Submitted by Scott (among others), who says:
CTA updated their iconic ‘L’ diagram earlier this year, and now that the temporary station outages for the Red-Purple Modernization project have been completed, figured this would be a great time to get your thoughts since the new version is a pretty dramatic departure from the previous iterations.

Transit Maps says:
Well, this one has sat in my queue for way too long – sorry for the delay in getting to this interesting new development in the world of Chicago rail maps!
The big and obvious difference here is that the Loop has now been integrated into the main diagram, rather than appearing in an inset. I’m generally in favour of this approach, as it reduces cognitive load and allows routes to be traced from end to end more easily. However, the execution lets the concept down a bit for me – everything feels a little unfinished, and perhaps even a little old-fashioned. Overall, I feel like there needs to be a bit more separation between all the concurrent lines around the loop: there is a gap between all of them, but it’s very thin and doesn’t help much. It’s especially problematic on the west side of the loop where the Pink and Orange lines – which have very little visual contrast – run next to each other. A bigger gap would help separate them and make them easier to follow. On diagrams with a coloured background like this, I often like to put a white keyline on all my route lines, just to separate them from the background and give a little extra boost to the contrast. Having to break the Red and Blue lines to fit the station labels in seems avoidable with a little reworking, and the snaking path the pedestrian interchange takes from Lake to Washington is particularly unfortunate.
The other big change is that this is now a true diagram, rather than the old map, which was definitely more of a map which just happened to look diagrammatic because of the regular street grid of Chicago. That street grid used to appear on the map but has now been removed, which certainly makes the diagram look cleaner. However, it’s absolutely baffling that some of the same-named stations now no longer line up properly. These stations are often named after their cross-street, which – being Chicago – are very long and very straight. So all “Cicero” stations should line up vertically, all “Kedzie” stations should line up, and so on. The old map got this right, because the visible grid forced it to. Now we have a Kedzie on the Brown Line that’s way out of alignment with the others, and there are lots of other examples. This diagram still places stations unevenly along routes to somewhat approximate their real-world location (as opposed to the normal diagrammatic approach of evenly spacing all the stations along a line), so this really is something they should have paid attention to.
As far as labelling goes, the vertical labels are definitely a stylistic choice. It seems that there’s space on many of the lines to place a lot of these labels horizontally, but they have chosen to be consistent – they can’t place all of the vertical labels that way, so they’ve decided to not do it at all. It’s certainly distinctive, if nothing else!
I’m definitely not a fan of labelling each line using the actual colour of that line – having to put a black keyline around some of the labels because you know that the contrast isn’t good enough is basically admitting how poor this solution is. Have the icon in the right colour, but the text should all be the same: not necessarily black, but definitely something with good, readable contrast.
Some other questions: Is showing the city limits of Chicago necessary for a transit diagram? Does it perhaps help with scale? Should the thin darker blue keylines on the rivers extend down the shore of the lake? They just end at the moment, which is unsatisfying for me. Why do the two ends of the Blue Line have branch names but the two ends of the Red Line don’t?
Our final word: Now a diagram that looks like a map instead of a map that looks like a diagram! Chicago’s regular street grid makes the distinction between the two very small, although this diagram now adheres to that grid less than the previous map. It’s good to see the Loop integrated into the design properly, though stylistically the whole thing just feels a little dowdy compared to a lot of modern diagrams.
Source: CTA website



















