Another positive element of this is leaving off the Beltway. The original Metro map was devised before the system was built, so the Beltway gave people some orientation. Now transit riders orient themselves by Metro lines, not by highways, so from a practical point of view the Beltway just clutters on the map. Symbolically, it sends a message that driving is still the "normal" means of transportation and transit is secondary.

Even from the point of view of drivers, it doesn't make much sense. Forty years ago the Beltway towered over other local expressways in importance, but no longer. People accessing the Metro by car have more need of relating the stations to incoming highways such as I-66, I-270, US 50 and I-95. But you would certainly clutter the map excessively if you showed all limited access highways.

by Ben Ross on May 26, 2011 1:38 pm • link • report

I definitely placed this one high in my voting. My notes:

"Based heavily off current map, but quite effectively done. Type is very legible - like the treatment of longer names, with main name up big and all the extra ones smaller underneath. Great solution to an awful problem. Silver Line phases shown very well visually and the legend is extremely comprehensive."

I've already said it on Twitter, but the "subtitle" approach to station names is the single best idea to come out of this contest (just ahead of the use of QR codes), and it's pleasing to hear that WMATA wants to adopt it (and potentially shorten names as well).

by Cameron Booth on May 26, 2011 1:41 pm • link • report

@Cameron Booth:
Thank you very much. I ranked your map at the top in my voting as well (I ranked you second, after my map).

by Matt Johnson on May 26, 2011 1:43 pm • link • report

Very nice map. I particularly like how you show the mid-line terminals at places like West Falls Church.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the "second" red line is unnecessary. You could simply show a stub at Silver Spring and another at Grosvenor.

by Max on May 26, 2011 1:58 pm • link • report

I have to wonder what CM Graham will think about putting parts of certain station's names in subtitles. He paid big money to have at least one of these subtittles added ... i.e., the 'Adams Morgan' part of 'Woodley Park' ... not withstanding that the station isn't in Adams Morgan ....

by Lance on May 26, 2011 2:00 pm • link • report

I like this map, but I don't remember where I put it on my list or if I did at all.

The subtitles idea is great, as is the way it mimics the original map but adds a new, modern style.

I like the idea of the colored-in dot indicating the terminus points, but I think the little turn-outs for the lines aren't very useful and actually detract from the clean lines.

I'm not sure if doubling-up the red line is such a mistake. Double-lines on the Metro map imply more service - blue, orange, green, and yellow all have a certain service level and when you combine them on the same track service is doubled. The red line has that doubling of service on the Silver Spring-Grosvenor (and Shady Grove off-peak) so maybe it makes sense to indicate that.

I'm conflicted as to how to show the yellow line service. How do you simply say "off peak all trains go to Fort Totten, during peak some stop at Mt. Vernon Sq and some at Greenbelt"? Personally I think it is most important to show the off-peak to Fort Totten as "normal," since you don't want people getting confused and not riding Yellow off-peak, when trains are farther apart.

by MLD on May 26, 2011 2:06 pm • link • report

I think I voted for this one second (so apparently I had tastes similar to the jurors). I agree that the second Red Line is probably unnecessary.

I think the letters to indicate Amtrak, MARC, and VRE was a good choice. The map as is is graphically consistent. To put in the logos would have been a bit jarring (as it kind of is in the existing map).

Overall I liked it, so good job Matt. One nit pick question: Since you indicated the terminal of the Silver line at Stadium Armory shouldn't you have also indicated it on the western end of the line?

by Steven Yates on May 26, 2011 2:09 pm • link • report

Why is Southeastern University still on the map? It closed in 2009!

by Patrick on May 26, 2011 2:12 pm • link • report

I disagree with Ben: keeping the Beltway on the map still is useful for a reference point, especially with out of town tourists who may be parking at stations outside the beltway.

This omission on Matt's map is the main reason I didn't include it in my voting.

by Froggie on May 26, 2011 2:14 pm • link • report

I liked this one a lot, and generally agree with the few minor criticisms. It also strongly resembles WMATA's official unofficial mockup of the silver line map from a few years ago.

The subtitle idea is still fantastic, and should be used if possible.

The good:

• The Silver Spring -> Grosvenor service actually stands out pretty well here. Most maps didn't get this right, and it works very well on this one.
  
• The bolded terminal stations do really stand out here.
  
• Subtitles. Love 'em, and love that WMATA is taking the idea seriously.
  
• Rail connections to BWI, and the legend. Other maps should incorporate this.
  
• Out of system transfer icon is great.
  
• This is the only map that's shown the Largo/Franconia/WFC peak services effectively, and without taking up too much space. This works really well.
  
• Tourist icons!

The less-good:

• Too many twists & turns. Green and Silver Lines especially.
  
• A/M/V sound like NYC subway services (but I do love the clean icons).
  
• No need to point out that there are Silver Spring to Shady Grove services. That's an operational distinction that riders can remain blissfully unaware of. Get rid of the Grosvenor-Shady Grove dashed line.
  
• The Franconia->Greenbelt service pattern is yet again very difficult to show on the map. I finally understood it once I looked at it long enough, but it's really not obvious at all. As shown, there are 3 different types of Yellow Line trains, but only two kinds of lines on the map. The treatment of it on this map is as good as any, but it's really just a confusing service pattern to show graphically. Terminating rush-hour Huntington trains at Fort Totten would things a bit simpler.
  
• Perhaps Metro Center and Gallery Place should be de-bolded, to make that style convention exclusive to terminal stations?
  
• The double-bubbles seem to imply a platform transfer...Not sure I love them, but they're not bad either. They'll look very weird once they turn into triple-bubbles when the Silver Line opens. Maybe use a -O- shape for non-major-transfer stations once that happens?

by andrew on May 26, 2011 2:16 pm • link • report

@Patrick:
As a rule in the contest, we were not allowed to change station names. I bent the rule in some cases to make it so that the subtitles wouldn't be extra short, so for instance, Brookland-CUA became Brookland (Catholic U), which balanced the text on both lines.

Anyway, the station south of L'Enfant is still Waterfront-SEU as far as Metro is concerned, and I couldn't change the name under the rules of the contest.

It does illustrate the folly of putting suffixes on the stations.

by Matt Johnson on May 26, 2011 2:19 pm • link • report

Strike the second to last bullet point. You violated your own legend. I didn't even notice it at first (or the filled-in bubble, which is also a nice touch once you notice it).

Sorry if some of those criticisms were harsh. I should reiterate that I really liked this map. An excellent compromise between yesterday's thick-lined map and Cameron Booth's sleek, ultra-modern map.

by andrew on May 26, 2011 2:20 pm • link • report

The icons for airport service is not very clear. For anyone unfamiliar, the will think Dulles is at the Rosslyn stop and there are two BWI airports. It isnt clear that you are saying to take Amtrak or MARC to get to BWI. (It also implies there is direct rail service to BWI or BWI is located at Greenbelt). The airport symbol for IAD should only be used at the future Dulles stop, similar to the DCA icon.

I get what you are trying to tell people, but for most people it is not intuitive. While many on this blog and daily users may get what you are saying, it should be so simple that you dont have to think about it.

by Al on May 26, 2011 2:35 pm • link • report

Forgot two comments. I think the Beltway should be kept. There are many car haters on here, but it is still a major piece of the transportation network and vital for peoples' orientation to the area.

Stick with using MARC, VRE, and Amtrak symbols - they are recognizable to the daily users and it is the marketed symbol for the service. Why complicate it. Any time you have to send people looking for explanations, you decrease the effectiveness of the map.

by Al on May 26, 2011 2:39 pm • link • report

WMATA's Barbara Richardson liked the idea and it's now likely to become a part of the future Metro map.

Matt has done a lot of positive work at GGW, but if the subtitle concept really hits the final map ... Matt, that's one worth telling the grandkids about. Very, very cool. (Yes, I am a wonk. How can you tell?)

by tom veil on May 26, 2011 2:45 pm • link • report

A couple other thoughts:

*The green line is much prettier here than on the standard WMATA map.
*I like the double red idea, but Grosevnor comes off really oddly.
*I'd move the White House a little to the left, so that tourists are encouraged to use Farragut, not Metro Center.
*The airport connection info is done better here than on any other map.

by tom veil on May 26, 2011 3:01 pm • link • report

I'm with andrew re. the double bubble. It implies, to me at least, that there is some walk involved for a transfer. I also don't understand the obsession with doubling and tripling up lines of the same color (see http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/submap.htm).

by OX4 on May 26, 2011 3:14 pm • link • report

This was my favorite map of all 17, once I really looked at it and thought about it a bit. As noted above, it's a great compromise between our current map and the super-slick "circuit diagram" skinny-line versions. Good treatment of the yellow line issues, subtitles, alternative terminal stations. But yes, it's not w/o its flaws. Doubling the red line is accurate but not necessary. The connected circles are likely less intuitive than a "tic tac" / pill-shaped icon.

Can we have around-two contest where people integrate their favorite features from the top maps?

by MDE on May 26, 2011 3:26 pm • link • report

The purpose of the double Red line is to graphicly show that there is more service between Silver Spring and Grosvenor and Silver Spring and Shady Grove. It corresponds to the combined Orange-Blue service between Rosslyn and Stadium-Armory.

Interesting that no one proposed a separate rush hours map. PATH uses one in New Jersey.

by Steve Strauss on May 26, 2011 4:10 pm • link • report

(see http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/submap.htm).

Did....they print that out and scan it? It's blurry!

(And it's also somewhat different from the printed NYC map. Manhattan's a completely different shape, for one! It should be noted that DC does the same thing, but nobody ever seems to notice or talk about it. Among other things, the maps in stations and on trains have the street address of each station printed below its name in tiny print, often with the completely wrong address.)

by andrew on May 26, 2011 5:10 pm • link • report

I really liked this map. I remember it being in my top three. The subtitles are awesome - no more run-on station names, go back to basics! I did think the doubling up of the red line was a bit over the top, but I know the author of this map is very irked by this problem ;-) as am I. Perhaps just use the little turnouts like you did for Mt. Vern Sq for the Yellow line instead of doubling up? That's a lot better than a cartoon callout box on the current map.

by Matt Glazewski on May 26, 2011 7:07 pm • link • report

"Among other things, the maps in stations and on trains have the street address of each station printed below its name in tiny print, often with the completely wrong address."

Maybe that's why Google Maps currently shows the Mount Vernon Square station at 7th and I, a good four blocks too far south.

by Col on May 26, 2011 8:23 pm • link • report

- I'm not sure I agree with the double red line, but the point about showing service profile is reasonable.

- I think maps should also depict taxi stands, e.g., you don't want to get off at NY Ave. if you want a taxi, instead go to Union Station. Similarly with Fort Totten vs. Takoma, or Takoma vs. Silver Spring.

- I think it's a bad idea to create new iconography for the rail service. Use their logos. People are already familiar with them.

- I do think the beltway can be considered an important landmark. It is a way to orient people, whether or not we want to promote automobile centricity.

by Richard Layman on May 26, 2011 10:03 pm • link • report

Not a big a fan of the double and triple bubbles. Makes it seem as though they are separate stations and that you might have to transfer to them. It also makes it as though there are separate tracks that for each colored line.

by Anon on May 26, 2011 11:29 pm • link • report

Thought long and hard about the double-bubbles. Interesting approach. Made me immediately think of how some stations have a single platform vs. those that are split platforms, so for my mind's eye it led to some incorrect assumptions. I feel like the Red line gets too much dominance, too.

Also, I liked the maps that focused on the clear text placement for the Station names. Subtitles is a great concept here. However, the clutter around Metro Center makes it difficult to read the map there (Metro Center could be mistaken easily as the label for Shaw or even Mt. Vernon by some). And text placed on top of or touching the rail lines was my first no-vote getter in trying to decide. I also felt an opportunity was missed to align New Carrollton & Landover labels with the other text on the same line. Sorry!

by CK on May 29, 2011 1:04 pm • link • report