Eddie Jabbour, graphic designer for Kick Design, is obsessed with replacing the confusing NYC subway map (below: originals on left and Kick maps on right — click for larger versions).
The logic behind the changes
“Can He Get There From Here?” profiles Jabbour’s quest. Here he explains the reasoning for his changes:
Mr. Jabbour pinned two maps to the wall, then pointed to the different renderings of the Atlantic Avenue terminal in Brooklyn, which he says is the most difficult station to represent because so many subway lines converge there. In Mr. Jabbour’s map, the subway lines run parallel to one another, making the map easier to read, if slightly inaccurate. Each line is marked with a circle bearing the route’s letter or number, instead of the oblong station markers used on the current map.
There are other differences. Unlike the official map, Mr. Jabbour’s map does not have a single line representing all the trains in a “cluster” route, like the 1, 2 and 3 trains in Manhattan. He used the same type font throughout, and words travel left to right, rather than diagonally, as on much of the official map. The lines bend only in 45- and 90-degree angles, to create a gridlike pattern.
In the eyes of Mr. Jabbour, the New York system is too complicated to layer on information like commuter rail and bus routes, as the current map does. He would like to see a map that is singularly devoted to the subway.
Distortion vs. accuracy
Jabbour’s map looks like a winner. (Thankfully, the navigation on it is a lot better than the messy Flash interface at Kick Design’s main site). He wisely recognizes that usability is more important than geographic accuracy here. Subway map readers want to know how to get from A to B a lot more than they want to know the exact curve of the tracks along the way. Sometimes truth is less important than knowledge.
It’s also interesting to see how he increases the number of lines on the map yet decreases the overall noise created. That change means riders can put their finger on a line and trace it all the way to their destination. That’s not always an easy task on the current map (multiple trains run along a single line until veering off).
When abstractions work
In Maps, Reality, and Purpose, Johndan Johnson-Eilola explains why abstractions, deletions, and additions are part of how a map works.
At first glance, a map that doesn’t directly correspond to the object it’s mapping seems like a bad thing. But that’s what maps are: useful abstractions. They’re smaller than reality, less detailed, are usually two-dimensional. That shouldn’t been seen as a limitation, but added information. The abstractions suggest to us what features we would benefit from paying attention to.
London tube map
This is a lesson you can see in action at the London tube map, widely acknowledged as a design classic. It bears very little geographical relationship to where the stations are and even less geographical information on how far apart stations are. Here’s an interesting comparison of a real geographical tube map (top) and the adjusted version seen on the official map (below).
Tufte on London map
Edward Tufte is a fan of the London map.
Harry Beck’s diagram of the 7+ lines of the London Underground, although geographically inaccurate, provides a coherent overview of a complex system. With excellent color printing, classic British railroad typography (by Edward Johnson), and, in the modern style, only horizontal, vertical, and 45 degree lines, the map became a beautiful organizing image of London. For apparently quite a number of people, the map organized London (rather than London organizing the map). Despite 70 years of revision due to extensions of the Underground and bureaucratic tinkering (the marketing department wrecked the map for several years), the map nicely survives to this day.
Tufte also recommends a book on the London map: Mr Beck’s Underground Map.
The book describes the enormous care, craft, thought, and hard work of Harry Beck that went on for decades — exactly what it takes to do great information design and so in contrast to the quick-and-dirty practices and thinking of commercial art.
Of course, there are problems with inaccurate maps, as Simon Rumble points out at the Tufte site.
The main problem with the Tube map is that it is geographically inaccurate. This can lead to a very distorted view of London, particularly for those new to the city.
Many stations are geographically very close and you can end up spending half an hour in stuffy tunnels when you could have worked overground for five minutes. The same occurs in reverse. It is also deficient in the way it describes some stations. For example, the interchange between the Hammersmith and City line and other lines at Paddington. It’s a reasonably long walk but they are still in the same physical station.
Of course nobody has come up with anything better and it is still a fantastic map. After a year or so of living in London, I can work out my route in seconds.
Utopia isn’t an option here. The distorted map gets the job done better than an accurate one and that’s what really matters.
Related imagery
London Tube Map is a blog post with some interesting related imagery, including a geographically accurate map overlaid onto a NASA satellite image of London (1 MB) and the tube map overlaid onto a NASA night time London image (below).
Taylor Hughes
on 26 Apr 07I just had my first confusing New York subway experience about two months ago and couldn’t agree more. I think the most confusing aspect of the existing map is the single-tube-for-four-trains aspect: I was standing in the wrong half of a station in lower manhattan flipping a map around for about a half hour before I figured out both trains on one side were going the same way for some reason. It’s a confusing system for newcomers.
Eliot
on 26 Apr 07This is a straight-up power vs. ease-of-use issue, and as usual with those, neither answer is objectively correct. New Yorkers rejected Vignelli’s abstracted map in the 70’s, and they would reject this one now. They value the relative geographic accuracy of the current map, because they are trying to make bus transfers, judge which station is closest to to precise addresses, etc.
Visitors and newbies to the system would probably do better with the abstracted map, because it obviously does scan better.
The best answer is probably to support both modes via two maps.
Jeff Croft
on 26 Apr 07Having just been in London for the first time last week, I was really facinated by the Tube map, and especially it’s lack of relationship to the overground geography. It really is brilliant. Makes the Tube map so much simpler and more understandable. Good stuff here. Nice post!
Scott T.
on 26 Apr 07Even as a new yorker, I prefer the more abstract subway map. I usually plan my trips ahead of time to gauge walking distance (using the OnNYTurf Google map with subway overlay or HopStop); or I use Google Maps on my phone or my handy Not For Tourists guide.
The problem with the current MTA subway map is that it isn’t geographically accurate and can lead you to make just as many innacurate suppositions about walking distance / etc. as the more abstract, easier to read map, IMO.
Skylar
on 26 Apr 07I was just in London and we used a “distorted” tube map (see: http://www.oxfordtube.com/assets/london/underground_map.jpg)
While it was helpful in taking the tube, I was finding myself getting confused (when getting off the tube) since it is not geographically accurate. We had to use a second “regular” map to balance it out.
But the distorted map is definately easy to follow and visually pleasing.
Hugh
on 26 Apr 07The maps serve 2 different purposes, so it would be hard to say one is better than the other. It depends on what your goal is.
Long Time Listener - Repeat Caller
on 26 Apr 07Yawn. Been seeing “distortion” train maps for years via Tokyo’s JR East / Metro maps.
http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/info/map_a4ol.pdf
Chris Mear
on 26 Apr 07Your link to “a real geographical tube map next to the adjusted version seen on the official map” doesn’t actually show the official map at all. The inset is just a zoomed-in portion of the same geographical map.
The official distorted map can be seen here: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/images/general/mapt-tube-standard-colourmap.gif
ML
on 26 Apr 07Thanks Chris. I edited the post so it now includes the two maps next to each other.
erasableink
on 26 Apr 07Looks great, where can I buy one?
Tony
on 26 Apr 07Not that it is anywhere near as complex, but the DC Metro map is also of the simplified variety: http://wmata.com/metrorail/systemmap.cfm
Joe Grossberg
on 26 Apr 07They already do this in Washington, DC and environs; the Metro map is distorted—grossly so in terms of distances between suburban stops.
Darrel
on 26 Apr 07The ‘london tube’-ization of maps definitely makes them much easier to read as a system diagram.
However, as stated, the geographical scale issue can be rather important. Probably more-so to newcomers than long time riders, so perhaps it’s not that important.
I do recall taking the subway in Glasgow thinking we were looping from one end of the city to the other only to pop-out above ground only some 6 blocks from where we started. Sometimes it’s nicer to know that you can walk it in less time than taking the subway. These modified maps don’t always show that.
So, as stated, the abstracted maps are great for showing the specifics of subway travel, but fail and communicating their part within the larger overall transporation structure (busses, walking, etc.)
soxiam
on 26 Apr 07Nice write-up and some interesting points to consider in UI design. The other day I was at The Westchester Mall trying to locate the Apple Store using their “you are here” directory map. It was very difficult to use partly due to the fact the map tried to represent all the little stores in the most dimentionally accurate way possible. But when you’re trying to find a store, people don’t care what the shape of the store is or where the entrance is located. They just need to know where it is in relations to other stores.
Jay
on 26 Apr 07For me, a map with some sense of geography (and the Kick map retains enough for my taste) is much more useful as one’s only resource than a completely abstract map like the Tube one. Being able to trace my route with a finger is only useful once I know the stations where I want to get on and off. As a tourist, sometimes this might be the case, such as when directions include the nearest station to a place, and I’ve figured out the nearest one to where I’m staying. But personally, I more often start with my destination being an address or a neighborhood I want to explore. In those cases, even the combination of an accurate street map and an abstract subway map is no use (assuming the street map contains no subway information and the names of the stations alone do not tell you where they are).
Overall it’s important to systematically consider all the various scenarios in terms of what information the user will start with, and what the map then needs to tell them. As a lifelong New Yorker I’m quite blind to our current subway map’s problems, but as a visitor to other places I tend to find abstract maps of very little use.
Iván
on 26 Apr 07Another interesting example is the Boston MBTA map.
In fact, their Flash-based map allows you to contrast the stylized map with the geographically accurate one by switching between tabs.
Very good illustration of the concept described here.
v
on 26 Apr 07Hmm. I think the distorted map is a big improvement, especially in mapping out the neighborhoods in a useful and legible way. Not sure, though, about the multiple tubes for lines that are “clustered” (ex: A, C, and E). They’re clustered in real life (ie, same platform), after all.
Of course, if this re-worked map were paired with better in-station signage, I wouldn’t even have noticed..
Hass
on 26 Apr 07If you lived in subwayland and never wanted to visit the surface, the kick map would be awesome. But, the reality is that people use these maps for all sorts of purposes that make cartographers (like me) wince. New York has had maps like this before, and people hated them because they were too abstract.
The real power of maps lays in their ability to abstract reality, but you can’t push that too far.
I say keep the original, which is already WILDLY distorted. See it at scale.
Dennis Eusebio
on 26 Apr 07I remember back in school when my teacher taught my class about the london map design. First he brought up the map you guys have shown. Then, without any explanation at all he displayed the designed map.
Everybody in the class just instantly got it. No words needed to be said or lectures given. It just made so much sense.
I love the design to this day.
zack
on 26 Apr 07Yuck. The KickMap is juvenile. I disagree with the decreasing noise comment. I think Jabbour’s is noisier. I live here. I’d much prefer a more geographically accurate map. The current map is great. The KickMap looks like Rainbow Brite’s washing machine on the spin cycle. The 3-5 color shading for all the different varieties of one line is an awful idea. Is that N train Saffron or Flax again? I forget.
the MTA should take a cue from these guys and put the actual station exits and boundaries into their main map. That would be the biggest improvement I could think of. http://www.onnyturf.com/subway/
Anonymous Coward
on 26 Apr 07The New York subway will be confusing to newcomers and tourists no matter what the map looks like. There are always service changes, and there are always dynamics which will cannot be reflected by a static map. That’s why there are booths with real-live-people in them to tell noobs and tourists how to get where they want to go.
Further, the train and bus connections, as well as the almost-accurate geography are not a good tradeoff to make the map legible to tourists. If they were willing to look at the legend, then they could probably make some sense of it.
Aaron Blohowiak
on 26 Apr 07Septa’s map is distorted and innaccurate, but really easy to read—almost as good as DCs
Donn
on 26 Apr 07The thing is, the “distorted” map is not distorted at all. It’s a network map. Sure, bearing some resemblence to the actual spatial layout of routes and stations is useful for orientation, but ultimately the point is how the nodes are linked together so you can plot your route from node A to node B. What’s more useful from a data routing perspective: a map of your network showing where in the building each server, client, and printer is physically located, or a Visio diagram showing how clusters of clients and servers relate to each other in terms of nets and subnets?
pwb
on 26 Apr 07I agree with Jay: real geographical information has good value. I think Eddie’s map does a fantastic job of balancing clarity with geographical authenticity in a way the London map totally fails.
awardtour
on 26 Apr 07great video outtake of vignelli talking about his ‘72 nyc subway map: http://www.helveticafilm.com/vignellimap.html
EJ
on 26 Apr 07“but ultimately the point is how the nodes are linked together so you can plot your route from node A to node B.”
But if you don’t know how close node B is to your surface destination, that does you no good. The Kick map makes it look like certain stations are close to surface destinations when in reality they are many blocks away, and it would have been better to take another line or get out and walk. The same applies in reverse.
Chadly
on 26 Apr 07When I got old enough to ride my bike outside of my neighborhood, my dad drew me a map of the surrounding blocks on a sheet of notebook paper in green marker. It was of course abstracted, but as I used the map as a means of getting around I figured out the actual geographical lay of the land. I can still visualize that map in my head 20 years later, how I folded it, and how it looked… crazy.
So through abstraction I learned the actual geography. So I would argue that distorted maps are beneficial both to getting around easily, and indirectly learning the layout through the experience of actually traveling about (and inevitably making mistakes).
RichB
on 26 Apr 07The Geo-correct London tube map you pointed to is at least 8 years old. It shows the Jubilee line terminating at Charing Cross. The eastern extension (JLE) portion was opened progressively during 1999 and then joined to the existing western stretch in early 2000.
Wikipedia has an accurate Zone1 geo map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:London_Underground_Zone_1.png
Peter
on 26 Apr 07While I won’t deny I find the Kick system map clearer and more useful, the thing that stands out on the official map is the terrible labeling. Station names are oriented every-which way, they’re crammed in even if they don’t fit, and everything seems to have an equal weight. I’d be interested to see what sort of improvement a careful relabeling of the official map would make.
Christopher Fahey
on 26 Apr 07While my gut tells me that the redesigned NYC Subway map is clearly better, if I were the MTA I would still defer to usability testing on this kind of question. It’s always a shock how some kinds of visual language that designers understand and appreciate is nonetheless off-putting or even logically impenetrable to regular people.
For example, most NYC Subway riders (a majority!) don’t have bank accounts, so the Metrocard machines can’t assume that users know anything about how to use, for example, ATM machines. They lack that particular kind of UI literacy. Maybe we’re making similar assumptions about the visual literacy of the people who read the maps, too.
Michael Bourke
on 26 Apr 07Call me a typographic pedant, but as much as I want to like the Kick map, the fact that Jabbour uses disproportionate font scaling instead of Helvetica Condensed (or Compressed) makes me say “yuck.”
freaktopia
on 26 Apr 07brilliant! finally, some good design from you guys. oh, wait…
Eduo
on 26 Apr 07Madrid today launched a new map of its enlarged subway network, partly to include the newer lines added this year and partly because it’s been seen as “complicated” for some time now. The funny part is that we already had a simplified, london-esque, non-proportional map whose only relation with geographical reality was that if something was north or east of something else then it’d probably be correct.
You can see here the old one and the new one. This is yet one more step towards abstraction of the lines from the geography itself. Gone is any line not vertical or horizontal but now there are representations of the city river and the two biggest parks.
Here PDF versions of the old (http://www.metromadrid.es/acc_resources/pdfs/Plano_Metro_2007.pdf) and the new (http://www.20minutos.es/data/adj/2007/04/16/599.pdf)
Gary R Boodhoo
on 26 Apr 07The point I think is that geographical “authenticity” is completely a matter of context. I am regularly surprised at how different SF is by car vs. by foot vs. public transportation. A geographically accurate map is pretty useless in all cases, when all I need to know is relative placement of key features, not the actual xmymz coords!
Chris Coleman
on 26 Apr 07One other big problem with the official MTA map is that it’s not geographically accurate either. It still roughly depicts the five boroughs, but not in enough detail to be useful at all. The area around Atlantic Avenue is also a prime example of this.
The MTA needs to publish two maps and eat the cost: a real physical map that shows station locations and names, and yours to show the lines.
New York is such a complicated place that it’s ridiculous to think that the one map they have now could possibly be sufficient.
Also, I have to say that I totally agree with other commenters that it’s way too overwhelming for newcomers. If they want to visitors and tourists to take mass transit rather than drive, they need to improve the map, improve signage in the subways and et more signs on the street point pedestrians to the subways.
One other thing that apparently nobody has ever thought of would be to paint a compass on the sidewalk right outside of every subway entrance so that people can quickly find their way once they get outside.
Until they do these things, they’ll never cut down on traffic in the city.
Jesse Endahl
on 27 Apr 07They do this in Stockholm, Sweden as well:
http://mekkaniak.nu/downloads/subway-stockholm.jpg
Jeffrey Engel
on 27 Apr 07You all assume that somehow accuracy is NOT good usability. When it comes to maps, I have to disagree with this assessment. The accuracy is NOT about showing where “tracks bend”. It’s about showing WHERE THE SUBWAY STOPS ARE IN RELATION TO STREETS. See, you assume that people just want to get from A to B. Wrong. That’s people that ALREADY KNOW where they’re going! But information-seeking people want to know WHERE stops are in relation to where they are ultimately going as well! This is why I think it’s almost offensive when people come up with these “pretty looking” super-simplified maps that offer NOTHING to tourists or casual transit users but the names of various stops and some ambiguous lines that represent streets. I want to know where the stops are in relation to geography of the city. I want to know if it’s easier to take the B or C track on the green line to get to a particular place in Brighton-Allston (talking about Boston’s T because it’s all I know). However, these super-simplified maps offer no such information! They ONLY offer information to people who want to get from one station to another. What does “Fenway” mean to most people? Fenway Park. But Fenway T stop doesn’t go there. Most Bostonians don’t even know this. If you showed it on a map where you could see that KENMORE is closer, people would know more. Super-simplified maps suck for people that really need information. They’re only good for people who already know the city and just need to be reminded from time to time. And THIS is the reason why people don’t know the difference between north, south, east and west. It’s the masking of complexity that every human should have some understanding of. I could go on longer and longer (I’ve gone on long enough) and talk about how this even leads to insularity and typical big city attitudes, not knowing WHERE things really ARE, but I’ll spare you all that. ;)
Jeffrey Engel
on 27 Apr 07THIS is a snippet a great map of Boston’s MBTA:
http://www.starthereboston.com/images/theatre-t-map.gif
It serves both people that need geographical understanding AND people who need to get from A to B. i’ve seen the larger version of this, the only place you can get this map (or a map it’s based on) is at the Logan Airport. It’s a pamphlet some company made. Actually I noticed that not all the names of the T stops are on this map, so it’s a variation. But it’s really close. Now, imagine this zoomed out a bit with just the major streets visible. This would be a perfect map! You can see how close Symphony’s green line stop is to Mass Ave’s orange line stop so you could easily hop across instead of “following the line of dots” the “simple” map shows you all the way back to the center of town. Usefulness is as important as usability.
Adam
on 27 Apr 07For those of us that live and/or work in NYC, the Kick map is completely unusable. The current map actually allows you to see where the stops actually are, which the Kick map does not.
Jeppe
on 27 Apr 07People traveling by train has different goals. I’m sure the most part of them use the train by daily basis. They just want to know what lines to connect to get to a certain stop without worrying about the geographics.
It has been used with success in Denmark for decades.
http://kortlink.dk/3ttg
http://kortlink.dk/3tth (PDF)
Denn
on 27 Apr 07There are two things on this guy’s map that are wonderful: 1. The separate lines for each train. That’s helpful to tourists. 2. The colored neighborhoods in the background
Not putting street names and distorting the geography more than it already is distorted on the existing map is BAD.
I think this guy should do a little more work, including more street names. I betcha that he would have done this except that it’s so much work. ;-)
Nate
on 27 Apr 07You guys need to do this with the Seoul, South Korea subway map too. I wonder how geographically accurate it is.
Brian
on 27 Apr 07The current subway map is superior as it also includes streetnames, major landmarks, commuter train lines, and major bus connections.
When I take the subway, it’s because I want to get from one place above ground to another place above ground. I don’t want to need two maps to figure out how to do that.
Martin Ström
on 27 Apr 07You should check it Oskar Karlin’s “Time Travel” as well.
Drew
on 27 Apr 07An intersing example of design utility is the moscow underground map: http://traveleng.sitenow.ru/info/files/file0018.gif
It loses most reference to distance once you have left the central district, only the order of the nodes is important. This map covers a literally massive underround system with a map that can be quickly mastered.
BenSky
on 27 Apr 07New design looks miles better, easier to read and a lot less cluttered.
Stu
on 27 Apr 07Berlin map http://www.s-bahn-berlin.de/pdf/s_bahn_netz.pdf
dnm
on 27 Apr 07People having problems with the London map have to understand it doesn’t matter where the stations are, all that matters is what is the closest station to your destination and how do you get there from that station.
You plan your route after the underground, anything before that is just a system to help you get to that station as fast/painless as possible. Basically consider the underground like a form of teleportation because geography means nothing down there.
NYC dwellers sound like they’re using the subway map similar to how Londoners use the essential London A-Z
Richard
on 27 Apr 07As far as I know, most major cities in Europe provide such simplified subway maps, so this hardly new for me. However, there is always an accurate streetmap besides. And usually I check out the nearest subway station in the streetmap, and then look over to the simplified map, look for these stations to find out what line to take, and where to change trains. Works very well for me.
Cheers
Bodhi
on 27 Apr 07I was suprised when I saw that the NY map wasn’t a ‘network’ map. Lots of people have talked about how they use the map as a reference above ground too, but here in Tokyo that’s virtually impossible, as the layout and addressing is too arbitrary. This leads to almost all businesses including the closest train-station in their contact information. Check out the Tokyo Map, it’s only the subway for the inner-city metro area, and the above-ground trains aren’t indicated very well.
Josh
on 27 Apr 07Philadelphia has an excellent system of ‘disk maps’ which are placed on poles on the sidewalks in the inner city. The maps are oriented according to the direction the person reading them is facing (relatively easy to do since they have a regular street grid). The maps all have a star indicating where they, and thus the user, is located, along with a circle indicating the distance easily walkable in 20 minutes. Various districts are color-coded, with some landmarks picked out. Complementing this are matching color coded directional signs pointing the way to the various landmarks, and indicating which district you’re currently in. It’s a great idea, and probably quite useful for helping to orient people coming up out of the subway. You can see one here: http://www.centercityphila.org/docs/walkphila_infosheet.pdf
Of course, as a Bostonian, let me remind my neighbors here that virtually all of our signage is designed to confuse and confound anyone from out of town, and to lead them away from the city. True Bostonians don’t need signs or maps put up by the MBTA or the city etc. We don’t even care about the street names in proximity to Washington St. (Not all of our Washington Streets, since we’ve got several, just the one in particular) We either know where we’re going, or have street atlases in our cars. OTOH our arrangement of streets has an undeserved reputation. It might not be a boring regular grid (except when it is) but it does represent the best and most direct way to get from point A to B and so on. It’s just that it’s so old that points A-ZZ were mostly replaced 300 years ago and are no longer relevant.
For fun, here’s an older map of the Boston transit system: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/BERy_1925_map.jpg It’s not a network map.
Darrel
on 27 Apr 07It seems that the best solution here is a double-sided map. Abstract on one side, geographic on the other.
Another problem is that lack of integrated transportation maps.
In Portland, OR, while staying downtown, we decided to venture into the northern part of the city to visit some friends. We took the train as far as we could to the bus stop. At that point, we were lost. No one knew anything about our destination and after 45 minutes on the bus, we eventually bailed and had to get picked up by our friends.
(BTW, if you ever want to convince someone why we need more train-based mass transit in this country, send them to Portland and have them compare the train to the bus…they’ll ‘get it’ immediately!)
Oluseyi
on 27 Apr 07I don’t have problems figuring out the current map, but lots and lots of people do. There is a problem – using oneself as the sole determinant is a thoughtless thing to do, and is probably why most of you are NOT designers!
The argument that geographical hints (not accuracy) matters is spurious; the overwhelming usage mode of NYC subway maps is from within the subway system, not street level, and the people using them at street level are estimating how to get from station A (the one closest to their current location) to station B (the they already know to be closest to their destination). I hear whining about “I need to know which station is closest to my origin/destination” – you really use the subway map for this purpose?
+ The Bronx – 149th St-Grand Concourse connection to 138th St: these tracks are almost directly on top of each other, not connected by a lateral walkway.
+ Brooklyn – Atlantic Ave-Pacific St: the station is fundamentally undecipherable from the map.
+ Brooklyn – Marcy Ave J/M/Z to Hewes St J/M/Z: it’s a two block walk!
+ Manhattan (Financial District) – Wall St 2/3 and Wall St 4/5: they’re on opposite ends of a short block and a half (at Williams St and Broadway respectively).
+ Trivially enumerate how many lines stop at Union Sq-14th St in Manhattan and Atlantic Ave-Pacific St in Brooklyn.
The KickMap addresses the most relevant information to subway riders. The notion that the subway map is an efficient door-to-door route planner is a lie. If you really need comprehensive door-to-door directions, Hopstop.
Hass
on 27 Apr 07Another failure I see on the kick map is the visual hierachy. The route numbers/letters dominate over the station names, which is backwards of the way I’d use the map. You scan and find stations, then work backwards to find the route between the stations. You need to find a route before you care about the name of that route.
Regarding the separation of the lines as distinct lines, I think that’s a bad idea because that doesn’t reflect what’s on (or under) the ground. On the ground, there are multiple trains running in the same place, you should see them in the same place. The existing map also falls short here because know that there are four different lines running on the same track can also be useful information. A single line that gets wider with the number of train lines on it would be more useful.
simon
on 27 Apr 07I’ve always liked Gothenburg’s – Sweden – tram and buss map.
Jim
on 28 Apr 07As someone who grew up with the 1972 map (which you seem to have rediscovered), I prefer the geographically accurate map.
NYC is geographically simple enough for that map to become my only map.
Stuart
on 28 Apr 07For London, the reason the Tube map could never be your only reference to the city is that unlike NY, the streets aren’t laid out on a grid system, so you can’t simply show main thoroughfares to give a useable overall view of the city.
The tube map in conjunction with the A-Z is an ideal solution for a city that’s laid out like London – for other places where you can reduce the resolution of surface features but maintain usefulness, simplification to the degree of the tube map may well not be ideal.
Paul Mansour
on 29 Apr 07I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this above, but when I was a boy riding the trains, the map looked just like the proposed redesign:
http://subway.com.ru/images/1976-map-hr.jpg
David Levinson
on 29 Apr 07http://blog.lib.umn.edu/levin031/transportationist/2007/03/could_you_walk_it_quicker.html
David Levinson
on 29 Apr 07As I was saying,
The interesting trade-off between realism and abstractness is important. Each creates problems. I made a recent post about “Could you walk it quicker” an ad campaign by Flora (a butter company) trying to help people be healthier in theory, and a recent map by students showing the walking time between London stations, which is totally distorted by the abstraction (which aids in Underground navigation). There is no universal optimum (although there are many universal suboptima) in map design, by focusing on the clarity of one feature, others must be distorted, and just as “all models are wrong”, “all maps are lies”, some more useful than others.
Links: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/levin031/transportationist/2007/03/could_you_walk_it_quicker
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/levin031/transportationist/2007/04/helpful_distortion.html
AJ
on 29 Apr 07For those interested I purchased a book about underground/metro design a few years back called Metro Maps of the World.
Highly recommended!
molarade
on 29 Apr 07What many people who prefer the existing NYC subway map are not addressing is the fact that the existing map is not geographically accurate (Scott T. & Chris Coleman hit upon this). In a way, that’s worse than an abstracted subway map, because it suggests that it can be used above-ground. I live in NYC and neither I nor anyone I know who lives here would use the NYC Transit’s map for anything but navigating the subway. And in that regard it leaves much to be desired.
The NYC Transit map could retain enough of the above-ground geography it presently shows but benefit greatly at the same time by abstracting the torturous routes of the train lines themselves (which I doubt are accurate anyway) into the 90 & 45 degree modes used in the European network maps. And of course, as Peter said, it needs an overhaul on the labeling.
Darrel’s suggestion of a double-sided mapone side abstracted system, the other above-ground geographically accurate with station indicatorsis an excellent one. It would be a much better use of the 2nd side than the current one, which shows, I believe, the Long Island Railroad (commuter rail) map. That could easily be a separate map—and, in fact, used to be, until somewhat recently.
dnm
on 30 Apr 07” double-sided map—one side abstracted system, the other above-ground geographically accurate”
Including both solutions admits that one fails at its job.
Eric
on 30 Apr 07This is exactly the same way that the D.C. Metro map is done. Obviously, their subway system is much smaller, but I have always thought this was a great representation of the actual subway lines.
alex laurie
on 01 May 07I have to disagree with Simon Rumble’s point about alternatives to London Tube map vs reality:
“Of course nobody has come up with anything better and it is still a fantastic map. After a year or so of living in London, I can work out my route in seconds.”
Rodcorp has compiled a version of the map with ‘walklines’ where the Tube stations are close together (less than 500m apart) at http://rodcorp.typepad.com/rodcorp/2003/10/london_tube_map.html
This is a great tool to help visitors avoiding taking the Tube from Leicester Square to Covent Garden (250m) etc.
udutudf
on 01 May 07mvhhgmhgm
Ramon Bispo
on 01 May 07This is fantastic… :P
Mike Pearson
on 01 May 07“Including both solutions admits that one fails at its job.”
Piffle! Would you combine a knife and fork into the same utensil?
Jon Swerens
on 01 May 07”double-sided map—one side abstracted system, the other above-ground geographically accurate”
No, producing two maps just means that you’ve identified two different audiences—residents familiar with the above-ground world and tourists who aren’t.
David
on 03 May 07The scale of the London Underground system does not allow a single map to be used for both over- and underground planning.
Also, the distances between stations vary hugely, from a couple of hundred yards to a mile or more. The ‘accurate’ map therefore does not cover the whole area, and needs an expanded central area insert.
If street names and other points of interest were added, the whole map would end up just as congested as the real life rush hour traffic.
The schematic map does its job very well, while the A-Z complements it for the overground ends of the journey, although you might need a bus map too…
This discussion is closed.