If you’re looking at it as an art object, or care about nothing but the network’s connectivity, the revision is indeed Pretty.
If you’re looking at it as a tool for navigation of physical space for any reason beyond exploring the subway system itself, it’s Pretty Useless.
As a multiple time tourist to NYC I’m also going to disagree with you. By showing key streets the official MTA map is about the most useful subway map I’ve ever used. Not only does it easily show where subway stops are located, but it gives you a pretty clear picture on what routes to take, what stops to transfer at and roughly where you’ll be from your final destination once you exit the subway system at the other end. Coupled with Manhattan’s easy to figure out numbered street names, it’s logical, practical and clear.
London’s map on the other hand, gives me: how to navigate the subway; and the zones that exist. For figuring out what the nearest subway station is, it is useless. For figuring out roughly how many blocks exist between two lines (where it might be worth walking an extra block to save a transfer for example) it is useless. Both of these things I need to know before I reach the station because that is how I will select which station to head to. Indeed, the London map is pretty much useless for anything other than figuring out how to get from one subway stop to the next.
However, both maps also fail to present something that should be readily apparent on any public transport map: which services are actually useful? Some of these lines run far more frequently than others. Simply applying different line weights can at least hint at these frequencies and give you an idea that if you turn up at some stops you might wait 30 minutes instead of 3, without adding too much complexity to the map.
However, no-one has pointed to a map as pointless and useless as my fair city’s: here is a map that doesn’t distinguish between different lines with different colours, doesn’t provide any reference to above ground landmarks (except an abstract grey[!] blob which represents the bay), doesn’t show frequencies, and only provides the most basic reference to the massive and more frequent tram/streetcar network that exists. Unfortunately this map is pretty reflective of the information provided at stations and on the trains themselves. “Next Stop, Southern Cross”… hang on, didn’t I board at Southern Cross 5 minutes ago?
I posted this in the wrong place. Sorry.
This design philosophy probably seems like a brilliant idea to people who don’t have to use their own products.
Brainspore doesn’t recognize the problem of actually finding the damn stations on the map nor that of finding your destination in relation to the stations. I’m in favor of some simplification but the less closely the map resembles reality, the more useless it actually is. To people who have some awareness of the actual lay of the land (which = locals and frequent visitors which = the great majority of subway riders), some passing relationship with the facts on the ground makes the map easier to use. You can, for instance, gauge how far you’re going to have to walk at the far end. The ideal, I think, would be something more like Google maps, which is more than just a topological reduction to meaningless intersections.
I have relatives in New York. If this were the sort of map I faced when I visit, I would pee on it.
You say this like it isn’t also true of every other city – most of which have sane maps similar to the concentric one and gridded traditional tube maps.
Almost everything in this thread is New Yorkers offering reasons why they can’t use abstract maps that make no sense, because they would apply universally if true – and especially in London, the birthplace of the non-insane subway map.
First off, get a new map. That map of LA’s transit system is about 5 years old.
Street adresses aren’t part of subway maps, though.
It’s really a two part problem
a) Find the nearest subway station for two given addresses.
b) Find the route between these two stations.
I think there was a bit more to it: (a) reasons why the MTA map isn’t insane; (b) attempts not to universalize their NYC experience to other cities, since they’re unsure whether there might be salient differences; © explanations why the offered abstract map is lacking very important information.
ItsumishiTwo makes an excellent point by saying:
“Simply applying different line weights can at least hint at these frequencies and give you an idea that if you turn up at some stops you might wait 30 minutes instead of 3, without adding too much complexity to the map.”
This definitely would apply well to London. Also, something that shows the complexity of making the underground connection between lines: walking across a platform vs. significant stairs and passageways (like the two different Northern Lines at Euston, depending on your direction).
What’s wrong with a geographically correct “spaghetti map”? And this is nothing…have you ever seen the Tokyo rail map? Now THAT is a clusterfuck, yet still perfectly navigable.
The current Tube map indeed shows long interchanges and those with lifts (interchange symbol with arms, eg Bank, Euson etc).
Also a bit of a myth about long waits for the tube. Most are scheduled for between 1-7 mins frequency. No idea were 30 mins came from, even zone D slow is every 15 mins. Line width is pointless for London.
I get into the City once or twice a year. I remember enough to usually know what direction I need to go in from wherever I’m standing; I know little-to-nothing about the different lines. As a non-resident subway patron, this map would drive me nuts: What gets me to JFK? What gets me to Penn Station?
Sorry, Staten Island.
You don’t fit on this map.
I know graphic designers luuuuurve the London map. It’s pretty. It’s clear. But I had to live with it daily for 3 years. It’s NOT perfect, and far inferior to the NY MTA map, which I used for a decade.
Search around, and you’ll find plenty of cases where the London map has led people astray, by distorting the distance between stations, and their relationship to things on the ground - people sometimes go years without realizing that while they know about station A at a given site, station B, on another line, is actually just a block or two away and a much shorter ride.
Try using the NY MTA map to find your way from Bryant Park to the Natural History Museum. It’s easy.
Try using the London map to go from the Zoo to the Science Museum. It’s useless.
Perhaps the thing is that non-insane tube maps solve a particular problem – mapping the subway in itself – without even addressing above-ground beyond that which directly affect subway transit (like pedestrian interchanges between stations)
Many londoners, for example, carry a similarly well-designed, but far more intricate pocket guide of the city, the A-Z. It’s so ubiquitous (and so necessary in London’s completely deranging street network) that maybe it’s what makes the simplicity of the underground map possible in the first place.
Whereas in New York, people need to have a strong idea of the city’s overground geography from the “undergound” map?
There’s probably an app for this
the tube map isn’t really a map - it is a plan, for using a very complex system, which unlike NYC can’t conform to grids.
There are plenty of maps around London for walking
What you fail to acknowledge is that the London tube map actually fails at accomplishing its goal. Many people take routes that are completely incorrect, as far as transit times are concerned, simply because the “look right” on the map.
Here’s a study that shows that 30% of tube users (not tourists, regular users) go the “wrong” way when trying to go between Bond Street and Paddington Station, because the pretty designer map leads them astray.
And there were studies(?) asking Londoners to go from Bank to Mansion House using the Tube map. Knowing the map well, they would take the Central Line to Liverpool Street, and then change to the Circle Line for another five stops to Mansion House. They would then emerge to find themselves just 200 yards down the street where he had started from…
From the paper linked above:
The map effect is almost two times more influential than the actual travel time. In other words, Underground passengers trust the tube map (two times) more than their own travel experience with the system. The map effect decreases when passengers become more familiar with the system but is still greater than the effect of the actual experience, even for passengers who use the Underground five day or more per week.
So don’t assume that just because Londoners are proud of their map that it means it actually works for them.
And what you overlook is London is a city you must get to know - like any city - to learn the fastest routes and the shortcuts.
People who know the City area wouldn’t make the Bank mistake you mention, but someone who spends all their time around Leyton well might.
Ugh, I never use buses if I can help it.
