Valley Line LRT/ Valley Line West | ?m | ?s | City of Edmonton

[The_Cat]

I like the North Saskatchewan River being part of the map, as well as downtown being marked. I'd recommend another North marker in the bottom left of the map.

 

[David A]

dayyyumm that new map is CRISP compared to the old ones. it's jarringly inaccurate geographically, but i get why and think it's still very useful and easy to understand. what is the source for this?

More confusion from the city, they just can't seem to help themselves. In the name of simplification, this map doesn't seem to have any east west axis and north is where normally east would be.

The two lines do not run parallel on the south side, so someone thinking they could take the Capital Line and somehow quickly get to Mill Woods would be mistaken.

If it needs to be "simplified" this much, for people to understand, we are in real trouble.

 

[EdmTrekker]

I like the map The Cat posted. London's 'walk the Tube' map reveals the real walking distance between stations. Very handy when visiting as most lines are underground and take time to go walk down then up to and from the train platform. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/walking-tube-map.pdf.

 

[Gronk!]

More confusion from the city, they just can't seem to help themselves. In the name of simplification, this map doesn't seem to have any east west axis and north is where normally east would be.

The two lines do not run parallel on the south side, so someone thinking they could take the Capital Line and somehow quickly get to Mill Woods would be mistaken.

If it needs to be "simplified" this much, for people to understand, we are in real trouble.

It looks simple enough to me and to my friends. No offense but I have no idea what you're babbling on about.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

I don't mind the map. Without making a very large map I think this is a decent representation.

 

[IanO]

Keep it North/South in orientation please and thank you.

But I get why they are doing this given the placement options and required layout from that.

 

[tkoe_]

It is quite common for metro maps not to accurately reflect the exact spatial layout of a city. Seems like it would be more important to keep the map simple and ensure people can understand quickly how to get from one station to another.

Requiring a fixed line metro to mimic a road map seems like a very car-centric approach to transit.

 

[The_Cat]

I think it would be great to have a North-South map that could be added at stations and certain parts of LRT cars. For Central Edmonton (Downtown, University, Strathcona), there could be a map that has a scale version of the LRT, along with streets and landmarks.

 

[archited]

It would be easier to read if it had a vertical orientation rather than horizontal; it would also be easier to relate to the directional relationship to the ground.

 

[CplKlinger]

It would be easier to read if it had a vertical orientation rather than horizontal; it would also be easier to relate to the directional relationship to the ground.

This is the map which will go inside the LRVs, so the designers are very limited with what they can do. They can't move the maps to the advertising boards because Patison owns them, so the maps need to retain their current dimensions.

 

[RH van der Rohe]

I looked at a few (Paris, Mexico City, Montreal, Toronto). All have north to south orientation, all have lines running in the general direction they actually follow. If there is generally agreed standard, why does this have to be so different?

 

[CplKlinger]

I looked at a few (Paris, Mexico City, Montreal, Toronto). All have north to south orientation, all have lines running in the general direction they actually follow. If there is generally agreed standard, why does this have to be so different?

Are those the maps you see at the stations themselves, or on the trains? I don't know much about this, so do you have any ideas on how they could address those points within the dimensions ETS is stuck with?

 

[Avenuer]

I looked at a few (Paris, Mexico City, Montreal, Toronto). All have north to south orientation, all have lines running in the general direction they actually follow. If there is generally agreed standard, why does this have to be so different?

Having ridden the metro/subway in all of those cities, I can say that not all train cars have entire system maps in them. Some will only have a map of the line you are currently riding, as it is much easier to fit a single line in the long, narrow space provided in the cars versus the system map. I like how ETS has laid out the network for the LRVs and I suspect a more 'geographically accurate' orientation will be provided at the platforms.

 

[ChazYEG]

Guys, as someone already mentioned, I believe that this will be the map going INSIDE the train, above the doors. For this purpose, it sure looks good and on par with a lot of major systems around the world, such as NYC, São Paulo and Mexico City.
I believe that ETS will be putting both a diagrammatic one in all stations, like this:

and a more geographically accurate, like this:

In all (or at least most) of the stops. Having either of these, inside the trains, is essentially impossible, but that little schematic one to go above doors fits the purpose of helping locate yourself WITHIN the system, just like every other significant rapid transit system does around the world. Examples:
São Paulo:

Prague:

 

[cliffapotamus]

This is the map which will go inside the LRVs, so the designers are very limited with what they can do. They can't move the maps to the advertising boards because Patison owns them, so the maps need to retain their current dimensions.

this makes a lot of sense. the current station maps are this orientation too. I think three things: a North arrow; shortening the Metro Line so it doesn't look like Clareview and Nait are equidistant from Downtown; and aligning 102 street and Central to show how easy the transfer there is, would make this sufficiently accurate. there are also the large city-wide bus maps in stations to help people navigate. what station to get off at.