What's the purpose of differentiating lines that cross state borders?

This strikes me as something that a WMATA insider would want to know about for funding purposes but has little to no relevance on the end user's ride.

I can see the argument for wanting to simplify the map a bit, as the old map is quite busy - but what good does simplification do if you sacrifice the basic transmission of information?

by Alex B. on Nov 12, 2009 10:14 am  

The way they grayed out the "Central DC" callout box in the old map was horrible design. I always found myself scanning back and forth from the main map to the inset to follow one route from inside central DC to outside. The way they've highlighted the callout transparently in the new map makes MUCH more sense.

by Chris Loos on Nov 12, 2009 10:16 am  

Honestly, I've given up on the maps. I use the WMATA trip planner and Next bus on my phone more often than not.

by Erin M on Nov 12, 2009 10:48 am  

New one looks just as confusing although I don't know how they can make it any easier.

They have inaccurately labeled Herndon and Vienna as "Cities" on the Virginia map.

by xtr657 on Nov 12, 2009 10:52 am  

Still pretty confusing. However I'm most familiar with the VA routes (In DC I just walk or take Metro), so maybe I could have found my way on the new VA map.

by Joshua Davis on Nov 12, 2009 11:06 am  

DC bus map is as confusing as London's Underground. At least, now Central DC is not grayed out.

by Denis B on Nov 12, 2009 11:19 am  

I like the new background color; it makes it easier to read the routes. I agree with Denis B that it's good that central DC isn't grayed out. It makes it easier to follow routes from central DC that go outside that area.

I've always that that it'd be best if Metro found a way to make the bus make infinitely zoomable (is that a word?). That way, you could zoom out to see a bigger picture, see where things are in relation to one another, etc. But you could also see exact turns of a particular route. For example, for a good year or so I didn't know where the 23A goes in its route around Tysons.

Maybe overlay the routes on a Google Map?

by Tim on Nov 12, 2009 11:28 am  

Yup. I love that they've gotten rid of the grey box downtown and that they're showing the priority routes, but hate that all the normal routes are the same color.

by BeyondDC on Nov 12, 2009 11:43 am  

I like that they added central DC to the map. I hate that they colored the lines based on jurisdiction. It makes it impossible to see what goes where in crowded areas.

by Matt on Nov 12, 2009 12:09 pm  

The map was terrible, and is terrible.
I repeat: It was easier for me to figure out the Kyoto bus system as a tourist, not being able to read Japanese, than it is to figure out the DC system, while I've been here for 5 years.

by Jasper on Nov 12, 2009 12:53 pm  

oh wow.

i did my masters thesis on map readability, specifically on route selection and wayfinding, so this is right up my alley.

not excluding the CBD on the new maps is definitely a positive change. there was no reason for leaving that out before. sure, it's cluttered, but much better than having to scan back and forth between two maps.

now, all that said, if i carried out the tests that i did for my thesis research on this map, i can unequivocally say that the new map would fail on every readability metric that i could come up with. i specifically tested maps where all routes were colored the same, and the numbers were very clear—subjects had a MUCH harder time choosing the most efficient route when confronted with a map designed like this.

to put this is the parlance of our time—FAIL.

by IMGoph on Nov 12, 2009 1:10 pm  

The new bus maps have actually been online for quite a while (I'd say at least a month), with no fanfare. I'm not a frequent bus rider, but I found the new map to be vastly improved over the old, mostly because they ditched the CBD inset.

by Alan B. on Nov 12, 2009 1:24 pm  

The new map has some serious issues. I did the survey posted here and got a question about going from McPherson Sq. to 11th & H NE. I got the old map, which, while difficult, was doable. I tried doing the same thing with the new map, and even knowing the answer, it was very tricky figuring it out.

For one, on the city-wide map, at the intersection of Benning, Florida, H, Maryland and Bladensburg, there's no way to know which of the red lines splits up on to each street (note particularly that X1 and X2 seem to disappear when traveling west through that intersection). Even when you switch to the close-up map, it's a lot harder to figure out which lines are going in which direction with poorly labeled streets around McPherson Sq. Yikes.

by dand on Nov 12, 2009 1:28 pm  

Would they have ever printed a rail map with all routes the same color? Sigh. As if it weren't challenging enough trying to figure out where a bus goes. I'm just grateful to have my PDF of the old bus maps, because this new one is too confusing even for someone used to confusing maps.

by Matt! on Nov 12, 2009 1:47 pm  

I'm guessing their reasoning for making all the lines the same color was that in the old map there were different lines that were the same color simply because there are far more lines than colors so some colors need to be used more than once. I'm not defending the decision, just trying to figure out what they were thinking.

Anyone have any suggestions? How do show different lines when the number of lines far exceeds the number of identifiable colors? Is repeating colors the only way? What about using dashed and dotted lines to increase the number of permutations?

by Chris Loos on Nov 12, 2009 1:54 pm  

I much prefer the old map - with the exception of the Central DC insert; the inclusion of a lot more detail (more side streets without bus service, for instance) and the use of yellow as the basic background color are way too busy, making it much more difficult to read. Also, I liked the old use of coloring for the Metro stations - but just black for the metro lines themselves, since now the metro lines are harder to distinguish from bus lines. I do, however, like the callouts for each subway station noting all of the bus services available there, as well as the inclusion of non-WMATA options.

by Matt Williams on Nov 12, 2009 1:56 pm  

One step ahead two steps back; the background is great.

Having all routes the same colour is extremely worst than before at least before you could kinda figure out which route is which by the color now you have to guess and look around the whole map until you see another route number box

by Kk on Nov 12, 2009 2:31 pm  

Using a PDF to display bus routes is terribly backwards. Google maps exist and should be used to plot routes. Visit mbta.com to see a much better way to display routes.

by J on Nov 12, 2009 3:25 pm  

Honestly, I use the Nextbus live map to see exactly where a bus route goes. It even has the bus stops, sorta. The PDFs are a pain on anything but the zippiest modern computers. I regularly check for updated printed bus route maps at Metro stations to reflect the changes in June -- last I checked (yesterday) they still only have the outdated maps.

I wonder how hard it would be to gleam the bus routes from the Nextbus live map pages(convert from/to KML) and put them up in a Google Map.

by James M on Nov 12, 2009 3:28 pm  

@Chris Loos:
All you do is have enough colors and separate them out so that lines of the same color rarely cross. It is clear on the old map which lines are which, and you need fewer markers when lines cross, because the colors tell you which set goes where.

The new one is much more confusing. Look at the Mt. Pleasant area - can you figure out which bus goes where?

by Matt on Nov 12, 2009 3:33 pm  

Wow, that new bus map is really lousy. Even when the lines were different colors it was hard to track down your number to make sure you were still looking at the same route. Now it's completely impossible.

Being able to distinguish locals from express and DC from interstate buses is not nearly as useful as being able to distinguish each local route from the others, particularly given that the expresses follow the same course as the locals for most of their route.

I agree that the shaded downtown is an improvement, though.

by Lucre on Nov 12, 2009 3:39 pm  

I often would go to the online bus map and found it pretty useful. While the CBD grey box was not ideal, I was always able to overcome the problem and figure out where I was going. The major problem with this new map is that all the bus lines for DC are the same color. It is virtually impossible to tell where different lines branch off under this system, where when the lines used different color it was far easier to see when they diverged. I prefer the old map 100% to this one.

by mitchgant on Nov 12, 2009 3:42 pm  

The new map is an atrocity in map-making.

by Farrah on Nov 12, 2009 4:12 pm  

I've been using this map since it came out online, and I honestly have no idea why they changed the scheme from the old one. I don't understand why making all the bus routes the same color makes the map easier to use. I have lived here for several years and use the buses all the time, and I have to say that the new version is bewildering. There must be some reason for the change that I don't understand.

by Thomas on Nov 12, 2009 4:31 pm  

Google maps is all well and good, as long as you have an internet connection. It's a supplement, though, not a replacement for a printable, do-data-required map.

These are lousy maps, though, for all the reasons mentioned above.

by jcm on Nov 12, 2009 4:31 pm  

At the actual bus stops they don't display the entire new map, just a portion of it that covers everything in about a 6 mile radius. I think it works a lot better in that context than on a computer.

by Phil on Nov 12, 2009 4:46 pm  

Hate, hate, HATE that all the lines are the same color!! So difficult. That change is nonsensical.

by C on Nov 12, 2009 6:18 pm  

not much of a difference, I've got a brand new mac with high speed internet, and even with my software, it is horrible to scroll on the pdf. Why is the school without walls missing, and why isn't this better to understand.

by district_of_confusion on Nov 12, 2009 8:36 pm  

Guys, this isn't an online map. Nobody should be seriously comparing it to levels of usability in online maps. Orders of magnitude better solutions exist.

This is a poster, or a fold-out map. Critique it as such.

PS: Get a PDF reader that isn't as bloated as Adobe's and it won't be so outrageously slow.

by Squalish on Nov 12, 2009 9:23 pm  

metro extra? is that new?

why are there logos on this map?
mcmillan park? that would be great, but its an old water treatment facility.

why bother with neighborhood names if they can't do them properly?

this map makes me glad i dont use the bus maps.

by a on Nov 12, 2009 10:12 pm  

Dear Everybody thats complaining about the pdf

PDF's are better than goolge maps etc because of the fact you can still get the info when you are not connected to the internet.

Im guessing about 80% of the people on here use either Verizon or Comcast for there home internet and they both go out once in a while if you need something at the moment which they are out google/yahoo/bing maps and whatever else wont help you.

A pdf file is something you download maybe a few times a year which can be done anywhere school/libaray/office etc.

Everybody does not have internet so going to any internet based map is not going to happen.

by Kk on Nov 12, 2009 11:04 pm  

The map was terrible, and is terrible.
I repeat: It was easier for me to figure out the Kyoto bus system as a tourist, not being able to read Japanese, than it is to figure out the DC system, while I've been here for 5 years.

For comparison, here is Kyoto's bus map.

by Squalish on Nov 13, 2009 1:32 am  

It is indeed a print map and should be judged as such. Why WMATA doesn't have a better online solution is a different story...

Even on those grounds, however, it's not very good.

Squalish - very interesting map. It's worth noting that it's a diagram of the system, not a topographical map. That certainly helps simplify things.

by Alex B. on Nov 13, 2009 8:52 am  

Oh, and my cookies seem to have worked today after a reboot. Thanks for getting that fixed, David.

by Alex B. on Nov 13, 2009 8:53 am  

This test is fun. I look forward to the data analysis and report.

by Miriam on Nov 13, 2009 9:17 am  

First, a shout out to Dennis Jaffe. Dennis is the guy who lobbied Metro to have the bus maps at every stop.

I usually know where I am headed by checking on line. I use the same bus 90% of my trips, the 42. Metro introduced a rush hour express, the 43, that bypasses Dupont Circle by staying on Connecticut Avenue and going under the circle. It takes 10-15 minutes less simply by avoiding one circle. There appears to be no way of knowing that one of them will not make the same stops.

by Mike R on Nov 13, 2009 10:59 am  

Big, big mistake for WMATA to single-color the lines within the District (where bus service is most dense). It took me minutes, not seconds, to determine where any particular bus line was traveling, and I had to look in several directions from a given intersection to see where the line had gone. There are minor improvements in the new map (more imagery, less text, and better background colors), but the decision to have a uniform bus line color by political jurisdiction is really stupid. Shouldn't WMATA aspire to serve all jurisdictions well? This distinction is meaningless and makes the new map extremely difficult to read. Also, WMATA FAIL for not even notifying the public about this change even AFTER it was decided, when they should have been asking the RAC and the public BEFORE they decided to do anything.

by Jeb Stenhouse on Nov 13, 2009 2:33 pm  

Creating bus maps is difficult. Metro's problem is complicated by a system that does not run on a grid and which has multiple lines running on the same streets.

The main problem with the map is that Metro has NIH ("not invented here") syndrome. Its original bus maps were innovative, but went well over budget and schedule due to bus network's constant changes. Other transit agencies have since produced usable maps with additional innovations. One is to use narrower lines so that coextensive routes are easier to display. Another is to color-code by type of service. Metro made a weak attempt at this by coding service by jurisdictions served and distinguishing its rapid (or just limited?) buses. Finally, a list of all routes is presented with their hours of operation.

Clearly, someone did not proof the maps. I easily found two errors: the L2 is shown serving both Reno Rd. and Connecticut Ave. for a stretch in parallel; and the nonrush extension of the Yellow Line to Ft. Totten is depicted using a broken yellow line, which is not cited in the legend. An ambiguity exists in the depiction of rapid buses by dashed lines: this normally indicates rush hour express service. The callouts for their stops using their logos adds extraneous detail while not actually showing the stops.

At a minimum, the maps should distinguish rush hour, continuous, off peak, limited and school service. Many possibilities exist: I won't list them all. At the very least, the route symbols can show the type of service using the background color. Continuous and offpeak service can use the existing symbols. Rush hour service can use the primary color against a white background. School service can use the primary color against a yellow background. The rapid buses can keep their current symbols, with solid lines and clearer stop indications (white circles or tick marks of the same color).

by Chuck Coleman on Nov 15, 2009 9:42 am  

Oh, it's awful.

by Chris Combs on Nov 17, 2009 2:34 pm