Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili
|
I've been somewhat critical lately on here, so dare I do so again..
Well I think the network geometry itself looks pretty good, but yes, yes I dare. However, I hope it to be constructive commentary. I do want to say I realize it's probably not the final product, but I'd like to add a few comments regardless, mostly with the map itself and not the actual network.
I realize the importance of Frequent Network Maps, and Human Transit seems to have a pretty far and influential reach, but I'm looking at this map and I have no idea which line is a train and which one is a bus (well aside from the prehand knowledge I have of the existing lines) but as someone who has no idea, let's say. Despite the contention that frequency trumps technology, and it might if the route was actully true seperated BRT, speed is still important, because rail - due to them being generally mostly grade seperated or exclusive ROW, not necessarily because they are inherently so, are still faster. This is not even playing on the so-called "rail bias" yet.
So I'm looking at that map and I can at least go, "oh, ok I do know that I will have a service coming relatively soon" - assuming 15 min headways, but I still don't know if it is reliable or if it is fast. Without that knowledge, I may still (say I'm an incidental and/or non-captive rider) either take a taxi or use a car instead. A commuter going the same route every day and using PT only for commuting has little use for a transit map in general after they've figured it out once. Hence, while it is obviously a good thing to make higher frequency routes stand out, why cover up other information at the same time. As it stands, the map above has provided me with extra information regarding one aspect and taken some away regarding another. Either a mode specific color scheme or simply a letter adjoined to the number at the end of each line (with perhaps a few in the middle) would go a long way. Ex C1, C2, C3....Cx and B1,B2,B3..Bx, corresponding to C-train and Bus (frequent bus (FB if you will)) for example. Only a true BRT might be able to circumvent this and provide a utility level that matches that of rail at the same frequency, and even then, that isn't a given.
I would like to add an anecdotal example that may hint at one explanation to the "rail bias" and relates exactly to a network map that made no distinction between the two (rail and a mostly exclusive ROW bus.) A few months ago I landed at Logan airport in Boston having previously checked out their primary transit map on offer, so that I could get to my destination.
While they do seperate (for the most part) their frequent bus lines, the Silver Line is an exception. They do however label on the legend the Silver Line as exactly that, while labelling the Subway lines as "Subway lines." However, on the map itself the lines are the same thickness have otherwise the same format except for the colour. Getting out of the airport, I therefore expected to simply follow the signs to the "Silver Line" and get on it. It isn't overly well signed, but I'm pretty well travelled and pretty familiar with transit in general and on my quest to find it, walked right by a small bus stop on my way to the Silver Line. After about 10 mins more walking/searching I didn't find any rail tracks that could guide me to where the station might be or any other infrastructure that would indicate a "Silver Line."
Well, the "Silver Line" is a bus line (a unique one at that, as it is hybrid fuel and electrically powered via pantograph as it goes underground downtown) but also a very confusing one for the first time. I had actually walked right past what was the admittedly poorly marked station, because I was expecting to get on what the map had pretty disambiguiously portrayed to be a rail line. Seems trivial, but I ended up missing at least one of the buses and getting to my destination later. For someone on a time budget, these are the things that may well mean the difference between transit and not transit. And this had nothing to do with speed.
Well additionally, another small suggestion, it seems that on some lines in the map where transfering is possible, it isn't clearly portrayed. Perhaps you have a reasoning for this, but I would make all those black dots being shared by two lines into white ones, showing the potential for a connection.
Finally, and I've brought this up before in regards to the new potential interaction of the current South Line and forthcoming (in 300 years) SE line, there seem to be quite a few occurences where lines are crossing but are not connecting (or being shown to provide a connection.) I'm not talking about the section between Lion's park and Motel Village, but moreso something like the Sunalta - 17 Ave area, where the WLRT crosses over the existing downtown LRT (not that this can be physically changed, aside from interlining (another topic) or really good station design, and towards the other end of downtown and between the W-NE line and the Bowness-Belvedere line.
I'm given the impression here, whether this is the network design or the map, that I can't smoothly or at all get from the Red line to either the Brown nor the Blue Bowness- Belvedere line, nor from the Green to the Blue Bowness-Belvedere line downtown, the "Gondola line" to the Blue B-B one, or the Green to the Brown even though they all technically interact. Every time a line crosses over another line, and there is not connectivity, the overall network effect potential decreases.
As an example here, say I'm at the Airport and I want to get to Southland - a cumbersome journey anyway you look at it. As it stands with this map, I have to either take a somewhat direct route involving 4 transfers, or a really non-intuitive, non-direct route (going East first, or a bit later on the Green) then involving 3 transfers. With a transfer station at almost any of the aforementioned spots, this has just been reduced to two transfers. The potential difference between an alternate mode choice.
I may be being overly nitpicky because I see that you are indeed putting in lots of good work and effort here and I think that this 'tool' (the map) if you will has the potential to have at least some influence in the future so I think it's good to have some discussion around it.
Ah, and finally, although it is a magnitude more of work, it might be more beneficial to overlay this network in its true geometry on actual topography to get the best sense of distances and connectivity. Forgo your free time and social life!
Prev
Linear Mode
