For the uninitiated, the MTA’s subway route designation system is a jumble of nonsense. Trains that travel divergent paths share colors, and the number/letter bullet system makes no sense. Sure, the 1, 2 and 3 trains could share a route, but what does the B, D, F and M all have to do with anything?
To educate the online subway crowd, the MTA released the video atop this post a few weeks ago. Featuring some cheesy music and some trippy animation, the authority explains how Manhattan trunk routes lend the subway map its color and how the numbers and letters correspond to both historic designations and current rolling stock assignments. Certain trains can fit and take customers on certain tracks, and there is apparently some method to the madness that is the city’s subway map.
18 comments
Any idea why those specific letters and numbers were chosen for each line? Why re-use T for the 2nd Ave. line when U has never been used, for instance? That’s never added up for me.
The IND originally used A thru G. The A train was simply the first IND line completed. Originally, there was a neat symmetry, as the A & B went to Washington Heights, the C & D to the Bronx, the E & F to Queens. At some point later on, the B & C swapped terminals.
When the old BMT switched from numbers to letters, J thru M were given to the Williamsburg Bridge and Canarsie lines (there used to be a K), while the Broadway lines took N and beyond (with O and P skipped). Many lines have had their service patterns re-arranged over the years, so it now looks as if the letters were just chosen at random.
Some letters are not used because they sound like common English words (I, U), would get joked about (P), or because they could be mistaken for numbers (I, O). Also, I suspect that if there were still a V, the letters U and V (if both were in service) could easily be confused for one another.
Let’s not forget the IND had double letters for locals: AA, CC, etc.
Some years ago (egads, probably 15-20, it was pre-Metrocard) the Transit Museum did a really good presentation/lecture about the maps. John Taurenac explained the genesis of the current style (still in use, but modified), including an early version that had an inset to show “the mess at Dekalb”. He ended with a self-serving plug for a revised design he had come out with. (He wanted the TA to adopt it and pay per copy they printed. Think about the copies in every car, every station, and given out to passengers and the money adds up!). There was also someone who was then handling the design for the TA who discussed recent changes as it had just been computerized, someone from Chicago (who mentioned using his girlfriend as a test for any proposed changes being understood by the general public) and someone from Mexico City.
The question came up about the current trunk colors since in prior maps (see the ’48, ’58, and ’66 maps on page 33 of Ovenden’s “Transit Maps of the World”) the IND was often red and the IRT blue. The answer was that when they decided to convert from the “map of many colors” to trunk routes they tried to save money by keeping some colors on signage. The 2 line was red so the Broadway IRT became red. Ditto for the A setting the 8th Ave trunk to dark blue.
I would have loved to have seen a similar video trying to explain the 1967 New York City subway map. Probably would have ended up about as long as your average current movie release.
Certain letters are used aren’t used because they would sound strange, since U sounds like “you” or P which would probably make for some humor sounds like pee, I guess it depends on how easy it would be for the average rider to say it. An O train would be confused with the 0 perhaps. I do know that they have another number for the 7 express 11,12, or 13 I cant remember, but again it would be easier just to designate the 7 Express as a 7 Express.
I did see this video a while ago on MTA’s youtube channel, its interesting to see how the MTA is reaching out to its online users, it would be nice if they did more videos like this.
Somehow I think they skipped over “P” because of confusion with the PATH. I don’t know when the BMT switched from numbers to letters, but if they avoided the P because of pee jokes it would have to have been between 1940 (unification) and 1960 (when the Port Authority bought H&M).
I cannot see anything that alludes to the subway’s history without thinking wistfully about how much better service the same number of track miles could provide had a single organization planned it for optimal route spacing (rather than bunching so many lines together, particularly in the center of Manhattan) and fully consistent equipment. Does anyone know of anyone who has even tried it.
Fantasy subway maps are a dime a dozen, and usually an exercise in futility: the system is what it is.
The absurdities today aren’t only because the lines were built by separate companies competing with each other. They put stations where people needed them 100 years ago, and some of them don’t really make sense today. Some lines were over-built, and others were under-built. Then, there were short-sighted decisions, like the flat junction where the M joins the J/Z, building the L as a two-track line, and so forth.
Exactly. The Lexington Avenue Express is a great example of that. There are four stations in the Financial District. Yet the larger business district in Midtown has just two stations, one of which was shoehorned in as an afterthought.
I’m not sure I agree. Those aren’t express stops in the Financial District – it’s a two-track line down there!
How much money did the MTA spend for this worthless piece of video? Told me absolutely nothing I didn’t already learn when I was 13 years old.
This video cost essentially nothing. The MTA is entitled to do outreach videos like this and teach people about the history of the system.
A professional music video costs about $250,000 to make. But this would cost a lot less, because there’s nothing to shoot, just some easy graphics to make. Fan-made YouTubes can do this, for free.
Although it is very simplified, along with general outreach, it is helpful for Wikipedia; it would be a nice addition for referencing the New York City Subway nomenclature article. (The fact that an article like that is even needed is amusing but it is necessary for a deeper understanding of the system.)
Now if they could post their “Transit Transit” newsmagazine online, that would be nice.
Ben,
Thanks for putting this up.
A fun watch besides the horribly distorted audio and lack of information. Sounds like it was announced over the old redbird PA systems.
The mixture of Helvetica and Standard Medium on the rollsigns is annoying.
That 1967 subway map is a disaster! In that case, the colors really were randomly picked out of a hat!
[…] made a video to explain everything. I bet the map STILL doesn’t make sense, does it? [Second Ave Sagas] City LifeGet […]