While I appreciate the history lesson, this is the kind of thing that drives us non-architects crazy. Should we really be nostalgic for an entire era of incredibly ugly buildings? This seems to be based on an idea that all architecture is worth preserving, when I think most people would agree that some architecture is worth saving and some should be demolished as soon as possible. This building is in the latter category for sure.

I love those bathtubs! It's a pretty ingenious system. As others have pointed out, they run so fast and frequent that they get a lot of riders per operator. I actually tried to cross the Granville Bridge once and it was really terrible, so the boats are the best way to get to the market or to other points along the water. Bus may be cheaper, but they are more confusing to visitors and take a round-about path, whereas the boats just go straight across the water. I've always wondered if a similar system could work on Lake Union in Seattle. There are 2 major parks across the lake from each other along with other neighborhood destinations.

You know, we can make great transit maps all we want, but transit agencies might not use them. However, there is nothing to stop the folks here from making smartphone apps! I use google transit pretty often, but it only tells me how to get from A to B, it doesn't show me all the possibilities. I would love to have an app that gives me several options--frequent network, night-time service, peak-only, etc. The most popular transit app in Seattle is called OneBusAway, and it doesn't come from the transit agency. It was written by a University of Washington student and is free in the app store and shows real-time arrival for every bus stop. What I'm saying is, the smart folks here shouldn't just mess around with map-making--take it out into the world, even if transit agencies don't have the will or resources to buy into these ideas.

Rhywun, you do have a point. I think multiple maps would work fine for most people, but a comprehensive map could work as long as rapid and frequent routes are most prominent. I like the scheme mentioned on this blog before where locals are narrow lines, frequent routes are thick lines, and express routes are dashed. Rapid routes would have to be delineated some other way. We should think about the use of color, as well. I find the dizzying array of colors on most transit maps to be confusing because they don't mean anything. They just make the system look more complex. I would say use colors only on the major rapid routes, like subway lines in NYC, then make bus lines all the same color, but vary the thickness as mentioned above. Also, people, please be sensitive to the 10% of male population who have some degree of red-green colorblindness. Don't put red and green close to one another, and add some blue tint to one of them to set them apart.

Transit agencies need to get over the idea that they should have one single comprehensive transit map. People are accustomed to using different maps for different purposes--a highway map is different from a city road map, for example. Transit agencies should focus on creating maps for target customers. The frequent network map would cater to people who use transit often in their daily lives, the peak-only map would cater to transit commuters, and the late-night map would cater to that minority who would find it useful. For local service it would be more useful to have neighborhood transit maps, showing local and frequent service for a particular area. What's great about these various maps is that you can easily combine them online in the form of layers to be turned on and off.

There's a guy named Oran in Seattle who makes awesome frequent transit maps. They seem to solve a lot of the issues mentioned here and seem very easy to understand. http://www.flickr.com/photos/viriyincy/2611606345/in/set-72157605461561235/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/viriyincy/2865576755/in/set-72157605461561235/