My town spent 10 000 € in 2016 to hire a consulting firm with task of making a study to combat the falling ridership. The study "reimagined" transport network so "well" it didn't make any efing sense anymore. It was rejected, but the money was already gone. So the town ended up using a *map drawn by nerds on public transport forum* - and it actually worked and stabilised the ridership. Another nerd later gave the map some fancy colours and it's now used officially for route finding on stops.
It sounds like your main issue is ungrounded transit fantasy maps. Whenever I do them, I definitely try to focus on making the system the same size as another city at that population level, and make sure to hunt through google earth and density information to figure out the most efficient corridors. (Or do full alternate history maps, but I still try to keep those grounded.)
I share this exact sentiment. I like making maps for cities where the network still has a way to go, seeing what existing infrastructure can be exploited and where stuff can be above ground for cheaper (fantasy) costs
I drew fantasy transit maps on paper maps of Metro Toronto as a teenager using pens and markers. I always sought to understand how the bus feeder routes would work and factor in the costs and local population as best I could using what data was available in those pre-Internet days. I would look up census data at the library. I was a weird kid. Some of my fantasy stations are now real, such as "Pioneer Village." The Eglinton and Ontario line being built now are somewhat similar to what I envisioned as a kid, but are happening about 25-30 years later.
Very valid argument! You’re saying that people should get excited and imagine the future, but also use that energy to create a realistic future, one that can actually come to fruition.
Until what point is it a map of "realistic" proposed extensions, and when does it become a "fantasy map"? I think there's a lot of grey area in between! Many transit enthusiasts make great maps where the routes make sense and where it would be possible to built it, if more money would be spent.
I mean of course it is definitely a gray area but once your lines start being 100% tunnel and super long you're probably going a bit too far! Unless you're Spanish, then you might actually be very realistic . . .
@@RMTransit Or Stockholm. :) We have very diggable bedrock from my understanding. Kinda funny how solid rock that actually makes it easier than some other ground types.
And that's why all my fantasy maps are about fantasy cities. When I draw fantasy maps, I offen try to live through a cities transit history. I start with a blank sheet, first defining coastlines and terrain. Then, I add rail corridors. As "time" progresses, I add new lines: first streetcars, then subways, etc. But at one point, I have to stop because I realise that the map would become unrealistically full.
Fantasy cities used to be my approach to - and even build them in Jan Bochmann's very mighty but bland looking Bahn. However, with the new game NIMBY Rails I moved to real cities - had to because it is based on the Openstreetmap world map and does not offer a way to build fantasy cities. I was facing the decision between industrial engineering and traffic planning for university, I chose the first. So today doing the "job" I missed to take real life is my recreation for fun and without pressure beyond that of the demands game mechanics place on me. And I can work all over the world. Living around Cologne / Germany I am actually building projects in NIMBY located in the UK and in Spain, with plans for the northern German city of Kiel and one for Portland / Oregon.
About a year ago I discovered I can draw my own lines and icons on a Google Map and save it. I started making a fantasy transit map of Seattle just for kicks. But I quickly realized how impractical some of my original plans were and in my efforts to do better I ended up on this channel and have become a bit obsessed with transit ever since. I continue to tweak my map regularly but I think it’s a mix of more practical and less practical features. I agree that fantasy maps can at times be a distraction from the important reality of transit. But as with any fantasy/fiction/sci-fi it can coexist well with reality as long as you don’t confuse it with reality. But urban planning and engineering isn’t pure logic. It’s a creative process too. So fantasy maps can be both a boon for getting people excited about something and also a creative space to think outside the box and imagine the possibilities. Some of the ideas won’t cut it in reality but some of them will. It’s a starting place.
Well said. Creativity and logic both take practice. Even professional architects and engineers often need to go through multiple iterations of their designs. For people who aren't professionals, well fantasy transit maps is how they start off. Saying that fantasy transit map building - an activity undertaken by people who are passionate about better urban design - is harmful to real transit seems bizarre.
I'd highly recommend the game NIMBY rails for anyone interested in this stuff; you can bring any fantasy map to life since the game uses OSM data to let you build a passenger rail network literally anywhere in the world, with just about any rolling stock too since it's also got mod support.
Meanwhile I'm creating not just a fantasy map but a whole fantasy track map for an entire region with switches, different height and length platforms and all.
I myself have designed a number of fantasy maps, one day i got bored and as you said i figured that it would be not real if I didn't research it, and now I have a huge document and have done significant research to build a light rail system for my state's second largest city (which has circa 300,000 people and will have twice that number by 2050). Which is around 196km and stretches to outlying towns etc. and I managed to cost it for around $6.5 billion and it is financially viable. Though in y analysis of alternatives - my gut instinct is that a final moderate version would keep the core 2 routes and 2/3 of the inter-urban lines but the rest would end up being BRT-lite system, with some priority lanes but not very elaborate busways or stops, though this also warrants extensive analysis as an option. My final plan is to have it ready to present to councils and political parties as a fully formed idea and plan backed with proper data and evidence so that it can not only be proposed but also hopefully built - and maybe get some payment as a consulting fee in the process. But i think you're right, why have a fantasy map if it won't happen, or if there aren't cheaper options avaliable which achieve the same effect.
I know it's unrealistic, but my city doesn't have a metro or even light rail and I like thinking about where we could build it in my free time. Sometimes I feel like the perspective of people living in transit deserts is overlooked by you and a lot of similar channels, so I wanted to throw my hat into the ring.
This. All of this. Adding to what Louis On Air said we used to have high speed interurban tramlines as well. The only survivors are the Norristown high speed line in metro Philadelphia and the South Shore Line from Chicago to South Bend.
In my own experience the beauty of doing a transit or other fantasy map is to serve as a framework of how to think deeply about the places that I experience in my daily life. Making a map forces me to consider what I observe on the ground, and there is no substitute for real lived experience. (That said, although I am observing how other people interact with the city while I go about my life, my experience is also not a substitute for theirs.) Generally speaking I see it as a good thing to think about the land use, the experience of walking, what corridors are heavily used, what places are poorly connected and hence might indicate a corridor with latent demand, where capacity is needed, where it isn't, where stations should be, how far apart, where lines should connect, all of it holistically in a map. Then I know where I stand whether I am involved in planning or just exchanging ideas casually, hopefully helping us have a better discussion so we'll be better off.
I totally get you on this. I love to imagine new lines and I want them to be as realistic as I can. But sometimes, it's just fun to imagine how great it could be if we had unlimited funds, perfect engineering and no political disturbances.
The fantasy map I continually review - mostly in my head, but also when others publish something similar - is what a Greater San Francisco Bay Area regional transportation might look like - IF we get the agencies we have to consolidate - or just to be well coordinated with a unified fare structure. My map begins with what exists now - including what's actually under construction (Caltrain Electrification is the big one), the next layer adds project that are planned that I consider likely to be built (California HSR). The NEXT layer adds specific projects that would add significant connectivity to the network (2nd bay rail crossing between Oakland/SF, reactivation of the Dumbarton bay rail crossing, and an East/West connection between (vaguely) Fairfield/Suisun City and Novato). I use it to verbally (since it's mostly contained in my head) describe how our region could function if we had the collective political will to create a real regional transit system.
@@austindonovan1970 Ayup - that's one of the more credible groups. Their focus is more on the integration of existing service - including a unified fare system. They rarely include future projects that will (or could) improve the network.
While your argument against making imaginary transit maps, I do think it is useful in just a handful of places. For places that HAD actual plans for transit (Cincinnati, for example) orin cities tha actively continue to expand mass transit (Los Angeles and Miami).
Cincinnati actually proceeded to build its subway plans and the system was substantially complete when they ran out of money in the Great Depression and had to stop work. Postwar, the State of Ohio came in, tore everything up, and replaced it all with freeways 😭
I just drew a huge fantasy map of a cycling route network in the form of a rail/subway map for my town! It’s just a very satisfying thing to do off screens. And, this is a REAL situation, not fantasy.
Have a look at Paris' "RER V" (V for vélo aka bicycle) and "Vélopolitain". Both projects are networks of cycle lanes roughly following the RER and metro(politain) networks. They are essentially recreating transit lines but with cycle lanes, corresponding numbers / designation included. A substantial portion should be open for the Olympics in 2024. The "lines" will each run dozens of kilometers long, from one end of the agglomeration to the opposite end on the "RER V". The Vélopolitain, like its model the metro, will be more centered in and around the core city. Some parts of lines are already open, like Vélopolitain's "line" V1 following alongside metro line M1. The goal is to effectively switch a few transit ridership points off the network and onto cycling. That's part of the overall strategy: Reducing car use Increasing public transit modal share (from the car) Increasing bike modal share (from car AND from transit) Spreading peak times throughout the day Ultimately reducing the need for daily commuting, especially daily mass pendular commuting that requires massive infrastructures that really only serve to their full potential at peak hours (while still never being enough).
i get it but like idk who wouldnt get enjoyment out of looking at a cool map and say "wow i wish that was real" and then move on with your day. doesnt really have to be that serious imo
I mean I'd be surprised if some random person's mock-up online actually influenced the bad design decisions of a real world expansion. And if it did there's way bigger problems than the mock-up. I think I'm fine either way cause it is fantasy. It's fan-fiction for people really into civic engineering. It can be realistic or absurdly unrealistic but that's just whatever the hobbyists wants to do or imagine.
I like to do fantasy maps, but never unrealistic or megalomatic ones. I always like to add smaller expansions or one or two new lines, but thats it. I am not rooting for a perfect network, just a slightly better and still somehow realistic one.
Keep in mind that Grand Paris Express and Paris M1 Eastern extension and M14 South extension were fantasy maps way before turning into reality. In fact the whole GPX was a decade long fight between fantasy maps propositions by enthusiasts, users and local officials. It ended being a combination of 2 different propositions then amended by a third. All those proposals were from officials but stemmed from enthusiasts and users. Paris transit new lines and extensions (of past 20+ years) were all at some point fantasy maps that turned into reality. That includes the "new" Tram network. I recall city halls of the inner ring of suburbs (now included in the Grand Paris Society) posting enthusiasts' fantasy maps in the 90's and early 2000's for the public to express their preferences. Ok, all these fantasy maps were driven by a real need and much more serious than some "dream fantasy maps" but they were still very very far from being reality and there was no serious project in the pipeline at the time. These fantasy maps helped pushing for a project. Also, for some of the new lines there's a lot of planning, well ahead of demand (parts of M17 and most of M18). It might be because every new extension or new line in Paris which is supposed to relieve the network for the coming decade is almost systematically at capacity in a couple years or sometimes instantly. (cf lines 1, A, 14, E West extension, etc.) So now they try to plan longer ahead with lines serving areas no one would think they'd need a metro. One other thing too is that the replacement of car use becomes exponential when you start to offer alternatives and sometimes extending a subway line or opening a tram line somewhere makes demand explode elsewhere, with big, really unexpected surprises. So I can see the appeal and usefulness of "serious" fantasy maps.
That's a serious bit of history. Thank you for sharing. I think fantasy transit maps are a great way for regular citizens to get involved. What's the alternative? Meme about how bad transit is or about sitting in traffic?
Fair enough. I actually spend quite a bit of time with fantasy maps, but I only include routes which I think would make sense, or atleast somewhat sense. Some might only be a slight extention to a light rail line, some may be entire new metro/train lines which drastically changes the system. Though tying it in wich the existing network is obviously very important
@@RMTransit honestly I have to disagree. the city expands based off of existing subway service. Neighborhoods that have transit deserts ie eastern queens and south east Brooklyn tend to see stunted growth. There's no subway line in nyc currently that follows your ideology.
Being from Buenos Aires, there's a huge overlap between expansion plans and fantasy maps. And for instance, in my case, having done a fantasy map of our network let me realise that one of the main problems for expansion is the lack of suitable corridors to serve the CBD, so we should think more about lines with branches. Also, our city's geography and activity distribution means that a lot of the lines would terminate in the CBD (as currently do), so maybe some kind of circular line to function as "terminal" for other radial lines may be useful. And there's an idea for a video: pros and cons of terminate a line in the CBD instead of making it continue past it.
@@garybacon659 "Is the A still crazy overcrowded?" The most overcrowded lines are the B and D, but all other lines are overcrowded during rush hour. "Any news on whether the F will actually happen? " Hahahahahaha... (snif)
@@Nico_M. Interesting. When I was there, I lived walking distance from both the A and the B in Almagro, and the A was almost always more crowded. I figured as much on the F 😂
@@garybacon659 How long ago was it? Was it when we still had the old wooden trains in the A line? Back then those trains couldn't keep up with the demand.
"Without a vision, the people perish." Proverbs 29:18. Every great transit system was, once upon a time, someone's fantasy map. Of course, not all such maps can become reality, which is where discernment comes into play. Quite frequently, the crazy idea of one man will spark a good idea in another. Or, to start using more snooty language, fantasy maps should be encouraged as design input to the serious and sober process of city planning.
It's interesting for me to point out that Singapore's current MRT map released in 2020 started out as a fantasy map back in c.2015. I actually didn't like that map, especially because of the whole "force the Circle Line to be a circle" thing.
I do agree that many fantasy maps often take away from realistic efforts to improve transit. With that being said I think from some angles however transit fantasy maps can sometimes get people on board with the idea that cities aren’t stagnant and that we shouldn’t be super reluctant about the concept of growth. Seattle subway is one fantasy map project that, while I feel it is too ambitious or doesn’t really make sense in certain areas, nonetheless has spurred a more grassroots effort to improve the regions transit which I think is cool to see. One state legislative bill that this group and its followers fought for was the ability for municipalities like Seattle to create an enhanced service zone within its borders so it can raise tax revenue and hopefully expedite certain tunneling projects which currently have timelines 10-15 years away. This is an important milestone because the scope of which our regional authority can can collect tax revenue has been quite limited compared to other states (and still is) which along with austere limits on borrowing capacity means that projects must be done in piecemeal over long periods of time to wait for funding. Since our transit systems are managed and funded at the local level and not the state level this change will have a significant impact as a result
I think you brought up many good points about how fantasy maps can become wild and overshadow current issues. I love making fantasy maps but definitely try to keep them as reasonable and realistic as possible.
I was very afraid of clicking on this video, because for me with a fantasy map comes also a fantasy city... But yeah, you make valid points here. For fantasy maps of real cities, all that applies
And what are your opinions about making fantasy map for fictional cities? I also make a fantasy map for my fictional city, and for me it's really engaging cause I can plan the city and the transit more for the purpose of my story, and with forum like reddit I can exchange information about how to build the transit more efficiently, etc.
Wondering if you had any thoughts about the "Los Angeles Aqua Line"... basically a guerilla art project in 2000 that was a fantasy transit map which ended up restarting conversation about rail transit in LA and possibly helping to nudge LA Metro back into build mode.
Well I have seen a guy who make a Hong Kong MTR fantasy map and it make a lot of new line and the train line can reach like every bit of Hong Kong 😂 if it really happen I be speechless and I going to have a long time to look at the map because it messy and hard to see
i agree with what you said. so, in the same breath, are you planning to use population density and zoning map (or any map that tells you which areas are resi/comm/indust) overlays when explaining a transit system in future videos? as you said, demand is important for transit routing. would be great to have that info visible on top of transit lines for better understanding why they are good/bad.
I think you're talking about transit maps that on the extreme end. Everybody knows that building a subway under every street is stupid. Instead I do think that there are a lot of well-intentioned and sincere transit advocates and enthusiasts of the forums who really want to improve their city. I think that transit maps serve the role of a thought experiment and open public forum. It allows us to explore different options, study its feasibility and uncover new ideas. Transit fantasy maps made for my hometown Ottawa often receive "updates" to include the most current official proposals and projects under construction. What we like is to introduce new ideas into our current system. The goal is that we gain enough support and momentum to make it out to the general public, local news etc. and make it the talk of the town. Hopefully by then some city councillor or bureaucrat will take note :)
I really doubt unrealistic fantasy maps hurt anything or anyone, it's just like fan fiction, some are good, a lot of them aren't, but given there is respectful discussion of the flaws or virtues of a map, people can learn or propose new ideas. Of course most of the times the people that make those maps get carried away drawing lines but oftentimes these maps reflect what transit users think they need. Government agencies should look at fantasy maps at least for suggestions, and after careful consideration or studies dismiss or incorporate their ideas.
3:30 but that´s what the reality for planers. Most often the project you work on as a transportation planer doesnt even go to complete, only a fraction of them go to complete and they are often much later than what you plan or it is completely different.
I really really want to know how to create a transit fantasy map, is there some kind of app or way I can do so? If so, can you please tell me about me?
Agree. People commonly moan about there not being a cross country high speed rail system in the US like in other countries and often use that map. However, like you said, it not going to happen because it isn’t practical to build a 2000 mile high speed rail line from NY to LA and actually expect people to ride it
I feel that this is way more political than it has to be. I've only ever made fantasy maps for fun and/or to show my friends (who of course are also into transit). I feel that most fantasy maps that are made & shared aren't to propose something to a transit agency or official, but rather just for fun or "hey it would be cool if this line did this" or "if this subway/bus route existed".
The issue with Fantasy Transit Maps are the same issue you have with Fantasy Fleets and Orbats in the Military communities: Ultimately; unless you are an insider, they just are wild speculation. You can have the most balanced fleet, the perfect army orbat, or the best laid out transit map in the world, but if you aren't actively working on implementing it from the inside you just don't have access to the costs, objections, rivaling factions etc that will enforce a compromise. Usually it seems to be accompanied by "the people in charge are idiots because they don't do *insert pet idea of the author here*"...
It's almost as if it's a... Fantasy? :) One could argue that people stuck down in the weeds of the objections, factions etc are unable to see the forest for the trees. Diversity of opinion is good.
One thing I find odd is how often fantasy maps of the Montreal Metro don't have the Orange Line becoming the Orange Loop but do have entire new lines on them, despite the fact that basically everyone in Montreal sees the Orange Loop as an inevitability even if one decades away.
@@RMTransit I don't see how, just have the trains continue in one direction instead of turning around at each end and change the signs for indicating direction.
I understand where you're coming from re "fantasy" maps, the notion that it would be amazing to have lines serving areas/neighbourhoods without any comprehension of their viability/usability. With the maps you're producing for Toronto, however, I would suggest that it's unfair to call them "fantasy maps", as you're explaining extensions that are either confirmed or in build, so what you do is a perfectly valid method of explaining the (current) eventual network coverage, even if circumstances dictate a change of policy further down the line (in similar vein to London Transport's "Northern Heights" project of the late 1930s, which appeared on maps all the way until the early 1940s as "proposed", but was largely unbuilt).
Even fikir runding, lta and mmc gamuda malaysia proposed new networks of rail and busway in KL... *Fikir runding proposed one new line which iium in gombak all the way to putra heights.. * Lta proposed for BRT consist of 11 busway * Mmc gamuda proposed for the current 3 MRT lines
I am also facing the same problem as well. Even my metro is set in an original fantasy world. People would imagine what my future metro would be, drawing lines on top of my existing map. Even I would do such a thing but I would carefully plan when and where the future stations and lines will be. My fantasy system for 400 stations did not just from drawing lines, those were from over 7 years of plannings and studies.
I spend a fair bit of time on Transit Fantasy Maps and I completely agree with you. My Transit Fantasy maps are very different from most peoples' - They primarily focus on bus networks for regional transit and small cities, rather then metro networks or big infrastructure. In some cases I'll make them in the bounds of tender requirements, at other times I go in with my own requirements or wants for a region as a planning exercise or just because I want to design something fun, or better then what there is: But that's the point. - Designing a realistic network that could theoretically be implemented, that'd make transport better into the future. If *that* is put central in the making of Transit Fantasy Maps, much of the potential downsides they can have are negated, and much of their upsides are boosted. In the meantime, I just enjoy designing a good network and challenging myself to make it the best it can be. Some day, I hope to o make it my job. The goal is to one day have my own public transport company, but that's not easy. - But who knows.
I thought your video on the transit you’d build in Toronto was pretty fair on cost and realism. The map for it shown on 1:04, getting more expansion by refusing to tunnel every kilometer. Would be awesome to see that series make a return. Maybe Vancouver next?
When the U55 and later the U5 connection to the U55 were under construction in Berlin, the official S/U-Bahn map showed them as dashed lines. IMHO that's great because it serves a double purpose. First and foremost, it makes the map useful for longer, which is nice when people keep a paper map somewhere but may not update it for years. But second, it fulfills the exact purpose you're talking about. It shows people what the system is going to be like once that construction is complete.
Vanshnookenraggen has on his website a PDF fantasy map of Boston's MBTA transit system that is actually a compilation of the authority and its predecessors' plans for rapid transit and light railway extensions
Washington DC actually does show expansion work on their official subway maps - the ones in all their stations and trains. Since the beginning those have shown both in-service stations (and lines) and future stations (and lines). An in-service station will have one (or two if a transfer station) black rings around its white dot, while a future station is just the white dot; and an in-service section of line shown in a solid color line (Red Line, Blue Line, etc.) while any future sections have thin white stipes diagonally through them. (And early on quite a lot of the system was marked as being for the future) I wasn't aware that other systems didn't do something similar to make riders aware of the authorized expansion plans.
My biggest pet peeve with fantasy maps is that it takes me back to the 90s when newspapers in Toronto were plagued with plan after plan of lines that were never built. Your hopes would be built up that finally we would be getting some transit expansion only to be heartbroken for almost decades by constant let downs. Fantasy maps are literally nothing more than fantasy stories
The Washington Metro (WMATA) has developed five "fantasy maps" for expansions, though they based them on projected ridership, construction costs and land-use figures. I'm all for building the "BLOOP" (Blue Line Loop)!
This is a very interesting video for me because my only game is Transport Tycoon™ [Open TTD] Years ago I stopped trying to use it to apply to real places I have lived in because the programming [as stated here] doesn't match reality. I have made fantasy maps about the Boston Rail system, but not recently because the situation [i.e. reality] appears to be hopeless. I like these videos, as I have liked the real public transportation in the cities I have visited or lived in {Seoul, SK, Fukuoka, JP, Copenhagen, etc.}. Maybe I watch them because I have masochistic tendencies㋛ Anyway, thanks for another interesting video, and have a happy Easter!
Could you make a video on the broader topic of maps? What makes a good transit map? Balancing geographical acuracy and legibility. I was given about 35 archived pocket timetables from 70 years of service after a short internship at my local (urban) transit planning office, these timetables are made in an A6 form factor with a plastic sleeve containing a table of contents and a folded map on the front, as well as ticketing info and terminal layouts (where different lines stop at the network's two major hubs) on the back. The 1994 map only showed the routes with named termini, or rather the districts in which those termini were situated, like one would see on the destination boards at the front of the bus. The constraint was due to the A6 form factor and that they printed the main map and the map for night-time routes - which were fairly different from the daytime ones - as separate maps. This was changed for the 1999 map which had the entire network - trunk routes, express routes and night routes - on the same map. This, in combination with stop names and text bleed from the table of contents as well as a white background made the map very poorly legible. The next map design appeared in the mid-2000s when the map was printed onto a street map background, which slightly improved legibility. This was further improved in 2010 when the street map background was removed, which which the display style destination and line number labels also returned,as well as the lines being drawn with a thicker stroke on the map. The current itteration of design was adopted in 2013 by reverting to the white background, but this time on a more opaqe plastic than what was used in 1998. They also removed the peak express routes from the main map at some point (Idk when), giving them a separate map on a paper page inside the timetable.
I believe some of these maps could and should be looked at for possible future planning. There are alot of great ideas that are only considered as "fantasy" because, like it always has been, transit is designed, built, and run by people who don't use it and therefore don't really care. That is where most of the issues with transit stem from. Anyone interested in collaborating ideas? I've been working on a fairly realistic map for the GTHA over several years. Personally I design my maps (Toronto specifically) from a few different perspectives such as current and future demand but also continuing on from where the TTC left us with massive gaps in transit (subway and rt) expansion. I'd love to see what other enthusiasts have come up with for ideas and options.
Totally get the point about not showing the overall map. This is a big problem with project proposals for London where line extensions through stops people outside of London have never even heard (and terms like junction, flyover and bypass are used as if people are supposed to understand how that affects things) of are shown, and so the benefit (such as a new connection they could use via that line extension) is lost on them. But the problem is more complex than simply showing the overall picture. If you took a map of every single underground, overground, tram and mainline rail line in London and showed it to the average person they'd be completely overwhelmed and wouldn't be able to clearly ascertain the benefit for them. It would just look like spaghetti. The solution may not lie in showing all or nothing, but in rather explaining bit by bit with different overlays at different times. For example, showing how Crossrail 2 could benefit people in the South by showing lines used exclusively by towns in the area, and then panning over to a particular section that may be more important for people in the South East.
I don't make very many fantasy systems, but rather have done a few "rewrites" of transit in my area, both as "I think the direction the local authority is short-sighted.", and "How could I reasonably make an alternate history that generates a better network, based on rail corridors that have existed or would make sense?". My latest fantasy system has been in the form of a fictional regional railroad that while in a sense originating in the 1850s, owes most of its alignments to the interurban era, and is probably 90% or more consisting of actual proposals or real alignments.
The separation of WMATA's Blue line from the Orange and Silver lines that would serve Georgetown along M Street to Union Station then south to National Harbor are derived from a fantasy maps.
Interesting. I don't really spend a lot of time on fantasy maps either, though when a serious proposal comes out, even if it is partly fantasy, I do get excited. For example, Transit City.
I'm very surprised that Toronto doesn't put proposed new lines on transit maps. It is standard practice in Sydney - even when the lines turn out to be fantasy (e.g. Epping-Parramatta)
In Russia, there was a imaginal metro system on existing city. "Barnaul Metro" featured 6 lines, many stations and opened in 1972. It's really nice imaginal system
I'd like to make a transot fantasy map, but ive never had experience with a transit rail system, be it national or local. How exactly do i base where and how their is demand for transport? Is it between high density areas?
I make fantasy transit maps because we are the only major city in North America without any regional rapid transit! You should totally do a segment about how transit had been torpedoed in Detroit over the last 100 yrs.
My country’s government just makes fantasy maps tbh it’s crazy wild you’d have thought it was someone having the time of their lives in a forum but like the plans actually come to fruition
I don't know. I have a very vivid imagination and a very ambitious mind. Sometimes I get discouraged over the possibility of my ideas never coming to fruition but at the end of the day, that's why I'm trying to get into transit planning as a career; to make my ideas into a reality.
I will make it so that that guy can't say first. This itself is not a "first" Edit: it's been 30 mins and there are so many comments! Keep up the good work!
Plot twist - when the fantasy map you're working on is for an entirely fictitious city (in an entirely fictitious country, on an entirely fictitious landmass on Earth) as it "existed" almost two decades ago now 🤣
i agree, but i love creating fantasy maps 'cause i think they're fun to make and i can basically do the metro of my dreams. i also don't have any friends and spend all day riding the bucharest metro so yeah... btw, you are my favourite you tuber because you explain things right, like even my mom understands. greetings from romania :)
I didn't hear the name before - when reading the title, I thought it's about transit systems for cities in fantasy stories. Which of course won't ever be grounded in reality.
fantasy maps are usally just for fun. though I like your videos your going a bit to deep into a hobby. some maps are actually realistic (or futurist) but most are just for fun or imagine what the map could have looked like.
