The Official MBTA System Map

astroTrain27 said:
I have to say, I miss the “Long D” option you posted earlier as it addressed my biggest pet peeve of the current map design. Namely: the failure to depict the “Reservoir Re-convergence” of the B, C, and D Lines.

While I generally agree that readability should be prioritized over geographic accuracy, I do think there is some value in depicting in some way that:

a) after diverging at Kenmore B, C, and D do not keep diverging into the suburbs as one might assume, but actually re-converge to within walking distance of one another near Cleveland Circle before the B and D diverge again

b) the D has much wider stop spacing (and thus runs faster)

Granted, I don’t think many people will be using this as a true walking transfer (i.e. getting off one GL train and walking over to another branch to resume their trip), but for trips that start or end near Reservoir/Cleveland Circle, it would clue someone in that they could choose to make their trip via a less intuitive branch to avoid either a transfer at Kenmore or a gap in the schedule, if they’re willing to walk a bit extra.

I don’t think it makes sense to clutter up the map by depicting every single possible walking transfer in the system, but I do think that it’s worthwhile to highlight some that are partially useful and/or unexpected.
Click to expand...
I agree with this completely. The failure to display the proximity of Reservoir and Cleveland Circle is a huge problem with the current map (derived from a map made by a guy from Moscow who had never seen the real-world layout of the system). I saw that the even spacing of the GL branches and OL was a priority for Ken Dumas, but honestly that's placing form above function.
 
jbray said:
did you ever get a confirmation beyond that reply for the map contest submissions that isn't waiverable?
Click to expand...
Ken Dumas talks about it in his talk that's the first post on this thread. It's non-negotiable.
FK4 said:
as well as the end of Red at Alewife.
Click to expand...
The 77 gets harder and (IMO) uglier if you don't. I also just like the way it looks personally in both cases.
astroTrain27 said:
While I generally agree that readability should be prioritized over geographic accuracy, I do think there is some value in depicting in some way that:

a) after diverging at Kenmore B, C, and D do not keep diverging into the suburbs as one might assume, but actually re-converge to within walking distance of one another near Cleveland Circle before the B and D diverge again

b) the D has much wider stop spacing (and thus runs faster)
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell you basically have to choose between having a lot of angled text and a Green Line that's somewhat geographically accurate, or almost no angled text and a diagramatic green line. For most people, most of the time, the latter option wins out. From what I understand the MPO did some testing of different designs, and people preferred the current one over the 2000s one that was more geographically accurate.
Equilibria said:
I saw that the even spacing of the GL branches and OL was a priority for Ken Dumas, but honestly that's placing form above function.
Click to expand...
I would consider it to be the central design idea of the current map. And having made this map, it's definitely not just form. If you go back to my 'original' design, there are clear compromises made to legibility around Back Bay, Riverway, and of course many of the surface stops. (Almost) evenly spacing the branches out gives you from for unambiguous, non-overlapping labels for every station in a way that (IMO) my design can't. Realistically given the number of people who would actually use most walking transfers, it's better just to focus on a clear map. Not to mention that form is inseparable from function. Paris is a city that goes all-in on Function rather than form, and frankly I find that map almost unusable. Moscow is a great example of a diagrammatic map that turns a large, unwieldy system into one that is much more manageable through the use of regular shapes, straight lines, and yes, parallel lines representing the outer parts of the network. (god I wish I wouldn't literally be arrested upon visiting)
 
TheRatmeister said:
As far as I can tell you basically have to choose between having a lot of angled text and a Green Line that's somewhat geographically accurate, or almost no angled text and a diagramatic green line. For most people, most of the time, the latter option wins out. From what I understand the MPO did some testing of different designs, and people preferred the current one over the 2000s one that was more geographically accurate.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. You’re certainly much more familiar with the trade-offs than I am. But the argument I’m making is that, especially for the street-level stops without bus connections, I don’t think angled text is the end of the world. Yes, a reader should be able to find Park St at a glance without tilting their head, but is the same treatment really necessary for Griggs St? I might even go so far as to say that the Griggs St label could be omitted altogether from the top level System Map if it helped make the map as a whole more readable and useful.

So if the trade-off for the “Long D” is more angled text for stops like Griggs St, I’d argue that it’s worth it. Although I can see why Ken Dumas and others disagree.
 
Last edited:
TheRatmeister said:
I would consider it to be the central design idea of the current map. And having made this map, it's definitely not just form. If you go back to my 'original' design, there are clear compromises made to legibility around Back Bay, Riverway, and of course many of the surface stops. (Almost) evenly spacing the branches out gives you from for unambiguous, non-overlapping labels for every station in a way that (IMO) my design can't. Realistically given the number of people who would actually use most walking transfers, it's better just to focus on a clear map. Not to mention that form is inseparable from function. Paris is a city that goes all-in on Function rather than form, and frankly I find that map almost unusable. Moscow is a great example of a diagrammatic map that turns a large, unwieldy system into one that is much more manageable through the use of regular shapes, straight lines, and yes, parallel lines representing the outer parts of the network. (god I wish I wouldn't literally be arrested upon visiting)
Click to expand...

I understand the motivation, but legibility is still form to me - if you look at the map for a couple seconds more you can read diagonal text. It's not about walking transfers at Reservoir/Cleveland Circle (which is really one station). If you're a person from anywhere outside of Route 128 and you board, say, a D Branch train at Union Square to meet someone at a bar in Cleveland Circle, the current map would tell you to make a completely unnecessary transfer at one of the Central Subway stations to a C train when you should just ride to Reservoir. It's possible that the Transit app addresses this for the people who have it, but the printed map should assume that it's the only information you have.

I just don't see a disadvantage to the prior approach other than that it doesn't look clean to graphic designers. The current approach is fatally flawed if it shows two stations that are essentially co-located as being nowhere near each other. If the map is misinforming the reader, it is failing at being a map.
 
Equilibria said:
If you're a person from anywhere outside of Route 128 and you board, say, a D Branch train at Union Square to meet someone at a bar in Cleveland Circle, the current map would tell you to make a completely unnecessary transfer at one of the Central Subway stations to a C train when you should just ride to Reservoir. It's possible that the Transit app addresses this for the people who have it, but the printed map should assume that it's the only information you have.
Click to expand...
This is my point exactly. I’d like to add:
the benefit of showing the Cleveland Circle connection extends to the surrounding area as well. For example, the fact that the BC football stadium is accessible form the D as well as the B; or that Washington Sq is accessible from the B, C, and D would not occur to someone using the current map. But a map showing a walking connection at Cleveland Circle would clue a reader in that something weird is going on in that area and they might want to read the nearby stop names more carefully.
 
I wonder if a geographic inset for Allston/Brookline/Longwood would be feasible.
 
Quick Dark Mode
map_redesign_2029_dark_mode.jpg
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
I like this better than the current map!
Click to expand...
It's certainly stylistically interesting but it's god-awful at being a map that shows you how to get places. Where is the stop called Museum of Fine Arts? How many stops will you need to ride through after Kenmore to get to BC? Are there stops in Milton or Newton? Which stations are accessible without needing to squint? What are other modes of transport you can use in the city? Where is everything relative to the city? Who knows.

If you want to get around Boston, you need a map like this, plain and simple. You could bicker about specifics plenty, which bus routes should be shown and how much geographic accuracy there should be, but a map like this or the current official one does a much better job at showing you where things are, where the trains go, what your other options are, and how to get from A to B.
1740342777467.png

Ultimately, the original Spider Map style is as stunning as it is inflexible. It was made for a smaller system, with fewer radial routes to manage and less information to show. Who cares which stations are accessible, it's 1967. The black station dots don't work well with all colors, and even with the Blue and Green it's pretty bad. The interchanges don't really work if the lines aren't perpendicular, and the total avoidance of angled text sometimes cause more problems than it solves if station names get too long, see the SL Transitway for an example. It's a simple style for a simpler time, a time with 4 lines, meeting in a square, and 5 southern branches shown in minimal detail. That's realistically what I'd consider to be the limit of the style. For line diagrams it's great, and that's why it was in use for such a long time. But for the system map it's just not enough.
 
Last edited:
TheRatmeister said:
Someone on the reddit pointed out that Congress St should have a stop on the SL1/3
View attachment 60480
Click to expand...
I can see why it's been left off. It's a confusing stop. Your map here doesn't really show it correctly because if you're coming from the airport, the SL1 would hit Congress, Silver Line Way, then World Trade Center. Your map doesn't make that clear. The picture @Riverside shared makes the sequence clear, but one of the instances where non-geographically-accurate diagrams can cause confusion. The Congress St. stop is at WTC. They are essentially the same stop twice, but on the line diagram, they're shown two stops apart.

I don't have any good graphic design solution to this. I just think it's bad transit planning to have a bus drive in a circle in the middle of the route and stop and effectively the same place twice.

Actually, why does the Congress St. stop exist? It wouldn't save much time to skip it, but some. And in my experience, it's a pretty quiet stop compared to all the people trying to get to South Station. Does anyone have numbers handy, out of curiosity?
 
ritchiew said:
Your map here doesn't really show it correctly because if you're coming from the airport, the SL1 would hit Congress, Silver Line Way, then World Trade Center. Your map doesn't make that clear.
Click to expand...
BNRD, don't forget. SLW is getting removed from the SL1/3 in both directions, this map aims to show that. If you want to show the current routing the design is the same but with SLW on the trunk, like the current map.
ritchiew said:
Actually, why does the Congress St. stop exist? It wouldn't save much time to skip it, but some. And in my experience, it's a pretty quiet stop compared to all the people trying to get to South Station. Does anyone have numbers handy, out of curiosity?
Click to expand...
1740584797010.png

Congress St is actually the busiest inbound stop in Seaport by alightments.
 
TheRatmeister said:
BNRD, don't forget. SLW is getting removed from the SL1/3 in both directions, this map aims to show that.
Click to expand...
I see, I didn't realize SLW was getting dropped on those routes for BNRD.

In that case, will SL1/3 just be able to turn into the bus tunnel from D Street? Either way, this still looks like it'd be reasonable to drop the Congress St. stop. Otherwise, it's effectively doing the same stop twice, mere seconds apart. People who would have alighted at Congress St. could just get off at WTC, adding seconds to their trip. Meanwhile it would (slightly) speed up the trip for what looks like the vast majority of the bus trying to get to South Station.

(but also, you know, this is straying pretty far from any talk of map design)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top