Jump to content

NYC Subway is getting another map redesigned makeover


w8Hou

Recommended Posts

...and since when did every subway line have a shuttle counterpart added to it? lol....

as was said, those drop-shadows on the subway lines are gonna confuse the hell out of a lot of out-of-towners (which this city has PLENTY of)....

 

You acting as if those shadows are bigger than the actual subway line itself. It's not and unless you have poor ass vision it'll be more like an added graphical effect.

 

And why are so many people hating on the new map. I like the new design, sure it's not revolutionary, but it definitely looks better than the old one. It's not that bad, it's just that you guys need to get used to changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Did anyone read the blue box disclaimer under the legend that the map only represents partial service, and that more service information on the lines are provided on the platform signs, construction notices, and on the web? I've seen plenty of tourists do just those things (funny thing is, the locals don't, esp. the G.O. notices). The platform signs have everything that the map does, but puts it into perspective, since your not trying to figure everything out at the same time. Think about the majority of people who use this information. They are usually standing on the platform trying to figure out what to do next.

 

Also if you have time at home to figure it out, TripPlanner takes those services into account, too. I actually ran across a guy at the BMT Chambers street station at 1:00PM on a weekday trying to get to 4th avenue Brooklyn. He used google directions and was lost. He looked a little distraught when I told him the (M2) wasn't going there for a few hours. I had to point him the right way, and explain to him that services change during the day.

 

Anyone using a map is most likely going to be using it on the fly, and is not going to take the time out and read the service guide, which it itself sometimes needs translating. We understand it because we're fans and take the time, but unless someone is sitting down and planning a trip, I don't think the guide gets much usage. The service guide is a long time staple on the subway map, but if it's not serving the majority and its space can be used to better clarify the map, I'm for it. Let's see what New York thinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You acting as if those shadows are bigger than the actual subway line itself. It's not and unless you have poor ass vision it'll be more like an added graphical effect.

 

And why are so many people hating on the new map. I like the new design, sure it's not revolutionary, but it definitely looks better than the old one. It's not that bad, it's just that you guys need to get used to changes.

 

You can say I'm "acting like" whatever... that's irrelevant....

 

"poor ass vision" or not, the fact is that you can still see them.

Tell us why that added effect is even necessary, mr. we need to get used to changes...

 

if you think out of town folk aren't gonna question the relevance of ["those gray lines" - as they may say], you got another thing coming... its enough that they have a fairly hard time w/ the current subway map... why complicate things....

 

and as far as hating on the map...

look... just b/c I'm not sitting here waxing poetic about how great the map is, doesn't mean I hate it outright.

the overall design is not what I have a problem with.....

 

 

Staten Island is actually much further than it appears on the subway map. Geographically, if you look at on a map of the region, it is actually much closer to New Jersey than it is to the rest of NYC. They should've put the inset on it before.

yes, SI is geographically situated nearer to NJ.... but I don't agree that that SI should be an inset b/c of it; especially if that's not how it was shown on the map to begin with....

If space was a concern, all they had to do was shrink/skew the size of SI (in regards to that of the current subway map) & be done w/ it....

 

it's one thing if this was the first time SI ever appeared on a subway map & they decided to place borders around the borough or w/e.... it's quite another to primarily have SI/SIRR service as an addition on the map, as if it's a part of the subway system (they really didn't have to put it on the subway map at all), and now all of a sudden make an inset out of it...

 

guess I'll look on the bright side.... at least SI wasn't completely wiped off the subway map....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you about the service guide removal being a bad idea. My guess about only certain stations having bus connections would be that the stations without the bus connections bubble don't have enough connections to justify mentioning them (or those buses don't go anywhere of interest), or that the same bus connection can be made at a nearby station with many more bus conncetions.

The buses to the airport and the SBS ought to be mentioned because they ARE of value. Just include them under the station name. I mean, I agree with you other bus lines are of value, but how many bus lines can you list? How many stations can you put with those bus lines? And what use now if you just mention them without describing them more?

They have books at bookstores about riding the subway and whatnot but it should still be the MTA's responsibility to guide its riders and not some outside agency.

Even so, this is not 1998. Almost everyone now can afford to use the Internet, or some smartphone. Just go to the MTA site and look up bus connections for every stop on the subway lines. No need to clutter up the map.

 

 

Staten Island is actually much further than it appears on the subway map. Geographically, if you look at on a map of the region, it is actually much closer to New Jersey than it is to the rest of NYC. They should've put the inset on it before.

Actually it was supposed to be part of Joisey, however New York had a boat race and Jersey in it. So that's how Staten Island became part of NY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think the enlargement of Manhattan is a good idea: the amount of subway lines requires magnification, especially for tourists. I also think the shrinking of Staten Island is a good idea because...well... yeah, it's Staten Island.

 

Totally agreed. That is what I thought as well. There's so many lines in Manhattan that to be able to read it, they needed to widen it. I don't see why there's such an uproar about it having to be geographically accurate.

 

The shadows on the lines look F**king retarded

 

Yes, I was thinking that as well. What's the point of them? They are confusing and unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agreed. That is what I thought as well. There's so many lines in Manhattan that to be able to read it, they needed to widen it. I don't see why there's such an uproar about it having to be geographically accurate.

 

 

 

Yes, I was thinking that as well. What's the point of them? They are confusing and unnecessary.

Lower Manhattan has the densest concentration of subway lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Replies in bold.

 

The buses to the airport and the SBS ought to be mentioned because they ARE of value. Just include them under the station name. I mean, I agree with you other bus lines are of value, but how many bus lines can you list? How many stations can you put with those bus lines? And what use now if you just mention them without describing them more?

 

I agree that there is no use now listing the bus lines if you don't describe the route.

 

Even so, this is not 1998. Almost everyone now can afford to use the Internet, or some smartphone. Just go to the MTA site and look up bus connections for every stop on the subway lines. No need to clutter up the map.

 

The key word is almost. There are about 950,000 households in NYC that don't have Internet access. Sure, they could do what I did before I got Internet and use the library, but there are still people who are confused about how to use the computer.

Theoretically, the MTA could say something like: Refer to borough bus map for more information about bus connections.

 

Actually it was supposed to be part of Joisey, however New York had a boat race and Jersey in it. So that's how Staten Island became part of NY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was completely unnecessary for the (MTA) to redesign the map. It's bad enough they felt they had to go out of their way to create a new (M) and spend extra money to replace signs at all (M2) and (V) stations when the existing (V) would have done the trick. Not to mention all the time and effort they're going to need to replace the automated announcement, not just on the R160s, but on the R142s and R143s as well. Now they also have money to redesign the map? Wow, and we thought they said they were broke!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest lance25

I'm sure the (MTA) would like to cut services without it costing them a dime, but things don't work like that.

 

They had to change the map to reflect the service changes effective 6/28. While they could have left the map the same and just changed the lines,they still have pay to print out and distribute the millions of pocket-size maps, the larger ones that are in the trains and the jumbo size ones at the stations.

 

The (MTA) has to change the signs at the stations. This is the biggest service change since the Manhattan Bridge project was completed in '04. Whether they decided to leave it as the (V) or as they currently are proceeding with the (M), the signs would have to be changed, whether it's on Queens Blvd and 6th Ave or on Nassau St and Myrtle Ave, not counting the signs along the (M2)'s line from Broad St to Bay Pkwy which had to be changed anyway.

 

The automated announcements are not that big of a cost. If I remember correctly, as stated somewhere in these forums, someone plugs up a computer to the NTTs and programs the new announcements. Yes it would have been easier if they used the (V), since there was a program for that. However, they'd still run into the problem of erroneous transfer announcements on the lines that use NTTs. For example, the (2) train can't announce transfers to the (V) if the line that runs down 6th Ave is now an (M), just like the (L) can't announce a transfer to the (M) at Myrtle-Wyckoff if it's a (V). Also, don't forget, the (MTA) has to remove all transfers to the (G) on Queens Blvd and the (W) period.

 

Yes the (MTA)'s broke, but it needs to pay for these relatively minor costs because in the long run, if they kept service the way it currently is, they might be facing a much larger fiscal crisis in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new map is nice. Staten Island getting shrunk makes sense because it's much further from Manhattan and closer to Brooklyn than the current map shows.

 

About the removal of the service guide, we're in 2010 now and we have the NTTs (R142-R160) and soon we'll have these next train signs all across the system. I actually doubt riders are going to notice the loss of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, our good old (MTA). Don't you just love your corrupt, mismanaged, fiscally irresponsible, sleazy, and otherwise brainless local transportation agency? (Did I mention that it is also racist, as well as monopolistic and hypocritical?) This new map sucks. If only 'The Map' was 95% geographically correct, while at the same time using the format of what will now become the "old" map....:tdown::tdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind the new look, but I agree with others

 

  • The shadow along the lines doesn't look great
  • I really don't like the new green color for parks. Parks are a destination for many people (think Central Park, Prospect Park, ect.) and the parks just don't stand out on this new map
  • Eliminating the service guide is a good idea. Think about this: everytime small modifications are made to service (ex: 5 train extended Middays to Flatbush Ave) the map needs to be reprinted. Cutting the box will save on revision costs
  • If you're going to redesign the map, now's the best time to do it. If the MTA did it any other time, people would be complaining about them spending money needlessly. The maps MUST be reprinted now, so why not make a few changes (aside from the service changes).

 

 

The map is meant to be for tourists, or lost customers. It should be simple, clear and easy to understand. If you have to make Manhattan bigger to do it, so be it. Personally, I actually think some stuff on this new map actually looks MORE cluttered than it did before, but that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest lance25

@R10 1989: The map really can't be geographically correct without losing important details. Look at Kriston Lewis' map, which I've already linked to earlier in this thread, is geographically correct and because of that, the numerous stations in lower Manhattan are nearly clumped on top of each other, whereas on the new (MTA) map, the stations are clearly visible and easily distinguishable.

 

Side note: Kriston, I'm not knocking your maps because they're very nice, but in the perspective of a tourist or a lost New Yorker, a map like yours would probably leave a few people puzzled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind the new look, but I agree with others

 

  • The shadow along the lines doesn't look great

  • I really don't like the new green color for parks. Parks are a destination for many people (think Central Park, Prospect Park, ect.) and the parks just don't stand out on this new map

    I agree. Also, why is the land greenish?

  • Eliminating the service guide is a good idea. Think about this: everytime small modifications are made to service (ex: 5 train extended Middays to Flatbush Ave) the map needs to be reprinted. Cutting the box will save on revision costs

    The line on the map has to be changed anyway (i.e. from a dashed line to a whole one).

  • If you're going to redesign the map, now's the best time to do it. If the MTA did it any other time, people would be complaining about them spending money needlessly. The maps MUST be reprinted now, so why not make a few changes (aside from the service changes).

 

Agreed

 

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Replies in bold.

 

Now the thing is, do everyone or almost everyone here NEED outline bus descriptions within the map? I mean, that's what BUS MAPS are for. Bus maps have bus lines and also, the subway stop and lines superimposed on the grid system. Not only that, they also show the frequency. I mean, let the subway map be just subway-only, however mentioning the SBS and the airport routes with a rough line map on the subway map (kind of like 1979).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest lance25

The problem with the map being in gray scale is that on all of the trains (excluding the NTTs) and signs are colored for readability. While most New Yorkers don't call the 7th Ave Line the red line, they know where the line is due to the color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally, subway maps were printed in three colors until 1967. I.R.T. lines were black, B.M.T. lines were green and IND. lines were red. Lines were identified by names also.

 

The 1964 subway map as an example of a three color map: http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/system_1964map.jpg

 

1967 marked the "modern era" of color maps with numbers and letters.

 

The 1967 subway map:

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/calcagno-1967-system.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.