MA Graphic Design Information Design Elective Supporting Material

Elective AInformation DesignSupporting Material

Eleanor Maclure

MA Graphic DesignPart Time Unit 2.1

MA Graphic DesignPart TimeUnit 2.1Elective AInformation Design Supporting Material

Elective AInformation DesignSupporting Material

Eleanor Maclure

Elective AInformation Design

2

Metro Maps

Berlin

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

��

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

��

��

��

�

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

� �

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

� ��

� �

� ��

�

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

�¡��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� ¢��¡��

�� ¢��

�� ¢��

�¡��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Reference: Network map of the S- and U-Bahn. http://www.bvg.de/index.php/en/17099/name/Network+Map.html [Accessed 05/12/10].

3

Elective A Supporting Material

London

2 2

2

2

2

45

8 8 6

2

4

4

65

41

3

2

43

3

33 1

1

3

3

59 7 7Special fares apply

5

5

6

4

4River Thames

A

B

C

D

E

F

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 76 8 9

A

B

C

D

E

F

Transport for LondonMAYOR OF LONDON

Transport for LondonThis diagram is an evolution of the original design conceived in 1931 by Harry Beck · 05.10

Correct at time of going to print, May 2010

AmershamChorleywood

Mill Hill East

Rickmansworth

Perivale

KentishTown West

CamdenRoad

Dalston Kingsland

Hackney CentralWanstead Park

Vauxhall

Hanger Lane

Edgware

Burnt Oak

Colindale

Hendon Central

Brent Cross

Golders Green

West Silvertown

Pontoon Dock

London City Airport

Woolwich Arsenal

King George V

Hampstead

Belsize Park

Chalk Farm

Chalfont &Latimer

Chesham

New Cross Gate

Moor Park

NorthwoodNorthwoodHills

Pinner

North Harrow

Custom House for ExCeL

Prince Regent

Royal Albert

Beckton Park

Cyprus

Gallions Reach

Beckton

Watford

Croxley

Fulham Broadway

LambethNorth

HeathrowTerminal 4

Harrow-on-the-Hill

KensalRise

Canonbury

BethnalGreen

Westferry

SevenSisters

Blackwall

BrondesburyPark

HampsteadHeath

HarringayGreen Lanes

LeytonstoneHigh Road

LeytonMidland Road

NorthwickPark

PrestonRoad

RoyalVictoria

WembleyPark

Rayners Lane

Watford High Street

RuislipGardens

South Ruislip

Greenford

Northolt

South Harrow

Sudbury Hill

Sudbury Town

Alperton

Pimlico

Park Royal

North Ealing

Acton Central

South Acton

Ealing Broadway

Watford Junction

West Ruislip

Bushey

Carpenders Park

Hatch End

North Wembley

West Brompton

Ealing Common

South Kenton

Kenton

Wembley Central

Kensal Green

Queen’s Park

Gunnersbury

Kew Gardens

Richmond

Stockwell

Bow Church

Stonebridge Park

Harlesden

Camden Town

Willesden Junction

Headstone Lane

Parsons Green

Putney Bridge

East Putney

Southfields

Wimbledon Park

Wimbledon

Island Gardens

Greenwich

Deptford Bridge

South Quay

Crossharbour

Mudchute

Heron Quays

West India Quay

Elverson Road

Oakwood

Cockfosters

Southgate

Arnos Grove

Bounds Green

Theydon Bois

Epping

Debden

Loughton

Buckhurst Hill

WalthamstowQueen’s Road

Woodgrange Park

Leytonstone

Leyton

Wood Green

Turnpike Lane

Manor House

Stanmore

Canons Park

Queensbury

Kingsbury

High Barnet

Totteridge & Whetstone

Woodside Park

West Finchley

Finchley Central

Woodford

South Woodford

Snaresbrook

Hainault

Fairlop

Barkingside

Newbury Park

East Finchley

Highgate

Archway

Devons Road

Langdon Park

All Saints

Tufnell Park

Kentish Town

Neasden

Dollis Hill

Willesden Green

South Tottenham

Swiss Cottage

ImperialWharf

Brixton

Kilburn

West Hampstead

Blackhorse Road

Acton Town

CanningTown

Finchley Road

Highbury &Islington

Canary Wharf

Stratford

FinsburyPark

Elephant & Castle

Stepney Green

Barking

East HamUpton Park

Plaistow

Poplar

West Ham

Upper Holloway

PuddingMill Lane

Kennington

Borough

Elm ParkDagenhamEast

DagenhamHeathway

Becontree

Upney

Heathrow Terminal 5

Finchley Road& Frognal

Crouch Hill

Northfields

Boston Manor

South Ealing

Osterley

Hounslow Central

Hounslow East

Clapham North

Oval

Clapham Common

Clapham South

Balham

Tooting Bec

Tooting Broadway

Colliers Wood

South Wimbledon

Arsenal

Holloway Road

Caledonian Road

Morden West Croydon

HounslowWest

Hatton Cross

HeathrowTerminals 1, 2, 3

ClaphamJunction

WestHarrow

BrondesburyCaledonian

Road &Barnsbury

TottenhamHale

WalthamstowCentral

HackneyWick

Homerton

WestActon

Limehouse EastIndia

Crystal Palace

ChiswickPark

RodingValley

GrangeHill

Chigwell

Redbridge

GantsHill

Wanstead

NorthGreenwich

Ickenham

TurnhamGreen

Uxbridge

Hillingdon Ruislip

GospelOak

Mile End

Bow Road

Bromley-by-Bow

Upminster

Upminster Bridge

Hornchurch

Norwood Junction

Sydenham

Forest Hill

Anerley

Penge West

Honor Oak Park

Brockley

Harrow &Wealdstone

Cutty Sark for Maritime Greenwich

RuislipManor

Eastcote

Wapping

Shadwell

New Cross

CanadaWater

Surrey Quays

Whitechapel

Lewisham

Kilburn Park

Regent’s Park

KilburnHigh Road

EdgwareRoad

SouthHampstead

GoodgeStreet

Shepherd’s BushMarket

Goldhawk Road

Hammersmith

Bayswater

Warren Street

Aldgate

Euston

Farringdon

BarbicanRussellSquare

Kensington(Olympia)

MorningtonCrescent

High StreetKensington

Old Street

St. John’s Wood

Green Park

BakerStreet

NottingHill Gate

Victoria

AldgateEast

Blackfriars

Mansion House

Cannon Street

OxfordCircus

BondStreet

TowerHill

Westminster

TottenhamCourt Road

PiccadillyCircus

CharingCross

Holborn

Tower Gateway

Monument

Moorgate

Leicester Square

London Bridge

St. Paul’s

Hyde Park Corner

Knightsbridge

StamfordBrook

RavenscourtPark

WestKensington

NorthActon

HollandPark

Marylebone

Angel

Queensway MarbleArch

SouthKensington

Earl’sCourt

SloaneSquare

Covent Garden

LiverpoolStreet

GreatPortland

Street

Bank

EastActon

ChanceryLane

LancasterGate

Warwick AvenueMaida Vale

Fenchurch Street

Paddington

BaronsCourt

GloucesterRoad St. James’s

Park Temple

Latimer Road

Ladbroke Grove

Royal Oak

Westbourne Park

Bermondsey

Rotherhithe

ShoreditchHigh Street

Dalston Junction

Haggerston

Hoxton

Wood Lane

Shepherd’sBush

WhiteCity

King’s CrossSt. Pancras

EustonSquareEdgware

Road

Waterloo

Southwark

Embankment

Tube map

Key to lines Check before you travelBakerloo

Central

No special arrangements

Circle

ChigwellGrange HillRoding Valley

Served until about 2400

Hammersmith& City


Canary WharfJubilee Step-free interchange between Underground, Canary Wharf DLR andHeron Quays DLR stations at street level

Metropolitan Chesham Change at Chalfont & Latimer on most trains

Northern

Blackfriars

Cannon Street

Underground station closed until late 2011Open until 2100 Mondays to Fridays.Closed Saturdaysand Sundays

District Blackfriars

Cannon Street

Kensington (Olympia)

Underground station closed until late 2011Open until 2100 Mondays to Fridays.Closed Saturdaysand Sundays

Camden Town

Charing Cross branch

Mill Hill East

Open for interchange and exit only from 1300 until 1730 Saturdays and SundaysChange at Kennington at off-peak times if travelling towards or from MordenChange at Finchley Central at off-peak times

Piccadilly Covent Garden

Eastcote to Uxbridge

Heathrow Terminal 4

Hounslow West

Turnham Green

A short walk from either Leicester Square (6 minutes) or Holborn (9 minutes)

Not served by Piccadilly line trains early mornings

Open until 2400 Mondays to Saturdays and until 2330 Sundays. Trains may wait for eight minutes before continuing to Terminals 1,2,3

Step-free access for wheelchair users only

Served by Piccadilly line trains early mornings and late evenings only



Heron Quays

West India Quay

Overground

DLR

Victoria

Waterloo & City Bank to Waterloo

Step-free interchange between Heron Quays and Canary Wharf Underground station at street level.

Not served by DLR trains from Bank towards Lewisham at peak times

Open 0615 until 2148 Mondays to Fridays and 0800 until 1830 Saturdays. Closed Sundays and public holidays

Served 0700 until 2345 Mondays to Saturdays and 0800 until 2345 Sundays

Reference: Standard Tube Map. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/gettingaround/1106.aspx [Accessed 01/11/10].

4

Moscow

Metro Maps

Reference: Moscow Metro Map, 2009. http://vector-images.com/clipart.php?id=6366 [Accessed 21/12/10].

5


New York

DYKERBEACHPARK

WESTCHESTER

THE BRONX

NAS

SAU

QU

EEN

S

NASSAU QUEENS

QUEENSBROOKLYN

J a m a i c aB a y

Ha

r l em

Ri v e r

Ea

s t Ri v e r

E a s t Ri v e r

Lo

ng

I

sl

an

d S

ou

nd

Hu

ds

on

Ri

ve

r

Q33

Q72

Q47

M60

M60 M60Q33Q47Q48Q72

Q33

Q48

Q10

Q10

B15Q10

AIRTRAIN JFK

AIRTRAIN JFK

Q3

Q3

14

AirTrain stops/terminal numbers

7

5/6

8

2/3

LIRR

LIRR

LIRR

LIRR

LIRR

Met

ro-N

orth

Metro-North

Metro-North

Met

ro-N

orth

LIRR

PATH

PATH

Amtrak

Amtra

k

Amtrak

Amtrak

NJTransit • Amtrak

PATH

Bowling Green4•5

Broad St J•Z

Rector StR

World TradeCenter

E

DeKalb AvB•Q•R

Hoyt St2•3

Clark S

t2• 3

Union StR

Carroll S

tF• G

Bergen

St

F• G

Broad St J•Z

York St

F

CityHallR

Rector StR

Franklin St1

Canal St1

Prince StN•R

Houston St1

14 St A•C•E

50 St1

50 StC•E

59 StColumbus Circle

A•B•C•D•1

66 St Lincoln Center

1

72 St1•2•3

79 St1

86 St1

96 St1•2•3

103 St1

CathedralPkwy

(110 St )1

116 St ColumbiaUniversity

1

137 StCity

College1

145 St1

157 St1

175 StA

181 StA

190 StA

Dyckman St A

238 St1

Norwood205 StD

Mosholu Pkwy4

Bedford Pk BlvdLehman College

4

Kingsbridge Rd4

Fordham Rd4

Allerton Av2•5

183 St4

Burnside Av4

176 St4

Mt Eden Av4

170 St4

174 St2•5

Bronx ParkEast

2•5

Pelham Pkwy2•5

Freeman St2•5

Simpson St2•5

E 180 St2•5

West Farms Sq

E Tremont Av2 •5

167 St4

161 St

Yankee Stadium

B •D •4

Van Cortlandt Park242 St

1

Lexington

Av/63 St

F

14 St–U

nion Sq

L• N

• Q• R

• 4• 5• 6

L

• N• Q

• R

3 Av

L 1 Av

L

8 St-NYUN•R

Christopher St

Sheridan Sq1

Canal StJ•N•QR•Z•6

Canal StA•C•E

Spring St6

Spring StC•E

W 4 St Wash Sq A•B•C•D•E•F•M

8 Av

L

Long Island City

Court Sq

G

QueensPlaza

E •M•R

69 St7

52 St7 46 St

Bliss St 740 St

Lowery St

733 St-Rawson St

7

Woodside

61 St7

36 StM•R

90 St–Elmhurst Av7

Junction Blvd 7 Q72 LGA Airport

103 St–Corona Plaza7

111 St 7 • Q48 LGA Airport

Elmhurst

Av

M• R

Grand Av

Newtown

M

• R Woodhaven Blvd

M

• R 63 D

r–Rego Park

M

• R• Q72

LGA Airp

ort

Forest Hills

71 Av

E• F• M• R

75 Av

E• F Bria

rwood

Van W

yck Blvd

E• F

Sutphin BlvdF

Parsons Blvd F

169 StF

Jamaica

Van Wyc

kE

Kew Gard

ens

Union Tpke

E

• F67 Av

M

• R

21 StQueens-

bridgeF

39 AvN•Q

Steinway StM•R

46 St M

•R

Northern Blvd

M•R

65 St

M•R

74 St–Broadway 7

82 St–Jackson Hts

Q33 LGA Airport • 7

36 AvN•Q

30 AvN•Q

Astoria BlvdN•Q

AstoriaDitmars Blvd

N•Q

23 St–Ely AvE•M

6 Av L 14 St

1•2•3

18 St1

14 St F•M

23 StF•M

23 St1

23 StC•E

23 StN•R

33 St6

Hunters Point Av7•LIRR

Vernon BlvdJackson Av

7

21 StG

Queensboro Plaza

N•Q•7

45 RdCourt House Sq

7

68 StHunter College6

77 St6

86 St4•5•6

96 St6

103 St6

110 St6

Central ParkNorth (110 St) 2•3

116 St6

72 StB•C

81 St–Museum of Natural History B•C

86 St B•C

96 StB•C

103 StB•C

Cathedral Pkwy(110 St)B•C

116 StB•C

125 StA•B•C•D

125 St2•3 • M60 LaGuardia Airport

125 St4•5•6

135 StB•C

135 St2•3

116 St2•3

3 Av138 St6

Brook Av

6

Cypress Av

6

E 143 St

St Mary’s St

6145 StA•B•C•D

191 St1

Bedford Pk BlvdB•D

Kingsbridge RdB•D

Fordham RdB•D

182–183 StsB•D

Tremont Av B•D

174–175 StsB•D

170 StB•D

Morris Park5

Pelham Pkwy5

Burke Av2•5

Gun Hill Rd 2•5

219 St 2•5

225 St2•5

233 St2•5

Nereid Av2•5

Wakefield 241 St2

Gun Hill Rd5

Baychester Av5

EastchesterDyre Av5

167 StB•D

E 149 St6

Longwood Av6

Hunts Point Av6

Whitlock Av6

Elder Av6

Morrison Av Soundview 6

St Lawrence Av6

Castle Hill Av6

Zerega Av6

Middletown Rd6

Buhre Av6

Pelham Bay Park6

Parkchester6

181 St1

155 S

t

B

• D15

5 St

C

163 S

t

Amsterd

am Av

C

145 St3

149 S

t–Grand

Concourse

2• 4• 5

Harlem148 St3

57 StF

57 St-7 AvN•Q•R

49 StN•Q•R

7 AvB •D

•E

28 St1

28 St N•R

28 St6

23 St6

Astor Pl 6

BoweryJ• ZEast

BroadwayF

2 Av

F

Bleecker St

6B’w

ay–Lafaye

tte St

B• D

• F• M

Essex

St

F

• J• M• Z

Delance

y St

Grand St B•D

Prospect AvR

25 StR

36 StD•N•R

45 StR

53 StR

59 StN•R

8 Av

N

Fort Hamilto

n

PkwyN

New Utre

cht Av

N 18 Av

N20

AvN

Bay Pkwy

N

Kings

HwyN

Avenue U N86 St

N

62 St

D

71 St

D

79 St

D

18 Av D

20 Av D

Bay Pkwy

D 25 AvD

Bay 50 StD

Coney IslandStillwell Av

D•F•N•Q

55 St

D

50 St

DFort Hamilto

n

PkwyD

9 Av

DDitm

as Av

F

18 Av

F

Avenue I

F

Bay

PkwyF

Bay Ridge AvR

77 StR

86 StR

Bay Ridge95 St

R

Jay St Borough Hall

A•C•F

Lafayette AvC

ParkPlS

Fulton StG

Smith

9 Sts

F• G

4 Av–

9 St

F• G• R 7 A

vF• G

15 St

Prospect P

arkF• G

Fort HamiltonPkwy

F•G

Church AvF• G

Avenue N

F Avenue P

FKings H

wy

F

Avenue U

F

Avenue X

FNeptune Av

F

West 8 StNY AquariumF•Q

Ocean PkwyQ

Brighton BeachB•Q

Sheepshead Bay

B• Q

Neck Rd

B• Q

Avenue U

B• Q

Kings Hwy

B• Q

Avenue M

B• Q

Avenue J

B• Q

Avenue H

B• Q

Newkirk Av

B• Q

Cortelyo

u Rd

B• Q

Beverle

y Rd

B• Q

Church Av

B• QFlatbush

Av

Brooklyn C

ollege

2• 5

Newkirk Av

2• 5

Beverly

Rd

2• 5

Church Av

2• 5

Winthrop St

2• 5

Sterling St 2•5

President St 2•5

CanarsieRockaway PkwyL

East 105 StL

Aqueduct North Conduit Av

A

Aqueduct RacetrackA

Van Siclen AvCLiberty

AvC

Ozone ParkLefferts BlvdA

111 StA

104 StA

Rockaway Blvd A

88 St A

80 StA

Grant AvA

Euclid AvA•C

Shepherd AvC Howard Beach

JFK Airport AAtlantic Av

L

Alabama AvJ

New Lots Av L B15 JFK Airport

Crescent StJ•Z

Norwood Av Z rush hrs, J other times

Cleveland St J

Bushwick Av

Aberdeen St

L

Wilson Av

L

DeKalb Av

LJe

fferso

n St

L

Flushing Av

J• MLorim

er St

J• MBroadway

G

Nassau Av

G

Greenpoint Av

G

Lorimer S

t

L Graham

Av

L Grand St

L Montrose

Av

L Morgan Av

L

Livonia Av L

Sutter

AvL

Nostrand Av

A •CFranklin Av

C•S

Kingston

Throop Avs

C

Utica Av

A •C

Ralph Av

C

Chauncey St

Z rush hours,

J other times

MyrtleWyckoff AvsL•M

Halsey St

J Gates Av

Z rush hours,

J other times

Kosciuszko St

JMyrtle Av

J •M•Z

Central Av M

Seneca AvM

MyrtleWilloughby Avs G

Flushing Av

GMarcy Av

J• M• Z

Metropolitan Av G

Bedford Av

L

Fresh Pond RdM

Halsey

St

L

Rockaway

AvC

Broad

way

Junc

tion

A

• C• J•

L• Z

Parkside AvB•Q

Prospect Park B•Q•S

Botanic Garden S

Clinton

Washington AvsG

Classon AvG

Hewes

St J• M

Bedford

Nostrand AvsG

Clinton

Washington Avs

C

HoytSchermerhorn

A•C•G

Lawrence StR

Kingston Av3

Franklin Av

2• 3• 4• 5Beach44 StA

Beach 36 StA

Beach 25 StA

Far RockawayMott Av

A

Broad Channel

A•S

Beach 67 StA

Beach 60 StA

Beach 90 StA•S

Beach 98 StA•S

Beach 105 StA•S

Rockaway ParkBeach 116 St

A•S

BroadwayN•Q

Knickerbocker Av M

Middle VillageMetropolitan AvM

Forest AvM

High StA•C

Atlantic Av B•Q•2•3•4•5•LIRR

Whitehall StSouth FerryR

Bowling Green4•5

Wall St4•5 Wall St

2•3

Fulton StBroadway-Nassau

Chambers St1•2•3

Park Place 2•3

Chambers StJ•ZBrooklyn BridgeCity Hall 4•5•6

Chambers St A•C

Atlantic

Av-Pac

ific St

D• N• R

• LIRR

Bergen

St2• 3

7 Av

B• Q

Nevins St2•3•4•5

Borough H

all

2• 3• 4• 5

Court StR

Grand A

rmy

Plaza

2• 3Eas

tern Pkw

y

Brookly

n Muse

um2• 3

34 StPenn

Station A•C•E•LIRR

42 StPort AuthorityBus Terminal

A•C•E Times Sq-42 St

N•Q•R•S•1•2•3•7Grand Central42 StS•4•5•6•7•Metro-North

47–50 StsRockefeller CtrB•D•F•M

34 StPenn

Station1•2•3•LIRR

34 StHerald Sq

B•D•FM•N•Q•R

42 StBryant PkB•D•F•M

5 Av 7

Lexington Av/53 St E•M

59 St 4•5•6

51 St 6

Lexington Av/59 StN•Q•R

5 Av/53 StE•M

5 Av/59 StN•Q•R

125 St1

168 St A•C•1 A•C

Dyckman St1

Inwood207 St

A

215 St1

3 Av–149 St2•5

Woodlawn4

Marble Hill225 St1

231 St1

75 St–Elderts Ln Z rush hours, J other times

Cypress Hills J

85 St–Forest Pkwy J

Woodhaven Blvd J•Z

104 St Z rush hours, J other times

111 StJ

121 St Z rush hours, J other times

Sutphin BlvdArcher AvJFK AirportE•J•Z•LIRR

Jamaica179 StF

Jamaica Center Parsons/ArcherE•J•Z

Jackson Hts

Roosevelt Av

E •F •M•R • Q33 Q47

LGA Airport

FlushingMain St

7

Nostrand Av3

Crown HtsUtica Av3•4

Saratoga Av 3

Rockaway Av 3

Junius St 3

Pennsylvania Av3

Van Siclen Av3

New Lots Av3

Sutter Av–Rutland Rd3

A•C•J•Z2•3•4•5

Open 11am-7pmon racing days

Westchester Sq East Tremont Av 6

Intervale Av 2•5

Prospect Av 2•5

Jackson Av 2•5

Mets–Willets Point7 • Q48 LGA Airport

Van Siclen Av Z rush hrs, J other times

138 St–GrandConcourse4•5

M60 LaGuardia Airport



M60 LGA Airport

Rector St1

Cortlandt St1

Cortlandt St R

South Ferry1

World TradeCenter

E

207 St 1

rushhours

rushhours

S

Rooseve

lt

Isl

and

F

northboundserviceonly

Stat

en Is

land

Fer

ry

summer only

QUEENSMIDTOWNTUNNEL

MARINE PARKWAY-

GIL HODGESMEMORIALBRIDGE

CR

OS

S B

AY

VE

TER

AN

S’

ME

MO

RIA

L

BR

IDG

E

BRONX-WHITESTONE BRIDGE

HENRY HUDSO

N

BRIDG

E

BROOKLYN-BATTERY TUNNEL

BRIDGE

VERRAZANO-NARROWS

BR

IDG

E

RO

BE

RT

F K

EN

NE

DY

THROGS NECK BRIDGE

GEO. WASHINGTONBRIDGE

LINCOLN TUNNEL

HOLLAND TUNNEL

MANHATTAN BRIDGE

BROOKLYN BRIDGE

QUEENSBORO BRIDGE

MA

LC

OL

M X

BL

VD

(LE

NO

X A

V)

NOSTRAND AV

BR

OA

DW

AY

BROADWAY BRIDGE

ST

NIC

HO

LA

S A

V

BR

OA

DW

AY

BR

OA

DW

AY

BROAD

WAY

SE

VE

NT

H A

V

VA

RIC

K S

T

L IVONIA

AV

WEST

CH

ESTE

R A

V

E 138 ST

LE

XIN

GT

ON

AV

PA

RK

AV

S

LA

FA

YE

TT

E S

T

EASTERN PARKWAY

SO

UT

HE

RN

BL

VD

WESTC

HE

ST

ER

AV

S

OU

TH

ER

N B

LV

D

ES

PL

AN

AD

E W

HITE P

LAIN

S RD

JER

OM

E A

V

MANHATTAN AV

UNION AV

LAFAYETTE AV

WEST END LINE

DELANCEY ST

BROADWAY

FULTON ST

JAMAIC

A AV

MYRTLE AV

VAN SINDEREN AV

WYCKOFF AV

BUSHWICK AV

N 7 ST

HOUSTON ST

R U TGERS ST

JAY

ST

S

MIT

H S

T

NINTH ST

MCDONALD AV

CULVER LINE

MCDONALD AV

FO

UR

TH

AV

86 ST

NEW

UTR

ECH

T AV

FO

UR

TH

AV

53 ST

HILLSID

E AV

41 AV 63 ST

SIX

TH

AV

FLATBUSH AV

E 15 ST

BRIGHTON LINE

E 16 ST

GR

AN

D C

ON

CO

UR

SE

QUEENS BLVD

QUEENS BLVD

ARCHER AV

LIBERTY A

V

PITKIN AV

FULTON ST

FULTON ST

CH

UR

CH

ST

S

IXT

H A

V

GREENWICH AV

EIG

HT

H A

V

CE

NT

RA

L P

AR

K W

ES

T

ST

NIC

HO

LA

S A

V

FO

RT

WA

SH

ING

TON

AV

BRO

ADW

AY

FO

UR

TH

AV

61 ST SEA BEACH LINE 63 ST

WEST 8 ST

BROADWAY

31 ST

60 ST

BROAD

WA

Y

BR

OA

DW

AY

BR

OA

DW

AY

QUEENS BLVD

ROOSEVELT AV

FLATBUSH AV

WILLIAMSBURG BRIDGE

14 ST

42 ST

PA

LIS

AD

E A

V

W 254 ST

IND

EP

EN

DE

NC

E A

V

HE

NR

Y H

UD

SO

N P

KW

Y

BROAD

WAY

231 ST

IRWIN AV

VAN CORTLANDT

PARK SO

WA

LD

O A

V

MO

SH

OLU

PKW

Y

BA

ILE

Y A

V

FORDHAM RD

PELHAM PKWY

CR

OT

ON

A A

V

PR

OS

PE

CT

AV

GR

AN

T H

WY

E 169 ST

CLAREMONT PKWY

180 ST

TREMONT AV

E TREMONT AV

WE

BS

TE

R A

V

BA

INBR

IDGE

TH

IRD

AV

225 ST

BRUCKNER EXPWY

BRUCKNER

EXPW

Y

ST

AN

NS

AV

ELDER AV

STORY AV

ST LAWRENCE AV

ROSEDALE AV

WHITE PLAINS RD

WHITE PLAINS RD

SOUNDVIEW AV

172

ST

CASTLE HILL AV

ZEREGA AV

EASTC

HESTER

RD

225 ST

HUTCHINSO

N PKWY

ALLERTON AV

BO

ST

ON

RD

WARING AV

WILLIAMSBRIDGE RD

BURKE AV

222 ST

LA

CO

NIA

AV

233 ST CO-OP CITY

BARTOW A

V

MIDDLETOWN RD

MORRIS

PARK AV

UNIONPORT RD

BARN

ES AV

BR

OA

DW

AY

NAGLE AV

10 A

V

FT

WA

SH

AV

RIV

ER

SID

E D

R

RIV

ER

SID

E D

R

145 ST

135 ST

ST NICHOLAS AV

AM

ST

ER

DA

M A

V

10 AV

FIF

TH

AV

5 A

V

MA

DIS

ON

AV

M

AD

ISO

N A

V

PA

RK

AV

TH

IRD

AV

3 A

V

SE

CO

ND

AV

2 A

V

2 AV

1 AV

FIR

ST

AV

1 A

V

AL

LE

N S

T

YO

RK

AV

WE

ST

EN

D A

V

11 AV

72 ST

CO

LU

MB

US

AV

66 ST 66 ST

12 AV

WE

ST S

T

GR

EE

NW

ICH

ST

WE

ST S

T

53 ST

E 8 ST

AV

A

AV

B

AV

D

BANK ST

E 2 ST

CHARLTON ST

GRAND ST

E BWAY

MADISON ST

SOUTH S

T

PEARL ST

WATE

R ST

ASTORIA BLVD

NORTHERN BLVD

DITMARS BLVD

111 ST

112 ST

ST

EIN

WA

Y S

T

48 ST

LONG ISLAND EXPWY

HORACE HARDIN

G EXPW

Y

LONG ISLAND

EXPWY

58 ST

36 ST

30 AV

GR

EEN

PO

INT

AV

20 AV

21 ST

JUNCTION BLVD

37 A

V NORTHERN BLVD

COLLEGE POINT BLVD

JEWEL A

V

UTOPIA PKW

Y

164 ST

GUY R. BREWER BLVD

PARSONS BLVD

KISSENA BLVD

MAIN ST

HILLSIDE AV

JAMAICA A

V

FRANCIS LEWIS BLVD

SUTPHIN BLVD

111 ST

LINDEN B

LVD

AUSTIN ST

CONDUIT AV

LEFFERTS BLVD

MERRICK BLVD

KENT AV

METROPOLITAN AV

METROPOLITAN AV

NASSAU AV

BEDFORD AV

MA

UR

ICE

AV

FLUSHING AV

69 ST

FOREST AV

WOODHAVEN BLVD

MYRTLE AV

JAC

KIE

RO

BIN

SO

N P

AR

KW

AY

WILSON AV

BUSHWICK AV

MYRTLE AV

BERGEN ST

BERGEN ST

BERGEN ST

HIC

KS

ST

CO

LU

MB

IA S

T

HE

NR

Y S

T

9 ST

UNION ST CHURCH A

V

PROSPECT AV

OCEAN PKWY

CONEY ISLAND AV

9 AV

FO

RT

HAM

ILTO

N PKW

Y

PARKSIDE A

V

WIN

THROP ST

NOSTRAND AV

AV Z

AV U

FLATBUSH AV

WASHINGTO

N

UTIC

A AV

UTIC

A AV

TH

IRD

AV

86 ST

KIN

GS

HW

Y

FIF

TH

AV

39 ST

REMSEN AV

NEW YORK AV

NEW

YOR

K AV

AV M

FLA

TLA

ND

S A

V

AV H

OCEAN AV

BE

DFO

RD

AV

BEDFORD AV

VAN SICLEN AV

PENNSYLVANIA AV

POR

T WA

SHIN

GTO

N B

LVD

CR

OS

S B

AY

BLVD

CR

OS

S B

AY

BLV

D

PARSONS BLVD WHITESTONE EXPWY

FRANCIS LEWIS BLVD

MID

DLE

NE

CK

RD

NORTHERN BLVD

NORTHERN BLVD

CANAL ST

CANAL ST SPRING ST

T R A M W A Y

HOUSTON ST

3 AV

BOWERY W 4 ST

E 4 ST

BLEECKER ST

BLEECKER ST

23 ST

12 AV

23 ST

50 ST 50 ST

59 ST CENTRAL PARK SOUTH

79 ST

125 ST

UNIVERSITY HTS BR

UNION TURNPIK

E

CLEARVIEW EXPWY

163 ST

FR

ED

ER

ICK

D

OU

GL

AS

S B

LV

D

AD

AM

CL

AY

TO

NP

OW

EL

L B

LV

D (7A

V)

VAN WYCK EXPW

Y

PITKIN AV

SEAGIRT BLVD

BE

AC

H C

HANNEL D

R

RO

CK

AW

AY

BE

AC

H B

LVD

KIN

GS

HIG

HW

AY

82 ST 83 STV

ER

NO

N B

LV

D

BE

AC

H C

HA

NN

EL

DR

RO

CKAW

AY PT

BLV

D

HAMILTON BRIDGE

WASHINGTON BRIDGE

SpuytenDuyvil

Riverdale

UniversityHeights

MorrisHeights

Harlem125 St

MelroseYankees-E153 St

Tremont

Fordham

Botanical Garden

WilliamsBridge

Woodlawn

Wakefield

LongIslandCity

9 St

14 St

23 St

33 St

Christopher St

Hunterspoint Av

Woodside

Mets–Willets Point

Flushing

ForestHills

JamaicaKewGardens

Hollis

Auburndale Bayside Douglaston

Manhasset

Plandome

PortWashington

GreatNeck

LittleNeck

MurrayHill

Broadway

QueensVillage

Laurelton Rosedale

Woodmere

Cedar-hurst

Lawrence

Inwood

LocustManor

FarRockaway

East NY

Nostrand Av

MarbleHill

WTC

VANCORTLANDT

PARK

BRONXZOO

PELHAMBAY

PARK

ORCHARDBEACH

CENTRALPARK

WASHINGTONSQUARE PARK

METROPOLITANMUSEUMOF ART

RANDALLSISLAND

JAVITSCENTER

RIVERBANKSTATE PARK

UNITEDNATIONS

WTC Site

FLUSHINGMEADOWSCORONA

PARK

PROSPECTPARK

BROOKLYNBOTANICGARDEN

FORT GREENEPARK

GREEN-WOODCEMETERY

LAGUARDIAAIRPORT

JFKINTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT

JAMAICABAY

WILDLIFEREFUGE

GATEWAYNATIONAL

RECREATIONAREA–

JAMAICA BAY

EASTRIVERPARK

KISSENAPARK

CUNNINGHAMPARK

MARINEPARK

FLOYDBENNETT

FIELD

CALVARYCEMETERY

NEWCALVARY

CEMETERY

MT ZIONCEMETERY

MT OLIVETCEMETERY LUTHERAN

CEMETERY

JUNIPERVALLEY

PARKST JOHNS

CEMETERY

EVERGREENCEMETERY

FORESTPARK

RIVERSIDE PARK

HUDSON RIVER PARK

HIGHBRIDGEPARK

JACOBRIIS

PARK

LIBERTYISLAND

ELLISISLAND

NEW YORKTRANSIT MUSEUM

Q10 JFK Airport

Flushing–Main StSubway

Bus - N20 N21 Q12 Q13 Q15 Q15A Q16 Q17 Q19 Q20A/B Q25 Q26 Q27 Q28 Q34 Q44

Q48 LaGuardia Airport Q58 Q65 Q66 QBx1

LIRR

Jamaica–Sutphin BlvdLong Island Rail RoadSubway

Bus - Q6 Q8 Q9 Q20A/B Q24 Q25 Q30 Q31 Q34 Q40 Q41 Q43 Q44 Q54 Q56 Q60 Q65

AIRTRAIN JFK

Euclid Av/Pitkin AvSubway

Bus - B13 Q7 Q8

New Lots AvSubway

Bus - B6 B15 JFK Airport

CanarsieRockaway PkwySubway

Bus - B6 B17 B42 B60 B82

Flatbush Av/Brooklyn CollegeSubway

Bus - B6 B11 B41 B44 B103 Q35

Coney IslandStillwell AvSubway

Bus - B36 B68 B74 B82

Bay Pkwy/86 StSubway

Bus - B1 B6 B82

86 St/4 AvSubway

Bus - B1 B16 B63 B70S53 S79 S93

Marcy AvSubway

Bus - B24 B44 B46 B60 B62 Q54 Q59

Crown HeightsUtica AvSubway

Bus - B14 B17 B46

Rockaway BlvdSubway

Bus - Q7 Q11 Q21 Q41 Q53 Q112

Far RockawaySubway

Bus - N31 N32 N33 Q22 Q113

LIRR

Jamaica–169 St/179 StSubway (179 St only)

Bus - N1 N6 N22 N22A N24 N26 Q1 Q2 Q3 JFK AirportQ17 Q30 (169 St only)Q31 (169 St only)Q36 Q43 Q76 Q77 Q110 (179 St only, rush hour only)

Jamaica CenterSubway

Bus - N4 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q8 Q9 Q20A/B Q24 Q25 Q30 Q31 Q34 Q41 Q42 Q44 Q54 Q56 Q65 Q83 Q84 Q85 Q110 Q111 Q112 Q113

Pelham Bay ParkSubway

Bus - Bx5 Bx8 Bx12 Bx12 Select Bus Service Bx29 QBx1

Bee-Line45

Westchester SquareEast Tremont AvSubway

Bus - Bx4 Bx8 Bx21 Bx31 Bx40 Bx42

ParkchesterSubway

Bus - Bx4 Bx36 Bx39 Q44

Fordham PlazaMetro-North

Bus - Bx9 Bx12

Bx12 Select Bus Service

Bx15 Bx17 Bx22 Bx41 Bx55

Bee-Line60 61 62

Norwood–205 StSubway

Bus - Bx10 Bx16 Bx28 Bx30 Bx34

Wakefield–241 StSubway

Bus - Bx39 Bee-Line40 41 42 43

Metro-North Railroad WoodlawnSubway

Bus - Bx16 Bx34

Bee-Line4 20 21

Kings Hwy/E 16 StSubway

Bus - B2 B3K B7 B31 B82 B100

Sheepshead BaySubway

Bus - B4 B36 B49

Simpson StSubway

Bus - Bx4 Bx5 Bx11 Bx19 Bx27 Bx35

Van Cortlandt Pk–242 StSubway

Bus - Bx9

Bee-Line1 1C 1T 1W 2 3

Marble Hill–225 StSubway

Bus - Bx7 Bx9 Bx20

Metro-North Railroad

Inwood–207 StSubway

Bus - M100 Bx7 Bx12 Bx20

A only

George WashingtonBridge Bus Station175 St/181 StSubway

Bus - Bx3 Bx7 Bx11 Bx13 Bx35 Bx36 M4 M5 M98 M100 NJ Transit Red & Tan Lines

125 St/Metro-NorthSubway

Bus - Bx15 M35 M60 LaGuardia Airport M98 M100 M101 M103

34 Street-Herald SqSubway

Bus - M4 M5 M7 M16 M34 Q32PATH

City HallSubway

Bklyn Bridge–City HallSubway

Bus - M5 M9 M22 M103

4,5,6 only

Broadway–NassauFulton StreetSubway

Bus - M5 M9

Court St/Borough HallSubway

Jay St–Borough HallSubway

Bus - B25 B26 B38 B41 B45 B52 B54 B57 B61 B65 B67 B103

2,3 and northbound 4,5

Atlantic Av/Atlantic Av-Pacific StLong Island Rail RoadSubway

Bus - B41 B45 B63 B65 B67

Penn StationLong Island Rail Road Subway

Bus - M4 M7 M16 M20 M34 Q32NJ Transit • Amtrak • NY Airport Service

Port AuthorityBus TerminalSubwayBus - M11 M16 M20 M42 M104 Newark Airport Express •NY Airport Service •NJ Transit • other commuter & long-distance buses

except S

Times Sq–42 StSubway

Bus - M7 M20 M42 M104

Grand Central TerminalMetro-North RailroadSubway

Bus - M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M42 M101 M102 M103 Q32NY Airport ServiceNewark Airport Express

except S

3 Av–149 StSubway

Bus - Bx2 Bx4 Bx15 Bx19 Bx21 Bx41 Bx55

Hunts Point AvSubway

Bus - Bx5 Bx6 Bx19Jackson Heights74 St–Roosevelt AvSubway

Bus - Q32 Q33 LGA Airport

(except Marine Air Terminal)Q45 Q47 LGA Airport

(Marine Air Terminal only)Q49 Q53

Queens PlazaQueensboro PlazaSubway

Bus - B62 Q32Q39 Q60 Q66 Q67 Q69 Q100 Q101 Q102

E,M,R only

Myrtle–Wyckoff AvsSubway

Bus - B13 B26 B52 B54 Q55 Q58

Middle VillageMetropolitan AvSubway

Bus - Q38 Q54 Q67

Broadway JunctionSubway

Bus - B20 B25 B83 Q24 Q56LIRR

Woodhaven BlvdQueens CenterSubway

Bus - Q11 Q21 Q29 Q38Q53 Q59 Q60 Q88

Forest Hills 71 AvSubway

Bus - Q23 Q64LIRR

Kew Gardens Union TpkeSubway

Bus - Q10 JFK Airport Q37 Q60 Q46

southbound only

except

n-bound

6

Sexcept

BROOKLYN

MANHATTAN

QUEENS

THEBRONX

FINANCIALDISTRICT

BATTERY PARK CITY

CHINATOWN

LITTLE ITALYSOHO

TRIBECA

GREENWICHVILLAGE

CHELSEA

WESTSIDE

UPPEREASTSIDE

UPPERWESTSIDE

EASTHARLEM

HARLEM

WASHINGTONHEIGHTS

EASTVILLAGE

LOWEREAST SIDE

NOHO

RIVERDALE

KINGSBRIDGE

HIGH-BRIDGE

FORDHAM

TREMONT

MORRISANIA

THE HUB

HUNTS POINT

RIKERSISLAND

MOTT HAVEN

SOUNDVIEW

PARKCHESTER

CITYISLAND

BAYCHESTER

CO-OPCITY

EASTCHESTER

ASTORIA

LONGISLAND

CITY

ROOSEVELTISLAND

JACKSONHEIGHTS

CORONA

FLUSHING

HILLCREST

FRESHMEADOWS

JAMAICAESTATES

JAMAICA

HOLLIS

QUEENSVILLAGE

KEWGARDENS

KEWGARDENS

HILLS

RICHMONDHILL

FORESTHILLS

REGO PARK

MIDDLEVILLAGE

GLENDALEWOODHAVEN

OZONEPARK

HOWARD BEACHEASTNEWYORK

OCEAN HILL-BROWNSVILLE

CANARSIE

EASTFLATBUSH

MIDWOOD

BENSONHURST

FLATBUSH

PARKSLOPE

REDHOOK

GOVERNORSISLAND

CARROLLGARDENS

FLATLANDS

ROCKAWAYPARK

BREEZYPOINT

SHEEPSHEADBAY

BRIGHTONBEACH

CONEY ISLAND

BAY RIDGE

BOROUGHPARK

SUNSETPARK

BROOKLYNHEIGHTS

WILLIAMSBURG

FORT GREENE

GREENPOINT

BEDFORD-STUYVESANT

CROWNHEIGHTS

BUSHWICK

RIDGEWOOD

MASPETH

DUMBO

NAVYYARD

MTA

Sta

ten

Isla

nd R

ailw

ay

Grasmere

St. George

Tompkinsville

Stapleton

Clifton S51

Old Town

Dongan Hills

Jefferson AvGrant City

S51/81

New Dorp

Oakwood Heights S57

Bay Terrace

Great KillsS54 X7 X8

Eltingville

Annadale S55

Huguenot S55 X17 X19

Prince's Bay S56

Pleasant Plains

Richmond ValleyNassauS74/84

AtlanticS74/84

Tottenville S74/84

RICHMOND TERRACE

VICTORY BLVD

VA

ND

ER

BIL

T A

V

ARTHUR KILL RD

STATEN ISLAND EXPRESSWAY VERRAZANO-NARROWS BRIDGE

FOREST AV

HY

LA

N B

LVD

HYLAN BLVD

AR

TH

UR

KIL

L RD

WE

ST

SH

OR

E E

XP

WY

RIC

HM

ON

D A

V

SILVERLAKEPARK

SNUG HARBORCULTURAL CENTER

COLLEGE OFSTATEN ISLAND

SEAVIEW

HOSPITALSTATENISLANDMALL

NEWSPRINGVILLE

PARK

LA TOURETTEPARK

GREATKILLSPARK

CLOVELAKESPARK

Staten Island MallBus - S44/94 S55 S56 S59 S61/91 S79 S89 X17 X31

Eltingville Staten Island Railway Bus - S59 S79 S89 X1 X4 X5

New Dorp Staten Island Railway Bus - S57 S76/86

Grasmere Staten Island Railway Bus - S53

Port RichmondBus - S40/S90 S53 S57 S59 S66

St. George Staten Island Railway Bus - S40/90 S42 S44/94 S46/96 S48/98 S51/81 S52 S61/91 S62/92 S66 S74/84 S76/86 S78Staten Island Ferry

STATENISLAND

PORTRICHMOND

WEST NEWBRIGHTON

MARINERSHARBOR

FOXHILLS ROSEBANK

CASTLETONCORNERS

BULLSHEAD

CHELSEA

WESTERLEIGH

TODTHILL

NEWDORPBEACH

WOODROWROSSVILLE

CHARLESTON

ARDENHEIGHTS

FRESHKILLS

RICHMONDTOWN

TOTTENVILLEBEACH

The subway operates 24 hours a day, but not all lines operate at all times. The map depicts morning to evening weekday service. For more information, call our Travel Information Center (6AM to 10PM)at 718-330-1234. Non-English- speaking customers call 718-330-4847 (6AM to 10PM).

To show service more clearly, geography on this map has been modified. © 2010 Metropolitan Transportation Authority

visit www.mta.info

The subway map depicts weekday service. Service differs by time of day and is sometimes affected by construction. Overhead directional signs on platforms show weekend, evening, and late night service.

This information is also available on mta.info: click on “Maps” in the top menu bar, then select “Individual Subway Line Maps.”

For construction-related service changes, click on “Planned Service Changes” in the top menu bar. This information is also at station entrances and on platform columns of affected lines.

Key

June 2010

Full time servicePart time service

All trains stop (local and express service)

Local service onlyRush hour line

extension

Free subway transfer

Free out-of-system subway transfer (excluding single-ride ticket)

Terminal

Bus or AIRTRAINto airport

Accessiblestation

Additional expressservice

Normal service

Commuter rail service

Bus to airport

StationName

A•C

MTA New York City Subwaywith bus and railroad connections

Police

M60

Reference: New York Subway Map. http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/submap.htm [Accessed 05/12/10].

6

Paris

Funiculaire deMontmartre

Parcde Bercy

IvryPont Mandela

Tarification spéciale

RER: au delà de cette limite,en direction de la banlieue,la tarification dépend de la distance. Les tickets t+ ne sont pas valables.

Légende

Pôle d’échange multimodal,métro, RER, tramway

Correspondances

Fin de lignesen correspondance

Navette fluviale

Meudonsur-Seine

Parcde St-Cloud

Les Coteaux

Les Milons

SuresnesLongchamp

Belvédère

Puteaux

Muséede Sèvres

Brimborion

LesMoulineaux

Hôtel de Villede La Courneuve

HôpitalDelafontaine Cosmonautes

La Courneuve6 Routes

Cimetièrede St-Denis

Marchéde St-Denis

Basilique deSt-Denis

ThéâtreGérard Philipe

Hôtel de Villede Bobigny

La Ferme

Libération

Escadrille Normandie–Niémen

Auguste Delaune

Pontde Bondy

PetitNoisy

Jean Rostand

Gaston Roulaud

Hôpital Avicenne

La Courneuve–8 Mai 1945

Maurice Lachâtre

Danton

Stade Géo André

Drancy–Avenir

Jacques-HenriLartigue

Poternedes Peupliers

StadeCharléty

Montsouris

JeanMoulin

DidotBrancion

Desnouettes

GeorgesBrassens

HenriFarman

SuzanneLenglen

Ported’Issy

ColonelFabien

Stade de FranceSaint-Denis

Saint-DenisPorte de Paris

Basiliquede St-Denis

Portede Saint-Ouen

LamarckCaulaincourt

JulesJoffrin

Saint-Denis

GuyMôquet

Porte de Clichy

ChâteletLes Halles

Stalingrad

MarcadetPoissonniers

Hôtel de Ville

Arts etMétiers

ChâteauRouge

StrasbourgSaint-Denis

Saint-Mandé

Maisons-AlfortAlfortville

Hoche

MarxDormoy

La CourneuveAubervilliers

Le Bourget

Jaurès

Placedes FêtesBelleville

Jourdain Télégraphe

Ourcq Portede Pantin

JacquesBonsergent Saint-Fargeau

Pelleport

Portede Bagnolet

Danube

BotzarisButtes

Chaumont

République

Parmentier

SèvresBabylone

RichelieuDrouot

Palais RoyalMusée du

Louvre

RéaumurSébastopol

Raspail

Pyramides

MontparnasseBienvenüe

Mabillon

ClunyLa Sorbonne

MalakoffRue Étienne Dolet

Chausséed’Antin

La Fayette

BonneNouvelle

GrandsBoulevards

Bourse Sentier

BarbèsRochechouart La Chapelle

Pigalle

Poissonnière

Liège

Notre-Damede-Lorette

Saint-Georges

Abbesses

Anvers

La Fourche

Placede Clichy

Pereire–Levallois Blanche

Villiers

Opéra

Auber

HavreCaumartin

Trinitéd’Estienne

d’Orves

FranklinD. Roosevelt

Neuilly–Porte Maillot

Avenue Foch

Bir-Hakeim

Invalides

Pasteur

Pontde l’Alma

JavelAndréCitroën

Javel

MichelAnge

Molitor

La Muette

MichelAnge

Auteuil

BoulainvilliersChamp de MarsTour Eiffel

ChampsÉlysées

Clemenceau

TrocadéroAvenue

Henri Martin

Avenuedu Pdt Kennedy

Commerce

Félix Faure

Ruede la Pompe Iéna

Ranelagh

Jasmin

Exelmans

ChardonLagache

Églised’Auteuil

Duroc

La MottePicquetGrenelle

Assemblée Nationale

Varenne

St-MichelNotre-DameSolférino

Musée d’Orsay

Concorde Les Halles

Jussieu

Odéon

ÉtienneMarcel

Vavin

SaintGermaindes-Prés

Saint-Sulpice

St-Placide

PlaceMonge

Pont NeufTuileries

Notre-Damedes-Champs

Luxembourg

Port-Royal

LouvreRivoli

St-Michel

Bastille

Daumesnil

Reuilly–Diderot

PèreLachaise

Oberkampf

Quai dela Rapée

SaintMarcel Bercy

Fillesdu Calvaire

Chemin Vert

St-SébastienFroissart

Ruedes Boulets

Charonne

SèvresLecourbe

Cambronne

Pont Marie

SullyMorland

PhilippeAuguste

AlexandreDumas

Avron

Voltaire

Quatre Septembre

Saint-Ambroise

RueSaint-Maur

Porte deVincennes

Vincennes

Maraîchers

Porte de Montreuil

Robespierre

Croix de Chavaux

Buzenval

Pyrénées

Laumière

Châteaud’Eau

Porte Dorée

Porte de Charenton

Ivrysur-Seine

Portede Choisy

Ported’Italie Porte

d’Ivry

Créteil–Université

Créteil–L’Échat

Maisons-AlfortLes Juilliottes

Maisons-Alfort–Stade

DenfertRochereau

MaisonBlanche

CensierDaubenton

Tolbiac

Le KremlinBicêtre

VillejuifLéo Lagrange

VillejuifPaul Vaillant-Couturier

Glacière

Corvisart

Nationale

Chevaleret

CitéUniversitaire

Gentilly

OrlyOuestAntony

MalakoffPlateau de Vanves

MoutonDuvernet

Gaîté

EdgarQuinet

Bd Victor

Issy

Meudon–Val-Fleury

Chaville–Vélizy

Portede St-Cloud

Pantin

Magenta

LaplaceVitrysur-Seine

Les Ardoines

Le Vertde Maisons

Saint-Ouen

Les Agnettes

Gabriel Péri

Les Grésillons

Ledru-Rollin

Ménilmontant

Couronnes

Montgallet

Michel Bizot

Charenton–Écoles

Liberté

FaidherbeChaligny

École Vétérinairede Maisons-Alfort

École Vétérinairede Maisons-Alfort

Gared’Austerlitz

St-Paul

MaubertMutualité

CardinalLemoine

Temple

ChâteauLandon

Bolivar

Église de Pantin

Bobigny–PantinRaymond Queneau

Riquet

Crimée

Corentin Cariou

Porte de la Villette

Aubervilliers–PantinQuatre Chemins

Fortd’Aubervilliers

LesGobelins

CampoFormio

Quaide la Gare

CourSt-Émilion

Pierre et MarieCurie

Dugommier

Bel-Air

Picpus

Saint-Jacques

Dupleix

Passy

Alésia

Pernety

Plaisance

Porte de Vanves

Convention

Vaugirard

Porte de Versailles

Corentin Celton

Volontaires

Falguière

Lourmel

Boucicaut

Ségur

Ruedu Bac

Rennes

SaintFrançoisXavier

Vaneau

ÉcoleMilitaire

La TourMaubourg

AvenueÉmile Zola

CharlesMichels

MirabeauPorte

d’AuteuilBoulogne

Jean Jaurès

Billancourt

Marcel Sembat

Cité

AlmaMarceau

Boissière

KléberGeorge V

Argentine

Victor Hugo

Les Sablons

Porte Maillot

Pont de Neuilly

Esplanadede La Défense

Saint-Philippedu-Roule

Miromesnil

Saint-Augustin

Courcelles

Ternes

Monceau

RomeMalesherbes

Wagram

Porte de Champerret

Anatole FranceLouise Michel

Europe

Le Peletier

Cadet

Pereire

Brochant

Mairiede Clichy

Garibaldi

Mairie de Saint-Ouen

CarrefourPleyel

Simplon

Bérault

RichardLenoir

Goncourt

BréguetSabin

Rambuteau

La PlaineStade de France

Arcueil–Cachan

Bourg-la-Reine

Bagneux

Madeleine

BibliothèqueFr. Mitterrand

BibliothèqueFr. Mitterrand

IssyVal de Seine

Orly

Portede Clignancourt

Garede Saint-Denis

Orry-la-Ville–Coye

Garede l’Est

Garede Lyon

Saint-Denis–Université

Portede la Chapelle

La Courneuve8 Mai 1945

AéroportCharles de Gaulle

Mitry–Claye

BobignyPablo Picasso

PréSt-Gervais Mairie des Lilas

Mairiede Montreuil

Gallieni

LouisBlanc

Porte des Lilas

Gambetta

Gare du Nord

Charlesde Gaulle

Étoile

Pont de LevalloisBécon

PorteDauphine

St-Germainen-Laye La Défense

BoulognePont de St-Cloud

Châtelet

Gared’Austerlitz

Nation

Châteaude Vincennes

Créteil–Préfecture

Olympiades

Mairie d’Ivry

Malesherbes Melun

Massy–PalaiseauVersailles–ChantiersRobinson

DourdanSaint-Martin-d’Étampes

Saint-Rémylès-Chevreuse

Placed’Italie

Villejuif–Louis Aragon

OrlySud

Mairie d’Issy

Châtillon–Montrouge

Pontde Sèvres

Gare Saint-Lazare

GareMontparnasse

ChellesGournay

Noisy-le-Sec

HaussmannSaint-Lazare

Asnières–GennevilliersLes Courtilles

Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines

Ported’Orléans

Balard

Versailles–Rive Gauche

Marne-la-Vallée

Boissy-Saint-Léger

Pontoise

Poissy

Cergy

Saint-Lazare

Tournan

Pontdu Garigliano

Parcs Disneyland

Parc des Expositions

CDG

Château de Versailles

Grande Arche

Paris

32 46 • wap.ratp.frwww.ratp.fr

Prop

riété

de

la R

ATP

- Age

nce

Cart

ogra

phiq

ue -

PM1

07-2

009

- CC

- Des

ign:

bdc

cons

eil -

Rep

rodu

ctio

n in

terd

ite

Metro Maps

Reference: Paris Metro Map. http://www.ratp.fr/informer/pdf/orienter/f_plan.php?fm=pdf&loc=reseaux&nompdf=metro [Accessed 04/12/10].

7


Tokyo

Reference: Tokyo Subway map. http://www1.tokyometro.jp/en/subwaymap/index.html [Accessed 15/11/10].

8

Metro Maps

Berlin S & U-Bahn Map

The U-Bahn consists of ten lines. The pre-war U-Bahn line designations consisted of letters, with added Roman numerals in case of line branchings. This system continued to be used into the 1960s on both sides.

After the erection of the wall, East Berlin was left with line E and the eastern half of line A. This oddity and the fact that the two line network was simple to navigate anyway, caused line designations to be gradually abandoned there over the years.

West Berlin abandoned the letter based system in 1966 and replaced it by line numbers 1 through 9, the system still in place today. The shortest line in this system was line 5 which consisted of two stops only (Deutsche Oper - Richard-Wagner-Platz). It was closed in 1970, to be replaced by an extension of line 7 which opened a few years later. This move freed line number 5. West Berlin BVG then decided to reserve this line number for East Berlin’s line E in case of reunification - the only line that ran exclusively in East Berlin territory and was therefore not yet covered in the new West Berlin system.

In 1984, BVG became the operator of the West Berlin S-Bahn which until then had been operated by East Germany’s Deutsche Reichsbahn. It incorporated the S-Bahn into its line numbering system by using the method of West German transport systems of giving new line numbers prefixed by “S” to the S-Bahn, and adding the prefix “U” to the existing U-Bahn lines. So “line 1” became “U1” etc.

After Berlin’s reunification in 1990, East Berlin’s line E was renumbered U5, as had been planned. At

the same time, the eastern half of line A became U2 like its western counterpart, even though at the time they were not yet connected. When U2 was actually rejoined in 1993, the western branches of U1 and U2 were swapped, and the U3 disappeared from the map. What had been U3—a short shuttle line between Uhlandstraße and Wittenbergplatz—became part of the new U15, a line that in theory continued past Wittenbergplatz in parallel with U1, to Schlesisches Tor (and, when it was reopened in 1995, Warschauer Straße); in practice, particularly during off-peak hours, U15 was often operated as a shuttle identical to the old U3. In 2004, the full length of U15 was redesignated U1, and a new U3 was created from what had been the U1 west of Nollendorfplatz to Krumme Lanke. (This was the same route as the U2 until 1993, extended one station further east to Nollendorfplatz to enable trains to be reversed and to allow one-stop transfer to the U4).

System map of the U-Bahn in 2004

9


Berlin U-Bahn Lines

Line Route Opened Length Stations

Uhlandstraße – Warschauer Straße 1902–1926 8.814 km (5.477 mi) 13

Pankow – Ruhleben 1902–2000 20.716 km (12.872 mi) 29

Nollendorfplatz – Krumme Lanke 1913–1929 11.940 km (7.419 mi) 15

Nollendorfplatz – Innsbrucker Platz 1910 2.864 km (1.780 mi) 5

Alexanderplatz – Hönow 1930–1989 18.356 km (11.406 mi) 20

Berlin Hauptbahnhof – Brandenburger Tor 2009 1.470 km (0.913 mi)[4] 3

Alt-Tegel – Alt-Mariendorf 1923–1966 19.888 km (12.358 mi) 29

Rathaus Spandau – Rudow 1924–1984 31.760 km (19.735 mi) 40

Wittenau – Hermannstraße 1927–1996 18.042 km (11.211 mi) 24

Rathaus Steglitz – Osloer Straße 1961–1976 12.523 km (7.781 mi) 18

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_U-Bahn [Accessed 20/12/10].

10

Metro Maps

Berlin S- & U-Bahn Map

The Berlin S-Bahn is a rapid transit system in and around Berlin, the capital city of Germany. It consists of 15 lines and is integrated with the mostly underground U-Bahn to form the backbone of Berlin’s rapid transport system. Unlike the U-Bahn, the S-Bahn crosses the Berlin city and state border into the surrounding state of Brandenburg, mostly from the former East Berlin but today also from West Berlin to Potsdam.

Although the S- and U-Bahn are part of a unified fare system, they have different operators. The S-Bahn is operated by S-Bahn Berlin GmbH, a subsidiary of the Deutsche Bahn, whilst the U-Bahn is run by BVG, the main public transit company for the city of Berlin.

RoutesThe S-Bahn routes all feed into one of three core lines: a central, elevated east-west line (the Stadtbahn), a central, mostly underground north-south line (the Nord-Süd-Tunnel), and a circular, elevated line (the Ringbahn). Geographically, the Ringbahn takes the form of a dog’s head and is colloquially known to Berliners by that name (Hundekopf). Outside the Ringbahn, suburban routes radiate out in all directions.

Generally speaking, the first digit of a route number designates the main route or a group of routes. Thus, S25 is a bifurcation of S2, while S41, S42, S45, S46, and S47 are all Ringbahn routes that share some of the same lines. Stations in brackets are serviced at certain times only (Monday-Friday during off peak in the case of S47 and during peak in the case of S8 and S85). S45 and S85 only run Mon-Fri.

Also, not every train reaches the nominal terminus of a line. For example, every other train on S1 runs only to Frohnau, five stops before Oranienburg, and the last stop on S3 towards Erkner which is reached by every train is Friedrichshagen. Similarly, some of the S2 trains terminate northwards only at Gesundbrunnen, and most of S5 trains run only to Strausberg or even Mahlsdorf, rendering Strausberg Nord the least frequented stop on the whole network.

The Berlin S-Bahn Network

11


Berlin S-Bahn Lines

Line Terminus Route Terminus

Wannsee Nord-Süd-Tunnel Oranienburg

Blankenfelde Nord-Süd-Tunnel Bernau

Teltow Stadt Nord-Süd-Tunnel Hennigsdorf

Erkner Stadtbahn Spandau

Südkreuz Ringbahn Südkreuz (clockwise)

Südkreuz Ringbahn Südkreuz (counter-clockwise)

Berlin-Schönefeld Ringbahn Südkreuz (Bundesplatz)

Königs Wusterhausen Ringbahn Westend

Spindlersfeld Ringbahn Hermannstraße ( Südkreuz)

Strausberg Nord Stadtbahn Westkreuz

Ahrensfelde Stadtbahn Potsdam Hauptbahnhof

Wartenberg Stadtbahn Spandau

(Zeuthen) Grünau Ringbahn Hohen Neuendorf

(Grünau) Schöneweide Ringbahn Waidmannslust

Berlin-Schönefeld Ringbahn Blankenburg

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_S-Bahn [Accessed 20/12/10].

12

Historical Maps

Berlin S- & U-Bahn

1933

1960

Reference: OVENDEN, M., 2003. Metro maps of the world. Middlesex : Capital Transport Publishing.

13


1968

1988


14

Metro Maps

London Tube Map

The tube map is the schematic diagram (transit map) representing the lines and stations of some of London’s rapid transit rail systems, the London Underground (commonly known as the tube, hence the name), the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and London Overground.

As a schematic diagram it shows not the geographic but the relative positions of stations along the lines, stations’ connective relations with each other and their fare zone locations. The basic design concepts have been widely adopted for other network maps around the world, especially that of mapping topologically rather than geographically.

Early MapsWhat is now a single network of lines controlled by a single organisation began as a collection of independent underground railway companies that constructed lines in the 19th and early 20th centuries. These companies published route maps of their own services but did not, generally, co-operate in advertising their services collectively. Early maps were based on standard geographic city maps indicating the directions of lines and locations of stations, overlaid on geographic features and main roads.

The first combined map was published in 1908 by the Underground Electric Railways Company of London (UERL) in conjunction with four other underground railway companies using the “Underground” brand as part of a common advertising initiative. The map showed eight lines – four operated by the UERL and one from each of the other four companies:

UERL lines

• Bakerloo Railway - brown• Hampstead Railway - grey• Piccadilly Railway - yellow• District Railway - green

Other lines

• Central London Railway - blue• City and South London Railway - black• Great Northern and City Railway - orange• Metropolitan Railway - red

The use of a geographic base map presented restrictions in this early map; to enable sufficient clarity of detail in the crowded central area of the map, the extremities of District and Metropolitan lines were omitted so a full network diagram was not provided.

The route map continued to be developed and was issued in various formats and artistic styles until 1920, when, for the first time, the geographic background detail was omitted in a map designed by MacDonald Gill. This freed the design to enable greater flexibility in the positioning of lines and stations. The routes became more stylised but the arrangement remained, largely, geographic in nature. The 1932 edition was the last geographic map to be published, before the diagrammatic map was introduced.

Beck’s MapsThe first diagrammatic map of the Underground was designed by Harry Beck in 1931. Beck was an Underground employee who realised that because the railway ran mostly underground, the physical

15


locations of the stations were irrelevant to the traveller wanting to know how to get to one station from another — only the topology of the railway mattered. This approach is similar to that of electrical circuit diagrams; while these were not the inspiration for Beck’s diagram, his colleagues pointed out the similarities and he once produced a joke map with the stations replaced by electrical-circuit symbols and names with terminology, such as “bakelite” for “Bakerloo” In fact, Beck based his diagram on a similar mapping system for underground sewage systems.

To this end, he devised a simplified map, consisting of stations, straight line segments connecting them, and the River Thames; lines ran only vertically, horizontally, or on 45 degree diagonals. To make the map clearer and to emphasise connections, Beck differentiated between ordinary stations (marked with tick marks) and interchanges (marked with diamonds). The Underground was initially sceptical of his proposal — it was an uncommissioned spare-time project, and it was tentatively introduced to the public in a small pamphlet in 1933. It immediately became popular, and the Underground has used topological maps to illustrate the network ever since.

Despite the complexity of making the map, Beck was paid just five guineas for the work. After its initial success, he continued to design the Underground map until 1960, a single (and unpopular) 1939 edition by Hans Scheger being the exception. During this time, as well as accommodating new lines and stations, Beck continually altered the design, for example changing the interchange symbol from a diamond to a circle, as well as altering the line colours - the Central Line from orange to red, and the Bakerloo Line from red to brown. Beck’s final design, in 1960, bears a strong resemblance to modern-day maps. Beck lived in Finchley, and one of his maps is still preserved on the southbound platform at Finchley Central station on the Northern Line.

After BeckBy 1960, Beck had fallen out with the Underground’s publicity officer, Harold Hutchinson. Hutchinson,

though not a designer himself, drafted his own version of the Tube map in 1960. It removed the smoothed corners of Beck’s design and created some highly cramped areas (most notably, around Liverpool Street station); in addition, lines were generally less straight. However, Hutchinson also introduced interchange symbols (circles for Underground-only, squares for interchanges with British Rail) that were black and allowed multiple lines through them, as opposed to Beck who used one circle for each line at an interchange, coloured according to the corresponding line.

In 1964, the design of the map was taken over by Paul Garbutt, who, like Beck, had produced a map in his spare time due to his dislike of the Hutchinson design. Garbutt’s map restored curves and bends to the diagram, but retained Hutchinson’s black interchange circles (the squares however were replaced with circles with a dot inside). Garbutt continued to produce Underground maps for at least another 20 years — Tube maps stopped bearing the designer’s name in 1986, by which time the elements of the map bore a very strong resemblance to today’s map. Today, the map bears the legend “This diagram is an evolution of the original design conceived in 1931 by Harry Beck” in the lower right-hand corner.

While the standard Tube map mostly avoided representing main-line rail services, a new variant of the map issued in 1973, the “London’s Railways” map, was the first to depict Tube and surface rail services in a diagrammatic style closely matched to Beck’s designs. It was designed by Tim Demuth of the LT publicity office and was jointly sponsored by British Rail and London Transport. This map did not replace the standard Tube map, but continued to be published as a supplementary resource, later known as the “London Connections” map.

Alterations have been made to the map over the years. Recent designs have incorporated changes to the network, such as the Docklands Light Railway and the Jubilee Line Extension. The map also includes major rail lines used for journeys within London, such as London Overground. It also shows

16

tube stops with access to national rail stations, rail links to airports, and river boats. Stations that can be walked between are now shown, often with the distance between them (this is an evolution of the pedestrian route between Bank and Monument stations, which was once prominently marked on the map). Further, step-free access notations are also incorporated in the map.

In addition, since 2002 the Underground ticket zones have been added, to better help passengers judge the cost of a journey. Nevertheless the map remains true to Beck’s original scheme, and many other transport systems use schematic maps to represent their services, undoubtedly inspired by Beck. A facsimile of Beck’s original design is on display on the southbound platform at his local station, Finchley Central. The map is currently maintained and updated by Alan Foale, of The LS Company.

Despite there having been many versions over the years, somehow the perception of many users is that the current map actually is, more or less, the 1930 Beck version. This is a remarkable testament to the effectiveness of the original design. Beck did actually draw versions with other formats, 22 1/2 degrees rather than 45 (the Paris Métro version uses 22 1/2 degrees as a base); and an unused version for the 1948 London Olympics.

One of the major changes to be made to the revision of the tube map put out in September 2009 was the removal of the River Thames. Although historically the river was not present on several official maps (for example according to David Leboff & Tim Demuth’s book; in 1907, 1908, and 1919), from 1921 it was absent for several years (on pocket maps designed by MacDonald Gill). The Thames-free 2009 version was the first time that the river has not appeared on the tube map since the Stringemore pocket map of 1926. This latest removal resulted in widespread international media attention,and general disapproval from most Londoners as well as from Mayor Boris Johnson. Based on this reaction, the following edition of the diagram in December 2009 reinstated both the river and fare zones.

TypefaceThe font for the map, including station names, is Johnston, which has perfect circles for the letter “O”.

Station MarksAn important symbol that Beck introduced was the ‘tick’ to indicate stations. This allowed stations to be placed closer together while preserving clarity, because the tick was only on the side of the line nearer the station name (ideally centrally placed, though the arrangement of lines did not always allow this).

From the start, interchange stations were given a special mark to indicate their importance, though its shape changed over the years. In addition, from 1960, marks were used to identify stations that offered convenient interchange with British Railways (now National Rail). The following shapes have been used:

• Empty circle (one for each line or station, where convenient) - standard default mark

• Empty circle (one for each station) - 1938 experimental map

• Empty diamond (one for each line) - early 1930s• Empty square - interchange with British Railways,

1960–1964• Circle with dot inside - interchange with British

Rail, 1964–1970

Since 1970 the map has used the British Rail ‘double arrow’ beside the station name to indicate main-line interchanges. Where the mainline station has a different name from the Underground station that it connects with, since 1977 this has been shown in a box. The distance between the tube station and the mainline station is now shown.

In recent years, some maps have marked stations offering step-free access suitable for wheelchair users with a blue circle containing a wheelchair symbol in white.

Tube stations with links to airports (Heathrow Terminals 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for London Heathrow

17


Airport, and London City Airport DLR station) are shown with a black aeroplane symbol, and stations with a National Rail link to airports are shown with a red aeroplane symbol.

Since 2000, stations with a nearby interchange to river bus piers on the Thames have been marked with a small boat symbol, to promote TfL’s newly-formed London River Services.

While Eurostar services used Waterloo International, the Eurostar logo was shown next to London Waterloo station. On 14 November 2007, these services were transferred to St. Pancras International, and Kings Cross St. Pancras tube station now bears the text “for St. Pancras International”, although it does not show the Eurostar logo.

Some interchanges are more convenient than others and the map designers have repeatedly rearranged the layout of the map to try to indicate where the interchanges are more awkward, such as by making the interchange circles further apart and linking them with thin black lines. Sometimes the need for simplicity overrides this goal: the Bakerloo/Northern Lines interchange at Charing Cross is not very convenient and passengers are better off changing at Embankment, but the need to simplify the inner London area means that the map seems to indicate that Charing Cross is the easier interchange.

Lines or servicesThe map aims to make the complicated network of services easy to understand, but there are occasions when it might be useful to have more information about the services that operate on each line.

The District Line is the classic example; it is shown as one line on the map, but comprises services on the main route between Upminster and Ealing/Richmond/Wimbledon; between Edgware Road and Wimbledon; and the High Street Kensington to Kensington Olympia shuttle service. For most of its history the map has not distinguished these services, which could be misleading to an unfamiliar user.

Recent maps have tried to tackle this problem by separating the different routes at Earl’s Court.

Limited-service routes have sometimes been identified with hatched lines, with some complications added to the map to show where peak-only services run through to branches, such as that to Chesham on the Metropolitan Line. The number of routes with a limited service has declined in recent years as patronage recovered from its early 1980s low point. As there are now fewer restrictions to show, the remaining ones are now mainly indicated in the accompanying text rather than by special line markings.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_map [Accessed 20/12/10].

Geographically Accurate Tube Map

18 Bakerloo Line

Central Line

Circle Line

District Line

Hammersmith & City Line

Jubilee Line

Metropolitan Line

Northern Line

Piccadilly Line

Victoria Line

Waterloo & City Line

DLR

Overground

London Underground Lines

19


Reference: GARLAND, K., 1994. Mr Beck’s underground map. Middlesex : Capital Transport Publishing. pp.16.

Henry Beck’s Original Sketch for the Tube Map (1931)

20

Historical Maps

London Underground

1911

1920


21


1933

1949

Reference: OVENDEN, M., 2003. Metro maps of the world. Middlesex : Capital Transport Publishing.Reference: GARLAND, K., 1994. Mr Beck’s underground map. Middlesex : Capital Transport Publishing. pp.16.

22

History of Music, The Guardian 2006

The Great Bear – Simon Patterson 1992

Reference: Greater Shakespeare. http://mangashakespeare.ning.com/profiles/blogs/753772:BlogPost:5831 [Accessed 21/12/10].Reference: Guardian Tube Map. http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturevulture/archives/2006/02/03/post_51.html [Accessed 21/12/10].

23


Greater Shakespeare – Royal Shakespeare Company 2007

World Metro Map 2003

Reference: World Metro Map. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_map [Accessed 21/12/10].Reference: The Great Bear. https://rickoshea.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/blogging-underground/ [Accessed 21/12/10].

24

Metro Maps

Moscow Metro Map

The Moscow Metro (Russian: Московский метрополитен, Moskovsky Metropoliten) is a rapid transit system that serves Moscow, Russia as well as a neighbouring town of Krasnogorsk.

Opened in 1935 with one 11 kilometres (6.8 mi) line and 13 stations, it was the first underground railway system in the Soviet Union. Currently, Moscow Metro has 182 stations. Its route length is 301.2 kilometres (187.2 mi). The system is mostly underground, with the deepest section located at 84 metres (276 ft) below ground, at Park Pobedy station.

The Moscow Metro is the world’s second most heavily used rapid transit system after Tokyo’s twin subway. It is a state-owned enterprise.

The Moscow Metro has 301.2 km (187.2 mi) of route length, 12 lines, and 182 stations. The average daily passenger traffic during the year is 6.6 million pas-sengers per day. The highest passenger traffic is highest on weekdays, when the Metro carries over 7 million passengers per day. The traffic is lower on weekends.

Each metro line is identified by an alphanumeric index (usually consisting of just a number), a name, and a colour. The voice announcements refer to the lines by name. A male voice announces the next station when going towards the centre, and a female voice when going away from it. On the circle line, the clockwise direction has male voice announcements for the stations, while the counter-clockwise direction has female voice announcements. The lines are also as-signed unique colours in the maps and signs. Naming by colour is frequent in colloquial usage, except for

the very similar shades of green assigned to Ka-khovskaya Line (number 11), Zamoskvoretskaya Line (number 2), Lyblinsko-Dmitrovskaya Line (number 10) and Butovskaya Line (number L1).

The system operates according to an enhanced spoke-hub distribution paradigm, with the majority of rail lines running radially from the centrally located downtown Moscow to the peripheral districts. The Koltsevaya Line (number 5) forms a 20 kilometres (12 mi) long ring that enables passenger travel between these spokes.

The signs showing the stations that can be reached in a given direction are installed on the stations.

The majority of stations and rail lines are under-ground. Some lines have ground and above-ground sections. Filyovskaya Line is notable for its being the only line with most of the tracks situated on the ground.

The Moscow Metro is open from about 05:30 until 01:00. The precise opening time varies at different stations according to the arrival of the first train, but all stations close for entrance simultaneously at 01:00. The reason for closing down overnight is the need for regular maintenance.

The minimum interval between the trains of 90 seconds can be observed during the morning and evening rush hours.

25


Moscow Metro Lines

Index & Colour

English Transliteration Russian Name First Opened

Latest Extension

Length Stations

Sokolnicheskaya Сокольническая 1935 1990 26.1 km 19

Zamoskvoretskaya Замоскворецкая 1938 1985 36.9 km 20

Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya Арбатско-Покровская 1938 2009 43.5 km 21

Filyovskaya Филёвская 1958 2006 14.9 km 13

Koltsevaya Кольцевая 1950 1954 19.3 km 12

Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya Калужско-Рижская 1958 1990 37.6 km 24

Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya

Таганско-Краснопресненская

1966 1975 35.9 km 19

Kalininskaya Калининская 1979 1986 13.1 km 7

Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya

Серпуховско-Тимирязевская

1983 2002 41.2 km 25

Lyublinsko-Dmitrovskaya Люблинско-Дмитровская

1995 2010 23.7 km 14

Kakhovskaya Каховская 1995 3.3 km 3

Butovskaya Бутовская 2003 5.5 km 5

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Metro [Accessed 20/12/10].

26

Historical Maps

Moscow Metro

1958

1967


27


1980

1983


28

Metro Maps

New York Subway Map

The New York City Subway is a rapid transit system owned by the City of New York and leased to the New York City Transit Authority, a subsidiary agency of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and also known as MTA New York City Transit. It is one of the oldest and most extensive public transportation systems in the world, with 468 stations in operation (423 if stations connected by transfers are counted as a single station); 209 mi (337 km) of routes, translating into 656 miles (1,056 km) of revenue track; and a total of 842 miles (1,355 km) including non-revenue trackage. In 2009, the subway delivered over 1.579 billion rides, averaging over five million (5,086,833 rides) on weekdays, 2.9 million on Saturdays, and 2.2 million on Sundays.

The New York City Subway is the fourth busiest rapid transit rail system in the world in annual ridership, after Tokyo’s, Moscow’s, and Seoul’s rapid transit systems. It is one of the four systems in the US, along with portions of the Chicago ‘L’ system, PATH, and PATCO to offer service 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Contrary to its name, the New York City Subway system is not all underground. In fact, across the city’s boroughs, there are dozens of miles of track, and there are many stations that are elevated or at grade level. The system’s stations are located throughout the boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. (The borough of Staten Island has a rail line, but it is not considered part of the New York City subway system). All services pass through Manhattan, except for the Franklin Avenue Shuttle in Brooklyn, the Rockaway Park Shuttle in Queens, and the Brooklyn–Queens Crosstown Local

(G train) connecting Brooklyn and Queens only. All but two of the 468 stations of the subway are served 24 hours a day. Twenty-four hour train service is very rare globally. The other American rapid transit systems that share this distinction are portions of the Chicago ‘L’, the PATH, and the PATCO Speedline.

Many lines and stations have both express and local service. These lines have three or four tracks: normally, the outer two are used for local trains, and the inner one or two are used for express trains. Stations served by express trains are typically major transfer points or destinations. The BMT Jamaica Line uses skip-stop service on portions, whereby two services operate over the line during rush hours and certain stations are only served by one of the two.

Lines and RoutesMany rapid transit systems run relatively static routings, so that a train “line” is more or less synonymous with a train “route”. In New York, routings change often as new connections are opened or service patterns change. Within the nomenclature of the subway, the “line” describes the physical railroad track or series of tracks that a train “route” uses on its way from one terminal to another. “Routes” (also called “services”) are distinguished by a letter or a number and “Lines” have names. They are also designations for trains, as exemplified in the Billy Strayhorn song Take the “A” Train. This terminology is also used to a loose extent in the Taipei Rapid Transit System.

There are 24 train services in the subway system, including three short shuttles. Each route has a colour designation, representing the Manhattan trunk

29


line of the particular service, and it is labelled as local or express. A separate colour is exclusively assigned to the Crosstown Line route, since it operates entirely outside Manhattan; the shuttles are all assigned dark gray. Each service is also named after its Manhattan (or crosstown) trunk line. For these reasons, the New York Subway is perhaps the most complex metro system in the world.

Though all but two subway stations are served on a 24-hour basis, some of the designated routes do not run during the late night hours or use a different routing during those hours. In addition to these regularly scheduled changes, because there is no nightly system shutdown for maintenance, tracks and stations must be maintained while the system is operating. To accommodate such work, services are usually changed during the overnight hours and on weekends.

The current colour system depicted on official subway maps was proposed by R. Raleigh D’Adamo, a lawyer who entered a contest sponsored by the Transit Authority in 1964. D’Adamo proposed replacing a map that used only three colours (representing the three operating entities of the subway network) with a map that used a different colour for each service. D’Adamo’s contest entry shared first place with two others and led the Transit Authority to adopt a multi-coloured scheme. (D’Adamo subsequently earned a master’s degree in transportation planning and engineering from Polytechnic University and worked for transit authorities, including a stint at the MTA, and was responsible for organizing and building what today is the Westchester County Bee-Line bus

system.) However, the lines and services are not referred to by colour (e.g., Blue line or Green line), although the colours are often assigned through their groups.

Subway MapThe current official transit maps of the New York City Subway are based on a 1979 design by Michael Hertz Associates. The maps are relatively (though not entirely) geographically accurate, with the major exception of Staten Island, the size of which has been greatly reduced. This causes them to appear, in the eyes of some observers, as unnecessarily cluttered and unwieldy compared to the more traditional type of plan used for most urban rail and metro maps; a schematic, or diagram. The map is recognized, however, with helping tourists navigate the city, as major city streets are shown alongside the subway stations serving them. The newest edition of the subway map, which took effect on June 27, 2010, reflects the latest service changes and also makes Manhattan even bigger and Staten Island even smaller.

Part of the reason for the current incarnation is that earlier diagrams of NYC Subway (the first being produced in 1958), while perhaps being more aesthetically pleasing, had the perception of being geographically inaccurate. The design of the subway map by Massimo Vignelli, published by the MTA between 1974 and 1979, has since become recognized in design circles as a modern classic; however, the MTA deemed the map was flawed due to its placement of geographical elements.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway [Accessed 20/12/10] .

30 Route Line

Broadway – Seventh Avenue Local

Seventh Avenue Express

Seventh Avenue Express

Lexington Avenue Express

Lexington Avenue Express

Lexington Avenue Local/Express

Flushing Local/Express

42nd Street Shuttle

A Division (IRT)

B Division (BMT/IND)

Route Line Route Line

Eighth Avenue Express Canarsie Local

Sixth Avenue Express Sixth Avenue Local

Eighth Avenue Local Broadway Local

Sixth Avenue Express Broadway Express

Eighth Avenue Local Broadway Local

Sixth Avenue Local Franklin Avenue Shuttle

Crosstown Local Rockaway Park Shuttle

Nassau Street Express Nassau Street Express

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway [Accessed 20/12/10].

New York Subway Lines

31


1972 Map of the New York Subway System by Massimo Vignelli

Reference: http://www.minilistic.com/2009/12/new-york-subway-map-1972/ [Accessed 20/12/10].

New York Subway

Historical Maps

32

Metro Maps

Paris Metro Map

The Paris Métro or Métropolitain (French: Métro de Paris) is the rapid transit metro system in Paris. It has become a symbol of the city, noted for its density with the city limits and its uniform architecture influenced by Art Nouveau. The network’s sixteen lines are mostly underground and run to 214 km (133 mi) in length. There are 300 stations (384 stops), of which 62 facilitate transfer to another line.

Paris has one of the densest metro networks in the world, with 245 stations within 86.9 km² (34 sq mi) of the City of Paris. Lines are numbered 1 to 14, with two minor lines, 3bis and 7bis. The minor lines were originally part of lines 3 and 7 but became independent.

Lines are identified on maps by number and colour. Direction of travel is indicated by the destination terminus.

Paris is the second busiest metro system in Europe after Moscow. It carries 4.5 million passengers a day, and an annual total of 1.479 billion (2009). Châtelet-Les Halles, with 5 Métro lines and three RER commuter rail lines, is the world’s largest underground station.

The first line opened without ceremony on 19 July 1900, during the Exposition Universelle. The system expanded quickly until the First World War and the core was complete by the 1920s. Extensions into suburbs (together with Line 11) were built in the 1930s.

Since the Métro was built to comprehensively serve the city inside its walls the stations are very close: on

average, 548 metres apart on average, ranging down to 424m on line 4 and up to one kilometre on the newer line 14, meaning Paris is heavily pockmarked with stations. In contrast, the surrounding suburbs are only served by later line extensions, thus traffic from one suburb to another must pass through the city. The slow commercial speed effectively prohibits service to the greater Paris area.

The Paris Métro is an essentially underground (197 km of 214 km), surface runs consists of the viaduct sections within Paris (on lines 1, 2, 5 & 6) and the suburban ends of lines 1, 5, 8, and 13. The system’s tunnels are relatively close to the surface due to the variable nature of Paris’s earth which does not permit deep digging; exceptions include parts of line 12 under the hill of Montmartre and line 2 under Ménilmontant. Instead the tunnels follow the twisting lie of the streets.

The Métro has 214 km (133 mi) of track and 300 stations (384 stops), 62 connecting between lines. These figures do not include the RER network. Trains stop at all stations. Lines do not share tracks, even at interchange (transfer) stations.

Reference: Paris Metro Map Illustration by Antoine & Manuel. http://design-crisis.com/?p=349 [Accessed 17/12/10].

33


Paris Metro Lines

Line Opened Last Extension

Stations Served

Length Average Interstation

Journeys (per annum)

Termini

1900 1992 25 16.6 km / 10.3 miles

692 m 213,921,408 La Défense Château de Vincennes

1900 1903 25 12.3 km / 7.7 miles

513 m 95,945,503 Porte Dauphine Nation

1904 1971 25 11.7 km / 7.3 miles

488 m 91,655,659 Pont de Levallois Gallieni

1971 1971 4 1.3 km / 0.8 miles

433 m Porte des Lilas Gambetta

1908 1910 26 10.6 km /6.6 miles

424 m 155,348,608 Porte de ClignancourtPorte d’Orléans

1906 1985 22 14.6 km / 9.1 miles

695 m 92,778,870 Bobigny Place d’Italie

1909 1942 28 13.6 km / 8.5 miles

504 m 104,102,370 Charles de Gaulle - Étoile Nation

1910 1987 38 22.4 km / 13.9 miles

605 m 121,341,833 La Courneuve Villejuif Mairie d’Ivry

1967 1967 8 3.1 km / 1.9 miles

443 m Louis Blanc Pré Saint-Gervais

1913 1974 37 22.1 km / 13.8 miles

614 m 92,041,135 Balard Créteil

1922 1937 37 19.6 km / 12.2 miles

544 m 119,885,878 Pont de Sèvres Mairie de Montreuil

1923 1981 23 11.7 km / 7.3 miles

532 m 40,411,341 Boulogne Gare d’Austerlitz

1935 1937 13 6.3 km / 3.9 miles

525 m 46,854,797 Châtelet Mairie des Lilas

1910[12] 1934 28 13.9 km / 8.6 miles

515 m 81,409,421 Porte de la Chapelle Mairie d’Issy

1911[12] 2008 32 24.3 km / 15.0 miles

776 m 114,821,166 Châtillon - Montrouge Saint-Denis Les Courtilles

1998 2007 9 9 km / 5.6 miles

1,129 m 62,469,502 Saint-Lazare Olympiades

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_M%C3%A9tro [Accessed 20/12/10].

34

Historical Maps

Paris Metro

1922

1937


35


1939

1999


36

Metro Maps

Tokyo Subway Map

The Tokyo subway is an integral part of the world’s most extensive rapid transit system in a single metropolitan area, Greater Tokyo. While the subway system itself is largely within the city centre, the lines extend far out via extensive through services onto suburban railway lines.

As of June 2008, the entire network of Tokyo Metro, Toei, and Tokyo Waterfront Area Rapid Transit has 282 stations and 14 lines. The Tokyo Metro and Toei networks together carry a combined average of close to eight million passengers daily. Despite being ranked first in worldwide subway usage, subways make up a small fraction of heavy rail rapid transit in Tokyo alone—only 282 out of 882 railway stations, as of 2007.

There are two primary subway operators in Tokyo:• Tokyo Metro. Formerly Teito Rapid Transit

Authority (Eidan), privatized in 2004 and presently operating 168 stations and nine lines. The minimum price for one ride is 160 yen.

• Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau of Transportation (Toei). An arm of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, operates 106 stations in four lines. The minimum price for one ride is 170 yen.

In addition:• The Tokyo Waterfront Area Rapid Transit (TWR)

operates a single mostly-underground line with eight stations.

• Saitama Railway Line which is essentially an extension of the Tokyo Metro Namboku Line operates a single mostly-underground line with eight stations.

The Yamanote Line and the Chou-Sobu Line are not subway lines, but above-ground busy commuter lines which operate with metro-like frequencies and trains owned by JR East. They act as key transportation arteries in central Tokyo, and are often marked on Tokyo subway maps.

Many above-ground and underground lines in the Greater Tokyo Area operate through services with the Tokyo Metro and Toei lines so that in a broader meaning they consist a part of the Tokyo subway network.

The Yokohama Subway (and the planned Kawasaki Subway) also operate in the Greater Tokyo Area, but they are not directly linked to the Tokyo subway network. However, on special occasions (typically holiday weekends), the Tokyo Metro Hibiya Line and Namboku Line operate special Minato Mirai (みなとみらい号, Minatomirai-go) direct through services onto Yokohama’s fully underground Minatomirai Line via the Tokyo Toyoko Line railway. From 2012, the Tokyo Metro Fukutoshin Line will also have regular through service to the Minatomirai Line.

37


Tokyo Subway Lines

Asakusa Line

Mita Line

Shinjuku Line

Oedo Line

Ginza Line

Marunouchi Line

Hibiya Line

Tozai Line

Chiyoda Line

Yurakucho Line

Hanzomon Line

Namboku Line

Fukutoshin Line

The Tokyo Subway Network

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway [Accessed 20/12/10].

38

Historical Maps

Tokyo Subway

1969

1972


39


1989

1998


40

Dissecting Metro Maps – Logo

Metro Logos

Moscow MetroLondon Underground

Berlin S & U-Bahn

41


Paris Metro

Tokyo Subway

New York Subway

42

Dissecting Metro Maps – Typeface

London

Berlin

New York

P22 Underground based on Johnston Sans – Edward Johnston

FF Transport – Meta Design

Helvetica – Max Miedinger & Eduard Hoffmann

West Acton

Union Sq

43


Tokyo

Paris

Moscow

Shin-go

Parisine – Jean-François Porchez.

Unknown Cyrillic Typeface

44

The (Mostly) True Story of Helvetica and the New York City Subway

There is a commonly held belief that Helvetica is the signage typeface of the New York City subway system, a belief reinforced by Helvetica, Gary Hustwit’s popular 2007 documentary about the typeface. But it is not true—or rather, it is only somewhat true. Helvetica is the official typeface of the MTA today, but it was not the typeface specified by Unimark International when it created a new signage system at the end of the 1960s. Why was Helvetica not chosen originally? What was chosen in its place? Why is Helvetica used now, and when did the changeover occur? To answer those questions this essay explores several important histories: of the New York City subway system, transportation signage in the 1960s, Unimark International and, of course, Helvetica. These four strands are woven together, over nine pages, to tell a story that ultimately transcends the simple issue of Helvetica and the subway.

The LabyrinthAs any New Yorker—or visitor to the city—knows, the subway system is a labyrinth. This is because it is an amalgamation of three separate systems, two of which incorporated earlier urban railway lines. The current New York subway system was formed in 1940 when the IRT (Interborough Rapid Transit), the BMT (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit) and the IND (Independent) lines were merged. The IRT lines date to 1904; the BMT lines to 1908 (when it was the BRT, or Brooklyn Rapid Transit); and the IND to 1932. Portions of the IRT and BMT lines originated as elevated train lines, some dating back to 1885.

The first “signs” in the New York City subway system were created by Heins & LaFarge, architects of

the IRT. In 1904 they established the now-familiar tradition of mosaic station names on platform walls. The name tablets were composed of small tiles in both serif and sans serif roman capitals. The BRT/BMT followed suit under Squire J. Vickers, who took over the architectural duties in 1908. Neither line had a uniform lettering style even though the designs were prepared in studio and then shipped in sections to the stations. Thus, there is a surprising amount of variety within the mosaic station names. Smaller directional signs—with arrows indicating exits from each station—were also made in mosaic tile in both serif and sans serif roman capitals. Vickers simplified the decorative borders surrounding the name tablets but did not alter the lettering styles of either the IRT or the BMT. However, when the IND was established in 1925, he created a new style of sans serif capitals to accompany the stripped-down decoration of the stations. These letters, inspired by Art Deco, were heavier and more geometric than the earlier sans serifs rooted in 19th-century grotesques. They used larger tiles than the IRT and BMT mosaics, though the IND’s directional mosaic signs employed lighter sans serif capitals and were made up of smaller tiles.

Heins & LaFarge also “hung large, illuminated porcelain-enamel signs over the express platforms, using black type [actually hand-lettering] on a white background and painted station names on the round cast-iron columns.” The latter were replaced in 1918 when Vickers commissioned enamel signs from both Nelke Signs (later Nelke Veribrite Signs) and the Baltimore Enamel Company. The two companies continued to make enamel signs throughout the 1930s, placing them on girder columns as well as cast-iron ones. Vickers’ goal was to make it easier

Paul Shaw

45


for riders to quickly recognize their stop upon entering a station. The abbreviated station names on the porcelain-enamel signs were rendered in condensed sans serif capitals derived from common sign-painting models. For the IND Vickers also added a second set of modular tiles for the station names. These were integrated into the station walls rather than being attached to the platform columns. The lettering of these signs is in a spur serif style—common in 19th-century sign-painting manuals—that is reminiscent of social invitation typefaces such as Copperplate Gothic.

Beginning in the early 1950s, stations were systematically lengthened to accommodate newer and longer cars. The station walls were covered with simple glazed tiles in dull green, ochre, blue and other solid colours. Station names were silk-screened on the tiles in black geometrically constructed condensed sans serif letters. (The Grand Street station uses Delft blue letters instead.)

As if this plethora of signs were not enough, the subway system also had a bewildering variety of other porcelain enamel and hand-painted signs. The porcelain enamel signs, either hung from the ceiling or posted on the walls, were directional as well as informational. The directional signs included those on the outside of the station entrances as well as those intended for the corridors and platforms underground. Many of the informational signs warned against criminal, dangerous or unhealthy behaviour: no peddling wares, no leaning over the tracks, no crossing the tracks, no smoking, no spitting. The directional and informational ones were made by Nelke Veribrite Signs and the Baltimore Enamel Company, while the behavioural ones were the product of the Manhattan Dial Company. Most were lettered in some form of sans serif capitals—regular, condensed, square-countered, chamfered, outlined—though some were in bracketed or slab serif roman capitals. They were usually white letters on a coloured background (often dark green for the IND and dark blue for the IRT and BMT), yet many were also black on a white background. There was no house style.

Hand-painted signs were added to the subway system as far back as the mid-1930s—maybe earlier—and were still being used three decades later. (In fact, some can still be seen today at stations such as Forest Hills/Continental Avenue in Queens.) Some were temporary in nature—lettered on easel boards—and others were more permanent. The latter, usually informational in nature—such as the location of toilets—were painted on corridor walls in red and black grotesque capitals. There is evidence that when they faded or became scuffed, they were simply repainted.

Bringing Order Out of ChaosThe untenable mess of overlapping sign systems finally got attention in 1957 when George Salomon, typographic designer at Appleton, Parsons & Co., made an unsolicited proposal to the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) entitled “Out of the Labyrinth: A plea and a plan for improved passenger information in the New York subways.” The unpublished typescript anticipated many of the suggestions for overhauling the signage of the subway system that Unimark would make a decade later. Salomon suggested that the distinctions among the IRT, BMT and IND be abolished and replaced by five major trunk lines and eleven subsidiary routes. The trunk lines would be colour-coded and identified by a letter and the branch lines by a derivative letter/number combination. Thus, Salomon’s system consisted of the Lexington Avenue line (B, blue), the Broadway BMT line (C, purple), the Sixth Avenue line (D, orange), Seventh Avenue line (E, red) and Eighth Avenue line (F, green). The Seventh Avenue line branched off into single lines, designated E1 through E5. Similar markings were used for the other subsidiary lines. Salomon proposed that the colour-coding be used for the trains, signage and maps to ensure consistency and uniformity throughout the subway system. He also wanted the signage to be standardized. His preference was for signs to be set in Futura Demi-bold—which he claimed was the most legible face available—set in white on a black background and supported by large directional arrows. Salomon concluded his proposal by stating:

46

“It’s a big job. But for the sake of the subway itself and for the sake of the city it serves and for the people of that city it must be done soon.”

The only one of Salomon’s ideas that was taken up by the TA (short for NYCTA) was his suggestion for a colour-coded route map. His subway map design, heavily influenced by Henry Beck’s famous map for the London Underground, was published in 1958. It was the first official map issued by the TA since its inception in 1953—and the first to show the entire system. (Maps issued by the Board of Transit, the TA’s predecessor, were produced by private companies such as Hagstrom Maps.) Salomon’s map was not as ambitious as his “Out of the Labyrinth” ideas. The IRT lines were coloured black, the BMT lines green and the IND lines red. The map was set in a mix of News Gothic, News Gothic Bold, Standard and Times Roman—no Futura.

Apparently, the TA did make some kind of an attempt in 1958 to improve the signage within the subway system. It engaged Ladislav Sutnar to design exit signs for the stations but they were not “properly implemented” by the TA’s sign shop—an portent of what Unimark was to face a decade later. No further details about the assignment are known.

Signage in the 1960sIn the 1960s, urban planners, architects and graphic designers, both here and in Europe, took an interest in the systematic design of signage for cities, highways, railways, subways and airports. At the beginning of the decade, two publications, published almost simultaneously, touched on the issues: Lettering on Buildings (1960), by Nicolete Gray, and Sign Language for Buildings and Landscape (1961), by Mildred Constantine and Egbert Jacobson. Unfortunately, Gray did not examine transportation system signage, and Constantine and Jacobson devoted only a few sentences and images to the topic, primarily focusing on above-ground signs for the Paris Metro and London Underground. Their lone image of signage within an underground railway system was, surprisingly, from the Philadelphia subway.

One reason for this lacuna is that, at the time, coordinated subway sign systems were rare. New York was not the only major city to have a visual mess underground. Even the famed Paris Métro was plagued by a welter of different styles of signs that was not brought under control until 1971, when Métro, designed by Adrian Frutiger and based on his Univers typeface, was introduced. The lone exception to this state of affairs was London where Johnston Railway Sans—designed by calligrapher Edward Johnston at the behest of Frank Pick, publicity manager at London Transport—had been in use since 1916 for signage as well as on posters and advertising.

The first coherent transportation sign system was created by Colin Forbes in 1961 for the Oceanic Building at Heathrow Airport. Now called Terminal 3, the Oceanic Building was the second terminal to be built at the airport. Forbes’ sign system for it employed modular panels with sans serif lettering in black on white (though white on black was allowed for some levels of information) combined with arrows. Guidelines for spacing and sizing the letters were an essential aspect of the system. For the lettering, Forbes, who had a solo practice at the time, hired a young Matthew Carter (b. 1937) to design a custom grotesque. The design, eventually called Airport, was based on Standard (as Akzidenz-Grotesk was then called in England), which Forbes praised for its “simple, bold, easily identifiable letterforms with an individual but unaggressive personality.” Carter drew a special weight, increased the x-height and amended several individual letters (principally replacing the angled terminals of c, e and s with horizontal ones).

The result looked a lot like Helvetica Medium. Forbes acknowledged this years later in A Sign Systems Manual (1970) when he wrote: “Since this amended design was produced a new typeface, Helvetica, has been issued. Helvetica incorporates many of the adaptations made to Standard and it is now often used for signs by reproducing directly from printers’ and filmsetters’ type.” In 1960, when the signage for The Oceanic Building was being planned, Forbes and

47


Carter were unaware of the existence of Helvetica. “If we’d known about it,” Carter said in 2007 to Alice Rawsthorn of the International Herald Tribune, “I’m sure we would have used it, since it’s a much better typeface than the one I drew.”

All of the elements of the Oceanic Building sign system resurfaced in other transportation sign systems of the 1960s. In November 1964, work on the M1 (Red) line, the first of the three-line Metropolitana Milanese, was completed. Franco Albini and Franca Helg did the station designs, while the signage was by Bob Noorda, who was also responsible for suggesting the colour-coding of the system’s three lines. At the time, Noorda—a Dutch designer who had moved to Italy in 1952 and gained a reputation for his work as art director of Pirelli— had his own design firm in Milan. His sign system for the Milan metro involved modular enamel strip signs placed along the station walls at consistent intervals. Along with the platform signage Noorda designed route diagrams, neighbourhood maps, clock faces and posters for each station. The entire Milan system won Noorda and the architects the Premio Compasso d’Oro in 1964.

The lettering for the Milan metro signs was a modified version of Helvetica drawn by Noorda himself. Finding the available weights of Helvetica to be either too bold or too light, Noorda created an intermediate weight. He also reduced the height of the capitals and ascenders and the depth of the descenders to make a more compact design. Several characters were drawn following those of Akzidenz-Grotesk: Q, R and 2, for instance. The letters were designed to be white reversed out of a red matte background. Station names and exit signs were set in all caps while informational signs were set in upper- and lowercase characters. Noorda established a spacing system for his custom typeface.

Noorda was not the only designer in the early 1960s dissatisfied with Helvetica as a face for transportation signage. In 1964, Jock Kinneir and Margaret Calvert, of Kinneir Calvert Associates, designed Rail Alphabet as part of a comprehensive

sign system for British Railways done in parallel with a full corporate identity program by Design Research Unit (DRU). Their typeface was a modified version of Helvetica Bold, available in both positive and negative versions. The capitals, ascenders and descenders were all reduced, while the Q and 2 were modelled after Standard. The individual letters—as well as arrows and the new British Rail logo—were made as individual artwork tiles for easy assembly and spacing. The British Rail identity, including Rail Alphabet, was unveiled in 1965.

Work on Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport, designed by M. Duintjer and Kho Liang Le, began in 1962. The sign system design was carried out by Benno Wissing, of Total Design, who used an altered Standard—ascenders and descenders chopped down—as the typeface. With the exception of the gate designations, the signs were set in all lowercase letters. The colours were a combination of black and white on either yellow or green backgrounds. The system was publicized in 1965 but the airport did not open until two years later.

The same year that the Red Line of the Metropolitana Milanese opened, plans for modernizing the Boston subway system were announced. The newly created Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) awarded the contract for station renovation in January 1965 to Cambridge Seven Associates, a multidisciplinary architectural and design firm led by architect Peter Chermayeff. The design partners in the firm, Ivan Chermayeff and Thomas Geismar, were responsible for the station graphics. They created a new symbol for the Boston system (a black sans serif T in a circle), colour-coded its four lines (and renamed them red, blue, orange and green), designed a Beck-inspired diagrammatic map, and established a uniform typographic style for all signage in the subway and bus system.

The enamel signs were split in half horizontally with white lettering on a coloured background at the top for the name of each station and black letters on a white background below for additional information about each stop. The typeface, used on maps as

48

well as the signs, was Helvetica Medium. “As to the choice of Helvetica, it’s a bit fuzzy,” Geismar said recently, “but I recall that we were generally excited to have a machine-set version, and felt that its directness was appropriate to our whole effort to simplify and clarify the MBTA transit system. Also, as part of the program, I had designed the T in the circle to identify and rename the system, and that featured a very simple, Helvetica-like T.” The MBTA signage was publicly introduced in August 1965, but the first renovated station—Arlington Street—did not open until October 1967. It was the first transportation signage system to use Helvetica without modifications.

The NYCTA and Unimark InternationalAt the same time that Milan was opening the first line of its new metro system and Boston was overhauling its T system, the New York City subway was still bumbling along. But the 1964/1965 World’s Fair, in Flushing, Queens, pressured the NYCTA to improve its image and information graphics. They commissioned a new logo for the agency from Sundberg-Ferar, an industrial design firm responsible for designing a new subway car, and they created special strip maps (set in Futura) for use on the No. 7 Flushing Line. The TA also decided to hold a competition for a new map.

The 1964 TA map competition was apparently the idea of Len Ingalls, director of public information and community relations at the agency, who was eager to see if the London Underground map’s colour-coding could be applied to the New York City subway map. The contest—judged by Harmon H. Goldstone, head of the New York City Planning Commission, and Jerry Donovan, cartographer for Time magazine—drew only nine entries. Four were awarded $3,000 prizes but none were chosen as a final winner. The best one, Raleigh D’Adamo’s submission, emulated London’s seven-colour coding system but was deemed “too complex for general use.” Goldstone later said that there was no winner “because a good map is not possible for a system which lacks intellectual order and precision”. In the wake of this disaster, Prof. Stanley A. Goldstein, a

professor of engineering at Hofstra University, was hired as a consultant in January 1965 to devise a map that would successfully solve the colour-coding problem posed by New York City’s tangled subway system. Six months later he submitted a 39-page report entitled “Methods of Improving Subway Information” that went beyond ideas for a new map to include suggestions on “train designations, car information and station information.” Goldstein’s recommendations did not bear immediate fruit, but they set in motion the events that eventually led the NYCTA to hire Unimark International.

The new Milan metro finally came to the notice of the American design community in 1965. Industrial designer William Lansing Plumb, in the September/October 1965 issue of Print, compared the London, Milan and New York—but not Boston—subway systems. He angrily described the latter as “grimy, dingy and slum-like,” complaining that the original beauty of the mosaic decorations of Heins & LaFarge and Vickers had been covered over in the intervening decades by dirt and grime, as well as advertising and newer signs. He also criticized the new TA logo by Sundberg-Ferar as dated. In contrast Plumb praised Noorda’s graphics—including his use of a “modified grotesque” typeface—for the Milan metro, suggesting that they could be applied to New York City. His suggestion proved prescient.

In late 1965, Massimo Vignelli, a Milanese graphic designer, moved to New York City. He had come to the United States to head up the New York office of Unimark International, an international design consultancy established earlier that year. The firm was the brainchild of Vignelli and Ralph Eckerstrom, former design director of Container Corporation of America (CCA). The two men, who had first met in Chicago in 1958 while Vignelli was teaching at the Institute of Design at the Illinois Institute of Technology on a Moholy-Nagy Fellowship, shared a similar philosophy of design. In establishing Unimark they sought to wed American marketing to European modernist design. Along with Vignelli and Eckerstrom, the other founding partners of the firm were Bob Noorda, Jay Doblin, James K. Fogleman and Larry

49


Klein. Herbert Bayer, the former Bauhausler, served as a consultant, giving Unimark immediate legitimacy.

Within months of Vignelli’s arrival in New York, Unimark gained a plum assignment. In May 1966, the NYCTA, on the recommendation of the Museum of Modern Art, hired the firm to advise it on signage and to assess Prof. Goldstein’s report—new maps meant new signs. The recommendation came from Mildred Constantine, associate curator in the department of architecture and design at MoMA. It is likely that the TA turned to Constantine because of her long-standing interest in signs and her intimate knowledge of graphic design. She curated the exhibition “Signs in the Street” at MoMA in 1954 and later co-authored Sign Language for Buildings and Landscape. She was on the AIGA board of directors and was well familiar with graphic design firms, especially the nascent Unimark. Constantine had met both Vignelli and Eckerstrom in 1959 when all three served as jurors on the Art Directors Club of Chicago’s annual competition. And, most importantly, she was aware of Noorda’s graphics for the Metropolitana Milanese from having served in 1964 on the United States selection committee for the 13th Triennale di Milano. Unimark had the connections and it had the experience.

With the hiring of Unimark it seemed that the TA had finally realized the need to rectify the Piranesian situation underground. But the assignment was brief—Unimark was expected to submit their report by September 1966—and ultimately very unsatisfying. In the summer Noorda flew to New York to carry out a detailed survey of the traffic flow at five key subway stations: Times Square, Grand Central Station, Broadway/Nassau, Jay Street and Queensborough Plaza. Previously, the NYCTA had sent him architectural drawings of each station, but they were not at the same time and he had difficulty coordinating them. Noorda spent three weeks as a “mole” tracking the paths of commuters in these stations to find the essential message points—entering/exiting, transferring—for each sign. He plotted decision points on a tree diagram. And, as in Milan, he viewed signs in perspective to test their

legibility. He and Vignelli then created a modular sign system with different components for the arrows, route designations—using the color-coding proposed earlier by Goldstein—and train information. The text was black on a white background; the typeface was Standard. Three sizes of type were established to distinguish different levels of information. A modular support system for the signs—in which they fit into black metal channels suspended from the ceiling by black struts—was created since the TA insisted that no structural changes could be made to the stations. Noorda returned to Milano to have prototype signs mocked up. These were shipped to New York where additional presentation boards were created. Then, according to architectural critic Peter Blake, Vignelli and Noorda made their presentation, were “thanked and, apparently, forgotten.”

The TA was glad to have Unimark’s advice, but nothing more. It did not have enough money to pay Unimark to create a complete manual of design recommendations or even an explanation of the modular system; and it failed to ask for a working document. Instead the TA sought to carry out the proposals on its own using its in-house sign shop. The result was, in Vignelli’s words, “the biggest mess in the world.” The TA’s Bergen Street Sign Shop ignored the modular system, misinterpreted the black stripe at the top of the drawings (which indicated the metal channel housing holding the signs) as a design element, rendered the type by hand rather than photomechanically and did not space the letters to Vignelli’s satisfaction. “It had never occurred to us that they would carry out the proposals in their own shop,” Vignelli said. “We were able to give them a little instruction, but not enough. Whenever we inquired how the project was going, they were very optimistic. We weren’t even allowed to inspect it.” The new signs were often installed on top of old ones, creating more confusion in the subway system. The whole clash between the Bergen Street “sign painters”—as Vignelli called them—and the designers at Unimark reflected fundamentally different expectations between craftsmen and designers. The former were intent on making signs while the latter were interested in sign systems.

50

Lack of money was the principal explanation for the TA’s refusal to allow Unimark to oversee the implementation of their signage recommendations, but several other factors were probably at work as well: bureaucratic inertia, labour union rules and outside political forces. Certainly TA management would have been wary of antagonizing the Transport Workers Union and Amalgamated Transit Union in the wake of the 12-day transit strike that brought New York City to a halt in January 1966.

The Big SwitchThe Chrystie Street Connection—the largest overhaul of the New York City subway system since unification in 1940—opened on November 26, 1967. The Connection linked the former IND Sixth Avenue Line east of Broadway-Lafayette with the BMT Nassau Street Line via the Manhattan Bridge. It was the first true integration of the IND and BMT and resulted in the creation of a new station at Grand Street, eight new routes and several new free-transfer points. The massive changeover was accompanied by a set of new maps overseen by Prof. Goldstein and the first Unimark signs, both of which incorporated new colour-coding and naming for all of the subway lines.

The “big switch” was announced well in advance by the NYCTA, and newspaper columns explained the changes in detail several days beforehand. Still, the opening of the Chrystie Street Connection did not go smoothly. Under the headline “Riders Burn as TA Pulls the Switch,” the New York Post described the confusion and chaos that reigned at several of the affected stations, especially in Brooklyn. Passengers were unable to quickly absorb the new train routes and designations, nor the introduction of free transfer points. Confusion was not limited to the subway passengers. “A mild panic set in at the Atlantic Av. station when TA officials arrived early to find old signs still hanging,” the Post wrote. “They quickly ordered the old signs and maps covered with newspapers before the rush set in.” Atlantic Avenue was one of the stations where free transfers between the IND and the IRT were instituted for the first time. However, despite the presence of Unimark-designed red, gray and blue metal “Transfer Exit” signs directing them

to the Lexington Avenue and Seventh Avenue Lines, passengers did not fully grasp their meaning and the TA was forced to add “hand-lettered cardboard signs” announcing free transfers.

Goldstein’s suite of maps—a large wall map for the platforms, a mini-map for the new routes, individual strip maps for each route and a new overall system map—and Unimark’s signs failed to prevent commuter confusion because they were not fully supported by the route designators on the trains. According to the Post and the New York Daily News, many trains still had their old route numbers and letters. The schematic maps themselves may also have been at fault, if one is to believe Blake. “The new maps and diagrams were quite stunning in composition and in colour… but, unfortunately, they failed to communicate,” he wrote in New York magazine in April 1968. He described them as “a battlefield filled with typographers and colour-experts locked in mortal combat.” Unimark’s signs escaped criticism, but it was clear there were not enough of them. They were only installed on the platforms and not throughout the stations as Vignelli had urged. “Flubway”—as the Daily News dubbed it—made clear what the NYCTA already knew. It needed to do more to make the subway system navigable. Merely installing a few new signs was not the same as implementing a coordinated sign system.

A month before the Chrystie Street Connection opened, the NYCTA publicly announced that it had hired Unimark to “devise a new system of signage.” The announcement was part of a presentation on the New York City subway by Daniel T. Scannell, one of the three TA commissioners, at the “Transportation Graphics: Where Am I Going? How Do I Get There?” symposium held October 23 at MoMA. Among the other speakers, assembled by Constantine, were Jock Kinneir, Peter Chermayeff and Noorda. If the NYCTA was not already aware of the gap between its own transportation signage and that for British Rail, the Boston T and the Metropolitana Milanese, they certainly knew after the close of the symposium. In fact, Arlington Street, the first of Boston’s renovated T stations, had finally opened that month to much

51


publicity and praise. Ironically, The New York Times waited until November 28 to profile the station, placing the article next to one detailing the problems caused by the “big switch” in New York. That must have really stung the NYCTA.

It is unclear whether Scannell’s announcement at the MoMA symposium that the NYCTA had hired Unimark referred to the first contract or to the second contract the design firm had with the agency. Certainly by early 1968—if not fall 1967—Unimark had been rehired to prepare a comprehensive set of guidelines covering the design, fabrication and installation of signs for the subway system. The MoMA symposium coupled with the Chrystie Street Connection fiasco made it clear to the commissioners that they could not continue to do things the old way. In December 1967, the TA undertook a comprehensive survey of the subway system to determine how many signs it needed and where they should be posted. This marked the first about-face from the way the agency had been doing business. Previously, it had ignored Unimark’s broader ideas about signage. As Vignelli recalls, “We designed the system to standardize the production and accelerate the implementation. No way. They were still doing all the signs individually—one here, another there, without a precise implementation plan. I wanted to do one line at a time; they were doing a station here and there, just like they have done since the beginning of the subways.” It is doubtful that the TA adopted Vignelli’s line-by-line approach, but they certainly sped up the pace of installation in the wake of the events of November 26. By the end of June 1968, they were boasting that “3,000 new signs had been installed at 100 stations and old ones removed to reduce visual clutter.”

The detailed survey carried out by the TA in December 1967 was a necessary follow-up to Noorda’s mid-1966 investigations and an essential prelude to Unimark’s subsequent formulation of comprehensive signage guidelines. Noorda had looked only at critical subway stations—those with the most traffic in the system—but now the TA needed to examine the entire system (or at least

those stations affected by the Chrystie Street Connection route changes). During 1968 and 1969, Unimark worked on the guidelines while juggling work for its corporate clients. The New York City Transit Authority Graphic Standards Manual was finally issued in 1970. It included Noorda’s traffic-flow research of mid-1966, the TA’s station December 1967 survey results, and some of the original design and fabrication specifications presented to the TA in fall 1966. But it also built upon those specifications to include precise manufacturing instructions, explicit spacing guidelines, a glossary of terms, semantic rules for the information to be included on signs, examples of mandatory signs as well as informational and directional ones, and suggestions for a line map intended for use inside subway cars and a directory to aid riders seeking the best way to get from point A to point B via the subway. It also replaced Goldstein’s Munsell Color System for the route disks with equivalent colours from the Pantone Matching System.

As if in response to the confusion engendered by the “big switch,” the first page of the manual emphatically insisted,that there “must be no overlapping of old and new signs. All signs erected previous to this program should be removed.” It was a brave statement, but not a practical one given both the extensive nature of the New York City subway system—at that time it consisted of 484 stations—and the NYCTA’s financial situation. The manual specified modular signs—in sections of 1, 2, 4 and 8 feet in length—with black type on a white background. Three types of signs were prescribed: station identification, exit and transfer signs (with a cap height of 9 inches); directional signs (with a cap height of 4 1/4 inches); and informational and small temporary signs (with a cap height of 1 3/8 inches). Wordspacing, letterspacing, leading and the number of lines per sign were carefully detailed. The typeface was Standard Medium.

“Research has shown that the most ‘appropriate’ typeface for this purpose [a quickly and easily read sign] is a regular sans serif,” the manual stated. “Of the various weights of sans serif available, Standard

52

Medium has been found to offer the easiest legibility from any angle, whether the passenger is standing, walking or riding.” The inadvertent black band at the top of the signs was now accepted as part of their look: “The 1 5/8” black band at the type of the panel represents a structural device to which the panels are fastened. Whenever the panel requires a different structure, the black band should be part of the graphics on the sign.” The signs were still porcelain enamel, but the reproduction of elements was to be “by photographic means only” via silk-screening with die-cut film. Temporary signs, made with vinyl adhesive letters, were the exception. These requirements were clearly set in response to the Bergen Street Sign Shop’s use of hand-cut stencils for making porcelain enamel signs and the type of makeshift signs the TA had resorted to during the Chrystie Street Connection opening.

Unimark’s choice of Standard Medium is shocking given Vignelli’s reputation—burnished by his passionate testimony in the documentary Helvetica—as a life-long proponent of Helvetica. Furthermore, he has stated on several occasions that he wanted to use Helvetica for the New York City subway signage but that “it was not available.” Why not?

The Myth of the Helvetica JuggernautHelvetica celebrated its 50th anniversary with a movie, an exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art and a book. Despite all of the excitement and recognition, few people know its true history in the United States .

In the 1960s European types were imported and distributed in the United States by two companies: Amsterdam Continental and Bauer Alphabets. The latter was owned by the Bauersche Giesserei of Frankfurt am Main and had been in business in New York since the late 1920s, when it was responsible for introducing Futura to the American market. Amsterdam Continental, owned by Lettergieterij Amsterdam (also known as the foundry of N. Tetterode), was established in 1948. It imported types from Berthold, Stempel, Klingspor, Haas and Nebiolo as well as those from its parent company. Exactly

when Amsterdam Continental began importing Standard is unclear but it appears on several record album covers as early as 1957. From 1960 on, the company heavily promoted it to the graphic design community. Bauer countered by touting Folio, a neo-grotesque designed by Konrad Bauer and Walter Baum. In late 1960, American Type Founders (ATF) began importing Adrian Frutiger’s Univers and in 1961 it became available on monotype machines. Mergenthaler Linotype belatedly responded to the foreign invasion in 1963 with advertisements for Trade Gothic. ATF made no special attempts to sell its popular News Gothic and Franklin Gothic types—probably because none was needed. These were Helvetica’ rivals.

Helvetica began life as Neue Haas Grotesque, a new interpretation of a 19th-century grotesque (probably Akzidenz-Grotesk) conceived by Eduard Hoffmann and executed by Max Miedinger for the Haas’sche Schriftgiesserei (Haas type foundry) in Munchenstein, Switzerland, in 1957. Three years later it was licensed by D. Stempel AG of Frankfurt (which owned shares in Haas) and renamed Helvetica. Stempel manufactured the face in foundry type and its partner German Linotype made it available in matrices—but only in mager (light) and halbfett (medium) weights. Other weights followed in the next few years. This is one reason that Noorda was unable to find the right weight of Helvetica for the Milan metro signage in 1962.

In the days of metal type, graphic designers were forced to use whatever typefaces their local printers or type houses had in stock. There was no type candy store as there are today. And printers and type houses only bought new typefaces when they thought there would be sufficient demand for them or they filled a specific stylistic niche. Buying a typeface meant buying a range of sizes and thus metal type took up a lot of space. Imported type was even more expensive—it meant shipping lead across the Atlantic—and had the further disadvantage of having to be specially manufactured for use with American printing presses. A new typeface often meant an investment of a thousand dollars or more.

53


From the designers’ perspective a new typeface intended for a wide range of applications had to be available both in foundry and composition versions—the former for display use and the latter for text setting. Only a handful of sans serifs met this criteria in the early 1960s: Futura, News Gothic, Franklin Gothic, Standard and Univers. Designers were often forced to mix and match different text and display sans serifs—for example, Futura and Spartan, or News Gothic and Trade Gothic.

Helvetica joined this select group in 1963, when Stempel adapted it for the pica-point system and German Linotype prepared matrices for export. To announce Helvetica’s availability for American consumption, the foundry inserted a special double-sided red-and-black advertisement in the November/December 1963 issue of Print touting the face for “its spare simplicity, its utter legibility, its uniformity and its flawless colour.” Still, Helvetica was slow to catch on in the United States. One reason was that German Linotype mats did not align with American ones. This problem was resolved when Mergenthaler Linotype in Brooklyn began manufacturing Helvetica in February 1964. They released the 10-point version first and the remaining sizes by early 1965. At the same time, the Visual Graphic Corporation (VGC), manufacturers of the Typositor which set display phototype, offered faces “similar to” Helvetica. Linofilm Helvetica, a text phototype version of the font, was conceived by Mergenthaler in 1965 but not completed until 1967.

By 1965 Helvetica began to appear in award-winning designs and advertising, principally from graphic designers working for Unimark and CCA in Chicago, and at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It took longer for designers in New York to embrace it. The ubiquity of Helvetica, which has been both lauded and lamented since, did not take off in the United States until 1969. Vignelli has often taken credit for the spread of Helvetica in this country. This may seem like braggadocio, but his claim has a very large grain of truth in it.

Vignelli was already an enthusiastic advocate for Helvetica prior to his move to the United States. What

he most loved about it was its lack of sidebearings. This enabled him to tightly pack letters together—as in his famous posters for the Piccolo Teatro in Milan—without having to cut up galley proofs. Vignelli shared his love of Helvetica with his colleagues at Unimark and it quickly became the firm’s “house face.” The “new sans serif” was especially prized for visual identity systems such as the one Unimark developed for Varian. Not only could Helvetica be set closely but it was available in a variety of sizes and weights and on a variety of typesetting systems. More importantly, compared to its sans serif rival Standard, it was considered more harmonious in design because the terminals of c, e, s, etc., were horizontal.

Standard, Helvetica and the New York City Subway SystemAt the time the NYCTA awarded its first contract to Unimark in 1966, Helvetica was offered for sale in New York City as foundry type, linotype matrices, phototype and even transfer type. So, why was it not “available” for the subway signage? The obstacle must have been linked to the Bergen Street Sign Shop, its outside vendors and the sign making process.

In the late 1960s, the workers at the Bergen Street Sign Shop painted many signs by hand and silk-screened others, as they had done for decades. They also prepared artwork for porcelain enamel signs but did not fabricate them. That task was handled by outside vendors—most likely Nelke Sign Manufacturing Corporation, the only enamel signmaker from the Vickers era that was still in business.

Porcelain enamel signs are made by applying enamel in coats to iron or sheet metal and then heating it at a temperature of 800 degrees after each coat. Dark colours are applied before light colours. There are two methods of doing a design: stencils or screenprinting. Stencils—made from either paper or metal—are the original method, but screenprinting has been preferred since the 1960s. According to Geoffrey Clarke: “In the stencil process, the colour is sprayed on the plate and, after drying, it is of the

54

consistency of weak distemper. The stencils, cut to the appropriate design, are placed on the plate and the exposed colour is brushed away, leaving the design intact. The plate is then fired and the colour vitrified indelibly on the background.” The process is repeated using additional stencils for colour in the design. In the silkscreen method the designs are usually created photomechanically and thus have more detail. Porcelain enamel signs made by the stencil process require stencil cutters and “brushers” with a high degree of skill.

One of the reasons that Vignelli was unhappy with the TA’s handling of Unimark’s 1966 signage recommendations is that they were carried out by its own sign shop. The porcelain enamel signs were apparently made by the stencil method but without highly skilled stencil cutters, leading to letters that were inexact and inconsistent. To make stencils of Standard at the large sizes recommended by Unimark it would have been necessary to either draw the “type” by eye, or enlarge it using a Goodkin Lucigraph (or Luci, a form of opaque projector) or Ludlow Typograph’s Brightype process. Although there is evidence that some signs were painted by hand, the porcelain enamel ones must have been done through enlargement. Type enlarged via a Luci had to first be proofed which meant the letters were subject to being over- or underinked. Further inaccuracies were introduced during the tracing stage, depending upon the skill of the draftsman—unless a pantograph was employed. The Brightype process avoided those pitfalls. Instead of inking the type after it was locked up, it was sprayed with black lacquer or lampblack. The printing surface was then wiped clean with a rubber pad until it was shiny. Next, the reflective form was photographed on a Brightype camera to create a photomechanical master. This film negative was used for the final enlargement. The letters were crisp and accurate. But they still had to be hand cut as stencils. Car identification numbers on several subway lines—most notably the 1 and the D trains—are still set in Standard, and close examination of them shows flat spots in the curves indicating that they were made from hand-cut stencils. By insisting on silk-screening instead of

stencilling, in the Graphic Standards Manual, Unimark was trying to avoid defects such as those that had infuriated Vignelli.

What did the Bergen Street Sign Shop workers use as a source for creating their painted and hand-cut stencil versions of Standard? Did they work from proofs of type made in-house or ordered from outside type houses? Or from specimens of type taken from a book? It is very likely that a type house that had Standard in its repertoire in 1966 may have been loath to add Helvetica as well, given the costs involved and the fact that the two faces appear indistinguishable to most people. This would have been especially true for the larger foundry sizes of the face since they would have weighed more and thus cost more—and been less likely to be used by other customers. Similar considerations would have occurred to the sign shop regarding its typesetting capabilities. Even if the shop worked from a book instead, Helvetica would not have been an option since no American type book at the time included it. Ben Rosen’s Type and Typography (1963), the principal specimen book of the day, had 17 pages of Akzidenz-Grotesk and Standard but the largest size of Standard Medium was 72-point—large by the standards of foundry type but small from the perspective of transportation signage.

The decision to use Standard instead of Helvetica may not have been as disappointing to Noorda as it was to Vignelli. While Vignelli was a strong believer in the virtues of Helvetica, Noorda was not as committed. His custom typeface for the Metropolitana Milanese was born out of dissatisfaction with both types. Although it is usually described as a modified version of Helvetica it can also be seen as a modified version of Akzidenz-Grotesk (Standard). Given how much the New York City subway sign system owes to Noorda’s work in Milan it is very likely that the choice of Standard in 1966 was his, and that Vignelli readily acquiesced because Helvetica was, for whatever technical reason, not “available” to the TA—and the sign “system” was more important than the specific face used.

55


Noorda and Vignelli had an opportunity to change the NYCTA type to Helvetica when Unimark received its second contract, but they stuck with Standard. Presumably, they were more focused on insuring that the signs were properly fabricated and installed than which sans serif was used. Certainly, Vignelli had other opportunities to use Helvetica. In November 1967, the New York City Planning Department hired the New York office of Unimark to create a signage standards manual for all city agencies. To test out the signage, a prototype design for East 53rd Street—home to the Museum of Modern Art, CBS and the Seagram Building—was created. The goal was to coordinate the graphics with the street lighting and furniture—such as bus shelters, telephone booths and benches. At the same time, architect Harry Weese tapped Vignelli to design the graphics for the new Washington Metro. Neither assignment involved Noorda. Both used Helvetica. Unimark showcased all three of these signage projects in the August/September 1969 issue of Casabella. The text praised Standard for its legibility—in words taken directly from the NYCTA’s Graphics Standard Manual, still being developed—but made no mention of Helvetica.

The Fate of the Unimark SystemThe Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) was created in March 1968. The new agency replaced the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Authority (MCTA), which had been formed three years earlier to oversee the commuter railroads, including the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) and the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. The MTA added the NYCTA, the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MaBSTOA, a subsidiary of the NYCTA created in 1962 to oversee bus routes), and the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) to the mix. From the moment the MTA was born, the Rockefeller administration began making grandiose plans to modernize and coordinate the transit system. A $2.6 billion program was announced that February to expand the subway system with a Second Avenue line, a new Bronx line, an extension of one of the Queens lines, and the development of “a novel Transportation Center in the 48th Street area.” (A LIRR spur to JFK Airport was also proposed.) A few

months later, the “Fund for Better Subway Stations,” headed by real estate developer Peter Sharp, announced plans to upgrade and beautify stations in conjunction with the TA. On its own the NYCTA had already, a year earlier, set forth a station renovation program with 49th Street as a test station. All of this activity should have boded well for the Unimark signage system.

Vignelli hoped that the Graphic Standards Manual would lead to a more rational implementation of signs within the New York City subway system. But that did not happen, due to two factors: 1) the sheer size of the New York subway system and 2) the financial woes that overtook both the MTA and the city of New York in the early 1970s, culminating in the city’s rescue from bankruptcy in 1975. The 1968 “Program for Action” was largely abandoned by the end of 1975. During the gestation of the Graphic Standards Manual the NYCTA installed signs on an ad hoc basis and it continued to do so throughout the 1970s. “In many stations,” Paul Goldberger wrote in The New York Times, in 1979, “the signs are so confusing that one is tempted to wish they were not there at all—a wish that is, in fact, granted in numerous other stations and on all too many of the subway cars themselves. And the system is so complex that one might feel signs make very little difference—a rider may as easily find his destination by taking a chance as by any sort of careful planning.” His description is borne out by contemporary photographs that show stations with a mix of Unimark and older signs or without any Unimark signs at all even though it was over a decade since the NYCTA had first hired Vignelli and Noorda to bring order to a chaotic system.

The early 1970s were the years when the subway system was probably at its lowest ebb, along with the city itself. “Dank, overcrowded, underlit and terrifyingly labyrinthian, the New York subway at its best suggests nothing less depressing than a public lavatory; at its worst, it’s a vision of purgatory” was one contemporary description. The early 1970s were also the years when modern graffiti was born. As cars “bombed” on the outside and “tagged” on the inside rolled through the city, the subway woes and

56

the graffiti explosion became intertwined in the public consciousness. “If nothing else,” Patricia Conway wrote in Print, “the subway graffiti are a testimony to the monumental failure of TA officials and their design consultants to make the system legible.” She went on to lambaste the transit agency for spending millions of dollars on anti-graffiti efforts rather than on capital improvements such as “repairing inoperative doors, replacing burnt-out lights, securing rickety seats and maintaining or improving directional signs.”

But change was already underway by 1975, when Fred Wilkinson, director of consumer affairs at the TA, convened a committee to devise a new map for the subway system to replace the one that Massimo Vignelli had designed only four years earlier. While the citizen members of the committee were focused on creating a more geographically accurate map, the agency itself was interested in showing partial-time service on 11 lines. To do this, diamonds were added to the existing circles designating each subway line. John Tauranac, committee chair, also wanted to take the existing system of depicting trains that share the same track with parallel lines and replace them with trunk lines. This posed a colour-coding problem—which meant a financial problem as well—that was not solved until Len Ingalls came up with the idea of basing colours on the “flagship” line where multiple lines ran in tandem. Ingalls’ solution meant that there would have to be a change in the colour coding of the routes. The proposed changes in the map had far-reaching ramifications: they meant that the station signage would have to be updated to insure that the two were synchronized.

By 1979—the subway system’s Diamond Jubilee year—the MTA had finally begun to get some Federal financial assistance, and the subway’s prospects were starting to slowly turn around. That summer, in an attempt to encourage more ridership, “an overall program aimed at easing passenger travel around New York City” was introduced. The 1978 MTA annual report—anticipating the program’s inception—described it thusly: “The program includes colour-coding of lines by their track routes; new station signage that conforms to the colour-code; and a new

pocket-sized geographical subway map. In addition, as roll signs are replaced, they will indicate route and destinations, as well as the colour-code.” The program—spurred by work the Tauranac committee set in place several years earlier—was expected to take up to 36 months to complete.

The real news to most people was the replacement of the controversial Vignelli-designed schematic map with a geographically based one, executed by Michael Hertz and his staff. However, in light of the problems that occurred during the opening of the Chrystie Street Connection, the intention of colour-coding all train roll signs was equally important; and so too was the news about the station signage. The new signs differed markedly from the ones that Unimark had designed in 1966 and codified in 1970. Not only did they have diamonds as well as disks as route markers and new colours for both, but they were black with white type. The errant black band at the top was replaced by a thin white line, demarcating the (nonexistent) location of the gap between sign and housing—but the typeface was still Standard.

Vignelli attributes the black/white inversion of the signs to TA worries about graffiti, while others chalk it up to concern over simple grime. Although Vignelli’s explanation is an attractive one, especially in light of the graffiti explosion that overtook the city and the subway system by 1973, the truth is that the TA made the change to increase the legibility of the signs and first contemplated doing so sometime in 1972. According to Michael Bosniak, then the MTA’s graphics manager, Jacques Nevard and Len Ingalls in public affairs requested that the “Transit Authority maintenance shop manufacture prototypes of the ‘drop-out’ reverse lettering lettering” for installation in three prototype stations in 1972–1973. This decision was made after several visual perception studies came to the attention of Nevard, but “there was a general consensus that the reversed lettering had greater legibility in the bowels of the subway system and it was adopted without any formality.”

R. Raleigh D’Adamo, head of the office of inspection and review at the MTA from 1970 to 1975, says

57


that the idea of changing the signs originated with him as an offshoot of a decision to change the background colours of the route designators on the trains. “I triggered it because of my hobby interest in letterpress printing and graphics,” D’Adamo says. “I wrote a memo about it and attached a technical article on legibility of texts against different backgrounds. The test itself was done by the TA—I don’t recall who was present at the 47–50 Street station, but it could well have been Jacques and Len. A new sign of bullet [route designation circle] against a black background was prepared and installed in the south end of an empty train which was positioned in one of the pocket tracks at the then-57th Street/Sixth Avenue terminal. A regular train was alerted in advance that it would be part of a test. At the proper time, the operations department directed the empty train to leave 57th Street and advance south to 47th Street, and both trains were directed to watch for each other and enter the station together and slowly. The TA team and I stood in mid-platform. At a certain point as both trains slowly entered, they were then directed (by hand signals as I recall) to stop—opposite each other. Hence, the team had the opportunity to observe (as passengers would) both trains as they were entering the station, and then to observe them for a few moments as the two trains were standing still. It took no time at all for all to agree that the sign with the black background was clearly the more legible. It followed like night and day and without any discussion that I can recall, that all other signage should be against a black background instead of white.” The test that D’Adamo describes may have been one of those that Bosniak recalls, suggesting that these recollections are in accord with one another. Vignelli was never involved in the decision.

Changing the Manual... AgainThe switchover was codified in 1980 via a revised edition of the 1970 Graphics Standards Manual—photocopied at a reduced size and bound with black tape—created by Ralph DeMasi, a staff architect. Changes to the Unimark sign program were made by whiting-out specs and writing in new ones, by adding notes in the margins, by creating new diagrams from

old ones (with Standard rendered by hand), and by inserting entirely new pages of artwork. The revised manual was a work-in-progress not a polished document. Among the changes included in it were: an increase in the size of the smallest letters from 1 3/8-inch to 1 1/2-inch; the addition of diamonds to mark part-time trains—those that ran only in the day, at night, on weekends or at rush hour—and new symbols for the new “Train to the Plane,” a train dedicated to serving JFK Airport, and for buses; an expanded colour code with ten hues instead of seven; new names for seven of the routes; new artwork for the route designations with larger type; the use of black instead of white for the type in the yellow disks and diamonds; new turnstile designs; new types of signs (e.g., to indicate escalators); new symbols to mark bathrooms and handicapped access; and map panels for the station platforms. Throughout, there are reminders that “all lettering [is] to be white on black background”; and the thin white stripe is introduced in the section on “typical Column Signage.” Amidst these changes is note number 2 on page 9: “When letter ‘J’ appears in discs or diamonds—use Helvetica Style ‘J.’” This was the first official appearance of Helvetica in the sign system.

Although the decision to change the figure/ground relationship of the signs was made around 1973 and announced publicly in 1979, it took a while for the new signs to be implemented—just as it had taken years for the original Unimark signs to be introduced. Some signs were installed as early as 1978, when the TA began a program of station renovation under the guidance of in-house architect Paul Katz. But when the “We’re Changing” campaign was unveiled in 1979, the accompanying photographs and posters showed white Unimark signs being amended with route decals bearing the new colour coding and the new diamonds. These decals had a black background instead of a white or clear one, an indication that they were eventually intended to be used with white on black signs. They were a stopgap measure—the brainchild of Ingalls, who called them “pasties”—to solve the problem of quickly and economically coordinating the introduction of the new Tauranac–Hertz map with the signage in the stations.

58

The MTA had expected to complete the entire colour-coding program in 36 months, but its plans fell woefully short. The Tauranac–Hertz map was issued as promised in 1979, but in 1982 the MTA announced that it had just begun to update the station signage only the year before and that it had not yet begun changing the train scroll signs. It expected to have new signs in 78 stations by the end of the year. The situation with the scroll signs was worse. The New York Times reported that they were so out-of-date that the destination signs for the AA train said “Hudson Terminal” (rather than the World Trade Center, which had replaced it over a decade earlier) and for some 7 trains they said the World’s Fair! (Things were even worse than the Times realized—the AA line had been renamed the K.) However, by the end of the 1980s—thanks to an improving economy in New York City and a series of five-year capital programs dedicated to modernizing the stations—the revised Unimark signs managed to finally permeate most of the subway system.

In 1984 Michael Hertz Associates was hired as “signage consultants to the architecture department of the TA.” Hertz’s work on the 1979 subway map had little bearing on the firm’s selection as the contract was won through a competitive bidding process. The firm prepared a second revision of the 1970 Graphics Standards Manual for the NYCTA. The supplement that he and his associate Peter Joseph created was more professional than the DeMasi version, though it too existed only in a photocopied, tape-bound form. The text was entirely typeset as were all the examples of signage. The supplement codified the major changes of the 1980 revised manual by providing high quality artwork for the new service disks and diamonds, route names and colours, and ancillary symbols. It also included guidelines for door signs and Off Hour Waiting Area signs. Although there was no mention of any change in the official typeface some of the sample illustrations used Helvetica instead of Standard. Whether actual signs were prepared with Helvetica as a result is unclear, but Helveticization was around the corner.

The process for preparing artwork for porcelain enamel signs was more professional by the time Michael Hertz Associates began working on the subway signage than it was when Unimark was first hired. This is Joseph’s description of it: “The design, so to speak, consisted of a plan showing sign locations indicated by a number. These numbers corresponded to a schedule with message, sign size and sign type (pan-formed, flat, etc.). The contractor [Michael Hertz Associates] was required to submit full-size shop drawings of each sign to the TA for approval. These shop drawings were in turn sent to a PE [porcelain enamel] manufacturer to produce either stencils or screens… from which the actual signs were fabricated.” The Bergen Street Shop was no longer involved in the process.

This Typeface Is Changing Your LifeThe myth of Helvetica’s preeminence began with Leslie Savan’s 1976 Village Voice article, “This Typeface Is Changing Your Life.” Savan tried to explain the sudden pervasiveness of the sans serif typeface in the 1970s, focusing her attention on Vignelli and Lippincott & Margulies. “Since 1967,” she wrote, “the MTA has been gradually standardizing its graphics from about a dozen typefaces to a combination of Helvetica and Standard Medium. (The two are almost identical, but the latter was more available to the MTA.)” Savan incorrectly credited the transit agency’s “graphic system” to Vignelli and Walter Kacik, making no mention of Noorda or Unimark, and she conflated the TA’s signage with the MTA’s printed matter.

Savan’s confusion was understandable. In 1973, an inter-agency marketing campaign entitled “MTA Gets You There” was launched by the MTA to boost ridership. The various printed materials—posters, brochures, maps, timetables—were intended to have a coordinated design, yet some used Standard and others Helvetica. The most prominent of the latter was the controversial and now iconic 1972 subway map designed by Vignelli. When asked recently why he had used Helvetica for the map when Standard was the typeface of the sign system, Vignelli replied that he simply “forgot” to do so. Given his devotion to

59


Helvetica at the time, his answer has the ring of truth to it—especially since he set the explanatory text of the 1970 Graphics Standards Manual in it!

When Vignelli designed the subway map he was no longer a member of Unimark International. He had left the firm the year before to establish Vignelli Associates, in partnership with his wife, Lella. In designing the map Vignelli did not have to worry about using any of the TA’s in-house departments as Unimark had to do with the sign system. The artwork was created by his staff as a mechanical with type set by a type house of his own choosing. There were no reasons, technical or otherwise, not to use Helvetica. The transit agency did not complain because they had been using Helvetica here and there for various printed items since 1967. The “MTA Gets You There” campaign was only one instance of their mix-and-match sensibility.

The subway map has led many—both within and without the design professions—to assume that Vignelli designed the NYCTA signage system on his own and that it used Helvetica. For example, interior designer Stanley Abercrombie, in an essay accompanying the 1977–1978 Cooper-Hewitt Museum exhibition “Subways,” credited the signage to Vignelli and praised his use of a “clear, smart Helvetica face.” Similarly, the website of the Design Museum in London, gushing over Helvetica, declares: “From the beautifully implemented New York Subway signage system by Vignelli to its usage on the lowly generic EXIT sign, the flexibility of the typeface seems to have no boundaries.” Most astonishing of all, the authors of Subway Style—published by the New York Transit Museum of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority—insist that the manual states the typeface for the signs is to be “exclusively Helvetica.”

Helvetica finally became the official typeface for the New York City subway system signage in December 1989, when the MTA Marketing & Corporate Communications Division, the department in charge of its graphic standards, issued a new manual. The manual was prepared by Michael Hertz Associates at the request of Doris Halle. In the introduction to

the MTA Sign Manual New York City Transit Authority Long Island Rail Road Metro-North Commuter Railroad, Richard Kiley, MTA chairman, called it “a first step toward the goal of unified, high-quality MTA-wide signs.” It marked the first attempt by the MTA to establish a set of consistent graphic standards for all of its constituent agencies. Although it did not go into detail, it claimed to incorporate most of the 1970 Graphics Standards Manual “as well as modifications made over the years. It fine-tunes some proven precedents.”

The 1989 MTA Manual ratified the “modifications” made in the 1980 and 1984 interim revisions to the 1970 Graphics Standards Manual. Thus, Noorda’s modular system no longer existed as physical components but only as graphical units. Signs were allowed to be a wider variety of lengths and there was a wider variety of fabrication options, including silk-screened vinyl adhesive backing for updates to the porcelain enamel signs. The thickness and position of the white stripe was officially defined. The coloured disks from 1984 were modified to take into account the addition to the system of the 9, H, Z, 1/9 and J/Z trains. Diamonds were still in existence. The 1980 sizes of type were kept. But the typeface was no longer Standard Medium—with a few exceptions.

The choice of typeface now reflected the complete MTA transportation system rather than the New York City subway by itself. The manual was an MTA product and not an NYCTA one. Helvetica Medium (with Helvetica Medium Italic) was chosen as the standard typeface for the NYCTA (including MABSTOA and Staten Island Rapid Transit); Helvetica Medium and Helvetica Medium Condensed for the LIRR; and Helvetica Medium Italic for Metro-North. There was no mention made of replacing older signs. Standard remained as part of the old artwork for the roll designators, though a diagram was included for making new discs—with Helvetica—for future line designations (such as the current V and W trains). Helvetica Medium Italic was added to describe the hours of operation for specific trains. The manual cautioned that “any other form of Helvetica (e.g., condensed, regular, etc.) or other typefaces, are

60

never to be used as a substitute for Helvetica Medium or Helvetica Medium Italic.” This may have been a reference to the use in the early 1980s of Helvetica Medium Condensed on some column porcelain enamel signs.

Goodbye Standard, Hello HelveticaWhy did the MTA abandon Standard? At the time Helvetica’s popularity was on the wane, as its widespread use since the early 1970s had induced boredom and a backlash. Postmodernism had effectively exposed the subjective nature of the Modernist notion of neutral, rational and universal design and, in doing so, had undercut the principal reasons that many designers had given for choosing Helvetica over all other faces.

The MTA’s embrace of Helvetica may have been out of step with the times, but it had some compelling reasons for doing so. One is that the new standards were intended to unify the MTA’s operations. Some of its commuter rail lines were already using Helvetica for their signage. The industrial design firm Peter Muller-Munk Associates of Pittsburgh—designers of the NYCTA’s two-toned M logo in 1968—had introduced it to the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) in 1969. By the early 1980s the New Haven line was sporting white signs with red bands at the top and Helvetica. And by at least 1987 the Hudson and Harlem lines of Metro-North had white signs with green bands set in Helvetica Medium Italic. The heritage of these commuter lines was reflected in the 1989 MTA Manual’s colour-coding decisions: blue for LIRR and the Harlem and Pascack Valley lines of Metro-North; green for the Hudson line of Metro-North; red for the New Haven line of Metro-North; and orange for the Port Jervis line of Metro-North. The coloured bands are all descendants of the black band the NYCTA errantly created in 1966.

A second reason is that by the end of the 1980s most MTA buses were using LED displays, which rendered the whole Standard/Helvetica debate moot. (A similar situation is now occurring with the newest subway cars that have LED displays instead of disks and roll-ups for route designations.) Since 1972, the

Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), a subsidiary of the NYCTA, had used Standard for the route designations on the front of its buses. The signs were originally white letters on a black background but at some point they changed to white letters on a combined blue and red background—blue for the number/letter code and name and red for the route description. Several of the 1970s-era buses continued to operate into the early 1990s, but from 1980 on they were increasingly supplanted by boxy Grumman-Flexible and sleek GM RTS buses with LED displays.

A third reason is that technological changes in typesetting and graphic design were overtaking the MTA Marketing & Communications Division. By the end of the 1980s the full effects of the desktop publishing revolution—touched off in 1984 by the conjunction of the Apple Macintosh, Apple LaserWriter, Adobe PostScript page description language and Aldus PageMaker software—had begun to be felt in the graphic design community. The typesetting choices faced by Unimark in 1966 had increased. The 1989 MTA Manual listed the following equipment: digital type (Linotronic), phototype (Compugraphic and typositor), tape-based lettering systems (Kroy and Merlin), computer-driven letter- and stencil-cutting systems (Gerber Signmaker), vinyl self-adhesive letters (from various manufacturers) and fabricated or cut-out letters in plastic and other materials. The only typeface that was available on all of these systems and methods was Helvetica. Furthermore, Standard had virtually “disappeared.” It was still listed in the VGC Typositor library but not in specimen books from Compugraphic, Linotype or Adobe. They offered either Berthold Akzidenz-Grotesk—the true identity of Standard—or a revised version called AG Old Face. The mix-and-match mentality of the mid-1960s was no longer an option. Helvetica was the logical choice.

Helvetica actually appeared on signs in the subway system at least a few months prior to the release of the 1989 MTA Sign Manual. In October of that year, when the long-delayed 63rd Street tunnel was finally opened, its three new stations—63rd Street/

61


Lexington Avenue, Roosevelt Island and 21st Street/Queensbridge—all sported 1968-designed interiors and Helvetica signage.

Siegel+Gale rebranded the MTA in 1994, replacing the two-toned M logo with the letters “MTA” rendered in perspective within a circle. “A unifying identity system embracing subways, buses, commuter trains, and bridges was needed to facilitate employment of the MetroCard, an electronic payment card that replaced tokens, transfers, and exact change,” according to partner Alan Siegel. The new logo accompanied the development and introduction of the MetroCard. The electronic farecard—first used on buses in 1994 and then extended to the entire transportation system in 1995—forced the Marketing & Communications Division to revise its signage manual once again and to expand its design guidelines beyond signage to all forms of communication. Michael Hertz Associates was hired to handle the signage manual, while the Service Identity Manual was done in-house. The latter included not only the MetroCards but stationery, maps, kiosks, booths and vehicles. Lock-ups for the new logo in combination with the existing logos for each of the MTA’s sub-units (e.g., Staten Island Railway, Bridges and Tunnels) were created using Helvetica Medium and Helvetica Medium Italic. But for printed material the typographic options were opened up to include other weights of Helvetica as well as Times Roman. Most likely, the ready availability of Helvetica and Times Roman as core fonts on PCs was the prime factor in this decision. Dull—but easy to administer.

ConclusionThe sign system that Noorda and Vignelli first proposed to the NYCTA in 1966 has proved remarkably resilient. It endures today despite a number of severe changes that make one wonder if it can even be attributed to them and Unimark anymore. Their modular system survives but only as graphic units rather than physical components. The black stripe, mistakenly created by the sign shop but then integrated into the 1970 standards manual, exists in a variety of colours and iterations. The

black-on-white colour scheme is now reversed. The coloured disks are still used—some with the original artwork—but the colours themselves have changed. Finally, Standard Medium has given way to Helvetica Medium—or more accurately to Neue Helvetica 65. Yet, not only is the Unimark DNA still in evidence but it has served as the basis for a much broader transportation system identity.

So, the answer to whether or not Helvetica is the typeface of the New York City subway system is that it is—but that it was not.

Reference: http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/the-mostly-true-story-of-helvetica-and-the-new-york-city-subway?recache=1&%C3%82%C2%B4pp=6&pp=1 [Accessed 02/01/11].

62

Dissecting Metro Maps – Stations/Interchanges

Berlin

London

Interchange

Interchange

Station

Station

Extended Interchange

Larger Interchanges

Interchange with step free access

Disabled Access

63


Moscow

Interchange Larger Interchange Line NumberStation

64

Dissecting Metro Maps – Stations/Interchanges

New York

Disabled AccessLine Number Terminus

Station – Local Service

Free Transfer Free Transfer Free Out of Subway Transfer

Interchange – Local Service

Station – Local and Express Service

Interchange – Local and Express Service

65


Paris

Tokyo

Station Interchange Extended Interchange

Station Interchange Extended Interchange Interchange and Terminus

Interchange with Other Transport

66

Dissecting Metro Maps – Symbols/Pictograms

AirportTrain Central Bus Station Access Via Ramp

Parking Airport Shuttle Bus

Berlin

67


AirportMainline Station

Check Before you Travel

Tram Connection Riverboat Connection

London

68

Airport Ferry Helipad Police

Airport Rail Link

Moscow

New York

Dissecting Metro Maps – Symbols/Pictograms

69


Paris

Tokyo

Airport

Airport Airport Shuttle Bus Riverboat Service

CDG

Orly

70

Dissecting Metro Maps – Lines/Routes

Berlin

S5 Line

71


U6 Line

U8 Line

S3 Line

S41 Line

S42 Line

U5 Line

72

S7 Line

U7 Line

S47 Line

73


U9 Line

U2 Line

S2/S25 Line

U4 Line

U3 Line

74

S9 Line

S8/S85 Line

U1 Line

S1 Line

75



London

Circle Line Waterloo & City Line

76

District Line

Central Line

Piccadilly Line

77


DLR

Overground

Victoria Line

78

Northern Line


Bakerloo Line

Metropolitan Line

79



Moscow

80

8 Kalininskaya Line

L1 Butovskaya Line5 Koltsevaya Line

3 Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya Line

4 Filyovskaya Line 11 Kakhovskaya Line

81


9 Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya Line

7 Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya Line

2 Zamoskvoretskaya Line

82

6 Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya Line

10 Lyublinsko-Dmitrovskaya Line

1 Sokolnicheskaya Line

83



New York

84

Subway G

Subway L

Subway J, Z

Subway A, C, E

85


Subway N, Q, R

Subway 7

S Subway

Subway 1, 2, 3

86

Subway 4, 5, 6

Subway B, D, F, M

87



Paris

88

Line 1

Line 11

Line 6

Line 14

89


Line 4

Line 10

Line 3

Line 12

90

Line 9

Line 8

Line 5

Line 3 bis Line 7 bis

91


Line 13 Line 7

Line 2

92


Tokyo

T Line

93


G Line

C Line

F Line

M Line

S Line

94

A Line

Z Line

I Line N Line

95


Y Line

E Line

H Line

96

A Colour Alphabet and the Limits of Colour CodingPaul Green-Armytage

Summary

This paper describes a series of studies designed to investigate the possible limits to the number of different colours that can be used in a colour code and the relative merits of colours and shapes for communicating information. The studies took their particular form in response to an observation by Rudolf Arnheim that an alphabet of 26 colours would be unusable. It was found that a text, with letters represented by coloured rectangles, can be read, first with the help of a key and then without. The colour alphabet, tested in competition with other alphabets made up of unfamiliar shapes and faces, was read more quickly than the others. Speed of reading was only matched with an alphabet made up of shapes that were familiar and nameable. Colours are most helpful for quick identification and for clarifying complex information, but where more than 26 distinctions must be made colours must be supplemented by shapes, typically in the form of letters and numbers.

Introduction

This paper is an elaboration, with some new material, of the paper presented at the 11th Congress of the International Colour Association (AIC) in Sydney, Australia [1]. The paper reflects an on-going interest in problems of colour coding and the ways in which colours and shapes can be used for communicating information. The main focus of the paper is on ways to determine the maximum number of different colours that can be used in a colour code without risk of confusion.

The number of different colours that can be used in a colour code will be greater for people with normal colour vision than for those without. While some reference will be made to the limitations experienced

by people with defective colour vision, the discussion will be concerned mainly with problems of colour coding for people with normal colour vision.

In the first section, some of the problems associated with colour coding are illustrated by the colours used to identify the different routes on transport maps. There are different approaches to the problem of selecting colour sets for colour codes. One approach is to work within a chosen colour space and take a series of points within that space as far apart from each other as possible. Another approach is to use colour naming as a means of generating a suitable range of colours. A benchmark for colour coding is the set of 22 colours of maximum contrast proposed by Kenneth Kelly in 1965 [2].

Next, there is an account of the series of studies that were conducted to investigate the relative ease with which a text can be read when the letters are represented by colours or by unfamiliar shapes. A key to the colours and shapes was provided. The studies took their particular form as a response to a claim by Rudolf Arnheim that an alphabet of 26 colours rather than shapes would be unusable [3]. It turned out that letters can be represented by colours and combined in a text that can be read. A surprise finding was that the colours were read more quickly than the shapes. The studies were also concerned with the palette of colours that should be used and the way that colours should be assigned to letters.

The findings from these studies led to a further study, described in the third section, to test the influence of simultaneous contrast on the ease with which colours can be identified. Simultaneous contrast comes into play on geological maps where the appearance of colours is affected by surrounding colours. Correct

97


identification of colours from the key is more difficult as a result. The findings from this study led to a modification of the palette of colours used for the colour alphabet and to re-assignment of colours to letters. This modified alphabet was learned and a series of short poems were read without reference to a key. Reading time improved with practice but one or two mistakes were made with each poem. This suggests that 26 colours can be taken as a provisional limit to the number of different colours that can be used in a code. The suitability of the alphabet colours for colour coding is supported by their striking similarity to Kelly’s colours of maximum contrast.

The studies revealed the importance of simplicity and contrast where objects need to be identified quickly and easily. Provided the number of colours does not exceed 26, colours can be identified more quickly than shapes. Shapes also need to be simple and very different from each other if they are to be identified quickly. And there were two other factors, revealed by the studies, that contribute to speed and ease of identification. Shapes can be identified more quickly if they are familiar and can be named. Colours are already familiar and identification of colours is also made easier if the colours can be named.

The relative strengths and weaknesses of colours and shapes for communicating information are evident on geological maps. Without colour the maps would be almost impossible to read but colours alone are not enough. The colour patterns reveal the broad distribution of the rocks, but there are more than 26 kinds of rock to be identified. Slightly different colours may be used but the difference is too subtle. In order to establish the identity of every kind of rock each colour area is also marked by a letter-number code. Colours give quick access to the big picture; for the fine detail reliance must be placed on shapes.

Colour Sets for Colour Coding

The colours used to identify the different routes on transport maps are a familiar example of colour coding.

Transport Map ProblemWhat is the largest number of different colours that can be used to identify the different routes on a transport map without risk of confusion? Colour coding of different routes in a system of public transport can be very helpful. Consider this scenario: a traveller, arriving at Gothenburg Central Station in Sweden, has to meet a friend in suburban Kålltorp. The traveller asks how to get to Kålltorp and is told, ‘Take tram no.3, going east, to the end of the line. It is the blue route – the vivid blue, not the light blue which is route no.9.’ The Gothenburg trams have their route numbers and destinations shown on coloured panels above the drivers’ front windows. The colour on an approaching tram can be identified well before it is possible to read the number or the name of the tram’s destination. The same colours are used for the tram routes as shown on the Gothenburg transport map. Not only do the different colours identify the different routes, they also make the map easier to read.

The task of selecting colours for identifying the different routes of the Gothenburg trams was described by Lars Sivik during the 1983 meeting of the International Colour Association [4]. Sivik’s account of that task led to consideration of the criteria that should be used when choosing colours for coding purposes. It also led to speculation about the limits, in terms of the number of different colours used in a coding system, beyond which colour coding would break down.

The 1995 edition of the Gothenburg transport map shows nine tram routes [5]. The coloured route lines are presented on a grey background. The colours can be named: white, yellow, vivid blue, green, red, orange, brown, purple and light blue.

Since 1995, the tram routes have been further modified. Two new routes are shown on the map that is available online [6] and further expansion of the system is planned. The new route 10 is identified by yellow–green and route 11 by black. Colour naming could be used as a means of extending the colour code. Pink could be used for a future route 12. Light green and light purple are distinct from vivid green

98

and vivid purple and could be added for future routes 13 and 14. Blue–green could be added for route 15. To make room for even further expansion it would be possible to make slight modifications to the identifying colours of established routes. Orange, brown and purple could each be split into two separate colours. Existing routes 6, 7 and 8 could now be yellow–orange, yellow–brown and red–purple which would allow for new routes 16, 17 and 18 to be identified by red–orange, red–brown and blue–purple. The past, current and possible future route colours for the Gothenburg trams are shown on the left of Figure 1 as the ‘Gothenburg Palette’.

Next to the Gothenburg Palette are the identifying colours used for other transport systems which have several established routes. The orders of the colours have been rearranged for easier comparison. The colours were matched visually to those on printed maps for the Tokyo Subway [7], the Paris Metro and RER [8,9], the London and the South East Rail Service [10] the London Underground [11] and the Oyster rail services in London [12]. The Paris RER routes are express services to the airports and outlying towns and are represented on the map by broader lines than those for the Metro. Travellers can transfer between the RER and the Metro. In London, the new Oyster card will allow travellers to transfer between the London Underground and mainline routes. The Underground routes are represented on the map by single lines, the mainline routes by double lines. The mainline routes are identified by the terminus stations which they serve and are colour coded accordingly.

The comparison in Figure 1 shows how the Tokyo route colours could be more clearly differentiated. Three routes are identified by similar reds which could be confused. Two of these could be modified to match the red–orange and red–purple of the Gothenburg Palette. Two blues that are similar are used on the Paris map for RER route B and Metro route 13. These could also be made more distinct if one were made a lighter blue, but the potential confusion is avoided because they are differentiated by shape – the route lines are shown in different

widths. Shape differentiation also overcomes several potential confusions between the colours used for the routes on the London Oyster map where single lines are used for the London Underground routes and double lines for the routes serving the mainline termini.

It might be possible to find alternative colours for the London termini so that shape differentiation were no longer necessary on the London Oyster map and all 24 routes were clearly differentiated by colour alone. The Paris Metro/RER system has some colours (for routes 3, 12 and 14) that have no clear equivalent in the Gothenburg Palette but which are still easily differentiated. This points to ways in which the range of colours could be extended in a solution to the transport map problem which might then be applied for London. A usable colour code with 24 colours might be possible. However, if the planners of the Oyster system had decided to identify the mainline routes as they are on the London and the South East Rail Services map they would have needed 19 colours for the mainline routes to be combined with the 13 well established route colours of the London Underground. Several of the Underground colours have confusable equivalents on the London and the South East Rail Services map as can be seen in Figure 1. A range of 32 colours would be needed. It seems unlikely that a solution to the transport map problem would be such a large number.Colours of maximum contrast

Identifying the different routes on a transport map is one of many possible applications for a colour code. In a more general discussion of colour coding Robert Carter and Ellen Carter discuss problems of choosing colour sets that will be most effective for communicating information in a given situation [13]. They also pose the question, ‘What is the maximum number of colours that can be used?’

In response to requests for sets of colours that would be as different from each other as possible for purposes of colour coding, Kenneth Kelly proposed a sequence of colours from which it would be possible to select up to 22 colours of maximum contrast [2].

99


Kelly made use of the Inter-Society Color Council and National Bureau of Standards (ISCC-NBS) method of designating colours [14] and selected his colours from the ISCC-NBS Centroid Color Charts [15]. The colours are listed in a table together with general colour names, their ISCC-NBS Centroid numbers, their ISCC-NBS colour name abbreviations and Munsell notations. Kelly’s list, with colour samples matched visually to the ISCC-NBS centroid colours, is shown in Figure 2.

The order of colours in Kelly’s list was planned so that there would be maximum contrast between colours in a set if the required number of colours were always selected in order from the top. So a set of five colours should be white, black, yellow, purple and orange. And if seven colours were required, light blue and red should be added. Kelly took care of the needs of people with defective colour vision. The first nine colours would be maximally different for such people as well as for people with normal vision. These nine colours are also readily distinguishable by colour name. The dotted line in Figure 2 separates these from the other colours on the list.

Carter and Carter [13] make reference to Kelly’s work and verify his assumption that the ease with which two colours can be discriminated depends on how far apart the colours are in colour space. From the colour spaces available at the time they chose CIE L*u*v* as most appropriate for their study. They recognised that the key to their problem was to establish the smallest degree of difference between two colours that would still allow people to discriminate the colours with acceptable ease. They found that people’s ability to identify colours correctly diminished rapidly when the distance between colours was less than 40 CIE L*u*v* units. They provide a rough answer to their own question about the maximum number of usable colours: their Table 1 shows that colours in a set of 25 could all be separated by at least 51.6 CIE L*u*v* units.

In a later study, Carter and Carter investigated the role of colour coding for rapid location of small symbols on electronic displays [16]. They show how

ease and speed of location are influenced, in part, by the degree of difference between colours, but also by the size and luminance of the symbols in relation to the surround. In their earlier study [13], Carter and Carter propose an algorithm for establishing colour sets within CIE L*u*v* space. Building on the work of Carter and Carter, others have proposed algorithms for generating colour sets [17,18]. The ISCC set up Project Committee 54 with the intention of bringing Kelly’s work up to date [19]. However, the committee decided that, for what they were trying to do, they could not improve on Kelly’s set of colours [20]. Robert Carter and Rafael Huertas have investigated the use of other colour spaces and colour difference metrics for generating colour sets [21]. They also refer to an alternative approach, investigated by Smallman and Boynton, whereby a colour code could be based on colour name concepts.

Colour Naming and Basic Colour TermsThe concept of ‘basic colour terms’ was introduced by Brent Berlin and Paul Kay in their landmark study which was published in 1969 [22]. Berlin and Kay mapped the basic terms of 20 languages on an array of 329 colours from the Munsell colour order system. They claim that ‘a total universal inventory of exactly eleven basic colour categories exists from which the eleven or fewer basic colour terms of any given language are always drawn.’ They list the basic colour terms for English as: white, black, red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple, pink, orange and grey. Participants in their study had indicated the range of colours which they would describe by each name and also pinpointed the best, most typical example of each.

Some colour names are mapped onto a much larger range of different colours than other colour names. This means that it is possible to make additional distinctions such as that between light and vivid blue as for the Gothenburg tram colours. Further distinctions can be made by using composite names such as yellow–green and blue–green. While the difference in appearance between the colours may be the key to a successful colour code, the naming structure, as mapped by Berlin and Kay, could be

100

used as a starting point. This was the approach used for the Gothenburg Palette and it is surely an advantage if the colours in a code can also be named. This is clear from the example given above of a traveller arriving in Gothenburg and needing to get to Kålltorp.

Relating Colour Names to Colour SpaceThe number of colours that can be named by the ISCC-NBS method of designating colours, as used by Kelly, is 267. This is level three of the ‘Universal Color Language’ (UCL), with its six levels of increasing precision. The UCL is published by the US Department of Commerce [14]. Munsell colour space [23] is subdivided into smaller and smaller blocks, each block containing a range of colours that are identified by the same name. The ISCC-NBS centroid colours represent the focal colours for the 267 blocks at level three. At level one, with 13 colours, the blocks are much larger and the naming of the range of colours within each block is much less precise. There are 29 colours at level two. At level four are the thousand or more colours in a colour order system such as Munsell. Interpolation between colour standards, and then the use of measuring instruments, increases the number of colours to about 500 000 at level five and 5000 000 at level six. A Munsell notation is provided for each colour in the ISCC-NBS Centroid Color Charts. The focal colours for levels one and two of the UCL, matched visually to the designated ISCC-NBS centroid colours, are shown in Figure 3. The level one colours are represented by circles, the colours added at level two are represented by diamonds. The colours are arranged approximately according to their Munsell hues and lightness values on the gird used by Berlin and Kay to record the way that colour names were mapped. The shaded areas in Figure 3 represent the range of colours that would be described by each colour name as recorded by English speaking participants in the Berlin and Kay study: white, grey, black, pink, red, orange, brown, yellow, green, blue and purple.

The 29 colours at level two of the UCL could be considered as a basis for a colour code. However,

some of the colours might be too similar for confident identification and there are also areas of colour space that are not well represented.

A simpler alternative to the first three levels of the UCL is the three-level system of Colour Zones [24,25]. The structural framework for the Zones is that of the Natural Color System (NCS) [26]. The reference points for the NCS, and for the Colour Zones, are the Elementary Colours (ürfarben) proposed by Ewald Hering: Yellow, Red, Blue, Green, White and Black [27]. These are not physical samples but ideas such as a yellow that is neither reddish, greenish, blackish nor whitish. The appearance of any colour can be described in terms of its relative resemblance to these conceptual reference points. So the ISCC-NBS centroid colour ‘Vivid Yellow Green’ would be described as 50% yellowish, 50% greenish, 10% whitish and 10% blackish. Colour Zones are subdivisions of the NCS colour space. Each zone contains a range of similar colours with a focal colour as a reference point at the centre of the zone. Hering’s Elementary Colours are the focal points for the six zones at level one. Further subdivisions provide 27 zones at level two and 165 zones at level three.

The colours from levels one and two of the Colour Zones system are shown in Figure 4. The Elementary Colours, at level one, are represented by circles and the colours added at level two by diamonds. The colour names, selected after extensive research, should be generally acceptable and can be defended. The symbols below each column of colours indicate the hue zone to which the colours belong. The symbols to the right of each row of colours indicate the nuance zone.

The 27 colours at level two of the Colour Zones system could also be used as a basis for a colour code. They were tested as part of the colour alphabet project which is described in the next section.

Reference: GREEN-ARMYTAGE, P., 2010. A colour alphabet and the limits of colour coding. [online] Available at: <http://www.colour-journal.org/2010/5/10/10510article.htm> [Accessed 29/09/10].

101


A Colour Alphabet and the Limits of Colour CodingIllustrations

102

103


Reference: GREEN-ARMYTAGE, P., 2010. A colour alphabet and the limits of colour coding. [online] Available at: <http://www.colour-journal.org/2010/5/10/10510article.htm> [Accessed 29/09/10].

Line Colour Term Cyan Value

Magenta Value

Yellow Value

Black Value

Lilac 10 70 0 0

Dark Green 100 30 100 0

Bright Blue 100 50 0 5

Chestnut 40 85 95 0

Brown 25 70 95 0

Light Brown 25 50 85 0

Orange 0 65 100 0

Lavender 55 60 0 5

Light Green 65 0 100 5

Purple 40 95 60 10


Terracotta 0 80 100 0

Aqua 80 10 50 0

Yellow 0 15 100 0

Dark Brown 60 75 90 0

Lavender 55 60 5 0

Light Blue 80 20 5 0

Dark Blue 100 60 10 5

Light Orange 0 55 100 5

Dissecting Metro Maps – Line Colours

Berlin

London

The current colours are taken from the TfL Colour Standards guide, which defines the precise colours from the Pantone palette, and also a colour naming scheme that is particular to TfL. Earlier maps were limited by the number of colours available that could be clearly distinguished in print. Improvements in colour printing technology have reduced this problem and the map has coped with the identification of new lines without great difficulty.

Line Colour TfL Colour Name PMS Reference

Bakerloo Brown Corporate Brown Pantone 470

Central Red Corporate Red Pantone 485

Circle Yellow Corporate Yellow Pantone 116

District Green Corporate Green Pantone 356

Hammersmith & City Pink Underground Pink Pantone 197

Jubilee Grey Corporate Grey Pantone 430

Metropolitan Magenta Corporate Magenta Pantone 235

Northern Black Corporate Black Pantone Black

Piccadilly Blue Corporate Blue Pantone 072

Victoria Light Blue Corporate Light Blue Pantone 299

Waterloo & City Turquoise Corporate Turquoise Pantone 338

Docklands Light Railway Turquoise (double stripe) DLR Turquoise Pantone 326

Overground Lines Orange (double stripe) Overground Orange Pantone 158

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_map [Accessed 20/12/10].

106

PANTONE®

430C134R143G152B

PANTONE®

430UC: 5K: 45

PANTONE®

197C215R153G175B

PANTONE®

197UM: 45Y: 10

PANTONE®

356C0R114G41B

PANTONE®

356UC: 95Y: 100K: 27

PANTONE®

116C255R206G0B

PANTONE®

116UM: 16Y: 100

PANTONE®

485C220R36G31B

PANTONE®

485UM: 95Y:100

PANTONE®

470C137R78G36B

PANTONE®

470UM: 58Y: 100K: 33

Transport for London Corporate Colour Standards

Bakerloo Line

Central Line

Circle Line

District Line


Jubilee Line

107


PANTONE®

338C118R208G189B

PANTONE®

338UC: 47Y: 32

PANTONE®

299C0R160G226B

PANTONE®

299UC: 85M: 19

PANTONE®

072C0R25G168B

PANTONE®

072UC: 100M: 88K: 5

PANTONE®

Black C0R0G0B

PANTONE®

Black UK: 100

PANTONE®

235C117R16G86B

PANTONE®

235UC: 5M: 100K: 40

PANTONE®

158C232R106G16B

PANTONE®

158UM: 61Y: 97

PANTONE®

326C0R175G173B

PANTONE®

326UC: 87Y: 38

Metropolitan Line

Northern Line

Piccadilly Line

Victoria Line

Waterloo & City Line

Overground Line

DLR Line

Reference: TfL Corporate Design Standards, Colour Standards. [online] Available at: <http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/12523.aspx> [Accessed 22/12/10].

108 Line Colour Term Cyan Value

Magenta Value

Yellow Value

Black Value

Red 0 100 100 0

Dark Green 100 0 100 0

Dark Blue 100 100 0 0


Brown 32 99 98 1

Orange 0 60 100 0

Purple 40 100 0 0

Yellow 0 20 100 0

Light Grey 20 0 0 20

Lime Green 40 0 100 0

Aqua 60 0 40 20

Light Blue 40 0 0 0

Light Aqua 40 0 40 0


Moscow

109


Line Colour Term Cyan Value

Magenta Value

Yellow Value

Black Value

Red 0 89 80 0

Dark Green 100 0 90 0

Purple 39 87 0 0


Orange 0 62 100 0


Brown 4 53 100 21

Yellow 0 17 97 0

Light Grey 42 31 30 14

Dark Grey 53 43 40 30

New York

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway_nomenclature#cite_note-0 [Accessed 22/12/10].

Since 1979, each service’s colour corresponds to the line it uses in Manhattan—defined as the trunk line—with these exceptions: the IND Crosstown Line, which doesn’t carry services to Manhattan, is coloured light green; and all shuttles are coloured dark gray. Another exception is the M train which currently uses two trunk lines, the IND Sixth Avenue Line and the BMT Nassau Street Line. Since the M historically ran through the Nassau Street Line it was colored brown. Since June 27, 2010, the M has been rerouted via the Chrystie Street Connection to run on the Sixth Avenue Line, as a replacement for the V and is now colored orange. Each line colour was given a name as follows: Tomato Red, Apple Green, Raspberry, Vivid Blue, Bright Orange, Sunflower Yellow, Terracotta Brown, Light Slate Grey, Dark Slate Grey, Lime Green.

110 Line Colour Term Cyan Value

Magenta Value

Yellow Value

Black Value

Yellow 0 20 93 0


Olive 30 16 82 27


Purple 32 80 0 0

Peach 0 54 74 0


Pink 0 49 14 0


Lavender 26 41 1 0


Dark Yellow 5 29 82 9

Brown 29 49 75 36

Green 80 9 74 16


Plum 76 95 0 0


Paris

111


Line Name Colour Term Cyan Value

Magenta Value

Yellow Value

Black Value

Asakusa Line Pink 0 68 50 0

Mita Line Bright Blue 85 48 0 0

Shinjuku Line Light Green 57 1 89 1

Oedo Line Bright Pink 2 94 13 4

Ginza Line Orange 0 48 92 0

Marunouchi Line Red 0 96 89 0

Hibiya Line Light Grey 29 20 20 5

Tozai Line Light Blue 71 8 0 0

Chiyoda Line Green 79 3 79 2

Yurakucho Line Gold 3 32 93 9

Hanzomon Line Purple 55 90 0 0

Namboku Line Aqua 73 0 48 0

Fukutoshin Line Brown 9 70 83 16

Tokyo

112

Comparing Line Colours

All Lines from all 6 Metro Systems

113


Lines Arranged by City & Colour Spectrum

114

Line Colours Converted to Blocks


115


116

Introducing Additional Information


Berlin

Brown

Dark Brown

Red

Red-Brown

Orange

Dark Yellow

Yellow

Lime Green

Olive

Green

Dark Green

Light Turquoise

Turquoise

Light Blue

Bright Blue

Blue

Dark Blue

Lavender

Purple

Bright Pink

Pink

Light Grey

Dark Grey

Black

London Moscow New York Paris Tokyo

117


Berlin London Moscow New York Paris Tokyo

S41 LINE C40/M85/Y95/K0

U2 LINE C0/M80/Y100/K0

S5 LINE C0/M65/Y100/K0


S45/S46/S47 LINE C25/M50/Y85/K0

S42 LINE C25/M70/Y95/K0

U5/U55 LINE C60/M75/Y90/K0

CENTRAL LINE C0/M95/Y100/K0

BAKERLOO LINE C0/M58/Y100/K33

LINE 5 C32/M99/Y98/K1

LINE 1 C0/M100/Y100/K0 LINE 1/2/3 C0/M89/Y80/K0

LINE J/Z C4/M53/Y100/K21

LINE 5 C0/M54/Y74/K0

LINE 11 C29/M49/Y75/K36

MARUNOUCHI LINE C0/M96/Y89/K0

FUKUTOSHIN LINE C9/M70/Y83/K16


S8/S85 LINE C65/M0/Y100/K5


S2/S25 LINE C100/M30/Y100/K0

OVERGROUND LINES C0/M61/Y97/K0 LINE 6 C0/M60/Y100/K0

LINE 8 C0/M20/Y100/K0

LINE B/D/F/M C0/M62/Y100/K0


LINE 10 C5/M29/Y82/K9 YURAKUCHO LINE C3/M32/Y93/K9

GINZA LINE C0/M48/Y92/K0


CIRCLE LINE C0/M16/Y100/K0

WATERLOO & CITY LINE C47/M0/Y32/K0

LINE 10 C40/M0/Y100/K0

LINE 2 C0/M20/Y100/K0

LINE Л2 C40/M0/Y40/K0

LINE Q/R/N C0/M17/Y97/K0

LINE 12 C80/M9/Y74/K16


LINE 13 C48/M0/Y16/K0

LINE 3 C30/M16/Y82/K27

LINE 9 C19/M4/Y88/K10

SHINJUKU LINE C57/M1/Y89/K1



U8 LINE C100/M60/Y10/K5

DLR C87/M0/Y38/K0

DISTRICT LINE C95/M0/Y100/K27


LINE 11 C60/M0/Y40/K20

LINE 4/5/6 C100/M0/Y90/K0

LINE G C69/M0/Y100/K0

LINE 2 C87/M52/Y0/K0 MITA LINE C85/M48/Y0/K0

TOZAI LINE C71/M8/Y0/K0

NAMBOKU LINE C73/M0/Y48/K0

CHIYODA LINE C79/M3/Y79/K2

S7/S75 LINE C55/M60/Y0/K5


S9 LINE C40/M95/Y60/K10

PICCADILLY LINE C100/M88/Y0/K5

VICTORIA LINE C85/M19/Y0/K0

LINE 3 C100/M100/Y0/K0


LINE A/C/E C100/M66/Y0/K2



MITA LINE C85/M48/Y0/K0

OEDO LINE C2/M94/Y13/K4

ASAKUSA LINE C0/M68/Y50/K0

HIBIYA LINE C29/M20/Y20/K5


METROPOLITAN LINE C5/M100/Y0/K40

HAMMERSMITH & CITY LINE C0/M60/Y15/K0

JUBILEE LINE C5/M0/Y0/K45

NORTHERN LINE C0/M0/Y0/K100

LINE 7 C40/M100/Y0/K0



LINE L C42/M31/Y30/K14

LINE S C53/M43/Y40/K30


LINE 14 C76/M95/Y0/K0

HANZOMON LINE C55/M90/Y0/K0

118

Potential Output for Comparing Line Colours


Metro ColoursA Comparison of Line Colours for Metro Systems

Initial Poster Iterations

119



S41 LINE C40/M85/Y95/K0 CENTRAL LINE C0/M95/Y100/K0 LINE 1 C0/M100/Y100/K0 LINE 1/2/3 C0/M89/Y80/K0 LINE 5 C0/M54/Y74/K0 MARUNOUCHI LINE C0/M96/Y89/K0

S5 LINE C0/M65/Y100/K0 OVERGROUND LINES C0/M61/Y97/K0 LINE 6 C0/M60/Y100/K0 LINE B/D/F/M C0/M62/Y100/K0 LINE 10 C5/M29/Y82/K9 GINZA LINE C0/M48/Y92/K0

U4 LINE C0/M15/Y100/K0 CIRCLE LINE C0/M16/Y100/K0 LINE 8 C0/M20/Y100/K0 LINE Q/R/N C0/M17/Y97/K0 LINE 1 C0/M20/Y93/K0 SHINJUKU LINE C3/M32/Y93/K9

S2/S25 LINE C100/M30/Y100/K0 DISTRICT LINE C95/M0/Y100/K27 LINE 2 C100/M0/Y100/K0 LINE 4/5/6 C100/M0/Y90/K0 LINE 12 C80/M9/Y74/K16 CHIYODA LINE C79/M3/Y79/K2

U8 LINE C100/M60/Y10/K5 PICCADILLY LINE C100/M88/Y0/K5 LINE 3 C100/M100/Y0/K0 LINE A/C/E C100/M66/Y0/K2 LINE 2 C87/M52/Y0/K0 MITA LINE C85/M48/Y0/K0

S9 LINE C40/M95/Y60/K10 METROPOLITAN LINE C5/M100/Y0/K40 LINE 7 C40/M100/Y0/K0 LINE 7 C39/M87/Y0/K0 LINE 4 C32/M80/Y0/K0 HANZOMON LINE C55/M90/Y0/K0

Metro ColoursA Comparison of Line Colours for Metro Systems

120


Metro ColoursA Comparison of Line Colours for 6 Metro Systems


Further Poster Iterations

121



S41 LINE C40/M85/Y95/K0 CENTRAL LINE C0/M95/Y100/K0 LINE 1 C0/M100/Y100/K0 LINE 1/2/3 C0/M89/Y80/K0 LINE 5 C0/M54/Y74/K0 MARUNOUCHI LINE C0/M96/Y89/K0

S5 LINE C0/M65/Y100/K0 OVERGROUND LINES C0/M61/Y97/K0 LINE 6 C0/M60/Y100/K0 LINE B/D/F/M C0/M62/Y100/K0 LINE 10 C5/M29/Y82/K9 GINZA LINE C0/M48/Y92/K0

U4 LINE C0/M15/Y100/K0 CIRCLE LINE C0/M16/Y100/K0 LINE 8 C0/M20/Y100/K0 LINE Q/R/N C0/M17/Y97/K0 LINE 1 C0/M20/Y93/K0 SHINJUKU LINE C3/M32/Y93/K9

S2/S25 LINE C100/M30/Y100/K0 DISTRICT LINE C95/M0/Y100/K27 LINE 2 C100/M0/Y100/K0 LINE 4/5/6 C100/M0/Y90/K0 LINE 12 C80/M9/Y74/K16 CHIYODA LINE C79/M3/Y79/K2

U8 LINE C100/M60/Y10/K5 PICCADILLY LINE C100/M88/Y0/K5 LINE 3 C100/M100/Y0/K0 LINE A/C/E C100/M66/Y0/K2 LINE 2 C87/M52/Y0/K0 MITA LINE C85/M48/Y0/K0

S9 LINE C40/M95/Y60/K10 METROPOLITAN LINE C5/M100/Y0/K40 LINE 7 C40/M100/Y0/K0 LINE 7 C39/M87/Y0/K0 LINE 4 C32/M80/Y0/K0 HANZOMON LINE C55/M90/Y0/K0

Metro ColoursA Comparison of Line Colours for 6 Metro Systems

122


Further Poster Iterations


Metro ColoursA Comparison of Line Colours for Six Metro Systems

S41 LINE C40/M85/Y95/K0




S45/S46/S47 LINE C25/M50/Y85/K0

S42 LINE C25/M70/Y95/K0

U5/U55 LINE C60/M75/Y90/K0

CENTRAL LINE C0/M95/Y100/K0

BAKERLOO LINE C0/M58/Y100/K33

LINE 5 C32/M99/Y98/K1

LINE 1 C0/M100/Y100/K0 LINE 1/2/3 C0/M89/Y80/K0

LINE J/Z C4/M53/Y100/K21


LINE 11 C29/M49/Y75/K36

MARUNOUCHI LINE C0/M96/Y89/K0

FUKUTOSHIN LINE C9/M70/Y83/K16


S8/S85 LINE C65/M0/Y100/K5


S2/S25 LINE C100/M30/Y100/K0

OVERGROUND LINES C0/M61/Y97/K0 LINE 6 C0/M60/Y100/K0

LINE 8 C0/M20/Y100/K0

LINE B/D/F/M C0/M62/Y100/K0


LINE 10 C5/M29/Y82/K9 YURAKUCHO LINE C3/M32/Y93/K9

GINZA LINE C0/M48/Y92/K0


CIRCLE LINE C0/M16/Y100/K0

WATERLOO & CITY LINE C47/M0/Y32/K0

LINE 10 C40/M0/Y100/K0

LINE 2 C0/M20/Y100/K0


LINE Q/R/N C0/M17/Y97/K0

LINE 12 C80/M9/Y74/K16


LINE 13 C48/M0/Y16/K0

LINE 3 C30/M16/Y82/K27

LINE 9 C19/M4/Y88/K10

SHINJUKU LINE C57/M1/Y89/K1



U8 LINE C100/M60/Y10/K5

DLR C87/M0/Y38/K0

DISTRICT LINE C95/M0/Y100/K27


LINE 11 C60/M0/Y40/K20

LINE 4/5/6 C100/M0/Y90/K0

LINE G C69/M0/Y100/K0

LINE 2 C87/M52/Y0/K0 MITA LINE C85/M48/Y0/K0

TOZAI LINE C71/M8/Y0/K0

NAMBOKU LINE C73/M0/Y48/K0

CHIYODA LINE C79/M3/Y79/K2

S7/S75 LINE C55/M60/Y0/K5


S9 LINE C40/M95/Y60/K10

PICCADILLY LINE C100/M88/Y0/K5

VICTORIA LINE C85/M19/Y0/K0

LINE 3 C100/M100/Y0/K0


LINE A/C/E C100/M66/Y0/K2



MITA LINE C85/M48/Y0/K0

OEDO LINE C2/M94/Y13/K4

ASAKUSA LINE C0/M68/Y50/K0

HIBIYA LINE C29/M20/Y20/K5


METROPOLITAN LINE C5/M100/Y0/K40

HAMMERSMITH & CITY LINE C0/M60/Y15/K0

JUBILEE LINE C5/M0/Y0/K45

NORTHERN LINE C0/M0/Y0/K100

LINE 7 C40/M100/Y0/K0



LINE L C42/M31/Y30/K14

LINE S C53/M43/Y40/K30


LINE 14 C76/M95/Y0/K0

HANZOMON LINE C55/M90/Y0/K0

123




S41 LINE

U2 LINE

S5 LINE

U9 LINE

S45/S46/S47 LINE

S42 LINE

U5/U55 LINE

CENTRAL LINE

BAKERLOO LINE

LINE 5

LINE 1 LINE 1/2/3

LINE J/Z

LINE 5

LINE 11

MARUNOUCHI LINE

FUKUTOSHIN LINE

U4 LINE

S8/S85 LINE

U1 LINE

S2/S25 LINE

OVERGROUND LINES LINE 6

LINE 8

LINE B/D/F/M

LINE 1

LINE 10 YURAKUCHO LINE

GINZA LINE

U3 LINE

CIRCLE LINE

WATERLOO & CITY LINE

LINE 10

LINE 2

LINE Л2

LINE Q/R/N

LINE 12

LINE 6

LINE 13

LINE 3

LINE 9

SHINJUKU LINE

U7 LINE

S3 LINE

U8 LINE

DLR

DISTRICT LINE

LINE Л3

LINE 11

LINE 4/5/6

LINE G

LINE 2 MITA LINE

TOZAI LINE

NAMBOKU LINE

CHIYODA LINE

S7/S75 LINE

U6 LINE

S9 LINE

PICCADILLY LINE

VICTORIA LINE

LINE 3

LINE 4

LINE A/C/E

LINE 4

LINE 7

OEDO LINE

ASAKUSA LINE

HIBIYA LINE

S1 LINE

METROPOLITAN LINE

HAMMERSMITH & CITY LINE

JUBILEE LINE

NORTHERN LINE

LINE 7

LINE 9

LINE 7

LINE L

LINE S

LINE 8

LINE 14

HANZOMON LINE

124

Influences on Potential Outputs

Pantone Charts

125


Reference: ANON., 2006. Mono Culture. Grafik, Issue 137, pp.11.Reference: Nat M. Waterman, 2010. Pantonorla. [online] Available at: <http://www.natitup.com/index.php?/packaging/ied-madrid/> [Accessed on 03/01/11].

126

ME

TR

OT

ON

E

LIN

E C

OLO

UR

GU

IDE

/ber

lin/l

ond

on

/mo

scow

/new

yo

rk/p

aris

/to

kyo

met

ro s

yste

ms

METROTONE

BERLINS41 LINE

LONDONCENTRAL LINE

MOSCOWLINE 1

NEW YORKLINE 1/2/3

PARISLINE 5

TOKYOMaru nouc hi LINE

C M Y K40 85 95 0

C M Y K0 95 100 0

C M Y K0 100 100 0

C M Y K0 89 80 0

C M Y K0 54 74 0

C M Y K0 96 89 0

METROTONE

BERLINS5 LINE

LONDONOVERGROUNDLINES

MOSCOWLINE 6

NEW YORKLINE B/D/F/M

PARISLINE 10

TOKYOGINZA LINE

C M Y K0 65 100 0

C M Y K0 61 97 0

C M Y K0 60 100 0

C M Y K0 62 100 0

C M Y K5 29 82 9

C M Y K0 48 92 0


127


METROTONE

BERLINU4 LINE

LONDONCIRCLE LINE

MOSCOWLINE 8

NEW YORKLINE Q/R/N

PARISLINE 1

TOKYOSh in ju kuLINE

C M Y K0 15 100 0

C M Y K0 16 100 0

C M Y K0 20 100 0

C M Y K0 17 97 0

C M Y K0 20 93 0

C M Y K3 32 93 9

METROTONE

BERLINS2/S25 LINE

LONDONDISTRICT LINE

MOSCOWLINE 2

NEW YORKLINE 4/5/6

PARISLINE 12

TOKYOCh iy od aLINE

C M Y K100 30 100 0

C M Y K95 0 100 27

C M Y K100 0 100 0

C M Y K100 0 90 0

C M Y K80 9 74 16

C M Y K79 3 79 2

METROTONE

BERLINU8 LINE

LONDONPICCADILLYLINE

MOSCOWLINE 3

NEW YORKLINE A/C/E

PARISLINE 2

TOKYOMITA LINE

C M Y K100 60 10 5

C M Y K100 88 0 5

C M Y K100 100 0 0

C M Y K100 66 0 2

C M Y K87 52 0 0

C M Y K85 48 0 0

METROTONE

BERLINS9 LINE

LONDONMETROPOLITAN LINE

MOSCOWLINE 7

NEW YORKLINE 7

PARISLINE 4

TOKYOHa nz omonLINE

C M Y K40 95 60 10

C M Y K5 100 0 40

C M Y K40 100 0 0

C M Y K39 87 0 0

C M Y K32 80 0 0

C M Y K55 90 0 0

128


Metrotone Line Colour Guide

129


Cover Colour Comparison

Red, Orange and Yellow Lines Green, Blue & Purple Lines

130

Artwork Refinement

process colours

First EditionFirst Printing

The METROTONE LINE COLOUR GUIDE allows for the comparison of line colours across six metro systems: Berlin, London, Moscow, New York, Paris and Tokyo. It can be used to compare equivalent colours across networks and also shows the level of differentiation between line colours within the same network.

Guide Features•6 comparable colours for each

of the 6 networks, arranged chromatically.

•A CMYK breakdown of all the colours for reference.

•L ine names and/or numbers.

Differentiation and perception of colour is paramount in information design that uses colour coding to aid communication and understanding. This guide is in part a response to a paper by Paul Green-Armytage, entitled A Colour Alphabet and the Limits of Colour Coding. It examines the maximum number of different colours it is possible to use in one scheme of colour coding before colours become difficult to distinguish.

It directly relates this problem to transport maps, such as the ones for the London Underground and Paris Metro. Many networks are expanding, often with the addition of new lines, these must be designated a colour and sit within an existing palette. The Gothenburg palette, used for the city’s tram system is cited as one of the best examples of colour contrast on a transport map, as this was given consideration during the design process.

ReferencesGREEN-ARMYTAGE, P., 2010. A colour alphabet and the limits of colour coding. [online] Available at: <http://www.colour-journal.org/2010/5/10/10510article.htm> [Accessed 29/09/10]

Metrotone was created as part of MA GD Unit 2.3, Elective A - Information Design.ISBN 978-1-590650-62-2

METROTONE®

LINE COLOUR GUIDE

ME

TRO

TON

E®

LIN

E C

OLO

UR

GU

IDE

/ber

lin/l

ond

on/

mo

scow

/new

yor

k/p

aris

/toky

o m

etro

sys

tem

s

BERLINS41 LINE

LONDONCENTRAL LINE

MOSCOWLINE 1

NEW YORKLINE 1/2/3

PARISLINE 5

TOKYOMaru no uc hi LINE

BERLINS5 LINE

LONDONOVERGROUNDLINES

MOSCOWLINE 6

NEW YORKLINE B/D/F/M

PARISLINE 10

TOKYOGINZA LINE

CM YK40 85 95 0

CM YK09 51 00 0

CM YK01 00 1000

CM YK08 98 00

CM YK05 47 40

CM YK09 68 90

CM YK06 51 00 0

CM YK06 19 70

CM YK06 01 00 0

CM YK06 21 00 0

CM YK52 98 29

CM YK04 89 20

METROTONE METROTONE

BERLINU4 LINE

LONDONCIRCLE LINE

MOSCOWLINE 8

NEW YORKLINE Q/R/N

PARISLINE 1

TOKYOSh in ju kuLINE

CM YK01 51 00 0

CM YK01 61 00 0

CM YK02 01 00 0

CM YK01 79 70

CM YK02 09 30

CM YK33 29 39

METROTONE

131


METROTONE

For

mo

re in

form

atio

n g

o to

ww

w.c

olo

ur-j

our

nal.o

rg/2

010/

5/10

/105

10ar

ticl

e.ht

m

BERLINS2/S25 LINE

LONDONDISTRICT LINE

MOSCOWLINE 2

NEW YORKLINE 4/5/6

PARISLINE 12

TOKYOCh iy o daLINE

BERLINU8 LINE

LONDONPICCADILLYLINE

MOSCOWLINE 3

NEW YORKLINE A/C/E

PARISLINE 2

TOKYOMITA LINE

BERLINS9 LINE

LONDONMETROPOLITAN LINE

MOSCOWLINE 7

NEW YORKLINE 7

PARISLINE 4

TOKYOHanzo mo nLINE

C M Y K100 30 100 0

C M Y K95 0 100 27

C M Y K100 0 100 0

C M Y K100 0 90 0

C M Y K80 9 74 16

C M Y K79 3 79 2

C M Y K100 60 10 5

C M Y K100 88 0 5

C M Y K100 100 0 0

C M Y K100 66 0 2

C M Y K87 52 0 0

C M Y K85 48 0 0

C M Y K40 95 60 10

C M Y K5 100 0 40

C M Y K40 100 0 0

C M Y K39 87 0 0

C M Y K32 80 0 0

C M Y K55 90 0 0

METROTONE METROTONE METROTONE

ISBN 978-159065062-2

132

Additional Output


133


134


Additional Output

135




Final Output

Final Poster

136

Final Output

Final Poster

137


138

Critical Reflection

A Brief Evaluation of Unit 2.1 Elective A Information Design

Initially I struggled to find a data set that I was happy with and could use to present interesting information about the six metro systems listed in the brief. In the workshops for the Elective I had looked at comparing suicide rates across each system. I quickly discovered that data for this subject was difficult, and in some cases impossible to find. It seems that it is not often made public due to the sensitive nature of the information. I also found it difficult to find six parameters on this subject that could be related to the metro systems.

As part of the background research for the Elective I had collected the current versions of the maps for each subway system. Although there were many commonalities: they were all schematic diagrams apart from New York, there was a great variety in how each system represented stations, interchanges and how much additional information was included on the map.

During research for my Major Project Proposal I came across a paper entitled: A Colour Alphabet and the Limits of Colour Coding, written by Paul Green-Armytage that had been presented at the 11th Congress of the International Colour Association (AIC) in Australia and had been published in the journal of the Society of Dyers and Colourists, Colour: Design & Creativity. The article addressed the question of what is the maximum number of colours that can be used in a colour-coding scheme before it is difficult to distinguish between them? It specifically referred to the use of colour coding in transport maps and analysed the palettes of several networks including London and Paris. The Gothenburg tram system was cited as an example of best practise for creating a colour-coding scheme with maximum distinction.

This provided me with an avenue to research and develop the aspects of comparison for the metro systems. I took different parts of the graphic language of the maps to compare: the logo of the system, the dominant typeface used, the way stations, interchanges and termini were represented, what other symbols were used on the map, the way the lines were drawn and the colour of the lines.

I dissected each system map and broke it down into its different elements to allow for comparison. After creating a typology for each component I found the analysis of the lines and colours the most interesting and visually inspiring. This route also allowed me to further explore ideas that I was researching for the Major Project Proposal and Design and Rhetoric. Paul Green-Armytage’s paper had raised some interesting points about the nature of colour coding and the importance of colour perception and distinction in colour coding schemes. This is a particular issue for transport schemes that use colour as a central feature of their maps because if, as they grow they create additional lines, suitable colours must be added that will sit comfortably within the existing colour palette.

To look at this in relation to the comparison outlined in the brief I noted the CMYK breakdown for the colour of each line on the maps to get an accurate sample of the colour used. I was also able to obtain PMS references for all the colours used by Transport for London as this information is freely available on their website. However this information was not obtainable for the other maps so I resorted back to the CMYK references for all of the networks to maintain consistency.

139


I collated all the lines and colours and put them into a sequence, approximately following that of the colour spectrum. There were of course some exceptions that will never fit well into a linear arrangement, such as black and shades of brown and grey. However after some consideration I found an order which visually worked well. I then created a block of each colour and arranged them into a grid that allowed comparison by hue and by metro system. This became the basis for my poster iterations.

I began with a version that included all of the colours as they had been arranged in the blocks. I then took six colours, which were based on basic, abstract, (apart from orange) colour terms, red, orange, yellow, green, blue and purple, what are often referred to as primary and secondary colours and compared those in a layout.

The result was quite dense and didn’t have the same level of dynamism, even after some minor adjustments. After receiving feedback via the blog I decided to continue to refine the first poster, which included all of the colours. Although this amounted to a comparison of far more than six things, it still met the requirements of the brief as six was only stated as a minimum.

Alongside of this development work I was researching Pantone for Unit 2.3 Design and Rhetoric so as an additional output I decided to represent the comparison of the six line colours as a Pantone chart. After feedback and reviewing it against the brief I decided not to submit it as my main output for the elective as it was too stylised to be viewed as objective information design. So instead I am

submitting it as a secondary, additional output for comparing the line colours as it is quite a useful, functional tool for doing so and a reflection of the relationship between my work in this elective and Design and Rhetoric.

I had planned to submit a poster with no references to the lines and colour breakdown. However it was a useful feature to have on the Metrotone chart so I created a version of the poster which included this text in the corner of each block of colour.

The resulting iteration led to a dilemma, as although the poster was less visually striking, the information was potentially interesting. The feedback I got about the posters was split evenly between the two and I found it difficult to find a rationale for choosing which option to submit as the final output. I created a further iteration of the poster as a response to feedback on the blog, in an attempt to come to a resolution, but it was less successful. After consulting the brief and reviewing both posters and my research I decided to submit the poster without the text. My reasoning for this was several-fold, firstly that the CMYK breakdown would only likely, be appreciated by designers and printers. Secondly, although the line name/number reference may have been useful to include, it interrupted the visual aspect of the design and reduced the impact of the colours. Finally, and most importantly, I wanted the poster to be about the hues themselves, a comparison of the colours as pure chroma. By presenting them in this way it draws attention to the issues of colour range, distinction and perception, common to all colour coded transport maps.

140

Bibliography

Weblinks

ANON., 2006. Mono Culture. Grafik, Issue 137, pp.11.

BVG, 2011. Timetables, Routes & Maps. [online] Available at: <http://www.bvg.de/index.php/en/17099/name/Network+Map.html> [Accessed 05/12/10].

Erin, 2009. Summer in Paris. Design Crisis. [blog] 19 June, Available at: <http://design-crisis.com/?p=349> [Accessed 17/12/10].

DOMINGUE, R., 2009. New York Subway Map (1972). Minilistic, [blog] 21 December, Available at: <http://www.minilistic.com/2009/12/new-york-subway-map-1972/> [Accessed 20/12/10].

GARLAND, K., 1994. Mr Beck’s underground map. Middlesex : Capital Transport Publishing.

GREEN-ARMYTAGE, P., 2010. A colour alphabet and the limits of colour coding, Colour: Design & Creativity, [online] Available at: <http://www.colour-journal.org/2010/5/10/10510article.htm> [Accessed 29/09/10].

LYNSKEY, D., 2006. Going Underground. Culture Vulture Blog, [blog] February 3, Available at: <http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturevulture/archives/2006/02/03/post_51.html> [Accessed 21/12/10].

Metropolitan Transport Authority, 2011. Subway Map. [online] Available at: <http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/submap.htm> [Accessed 05/12/10].

Nat M. Waterman, 2010. Pantonorla. [online] Available at: <http://www.natitup.com/index.php?/packaging/ied-madrid/> [Accessed on 03/01/11].

OVENDEN, M., 2003. Metro maps of the world. Middlesex : Capital Transport Publishing.

Pantone, 2011. UK Homepage. [online] Available at: <http://www.pantone.co.uk/pages/pantone/index.aspx> [Accessed 04/01/11].

RATP, 2011. Plan Metro. [online] Available at: <http://www.ratp.fr/informer/pdf/orienter/f_plan.php?fm=pdf&loc=reseaux&nompdf=metro> [Accessed 04/12/10].

Rick, 2008. Blogging Underground... . The Pointy Adventures Of Jean-Claude Supremo, [blog] 21 May, Available at: <https://rickoshea.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/blogging-underground/> [Accessed 21/12/10].

SelfMadeHero, 2008. RSC Tube Map – Silly. Manga Shakespeare, [blog] 18 September, Available at: <http://mangashakespeare.ning.com/profiles/blogs/753772:BlogPost:5831> [Accessed 21/12/10].

141


SHAW, P., 2008. The (Mostly) True Story of Helvetica and the New York City Subway. AIGA, [online] Available at: <http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/the-mostly-true-story-of-helvetica-and-the-new-york-city-subway?recache=1&%C3%82%C2%B4pp=6&pp=1> [Accessed 02/01/11].

TfL Corporate Design Standards, 2010. Colour Standards. [online] Available at: <http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/12523.aspx> [Accessed 22/12/10].

Tokyo Metro, 2011. Subway Map. [online] Available at: <http://www1.tokyometro.jp/en/subwaymap/index.html> [Accessed 15/11/10].

Transport for London, 2011. Maps. [online] Available at: <http://www.tfl.gov.uk/gettingaround/1106.aspx> [Accessed 01/11/10].

Vector-Images.com, 2011. Moscow Metro Map (2009; in Russian) Vector Clipart. [online] Available at: <http://vector-images.com/clipart.php?id=6366> [Accessed 21/12/10].

Wikipedia, 2011. Berlin S-Bahn. [online] Available at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_S-Bahn> [Accessed 20/12/10].

Wikipedia, 2011. Berlin U-Bahn. [online] Available at: <Wikipedia, 2010. Berlin U-bahn. [online] Available at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_U-Bahn> [Accessed 20/12/10].

Wikipedia, 2011. Moscow Metro. [online] Available at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Metro> [Accessed 20/12/10].

Wikipedia, 2011. New York City Subway. [online] Available at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway> [Accessed 20/12/10].

Wikipedia, 2011. New York City Subway Nomenclature. [online] Available at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway_nomenclature#cite_note-0> [Accessed 22/12/10].

Wikipedia, 2011. Paris Metro. [online] Available at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_M%C3%A9tro> [Accessed 20/12/10].

Wikipedia, 2011. Tokyo Subway. [online] Available at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway> [Accessed 20/12/10].

Wikipedia, 2011. Tube Map. [online] Available at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_map> [Accessed 20/12/10].

Documents

MA Graphic Design Information Design Elective Supporting Material