Few people really examine subway maps anymore. Most people look quickly at the color of the subway line, then count the stops in their head then shove it aside while playing on their phones. But if you stop and pay attention to the map for just a minute or two, you will quickly see that subway maps are full of lies.
Not because those that create these maps are trying to deceive anyone, but because the vast majority of maps in use today (not just subway maps) are not an accurate representation of reality. Rather they are an abstraction that help the public understand how to navigate through any given city.
A great, recent example of this took place when the London Underground unveiled their new Tube map that integrated estimated walking distances for all stations. When this map was released it fully demonstrated how maps often depict places as closer or further away from each other, depending on their size.
Many people suddenly found themselves walking distances from station to station that were not accurately represented on the original map because of how they displayed those locations relative to each other.
The whole world of illusion had just been disrupted.
This incredible experience has revealed one of the greatest secrets of how to design transit maps, specifically those for subway systems: There really is no such thing as a subway “map.” To put it another way, subway maps are diagrams designed to look like maps.
Real-world geography and city layouts are extremely complicated. Roads twist and turn, rivers run in circles and streets have many angles. As a result, it’s tough to produce a subway map with actual geographic accuracy; a subway map designed with complete geographic accuracy would be too complicated to quickly use as a guide when getting on a train.
As a result, most designers simplify the real world when they create a subway system’s map.
The format used to develop modern subway systems, including their maps, is very similar. Generally, subway lines run in a horizontal, vertical or diagonal pattern at a 45-degree angle, there are fewer curves, distances between stations are compressed and/or stretched, downtown stations appear at greater distances relative to one another (allowing writers to fit station names), and outlying stations are closer together (allowing names of outlying stations to fit).
The end result creates a sense of order (even though the city itself may not be ordered).
Harry Beck’s map (introduced in London in 1933) revolutionized how maps are designed, specifically for public transportation systems. Prior to Beck’s Underground map, transit maps were large and designed to look like street maps of the same area. Transit maps were cluttered and hard to read and would only get more disorganized as rail systems continued to expand.
Beck developed a completely different approach to the design of a subway system’s map.
He didn’t focus much on the geographical accuracy of the subway system; instead he treated it as if it were an electric circuit, because the precise geographical locations of the stations were not as important as how the lines connected and where the riders would have to transfer from one train to another.
This choice changed the design of transit systems from that moment on, making it so that once a person is underground, the exact geography of an area is relatively unimportant. Riders generally want to know the order of the stations along their route as compared to the distance between the stations. When riding on a train, people want to know which train they are getting on, where and when they need to transfer, and how many stops they have before they need to get off. The way that the train tracks may curve slightly in either east or west direction, underneath the city, generally won’t matter to a rider when riding on that train.
For this reason, subway maps generally attempt to clearly convey information rather than accurately depict the geography of the area being served by the train.
What is really funny is that most riders probably do not even notice how distorted the subway maps are. The cities are, in a psychological sense, re-shaped by the various transit diagrams. Riders in London think about their city through the Tube map; similarly, riders in New York view their city using the subway diagram. Over a period of time, the diagram in the mind of the rider may very well become more real than the actual subway.
Certain cities have created more significant difficulties in regard to design than others. New York City, specifically Manhattan, has created one of the most contentious cases because of its highly visible urban form. People can easily recognise where rivers, Avenues and Boroughs are located in respect to one another. In the 1970s, when New York introduced a very abstracted diagrammatic version of the subway system which was based on London’s style of map, many residents found them to be completely unusable.
While the subway map worked well for displaying the subway routes, it did not appear accurate when viewed geographically. For example, the City of Manhattan appeared to be distorted, distances appeared to be misrepresented, and riders would frequently lose their ability to orient themselves naturally in relation to the city. Since New Yorkers typically depend on city grids and neighbourhoods for their sense of place, the overly simplified design created confusion rather than clarity.
Finally, they reverted to a form that reflected a greater degree of geographic accuracy, and continue to experience the same tension today. Designers of transit systems regularly debate how to determine the appropriate balance between the accuracy and legibility; there is no solution that fits all cities because each city functions differently. A city-specific map for tourists may upset residents who need to navigate within their city; conversely, a map that use the geographic component of the city may not function as a usable navigation tool during periods of high traffic.
Honestly, the discussion is now significantly more entertaining as it relates to our use of technology.
Traditional paper maps had so many limitations. The designer had to cram this enormous transportation system into one still image for everyone to reference at once. All riders received an equal amount of information and none of that was focused on their requirements.
Digital map technology has revolutionized how we access information.
With the ability to zoom, filter and personalise the information on apps like Google Maps, you can make a whole neighbourhood disappear when you zoom out and have a detailed bike lane 当 you zoom in. This makes the specificity of the information fluid instead of static.
Traditional subway maps have also struggled for years with the problems associated with this fluidity.
Through the use of GPS and the availability of instant data, new transit applications are able to convey the accurate geography of our cities while being highly readable since the user has the ability to determine the level of detail they will see. In addition to historical train locations, approximate walking times, actual delays, transfers and alternative routes (the apps provide real-time information) all have an interactive aspect to them instead of being static like traditional trains provide.
Some of the more recent redesigns of transit applications provide users with real-time maps of trains that move over the map of their respective cities. Through these digital systems, riders no longer have to choose between what is important (i.e. realism) and what is simple; the systems easily switch according to the rider’s desires.
Even so, traditional subway maps are still very noticeable for their iconicity.
Many people enjoy the look of subway maps, as they provide a visual structure to a city that does not exist in the same way in real life. Many people will recognize examples of these maps like the London Underground Tube map and the New York City subway map simply by seeing them.
The maps have also become much more than a navigation aid; they are also often considered to be a graphic design icon.
Perhaps that is why redesigns of transit maps generate such a strong emotional response. In addition to providing assistance for people to navigate the subway system, transit maps can shape the way the public feels about the city.
As you ride on the subway, take a moment to look at the subway map above the door of the subway car you are on. Notice how clean and smooth all of the lines look. Then realise that just above you, the actual city has a completely different shape than what you see on the map.
