I was in New York last weekend and remarked to a few people that I thought the city would benefit from a more strictly schematic subway map. Well, low and behold what's Men's Vogue done but get Massimo Vignelli to do a more strictly schematic map of the New York subway system.
« Angst | Main | Locally Uncompetitive »
Ask, and Ye Shall...
04 May 2008 01:03 pm
Comments (35)
Yummy. But then, I'm a sucker for abstraction.
yeah, i really love the sleekness but how is this more user-friendly than the current map? i feel that for most people, distance and scale need to be represented in at least a rudimentary way to help them feel ok about making the leap from conception to action, and this map fails at this.
Like anything, there are pros and cons.
A schematic diagram is preferable if you know your entry and exit stations and merely want to navigate the subway system. Or, if a subway system is so logically arranged that one can easily deduce which entry and exit stations are most convenient.
Unfortunately, the layouts of the NYC subway system and the city streets of the outer boroughs and downtown Manhattan are so non-intuitive that anyone who doesn't need a map to navigate usually won't need the diagram either.
NYC is one of the last holdouts against the Beckification of every map of every transit system in the world. That Beck was a genius who contributed a truly unique idea that has been of great benefit to mankind cannot be denied (too bad he received no bonus for it and was made redundant a few years later). But I have some monoculture concerns about every single map in the world being redrawn in Beck's diagram style.
Cranky
Would it kill you to actually read what you link to? The map is from 1972; the MTA has tried this type of schematic design before and found that riders prefer a geographically realistic map. It's a gorgeous and cool map, but I have to agree with all the commenters above that it's ultimately impractical as a general use map because riders use subway maps not only to navigate the subway but the city itself.
i feel that for most people, distance and scale need to be represented in at least a rudimentary way to help them feel ok about making the leap from conception to action, and this map fails at this
Manhattan, which occupies roughly the same amount of map-space as each of the other four non-Staten Island boroughs, is physically much, much smaller than any of the others (look at a real map if you're not familiar). So any map of the NYC subway which represented distance and scale in at least a rudimentary way would have to be either extremely large, or unreadably dense in the Manhattan part.
I don't actually find Matt's homonym misspellings irritating at all, but since no one else has pointed this out, I'm pretty sure the phrase is "lo and behold," not "low and behold."
Would it kill you to actually read what you link to? The map is from 1972; the MTA has tried...
Before you accuse other people of not reading, you should read the portion below the map where it said this is an updating of the 1972 map.
Kevin, you might notice that the update is a limited edition thing done by Vignelli exclusively for Men's Vogue - not, so far as I can gather, a new map for use in MTA trains.
I don't actually find Matt's homonym misspellings irritating at all, but since no one else has pointed this out, I'm pretty sure the phrase is "lo and behold," not "low and behold."
Au contraire, mon frere! The "misspelling" is a subtle reference to noted reformist New Yorker mayor Seth Low. I'm not sure what Matt's purpose was in making this allusion, but then, I never went to Harvard.
In this part of the country we don't even have accurate road maps let alone legendary works of cartographic beauty.
Last week I searched for unexplored access roads to the middle fork of the river. I ended up on a private, dead-end trail in the Deliverance woods; there was a hoof-footed pig child off to the left and menacing dogs. I headed back.
...I'm pretty sure the phrase is "lo and behold," not "low and behold."
I thought that was just because he was talking about subways.
Would it kill you to actually read what you link to? The map is from 1972; the MTA has tried...
Before you accuse other people of not reading, you should read the portion below the map where it said this is an updating of the 1972 map.
All that Vignelli did was update the stops and lines to the current system; the point is that the concept and look of the map was created in 1972. This map, in its basic form, has been around for over thirty-five years; I've seen it before and the only major visual change is the yellow shuttle bus loop at JFK. It's silly for Matt to suggest that this was something brand-new, when in fact it's just some tweaking of an old and well-known image.
Where's the Google/Apple/iPhone/GPS travel buddy? "Speak or Click your destination, then follow the guide. Press "change" to alter travel plans, or simply go where you want. Charges calculated by GPS-Paypal. To travel on credit, press "delay pay" and choose a lender. Review and discuss payments at GPSPal.com. "
Where's the Google/Apple/iPhone/GPS travel buddy?
It got mugged by "Due to necessary track work, all "F" trains will be running on the "C" line and going out of service at Jay Street/Borough Hall."
If it's a schematic map independent of actual geography, why does it have a 'North' indicator?
Me sad. Easier map to much. No understand.
Me like Miami subway. One line. Easy. But they want another line! The fools, the fools!
When I was a student, once I got a singularly misbegotten idea on saving money on taxi by walking from JFK to subway, using NYC subway map for orientation. How it resulted with me showing up at 4 am in Kew Gardens, unmugged, it is hard to tell. Then, in mere 2 hours I reached Brooklyn location that was my goal. To the benefits of a fully schematic map one should add that no one should even think that it will help in orientation.
Maybe I'm too much of an anal-retentive cartographer wanna-be, but the NYC subway maps are already, IMHO, too "schematic". Actually, the current NYC subway map reminds me of a T-O map (with the Bronx=Asia, Brooklyn/Queens=Africa, Manhattan=Europe and the East River=the Med.), but I'm told that's just me.
Actually, I imagine Yankees fans (I'm not one) would love my idea as it would equates Yankee Stadium with Jerusalme?
What seems cool in the states is SOP in other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Moscow_metro.png
But then, the Russians gave us cool shit like this too:
"Ready to suck until I'm old!"
Guess I'm a little dense today. What are the advantages of a schematic map? Seriously. I mean, the Vignelli design looks good, but there's a reason it got tossed so fast.
That map sucks. It makes the Subway look like the DC metro -- all color-coded and easy to understand for the tourists too easily confused by express and local stops.
Move out of a minor league city like DC and learn to love a transit map that confuses people a little!
I'm not a big fan of the schematic subway maps, and am glad that the MTA held out with a relatively more geographically accurate map.
One fortunate quick of New York City geography is that the central area with the most dense agglomeration of subway lines, Manhattan, is an island. The main problem with really geographically accurate subway maps is that the network is the most dense in the central part of the city, so the choices with a multiline network are either to obscure the central area, make the map too big to be useful, or distortion. With the NYC subway, you really just have to enlarge Manhattan but keep some sense of geographic reality in other respects.
The Beck map was designed for London, where there are no obvious boundaries between the central and the outer areas. In New York, the river surrounds the central area, in London the river flows through the central area. But I've chosen the wrong line in trying to navigate London due to the Underground map not being good at showing the relation between the stations and the above ground landmarks, and appreciate the MTA's compromise.
In fact London has a somewhat unique mixture of an extensive system and a badly defined central part of the city. Other systems either have fewer lines, or its easier to separate and enlarge the central area, so with most systems there is no need to throw out all the geography.
The NYC map can be made more elegant just by getting rid of the bus transfer information, which no other system tries to show and is just too much overload for one map. And I can see demarcating the express and local etc. but the lines should be much thinner and closer together than on the Vignelli map.
I lived in New York the mid-seventies (1974-1976) and I can tell you that this map is only very slightly modified from the official map of that era. The MTA got rid of it because riders didn't like it.
Here is a good explanation for why the schematic map is wrong for NYC, from http://kickmap.com/about.html:
"Because New York City's subway generally follows its gridded street routes, there is a strong psychological link between the subway and the aboveground topography that is not found in a city like London. Any location - take 42nd Street and 7th Avenue as an example - places you in the grid, which makes it easy to judge distance and location. This is why the numerous geographical errors that can be found in a NYC subway diagram map (like Massimo Vignelli's 1972 MTA map infamously placing the 50th Street and Broadway stop east of 8th Avenue instead of west) are quickly spotted and glaringly "wrong." By contrast, London is a circular city bisected by a single river with a subway system (the Underground) that fans out evenly from the city center. With its chaos of randomly intersecting and proper named (versus numbered) streets and its tube system that doesn't follow them, a pure diagrammatic (Beck) map with geographic inaccuracies is not only tolerated, but its abstract simplicity is actually welcomed.
In fact London has a somewhat unique mixture of an extensive system and a badly defined central part of the city. - Ed
Which is the excuse given by many in the US for why so many of our cities lack adequate public transport. Yet London somehow seems to have it ... hmm ...
I've seen Vignelli's original map, and I think it was terrible.
This approach works fine for London and for Washington, DC. It was OK for Boston, but inadequate to show the whole Green Line trolley system, and it's changed since then.
I think the problem with applying it to New York in the way Vignelli did isn't so much that it's more schematic, as that the map tries to represent every combination of endpoints as a separate "line", so the main trunks through Manhattan end up turning into these vast conglomerations of parallel lines that convey little information for the space they cover. The map the MTA currently uses just combines those into a single line, which for NYC is probably the best you can do.
Guess I'm a little dense today. What are the advantages of a schematic map?
When you realize that you can only get on and off the subway at stations, rather than at any arbitrary point along the tracks, you will realize that the only thing you need the subway map to tell you is "how do I get from this station to that one?", not "where is that other station located?"
If you want to know what station is located closest to where you're going, you should look at a map of the city, not a map of the subway. Transit maps should always be schematics.
"I was in New York last weekend and remarked to a few people that I thought the city would benefit from a more strictly schematic subway map"
Heresy!
(ie, see what everyone else said.)
"If you want to know what station is located closest to where you're going, you should look at a map of the city, not a map of the subway"
Of course, with the current non-schematic NYC map, you don't need to be standing around trying to hold two maps (on top of anything else you might be carrying) long enough to compare them and select the proper station/route. Unsure why a subway map shouldn't help you actually use the subway.
Don't even get me started about Philly. Although when it comes to one of my biggest pet peeves - the lack of any intermediate bus map between the giant unmanageable whole city/region one and the many teeny useless schematic ones on the individual schedules - I have to admit that NYC has a built-in advantage, what with discrete boroughs to split it up between . . ..
Of course, SEPTA's apparent inability to provide any information whatsoever at the actual bus stop as to overall route, general frequency, direction of travel, etc., that's another matter entirely. Although they're ok on indicating what bus(es) actually stop there. Usually.
And there simply isn't one single rail transit map (again, short of the giant full-region one), although that gets back to details, since Philly regional rail is (not surprisingly) more akin to Metro-North, while the subway is more akin to a child's toy . . .
(There is, however, a fairly good Greater Philadelphia Regional Transit Map put together by various commissions and associations - even has bike trails).
"And there simply isn't one single rail transit map "
I mean, there is, but not for people to carry around. Although you could print it out, I guess.
When i started riding the subways as a kid, they used the schematic map(as several people noted). I didn't find it difficult, but most adults hated it.
The present maps are much better. We do actually take subways to arrive at certain areas of the city, not to see a new station. The present map can help find which station is near where you want to go, and then which line will get you there.
I lived in DC for a while, and found the metro maps less user friendly.
Somone suggested carrying two maps. That someone is not from NYC i suspect.
When i started riding the subways as a kid, they used the schematic map(as several people noted). I didn't find it difficult, but most adults hated it.
The present maps are much better. We do actually take subways to arrive at certain areas of the city, not to see a new station. The present map can help find which station is near where you want to go, and then which line will get you there.
I lived in DC for a while, and found the metro maps less user friendly.
Somone suggested carrying two maps. That someone is not from NYC i suspect.
If you live in NYC and carry anything more than a credit card sized map in your wallet, you will get laughed at. To avoid the emarassment, you might want to have a camera around your neck and a plastic green statue of liberty crown on your head.
Of course, with the current non-schematic NYC map, you don't need to be standing around trying to hold two maps (on top of anything else you might be carrying) long enough to compare them and select the proper station/route.
Why would you need to compare them? Look at the city map; find the nearest station to where you are, and the nearest to where you want to go. Remember the names.
Take the subway map. Find those two stations and travel between them. If you're struggling with two maps at once then you're not doing it right. You don't need to know where the trains run, just where they stop.
infamously placing the 50th Street and Broadway stop east of 8th Avenue instead of west
...isn't that right?
Comments closed May 18, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Interesting, but I guess I am with the unwashed masses who prefer a map to a diagram.
Posted by John DE | May 4, 2008 1:31 PM