The Official MBTA System Map

A month later, here we are:

1681783921034.png


I think most of what I explained upthread still holds true. This diagram is an experiment with using a fairly geographically accurate "inner zone" surrounded by a highly diagrammatic "outer zone". It's busier than the current map, but that's in part because it's showing additional information in the form of the new frequent bus network (which is similar to, but more extensive than, the current Key Bus Route network that was grafted onto the map several years ago).

As a proof of concept, this diagram is definitely not perfect in its execution. Lots more detail on my blog, but one major change I would make in a future revision is compressing the geographically accurate "inner zone" to be a bit smaller and free up more "breathing room" for the station lists at the margins of the map.

While this version is far from perfect, to me it points to potential viability for the underlying concept. For one, I think this demonstrates that the "design" generated by the physical paths of the lines in the core (especially the Orange and Green Lines) is both usable in diagram form (in terms of stop spacing, label space, etc), and also is likely pretty close to the simplest form it can be while still conveying bus and walking transfer information. The busyness of Dorchester and Longwood notwithstanding, this also successfully illustrates that the need for geographic fidelity drops significantly in the outer regions of the system.

As mentioned, lots more detail and nerding out included on my blog, including more information on the design challenges and thought process.
 
Riverside said:
A month later, here we are:

View attachment 36695

I think most of what I explained upthread still holds true. This diagram is an experiment with using a fairly geographically accurate "inner zone" surrounded by a highly diagrammatic "outer zone". It's busier than the current map, but that's in part because it's showing additional information in the form of the new frequent bus network (which is similar to, but more extensive than, the current Key Bus Route network that was grafted onto the map several years ago).

As a proof of concept, this diagram is definitely not perfect in its execution. Lots more detail on my blog, but one major change I would make in a future revision is compressing the geographically accurate "inner zone" to be a bit smaller and free up more "breathing room" for the station lists at the margins of the map.

While this version is far from perfect, to me it points to potential viability for the underlying concept. For one, I think this demonstrates that the "design" generated by the physical paths of the lines in the core (especially the Orange and Green Lines) is both usable in diagram form (in terms of stop spacing, label space, etc), and also is likely pretty close to the simplest form it can be while still conveying bus and walking transfer information. The busyness of Dorchester and Longwood notwithstanding, this also successfully illustrates that the need for geographic fidelity drops significantly in the outer regions of the system.

As mentioned, lots more detail and nerding out included on my blog, including more information on the design challenges and thought process.
Click to expand...

Might have more thoughts later, but there's something bizarrely jarring about the squared-off ends of the lines and the curved turns on some of the lines.

Also, it'd probably good to have a box or shading or something to indicate the segment that's geographically-accurate and the parts that aren't.
 
I think there's a level of legibility that is lost in trying to get the inner map geographically correct. It looks like spaghetti, and it becomes difficult at a single glance to make sense of it. The current map is less accurate geographically, but because all the angles are consistent it makes it easier to read and follow.

This ties into the better station names discussion. There's less of a need for transit maps to get the cartography right if the stations themselves provide that information. As I said in that thread, in general I believe the T has done a good job of this. There's some outliers, but for the most part the name takes care of indicating the actual physical location.
 
Charlie_mta said:
The dotted lines connecting DTX with State plus several other locations aren't explained at all in the legend. What do the dotted lines represent?
Click to expand...
Brattle Loop said:
Pedestrian connection, looks like.
Click to expand...
D’oh. Yes, that is what they are supposed to indicate. Loosely, they indicate “recommended pedestrian transfer, usually less than 5 minutes”. <— which is why I accidentally omitted it from the legend; was struggling to fit all of the existing content in already, and I meant to come back to it. My hope is that in a subsequent revision I’ll free up a little more space and be able to fit it into the legend more easily.
Brattle Loop said:
Might have more thoughts later, but there's something bizarrely jarring about the squared-off ends of the lines and the curved turns on some of the lines.

Also, it'd probably good to have a box or shading or something to indicate the segment that's geographically-accurate and the parts that aren't.
Click to expand...
I hear you. These two points are actually related: the jarringness is in part because I didn’t want to use shading to separate the two zones (I’m unsure about the visual accessibility implications).

Any particular turns most jarring to you? The Red Line branches were a real struggle and I definitely hope to straighten those out.

As I think out loud here: I don’t want to overemphasize the geographic accuracy of the inner zone. My objective isn’t geo-accuracy per se, but rather my goal is clear visualization of the walking transfers and bus routes by way of geo-accuracy.
Arenacale said:
I think there's a level of legibility that is lost in trying to get the inner map geographically correct. It looks like spaghetti, and it becomes difficult at a single glance to make sense of it. The current map is less accurate geographically, but because all the angles are consistent it makes it easier to read and follow.

This ties into the better station names discussion. There's less of a need for transit maps to get the cartography right if the stations themselves provide that information. As I said in that thread, in general I believe the T has done a good job of this. There's some outliers, but for the most part the name takes care of indicating the actual physical location.
Click to expand...
This is interesting feedback (thank you!). I do hope to make a future revision where the angles on the subway lines are simpler, which hopefully would help legibility. Like I said above, I care less about the geo-accuracy itself, so perhaps I should straighten out some of the lines in the inner section and maybe trim back the detail on the water — smooth it out to a simpler shoreline. (As mentioned, it sounds like there is someone at the T who is strongly opposed to this idea, but it’s worth a shot.)

~~~

Am curious for any thoughts on marking the bus routes? It’s a lot but I feel like it’s really necessary in this next iteration of the map.
 
Once your map shows the T-X lines from the new bus map, there's no longer any purpose to calling out the Silver Line as more than that (except for the two dedicated busways). Certainly, the Washington Street SL1 isn't anything special now.

The only reason the MBTA keeps up the "Silver Line" farce is pretending that they replaced service on Washington after the Orange Line relocation. No need for your map to do the same... :)
 
Equilibria said:
Once your map shows the T-X lines from the new bus map, there's no longer any purpose to calling out the Silver Line as more than that (except for the two dedicated busways). Certainly, the Washington Street SL1 isn't anything special now.

The only reason the MBTA keeps up the "Silver Line" farce is pretending that they replaced service on Washington after the Orange Line relocation. No need for your map to do the same... :)
Click to expand...
You know, that's actually an interesting idea there -- I wonder what the map would look like with SL4/5 modestly "demoted" and the T-X routes modestly "promoted" so that they use equal language...

In general, of course, I agree with you -- it's ridiculous that SL4/5 are depicted with the same visual language as the subway lines. That being said, the T has spent over 20 years insisting that SL4/5 is a rapid transit service, and I don't see that changing. My dream would be to get a version of this diagram in front of the T, and I am pretty confident that showing all Silver Line services as rapid transit will be a must-have for any official.
 
While I like the way you showed the key bus routes, their coloring seems to be distracting from the rapid transit lines, especially the southern Orange Line near Roxbury Crossing (since the orange color itself doesn't really stand out). Maybe try coloring all the buses as grey (or "silver")?
 
Teban54 said:
While I like the way you showed the key bus routes, their coloring seems to be distracting from the rapid transit lines, especially the southern Orange Line near Roxbury Crossing (since the orange color itself doesn't really stand out). Maybe try coloring all the buses as grey (or "silver")?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I hear you.

Try this one:

1681852365562.png


Thinned out the orange by limiting it to the routes that terminate at Ruggles. The T22 turns Green, which is questionable since it doesn't actually run all the way to Kenmore, but I suppose it does offer the transfer to the E at Brigham Circle, if I need a justification. And the T12 I made Silver -- the only one on the map, but I figure since it terminates in the Seaport -- the land of the Silver Line --, there's some justification. I could also make the T12 Green, but I think that would be confusing with the T-intersection in Longwood.

But I agree -- it's definitely busy-looking.
 
There’s a weird grey line on your map going through the South End and the Seaport but it doesn’t correspond to any rapid transit line I’m aware of.
 
king_vibe said:
There’s a weird grey line on your map going through the South End and the Seaport but it doesn’t correspond to any rapid transit line I’m aware of.
Click to expand...
That's the new T12 bus route proposed under the Bus Network Redesign (BNRD), running between Brookline Village and Seaport via Roxbury Crossing, Nubian and Andrew.
 
Riverside said:
Yeah, I hear you.

Try this one:

Thinned out the orange by limiting it to the routes that terminate at Ruggles. The T22 turns Green, which is questionable since it doesn't actually run all the way to Kenmore, but I suppose it does offer the transfer to the E at Brigham Circle, if I need a justification. And the T12 I made Silver -- the only one on the map, but I figure since it terminates in the Seaport -- the land of the Silver Line --, there's some justification. I could also make the T12 Green, but I think that would be confusing with the T-intersection in Longwood.

But I agree -- it's definitely busy-looking.
Click to expand...

Can the 111 bus in Charlestown be changed to either a dotted line, or removed entirely (with discontinous arrows from the C-town bridge to the Tobin Chelsea exit), or routed through the ocean between Chelsea and North End?

The 111 is still not going to make any stops in Charlestown. I'm not aware of any plans for a Charlestown bus stop happening, or bus-only on/off ramps at the Navy-Yard, or for the Tobin Bridge to be replaced with ground level traffic through Charlestown.

I have to wonder if there is ever the case a confused tourist wanted to take a bus from Haymarket to the Bunker Hill Monument, but all the maps show the 111 in Charlestown (but the 111 doesn't stop there), and they wind up in Chelsea. Then they'd have to backtrack back to downtown Boston, and then wait 45 minutes - 1 hour for the next 93 bus to Charlestown.

Obviosuly locals would know that every 3 - 7 minutes every day of the week, the 111 bus runs and skips Charlestown entirely; and the 92/93 bus run into Charlestown every 45 - 60 minutes with no late evening or Sunday service. Still, it's just bad design to have an express bus shown as a local bus. The 111 bus might be best considered as an express bus that charges local bus fare.

I don't understand how MBTA maps are able to show the express 354, 426, 428, 501, and 504 buses correctly as dotted, thin lines with discontinous arrows, so people know those buses don't stop; but the 111 bus is not clear and confusing for newcomers and tourists. I-90 and I-93 also have the added benefits of being US interstates on road maps, but the Tobin Bridge isn't.

It gives a misleading impression that Charlestown has frequent direct connections to Chelsea, but that's not true and requires lengthy detours with hourly buses to Sullivan, Everett, or travelling to Haymarket and doubling back.

I could die on the hill and would burn every single MBTA map that shows the 111 as a local bus in Charlestown, until either the MBTA bus maps are fixed, the 111 buses add a Charlestown stop, or the Tobin is grounded.

All MBTA maps have got to be showing the 111 bus like this: There isn't a good excuse for this not to happen.
1682442989116.png


Only this map with the 111 shown accurately, truly shows the actual state of the MBTA bus network (Obviously, arrows and footnotes at either end of Chelsea and North End would indicate it's a discontinuous segment of the 111)
1682443404587.png
 
Last edited:
Alright, here's the result of some further tinkering (still a rough draft, a number of the finer details are missing):

1683164337144.png


The big change here was to compress the inner zone so that the outer zone had a little more space to breath; the other major change was compressing the eastern edge of the map, flattening the Blue, Silver, and Red Lines, which allowed the center of the map to shift toward the right, opening space for the Green Line branches.

Some things are sorta successful here; I'm pleased with how the labels for the B and C Lines worked out (the spacing needs some adjusting but they at least fit), and the "hanging" effect of the Red Line branches is pretty much exactly what the underlying concept of this whole design is supposed to look like, so that's nice.

Compressing the SL4 was a mistake. Before drawing the bus lines, it seemed like it could be okay, but adding in the bus routes just suffocates that quadrilateral between Mass Ave, Mass Ave, Nubian, and Roxbury Crossing.

@Delvin4519, good call about the T111, particularly given how much this diagram already leverages arrows.

Looking at this against previous draft, probably what I will try to do next is essentially paste the previous version's treatment of the lower Orange Line, Silver Line, and Green Lines (and maybe Fairmount Line) into the new draft, alongside the compressed Red Line, Blue Line and SL3. I think that could be a usable compromise.
 
Riverside said:
Alright, here's the result of some further tinkering (still a rough draft, a number of the finer details are missing):

View attachment 37396

The big change here was to compress the inner zone so that the outer zone had a little more space to breath; the other major change was compressing the eastern edge of the map, flattening the Blue, Silver, and Red Lines, which allowed the center of the map to shift toward the right, opening space for the Green Line branches.

Some things are sorta successful here; I'm pleased with how the labels for the B and C Lines worked out (the spacing needs some adjusting but they at least fit), and the "hanging" effect of the Red Line branches is pretty much exactly what the underlying concept of this whole design is supposed to look like, so that's nice.

Compressing the SL4 was a mistake. Before drawing the bus lines, it seemed like it could be okay, but adding in the bus routes just suffocates that quadrilateral between Mass Ave, Mass Ave, Nubian, and Roxbury Crossing.

@Delvin4519, good call about the T111, particularly given how much this diagram already leverages arrows.

Looking at this against previous draft, probably what I will try to do next is essentially paste the previous version's treatment of the lower Orange Line, Silver Line, and Green Lines (and maybe Fairmount Line) into the new draft, alongside the compressed Red Line, Blue Line and SL3. I think that could be a usable compromise.
Click to expand...
Minor feedback:
  • Silver Line Way should not be shown on SL1/3, as they skip the stop in the redesign.
  • T7 and T9's "to City Point" is not capitalized, while all other bus route destinations are.
  • I'd change T8's "to Harbor Point" arrow so that it swings back towards the Red Line at the end. Right now, it looks like Harbor Point is between the Silver Line and the Fairmount Line.
  • The T66 arrows at the top left corner of the map ("to Nubian" and "to Harvard") look like they can be connected to form a diagonal line that goes underneath the legend.
  • On its other end, the T66 looks like it terminates at Roxbury Crossing instead of Nubian, primarily because the orange-red-green color combination between the stations makes the thin red line hard to see. This is tricky to fix, but my best guess is that switching the lines to orange-green-red will help.
  • The T111 still looks like it goes through parts of Charlestown. Maybe shorten the arrow to end in the middle of Charles River?
  • I get that you're showing a short section of T47 and T96 east of Union Square to indicate that they're looping at McGrath Hwy, but TBH I'm not sure what's the best way to handle this. Officially, both are advertised with "Union Square" as the destination in all the bus redesign handouts. The Remix map shows T96 as terminating in the middle of McGrath Hwy, with the last inbound stop as Washington St @ McGrath Hwy (so still within walking distance from East Somerville station), but the first outbound stop as Somerville Ave @ McGrath Hwy (falling outside of East Somerville's walkshed). It's not clear to me where the layover point will be, and whether passengers will be allowed to board there when transferring from East Somerville station. Until these ambiguities can be resolved, I'd still suggest showing them as terminating at Union Square.
 
Teban54 said:
Minor feedback:
  • Silver Line Way should not be shown on SL1/3, as they skip the stop in the redesign.
  • T7 and T9's "to City Point" is not capitalized, while all other bus route destinations are.
  • I'd change T8's "to Harbor Point" arrow so that it swings back towards the Red Line at the end. Right now, it looks like Harbor Point is between the Silver Line and the Fairmount Line.
  • The T66 arrows at the top left corner of the map ("to Nubian" and "to Harvard") look like they can be connected to form a diagonal line that goes underneath the legend.
  • On its other end, the T66 looks like it terminates at Roxbury Crossing instead of Nubian, primarily because the orange-red-green color combination between the stations makes the thin red line hard to see. This is tricky to fix, but my best guess is that switching the lines to orange-green-red will help.
  • The T111 still looks like it goes through parts of Charlestown. Maybe shorten the arrow to end in the middle of Charles River?
  • I get that you're showing a short section of T47 and T96 east of Union Square to indicate that they're looping at McGrath Hwy, but TBH I'm not sure what's the best way to handle this. Officially, both are advertised with "Union Square" as the destination in all the bus redesign handouts. The Remix map shows T96 as terminating in the middle of McGrath Hwy, with the last inbound stop as Washington St @ McGrath Hwy (so still within walking distance from East Somerville station), but the first outbound stop as Somerville Ave @ McGrath Hwy (falling outside of East Somerville's walkshed). It's not clear to me where the layover point will be, and whether passengers will be allowed to board there when transferring from East Somerville station. Until these ambiguities can be resolved, I'd still suggest showing them as terminating at Union Square.
Click to expand...
Thanks for all this! Yes, the capitalization is one of several finer details that I didn’t bother with fixing — there are bigger open questions with this design that I wanted to tackle first. And good catch about Silver Line Way — that will actually make a pretty big difference in that section of the map, because I can move it on to the “hanging” part of SL2, and consolidate further. Likewise, whether the T66 actually gets split up by the legend is a relatively minor detail that I’m deferring a decision on.

Yes, the T8 is a real pain. I think that decompressing SL4 and returning to my previous design for the South End will alleviate that somewhat. Likewise, I’m hoping that using my previous design for Brigham Circle - Roxbury Crossing - Nubian will make it easier to tell where the various routes (eg T66) end, but to be honest I suspect I will need to spread the lines apart to make them more legible.

Moving the T111’s arrow into the Charles seems problematic because I’m trying to avoid putting (non-ferry) labels against the colored backdrop of water. I would probably instead put the arrow on the downtown side of the river, and not even show it crossing the water.

I could explore using a dashed segment to indicate non-stop service through Charlestown, but I don’t really want to add new visual language for just that one stretch.

Re the T96 and T47 — my problem there is that it looks to me like the T96 won’t actually serve Union Station particularly directly. My read of the Remix map suggests that if the T96 should “count” as serving Union station, then it should also count as serving East Somerville. You raise a good point about the layover location, however, and if it’s true that outbound service won’t serve a stop within the walkshed, then it becomes a problem. (That being said, I do think it’s desirable to show the T47 and T109 terminating in the same place, because that location will be ideal for transfers on, eg, Inman Sq <> Sullivan Sq journeys.)

That all being said, I’d rather design the map to be able to accommodate the more complex scenario, if it’s needed. Paring lines back to Union will be trivial, if needed; trying to cram in some extra lines at the last minute will be harder.
 
Just as general observation, there is a ton of white space in Cambridge, the Charles, and Back Bay. Perhaps you can rethink the size and orientation of the legend and redistribute some of that white space. If it helps at all, GLX Medford branch can really be compressed - this makes it look like E Somerville and Gilman are important. Lots of white in the lower right corner too.

I really like this concept of compressing less important information at the edges. I think you could deemphasize the geography a little more to make a stronger diagram.

Also, I find the bus coloration very confusing. I think customers will stare at this map for a long time without ever figuring out that the colors don’t mean anything at all. I don’t think that is good map design. Using gray or brown for all buses will give a simpler and clearer message
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top