The Official MBTA System Map

[Brattle Loop]

I personally think Green should be separately color coded by end-to-end segments, as is more common in European designations. Sharing a tunnel is not the same as being the same end-to-end line.

That'd get kind of problematic when the end-to-end segments change, which happens every now and then, and add confusion with run-as-directeds and other irregular operations.

The GL is basically, if incompletely, designated like a NYC subway line, where the color is in reference to the main trunk line, and it's the service designator (letter or number) that defines the actual service pattern using that line. If the T could just be bothered to consistently use the letters in both directions, it'd probably help a bit at making that clear.

 

[HenryAlan]

Agreed, the NY Subway map is the most analogous to how the MBTA handles trunk and branch lines. It's definitely inaccurate to think of the GL as a single line when it's clearly four. Similarly, the RL is really two lines, not one. Personally I prefer the NY/Boston style for mapping and really don't care for how it's done on most other systems such as WMATA and BART -- their maps are a mess.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I'm very happy with how the bus routes are working out. I've managed to get the 1, 23, 28, 66, 96, 109, and 110 all to work out nice and straight. 9, 15, and 22 are mostly fine, I'll need to be a bit creative on a couple connector dots but that's it. 8, 31, and 47 are the only crosstown ones that don't work out well right now.

 

[Teban54]

View attachment 52988
I'm very happy with how the bus routes are working out. I've managed to get the 1, 23, 28, 66, 96, 109, and 110 all to work out nice and straight. 9, 15, and 22 are mostly fine, I'll need to be a bit creative on a couple connector dots but that's it. 8, 31, and 47 are the only crosstown ones that don't work out well right now.

Nice! Only problem I'm seeing: The label for Prudential somehow became a lot less recognizable in this iteration, largely due to the line for the 1 bus. Now it suddenly feels like it's referring to either Hynes or Symphony.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Nice! Only problem I'm seeing: The label for Prudential somehow became a lot less recognizable in this iteration, largely due to the line for the 1 bus. Now it suddenly feels like it's referring to either Hynes or Symphony.

I've brought the station names a bit closer to the line and also added the white outline on the text to make it more readable. Ultimately though this is always going to be a pretty tight area, even the official map struggles here.

 

[as02143]

View attachment 52988
I'm very happy with how the bus routes are working out. I've managed to get the 1, 23, 28, 66, 96, 109, and 110 all to work out nice and straight. 9, 15, and 22 are mostly fine, I'll need to be a bit creative on a couple connector dots but that's it. 8, 31, and 47 are the only crosstown ones that don't work out well right now.

I really don't like how the E and OL look consistently parallel here. (I also don't like the way that the official map renders that distance either). On this diagram, one could infer that all of these are potentially "close":

• Brigham Circle - Roxbury Crossing
• Symphony - Mass Ave
• Copley - Back Bay
• Boylston - Chinatown

Of these, I think the only ones that are actually workable walking/out-of-station transfers are Symphony-Mass Ave and Boylston-Chinatown; the Copley-Back Bay and Brigham Circle-Roxbury Crossing are definitely on the edge or pushing a walking transfer.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I really don't like how the E and OL look consistently parallel here. (I also don't like the way that the official map renders that distance either). On this diagram, one could infer that all of these are potentially "close":

• Brigham Circle - Roxbury Crossing
• Symphony - Mass Ave
• Copley - Back Bay
• Boylston - Chinatown

Of these, I think the only ones that are actually workable walking/out-of-station transfers are Symphony-Mass Ave and Boylston-Chinatown; the Copley-Back Bay and Brigham Circle-Roxbury Crossing are definitely on the edge or pushing a walking transfer.

It generally gets a bit further apart as you get towards Heath St, but Boylston-Chinatown is a 2 minute walk, Arlington-Tufts is a 10 minute walk, Copley-Back Bay is a 5 minute walk, Symphony to Mass Ave is also about a 2 minute walk, Northeastern and MFA are each about 8 minutes from Ruggles, and Brigham Circle is about 10 minutes from Roxbury Crossing. While it's not perfect, I think this is a useful symmetry that reasonably accurately reflects the area while also being generally understandable and aesthetically pleasing. It's also quite useful when the two routes are substituted for each other during shutdowns and closures.

 

[as02143]

It generally gets a bit further apart as you get towards Heath St, but Boylston-Chinatown is a 2 minute walk, Arlington-Tufts is a 10 minute walk, Copley-Back Bay is a 5 minute walk, Symphony to Mass Ave is also about a 2 minute walk, Northeastern and MFA are each about 8 minutes from Ruggles, and Brigham Circle is about 10 minutes from Roxbury Crossing. While it's not perfect, I think this is a useful symmetry that reasonably accurately reflects the area while also being generally understandable and aesthetically pleasing. It's also quite useful when the two routes are substituted for each other during shutdowns and closures.

During the shutdowns earlier this year Copley-Back Bay never reliably was "5 minutes" between the two stations during my commute. I timed the walk with an older, slower-walking relative on a Saturday at 12 minutes threshold to threshold, and, on my own commute (on the aggressive side without the ped signal at St James and earlier than the light at Stuart when there were breaks in traffic) with 7 minutes. It just took much longer with the busier sidewalks, unfriendly signal timing, and very few gaps in the flow of traffic to cross. I wouldn't count the time going up and descending to the platforms as convenient during shut downs either, it was much slower with all the confused riders, even the commuters, who were not used to navigating between to subway lines like that. As far as being a diagram that is aesthetic, sure, but, misleading as walking transfers at any potential "paired" stations except Boylston-Chinatown and Symphony-Mass Ave perhaps being short enough as direct walking transfers.

 

[Teban54]

I think there is a good point that @as02143 is making: The E and OL paralleling for their entire route is probably overkill.

I do think Symphony-Mass Ave and Boylston-Chinatown are close enough for a walking transfer designation. (The distances are even similar to State's long OL-BL tunnel in some cases.) Copley-Back Bay is obviously less convenient, but there has always been some momentum advocating for better connections between the two, so I think it still makes sense.

BUT: Geographically, the E and OL start diverging around the NEU/Ruggles vicinity.

• Ruggles is technically a 5-min walk away from Northeastern University station (and it's a less disruptive walk than Copley-Back Bay), but I don't think that's a trip many people are willing to make. Besides, on @TheRatmeister's map, Ruggles is currently aligned with MFA, which is a bit further.
• By the time it gets to Roxbury Crossing, the walking distances to the E become prohibitive. In fact, plenty of people connect to the 66 just to go to the Fenwood Rd area. Yet, the map may make you believe Roxbury Crossing-Brigham Circle is just as far as Symphony-Mass Ave.
• Jackson Square aligning with Riverway just becomes misleading at that point.

I know this map is not intended to strive for geographical accuracy, but if one of the intentions was to show the closeness between OL and GLE, then these concerns as they get further apart should at least be considered.

A compromise that may work: How about either bending the Orange Line south, or the E branch west, starting at Ruggles/NEU? The former also helps make the 31 less stretched out, while the latter brings Riverway closer to the D. However, I imagine the latter may run into space issues.

 

[TheRatmeister]

A compromise that may work: How about either bending the Orange Line south, or the E branch west, starting at Ruggles/NEU? The former also helps make the 31 less stretched out, while the latter brings Riverway closer to the D. However, I imagine the latter may run into space issues.

View attachment 53014

Here's a quick mockup of the E Bend version. This does solve the Riverway/Brookline Village walking connection quite nicely but it makes the 39 basically impossible to do elegantly as it needs to follow the E branch to Heath St and then bend south towards Forest Hills, and it also gets a bit tight needing to fit with the station names. This design also makes adding the Emerald Necklace quite tricky.

\
The bendy OL version does a bit better, and it make some of the bus routes a little easier, but the 39 again becomes impossible to do elegantly. It also starts getting a bit tight on space around Roxbury Crossing which is where a lot of bus routes come together.
Also worth pointing out I think is that both of these designs fail the 'expandability' test, with a Hyde Sq or VFW Pkwy extension fundementally breaking each of the designs. That's more of a future problem but it's an unfortunate consequence of either. For now I think I'm sticking with the original.

 

[Bananarama]

This is a small tweak, but I'd suggest keeping station names to one line if possible. In particular, Blanford St and Melnea Cass Blvd stick out. Brookline Village also looks cramped.
And the space between the names, accessibility symbol, and transit line looks a hair too close. I'd double it.

 

[TheRatmeister]

This is a small tweak, but I'd suggest keeping station names to one line if possible. In particular, Blanford St and Melnea Cass Blvd stick out. Brookline Village also looks cramped.

Using two lines is definitely something I try to avoid, but it's not always possible. I originally had Melnea Cass on the other side of the SL and didn't change the double-lining, that's fixed now. Brookline Village and Blandford St need to be like that to avoid messing up the 66 unfortunately. Drawing the GL is always full of compromises, if you'd like to give it a shot with different priorities than me you're more than welcome.

 

[HenryAlan]

View attachment 52988
I'm very happy with how the bus routes are working out. I've managed to get the 1, 23, 28, 66, 96, 109, and 110 all to work out nice and straight. 9, 15, and 22 are mostly fine, I'll need to be a bit creative on a couple connector dots but that's it. 8, 31, and 47 are the only crosstown ones that don't work out well right now.

I like the way you dealt with the SL4/5 and waterfront service. I assume the Williams tunnel branches will be forthcoming? Overall, the style is nice and the lines are crisp and clear. I do think that you have lost a lot of geographical fidelity, though. For example, Roxbury Crossing is almost exactly the same distance to Nubian Square as it is from Brigham Circle, but the map makes the the Orange and E Lines look much closer together than the Orange and Silver. Similarly, the Fairmont line is fairly off in terms of correct distance between Red and Orange. And the stop spacing is a challenge, too (eg Newmarket should line up with Mass Ave). In general, I think the lower right quadrant accentuates the transit desert concept beyond the actual situation.

 

[Riverside]

One constraint I’m imposing on my map is that station names must sit on a consistently blank background (for readability) — no crossing over other lines, no crossing over water. Definitely creates a very different challenge. I’ll post a draft soon, I’m just self-conscious of how it looks while incomplete.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I like the way you dealt with the SL4/5 and waterfront service. I assume the Williams tunnel branches will be forthcoming? Overall, the style is nice and the lines are crisp and clear. I do think that you have lost a lot of geographical fidelity, though. For example, Roxbury Crossing is almost exactly the same distance to Nubian Square as it is from Brigham Circle, but the map makes the the Orange and E Lines look much closer together than the Orange and Silver. Similarly, the Fairmont line is fairly off in terms of correct distance between Red and Orange. And the stop spacing is a challenge, too (eg Newmarket should line up with Mass Ave). In general, I think the lower right quadrant accentuates the transit desert concept beyond the actual situation.

I have mostly fixed Newmarket now, you can just about see it in the bendy OL map. I will say that version does a good job at a lot of your geographical concerns, but I think I'll also try to address them by increasing the stop spacing on the GL trunk and OL around downtown to free up some space, which should hopefully make things less cramped as well. Edit: I tried this and it did not really work. Newmarket got a little bit more space but most of the rest didn't really change and the 1 got screwed up so it wasn't straight. I think I'm just going to stick with the original design at this point, maybe I'll make a bendy OL version later if I feel like it.

One constraint I’m imposing on my map is that station names must sit on a consistently blank background (for readability) — no crossing over other lines, no crossing over water. Definitely creates a very different challenge. I’ll post a draft soon, I’m just self-conscious of how it looks while incomplete.

You're a madman, I wish you luck.

 

[Riverside]

You're a madman, I wish you luck.

Oh yes, and I'm also forbidding myself from using non-horizontal text.

One "trick" I'm deploying is a 30-degree off-set, meaning most of the "horizontal" lines are actually slightly diagonal, which makes it more feasible to add horizontal labels. The general shape of the lines currently looks like this:

(Still need to add in the Ted Williams Tunnel.)

With respect to avoiding overlaps, one of the key pieces, I've discovered, is finding the "critical triangles" -- places where the horizontal label is constrained by the two legs of crossing triangular lines. From what I can see, there are at least three such triangles:

Prudential: bound by the E and the 1 (and the Central Subway too)

Chinatown (or Tufts Medical Center, depending on font size and spacing tweaks): bound by Red/Silver and Orange/Silver (hemmed in by the commuter rail as well)

And finally Longwood Medical Area: bound by the E/39 and the Francis St buses

These in turn govern both stop spacing and line spacing. For example, the "Prudential critical triangle" needs to also place the Prudential stop marker itself roughly halfway between Copley and Symphony, thereby setting up a general "cadence" for the stop spacing. In my design, where I intend to draw out all of the highest frequency bus routes, I've found that the "LMA critical triangle" ultimately forms the lowest denominator; the spacing of everything else unfolds from the stop spacing between LMA and Brigham Circle arising from that critical triangle.

Almost ready to post (he says, optimistically)...