Re: New Melbourne fares brochure

[Vaughan Williams <ender2000@my-deja.com>]

I haven't seen the map, but if its anything like the ones on those grey
Yarra Trams, (and from your description it is) then they are much worse
than the old maps they replaced. They don't show any concept of
direction - for example, while the map of the #86 indicates that it
runs along Smith and High Sts, it doesn't seem to grasp that the tram
turns right into Gertrude, left into Smith, right into Queens Pde etc,
but just shows the route as if it runs along one long continuous
street. THe connections shown imply that it runs perpendicular to the
Epping line (actually, they seem to suggest that either the #86 crosses
several rail lines or the Epping line keeps bending back to cross the
$86 at right angles all the time) when in fact they are parrallel and
it is probably a stretch to call it a connection at any of the stations
(theres about 1-200 metres of physical separation and no signage).

The old maps they replaced were much more detailed and accurate,
showing the tram routes as well as a number of other things - and most
importantly making some effort to treat the metro-wide system as
exactly that.

Yet another casulty on the integration front.

By the way, can anyone find a complete map of the melbourne rail
network on the net these days? And I don't mean one that some helpful
person has put together or scanned from the melway on their own
initiative - I mean one provided by the public authority and/or private
operator.

Vaughan

In article <395E0414.5A54C405@enternet.com.au>,
  Chris Brownbill <cbrnbill@enternet.com.au> wrote:
> The new fares brochure for Melbourne contains a redesigned map of the
tram
> network and it is amazingly poor.  It has some really bad design
priciples and
> contains some bizarre errors.
>
> Firstly, only three colours are used to discriminate the routes -
Blue for all
> Yarra Trams routes, and Red and Red/Orange for Swanston Trams
routes.  Its hard
> to disriminate the Red/Orange from the Orange, so why in hell they
chose such
> similar colours beats me.   Whilst most routes are shown as solid
lines, the
> city circle is a sparsely dotted line and doesn't really register as
a tram
> route at all.  The lines are at unnecessarily crazy angles which make
it hard to
> read.  There are some topological errors which just beggar belief -
such as the
> Route 96 light rail line is shown crossing to the East of Clarendon
Street
> before reaching Park Street, and it looks like it runs from Port
Melbourne to St
> Kilda rather than Melbourne to St Kilda, The northern terminii of
routes 78/79,
> 69 and 72 are shown as being a long way South of Victoria Street /
Whitehorse
> Road and a casual reader would think there is no connection possible
there.  The
> Southern end of Route 78 appears to be at Carlisle Street rather than
Brighton
> Road.  The Southern end of routes 69 and 79 appears to be shown
turning South
> into Acland Street to terminate at the same place as 16 and 96
(although its
> hard to tell because of the similarity in route colours.  Finally,
the treatment
> of the Yarra river is strange - it appears to spring forth from a
source
> somewhere in Toorak, and flows through the city and then stops
abrubtly short of
> the bay somewhere near Fishermans Bend.  Even better than that
though - the
> river flows over the top of St Kilda Rd, Queensbridge St and
Clarendon Streets
> and the trams routes thereon.   Oh and whilst it does show Docklands
and the 86
> extension, it locates the football stadium a long way from Spencer
Street
> station, and it shows Lonsdale, Bourke and Collins Streets extending
westwards
> over the top of the Station - which they do not do.
>
> What a piss-poor excuse for a map.  It would be funny if it wasn't so
serious.
> This is going to cause confusion for potential travellers and doesn't
do justice
> to Melbourne's network.
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.