News   Dec 22, 2025
Biidaasige Cityscape
 306     0 
News   Dec 19, 2025
Guest Column: Frank Gehry’s Forma: A True Architectural Landmark on Multiple Levels
 1.7K     0 
News   Dec 19, 2025
Concert Advances Standalone Phase 1 Plan at Sunnybrook Plaza
 1.2K     0 

Transit Cartography and Schedule Design

ShonTron

ShonTron

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
13,143
Reaction score
11,469
Location
Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Some transit maps are so terrible and incomprehensible, they are worthy of scorn.

Exhibit A - GO Transit System Map

web_system_map.gif


If this isn't a mess of cartographic puke, I don't know what is.

Errors - for example, Highway 401 looks like a bus route goes out beyond Guelph.

Follow the line (if you dare!) - try sorting out the mess of bus routes between Meadowvale, Brampton and Bramalea. Or near Oshawa

Are they trying to be a geographic or a schematic map? The twists and turns denote a geographic map, but then there'll be errors all over. It needs to decide. Also try to figure out your bus route.

And labels are really haphazard - parts of the Milton and Bradford lines look really bad.

York Region Transit

The System Map isn't as hard to follow, but I find it still pretty bad. Labels are done really badly (circles on route lines lead to labels).

As for the route list, why show little circles that show a subway or a Viva hook-up? Why not a frequency guide (or would this embarass YRT?) that would be more useful. The map should show you the connections, not some pointless legend/table on the side. On the back is a Viva-only system map. Why bother when the whole system is on the front?

Best maps:
Brampton - colour coded lines, streets labelled well, nice, colourful map. Route frequency guide included on back (which is very useful).

Mississauga - not bad, only labels major streets and those that have routings, but otherwise easy to follow. Less colourful than Brampton's (ie no land use coding at back), which isn't distracting from the information needed on the map. Missing frequency guide though.
 
As long as I've been taking GO that system map hasn't changed. It's only bee updated. That's why it looks like a jumble--because it IS! Many stations have been added to that map that weren't originally there: Lisgar, Mount Pleasant, Mount Joy, East Gwillimbury, Kennedy.

On a sidenote, the maps that come on the individual corridor maps are much clearer.
 
GO Transit map cartography...

ST: Good comparisons between GO and other Toronto Metro Area transit operators BUT...I feel that the GO rail map is OK if you leave off the bus detail as a political map. On a scale map comparison Mississauga or the TTC is definitely better with more detail. GO should issue a detailed regional map-at a nominal charge-showing the GO system in detail along with connecting services also emphasizing center city service maps like Downtown Toronto and Hamilton. I am thinking of a map type like London Transit (Ont.) issues-a good detailed folding city map. One of my hobbies is maps and geography-I pay attention to detail more than most. LI MIKE
 
It's quite the trick to come up with a good transit map.

Each system (especially the big ones) always want something that looks unique to them. Often they have a look - determined by branding consultants - that they want it to match, whether or not it makes for a good map.

Some have more money to pour into their maps than others do: Montreal spends far more on its maps than the TTC does, and hands out larger map sheets with higher quality paper. This means that the TTCs maps are somewhat hobbled by being too small to show the amount of info that they should. (Still, Toronto's street and subway grid system has kept the system much simpler than other cities of equivalent size, so the map remains relatively readable.) Some American transit agencies spend no money creating transit maps, and rely on private sector mapping firms to create and sell their own maps in bookstores.

GO Transit's map is truly awful, and I agree with Sean's criticisms 100%. I do have to admit a bias though - I created a schematic map for GO that was used once on the TTC Ride Guide. GO wanted ownership of the map, but was not willing to pay what it had cost to create. Subsequently they created the map you see above in-house. It is inspired by mine, but such a piss-poor copy that I am still somewhat enraged by it. Mine still graces page 479 of a certain firm's Toronto & Area and Golden Horseshoe atlases.

42
 
damn! just saw that japanese map.

the more widespread the infrastructure, the more service there is, the more jumbled the maps become, the more confusion that is caused will probably lead to less ridership. :eek:
 
The LA map design doesn't look particularly easy to read to me, and the cartography with sharp, jagged turns on twisting roads, looks sloppy to me.

42
 
Yeah but the insert is so busy it deserves another insert...you gotta love how many bus routes they fit on one page. I think the only practical purpose of the LA map is to say to drivers "yes, LA has transit."
 
interchange: I would certainly have to agree that your GO map as found in those big yellow map books is "cleaner" and easier to understand.

I have an old transit map from Montreal from about 6 - 7 years ago. (I don't know if it has been substantially changed since.) It looks impressive but is too large to fit comfortably into a pocket or smallish purse, which is probably a consideration for tourists out travelling around the city. I prefer Toronto's version, for its compact size. I find it quite easy to understand, possibly because so much of the city is on a simple grid as you point out.
 
The old NYC subway map from the 1970s - at the system's nadir - was famously bad. They even made fun of it in the movie 'The Warriors' where one of the gang members says "nobody can read these maps, anyway." The current New York map probably does the best job at explaining a complicated system. It's sort of a good compromise between geographic and schematic and the colouring of the bundled lines are relatively easy to follow.

The TTC Ride Guide is clean and informative. It hasn't changed much in the last 30 years, apart from adding little chevrons to mark the route directions and a subway/surface connection guide. Both of these additions were very handy.

While German transit systems are pretty comprehensive, their maps suck. This is an anomaly from a country with very good cartographic skills. This Munich S/U-bahn map, for example, is a real bitch to make out.
 
Transit maps...

HD: I agree with you about the 70s NYC subway map-with its plethora of colors. NYCTA was right to use less colors by color coding entire lines instead of routes-such as red for the 7th Avenue 1/2/3 IRT lines. There was thought of re-naming them color names-but that was quickly withdrawn because multiple routes use the same lines in Manhattan-another example: The IND A/C/E 8th Avenue line in blue. That Munich map is a little confusing but well detailed also. I printed an 8 1/2 by 11' copy on our printer and it came out a little small but quite readable. Maps like LA-I have a copy and it is quite large-can be a problem for just a regular rider seeking info to use. I also like when they are geographically correct. LI MIKE
 
The Gold Standard for a easy-to-use, schematic map remains London's Underground map. The larger connections map (that shows regional rail lines) is almost as good, but larger.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top