Archive for Subway Maps
As far as creative takes on New York City subway maps go, I’m a pretty accepting guy. I don’t hate the current map, though I find it a bit overrun with information, and I’ve always enjoyed attempts at reimagining the map. The Vignelli map, of course, remains the standard for artistic design trumping usefulness, and the KICK Map seems to meld something easy to read with something useful. Lately, we’ve seen New York’s system with a DC twist, a regional transit map and even a circular map. But now I’ve found one I don’t like.
Over the past few days, Jug Cerovic’s project to standardize the world’s subway maps has been making the rounds. As The Atlantic Cities’ Jenny Xie explained, Cerovic has tried to come up with a design that can be applied across the world and is both easy to read and easy to memorize. It otherwise fails as a useful navigating tool.
Here’s a little summary of what passes for Cerovic’s design philosophy:
Underlying all of this is INAT, a set of guidelines Cerovic developed to help him design maps that are easy to read and memorize. Key rules? Enlarging city centers to accommodate the crowd of lines and stations, and using a uniform set of colors, symbols, and labeling. He also kept all the lines vertical, horizontal, or 45 degrees inclined, and limited most of them to no more than five bends on their entire lengths.
Some might argue that uniformity wipes out the cities’ unique identities. But Cerovic says he tried to make each map very different through overarching symbolic shapes. For example, the Moscow design follows the form of a circle, while the Beijing design is more rectangular.
Cerovic compares his maps to road signs. “They’re not the same in the whole world but they’re very similar — so if you go to another place, you’ll seem to recognize the meaning of the signs,” he says in a phone interview.
That’s all well and good, but take a look at New York City on top. What is going on there? Bay Ridge and Coney Island appear to be due east of each other and of Lower Manhattan; Central Park is a puny rectangle toward the northern part of Manhattan; and the G train terminates north of Atlantic Ave. near both 7th Ave. and Prospect Park on the BMT Brighton Line. It violates the basic tenets of cardinal directions and map making. Even the best subway schematics have some bearing on reality; this one has none.
I appreciate what Cerovic is trying to do. I see why you might want to pick a universal design for subway maps, but if you’re going to try to produce a quasi-geographic schematic, it must have some relation to reality. It cannot be so divorced from the city layout to be useless as a map and as a navigation tool. But I’m not one to pass up an opportunity to share a new map with the world. So there you go. I don’t like it, but it’s a twist.
I’m always a sucker for a good map and even more so when it’s actually a subway map with a related gimmick. Here’s a good one via Reddit that’s been making the rounds. It’s a mash-up of the best Manhattan coffee shops by subway stop. Click the image above for a larger version; it should open in a new window.
Now, as with any of these “best of” maps, there’s bound to be debate. Eataly, for instance, is a bold choice for the 23rd St. BMT stop, and Pier NYC on Roosevelt Island is a seasonal outdoor food spot without much of an emphasis on coffee. But with the exception of a few dry spots — that Dunkin Donuts at 110th St. on the 2/3 sticks out like a sore thumb — it avoids chains and Starbucks. Now, imagine the same for the city’s bars or restaurants or even an expansion into Brooklyn, Queens or the Bronx.
A few weeks ago, I wrote on the first-of-its-kind regional transit diagram that the Port Authority, MTA and NJ Transit had produced for Super Bowl visitors. While it doesn’t show frequencies, the map offers an overview of the region’s rail connections between New Jersey and Manhattan. As Sunday’s Big Game is part of the so-called Mass Transit Super Bowl, this map is designed to get people from one side of the Hudson to the other with few mishaps.
I’ve had a lot of inquiries concerning hard copies of this map. You can download a PDF, but for many, that’s not good enough. For the map-hunters among us, you can find small Z-fold maps at a variety of locations throughout Manhattan and New Jersey, including the Super Bowl Boulevard set up on Broadway, Penn Station and Grand Central. I’ve heard they’re also available at some PATH trains and Secaucus Junction. It’s small and with many folds, but one way or another, these things will wind up on eBay selling for obscene amounts in a few years. Grab one while you can.
As await the first storm of 2014 to blanket our city in snow, here’s a fun little fantasy map for you: Chris Whong has reimagined the New York City subway in the style of Washington, D.C.’s Metro map. His site includes an explanation behind the project and a larger, zoomable version of the map as well. Striped of much of its geographical context, the map contains strong angles and bullseye station indicators. There are a few errors in the initial draft, but it’s certainly a different take on the form and functionality of a subway map.
Over at his Transit Maps tumblr, Cameron Booth offers up his take on the mash-up:
While the map looks great, it really also shows how unsuited the bold, simplistic approach taken by the DC diagram is to a complex transit system like New York’s. Vital information that New Yorkers depend upon for daily travel is simply nowhere to be found: the distinction between local and express stations, for example, or any indication of those hugely important free transfers between certain stations.
The express/local divide is a real problem, but I’m not so sure the simplistic approach is ill-suited to New York, as Booth argues. Rather, Whong’s draft is trying to do something that our standard subway map isn’t. Instead of offering up a navigation tool that attempts to bridge the geography/schematic divide, Whong’s draft is focused entirely on the subway routing. You have to be familiar with the streets or have your own map of the surface. Maybe that’s the better approach for a subway map anyway as no one can use the MTA’s offering to truly navigate parts of the city that are off the grid. Anyway, food for thought and debate.
Ain’t that just the prettiest little thing you ever did see? Click on it if you’d like to see it in extra large. There’s a PDF available too.
It took an event the size of the Super Bowl somewhere out in the swamps of Jersey to bring all the various regional transit options together to produce a map, but here we are. As part of a push to convince everyone in town for February’s big game to take the train, the MTA, PATH and New Jersey Transit, with a design assist from Yoshiki Waterhouse of Vignelli Associates, have released a regional transit diagram. The diagram “shows all interconnections between the regional transit services, and highlights with a football icon those areas where Super Bowl-related events will occur on both sides of the Hudson River.”
According to the MTA, for those looking for a hard copy of the diagram, check out the guides publications distributed by the Super Bowl Host Committee. The group will also make folding pocket maps available, and I’d imagine those will fetch a pretty penny on eBay later on. The MTA also plans to release four commemorative Super Bowl-branded MetroCards, available at all stations.
As to service patterns, I discussed the plans in depth earlier today, but the MTA reiterated that it will provide “more frequent rail service” during Super Bowl week. All regional transit agencies plan to halt construction during the time period too to ease travel, as 400,000 folks — or about a third the crowd in Times Square on New Year’s Eve — descend upon the area.
For some reason or another, we just can’t quit the Massimo Vignelli subway map. There’s something about it’s geographical distortions, clean lines and neat angles that make it an alluring piece of nostalgia. Perhaps the fact that it is in MoMA while the subways from the same era were covered in graffiti and generally unsafe lends it this aura of being of another time but also out of time when it was used throughout the system. Either way, it’s been 34 years since the MTA ditched it, but it’s still a part of any discussion on subway maps.
The reason we consider Vignelli’s subway map a collectible worthy of a modern art museum today isn’t because it was a great map, but rather because it was a great design that sacrificed geography for pure functionality. Parks were non-existent; stations were located in ways to make them easy to see but without any bearing on the street grid. Some people loved it; some people hated it. And that same debate rages today. I have a framed signed copy of the 2012 update hanging in my apartment, and while it’s a thing of beauty, I’m still not sure how well it works as a practical map of the city’s subway system.
The latest attempt to rehabilitate this map comes from science. As Eric Jaffe details at the Fast Co. Design site, researches in Boston have determined that maps similar to Vignelli’s are the best for human cognition. The idea is that considering the way peripheral vision plays a role in how we understanding our surroundings, maps with clear colors and straight lines are easier to take in. Here’s the scientific explanation for it:
Recently, some vision scientists at MIT developed a remarkably direct way to perform just this type of map evaluation. The research team, led by Ruth Rosenholtz of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, devised a computer model capable of determining how well people will comprehend a subway map (or any other complex diagram) in a single glance. The model spits out alternate visualizations called “mongrels”–twisted images that represent how our brains actually process the maps in front of our eyes.
The MIT mongrels draw on new scientific insights into peripheral vision. Research by Rosenholtz and others has suggested that peripheral vision operates by pooling together information outside a person’s direct line of sight. These peripheral pools sacrifice detail for overall impression to reduce the amount of data we process; they’re a little like a low-resolution JPEG in that sense. So the mongrels effectively show what visual elements–color, text, space, line orientation, among them–have been condensed into pools during the map’s journey from eye to brain…
[Based on the results of the study and an analysis of Boston's current map,] a few things stand out right away. The subway lines take sharper turns that are easier to follow, especially the four now-parallel green line branches. Major transfers are also a bit more crisp as a result. The station names, now nearly all horizontal, can be distinguished (if not read). The map isn’t perfect–the silver line remains hard to spot at first–but from a perspective of peripheral vision the map does seem like an improvement…Of course, unless people are running for a train, they generally don’t have to absorb everything about a subway map in a single glimpse. But the basic lesson still applies: a map need not stay geographically faithful to be visually useful.
As for the Vignelli map itself, the MIT researchers offered some visual comparisons between Massimo’s controversial map and today’s cartographical mess. The images are telling as you can see the comparison from top to bottom between the maps as they appear in print and the maps as they seemingly appear to our peripheral vision. Vignelli’s map, in its updated form, is ultimately much easier for us to comprehend.
Ultimately, of course, this changes little about the way subway riders use maps. If we’re in a hurry, a schematic with hard angles and clear colors is a much better choice, but if we’re sitting down to understand a subway system’s relationship to its surroundings, Vignelli’s map won’t do the trick. I’ve always though the solution lies somewhere in between, but map hard-liners hate to consider that possibility.
As Christine Quinn’s staff members taught us during this year’s mayoral race, it’s really easy to draw some lines on a map and call it a transit route. That’s what she did with her zany Triboro RX Select Bus Service proposal, and in doing so, she joined the legions of online denizens with access to a subway map and an illustrator application who love to create fantasy subway maps.
The idea behind a fantasy map is pretty self-explanatory. What would the subway look like if money were no obstacle? How would routing be enhanced and improved? How can we connect disconnected parts of the city? The best ones — you can find them buried in the archives on SubChat or the NYC Transit Forums — feature realistic routing and lead to that “ah ha!” moment when it becomes clear how much better the subways can be.
The most comprehensive set of fantasy maps belongs to Andrew Lynch, better known as the creator of Vanshnookenraggen. A few years ago, he put together an insanely well researched and thorough 11-part series on the history of the subway system that wasn’t. Start with the introduction and read about the IND Second System, ambitious plans for the Second Ave. Subway, Hudson River crossings and the Triboro RX line, among others. It re-imagines the regional transportation network in ways few politicians seem willing or able to do so.
Earlier this week, Lynch released a revised version of his future subway system. The post comes complete with a PDF version of his Vignelli-inspired subway diagram and a length explanation of the various new routes. It’s a sight to behold, and although I’m not convinced every route is a worthwhile, efficient or necessary one, the vast majority of them are. A system such as Lynch’s would lead to a very different New York indeed.
Basing his new future system, in part, on the MTA’s next twenty years document, Lynch introduces it: “The first FNYCS plan was what could be possible with money as no issue. Back in the real world where it is basically the only issue I realized I needed to distill out more realistic ideas that could use existing infrastructure better and develop lines that served the growing areas of the city while better connecting the outer boroughs. As traffic to the CBDs of Manhattan plateaus and a ring of neighborhoods along the East River waterfront develop from Long Island City, Williamsburg, and to Downtown Brooklyn I realized that inter-outerboro service needed to be looked at closer.”
So what does Lynch propose? He calls for a Second Ave. Subway with three lines at parts. Such a plan involves four-tracking Phases 3 and 4, sending the T to the Bronx, the revived V train to Brooklyn via South 4th St. and Utica Ave. and a new Y train through Bushwick to Jackson Heights. In the Bronx, the D train shoots east across the borough to Co-Op City while in Queens various trains go to La Guardia Airport, College Point, Kissena and Cunningham Parks and Murray Hill. In Brooklyn, the Franklin Ave. Shuttle is extended to meet up with the G train while the N heads west to Staten Island. In Manhattan, the L heads north up 10th Ave. and then east across 86th St.
We could debate the ins and outs of Lynch’s routings for ages. There is, for instance, no Triboro RX and I’m not sure how useful the Y line or his massive L train extension would be though I do love a crosstown subway running via 86th St. By and large though, these routes adhere to a few maxims of subway planning: They exist in conjunction with the street grid and, absent a sharp curve from the 7 line toward La Guardia, they don’t feature too many curves that would slow down the trains.
Of course, a subway system that looks like this would have required foresight years ago and tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars today. Still, we can’t just shrug it off as fantasy. Rather, it’s part of something New York should aspire to. We should have politicians discussing ways to build out subway lines quicker and cheaper than the Second Ave. Subway. We should embrace the idea of future subway systems and hope that we live to see but a sliver of these routes become a reality.
A few weeks ago, I ran a brief post on Max Roberts’ circular subway map. With a focal point in the New York harbor, the map presents the subway system as a series of concentric circles. It’s a fun map that highlights connections between lines and is generally divorced from geographic reality.
This week, Roberts published a piece on The Guardian’s website about the philosophy of his design. Roberts speaks a bit self-deprecatingly about his efforts. “A circles-and-spokes approach offers no obvious benefit for this city,” he said of New York, “and without a clear centre defined by orbits, where should the spokes radiate from? I should not even have attempted this map, there are so many others on my list of things to do.”
Roberts wrote a bit more about his New York approach:
A point of radiation in New York Harbour gave me just enough space to fit everything into Lower Manhattan, a perfect semi-circle from the Manhattan Bridge all the way to Bay Ridge, and left me with enough space to make the rest of the map nice and balanced. DeKalb Avenue is always difficult, and eastern Queens needed some thinking, but that was it, the design almost crystallised in front of me.
The New York subway has been forced into an unprecedented level of organisation…There is geographical distortion, and a few awkward spots where the lines cannot decide whether they are orbital or radial and end up zigzagging. Some people may object to its aesthetics, and geographical purists will dislike it in the same way that they distrust all highly schematised designs, but the overall spaciousness and power is harder to dispute.
I’ve always argued that geographical maps and schematic maps have distinct roles to play, each serves a purpose, and so any transport undertaking that refuses to make both available is short-changing its customers. A good geographical map shows where the network is, a good schematic shows how the elements of a network relate together logically. An uncomfortable hybrid serves neither role effectively. Whatever the usability study outcomes, if a product is attractive and powerful for some people, so that they enjoy looking at it, that is half the battle won for the information designer.
Check out the rest of the piece. It’s a good, quick read. Meanwhile, after the jump, this weekend’s service advisories. Read More→
The different designs of the New York City subway system have always piqued my curiosity. From purely schematic representations to quasi-geographical maps, visual presentations of subway systems run the gamut, and as the debate over Massimo Vignelli’s infamous 1970s-era map shows, they can lead to some strong opinions and lively debates. The latest entry making the rounds this week comes to us from Max Roberts, a U.K.-based psychologist, who has used his training and study of the human mind to present a map of circles.
After posts appeared on Gothamist and Co.Exist last week, Roberts supplied me with the version of the map I’ve posted above. He corrected some of the errors pointed out in other forums as he expects my readership to pick up on those even quicker than others have. In discussing his map with other outlets, he shared some of the rational behind the design.
The maps, he noted, are clearly not geographic in nature, and the partisans who hate the Vignelli map will dislike this representation as well. But, he noted, the map “isn’t trying to show where the network is. It’s trying to show how the elements of the network relate to each other.”
Still, Roberts himself isn’t too sure of the practicality of his maps. “I don’t think that these maps are particularly easy to use, and they do distort geography,” he said to Gothamist, “but they force a city into an unprecedented level of organization, and people find them fresh and exciting (or horrific, but I feel that if I delight half the people and horrify the other half then I must be doing something right).”
His solution though would bridge the gap between design purists and geographical advocates. “Personally, I think that every large network should always issue two maps, a good geographical map and a good diagram so that people can choose which they prefer,” he said. “You just can’t please all people with just one design, and the gulf between the desires for simple straight lines versus geographical precision is almost always impossible to resolve. That’s probably why there are so many independent maps of the New York subway on the internet and that you can buy.”
So there you have it. It may not be the most functional map of the subway system, but it will certainly make anyone who sees it pause. That, of course, is half the battle when it comes to constructing a useful map.
Over the weekend, an embarrassing story concerning a subway map error hit the pages of The New York Post. Alexander Hamilton’s paper reported that the MTA had to throw away a bunch of subway maps when an error in the fare information section came to light. The March 2013 maps stated that the minimum purchase for a MetroCard is $4.50 when, in fact, it is now $5. Oops.
Now, according to The Post, TWU sources estimated the damage to be about $250,000. I spoke to officials at the MTA today to get their side, and they tell a slightly different story. I’ve learned that the MTA is estimating the damage at no more than $75,000, and the money will come out of subsequent map printings this year. As the MTA’s map budget is fixed, however much the agency burned on this error simply means fewer copies of subsequent map releases later in the year.
Meanwhile, even without this embarrassing mistake, the March maps were going to be chucked anyway. The MTA had printed them before the decision to recommission South Ferry had been announced, and the reopening will necessitate a new map next month anyway. It’s a sloppy, careless mistake that makes the MTA look bad in the pages of The Post, but it’s also ultimately a rounding error for an agency with a $13 billion budget. It’s not a real issue, but it just goes to show how public perception — rightly or wrongly — is shaped by press coverage of the MTA’s follies and foibles. The old maps will be given to an MTA licensee who uses them for subway-themed handbags or will wind up on eBay for subway map collectors to snatch up.