3bwpvgnxe71.png

At the risk of overstating my point, this map pretty much accomplishes everything that I've wanted to accomplish in terms of a map redesign.
  • Walking transfers indicated liberally (though surprisingly not State-DTX)
  • Every Green Line stop labeled
  • Square design
  • SL4/SL5 loops present but not dominating
  • Minimal number of curves, largely simple straight lines lines
  • Future-proofed for Green-to-Needham, Orange-to-Needham, Fairmount-to-Indigo, and Indigo-to-Riverside
It isn't without its faults -- a few typographic errors, and I notice that Hyde Park is absent -- but overall it's extremely strong, and in my opinion solves many long-running problems of the current map and previous designs.
 
Definitely a net improvement over our current official "map."

Some small nit-picks:
  • If the Green Line Extension is fully included (expected to open in May 2022), then the new Chelsea Commuter Rail Station location should be shown (expected to open this fall).
  • Transfers should be shown in a more consistent manner. I'd prefer one circle/ellipse.
    • There are some instances (Government Center, Porter, Airport, etc) where a transfer is shown as a single circle.
    • Other instances (North Station, Haymarket, Back Bay, etc) where a transfer is shown as adjacent circles.
    • Other ones (Chelsea, Boylston, South Station, etc) where a transfer is shown as a solid black line.
    • There isn't consistent differentiation between these three methods:
      • Each method is used in instances of fare gated transfers (State, Haymarket, South Station Silver-Red represent each of those three illustrative methods)
      • Each method is also used in instances of CR-transit transfers (Porter, North Station, Chelsea represent each of those three illustrative methods), for example.
  • A tweak of the D and E Branch would increase geographical accuracy without sacrificing geometric simplicity:
    • Move the placement of Longwood further inbound, about halfway between where it and Fenway are currently labeled.
    • Place Brookline Village where Longwood is located on this map.
    • Shorten the E Branch Prudential curve, which would bring the E Branch a Symphony-Northeastern stretch a little further north on this map.
    • Place the E Branch stations much closer together, representing all stations Pru through Brigham Circle on this segment (if you need to shorten some names to represent them all here, I think 'Northeastern,' 'MFA,' and 'LMA' are all acceptable. This map does include 'Gov't Center' and other abbreviations already.
    • Have the bend to horizontal (E-W) occur just outbound from Brigham Circle, including Fenwood Rd, Mission Park, and Riverway.
      • This will place Riverway very close to Brookline Village without adding extra geometric complexity to the map.
    • Show a bend to vertical (N-S) just outbound from Riverway, with Back of the Hill and Heath St labeled on that segment.
  • The exaggerated core, the benefits of which I understand, is too overexaggerated. I would recommend:
    • shortening the Haymarket - Park St. - Downtown Crossing section, thus bringing the southern end of the Orange Line a little bit further north (which is accommodated by the E tweak outlined above) and the northern end of the Red Line a little bit further east, which there is room to accommodate.
 
Transfers should be shown in a more consistent manner. I'd prefer one circle/ellipse.
  • There are some instances (Government Center, Porter, Airport, etc) where a transfer is shown as a single circle.
  • Other instances (North Station, Haymarket, Back Bay, etc) where a transfer is shown as adjacent circles.
  • Other ones (Chelsea, Boylston, South Station, etc) where a transfer is shown as a solid black line.
  • There isn't consistent differentiation between these three methods:
    • Each method is used in instances of fare gated transfers (State, Haymarket, South Station Silver-Red represent each of those three illustrative methods)
    • Each method is also used in instances of CR-transit transfers (Porter, North Station, Chelsea represent each of those three illustrative methods), for example

Looks like it's based on how the lines intersect (shared circle for when they cross, adjacent for when they're directly parallel, black line for more distant connections). It's got a certain internal logic that is unfortunately completely unintuitive and more aesthetically pleasing than functional. I agree that more consistency is good in transfers (though I'd like a way of showing a difference between the regular ones and some of the longer ones like the Winter Street Concourse).
 
Looks like it's based on how the lines intersect (shared circle for when they cross, adjacent for when they're directly parallel, black line for more distant connections). It's got a certain internal logic that is unfortunately completely unintuitive and more aesthetically pleasing than functional. I agree that more consistency is good in transfers (though I'd like a way of showing a difference between the regular ones and some of the longer ones like the Winter Street Concourse).

Even this low bar isn't in fact true.

adjacent for when they're directly parallel, black line for more distant connections

Chelsea-Bellingham Square, for example, is about as "directly parallel" as a transfer between modes can get, yet it's labeled with a "black line for more distant connections." It's less "distant" than North Station CR-OL/GL, Back Bay CR-OL, Ruggles CR-OL, Forest Hills CR-OL, to name a few counterexamples to your hypothesis.

I understand the desire to make sense of this and defend this map because it's quite good. But there is inconsistency in transfer labeling and that is undeniable.

This Chelsea issue in particular stems from the map maker displaying the Silver Line and Commuter Rail as perpendicular in Chelsea, when in fact they are parallel.

Let me be clear that these are small nit-picks, but they are in fact inconsistencies and your assertion of an internal logic doesn't quite hold up to closer examination.
 
Even this low bar isn't in fact true.



Chelsea-Bellingham Square, for example, is about as "directly parallel" as a transfer between modes can get, yet it's labeled with a "black line for more distant connections." It's less "distant" than North Station CR-OL/GL, Back Bay CR-OL, Ruggles CR-OL, Forest Hills CR-OL, to name a few counterexamples to your hypothesis.

I understand the desire to make sense of this and defend this map because it's quite good. But there is inconsistency in transfer labeling and that is undeniable.

This Chelsea issue in particular stems from the map maker displaying the Silver Line and Commuter Rail as perpendicular in Chelsea, when in fact they are parallel.

Let me be clear that these are small nit-picks, but they are in fact inconsistencies and your assertion of an internal logic doesn't quite hold up to closer examination.

That's mostly me being slightly unclear. It appears to me as though the logic is "one shared circle if the two lines directly intersect at a station" "two adjacent circles if the station dots are next to each other" and "black line for any stations shown as separated".

I should make clear as well that I don't like that logic. You're correct to point out that Chelsea-Bellingham Square are essentially directly adjacent and shown as well-separated on the map (hence the black line under its logic, which is not so much (to my mind anyway) a subversion of the map's internal logic as it is a geographical error (quite possibly just to put in sufficient space for the name for Bellingham Square, as the two do not share names.) That said, I agree that it's problematic (even as a nitpick) to have to dig so deeply to explain the (apparent or real) inconsistencies. I don't have any issue with pointing out the problems in the transfer labeling because it's quite real. It's a legitimately-confusing problem, and I wasn't trying to deny or defend so much as try to explain for anyone who didn't want to dig into it what the apparent basic (if not entirely consistent) logic was to avoid any impression that there was no logic whatsoever. I appreciate the commentary, though, I had in fact missed that example.
 
A tweak of the D and E Branch would increase geographical accuracy without sacrificing geometric simplicity:
    • Move the placement of Longwood further inbound, about halfway between where it and Fenway are currently labeled.
    • Place Brookline Village where Longwood is located on this map.
    • Shorten the E Branch Prudential curve, which would bring the E Branch a Symphony-Northeastern stretch a little further north on this map.
    • Place the E Branch stations much closer together, representing all stations Pru through Brigham Circle on this segment (if you need to shorten some names to represent them all here, I think 'Northeastern,' 'MFA,' and 'LMA' are all acceptable. This map does include 'Gov't Center' and other abbreviations already.
    • Have the bend to horizontal (E-W) occur just outbound from Brigham Circle, including Fenwood Rd, Mission Park, and Riverway.
      • This will place Riverway very close to Brookline Village without adding extra geometric complexity to the map.
    • Show a bend to vertical (N-S) just outbound from Riverway, with Back of the Hill and Heath St labeled on that segment.
I have to disagree with most of this. Your fix relies upon acronyms as opposed to contractions to accommodate the change and uses the logic that because both are types of abbreviations that it’s justified. A contraction like “Gov’t” is widely more useful to visitors and infrequent users than an acronym like LMA which is not universally understood but dependent on an entirely local understanding. Your changes make the map user unfriendly for the sake of, what, slightly more geographic accuracy in a map that’s not reliably geographic to begin with?

The reason the current design map design exists is because users (or at least poll voters) wanted both the complete green line stop names and for those names to be horizontal for readability over geographic realism (which is what the MBTA map designer presentation up thread talked about as he’s more of a geographic minded person himself and did not design the contest entry but tweaked it).

I like your Back of the Hill and Heath N/S idea though
 
I have to disagree with most of this. Your fix relies upon acronyms as opposed to contractions to accommodate the change and uses the logic that because both are types of abbreviations that it’s justified. A contraction like “Gov’t” is widely more useful to visitors and infrequent users than an acronym like LMA which is not universally understood but dependent on an entirely local understanding. Your changes make the map user unfriendly for the sake of, what, slightly more geographic accuracy in a map that’s not reliably geographic to begin with?

The reason the current design map design exists is because users (or at least poll voters) wanted both the complete green line stop names and for those names to be horizontal for readability over geographic realism (which is what the MBTA map designer presentation up thread talked about as he’s more of a geographic minded person himself and did not design the contest entry but tweaked it).

I like your Back of the Hill and Heath N/S idea though

That's fair. Much of what you've quoted, but likely not all of it, can be accomplished without acronyms.

For example, the relocation of Longwood and Brookline Village to more geographically accurate positions can be accomplished without acronyms. As well as the aforementioned N/S of the Riverway - Heath St stretch.

The rest of it though is questionable for sure. Good point.
 
I’m on a Red Line car right now, and from my seat, I can see four maps, each spaced no more than 3 feet apart, each of which clearly date from different eras, based on the presence/absence of the old SL3 to City Point, the new SL3 to Chelsea, and the wheelchair accessibility at Wollaston.

It does make one wonder, how many maps will be floating around 5 years from now that will still show the Green Line terminating at Lechmere.

EDIT: and my nearsightedness is failing me, so I can’t be sure about the map furthest away, but I believe that none of the maps say Nubian Square.
 
Sorry to revive an old thread here - but on the subject of alternate maps of the T, I thought I would share a project I worked on earlier this year: to show all MBTA services (subway and commuter rail) on a single map.

I tried to balance geographical accuracy with typical diagrammatic map conventions for readability, things like evenly spaced stations and 45° angles (I definitely took some cues from the London Tube map, as well as a few of the maps already posted here). Figuring out how to show the Green line was particularly challenging, though I think the result works pretty well (relating the E branch to the D and Orange was difficult and ultimately not that successful). I also decided to show additional Amtrak and Cape Flyer service, as well as finer details such as which stations have nearby access to the BlueBike network, and which sections of the system are underground.

I will note that, as a result of showing the entire commuter system, the map ends up being pretty big. Not really practical to print. I could have condensed things a lot more, but likely at the expense of geographic accuracy (as it is, once you get past the "inner core" of the subway, the commuter lines are significantly compressed). I also wanted it to look nice and maybe sacrificed a little of its usability to keep an aesthetic that I liked. Maybe it's too much white space. I also struggled with what to do about the Silver Line - by principle, I only wanted to show actual train systems, and the silver line is just a bus. That said, I thought it was unfair to ignore it completely given the importance the T places on it...I chose to only show the sections that are more officially "BRT" (i.e. dedicated right of way and stations). But perhaps that makes it more confusing than helpful.

Anyway, been a bit of a lurker here these past few years, thought it was time to share. Let me know what you think I could do to make this better (and if you see any errors). I ended up having so much fun putting this together that I've been making similar maps of other cities in the US (so far I've done DC/Baltimore, Atlanta, Denver, general systems in Connecticut, and just now beginning to dive into the behemoth that is NYC...that will be a challenge to fit all NY/NJ (subway, light rail, commuter) into one map!).View attachment GreaterBoston_v1.4.png
 
Hey, awesome work!
Know nothing about cartography, so can't help on that front, but visually, looks great!
A few corrections:
- Southborough and Amory Street are misspelled
- Natick Center is not accessible
- Union Sq is missing labels
Below are just updates:
- Foxboro gets full-ish service now
- Plymouth and Mishawum are no longer served
 
Figuring out how to show the Green line was particularly challenging, though I think the result works pretty well (relating the E branch to the D and Orange was difficult and ultimately not that successful).

I think you did a pretty good job with the Green Line, and personally I think that you did a better job relating the E to the D and Orange than the official map does. (It looks wonky as hell, but that's because the actual E takes that big turn onto South Huntington.) I particularly like that the nearby Green Line stations actually look nearby each other (Chestnut Hill-Cleveland Circle-Reservoir, Brookline Village-Riverway). The official map gives the atrociously-erroneous impression that Cleveland Circle is the same distance out as Waban. (Because the official map is a schematic map masquerading as a geographic map.)

I also decided to show additional Amtrak and Cape Flyer service, as well as finer details such as which stations have nearby access to the BlueBike network, and which sections of the system are underground.

I think the CapeFlyer and Amtrak additions are useful, and the BlueBike information is absolutely worth having. I don't think there's much use to designating which portions are underground. I like it as an element, personally, but I don't know how useful it would be to passengers, especially with how unobtrusive it is on the map (which is what keeps it from looking like clutter).

I will note that, as a result of showing the entire commuter system, the map ends up being pretty big. Not really practical to print. I could have condensed things a lot more, but likely at the expense of geographic accuracy (as it is, once you get past the "inner core" of the subway, the commuter lines are significantly compressed). I also wanted it to look nice and maybe sacrificed a little of its usability to keep an aesthetic that I liked. Maybe it's too much white space.

Doesn't look too far off from the PDF Commuter Rail full system map the T has on their site, with the beneficial improvement of actually detailing the RT lines as well. (That said, the official version is also somewhat unwieldy.)

I also struggled with what to do about the Silver Line - by principle, I only wanted to show actual train systems, and the silver line is just a bus. That said, I thought it was unfair to ignore it completely given the importance the T places on it...I chose to only show the sections that are more officially "BRT" (i.e. dedicated right of way and stations). But perhaps that makes it more confusing than helpful.

Reasonable-enough compromise for a full-system map. If it was just the RT lines (aka the common spider map) it'd need to have the Silver Line more fully depicted because it does function as a load-bearing arm of the transit network (even if it's....not that good at it). But that map also has the key bus routes, so there's internal consistency in your map omitting those and the non-BRT part of the Silver Line.

Anyway, been a bit of a lurker here these past few years, thought it was time to share. Let me know what you think I could do to make this better (and if you see any errors). I ended up having so much fun putting this together that I've been making similar maps of other cities in the US (so far I've done DC/Baltimore, Atlanta, Denver, general systems in Connecticut, and just now beginning to dive into the behemoth that is NYC...that will be a challenge to fit all NY/NJ (subway, light rail, commuter) into one map!).View attachment GreaterBoston_v1.4.png

So, general commentary and hopefully-constructive criticism. I think the map looks good, and you obviously put in a ton of work (if I'd tried to wrangle that many layers in Adobe Illustrator I'd have wound up throwing my laptop against a wall in frustration). I do think that the lines are too thin, which exacerbates the problem caused by the overall size resulting from fully depicting the Commuter Rail lines. (I recall that as a common problem in the design-a-map contest that resulted in the official system map: fat lines are less aesthetically pleasing, but they do wonders for readability. Annoyingly difficult to fix without adjusting the spacing, though.) I have basically the same critique of the station names; the kerning's a bit tight and the font is too thin (it's also bugging me, in part because my brain insists it should be Helvetica, and because I can't quite identify the font). I don't think the bolding of the transfer stations is particularly useful, especially given that it's also used for end-of-line stations, but I could well be in the minority in that nitpick. I will say that I do not like the way you indicated individual-line stations, I think the official map's white in-line dots are more readable and look cleaner to boot. That's particularly true on the Green Line, where the white-dash "light rail" indicator adds visual clutter that I don't think is all that useful (that it's technically LRT versus HRT isn't, to me, enormously significant for the average rider; moreover, broken-dash lines have historically indicated future or suspended service here.). Okay, the designer in me's done with the nitpicking. (Actually, no, one more very minor one, technically Amtrak just calls it Acela now, they got rid of the "Express" part.)

It's a great work, and I'm glad you posted it. There are some elements that I think would be great adds to the official map (it makes me very, very happy for slaying that idiotic false-geographic nightmare on the Green Line alone), and it's a very attractive piece of design. I'd absolutely love to see more of your designs (particularly DC). [Note to the T: please add the BlueBikes icon to the map, it's such a low-hanging fruit.]
 
Hey, awesome work!
Know nothing about cartography, so can't help on that front, but visually, looks great!
A few corrections:
- Southborough and Amory Street are misspelled
- Natick Center is not accessible
- Union Sq is missing labels
Below are just updates:
- Foxboro gets full-ish service now
- Plymouth and Mishawum are no longer served

Also, I believe the current Middleboro/Lakeville station will be served ONLY by the Cape Flyer with a new Middleboro station being constructed on the South Coast line. I think the new station will be called just Middleboro.

Natick Center is not currently accessible but the station is under construction to become fully accessible.
Winchester Center is currently closed, but it's also currently under construction to become fully accessible.

Nice Map! I really like it, and congratulations to you. You should submit this to the MBTA.
 
Thanks all for such kind words, and extensive feedback! I definitely need to go back and fix some of the errors noted here (the map is dated April but really I finished it back in December, and just updated the Union Sq branch in April).

Brattle Loop, really thank you for all the feedback, some great points here. I think you're point about the line thickness is a key one - the minimalist designer in me just likes the thinner lines! But you're totally right it hurts legibility. I also think your point about text weight is a good one too, tying into the above (the font is called "Lato", and was initially picked by accident - I meant it to be Monserrat but somewhere along the way changed it without realizing. I agree the kerning is a little tight and thin letters in particular can get lost - though bolding it helps. Monserrat is much rounder/wider which helps this some, but it has some issues with certain letters having off flourishes (such as the Q), or actually being less legible despite the added space (such as the G, where the return at the end of the "shelf" is nixed). Ultimately, I'm not quite fond of either option and am still searching for possible fonts - but I do think Lato, at least for now, is one of the better options).

I appreciate the notes about the green line - locating nearby stations was a key thing I tried to solve. Though, you make me realize Chestnut Hill is actually located too far away from Cleveland Cir./Reservoir - it looks like South St. or BC is actually closer, which it isn't. Something to address in a future version.

I'll push back on the single-station notation a little - this was partly a design choice influenced by the Tube map, but it was also a practical one - I wanted to show lines that ran along a shared right-of-way next to each other, and needed a way to show a single-line station that allowed me to still keep the lines close AND was legible for both the thicker HRT and thinner commuter lines (that said, increasing line thickness could solve this somewhat). It's true I ultimately ran into some issues where I have partial transfers, such as at Ruggles, but I also wanted to keep the "white bubble" station notation for transfers only since it stands out, and I think it's important to call those stations out (it's true line geometry in some cases indicates a transfer pretty clearly, such as where two lines cross perpendicular, but where lines are parallel and have a transfer like at JFK, it's less obvious). That said, it is not in keeping with the MBTA's style and it may ultimately be less legible, but I did treat this project as more equal parts functional map and nice graphic/"pretty picture". The choice to call out LRT or tunnels partly speaks to this dichotomy as well - it's true that they're less relevant for actual users, but I do think it's interesting info to know. Though, you are right that the LRT notation is perhaps distracting...I may remove that particular piece from future versions.

really though, appreciate such thoughtful feedback and notes.

As for submitting suggestions, like adding BlueBikes, to the MBTA...no idea how to even begin to do that ha!

(I will say, if we're concerned about whitespace/legibility here, my DC map is an even worse offender! - I actually went back to the Boston map after making DC and compressed it down a bunch to tighten things up, but have not done that for DC yet.)
 

Attachments

  • Washington DC_v1.2.png
    6.3 MB · Views: 143
I'll push back on the single-station notation a little - this was partly a design choice influenced by the Tube map, but it was also a practical one - I wanted to show lines that ran along a shared right-of-way next to each other, and needed a way to show a single-line station that allowed me to still keep the lines close AND was legible for both the thicker HRT and thinner commuter lines (that said, increasing line thickness could solve this somewhat). It's true I ultimately ran into some issues where I have partial transfers, such as at Ruggles, but I also wanted to keep the "white bubble" station notation for transfers only since it stands out, and I think it's important to call those stations out (it's true line geometry in some cases indicates a transfer pretty clearly, such as where two lines cross perpendicular, but where lines are parallel and have a transfer like at JFK, it's less obvious). That said, it is not in keeping with the MBTA's style and it may ultimately be less legible, but I did treat this project as more equal parts functional map and nice graphic/"pretty picture". The choice to call out LRT or tunnels partly speaks to this dichotomy as well - it's true that they're less relevant for actual users, but I do think it's interesting info to know. Though, you are right that the LRT notation is perhaps distracting...I may remove that particular piece from future versions.

I figured it was inspired by another system's style. It's a valid design choice, and I think if the font weight was heavier (and in a darker color) my concerns about legibility would diminish. I'll definitely say that between the thin lines and the font choice, it's a very pretty piece of design (the Southwest Corridor section on the NEC/Orange in particular :love:). I wonder if there's a mechanism for illustrating the LRT difference that doesn't clash as much with the full-broken-line system used for upcoming or out-of-service sections (the old-old MBTA spider map did depict the surface branches as thinner than the subway section, though obviously with the thin lines here that particular design option might not be viable). I think there is considerable value in depicting the GL surface branches (and the non-BRT Silver Line) as something visually identifiably other than rapid transit.

(I will say, if we're concerned about whitespace/legibility here, my DC map is an even worse offender! - I actually went back to the Boston map after making DC and compressed it down a bunch to tighten things up, but have not done that for DC yet.)

Oh that looks great! The thin lines serve it better given it includes Baltimore as well, otherwise the downtowns would probably be distorted to hell. (And any realistic WMATA map ought to fire Woodley Park's "Zoo" subtitle into the sun. No, I haven't spent far too long dealing with that station's insanely-long escalators, why do you ask 🙃)
 
Again, LOVE both maps!!!!! I did notice another super small omission on the MBTA map. You show the Salem tunnel on the Rockport line, but you don't have the Hingham tunnel on the Greenbush line. Both of these diagrams are so clear and easy to understand! I can't say enough good things about them. :)
 

Back
Top