The Official MBTA System Map

[HenryAlan]

However, I just can’t imagine anyone in their right mind utilizing the connection unless they were truly desperate.

I don't know, I used to do it when I lived in Brookline Village, and didn't see myself as desperate. I had a friend who lived out by the VA, and would grab the E outbound to visit him. That was back when it was still free to ride above ground outbound trains. Today, I'd probably use the 39 for that, so your point might still hold. Just the same, it is reasonably possible to make that connection on foot, even if not many would have reason to do so.

 

[FK4]

I don't know, I used to do it when I lived in Brookline Village, and didn't see myself as desperate. I had a friend who lived out by the VA, and would grab the E outbound to visit him. That was back when it was still free to ride above ground outbound trains. Today, I'd probably use the 39 for that, so your point might still hold. Just the same, it is reasonably possible to make that connection on foot, even if not many would have reason to do so.

Not calling you desperate, but unless you happened to hit Riverway as the (free) E pulled up at the stop, it makes no sense to take the E from Riverway to Heath: which is a 7 minute walk, and with the E, it's gonna still stop at Back of the Hill, then wait to turn left into Heath.

And I wasn't talking about people who originate in Brookline Village... my post was observing an interesting and under-appreciated phenomenon that affects how many people travel, such that if you're already on one train, many people would rather minimize the degree of disruption by staying on that train and walking farther, rather than doing a not-very-pleasant walk, wait for a connection to another line, just to save 5-10 minutes. You can find outliers but most people fall within what is probably a pretty predictable sliding scale based on aesthetics of the walk, perceived reliability of the second line, and relative distance/time for each variant.

This is akin to drivers, myself and most of my local friends included, who know their way around town and have preferred routes, and despise how navigation apps try to shave off a minute or two by getting you to take unnecessary moves just to save a few minutes. If you know your route, you know what you like, and most people will take that over efficiency... up to a point, at least.

Edit - forgot that trains used to be free above ground, but I do remember as a teenager that was the case. Was that true for all lines, or just the B, C, and E?

 

[TheRatmeister]

I can't say I've ever gotten a reddit reply from the Boston MPO before.

 

[KCasiglio]

I can't say I've ever gotten a reddit reply from the Boston MPO before.
View attachment 58769

We made that account for a project I was working on. Not many better ways to reach delivery drivers as a class of people than going to places like r/doordash_drivers. I didn't know Sean was actively monitoring it though. Definitely reach out.

 

[TheRatmeister]

We made that account for a project I was working on. Not many better ways to reach delivery drivers as a class of people than going to places like r/doordash_drivers. I didn't know Sean was actively monitoring it though. Definitely reach out.

For sure, I sent essentially a pitch email for my Rapid Transit redesign that could briefly be summarized as "Here are all the things it does better than the current map"

 

[TheRatmeister]

Ferry spaghetti

 

[ritchiew]

Hey @TheRatmeister , I just remembered this thing that might be useful for some of your map designs, or at least interesting. Have you ever come across any of these old "mental map" studies from the 60's and 70's? (Maybe they still do them.) Basically, lots of people were asked to describe or draw their city from memory. People could usually draw the areas of their day-to-day lives well, then some broad strokes landmarks and outlines. Researchers would then tally up who used which landmarks, or find common-but consistent geographical "errors," and on an on. Here's an old example that includes part of Boston. Stanley Milgram (of Milgram Experiment fame) did this kind of study in Paris. I couldn't immediately find more modern sources, but it seems like the kind of thing that might be useful for improving wayfinding. Mostly, I'd be curious what people's mental model of the Charles looks like.

 

[ceo]

My older kid did one of these spontaneously when they were 7 or so, it included all the subway and bus routes we typically use, the Museum of Science, Children's Museum, Aquarium etc. It was nearly 100% topologically accurate.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Hey @TheRatmeister , I just remembered this thing that might be useful for some of your map designs, or at least interesting. Have you ever come across any of these old "mental map" studies from the 60's and 70's? (Maybe they still do them.) Basically, lots of people were asked to describe or draw their city from memory. People could usually draw the areas of their day-to-day lives well, then some broad strokes landmarks and outlines. Researchers would then tally up who used which landmarks, or find common-but consistent geographical "errors," and on an on. Here's an old example that includes part of Boston. Stanley Milgram (of Milgram Experiment fame) did this kind of study in Paris. I couldn't immediately find more modern sources, but it seems like the kind of thing that might be useful for improving wayfinding. Mostly, I'd be curious what people's mental model of the Charles looks like.

View attachment 58859

View attachment 58860

View attachment 58861

"A people's Atlas of Boston" did something like this in 2010. Here are the maps.

This one is the most interesting to me, and would (to me) at least somewhat validate the idea of putting parks on the map.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I did actually get a response from Ken Dumas, the map man (man man man) himself. Here's a quick run-down:

• The core design feature of the current map is the GL branches and Orange Line, designed to all be evenly spaced apart with the 66 serving as an anchor between them. The way the branches are arranged on the official map is to minimize the use of 45º text as much as possible, at the expense of geographic accuracy.
• CR lines shouldn't be too prominent, in his opinion it's a rapid transit map, not a CR map.
• Parks are too distracting, and the distinction between what's included and what's not is both arbitrary and distracting.
• "The desire to show the dedicated bus corridors (in yellow on your map) is admiral. But the new map design has the buses depicted using yellow so that would lead to confusion. In addition, our testing has found that depicting these corridors prominently is more desired by transit planners than by the public."

And just to let him toot my horn a little:
"Yours is one of the best alternative designs I have seen in years. I applaud your effort and believe that, from a design standpoint, aspects of your design are excellent and would be worthy additions to a future map."

 

[TheRatmeister]

And just briefly, my thoughts on his thoughts:

• On 45º text: That is a fair critique. Just about any "accurate" representation of the Green Line is going to need quite a lot. If readability is more valuable than some lesser used connections, this is a sacrifice to make.
• On the evenly spacing of lines: I think this may be a sacrifice that needs to be made to make the BNRD legible. Most radial routes will have at least two circumferential bus routes, so keeping them all straight while keeping all the GL branches evenly spaced likely just isn't possible. See the 1/47/66 or 96/109.
• CR Line prominence: Right now, maybe. But with the Fairmount Line having 30 minute service all day every day now, I think it at least deserves to be shown as a little more special than a thin line. If the Rail Vision comes to pass, demoting the regional rail to thin lines seems entirely unjustifiable.
• On parks: Not an unpopular opinion. As I mentioned in the mental map post, if some parks are especially prominent in how people think about Boston, perhaps they should be included.
• On bus corridors: I think if you had asked in 2002 if the Silver Line should be on the map, you would have gotten a similar answer. Transit planners think it should be, the public isn't convinced. But the only way a service can be used and important is if people are aware of it, and there is no better billboard than the system map. That's why the Silver Line was included, and that's why I think these new bus corridors, with infrastructure far exceeding the quality of the Washington St SL routes, should be included as well.

 

[The EGE]

I did actually get a response from Ken Dumas, the map man (man man man) himself. Here's a quick run-down:

• The core design feature of the current map is the GL branches and Orange Line, designed to all be evenly spaced apart with the 66 serving as an anchor between them. The way the branches are arranged on the official map is to minimize the use of 45º text as much as possible, at the expense of geographic accuracy.
• CR lines shouldn't be too prominent, in his opinion it's a rapid transit map, not a CR map.
• Parks are too distracting, and the distinction between what's included and what's not is both arbitrary and distracting.
• "The desire to show the dedicated bus corridors (in yellow on your map) is admiral. But the new map design has the buses depicted using yellow so that would lead to confusion. In addition, our testing has found that depicting these corridors prominently is more desired by transit planners than by the public."

And just to let him toot my horn a little:
"Yours is one of the best alternative designs I have seen in years. I applaud your effort and believe that, from a design standpoint, aspects of your design are excellent and would be worthy additions to a future map."

Very interesting! I firmly disagree with his first point. Not only does it introduce gross geographic inaccuracies across the entire map, but it's not even correct on a network level! The 66 follows Huntington for several stops, which the map flat out ignores.

It's also so frustrating to have a confusing, distorted map when the detailed network map is so, so good. It was just updated with the frequent routes all in yellow, which really emphasizes where that network goes, and some other improvements like directional indicators for some of the inset maps.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Presenting the (not super polished) Dumas edition. Featuring even fewer 45 degree angled text than the official map but with all the same straight bus lines:

 

[Arenacale]

Something I've noticed comparing your map to the official one is how the inclusion of the additional CR stops to the north and west causes everything else to be squished and less legible on first glance. Especially since both the CR and rapid lines are using the same size typeface. I think that's what he's getting at with the critique of it being a rapid transit map, not a CR map. While we all think about local residents here, this also has to make sense to tourists and visitors, and the vast majority of those folks are going to be using only rapid transit and bus. The official map does a good job of indicating that there's a way to get to those places using public transit without confusing the core goal of the map. It's easy for enthusiasts to want to document everything when the general layperson just wants the important basics, I'm guilty of it myself when explaining racing things.

That being said, your map has some definite improvements to the official map, specifically the Broadway to Ashmont stretch on the Red Line, which is both more geographically accurate and easier to parse. I guess the T felt they needed to include St. Peter's Square for the bus so instead they sacrificed the accuracy of the Red Line to do it, which just seems counterproductive to me. I also prefer how you handled the western Green Line branches. I'd maybe move Prudential to the other side of the CR line, but that's a minor thing.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Something I've noticed comparing your map to the official one is how the inclusion of the additional CR stops to the north and west causes everything else to be squished and less legible on first glance.

I don't think they really make that much of a difference, to be honest. The Needham Line limits how far I can move things to the left, the Blue Line limits how far I can move things to the right, and the Mattapan Line is the limit for moving things down. That really just leaves the north of the map. If I omitted those CR stops, in theory I could space out the bottom more, but there isn't much to space out there. I could increase the stop spacing on BHA I guess, but that would have the side affect of making the Ashmont branch appear even longer than it already is. I guess I could stretch Braintree out more too to compensate but I don't really see the benefit. All else being equal, might as well have the CR stops.

While we all think about local residents here, this also has to make sense to tourists and visitors, and the vast majority of those folks are going to be using only rapid transit and bus.

This was actually one of the reasons I included those northern CR stops. Salem is an exception in this regard, and I felt it was important to feature on the map. And if you do that, well then you have space for Winchester and a couple Melrose stops too so might as well.

I'd maybe move Prudential to the other side of the CR line, but that's a minor thing.

I'm just happy that Prudential fits at all, frankly. That area of the map is a royal pain to get working as I'm sure Riverside can attest. It's probably the single tightest area of the map, apart from maybe Back Bay, and its space constraints have heavily shaped just about every other part of the map in some way or another.