Contest to redesign DC Metro map: vote for your favorite entry

[Cirrus]

GreaterGreaterWashington.org is sponsoring a contest to redesign the DC Metro map, in honor of the map's soon-to-come official redesign. The contest is unofficial, but is getting a lot of press and has the attention of several regional bigwigs, including the WMATA manager in charge of the official redesign.

If you're interested, take a look at the 17 contest entries and vote for your favorites.

One of the submissions is mine. In the interests of not rigging the contest I won't publish which it is, but if you want to know then PM me and I'll tell you.

[Beta_Magellan]

Interesting—it looks like it was hard for Washingtonians to break the mould Weese set a long time ago (and it is an awfully good mould)—for a lot of the submissions the main issues were line width and how to show some of the service changes.

My personal favorite was Map N—I thought it found a good balance between clarity and geographic accuracy and it’s acknowledgement of the bus network was nice, even if it cluttered the map a little.

Map Q was interesting in that it was far and away the most geographically accurate of the maps, though that made it rather skewed towards Virginia with DC hanging over to the right. I don’t mind some asymmetry in my art, but for a system map it seemed a bit off to not have DC proper in a central position. A lot of the details were still nice, though.

[brickell]

I like geographically descriptive maps. Went with B & C.

[ardecila]

My favorites were E and M.

E

Pros
E was good because it omitted a lot of useless information on the original map, like the beltway, the massive swaths of parkland, and the county boundaries. Do I really need to know that Greenbelt is in PG while Glenmont is in Montgomery? If I live there, I probably already know, and if I'm a visitor, then it's not important.

E also had a clear style, keeping waterways narrow while using background color to differentiate the District from suburbs. I also like how the organic geometry of the background elements contrasts with the artificial, constrained geometry of the rail lines.

Cons

E went a little too far in omitting the monument icons, though. If the monuments are to be omitted, then they need to be incorporated into station names or an inset so they still have a presence on the map. The Capitol, White House, and Washington/Lincoln Monuments are the key points that visitors use to orient themselves in the District, and the Metro still has an important function as part of the tourist apparatus of the capital.

The icons used to show stops are also a little odd. I do like the idea of a flexible icon that can grow and morph to represent various types of regular and transfer stations, but the bulging rectangles are odd. (Also, if the Farraguts are going to be connected, can they be collectively renamed as "Farragut Square"?)

M

Pros

Probably designed by the same guy who did the infographics for Greater Greater Washington, which isn't a bad thing. The chosen typefaces are great (who knew Arial could look so good?)

The thinner lines for transit allow the map to be less congested, and they make the uncomfortable, jarring right angles and 45-degree turns of the original map feel less unnatural and deformed (we all know instinctively, if nor consciously, that trains can't make hard turns like that).

Cons

M tries to cram too much information into the map. The little bubbles representing short-turn service should be condensed into the legend, and so should the information about the 5A and 530 airport buses.

This map also keeps many of the elements of the original map, but not the right ones. The Beltway isn't very relevant to the Metro network - the idea of expressway-linked park-and-rides can be condensed into an icon for each station with that design, and the Beltway eliminated. The harsh and oversized depiction of the Potomac is unfortunately also preserved from the original map.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

My personal favorite was Map N—I thought it found a good balance between clarity and geographic accuracy and it’s acknowledgement of the bus network was nice, even if it cluttered the map a little.

N was probably my #1 as well. It's on the verge of being a bit too busy with the bus lines also being displayed, though I understand the importance of providing that information. But for tourists, I think the vast majority of them won't ride city buses and therefore a more simplistic rail map would be most useful.

I think B would be my next choice as it doesn't feel too cluttered, though I'd prefer the lines to be a little thicker/more prominent. Having said that, I wouldn't want the lines too thick, otherwise I think you risk cluttering it up/making it look too busy.

This map on the Silver Line's wikipedia page is still easily my favorite.

[micro]

Interesting. I couldn't help but comment all of them:

G: Close to the original but too many speech bubbles. Variation in line widths is not good.
K: Elegant design but details are too small, too faint. Blue-line loop exaggerated.
N: Too many different angles, bus lines clutter. Ugly dent near Potomac Ave.
F: Good line width but too many 90° corners. Needs work.
H: Not clean enough. Obviously a rough draft that needs much work. Red Line should be straight north-west of Farragut North.
C: Clear, clean, nice to look at.
S: Too many corners, too many different angles, fonts too small, lines too thin.
Q: May be geographically accurate but confusing. Should be schematic.
B: Nice but lines are too thin.
M: The aggregation of curves of different radii looks awful.
J: Confusing. Why the absence 45° angles in subway lines and why do regional lines have them?
D: Lines much too thin. Multiple lines confusing.
L: Close to the original, meets requirements well.
A: Created by a first-time user of MS Paint? Sorry!
E: Network well depicted but round transfer stations look better. Variation in line widths is not good.
R: Another MS Paint user? Blue-line loop exaggerated.
P: Hatched lines look confusing and/or like a warning ("line closed?")

My favorites are C and L. With some work, K, H, B, E could also be good.

[Cirrus]

What does "blue-line loop exaggerated" mean? You make that comment for multiple maps but I have no idea what it refers to.

[jg6544]

Perfect example of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". What was wrong with the old one and why not just add the new line?

[micro]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

What does "blue-line loop exaggerated" mean? You make that comment for multiple maps but I have no idea what it refers to.

Sorry about my English. I meant the line looks like a horseshoe, Smithsonian and Arlington Cemetery are too close. Not only is it geographically incorrect but the user might get the impression of an inefficient network.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Perfect example of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". What was wrong with the old one and why not just add the new line?

The current map doesn't quite have enough room to fit the silver line in conjunction with the blue & orange lines through DC. But I do very much like the original Metro map and definitely think it's a recognizable image that works well for Metro. That's why I prefer the map I posted since it is very similar to the original, but has thinner lines that fit the silver line. The map still needs to be amended to reflect service changes anticipated in the future, such as some of the trains from Franconia-Springfield running as yellow line trains, the extension of yellow line service beyond Mt Vernon, red line rush hour patterns that terminate trains at Grosvenor-Strathmore & Silver Spring, and the eventual introduction of the purple line between Bethesda and New Carrollton. I'm not sure what the answer is to incorporating buses and streetcars into the map. To me it will just end up producing an overly busy map -- a map that should mostly be reflective of Metrorail. Another map that shows the overall WMATA public transportation system (heavy rail, light rail, streetcars, and buses) could be placed in/around stations and especially at bus & streetcar shelters/stops.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Perfect example of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". What was wrong with the old one and why not just add the new line?

The DC Metro map is broken: symbol sizes (lines, stops) are just way of proportion to each either, text is too small, stop labels are not close enough to stop symbols, text overlapping with metro, rivers, parks, monument symbols is too hard to read, short turns and peak-only service is not shown, DC boundary and Capital Beltway look too much like transit lines, etc.

As for the contest entries...

I like how C highlights DC. I also like the symbol used for minor stations. The map is informative, makes it easy to understand the system (e.g. clearly indicates short turns and the peak-only routings), and yet still clean and easy to read. Also, it is the nicest map to look at.

All the other maps have major problem, such as
- too much text at an angle and/or overlapping with symbols (B, D, J)
- not showing or clearly showing short turns and/or peak-only routings (all except C, and, to an extent, L)
- too much unused, blank space (D, E, H, Q)
- (for schematic maps) line symbols not all at 45 degree angles (A, N, S)
- DC boundary looking too much like a transit line (D, G, L, M, P) [is it really necessary to show at all?]
- and so on

I think the best maps are:
1. C
2. L
3. B (if the orientation of the station labels is corrected)

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by Doady

The DC Metro map is broken: symbol sizes (lines, stops) are just way of proportion to each either, text is too small, stop labels are not close enough to stop symbols, text overlapping with metro, rivers, parks, monument symbols is too hard to read, short turns and peak-only service is not shown, DC boundary and Capital Beltway look too much like transit lines, etc.

Yet somehow I managed to get around just fine using it when I lived in DC - 12 years. Didn't have peak-only service when I lived there, though. I never used the Metro map for finding monuments, etc. anyway.

[Expat]

Well, I can't decide which one I like best. I would need to spend more time on it than I have to make a decision.

I know that I don't like the ones with thin lines. And especially don't like the ones where the colors are sliced up (so to speak). With so many tourists and newcomers using the system, it is best to keep the lines bold & obvious.

I would keep the current style with updates. It is easy to comprehend and to the point. Of course, after using it for much of my life, I may be comfy with it and not realize that others have a problem.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

red line rush hour patterns that terminate trains at Grosvenor-Strathmore & Silver Spring

Why is it important to show this on the map? Anybody trying to go to Shady Grove or Rockville who is stuck on a Grosvenor train can just get off at Grosvenor and wait for the next train, which should be a Shady Grove train. The next-train arrival signs, which are in every station on the network, display the color and destination of each line. This should prevent most people from getting on the wrong train in the first place.

If it's absolutely essential to show this information on the map, then just do it with a change in lineweight (the Red Line gets thinner after Grosvenor and Silver Spring) accompanied by a note in the legend.

The current system of text bubbles takes up way too much real estate on the map.

Originally Posted by micro

Sorry about my English. I meant the line looks like a horseshoe, Smithsonian and Arlington Cemetery are too close. Not only is it geographically incorrect but the user might get the impression of an inefficient network.

That's why the river needs to be included on the map, since it's a tremendous regional barrier - far more important than the DC-Maryland line.

[vid]

Originally Posted by ardecila

M

Pros

Probably designed by the same guy who did the infographics for Greater Greater Washington, which isn't a bad thing. The chosen typefaces are great (who knew Arial could look so good?)

That's Helvetica. The t has a flat top, the a has a curly tail and the Rs are fat.

I think map C is the best.

[Forest Glen]

I liked H since it was concise yet accurate. I hated P since I felt it looked tacky. Map Q is geographically accurate, but not the most practical map. Map N should not include bus lines. Most DC Metro riders do not transfer to buses. This is unnecessary clutter.

[SnyderBock]

I carefully drew out my entry!


jk

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by vid

That's Helvetica. The t has a flat top, the a has a curly tail and the Rs are fat.

I think map C is the best.

Ah. I'm pretty familiar with Helvetica and I didn't spot it, lol.

I was kinda hoping it was Arial, though; Helvetica's over-used in the context of transit. I love the fonts they use on German metro systems.. Gill Sans, Frutiger, etc...

CTA developed a cool Berlin-esque signage system using Frutiger back around 2000, but sadly, they only installed it at one station (Clark/Lake). To relate this back to DC, it's kinda like Gallery Place, except that all new stations on the Metro are now getting the new signage, while CTA is still installing the clunky 60s-era KDR signage, and sitting on their beautiful new graphic standards.

[vid]

I think Gill Sans, especially more weighty varieties, look too silly for any official applications.



Especially that I. Honestly, what were they thinking?

Thunder Bay just switched from Helvetica to DIN 1451 for transit stuff (because they've shifted the whole city's corporate identity stuff from various fonts to DIN 1451), and I'm starting to get tired of it. They use a very heavy weight, too, so all the text looks bulky.



It's a nice font when you're treated to it in small doses but when you see it everywhere, everyday, it gets just as boring as Arial or Helvetica.

[MonkeyRonin]

I'm definitely going to have to go for this one: