Elective A Supporting Material by Eleanor Maclure

Elective A Information Design Supporting Material

MA Graphic Design Part Time Unit 2.1

Eleanor Maclure

MA Graphic Design Part Time Unit 2.1 Elective A Information Design Supporting Material

Elective A Information Design Supporting Material

Eleanor Maclure

Elective A Information Design

Metro Maps

Berlin

9 10

S4 1

S41 S42

S42 S41

¢ ¡

Service

TXL

TXL X9 109 128

TXL 128

Tegel

12 8

Bitte beachten Sie,

17 1

Schönefeld

X7 171 N7

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].

Elective A Supporting Material

London 3

Tube map 1

Chesham

Chalfont & Latimer

Amersham

Watford

Rickmansworth

West Harrow

South Harrow

South Ruislip

Stanmore

Harrow & Wealdstone

Harrowon-the-Hill

Rayners Lane

Edgware

Kenton

Queensbury

Preston Road

Kingsbury

Golders Green

North Wembley

Neasden

Wembley Park

Wembley Central Sudbury Hill

Kensal Rise

Willesden Junction

Queen’s Park

Kilburn Park Maida Vale Warwick Avenue

East Acton

West Acton

North Acton

Acton Central

Ealing Common South Acton

D Acton Town

South Ealing

Chiswick Park

Shepherd’s Bush

White City

Wood Lane

Shepherd’s Bush Market

Turnham Stamford Ravenscourt Brook Park Green

West Kensington

Baker Street

Earl’s Court

Victoria

Hounslow East Kew Gardens

Hounslow Central

Hatton Cross

Richmond

Heathrow

Fulham Broadway Parsons Green

Barbican

Covent Garden

Cannon Street Mansion House

Vauxhall

Southfields

Rotherhithe London Bridge

Clapham North

Mudchute

Elephant & Castle

New Cross Gate

Tooting Broadway

South Wimbledon Morden

Jubilee

Bromleyby-Bow

Metropolitan

All Saints

Canning Town

Blackwall Poplar

Northern

Royal Victoria

4 Prince Regent

Royal Albert

West Silvertown

Beckton Park North Greenwich

Pontoon Dock

Cyprus Gallions Reach

London City Airport

Change at Chalfont & Latimer on most trains

Covent Garden

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

Eastcote to Uxbridge

Not served by Piccadilly line trains early mornings

Heathrow Terminal 4

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

Hounslow West

Step-free access for wheelchair users only

Turnham Green

Served by Piccadilly line trains early mornings and late evenings only

Beckton

E Victoria

Greenwich

Waterloo & City

Elverson Road

Honor Oak Park

Overground

Step-free interchange between Underground, Canary Wharf DLR and Heron Quays DLR stations at street level

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

King George V

Woolwich Arsenal

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

Chesham

Mill Hill East

Piccadilly

Custom House for ExCeL

East India

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

Camden Town

Charing Cross branch

West Ham

Lewisham Brixton

Canary Wharf

Becontree

East Ham

Langdon Park

Deptford Bridge Brockley

No special arrangements Bank to Waterloo Open 0615 until 2148 Mondays to Fridays and 0800 until 1830 Saturdays. Closed Sundays and public holidays No special arrangements

Forest Hill

Balham

Colliers Wood

New Cross

Kennington

Stockwell

Elm Park

Served until about 2400 Underground station closed until late 2011 Open until 2100 Mondays to Fridays. Closed Saturdays and Sundays

No special arrangements

Plaistow

Cutty Sark for Maritime Greenwich

Clapham South

Tooting Bec

Upton Park

Island Gardens

Borough

Hammersmith & City

Dagenham Heathway

Wanstead Park

Devons Road

Heron Quays

Crossharbour

Kensington (Olympia)

Hornchurch Dagenham East

Barking

Canary Wharf

Canada Water

Southwark

Clapham Common

Bermondsey

Upminster Upminster Bridge

Gants Hill

Upney

West India Quay

Wapping

South Quay

Lambeth North

Oval

Clapham Junction

Westferry

Limehouse

River Thames

Temple Embankment

Pimlico Imperial Wharf

Wimbledon Park

Transport for London

Stepney Green

Whitechapel

Blackfriars Cannon Street

Woodgrange Park

Bow Road

Shadwell

Tower Gateway

District

Fairlop

Mile End

Aldgate

Fenchurch Street

Blackfriars

Hainault

Hackney Wick

Shoreditch High Street

Aldgate East

Tower Hill

Blackfriars Cannon Street

Leytonstone High Road

Leyton Stratford

Bow Church

Monument

Redbridge

Pudding Mill Lane

Bethnal Green

Bank

Leicester Square

Charing Cross

Homerton

Moorgate St. Paul’s

Chigwell Grange Hill Roding Valley

Barkingside

Wanstead

Leyton Midland Road

Surrey Quays

Wimbledon

Hoxton

Liverpool Street

Chancery Lane

No special arrangements

Central

Circle

Leytonstone

Hackney Central

Waterloo

East Putney

Dalston Kingsland

Haggerston

Holborn

Westminster

Putney Bridge

Walthamstow Central

Canonbury

Old Street

Russell Square

Check before you travel

Bakerloo

Newbury Park

Walthamstow Queen’s Road

Dalston Junction

Farringdon

Goodge Street

St. James’s Park

Sloane Square

South Kensington

Highbury & Islington Caledonian Road & Barnsbury

Piccadilly Circus

Knightsbridge Gloucester Road

Finsbury Park

King’s Cross St. Pancras

Euston Square

Green Park

Snaresbrook

Tottenham Hale

Upper Holloway

Euston

Tottenham Court Road

Hyde Park Corner

Blackhorse Road

Seven Sisters

Angel

Oxford Circus

South Woodford

Holloway Road

Camden Road

Mornington Crescent

Warren Street

Bond Street

South Tottenham

Caledonian Road

Regent’s Park

Marble Arch

Key to lines

Chigwell

Woodford

Harringay Green Lanes

Manor House

Arsenal

Grange Hill

Wood Green

Kentish Town

Kentish Town West

Camden Town

Great Portland Street

West Brompton

E Terminals 1, 2, 3

Heathrow Terminal 5

High Street Kensington

Barons Court

Hammersmith

Gunnersbury

Heathrow Terminal 4

St. John’s Wood

Lancaster Gate

Queensway

Kensington (Olympia)

Goldhawk Road

Osterley

Notting Hill Gate

Holland Park

Bounds Green

Turnpike Lane

Tufnell Park

Chalk Farm

Bayswater

Latimer Road

North Ealing

Hounslow West

Swiss Cottage

Edgware Road Ladbroke Grove

Ealing Broadway

Northfields

Finchley Road

South Hampstead

Edgware Marylebone Road

Paddington

Westbourne Park

Park Royal

Boston Manor

Kilburn High Road

Royal Oak

Hanger Lane

5 4

West Hampstead

Brondesbury

Kensal Green

Alperton

Hampstead Heath

Belsize Park

Kilburn

Brondesbury Park

Greenford

Finchley Road & Frognal

Willesden Green

Harlesden

Gospel Oak

Roding Valley

Crouch Hill

Archway

Hampstead

Dollis Hill

Stonebridge Park

Perivale

Buckhurst Hill

Arnos Grove

Finchley Central

Highgate

Loughton

Southgate

West Finchley

East Finchley

Brent Cross

Debden

Oakwood

Woodside Park

Mill Hill East

Colindale Hendon Central

South Kenton

Northolt Sudbury Town

Burnt Oak

Canons Park

Northwick Park

8 Epping Theydon Bois

Hatch End

North Harrow

Cockfosters

Totteridge & Whetstone

Headstone Lane

Pinner

Eastcote

Ruislip Gardens

Ruislip Manor

Ickenham

High Barnet

Carpenders Park

Northwood Northwood Hills

Ruislip

Hillingdon Uxbridge

Bushey

Moor Park

West Ruislip

8 7 6

Watford Junction

Watford High Street

Croxley

Chorleywood

Special fares apply

3 4

DLR

Sydenham

Penge West

Anerley Crystal Palace

Norwood Junction West Croydon

MAYOR OF LONDON

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

This 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

Transport for London

Heron Quays

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

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

Metro Maps

Moscow 4

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

Elective A Supporting Material

New York

Am trak

u o

AV R

WA RK

NP A

BIN RO

KIE

JAC

Z •

LIRR

Bus - B6 B15 JFK Airport

Beach 36 St

AN CH H

BE VD BE

JACOB RIIS PARK

LD R NE

RIN GIL E PAR HODGKWAYMEMO ES BRI RIAL DGE

ROCKAWAY PARK

Dit

B EA

9 Ha A m Dv Pk ilto w n y St D

HB L

T HAM

FOR

LIN

A •S

Beach 105 St

y D Pk w

S D t

ten

D •F •N •Q

Bus - B36 B68 B74 B82

CONEY ISLAND

Richmond Valley TOTTENVILLE BEACH

Atlantic S74/84

Tottenville S74/84

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

GIRT

Beach 44 St A

Beach 60 St A

A •S

SEA

Beach 67 St

Beach 90 St Beach 98 St

Rockaway Park Beach 116 St

A •S

Jamaica Bay

S AV

Subway

Beach 25 St

Broad Channel

Canarsie Rockaway Pkwy

Inwood

Far Rockaway Mott Av

LIRR

JAMAICA BAY WILDLIFE REFUGE

CANARSIE

Far Rockaway

Bus - N31 N32 N33 Q22 Q113

Subway

S74/84

Lawrence

Subway

New Lots Av

Pleasant Plains Nassau

Woodmere

2/3 Cedarhurst

2• 3

tic

F• n S G t

Atl

F • St G

Bro

STR

Far Rockaway

S HWY

5/6

AirTrain stops/ terminal numbers

Bus - B13 Q7 Q8

KING

rro

E ID

IL H

d Bri Va arw n oo W d yc k Blv

por

Air

•

B Ju roa nc dw A • tio ay C• n

J •L

MAURI

Be rg en Gra S 2• t nd 3 A Pla rm z y 7 2• a E B • Av 3 ok as Q lyn te M rn P us kw eu y m

HOWARD BEACH

Euclid Av/Pitkin Av

BROOKLYN

RTH

QU EE NS NA SS AU

8 Q4

d Blv en

Dr–

dh •

oo W

•

Gra Ne nd w A • to v w n

Q47

VD V CE AV

AV NT OI NP EE GR

ug ro Bo

SEN

Rosedale

JFK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Y ’ S BA NS OS CR TERA L VE MORIAE ME IDG BR

D • v-P N • ac io R • if n LIR ic R St R St

S 2• t 3

SO U

Z •

Cla

2• h H 3• a 4 • ll 5

St Av

D Es ela se nc F • x S ey J• t S M t

Is la nd

AV ER

ST HE

ES W

TC H RN B E S T LVD E R

THE

S N t– Q • Un io N Q• 5 n S

B B’w leec

AD W A

Lon g

ES P L A N A D E S O UTHERN BLVD

Metro-North

W O

RT BA

RD TON

BO S

Metro-No rth I

AV JEROME

GRAND CONCOURSE

RY H BR UD SO ID G N E

HEN

AD O

LAS

AY B R O A DW

W A LDO AV

NP KW

DSO YH U

BAIL EY AV

B RO

tte

ke B• a D • y– rS •M La fa t

BROADWAY

V UIT A

JFK

Subway

REM

Laurelton

N AV

FOU

BRIDGE

Locust Manor

Q10

IN AIRTRA

Canarsie Rockaway Pkwy

Subway

EAST FLATBUSH

East 105 St

Bus - B14 B17 B46

CO ND

B15

L B15 JFK Airport

and Ferry

n Is l

Botanic Garden

BLV

BAY

Kingston Av 3

Open 11am-7pm on racing days

Crown Heights Utica Av

Nostrand Av 2 •5

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

New Lots Av

Sutter Av–Rutland Rd

Subway

Aqueduct Racetrack

CRO

ASH

9 AV

ilw

THIRD AV

President St

Jamaica–Sutphin Blvd Long Island Rail Road

N SIC

Bus - Q7 Q11 Q21 Q41 Q53 Q112

Howard Beach JFK Airport

Saratoga Av

AIN

Livonia Av

Rockaway Blvd

Shepherd Av

EAST New Lots Av NEW 3 r YORK tte Van Siclen Av Su v 3 A L Pennsylvania Av VA

Rockaway Av

Crown Hts Av

W RK

Subway

OZONE PARK

Liberty C Av

tic

TR AIR

A Q10 JFK Airport

104 St

Aqueduct North Conduit Av

Euclid Av

EN G V BER IN A K PIT

AIRTRAIN JFK

Ozone Park Lefferts Blvd

111 St

A •C

Eas

tic

Van Siclen Av

88 St

BLV

PITKIN AV

Cleveland St

Junius St

Y RT

H t RC Sterling St p S Bus - B6 B17 B42 B60 B82 U H C 2 •5 ro S UNION ST th in BROOKLYN Av W •5 h BOTANIC Prospect PARK 2 GARDEN Rd urc SLOPE Park Ch• 5 erly B •Q •S 9 ST Av 2 ev N INTH ST PROSPECT GATEWAY ith ts B • 5 kirk St• R PARK NATIONAL Av• G 2 9 e 7 Sm 9 S F• G w RECREATION F v– F• G eg N e• 5 AREA– St Av ll 4A 2 Parkside Av JAMAICA BAY h Co 15 Park• G B •Q Av FLATBUSH us n PROSPECT AV Flatbush Av/ t F h Prospect Av d tb kly Brooklyn College ec FL AT B R urc USH A Fla roo yR V sp Subway B •5 Rd Ch • Q erle Atlantic Av/Atlantic AvFLATLANDS 2 u Pro B v e Pacific St lyo Bus - B6 B11 B41 B44 B H Q • e Fort Hamilton AV B rt Long Island Rail Road Av 25 St B103 Q35 Pkwy Co • Q R irk Subway k B F•G w H GREEN-WOOD Ne • Q ue CEMETERY B Bus - B41 B45 B63 B65 B67 en Av • Q MIDWOOD Av FLOYD B h F• G J 36 St BENNETT M urc ue FIELD AV D •N •R en Ch 39 ST Av • Q N W E S T E ND L IN OKings Hwy/E 16 St E B M F ST 45 St R MARINE Subway ue AN SUNSET R F PARK D en PARK Av • Q Bus - B2 B3K B7 B31 B82 AV B F B100 wy BOROUGH 53 St H PARK y U R gs AV in Ba wy F N K Q • e B u Pk P Z 59 St en U e AV N •R y Av enu 61 ST SEA BEACH LINE 63 ST ue F v y en Hw A Ba n v Av • Q F gs Av N Av N Av Rd B t A N St ad ilto y 8 N y Kin 18 ck 20 m kw N ech he Bay Ridge Av F 62 D kw N Ne • Q eps SHEEPSHEAD Sheepshead Bay Ha P U R B Utr rt yP BAY e Subway ue w Fo gs y Ba Sh • Q en W Ne B Av Kin Hw N EST Bus - B4 B36 B49 77 St X F 8 BAY RIDGE BENSONHURST ST R ue Brighton Beach Av en B •Q 86 St/4 Av Avenue U ne Av BRIGHTON F 86 ST 86 ST BEACH 86 St N Subway ptu Ne R 86 St 25 Av Ocean Pkwy F Bus - B1 B16 B63 B70 N D Q Bay Ridge S53 S79 S93 Bay Pkwy/86 St DYKER Bay 50 St 95 St BREEZY SubwayBEACH R D Coney Island POINT PARK West 8 St Stillwell Av Bus - B1 B6 B82 NY Aquarium Subway F •Q Coney Island Stillwell Av BERGEN ST

E •J •Z

Jamaica

Atl

80 St

Grant Av

Van Siclen Av

AV Av nBEDFORD

LIRR BE

J •Z

Crescent St

Alabama Av

OCEAN HILLBROWNSVILLE

CROWN Utica HEIGHTS 3•4

d Av

N BL

Rockaway Blvd

75 St–Elderts Ln

FER

WOODHAVEN VE

Z rush hours, J other times

li nk Fra C• S

tran

Z rush hrs, J other times

11 1

Z rush hours, J other times

LEF

104 St

Queens Village

Hollis

Jamaica Center Parsons/Archer M

E•J•Z•LIRR

Cypress Hills

Sutphin Blvd Archer Av JFK Airport

121 St

Z rush hrs, J other times

a ck Ro v A

Nos

lin nk • 5 Fra• 3• 4

Park Pl

Sutphin Blvd

Z rush hours, J other times

Norwood Av

Av k St wic en sh rde Bu be A

ils

LIR

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

JAMAICA

LITA

85 St–Forest Pkwy

EVERGREEN CEMETERY

J •Z

a str No • C

A Subway M

Parsons Blvd

111 St

Woodhaven Blvd GLENDALE

T YR

HOLLIS

169 St VD

Bus - B20 B25 B83 Q24 Q56 LIRR

U C

a k aic c E m Wy Ja an V

RICHMOND HILL

FOREST PARK

Broadway Junction

•

n s to Av gs op Av Kinhro T nd

s Av n n gto nto hin Cli as C N ST W ULTO

MET

lse

E•

Kew Gardens KEW GARDENS

J Av , s rs te hou s Ga sh time ru Z ther St Jo ko

B ROADWAY

Y BL

BEDFORDSTUYVESANT

FO U RTH AV

Av 75 E• FQUEENS BLVD

A Jamaica Center A IC

F RS

S BA

BUSHWICK

Forest Av

s en e rd pk Ga T w ion Ke Un E• F

ills

Forest Hills

Jamaica 179 St PA

HILLCREST

AUSTIN

str B an edfo d rd Av s

B•Q•2•3•4•5•LIRR

H st re v Fo 1 A • M• R 7 •F

Seneca Av

lse HaL Myrtle Wyckoff Avs L•M

BUSHWICK AV

T AV

Central Av

KEW GARDENS HILLS

Bus - Q23 Q64 LIRR

QUEENS VILLAGE

Bus - N1 N6 N22 N22A N24 N26 Q1 Q2 Q3 JFK Airport Q17 Q30 (169 St only) Q31 (169 St only) Q36 Q43 Q76 Q77 Q110 (179 St only, rush hour only)

lb Ka De L

WYC KOF F A V

Myrtle Willoughby Avs

Subway

RIDGEWOOD

FORES

N AV

rs ffe Je L

JAMAICA ESTATES

Bus Q10 JFK Airport Q37 Q60 Q46

Forest Hills 71 Av

ITA

QUEENS

Av L

Lafayette Av Atlantic Av

2• 3• 4• 5

A •C •G

Bus - Q38 Q54 Q67

Middle Village Metropolitan Av

FIFTH AV

4 ST

Nevins St

Hoyt Schermerhorn

ST JOHNS Middle Village CEMETERY Metropolitan Av

Bus -MT B13 B26 B52 B54 OLIVET CEMETERY LUTHERAN Q55 Q58 CEMETERY

FOURTH AV

Isl

Q72

y St g er hin rim lus Lo J• M F J• M

St G

AS ta

•

REGO PARK

MIDDLE VILLAGE

Subway

Staten Island Railway Bus - S53

New Dorp Staten Island Railway Bus - S57 S76/86

NEW DORP BEACH

lto

EN S

CUNNINGHAM Jamaica–169 PARK St/179 St Subway (179 St only)

Subway T

Subway

Myrtle–Wyckoff Avs

le yrt M • M• Z

WIS

Av G

S LE

FRESH MEADOWS

AND

FOREST HILLS

org on M L M WILSON AV Knickerbocker Av

IC K

n nto vs Cli n A G gto

ISL

Q10

s tro

hin

Kew Gardens Union Tpke IN

M YR

E AV

B •Q •R

D QUEENS BLV

St ey rs, nc ou au sh h es ChZ ru er tim

Av g G in sh FluBEDFORD

FORT GREENE PARK

ST PO

Q47 t

Gra

DeKalb Av AT

or Q33 Airp

m ha Gra Av L

BROOKLYN

FORT GREENE

Hoyt St

Fresh Pond Rd

St J• M

112

Q72 LGA Airport NC

rs hu ElmM• R

MT ZION CEMETERY

Sta te

VEL

CEMETERY

Lawrence St

NEW YORK 2•3 TRANSIT MUSEUM CARROLL GARDENS

MASPETH

FLUSHING MEADOWS CORONA PARK

Junction Blvd

JUNIPER VALLEY PARK

Cla

S56

E EN

Bus - B62 Q32 Q39 Q60 Q66 Q67 Q69 Q100 Q101 Q102

ide

Bus - Q11 Q21 Q29 Q38 Q53 Q59 Q60 Q88

Mets–Willets Point

e id ds oo t W 1S 6 St 52

N HI

KISSENA Woodhaven Blvd PARK Queens Center

7 • Q48 LGA Airport

Ro Jac os ks • ev on • elt H • Av ts

Queens PlazaNEW QueensboroCALVARY Plaza

BLV

Subway

103 St–Corona Plaza

rim Lo L

ENA

Flushing

S55

Huguenot

S55 X17 X19

Prince's Bay

EXP

FLUSHING KISS

Flushing Main St

48 ST

WS B RID

QUEENS

90 St–Elmhurst Av JU

Hts•

2,3 and northbound 4,5

Jay St–Borough Hall

LE For construction-related service changes, click on “Planned Service Changes” in theNtop AR AS menu bar. VIE SA U W columns of affected lines. This information is also at station entrances and on platform QU EX E

Broadway

Murray Hill

LIRR

St 65 •

•

Bro

por

Air

Blv

CALVARY CEMETERY

A •C •F

Subway

•

ern LV

Y D E XPW

Court St

RED HOOK

rth

GOVERNORS ISLAND

St–

I S L AN

v y A• M• Z arc J

Jay St Borough Hall

Court St/Borough Hall

6 7 9S t

7 B 46 7 liss St St

St–

A •C

BATTERY TUNNEL

W oo

MID

Q48 LaGuardia Airport Q58 Q65 Q66 QBx1

S T NIC HO

10 AV

EE X

BROOKLYN-

sum me r on

High St

DUMBO

BROOKLYN HEIGHTS

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

RY ST

TTAN

HEN

ARRO

111 St

Q33

Bro

ANO- N

CORONA

SM I T H

MANHA

BROOKLYN BRIDGE

ROSEBANK VE RRA Z

7 • Q48 LGA Airport 1

WILLIAMSBURG

This information is also available on mta.info: click on “Maps” in the top menu bar, then select NOR THE RN B LVD “Individual Subway Line Maps.”

Flushing–Main St Subway ON

Q33

E BRIDG

VERRAZANO-NARRO GREAT KILLS PARK

ONS BLV WH ITED ST

Mets–Willets Point

E,M,R only

T JA Y S

PARS

ST ONE BRIDGE

Q72

Metropolitan Av

R S ST

MBIA

H 82

KE NT AV

COLU

Subway

S ST

WOODROW

CHARLESTON

NAVY YARD

HICK

Eltingville Annadale

ROSSVILLE

Av rd L

Bay Terrace Great Kills

DGE

Grasmere

Jefferson Av Grant City

S57

RICHMONDTOWN

S54 X7 X8

FOX HILLS

Dongan Hills

SEA VIEW HOSPITAL

Oakwood Heights

dfo BRI

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

Gre

Be RG

S51

RESSWA

- W HITE

Q33

LVD RIA B

•

ARTH U R K I L L

EXP

Cit

ARDEN HEIGHTS

STEINWAY ST

nd la Is q ng rt S Lo ou C

Grasmere

S51/81

Staten Island Railway Bus - S59 S79 S89 X1 X4 X5

ns ee a Qu laz P M

FRESH KILLS

St 36 M• R

Old Town

New Dorp LA TOURETTE PARK

Eltingville

TODT HILL

COLLEGE OF STATEN ISLAND

STATEN ISLAND MALL

ay M•

D Y BLV

CLOVE LAKES PARK VICTO R

DAL

TGE

LIA

Clifton

SILVER LAKE PARK

Ste

ND AV

NEW SPRINGVILLE PARK

36 ST

VERNON BLVD

CHELSEA

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

R I CHM O

BULLS HEAD

CASTLETON CORNERS

31 ST

21 ST

WIL

Stapleton

SNUG HARBOR CULTURAL CENTER

PORT RICHMOND

St St 3 ry’s 14 a E tM Av S ss

WESTERLEIGH

R O ND TE

MARINERS HARBOR

RIC H M

L ON G

Subway

STATEN ISLAND

St. George

Port Richmond

1 Am63 S 1 C ste t C 55 rd St am Av 15 5 St

Tompkinsville

Bus - S40/S90 S53 S57 S59 S66

REN

Whitehall St South Ferry

St. George

WEST NEW BRIGHTON

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 S78 Staten Island Ferry

Hudson River

DE L A

4 •5

South Ferry

LIBERTY ISLAND

AIN

ALLEN

2 •3

L NB

AV D

Wall St

V BL

Bus - B24 B44 B46 B60 B62 Q54 Q59

J •Z

Subway

EAST RIVER PARK

Broad St PE

ONX

Bus - Q32 Q33 LGA Airport (except Marine Air Terminal) Q45 Q47 LGA Airport (Marine Air Terminal only) Q49 Q53

JACKSON HEIGHTS

Marcy Av

AV B

AV A

A •C •J •Z 2•3•4•5 FINANCIAL DISTRICT

Manhasset

Jackson Heights 74 St–Roosevelt Av

30 AV

1 AV

4 •5

Bowling Green

ELLIS ISLAND

Wall St

M60

Bus to airport Commuter rail service

BLVD

Little

BUS HW

LOWER EAST SIDE

L EWIS

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

BRO A D W A Y

7•LIRR

4 L 0 7 ow St Stery Ra St ws on St

Hunterspoint Av

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

June 2010

FRAN CIS

Bus - Bx9 Bx12

LIRR

Plandome

Fordham Plaza Metro-North

M60

Hunters Point Av

GREENPOINT

A• C

Bus or AIRTRAIN to airport Police Full time service Part time service

visit www.mta.info

Port Washington

Normal service Additional express service Free subway transfer

Station Name

Bx12 Select Bus Service

EN QU E

N 7 ST

ery • Z Grand St B •D ow J East BCANAL ST CHINATOWN Broadway E BW

Rector St

ASTO

•

J •Z

northbound service only

N • Av Q

E•

Long Island City

Chambers St

Cortlandt St

Rector St

Bus - M5 M9

Cortlandt St

Subway

ASTORIA

N •Q

QUEENS MIDTOWN TUNNEL

Brooklyn Bridge City Hall 4•5•6 Fulton St Broadway-Nassau

WTC

Broadway–Nassau Fulton Street

Chambers St A•C Park Place City 2 •3 Hall

World Trade Center WTC Site

PLA

M60 Q33 Q47 Q48 Q72

Queensboro Plaza

1 •2 •3

BATTERY PARK CITY

PATH

TE ST

Chambers St

4,5,6 only

T C H U RCH S

Bklyn Bridge–City Hall

T KS

Subway

RIC

Franklin St

E 4 ST E 2 ST

6 LITTLE ITALY

Canal St

J •N •Q R •Z •6

THROGS NECK BRIDGE

To show service more clearly, geography on this map has been modified.

RIKERS ISLAND

N • Av Q

EAST VILLAGE

Spring St

SOHO

GRAND ST

Canal St A •C •E

Bus - Bx4 Bx36 Bx39 Q44

Subway

N •Q

E •M

1 L

E 8 ST

HOUSTO N S T

C •E

Canal St

Subway

30 Av

23 St–Ely Av

NOHO

Prince St Spring St N•R

City Hall Subway

LAFAYET

WASHINGTON SQUARE PARK

W 4 St Wash Sq SIXTH AV

PARK

CANAL ST

N •R

BLEECKER

Houston St

TRIBECA

Av 3 L

•

Astor Pl

8 St-NYU

A •B •C •D •E •F •M

ST RLT ON ST SPR ING

Riv st

Vernon Blvd Jackson Av

23 ST

•6 4• R

•

3 AV

RIVER

CHA

Bus - Bx5 Bx6 Bx19

Broadway

2 AV

HOUSTON

Bus - M5 M9 M22 M103

9 St

AV W4 ST

GREENWICH VILLAGE

14 ST

PATH

ICH

r St tophe Sq Chris eridan 1 Sh

HOLLAND TUNNEL

3 AV

ENW

Christopher St

PATH

ICH

HUDS

F •M

GRE CK

•

Hunts Point Av

Astoria Blvd

21 St

33 St

•

Local service only All trains stop (local and express service)

Rush hour line extension

Accessible station

LIRR

M60 LGA Airport N•Q

41 AV

23 St 6

Parkchester

Subway

N •Q •7

28 St

BL EE

14 St

LONG ISLAND CITY

ROOSEVELT ISLAND

Av 6 L

Bus - M4 M5 M7 M16 M34 Q32 PATH

11 AV

10 AV

K ST

N •R

14 St

1 •2 •3

•

N •R

23 St

F •M

14 St

ACE •

BAN

Subway

14 St

28 St

33 St

23 St

18 St 1

Bus - Bx4 Bx5 Bx11 Bx19 Bx27 Bx35

HUNTS POINT

45 Rd Court House Sq G

S•4•5•6•7•Metro-North

5 AV

34 Street-Herald Sq

34 St Herald Sq

23 St 1

Bus - Bx2 Bx4 Bx15 Bx19 Bx21 Bx41 Bx55

UNITED NATIONS

42 ST

PA R K AV S MADISON AV

34 St Penn

C •E

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-Englishspeaking customers call 718-330-4847 (6AM to 10PM).

Bx15 Bx17 Bx22 Bx41 Bx55

Longwood Av

QUEENSBORO BRIDGE

Grand Central except S 42 St

B •D •F •M

Station B •D •F 1•2•3•LIRR 28 St M•N•Q•R 1

CHELSEA

23 St

23 ST

Bus - M4 M7 M16 M20 M34 Q32 NJ Transit • Amtrak • NY Airport Service

SEVENTH AV

A•C•E•LIRR

Subway

EIGHTH AV

34 St Penn Station

NJTransit • Amtrak

Penn Station Long Island Rail Road

51 St50 ST 6

47–50 Sts Rockefeller Ctr

Bus - Bx4 Bx8 Bx21 Bx31 Bx40 Bx42

Subway

21 St Queensbridge

Lexington Av/53 St E•M

5 Av 42 St Bryant Pk 7

N •Q •R •S •1 •2 •3 •7 except S

59 ST

2 AV

JAVITS CENTER

•

ACE •

3 Av–149 St

1 AV

LINCOLN TUNNEL

TRAMWAY

59 St

B •D •F •M

Subway

Subway RANDALLS ISLAND

elt ev d os lan Ro Is F

66 ST 63 ST

4 •5 •6

E •M

SIXTH AV

n-bound

Whitlock Av

Westchester Square East Tremont Av

Bee-Line 60 61 62

72 ST YORK AV

12 AV

N •Q •R

SOUNDVIEW

Key

E 149 St

except S Bus - M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M42 M101 M102 M103 Q32 NY Airport Service Newark Airport Express

N •Q •R

5 Av/53 St

49 St

42 St Port Authority Bus Terminal Times Sq-42 St

VIE

Zerega Av

Westchester Sq East Tremont Av

E DL

Castle Hill Av

RT RD

with bus and railroad connections

Hunts Point Av Simpson St

Subway UPPER EAST SIDE 79 ST

N •Q •R

53 ST

LEXIN GTON AV

50 St

C •E

N •Q

77 St

5 Av/ 59 St

57 St

•

Parkchester

Astoria Ditmars Blvd

68 St Hunter College

n gto t xin S Le v/63 A F

Av 7 •E

•

50 St

50 ST

southbound only

SOUTH

NQR

•

53 ST

ERT F KENNEDY B RID GE

PARK AV

Amtrak

CE NT RA L PA R K WEST

END

BROADWAY

COLUMBUS AV

PARK

57 St-7 Av

N MO

St Lawrence Av

FIRST AV

THIRD AV

SECOND AV

FIFTH AV

MADISON AV

WEST

METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART

CENTRAL

Morrison Av Soundview S

Grand Central Terminal Metro-North Railroad

4 •5 •6

60 ST

A •B •C •D •1

20 AV

Lexington Av/59 St

WEST SIDE

Buhre Av

LAGUARDIA AIRPORT

96 St

59 St Columbus Circle

Av okR O B

EAST HARLEM

B •C

CENTRAL PARK

NPO

Elder Av

86 St

66 ST

trak

UNIO

CITY ISLAND

PARKCHESTER

Bee-Line 45

Pelham Bay Park

AV K AR LIAMP SBRID GE RD

MTA New York City Subway

Bus - Bx5 Bx8 Bx12 Bx12 Select Bus Service Bx29 QBx1

110 St 6

MANHATTAN

Subway Bus - M11 M16 M20 M42 M104 Newark Airport Express • NY Airport Service • NJ Transit • other commuter & longdistance buses

4 •5 •6 6

Central Park North (110 St)

72 St

Bro

125 St 116 St

pre

Harlem 125 St

E 138 ST

M60

LaGuardia Airport

2 •3

B •C

AV ST ANNS

125 St

2•3 • M60

2 •3

81 St–Museum of Natural History

1 •2 •3

MOTT HAVEN

116 St

PECT

PROS

St 1 m 16 tadiu S

72 St

THIRD AV

R IVE RS IDE DR

79 St

2 •5

3 Av 138 St BRUCKNER EXPWY

135 St

2 •5

3 Av–149 St

B •C

66 St Lincoln Center

2 •5

Simpson St

2 •5

96 St 86 St

Freeman St

E 169 ST

THE HUB

103 St

B •C

NT AV

Melrose Intervale Av 163 ST 2 •5 nd Gra e Prospect Av St– urs 2 •5 9 co Jackson Av 14 on • 5 C 2 •5

103 St

1 •2 •3

TREMO

B •D

WI L

I RR

174 St

ER AV

Middletown Rd

MORRISANIA

138 St–Grand Concourse

B •C

96 St

WEBS T

167 St

B• D• 4

2 •3

B •C

86 St

Port Authority Bus Terminal

Pelham Pkwy

ONT P KWY REM

4 •5

Cathedral Pkwy (110 St)

AMSTERDAM

UPPER 1 WEST SIDE

except S

ADAM CLAYTON POWELL BLVD (7AV)

125 St

A •B •C •D

M60 LaGuardia Airport HARLEM ST

B •C

103 St

Bus - M7 M20 M42 M104

135 ST

116 St

Cathedral Pkwy (110 St )

Times Sq–42 St

CLA

170 St B •D

MAL COLM X BLVD (LENOX AV)

125 ST

M60 LaGuardia Airport

rush hours

145 St

135 St

M60 LaGuardia Airport

Subway

Bus - Bx15 M35 M60 LaGuardia Airport M98 M100 M101 M103

Harlem 148 St

145 ST

B •C

116 St Columbia University

Subway

FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD

ST NICHOLAS AV

BROA D WAY

125 St 125 St/Metro-North

IDE DR

H AV

RIV ERS

FT WAS

K Amtrak E PAR RIVERSID

A •B •C •D

HIGHBRIDGE

2•

145 St

137 St City College

TREMONT

174–175 Sts B •D

167 St

•

157 St

145 St

Fordham

B •D

170 St

YankeesE153 St

rush hours

Morris Park

2 •5

BRONX Bronx Park W ZOO East 2 •5 E est 182–183 Sts Tre Fa B •D 1 8 0 S T m rm on s S t q E 180 St 2 • Av Tremont Av Tremont 2 •5 5

Mt Eden Av

A •C •1 A •C

RIVERBANK STATE PARK

168 St

WAR

2 •5

FORDHAM

Harlem

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

HAMILTON BRIDGE

Pelham Pkwy

B •D

176 St

WASHINGTON BRIDGE

WASHINGTON HEIGHTS

Subway

183 St

Burnside Av

Morris Heights

HIGHBRIDGE PARK

181 St

HIN

George Washington Bridge Bus Station 175 St/181 St

191 St 1

GRANT

175 St

University Heights

Dyckman St

E AV

BR OADW

F O R T W AS

181 St

D MR

Pelham Bay Park Subway

THE BRONX

Gun Hill Rd

GEO. WASHINGTON BRIDGE

UNIVERSITY HTS BR

207 St

Metro-North

190 St

B •D

Fordham Rd

CR OT O

Inwood 207 St

Dyckman St

Fordham Rd HA ORD

Bus - M100 Bx7 Bx12 Bx20

Kingsbridge Rd

215 St

Subway

Botanical Garden

CITY

BAYCHESTER

22 5 S T

Marble Hill 225 St

2 •5

Norwood 205 St D Burke Av 2 •5 Bedford Pk Blvd B •D Allerton Av

Bedford Pk Blvd Lehman College

ITE

Gun Hill Rd WH

2 •5

E DG

222 ST

219 St

Mosholu Pkwy

225 ST

225 St 2 •5

Williams Bridge

KINGSBRIDGE

231 St

Marble Hill

Metro-North

Bus - Bx7 Bx9 Bx20 Metro-North Railroad

LACO NIA

Spuyten Duyvil

Inwood–207 St

PAR

VAN CORTL ANDT

238 St IRW

Woodlawn

VAN CORTLANDT PARK

Metro-North Railroad

Baychester Av CO-OP

2 •5

Marble Hill–225 St

EPENDENCE AV

PA LI SA DE

I ND

RIVERDALE

ORCHARD BEACH

Bus - Bx39 C IT Y Bee-Line -OP CO 40 41 42 43

Eastchester Dyre Av

Bee-Line 4 20 21

Van Cortlandt Park 242 St

231 ST

Subway

Bus - Bx10 Bx16 Bx28 Bx30 Bx34

Bus - Bx16 Bx34

Bus - Bx9 Bee-Line 1 1C 1T 1W 2 3

EASTCHESTER 233

2 •5

Subway

PELHAM BAY PARK

Wakefield–241 St Subway

Nereid Av

Subway

Wakefield 241 St

233 St

Norwood–205 St

Woodlawn

Van Cortlandt Pk–242 St

Wakefield

Woodlawn

WESTCHESTER THE BRONX

W 254 ST

Riverdale

BLVD

Metro Maps

Paris 6 Paris

Orry-la-Ville–Coye

Pontoise

Correspondances

Les Courtilles

Pôle d’échange multimodal, métro, RER, tramway

Carrefour Pleyel Saint-Ouen

Garibaldi

Pont de Levallois Bécon

Cergy

Porte de Clichy

Guy Môquet

Brochant

Anatole France

Poissy

Porte de Saint-Ouen

Louise Michel St-Germain en-Laye

Pereire–Levallois

Grande Arche

Puteaux

Malesherbes

Pont de Neuilly Monceau

Les Sablons

Ternes

Argentine

Suresnes Longchamp

Charles de Gaulle Étoile

Porte Dauphine

Miromesnil Saint-Philippe du-Roule

George V Kléber Franklin D. Roosevelt

Victor Hugo

Boissière

Avenue Henri Martin

Les Coteaux

Rue de la Pompe

Trocadéro

Boulainvilliers Ranelagh

Porte d’Auteuil Boulogne Jean Jaurès

Parc de St-Cloud

Dupleix Avenue Émile Zola

Église d’Auteuil

Javel Javel André Citroën

Bd Victor Porte de St-Cloud

Brimborion

Meudon sur-Seine

Issy Meudon–Val-Fleury

Château de Versailles

Gare Montparnasse

Parc des Expositions

Porte d’Issy

Georges Brassens

Corentin Celton

Mairie d’Issy

Mouton Duvernet

Pernety

Convention

Alésia

Didot

Cité Universitaire

Jean Moulin

Porte de Vanves Malakoff Plateau de Vanves

Corvisart Glacière

Plaisance

Brancion

Saint-Jacques

Montsouris

Porte d’Orléans

Stade Charléty

Gentilly

Malakoff Rue Étienne Dolet

Gare de Lyon

Place d’Italie

Tolbiac

Poterne des Peupliers

Laplace

Porte de Vincennes Picpus

Le Kremlin Bicêtre

Chevaleret

Boissy-Saint-Léger

Château de Vincennes

Michel Bizot

Porte Dorée

Bibliothèque Fr. Mitterrand

Porte d’Ivry

Pierre et Marie Curie Mairie d’Ivry

Villejuif Paul Vaillant-Couturier

Porte de Charenton

Parc de Bercy

Bibliothèque Fr. Mitterrand

Liberté

Cour St-Émilion

Charenton–Écoles

Ivry Pont Mandela

École Vétérinaire de Maisons-Alfort

Ivry sur-Seine Maisons-Alfort Alfortville

École Vétérinaire de Maisons-Alfort Maisons-Alfort–Stade Maisons-Alfort Les Juilliottes Créteil–L’Échat

Vitry sur-Seine Le Vert de Maisons

Créteil–Université Créteil–Préfecture

Villejuif–Louis Aragon

Bagneux

Saint-Mandé Bérault

Dugommier Bercy

Arcueil–Cachan Châtillon–Montrouge

Nation

Bel-Air

Porte Porte d’Italie de Choisy

Villejuif Léo Lagrange

Parcs Disneyland

Vincennes

Reuilly–Diderot

Quai de la Gare

Olympiades

Marne-la-Vallée

Buzenval

Daumesnil

Saint Marcel

Nationale Maison Blanche

Maraîchers

Montgallet

Campo Formio

Robespierre Porte de Montreuil

Avron

Rue des Boulets

Gare d’Austerlitz

Les Gobelins

Denfert Rochereau

Croix de Chavaux

Alexandre Dumas

Gare d’Austerlitz

Censier Daubenton

Mairie de Montreuil

Philippe Auguste

Voltaire

Faidherbe Chaligny

Gallieni

Gambetta

Charonne

Ledru-Rollin

Place Monge

Port-Royal

Gaîté

Vaugirard

Chaville–Vélizy

Les Ardoines

Bourg-la-Reine Robinson

Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines

Vavin Edgar Quinet Raspail

Porte de Versailles

Les Moulineaux

Versailles–Rive Gauche

Pasteur

Richard Lenoir

Bastille

Quai de la Rapée

Porte de Bagnolet

Père Lachaise

Saint-Ambroise

Bréguet Sabin

St-Paul

Pelleport

Ménilmontant

Rue Saint-Maur

St-Sébastien Froissart

Jussieu

Notre-Dame des-Champs

Boucicaut

Suzanne Lenglen Henri Farman

St-Placide

Félix Faure

Lourmel

Jacques-Henri Lartigue

Luxembourg

Commerce

Sèvres Lecourbe

Balard

Issy Val de Seine

Pont de Sèvres Musée de Sèvres

Mabillon Odéon

Couronnes

Parmentier

Chemin Vert

Sully Cluny Morland La Sorbonne Maubert Mutualité Cardinal Lemoine

Saint-Sulpice

Montparnasse Bienvenüe Falguière

Desnouettes

Billancourt

Duroc

Rambuteau

Porte des Lilas

Place Télégraphe des Fêtes Saint-Fargeau

Oberkampf Filles du Calvaire

Châtelet Les Halles

Tournan

Mairie des Lilas

Botzaris

Jourdain

Pyrénées

Saint-Rémy lès-Chevreuse

Tariﬁcation spéciale

Antony

Orly Ouest

Orly Sud

Orly

Massy–Palaiseau Versailles–Chantiers Dourdan Saint-Martin-d’Étampes

Chelles Gournay

Noisy-le-Sec

Pré St-Gervais

Buttes Chaumont

République

Temple Arts et Métiers

Châtelet

St-Michel

Rennes Ségur

Réaumur Sébastopol

Colonel Fabien

Goncourt

Auguste Delaune Pont de Bondy Petit Noisy

Hoche

Bolivar

Belleville Jacques Bonsergent

Strasbourg Saint-Denis Bonne Nouvelle

Louis Blanc

Château Landon

Gare de l’Est

Pont Marie St-Michel Notre-Dame

Saint Germain des-Prés

Bobigny Pablo Picasso

Danube

Jaurès

Cité

Vaneau

Libération Hôtel de Ville de Bobigny

Bobigny–Pantin Raymond Queneau

Porte de Pantin

Ourcq

Stalingrad

Hôtel de Ville

Pont Neuf

Volontaires

Pont du Garigliano

Marcel Sembat

Rue du Bac

La Ferme

Église de Pantin

Riquet

La Chapelle

Château d’Eau

Étienne Marcel Les Halles

Louvre Rivoli

Saint Sèvres François Babylone Xavier

Cambronne

Charles Michels

Chardon Lagache Exelmans

Solférino

Escadrille Normandie–Niémen

Crimée

Poissonnière

Grands Boulevards

Assemblée Nationale

Varenne

Gaston Roulaud

Pantin

Laumière

Quatre Septembre Sentier Bourse

Tuileries Musée d’Orsay

Invalides

La Motte Picquet Grenelle

Château Rouge

Richelieu Drouot

Opéra

Palais Royal Concorde Musée du Louvre

Hôpital Avicenne

Jean Rostand

Magenta

Pyramides

Champs Élysées Clemenceau

Drancy–Avenir

Corentin Cariou

Le Peletier

Chaussée d’Antin La Fayette Havre Caumartin

Maurice Lachâtre

Porte de la Villette

Anvers

Cadet

Mitry–Claye

La Courneuve–8 Mai 1945

Aubervilliers–Pantin Quatre Chemins

Marx Dormoy

Barbès Rochechouart

Haussmann Saint-Lazare

Madeleine

Champ de Mars Tour Eiffel École Bir-Hakeim Militaire

Mirabeau

Boulogne Pont de St-Cloud

Notre-Dame de-Lorette

Auber

La Tour Maubourg

Avenue du Pdt Kennedy

Michel Ange Auteuil

Michel Ange Molitor

Pont de l’Alma

Passy

Jasmin Les Milons

Alma Marceau

Iéna

La Muette

Trinité d’Estienne d’Orves

Saint-Lazare

Danton

Fort d’Aubervilliers

Gare du Nord

Saint-Georges

Saint-Augustin

Le Bourget

Stade Géo André

La Courneuve 8 Mai 1945

Marcadet Poissonniers

Funiculaire de Montmartre

Pigalle

Liège

Gare Saint-Lazare

Neuilly–Porte Maillot

Avenue Foch

Europe

Courcelles

Porte Maillot Belvédère

Villiers

Hôtel de Ville de La Courneuve

La Courneuve Aubervilliers

Porte de la Chapelle

Jules Joffrin

Abbesses

Place de Clichy

Rome

Basilique de St-Denis

CDG Aéroport Charles de Gaulle

La Courneuve 6 Routes

La Plaine Stade de France

Blanche

Wagram

Esplanade de La Défense

Cosmonautes

Simplon Lamarck Caulaincourt

Pereire

Hôpital Delafontaine

Porte de Clignancourt

La Fourche

Porte de Champerret

La Défense

Cimetière de St-Denis

Stade de France Saint-Denis

Mairie de Saint-Ouen

Mairie de Clichy

Basilique de St-Denis

Saint-Denis Porte de Paris

Les Agnettes Gabriel Péri

Saint-Denis–Université

Marché de St-Denis

Gare de Saint-Denis

Les Grésillons

Asnières–Gennevilliers

Navette ﬂuviale

32 46 • wap.ratp.fr www.ratp.fr

Théâtre Gérard Philipe

Saint-Denis

Fin de lignes en correspondance

Malesherbes

Propriété de la RATP - Agence Cartographique - PM1 07-2009 - CC - Design: bdcconseil - Reproduction interdite

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

Melun

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

Elective A Supporting Material

Tokyo 7

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

Metro Maps

Berlin S & U-Bahn Map 8

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.

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).

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

System map of the U-Bahn in 2004

Elective A Supporting Material

Berlin U-Bahn Lines Line

Route

Opened

Length

Uhlandstraße – Warschauer Straße

1902–1926

8.814 km (5.477 mi)

Pankow – Ruhleben

1902–2000

20.716 km (12.872 mi)

Nollendorfplatz – Krumme Lanke

1913–1929

11.940 km (7.419 mi)

Nollendorfplatz – Innsbrucker Platz

1910

2.864 km (1.780 mi)

Alexanderplatz – Hönow

1930–1989

18.356 km (11.406 mi)

Berlin Hauptbahnhof – Brandenburger Tor

2009

1.470 km (0.913 mi)[4]

Alt-Tegel – Alt-Mariendorf

1923–1966

19.888 km (12.358 mi)

Rathaus Spandau – Rudow

1924–1984

31.760 km (19.735 mi)

Wittenau – Hermannstraße

1927–1996

18.042 km (11.211 mi)

Rathaus Steglitz – Osloer Straße

1961–1976

12.523 km (7.781 mi)

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

Stations

Metro Maps

Berlin S- & U-Bahn Map 10

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 Berlinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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.

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.

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. Routes The S-Bahn routes all feed into one of three core lines: a central, elevated east-west line (the Stadtbahn), a central, mostly underground northsouth line (the Nord-SĂźd-Tunnel), and a circular, elevated line (the Ringbahn). Geographically, the Ringbahn takes the form of a dogâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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.

The Berlin S-Bahn Network

Elective A Supporting Material

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].

Historical Maps

Berlin S- & U-Bahn 12

1933

1960

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

Elective A Supporting Material

1968

1988

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

Metro Maps

London Tube Map 14

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.

UERL lines

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.

Other lines

Early Maps What 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:

• • • •

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

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 Maps The 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

Elective A Supporting Material

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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. 16

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.

Typeface The font for the map, including station names, is Johnston, which has perfect circles for the letter “O”. Station Marks An 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 mainline 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

Elective A Supporting Material

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.

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.

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 services The 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.

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

Geographically Accurate Tube Map

London Underground Lines 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

Elective A Supporting Material

Henry Beck’s Original Sketch for the Tube Map (1931) 19

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

Historical Maps

London Underground 20

1911

1920

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

Elective A Supporting Material

1933

1949

Reference: OVENDEN, M., 2003. Metro maps of the world. Middlesex : Capital Transport Publishing. Reference: GARLAND, K., 1994. Mr Beckâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s underground map. Middlesex : Capital Transport Publishing. pp.16.

The Great Bear â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Simon Patterson 1992

History of Music, The Guardian 2006 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].

Elective A Supporting Material

Greater Shakespeare â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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].

Metro Maps

Moscow Metro Map 24

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.

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

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

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 passengers 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 assigned unique colours in the maps and signs. Naming by colour is frequent in colloquial usage, except for

The majority of stations and rail lines are underground. 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.

Elective A Supporting Material

Moscow Metro Lines Index & Colour

English Transliteration

Russian Name

First Opened

Latest Length Extension

Sokolnicheskaya

Сокольническая

1935

1990

26.1 km

Zamoskvoretskaya

Замоскворецкая

1938

1985

36.9 km

Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya

Арбатско-Покровская

1938

2009

43.5 km

Filyovskaya

Филёвская

1958

2006

14.9 km

Koltsevaya

Кольцевая

1950

1954

19.3 km

Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya

Калужско-Рижская

1958

1990

37.6 km

TaganskoKrasnopresnenskaya

ТаганскоКраснопресненская

1966

1975

35.9 km

Kalininskaya

Калининская

1979

1986

13.1 km

SerpukhovskoTimiryazevskaya

СерпуховскоТимирязевская

1983

2002

41.2 km

Lyublinsko-Dmitrovskaya

ЛюблинскоДмитровская

1995

2010

23.7 km

Kakhovskaya

Каховская

1995

3.3 km

Butovskaya

Бутовская

2003

5.5 km

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

Stations

Historical Maps

Moscow Metro 26

1958

1967

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

Elective A Supporting Material

1980

1983

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

Metro Maps

New York Subway Map 28

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 Routes Many 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

Elective A Supporting Material

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 multicoloured 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 Map The 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] .

New York Subway Lines 30

Route

Line Broadway â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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) 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

B Division (BMT/IND)

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

Elective A Supporting Material

Historical Maps

New York Subway 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].

Metro Maps

Paris Metro Map 32

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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

Elective A Supporting Material

Paris Metro Lines Line

Opened Last Stations Length Extension Served

Average Journeys Interstation (per annum)

Termini

1900

1992

16.6 km / 10.3 miles

692 m

213,921,408

La Défense Château de Vincennes

1900

1903

12.3 km / 7.7 miles

513 m

95,945,503

Porte Dauphine Nation

1904

1971

11.7 km / 7.3 miles

488 m

91,655,659

Pont de Levallois Gallieni

1971

1.3 km / 0.8 miles

433 m

1908

1910

10.6 km / 6.6 miles

424 m

155,348,608 Porte de Clignancourt Porte d’Orléans

1906

1985

14.6 km / 9.1 miles

695 m

92,778,870

Bobigny Place d’Italie

1909

1942

13.6 km / 8.5 miles

504 m

104,102,370

Charles de Gaulle - Étoile Nation

1910

1987

22.4 km / 13.9 miles

605 m

121,341,833

La Courneuve Villejuif Mairie d’Ivry

1967

3.1 km / 1.9 miles

443 m

1913

1974

22.1 km / 13.8 miles

614 m

92,041,135

Balard Créteil

1922

1937

19.6 km / 12.2 miles

544 m

119,885,878

Pont de Sèvres Mairie de Montreuil

1923

1981

11.7 km / 7.3 miles

532 m

40,411,341

Boulogne Gare d’Austerlitz

1935

1937

6.3 km / 3.9 miles

525 m

46,854,797

Châtelet Mairie des Lilas

1910[12]

1934

13.9 km / 8.6 miles

515 m

81,409,421

Porte de la Chapelle Mairie d’Issy

1911[12]

2008

24.3 km / 15.0 miles

776 m

114,821,166

Châtillon - Montrouge Saint-Denis Les Courtilles

1998

2007

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].

Porte des Lilas Gambetta

Louis Blanc Pré Saint-Gervais

Historical Maps

Paris Metro 34

1922

1937

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

Elective A Supporting Material

1939

1999

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

Metro Maps

Tokyo Subway Map 36

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Elective A Supporting Material

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].

Historical Maps

Tokyo Subway 38

1969

1972

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

Elective A Supporting Material

1989

1998

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

Dissecting Metro Maps â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Logo

Metro Logos 40

Berlin S & U-Bahn

London Underground

Moscow Metro

Elective A Supporting Material

New York Subway

Tokyo Subway

Paris Metro

Dissecting Metro Maps – Typeface

Berlin 42

FF Transport – Meta Design

London

West Acton P22 Underground based on Johnston Sans – Edward Johnston

New York

Union Sq

Helvetica – Max Miedinger & Eduard Hoffmann

Elective A Supporting Material

Moscow 43

Unknown Cyrillic Typeface

Paris

Parisine – Jean-François Porchez.

Tokyo

Shin-go

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

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 Labyrinth As 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

Elective A Supporting Material

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.

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.

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.)

Bringing Order Out of Chaos The 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 colourcoding 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:

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.

“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 1960s In 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

Elective A Supporting Material

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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

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 International At 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

Elective A Supporting Material

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 longstanding 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.

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 Switch The 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

Elective A Supporting Material

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

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 silkscreening 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 Juggernaut Helvetica 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.

Elective A Supporting Material

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 doublesided 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 System At 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 silkscreened 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

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 handcut 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 handcut 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.

Elective A Supporting Material

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 System The 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

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 colourcoding 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 colourcoding 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

Elective A Supporting Material

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... Again The 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.

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-ofdate 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 Life The 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

Elective A Supporting Material

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-andmatch 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 MTAwide 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 silkscreened 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

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 Helvetica Why 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 MetroNorth; 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 letterand 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 AkzidenzGrotesk—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/

Elective A Supporting Material

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.

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.

Conclusion The 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 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].

Dissecting Metro Maps â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Stations/Interchanges

Berlin 62

Station

Interchange

Larger Interchanges

Disabled Access

Interchange

Extended Interchange

Interchange with step free access

London

Station

Elective A Supporting Material

Moscow 63

Station

Interchange

Larger Interchange

Line Number

Dissecting Metro Maps – Stations/Interchanges

New York 64

Station – Local Service

Station – Local and Express Service

Interchange – Local Service

Free Transfer

Free Out of Subway Transfer

Line Number

Terminus

Disabled Access

Interchange – Local and Express Service

Elective A Supporting Material

Paris 65

Station

Interchange Extended Interchange

Interchange and Terminus

Tokyo

Station

Interchange

Extended Interchange

Interchange with Other Transport

Dissecting Metro Maps â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Symbols/Pictograms

Berlin 66

Train

Airport

Parking

Airport Shuttle Bus

Central Bus Station

Access Via Ramp

Elective A Supporting Material

London 67

Mainline Station

Check Before you Travel

Airport

Tram Connection

Riverboat Connection

Dissecting Metro Maps â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Symbols/Pictograms

Moscow 68

Airport Rail Link

New York

Airport

Ferry

Helipad

Police

Elective A Supporting Material

Paris 69

Orly

CDG Airport

Tokyo

Airport

Airport Shuttle Bus

Riverboat Service

Dissecting Metro Maps â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Lines/Routes

Berlin 70

S5 Line

Elective A Supporting Material

S41 Line

U6 Line

S42 Line

U8 Line

S3 Line

U5 Line

S7 Line

U7 Line

S47 Line

Elective A Supporting Material

U2 Line 73

U9 Line

U3 Line

U4 Line

S2/S25 Line

S9 Line

S1 Line

U1 Line

S8/S85 Line

Elective A Supporting Material

Dissecting Metro Maps â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Lines/Routes

London 75

Circle Line

Waterloo & City Line

District Line

Central Line

Piccadilly Line

Elective A Supporting Material

DLR

Overground

Victoria Line

Bakerloo Line

Metropolitan Line

Hammersmith & City Line

Northern Line

Elective A Supporting Material

Dissecting Metro Maps â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Lines/Routes

Moscow 79

8 Kalininskaya Line 80

5 Koltsevaya Line

L1 Butovskaya Line

3 Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya Line

4 Filyovskaya Line

11 Kakhovskaya Line

Elective A Supporting Material

2 Zamoskvoretskaya Line

9 Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya Line

7 Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya Line

10 Lyublinsko-Dmitrovskaya Line

6 Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya Line

1 Sokolnicheskaya Line

Elective A Supporting Material

Dissecting Metro Maps â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Lines/Routes

New York 83

Subway L

Subway G

Subway J, Z

Subway A, C, E

Elective A Supporting Material

Subway N, Q, R

Subway 1, 2, 3

S Subway Subway 7

Subway B, D, F, M

Subway 4, 5, 6

Elective A Supporting Material

Dissecting Metro Maps â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Lines/Routes

Paris 87

Line 1 88

Line 11

Line 14

Line 6

Elective A Supporting Material

Line 4

Line 12

Line 10

Line 3

Line 9

Line 8

Line 3 bis

Line 5

Line 7 bis

Elective A Supporting Material

Line 2

Line 13

Line 7

Dissecting Metro Maps â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Lines/Routes

Tokyo 92

T Line

Elective A Supporting Material

G Line

C Line

M Line

F Line

S Line

I Line

N Line

Z Line

A Line

Elective A Supporting Material

Y Line

E Line

H Line

A Colour Alphabet and the Limits of Colour Coding Paul Green-Armytage

Summary 96

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

Elective A Supporting Material

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 Problem What 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

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].

Elective A Supporting Material

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 Terms The 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

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.

100

Relating Colour Names to Colour Space The 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 ISCCNBS 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.

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 ISCCNBS 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.

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

Elective A Supporting Material

A Colour Alphabet and the Limits of Colour Coding Illustrations

101

102

Elective A Supporting Material

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].

Dissecting Metro Maps â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Line Colours

Berlin Line

Colour Term

Cyan Value

Magenta Value

Yellow Value

Black Value

Lilac

Dark Green

100

Bright Blue

100

Chestnut

Brown

Light Brown

Orange

100

Lavender

Light Green

100

Purple

Light Green

100

Terracotta

100

Aqua

Yellow

100

Dark Brown

Lavender

Light Blue

Dark Blue

100

Light Orange

100

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].

Transport for London Corporate Colour Standards

Bakerloo Line

PANTONE®

M: 58 Y: 100 K: 33

137R 78G 36B

PANTONE®

M: 95 Y:100

220R 36G 31B

PANTONE®

M: 16 Y: 100

255R 206G 0B

PANTONE®

C: 95 Y: 100 K: 27

0R 114G 41B

PANTONE®

M: 45 Y: 10

215R 153G 175B

PANTONE®

C: 5 K: 45

134R 143G 152B

470C

470U

Central Line 106 485C

485U

Circle Line

116C

116U

District Line

356C

356U

Hammersmith & City Line

197C

197U

Jubilee Line

430C

430U

Elective A Supporting Material

Metropolitan Line

PANTONE®

235U

C: 5 M: 100 K: 40

117R 16G 86B

PANTONE®

K: 100

0R 0G 0B

235C

Northern Line

BlackC

BlackU

107 Piccadilly Line

PANTONE®

C: 100 M: 88 K: 5

0R 25G 168B

PANTONE®

C: 85 M: 19

0R 160G 226B

PANTONE®

C: 47 Y: 32

118R 208G 189B

PANTONE®

C: 87 Y: 38

0R 175G 173B

PANTONE®

M: 61 Y: 97

232R 106G 16B

072C

072U

Victoria Line

299C

299U

Waterloo & City Line

338C

338U

DLR Line

326C

326U

Overground Line

158C

158U

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

Dissecting Metro Maps â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Line Colours

Moscow 108

Line

Colour Term

Cyan Value

Magenta Value

Yellow Value

Black Value

Red

100

Dark Green

100

Dark Blue

100

Bright Blue

100

Brown

Orange

100

Purple

100

Yellow

100

Light Grey

Lime Green

100

Aqua

Light Blue

Light Aqua

Elective A Supporting Material

New York Line

Colour Term

Cyan Value

Magenta Value

Yellow Value

Black Value

Red

Dark Green

100

Purple

Bright Blue

100

Orange

100

Lime Green

100

Brown

100

Yellow

Light Grey

Dark Grey

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.

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

109

Dissecting Metro Maps â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Line Colours

Paris 110

Line

Colour Term

Cyan Value

Magenta Value

Yellow Value

Black Value

Yellow

Bright Blue

Olive

Light Blue

Purple

Peach

Light Green

Pink

Light Green

Lavender

Lime Green

Dark Yellow

Brown

Green

Light Blue

Plum

Elective A Supporting Material

Tokyo Line

Name

Colour Term

Cyan Value

Magenta Value

Yellow Value

Black Value

Asakusa Line

Pink

Mita Line

Bright Blue

Shinjuku Line

Light Green

Oedo Line

Bright Pink

Ginza Line

Orange

Marunouchi Line

Red

Hibiya Line

Light Grey

Tozai Line

Light Blue

Chiyoda Line

Green

Yurakucho Line

Gold

Hanzomon Line

Purple

Namboku Line

Aqua

Fukutoshin Line

Brown

111

Comparing Line Colours

All Lines from all 6 Metro Systems 112

Elective A Supporting Material

Lines Arranged by City & Colour Spectrum 113

Comparing Line Colours

Line Colours Converted to Blocks 114

Elective A Supporting Material

115

Comparing Line Colours

Introducing Additional Information 116

Berlin Dark Brown Brown Red-Brown Red 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

Elective A Supporting Material

Berlin

U5/U55 LINE

London

C25/M70/Y95/K0

S41 LINE

C40/M85/Y95/K0

BAKERLOO LINE

C0/M58/Y100/K33

C0/M80/Y100/K0

CENTRAL LINE

S5 LINE

C0/M65/Y100/K0

OVERGROUND LINES

U9 LINE

C0/M55/Y100/K5

S45/S46/S47 LINE

U1 LINE

C0/M95/Y100/K0

C0/M61/Y97/K0

C32/M99/Y98/K1

LINE 1

C0/M100/Y100/K0

LINE 1/2/3

C0/M16/Y100/K0

LINE 6

C0/M60/Y100/K0

LINE B/D/F/M

C65/M0/Y100/K5

LINE 8

LINE 10

C0/M20/Y100/K0

C100/M30/Y100/K0

DISTRICT LINE

C95/M0/Y100/K27

WATERLOO & CITY LINE

C80/M10/Y50/K0

U7 LINE

C80/M20/Y5/K0

S3 LINE

C100/M50/Y0/K5

U8 LINE

C100/M60/Y10/K5

DLR

C47/M0/Y32/K0

C87/M0/Y38/K0

VICTORIA LINE

C85/M19/Y0/K0

C0/M62/Y100/K0

LINE 2

C0/M20/Y100/K0

LINE Л2

C40/M0/Y40/K0

LINE 11

C60/M0/Y40/K20

LINE Л3

C40/M0/Y0/K0

LINE 4

C100/M88/Y0/K5

LINE 3

C0/M17/Y97/K0

C40/M0/Y100/K0

LINE 5

C0/M54/Y74/K0

C5/M29/Y82/K9

LINE 1

C0/M20/Y93/K0

LINE 9

C19/M4/Y88/K10

LINE 3

C30/M16/Y82/K27

C69/M0/Y100/K0

LINE 4/5/6

C100/M0/Y90/K0

LINE 12

LINE 6

C80/M9/Y74/K16

FUKUTOSHIN LINE

C9/M70/Y83/K16

MARUNOUCHI LINE

C0/M96/Y89/K0

GINZA LINE

YURAKUCHO LINE

LINE 13

SHINJUKU LINE

C57/M1/Y89/K1

CHIYODA LINE

C79/M3/Y79/K2

C56/M0/Y53/K0

TOZAI LINE

LINE 2

LINE 14

C100/M100/Y0/K0

C73/M0/Y48/K0

C48/M0/Y16/K0

C100/M0/Y0/K0

C100/M66/Y0/K2

C3/M32/Y93/K9

C87/M52/Y0/K0

C71/M8/Y0/K0

MITA LINE

C85/M48/Y0/K0

C76/M95/Y0/K0

C55/M60/Y0/K5

U6 LINE

C55/M60/Y5/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 8

C26/M41/Y1/K0

MITA LINE

LINE 4

C32/M80/Y0/K0

HANZOMON LINE

OEDO LINE

S1 LINE

C0/M48/Y92/K0

NAMBOKU LINE

LINE A/C/E

PICCADILLY LINE

S7/S75 LINE

LINE Q/R/N

LINE G

C29/M49/Y75/K36

C0/M89/Y80/K0

LINE 10

CIRCLE LINE

Tokyo

C4/M53/Y100/K21

LINE 5

C70/M5/Y100/K0

S2/S25 LINE

U3 LINE

LINE J/Z

C25/M50/Y85/K0

C0/M15/Y100/K0

Paris

LINE 11

U2 LINE

S8/S85 LINE

New York

C60/M75/Y90/K0

S42 LINE

U4 LINE

Moscow

C10/M70/Y0/K0

HAMMERSMITH & CITY LINE

JUBILEE LINE

C0/M60/Y15/K0

C5/M0/Y0/K45

NORTHERN LINE

C0/M0/Y0/K100

LINE 7

LINE 9

C20/M0/Y0/K20

LINE L

C42/M31/Y30/K14

LINE S

C53/M43/Y40/K30

C0/M49/Y14/K0

C2/M94/Y13/K4

ASAKUSA LINE

HIBIYA LINE

C55/M90/Y0/K0

C0/M68/Y50/K0

C29/M20/Y20/K5

117

Potential Output for Comparing Line Colours

Initial Poster Iterations 118

Metro Colours

A Comparison of Line Colours for Metro Systems Berlin

London

Moscow

New York

Paris

Tokyo

Elective A Supporting Material

119

Metro Colours

A Comparison of Line Colours for Metro Systems

Berlin

S41 LINE

C40/M85/Y95/K0

London

CENTRAL LINE

C0/M95/Y100/K0

S5 LINE

C0/M65/Y100/K0

OVERGROUND LINES

U4 LINE

C0/M15/Y100/K0

CIRCLE LINE

S2/S25 LINE

C100/M30/Y100/K0

C0/M61/Y97/K0

C0/M16/Y100/K0

DISTRICT LINE

C95/M0/Y100/K27

U8 LINE

C100/M60/Y10/K5

PICCADILLY LINE

C100/M88/Y0/K5

S9 LINE

C40/M95/Y60/K10

METROPOLITAN LINE

C5/M100/Y0/K40

Moscow

New York

LINE 1

C0/M100/Y100/K0

LINE 1/2/3

LINE 6

C0/M60/Y100/K0

LINE B/D/F/M

LINE 8

C0/M20/Y100/K0

LINE Q/R/N

LINE 2

C100/M0/Y100/K0

LINE 3

LINE 7

C0/M89/Y80/K0

C0/M62/Y100/K0

Paris

LINE 5

C0/M54/Y74/K0

Tokyo

MARUNOUCHI LINE

LINE 10

C5/M29/Y82/K9

GINZA LINE

C0/M17/Y97/K0

LINE 1

C0/M20/Y93/K0

SHINJUKU LINE

LINE 4/5/6

C100/M0/Y90/K0

LINE 12

C80/M9/Y74/K16

CHIYODA LINE

C100/M100/Y0/K0

LINE A/C/E

C100/M66/Y0/K2

LINE 2

C87/M52/Y0/K0

MITA LINE

C40/M100/Y0/K0

LINE 7

LINE 4

C32/M80/Y0/K0

HANZOMON LINE

C39/M87/Y0/K0

C0/M96/Y89/K0

C0/M48/Y92/K0

C3/M32/Y93/K9

C79/M3/Y79/K2

C85/M48/Y0/K0

C55/M90/Y0/K0

Potential Output for Comparing Line Colours

Further Poster Iterations 120 Metro Colours A Comparison of Line Colours for 6 Metro Systems

Berlin

London

Moscow

New York

Paris

Tokyo

Elective A Supporting Material

121

Metro Colours A Comparison of Line Colours for 6 Metro Systems

Berlin

S41 LINE

C40/M85/Y95/K0

London

CENTRAL LINE

C0/M95/Y100/K0

S5 LINE

C0/M65/Y100/K0

OVERGROUND LINES

U4 LINE

C0/M15/Y100/K0

CIRCLE LINE

S2/S25 LINE

C100/M30/Y100/K0

C0/M61/Y97/K0

C0/M16/Y100/K0

DISTRICT LINE

C95/M0/Y100/K27

U8 LINE

C100/M60/Y10/K5

PICCADILLY LINE

C100/M88/Y0/K5

S9 LINE

C40/M95/Y60/K10

METROPOLITAN LINE

C5/M100/Y0/K40

Moscow

New York

LINE 1

C0/M100/Y100/K0

LINE 1/2/3

LINE 6

C0/M60/Y100/K0

LINE B/D/F/M

LINE 8

C0/M20/Y100/K0

LINE Q/R/N

LINE 2

C100/M0/Y100/K0

LINE 3

LINE 7

C0/M89/Y80/K0

C0/M62/Y100/K0

Paris

LINE 5

C0/M54/Y74/K0

Tokyo

MARUNOUCHI LINE

C0/M96/Y89/K0

LINE 10

C5/M29/Y82/K9

GINZA LINE

C0/M17/Y97/K0

LINE 1

C0/M20/Y93/K0

SHINJUKU LINE

C3/M32/Y93/K9

LINE 4/5/6

C100/M0/Y90/K0

LINE 12

C80/M9/Y74/K16

CHIYODA LINE

C79/M3/Y79/K2

C100/M100/Y0/K0

LINE A/C/E

C100/M66/Y0/K2

LINE 2

C87/M52/Y0/K0

MITA LINE

C40/M100/Y0/K0

LINE 7

LINE 4

C32/M80/Y0/K0

HANZOMON LINE

C39/M87/Y0/K0

C0/M48/Y92/K0

C85/M48/Y0/K0

C55/M90/Y0/K0

Potential Output for Comparing Line Colours

Further Poster Iterations 122 Metro Colours A Comparison of Line Colours for Six Metro Systems

Berlin

U5/U55 LINE

S42 LINE

S41 LINE

London

Moscow

C60/M75/Y90/K0

C25/M70/Y95/K0

C0/M58/Y100/K33

C40/M85/Y95/K0

C0/M80/Y100/K0

CENTRAL LINE

S5 LINE

C0/M65/Y100/K0

OVERGROUND LINES

U9 LINE

C0/M55/Y100/K5

S45/S46/S47 LINE

S8/S85 LINE

U1 LINE

C0/M95/Y100/K0

C0/M61/Y97/K0

LINE 5

C32/M99/Y98/K1

C0/M100/Y100/K0

LINE 1/2/3

C0/M16/Y100/K0

C65/M0/Y100/K5

LINE 6

C0/M60/Y100/K0

LINE B/D/F/M

LINE 8

C0/M20/Y100/K0

LINE Q/R/N

LINE 10

C100/M30/Y100/K0

DISTRICT LINE

C95/M0/Y100/K27

WATERLOO & CITY LINE

C80/M10/Y50/K0

U7 LINE

C80/M20/Y5/K0

S3 LINE

C100/M50/Y0/K5

U8 LINE

C100/M60/Y10/K5

DLR

C47/M0/Y32/K0

C87/M0/Y38/K0

VICTORIA LINE

C85/M19/Y0/K0

LINE 5

LINE 2

C0/M20/Y100/K0

LINE Л2

C40/M0/Y40/K0

LINE 11

C60/M0/Y40/K20

LINE Л3

C40/M0/Y0/K0

LINE 4

C100/M88/Y0/K5

C0/M17/Y97/K0

C0/M54/Y74/K0

C5/M29/Y82/K9

LINE 1

C0/M20/Y93/K0

LINE 9

C19/M4/Y88/K10

LINE 3

C30/M16/Y82/K27

LINE 12

C80/M9/Y74/K16

C69/M0/Y100/K0

LINE 4/5/6

C100/M0/Y90/K0

LINE 6

C100/M100/Y0/K0

LINE 7

C40/M100/Y0/K0

C9/M70/Y83/K16

MARUNOUCHI LINE

C0/M96/Y89/K0

GINZA LINE

YURAKUCHO LINE

SHINJUKU LINE

C57/M1/Y89/K1

CHIYODA LINE

C79/M3/Y79/K2

LINE 2

LINE 14

C73/M0/Y48/K0

C48/M0/Y16/K0

TOZAI LINE

C100/M66/Y0/K2

C3/M32/Y93/K9

C87/M52/Y0/K0

C71/M8/Y0/K0

MITA LINE

C85/M48/Y0/K0

C76/M95/Y0/K0

C55/M60/Y0/K5

U6 LINE

C55/M60/Y5/K0

S9 LINE

C40/M95/Y60/K10

METROPOLITAN LINE

C5/M100/Y0/K40

LINE 7

C39/M87/Y0/K0

LINE 8

C26/M41/Y1/K0

MITA LINE

LINE 4

C32/M80/Y0/K0

HANZOMON LINE

OEDO LINE

S1 LINE

C0/M48/Y92/K0

C56/M0/Y53/K0

C100/M0/Y0/K0

LINE 3

FUKUTOSHIN LINE

NAMBOKU LINE

LINE 13

LINE A/C/E

PICCADILLY LINE

S7/S75 LINE

C0/M62/Y100/K0

C40/M0/Y100/K0

LINE G

C29/M49/Y75/K36

C0/M89/Y80/K0

LINE 10

CIRCLE LINE

Tokyo

C4/M53/Y100/K21

LINE 1

C70/M5/Y100/K0

S2/S25 LINE

U3 LINE

LINE J/Z

C25/M50/Y85/K0

C0/M15/Y100/K0

Paris

LINE 11

BAKERLOO LINE

U2 LINE

U4 LINE

New York

C10/M70/Y0/K0

HAMMERSMITH & CITY LINE

JUBILEE LINE

C0/M60/Y15/K0

C5/M0/Y0/K45

NORTHERN LINE

C0/M0/Y0/K100

LINE 7

LINE 9

C20/M0/Y0/K20

LINE L

C42/M31/Y30/K14

LINE S

C53/M43/Y40/K30

C0/M49/Y14/K0

ASAKUSA LINE

HIBIYA LINE

C55/M90/Y0/K0

C2/M94/Y13/K4

C0/M68/Y50/K0

C29/M20/Y20/K5

Elective A Supporting Material

123 Metro Colours A Comparison of Line Colours for Six Metro Systems

Berlin

London

Moscow

New York

U5/U55 LINE

S42 LINE

Paris

Tokyo

LINE 11

BAKERLOO LINE

LINE J/Z

LINE 5

S41 LINE

FUKUTOSHIN LINE

U2 LINE

CENTRAL LINE

LINE 1

LINE 1/2/3

S5 LINE

OVERGROUND LINES

LINE 6

LINE B/D/F/M

CIRCLE LINE

LINE 8

LINE Q/R/N

MARUNOUCHI LINE

LINE 5

GINZA LINE

LINE 10

YURAKUCHO LINE

U9 LINE

S45/S46/S47 LINE

U4 LINE

S8/S85 LINE

LINE 10

LINE 1

LINE 9

LINE 3

U1 LINE

S2/S25 LINE

U3 LINE

LINE G

DISTRICT LINE

LINE 2

WATERLOO & CITY LINE

LINE Л2

DLR

LINE 11

LINE 4/5/6

VICTORIA LINE

CHIYODA LINE

LINE 6

NAMBOKU LINE

LINE Л3

U7 LINE

SHINJUKU LINE

LINE 12

LINE 13

LINE 4

TOZAI LINE

S3 LINE

U8 LINE

LINE A/C/E

PICCADILLY LINE

LINE 3

S9 LINE

METROPOLITAN LINE

LINE 7

S1 LINE

HAMMERSMITH & CITY LINE

LINE 2

MITA LINE

LINE 14

S7/S75 LINE

LINE 8

U6 LINE

LINE 7

LINE 4

HANZOMON LINE

OEDO LINE

JUBILEE LINE

LINE 7

LINE 9

LINE L

LINE S

NORTHERN LINE

ASAKUSA LINE

HIBIYA LINE

Influences on Potential Outputs

Pantone Charts 124

Elective A Supporting Material

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].

Potential Output for Comparing Line Colours

METROTONE

BERLIN S41 LINE

C 40

M 85

Y 95

BERLIN S5 LINE

C 0

M 65

Y K 100 0

LONDON CENTRAL LINE

C 0

M 95

Y K 100 0

LONDON OVERGROUND LINES

C 0

M 61

Y 97

MOSCOW LINE 1

C 0

M Y K 100 100 0

MOSCOW LINE 6

C 0

M 60

Y K 100 0

NEW YORK LINE 1/2/3

C 0

M 89

Y 80

K 0

NEW YORK C LINE B/D/F/M 0

M 62

Y K 100 0

PARIS LINE 5

C 0

M 54

Y 74

K 0

PARIS LINE 10

C 5

M 29

Y 82

K 9

TOKYO Ma ru nouc hi LINE

C 0

M 96

Y 89

K 0

TOKYO GINZA LINE

C 0

M 48

Y 92

K 0

METROTONE

LINE COLOUR GUIDE

/berlin/london/moscow/new york /paris/tokyo metro systems

126

K 0

Elective A Supporting Material

METROTONE

BERLIN U4 LINE

C 0

M 15

METROTONE

Y K 100 0

BERLIN S2/S25 LINE

C M 100 30

METROTONE

Y K 100 0

BERLIN U8 LINE

C M 100 60

Y 10

METROTONE

K 5

BERLIN S9 LINE

C 40

M 95

Y 60

K 10

127

LONDON C CIRCLE LINE 0

M 16

Y K 100 0

LONDON DISTRICT LINE

C 95

Y K 100 27

LONDON PICCADILLY LINE

C M 100 88

Y 0

K 5

LONDON C METROPOLITAN 5

M Y 100 0

K 40

MOSCOW LINE 8

C 0

M 20

Y K 100 0

MOSCOW LINE 2

C M 100 0

Y K 100 0

MOSCOW LINE 3

C M Y 100 100 0

K 0

MOSCOW LINE 7

C 40

M Y 100 0

K 0

NEW YORK LINE Q/R/N

C 0

M 17

Y 97

K 0

NEW YORK LINE 4/5/6

C M 100 0

Y 90

K 0

NEW YORK LINE A/C/E

C M 100 66

Y K 0 2

NEW YORK LINE 7

C 39

M 87

Y 0

K 0

PARIS LINE 1

C 0

M 20

Y 93

K 0

PARIS LINE 12

C 80

M 9

Y 74

K 16

PARIS LINE 2

C 87

M 52

Y 0

K 0

PARIS LINE 4

C 32

M 80

Y 0

K 0

TOKYO Sh in ju ku LINE

C 3

M 32

Y 93

K 9

TOKYO Ch iy od a LINE

C 79

M 3

Y 79

K 2

TOKYO MITA LINE

C 85

M 48

Y 0

K 0

TOKYO Ha nz omon LINE

C 55

M 90

Y 0

K 0

M 0

LINE

Potential Output for Comparing Line Colours

128

Metrotone Line Colour Guide

Elective A Supporting Material

129

Cover

Colour Comparison

Red, Orange and Yellow Lines

Green, Blue & Purple Lines

Artwork Refinement

130

METROTONE® LINE COLOUR GUIDE

METROTONE

process colours First Edition First Printing

METROTONE®

LINE COLOUR GUIDE

/berlin/london/moscow/new york /paris/tokyo metro systems

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.

BERLIN S41 LINE

CM 40 85

YK 95

BERLIN S5 LINE

CM 06

YK 00 0

BERLIN U4 LINE

CM 01

YK 00 0

LONDON CENTRAL LINE

CM 09

YK 00 0

LONDON OVERGROUND LINES

CM 06

YK 70

LONDON CM CIRCLE LINE 01

YK 00 0

MOSCOW LINE 1

CM 01

YK 00 1000

MOSCOW LINE 6

CM 06

YK 00 0

MOSCOW LINE 8

CM 02

YK 00 0

NEW YORK LINE 1/2/3

CM 08

YK 00

NEW YORK LINE B/D/F/M

CM 06

YK 00 0

NEW YORK LINE Q/R/N

CM 01

YK 70

PARIS LINE 5

CM 05

YK 40

PARIS LINE 10

CM 52

YK 29

PARIS LINE 1

CM 02

YK 30

TOKYO Ma ru no uc hi LINE

CM 09

YK 90

TOKYO GINZ A LINE

CM 04

YK 20

TOKYO Sh in ju ku LINE

CM 33

YK 39

References GREEN-ARMYTAGE, P., 2010. A colour alphabet and the limits of colour coding. [online] Available at: <http://www.colour-journal.org/2 0 10/5/10/10510article.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

Elective A Supporting Material

BERLIN S2/S25 LINE

LONDON DISTRICT LINE

C M 100 30

C 95

M 0

METROTONE

Y K 100 0

Y K 100 27

METROTONE

131

BERLIN U8 LINE

C M 100 60

Y 10

K 5

BERLIN S9 LINE

C 40

M 95

LONDON PICCADILLY LINE

C M 100 88

Y 0

K 5

LONDON METROPOLITAN

C 5

M Y 100 0

K 0

MOSCOW LINE 7

C 40

M Y 100 0

K 0

LINE

Y 60

K 10

K 40

MOSCOW LINE 2

C M 100 0

Y K 100 0

MOSCOW LINE 3

C M Y 100 100 0

NEW YORK LINE 4/5/6

C M 100 0

Y 90

NEW YORK LINE A/C/E

C M 100 66

Y K 0 2

NEW YORK LINE 7

C 39

M 87

Y 0

K 0

PARIS LINE 2

C 87

M 52

Y 0

K 0

PARIS LINE 4

C 32

M 80

Y 0

K 0

TOKYO MITA LINE

C 85

M 48

Y 0

K 0

TOKYO Ha n zo mo n LINE

C 55

M 90

Y 0

K 0

C 80

M 9

Y 74

K 16

METROTONE

PARIS LINE 12

K 0

For more information go to www.colour-journal.org/2010/5/10/10510article.htm

METROTONE

C 79

M 3

Y 79

K 2

ISBN 978-159065062-2

TOKYO Ch iy o d a LINE

Additional Output

Metrotone Line Colour Guide 132

Elective A Supporting Material

133

Additional Output

Metrotone Line Colour Guide 134

Elective A Supporting Material

Final Output

Final Poster 135 Metro Colours A Comparison of Line Colours for Six Metro Systems

Berlin

London

Moscow

New York

Paris

Tokyo

Final Output

Final Poster 136

Elective A Supporting Material

137

Critical Reflection

A Brief Evaluation of Unit 2.1 Elective A Information Design 138

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-Armytageâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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.

Elective A Supporting Material

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 didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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.

139

Bibliography

Weblinks 140

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&nom pdf=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].

Elective A Supporting Material

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%B 4pp=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].

141