Extreme transit makover: the METRO map
I had a rant all ready to go about the METRO system map.
Then METRO fixed the map — not just what I was going to complain about but a lot more — without me saying anything.
You can click “more” at the bottom to see my original post. But now I’m going to talk about the new map.
Here’s the old map, dating back to 2005:
Here’s the new version:
The first, most obvious chnage is the bus route color coding. On the old map, all routes were the same color. Now, bus routes are in a least half a dozen different colors. That makes it a lot easier to trace a bus route across the map.
The other major improvement is on the light rail line. On the old map, it was as thick as the bus lines, but a different color: purple. That was an odd choice for the Red Line. On the new map, it’s a thick, red, dashed line. It stands out among the bus routes better, shows up well on the overall map as well the Downtown/Midtown and Texas Medical Center detail maps, and matches the name of the line. It can also extend well to more lines in 2010 and 2012.
The importance of a good transit map is obvious: it’s how riders will figure out which route to ride. A good map makes the transit system easier to use. The new map is a significant step forward in that regard. Could it be improved? Of course. Some ideas:
Better station symbols. Over half the stations on the Main Street line have different platforms for northbound and southbound trains. The map should show that. The black rectangles on the map don’t stand out well anyway. More prominent symbols, with directional arrows, might work better:
Parking information. Where can I park and ride? At a park-and-ride lot, obviously, but some transit centers have parking, too. How about a symbol for that? And, while we’re at it, a symbol for bike parking?
Bus route frequencies. Not all bus routes are created equal. A bus that runs every 15 minutes (like the 2 Bellaire) is very different from one that runs every 45 (like the 34 Montrose). METRO publishes a bus route frequency guide; a condensed version on the printed map would be helpful. But that information could also be on the map itself.
Looking at METRO’s recently updated system map, I noticed something:
- Many transit agencies color-code their rail lines, then name the lines for the colors, like DC’s MetroRail does.
- Others color code their lines, then name them, as on the classic London Underground map.
- New York’s subway has so many lines it has to use a system of letters, numbers, colors, and shapes.
- Some agencies don’t use colors at all, as on this Septa subway-surface lines map.
- METRO is the only rail system I know of that names its lines for colors, but doesn’t color-code them.
The Main Street light rail line is called the Red Line. But on the maps, the red lines are buses. The Red Line is represented by… a purple line. (To make things more confusing, if you use the online trip planner, the Main Street Line AKA the Red Line ASA the purple line is known as the 700.)
Does this matter? The identity crisis isn’t making the trains run any slower, but it might be confusing some passengers. It also seems to indicate that even METRO hasn’t caught on to this rail thing yet. The Red Line is unlike anything we’ve ever had before; it’s more frequent, more convenient, and more rider-friendly than any other transit service we have, and it’s faster and more comfortable then the local buses we’re used to. This is a fundamentally different thing, and we need to treat it as such. Shouldn’t the map highlight this service?