Here's another effort at a schematic diagram of the NYC subway system, that I think looks a bit better than the Vignelli one I linked to yesterday.
« Shocking Results | Main | Iraq-Afghanistan Linkages »
More Map
05 May 2008 12:12 pm
Comments (18)
That's a good one, but it's annoying that there's no link to a full map of it, at least not a usable one.
Am I the only non-New Yorker who has no problems with the current map? Seriously, Manhattan has a coherent street grid, it's not too hard to figure out where you are going even if you are traveling to the outer boroughs, and the map tells you at a glance where to make your connections and what routes stop at what stops.
What's the problem?
They're more useful because the NYC subway system uses express lines. With the MTA map, you have to look up where the express trains stop, or make note of the differently colored dot used for express trains. Even then sometimes the express trains split off so you have to know which train goes where by the little numbers next to the station. The schematic map lets you follow one distinct line on the map for each express/local line, which means tourists could physically trace their way from one destination to another just by following the lines.
The current map is entirely sufficient, and easily understood by anyone over the age of 8. If any of these new New Yorkers can't understand it, they can go home or live out their bullshit Sex in The City fantasy in some other played out metropolis.
And if I have to tell one more Euro-Tourist how to get to Century 21...
"Entirely sufficient" -- whoa, don't bowl us over with your enthusiasm, now.
The reality is that the current map is a horrorshow -- incredibly confusing and user-unfriendly for visitors and new residents. The text is strewn around the map more or less at random, and figuring out which lines run express is completely non-intuitive. The Kick Map is a massive improvement in almost every way over both the MTA's current design and Vignelli's too-abstract version.
You can get a PDF of the Manhattan portion of the Kick Map here.
So, the new map is entirely irrelevant to people who understand the old map.
I imagine that's true of lots of things.
DJA:
The intelligence and snarkiness that it took to conceive and execute your post is, again, "entirely sufficient" to understand the NYC subway map. Apologies for my lack of enthusiasm.
I guess all I am saying is that the map doesn't need to be fixed. I would propose putting any money that would be spent on new maps toward bleach and mops (and perhaps paint). That is the area in which the subway continues to require improvement.
laborlibert,
Let me guess -- you are one of the people who figured that DOS was "entirely sufficient" for everyone's computing needs, and only complete idiots had any need for a graphical user interface.
I share the all but uniform response of comments in both threads and for the same reasons, chiefly the need to relate a trip to where in New York you might actually be going. When I visit DC, I mostly have to take for granted where I'm going. If it's an unusual neighborhood like Woodley Park, I need a separate map to have a clue where the subway is really putting me in terms of streets. London can get away with a schematic map, largely because no one knows where any streets are in London anyway.
Others note, too, that MY is fighting a lost cause, like the confederacy. He's reverting to a map style that got ditched. Yeah, he's not reverting to the old map, but only because some routes or stations changed. And, a noted, change is not a demand for another reason, that people with half a brain can cope with most any of these maps. I grew up with quite another entirely.
But let me add a three reasons against this not yet mentioned. First, people also use subway maps as help in getting around, period. The neighborhood labels aren't perfect; Williamsburg is overlaid on south Williamsburg, which should please the orthodox community but isn't really accurate. Still, the maps help.
Second, the multiple lines on the same route add clutter, making sections of the map harder to read. Third, they also make frequent changes in the system harder: you have to redraw the map rather than just move labels around.
The whole graphic identity of the system needs an upgrade, IMO. The signage is abysmal -- counterintuitive, confusing, occasionally downright wrong. Here's another are in which Transport for London kicks the MTA's behind. (Renaming and rebranding the essential North London Line as "London Overground" is one example among many.)
DJA:
I don't even know what graphical user interface means. But I can still read the NYC subway map!
In any event, you know thats not an appropriate analogy. Let me be clear that my real gripe, as usual, is the changing (changed) face of the City. I'd prefer things to stay as they are, and anything within reason that will convince newcomers (not immigrants in the traditional sense but moneyed Europeans and Americans from anywhere but the Southwest) to not move to NYC is a benefit from my perspective.
As others have noted, the main problem with the current map is the clutter, but this is caused mostly by the inclusion of bus transfer information. Get rid of this information, which doesn't show up on any other subway systems maps, and the current MTA map becomes much easier to read.
I can see both sides of the case for separating the lines. The way the New York system is organized is not so much that some lines are express and some are local, but in that (mostly local) outer borough lines converge into five uptown-downtown trunk lines when they run through Manhattan(Lexington, 6th, 7th, and 8th Aves. and Broadway), with the formally separate outer borough lines dividing into express or local trains. The current map doesn't show this well, but I think graphically the best way to display this is to actually show the lines converge, so you would have thin outer borough lines merge into single thick lines when they get to Manhattan. Again, this reduces teh clutter.
This feature of the system is also why a schematic map is not needed for the New York subway system, the branching off of lines in the outer boroughs means that the Manhattan portion is not geographically that much more dense, you are just less likely to get stuck on a slow moving local train than in the outer boroughs.
Transit Maps of the World does a good job in showing how existing system maps are geared to the peculiarities of the system, for example the design of the travel poster looking Rio map really couldn't be used elsewhere.
The current map doesn't show this well, but I think graphically the best way to display this is to actually show the lines converge, so you would have thin outer borough lines merge into single thick lines when they get to Manhattan.
But you still need to somehow physically separate the local and express lines on the map, so that people aren't required to squint at the fine print to discover which trains stop at which stations, and so that non-New Yorkers can see at a glance which parts of which lines are express runs.
For example, it would be okay (and perhaps even helpful) to merge the 4 and 5 into a single thick line in Manhattan, but you still need to show the 6 as a separate line on the map.
And this isn't even a local vs. non-local issue -- the designer of the Kick Map, Eddie Jabbour, was born and raised in NYC, as was Matt Y. It's about appreciation of good, clear, informative, useful design versus the MTA's shitty, cluttered, confusing design that more or less requires local knowledge to parse, and is severely limited by the absurd requirement that it do double duty as a NYC street map.
When I was in London, I never saw a single person who was confused by the Underground map. Not a day goes by in NYC that I don't see someone get all flustered trying to decipher the MTA map. It's a problem.
See, the problem is that if people could actually figure out the NYC Subway map, then they would get the decidedly false impression that they know what trains go where. As veterans of the NYC Subway will tell you, however, any similarity between the scheduled routes and the actual train operation is mostly a coincidence. Particularly on weekends.
Whoa -- I must be from another planet! I love the new maps. Crisp, clear, easy to read. What's not to like? I totally don't get all the criticism in the above comments.
The parallel lines make it much easier to read, as well as having actual "dots" where the stations are.
Take the first map (mid-town) e.g., the Q-N-R-W trains. It's much much easier and quicker to see that all four lines stop at 57th St, and only N-R-W stop at 49th.
Way preferable (imho)
Joe Brennan's map of NYC are transit is a good schematic. His notes about why he made certain choices are interesting too.
The real problem with NYC geography is the missed opportunity presented by the numbered grid to match the addresses of the avenues to the cross-streets in a rational scheme. In just about any other American city with numbered streets, the block of Broadway (or any other Avenue) between 46th and 47th streets would be the 4600 block, instead of having addresses like 1564 Broadway. If the Palace Theatre were instead 4664 Broadway, everyone would know exactly where it was located.
Fixing the discontinuities in lower Manhattan would be simple; just keep addresses as they are until they match up with the cross-streets.
This is the cue for a provincial New Yorker to chime in and say that only a hayseed would need such a rational scheme and that knowing exactly where everything in Manhattan is by the address is the mark of true sophistication.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I really don't understand what's supposed to be superior about these "schematic" diagrams, or even in what sense they are claimed to be "schematic" vs. the current map. Both superimpose the routes on a more-or-less accurate geographical representation of the city.
Posted by Glenn | May 5, 2008 12:29 PM