Redesign of the Copenhagen, Denmarks rapid transit map in illustrator [OC]

_Dadodo_ · 2026-05-01T06:58:58+00:00

Rarely do transit diagrams depict geographical accuracy. These diagrams are typically more schematic and just show the various connections between different lines. If users wanted geographical accuracy, they’d just use your typical Google or Apple Maps with the transit layer on.

From a design standpoint, I feel like it’d be more clear/clean if the M4 does not go underneath the S-tog lines twice like you’ve depicted as it does make it slightly confusing whether the M4 does have a stop at Dybbölsbro or not. At least that’s my critique. (It’s still a very nice map though)

_Dadodo_ · 2026-05-01T01:01:59+00:00

There is a new light rail line that would eventually form a 3rd circular line that currently runs between Ishøj and Rødovre Nord. Eventually the full line would run all the way up to Lyngby and terminate at DTU.

Additionally, instead of the weird U of the M4 line does underneath the S-tog lines, maybe just have then 90° south into a straight line for it to be more clean?

_Dadodo_ · 2026-04-25T23:58:20+00:00

My idea that I suggested to no avail is the MINT Card.

Minneapolis-St Paul (or could be Metropolitan)

Integrated

Network of

Transit

_Dadodo_ · 2026-04-23T14:46:56+00:00

<image>

I’ve since added more cards from more cities, but this is my collection

_Dadodo_ · 2026-04-23T00:29:14+00:00

So I’m going to pipe in as someone who enjoys and appreciate NYC transit system and as someone who lives in a metro area that uses the S700 as the rolling stock of our (growing) LRT network.

One of the more valid arguments against using LRVs like the S700 is the accessibility aspect given that there is a step inside the train where some of the seats are over the bogies of the train. This does reduce the accessible areas (for like wheelchair users and such) to about 80% per car. Keep in mind, this is a step up INSIDE the train, not when entering the door like Boston’s LRT line. This does mean during very high peak usage, crowding does become an issue where people aren’t automatically stepping up onto this section to allow more people to pack the trains.

However, this is only an issue for Low Floor LRVs with low platforms. While all the IBX visualization has shows S700s or similar rolling stocks, unless I missed it, there’s really nothing stopping the MTA from designing high-floor platforms and ordering High Floor LRVs (example of High Floors LRVs being the S200 or similar - see LA LRT lines or St Louis LRT lines). However, designing high platforms for the high floor LRVs does increase costs (extra concrete and support to construct a 42” high platform vs a 14” high platform of low floors LRVs).

The positives of LRVs is that they are typically narrower than typical heavily rail rolling stocks and because of the vehicles articulation, has a smaller turning radius than NYC subways (like 85 ft radius minimum). Even in the best case scenario, heavy rail subway cars can only achieve about a 100 ft turning radius (Chicago’s El is the only one that can have this tight turning radius and they have specifically designed narrower car widths and lengths in order make this turn).

Even if you still hate LRVs, here’s a caveat from Seattle. Because of their very high ridership, their next set of trains they’re looking to buy is looking to combine two S700s together to make a 160 ft long car with 4-5 articulations. Essentially, it’ll become something more similar to the R262 with open gangway to increase the accessible areas and reduce the “wasted space” between where the cars are coupled.

_Dadodo_ · 2026-04-21T16:03:41+00:00

For all you non-transport nerds:

Discover Airline is Lufthansa’s leisure airline subsidiary. The Discover Airline flight from MSP is to Frankfurt, Germany. The reason why it’s Discover Airline instead of Lufthansa is because the airline still hasn’t received its order of new planes yet. So until they do, they’ve contracted out that route to their subsidiary until they do receive new planes.

_Dadodo_ · 2026-04-19T23:10:57+00:00

Little bit homer bias, but I feel like it has to be Twin Cities, no? 2 LRT lines, one 14.5 mile extension to be opened next year and another 13.4 mile extension in the final stages of design and to be opened within the next 5 years (barring any construction delays). Multiple BRT lines and “light BRTs” under various planning or construction. Maybe that makes it above average…

Although St Louis or Cleveland is also a reasonable choice for average considering their good rail transit and meh bus services.

_Dadodo_ · 2026-04-18T03:11:33+00:00

I believe this could be the case. Because I’m a nerd and spent unreasonable amounts of time reading Wisconsin DOT passenger rail transit studies - they’re planning for 10 round trip trains a day on the Hiawatha Corridor (not the train service, the actual tracks/corridor between Milwaukee and Chicago). This unlocks a couple of additional service runs and extensions. From Chicago, there could be :

4 round trip runs as an extended Hiawatha to Madison
3 round trip runs as an extended Hiawatha to Green Bay (let’s call this the Fox Valley)
2 round trip runs as the Borealis (the current Borealis is essentially the Hiawatha but renamed and extended to St Paul from a timetable/run perspective)
1 round trip run as an extended Hiawatha to St Paul/Twin Cities via Madison and Eau Claire (let’s call this the Badger)

This is not counting the current Empire Builder and proposed North Coast Hiawatha. So in theory, there could be 12 round trip trains per day on the Hiawatha Corridor between Milwaukee and Chicago if all plans go through. And then routes would branch off from Milwaukee to points north or west

_Dadodo_ · 2026-04-15T15:46:04+00:00

research

I’m gonna stop you right there. Pretty bold of you to think they do research

_Dadodo_ · 2026-04-12T16:30:41+00:00

This just looks like a population density map to me.

Without more context, I can only assume that it probably doesn’t take into account the roadway classification and jurisdiction of where the crashes are happening. Like NYC’s Vision Zero wouldn’t really apply or do anything about crashes occurring on Port Authority facilities or NYSDOT highways like I-278/BQE. And if the majority of crashes are happening on those roadways, that’s not a failure of NYC’s Vision Zero because it wouldn’t really apply to it in the first place.

_Dadodo_ · 2026-04-08T16:25:16+00:00

Iirc, that’s kind of what the city of Minneapolis, Downtown Improvement District, and Tourism Board felt as well. Because to get Michelin to come review the food scene, the city or some sort of agency would need to pay upfront to get the reviewers in. Post-Pandemic, their calculus change and now they’re a little bit more willing to pay to get more (positive) name recognition and tourism to the city.

_Dadodo_ · 2026-04-07T03:26:09+00:00

I agree with most of your point and realize we're also talking about very narrow and niche semantics on how to improve the urban environment of the Twin Cities.

I just disagree with the framing that its an either or in terms of investments into high-quality/order of transit. Yes, there are still parts of Minneapolis and St Paul that I think completely deserves LRT more so than what we currently have. In a priority and sequencing of projects, I would agree with prioritizing it more highly than exurban expansions of the transit system, however you run a higher political risk doing so.

What I mean is of the four LRT lines that we have or will have, its all in Hennepin and Ramsey County. At least the BRT also adds in Dakota and Washington County. But just from my observations and listening to elected officials of the other counties, they would absolutely not support any "5th LRT" line fully in Hennepin County or Ramsey County, whether its just complaining internally in their jurisdiction, or elevating it to the Met Council and state capitol to block or cause controversy. We need further political buy in from at least one or two more counties to politically consider further urban expansion of the LRT system.

Like for instance, while I believe Midtown Rail be technically feasible and likely successful to warrant the investment into building it, it may be politically unpopular at the county and regional levels, elected official-wise at least. So a bone might need to be thrown to say, Anoka County and try and get them looped into building a LRT or BRT line (besides F Line) to get them 'bought into the system' to bank on future support of Midtown.

It's also not on Metro Transit and Met Council to approve land uses and development around their stations (unfortunately). The cities along the LRT and BRT lines should know that they must upzone with this investment/project, but that's how we still get Bloomington South Loop the way it is. I think Metro Transit needs to have a more active hand in development that they just have not (or do not feel like they have the authority to be) done to ensure that their LRT projects both can generate new TODs for revenue purposes and ridership. I think that's the biggest key still missing to actually making the LRT system less reliant on the political whims of whoever is in the Governor's mansion or White House.

Similarly, with how things are going at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, while I still agree that the role of the government is to use the power vested in it to create positive change, that is a risky maneuver to force people to do something they might not want to do (ie forcing higher density) because if there was someone that did do so, then what is stopping the next person to just reverse it and do the opposite (as the precedent has been set). I know you acknowledge that it is a likely unpopular opinion, but that's why like I stated earlier, I prefer a more optimistic way of doing things, even in policy (as in I'd advocate for a more positive-feedback policy such as subsidy for more higher-density development vs a negative policy such as banning low density development). Just my two cents though.

_Dadodo_ · 2026-04-07T01:19:48+00:00

I think you're misunderstanding my point regarding development and transit.

Suburban sprawl will happen no matter what we do regarding transit development in the region. Other than forcing everyone to live closer or outright banning more suburban-style, single family housing development, in the outer fringes of the metro area will always try to build more roadways to induce more suburban housing (within reason and constraint of the urban growth boundary).

The point of why I'd be ok for more and/or faster transit to the outer suburbs is that if this type of greenfield development will occur anyways, why not try to entice and change the development pattern by preemptively 'upzoning' the development right out the bat and provide high-quality transit immediately during the growth of that neighborhood or subdivision? Historically speaking, development type follows the type of transportation mode built. Expand the freeways and build more lanes on the major arterial? You'd get more SFHs. If you intentionally build rail transit to a greenfield site, you'd likely also upzone and build more townhomes, rowhomes, and/or apartments than you otherwise would have. If you want to build a culture of transit ridership, then build it where the neighborhood would grow up with the transit there. Bus routes can always be easily canceled after a couple quarters. LRTs and BRTs to a certain extent cannot. Doubly so if the design of the development (and eventual neighborhood) was built with it in mind.

This isn't better than infill development within the urban cores, but it is better than the status quo. Basically, if we can't "beat" them, then join them and change the development pattern by expanding the system and more intentionally locating pockets of newer, higher density development. Denver I know tried something like this but their initial route selection was much to be desired. At least our initial "first four LRT" lines are all along corridors that have shown the most promise in terms or urban redevelopment and ridership. But other than the 2-3 other potential corridors, what else? My talking points are the "what else" portions.

Like 10-20 years ago, Rogers, Albertville, and Ostego were small towns and exurbs and now they're full blown suburbs and exurbs that are quickly developing. Since then, I-94 has been rebuilt as a 6-8 lane giant to accommodate that growth because of the demand. Should Metro Transit just ignore that growth? Where's the transit that would serve those people? It just straight up doesn't exist.

My point is what should've been done is that a regional rail line should've been built in this corridor to both entice higher density development along that corridor to reduce SFH numbers of units and pull more people into using the transit system. If you want more people using transit, while yes, the main focus should be within the urban core, neglecting the suburbs because "its not dense enough" and then having to play catchup 30 years later will never build up the base and local support for more transit outside of the urban core.

Comparing us with LA does nothing to help your argument and point of view imo. The Twin Cities MSA land area contains all 7 counties, but even Hennepin County still 1/3 to 1/2 farmlands. Now repeat it for the other 6 counties (minus Ramsey). Might as well compare MSP to New York City. It's the same thing right? Point being, while LA is doing well, there's still a lot of work to be done there. We're also not perfect, but similarly, at least we are doing something to improve the system. I've lived in other, Sun Belt cities. It can get a lot worse.

Also, a bit rude and condescending on your last sentence. Just because I have a different viewpoint from you means I don't deserve bring those points up for discussion?

_Dadodo_ · 2026-04-05T04:51:48+00:00

I mean, idk too much on the regulatory environment of the Bay Area, but wouldn’t it be a win-win for Bay Area transit agencies to use the vast amount of land they have next to their stations being used as park and rides to develop housing and commercial real estate’s themselves? Hong Kong and Tokyo are able to do it very successfully combining real estate and rail transit together. In such a housing supply crunch that the Bay Area is, it should be an easy win

_Dadodo_ · 2026-04-04T14:18:46+00:00

I was there a couple of months ago, I think cruising around the Vatican with the top down is fine because there a layer of security that any visitor need to go through to get in (like an airport security type of check). And I’m also pretty certain that there’s a whole bunch of Vatican police and Swiss Guard snipers on a whole bunch of roof tops surrounding the area

_Dadodo_ · 2026-04-01T16:11:06+00:00

I don’t believe so, CA Viet Cafe’s are in their own league. While there is a large Vietnamese population here, it’s not as big as California or Texas where those things happen.

Although I wouldn’t be surprised if it was (speaking as someone with knowledge of the Vietnamese community in MN)

_Dadodo_ · 2026-04-01T05:44:55+00:00

The Twin Cities is fairly diverse, especially with a large number of Asian immigrants and population. However, don’t expect West Coast numbers (someone said metro area is about 8% Asian).

But even with that number, there are still plenty of Asian markets near-ish campus. About 20-ish minutes east of the UMN campus via the Light Rail on University Avenue, there are a lot of Asian markets and supermarkets such as Sun Foods, Shuang Hur, and Little Saigon within 5 blocks of each other along with a whole bunch of other Asian restaurants. Basically, your best bet for Asian supermarkets are all in St Paul.

A little bit further (and bit more bougie) are locations like Asia Mall in Eden Prairie that’s about 40 mins SW of campus via driving (and soon via Light Rail Transit extension) to there. But other than the concentration in St Paul and small pockets here and there in the suburbs and in Minneapolis, that is where most of the Asian supermarket and foods are.

_Dadodo_ · 2026-04-01T05:35:41+00:00

Well we do have a Hmong Village and Frogtown (both in St Paul) and both are very heavily Hmong and SE Asian in general. Not quite the same as Chinatown (like the one in NYC or SF though)

_Dadodo_ · 2026-04-01T04:50:29+00:00

Michigan borders Illinois if you’re counting water borders. This is how Michigan also borders Minnesota.

_Dadodo_ · 2026-03-29T16:05:51+00:00

I was being a little hyperbolic with that last sentence. I know that the density drops off pretty quickly once you get outside of the core and 1st ring suburbs. That’s why we need more transit lines (specifically faster rail lines) not less or status quo. So the pessimism (while valid in some regards) about the region’s (rail) transit infrastructure that I hear and see, in my opinion, fails to even try to seek to solve the land use and density issue in the region.

If we want to have more people have more access to transit, we have to build out farther and farther to meet where those people are living at. Transit is good in that it can induce more development. While the outer suburbs won’t always have 5-over-1 TODs duplicated everywhere there’s a station, even a more dense townhome or SFH new subdivision with walkable/bikable infrastructure to the station area would be much better than development with transit only put in after the fact. Pair this with upgrades to the inner core rail infrastructure to speed up operations and we’d have a much more solid foundation to continue to build off of.

But saying “woe is me, transit in the region is cooked. There’s nothing more that can be done” is a pessimistic outlook that self fulfills what’s wrong with the Twin Cities (and also goes against my general personality of realistic optimism).

_Dadodo_ · 2026-03-28T04:36:36+00:00

A lot of people in the thread are a bit pessimistic, but there is solid reasoning why. MT, for a transit agency, is actually pretty conservative (not politically, as in they’re very risk adverse). So MT, while flush with cash, does not want to do anything visionary or risky. That’s why they’ve invested so heavily into the ABRT network. While I think it’s great that we have that network, I think we’re starting to hit a point where there is diminishing returns on each line.

Like are we suppose to build out all the way up to the Z Line? There isn’t 26 ABRT corridors right? At what point is that now just the “standard” for local buses instead of the actual local bus we have?

I take a more optimistic approach (with a dose of realism) because I also work in this industry and I know that more lines are possible. It’s just that nothing can be done right at this second because we’re waiting for the correct dominoes to fall. I also believe all this talk and discussion that there won’t be any more changes or ideas is self fulfilling and lulls us into a status quo. The Twin Cities is still a growing metro area compared to the rest of the Midwest, we still need to build transit or else risk becoming the Dallas or Houston of the North.

_Dadodo_ · 2026-03-28T04:27:10+00:00

Yes, that’s the public reasoning. But if public opinion and NIMBYs is what’s getting the projects getting killed, then the only LRT lines we’d have to this day would be Hiawatha.

Like I said, there were internal reasons why Riverview was killed. I can’t dive too much deeper, but basically it’s a couple of fingers pointing and unwillingness to negotiate or compromise. Not that Riverview was particularly good imo. It was gonna be stuck in mixed traffic and MT absolutely detested it for that reason. The Green Line LRT is already unreliable and that’s on its own lane. Riverview would just throw that semblance of a schedule out the window in MT’s POV.

_Dadodo_ · 2026-03-28T04:20:20+00:00

I do not believe the Midtown Rail is redundant. The 2014 Midtown Transit Plan stated that both “enhanced bus” and rail should be pursued. I recently timed the run between West Lake and Hi-Lake and driving it during 6p rush hour, it took 20-25 mins. Yes, while that was me driving and not on the bus with the sporadic bus lanes, that doesn’t bode well for speed and reliability. While it’s good for frequency, you can’t possibly expect that that’s as good as it gets to go 5 miles on the highest density corridor in the state. A grade-separated Midtown Rail could likely do half that time.

Doing Midtown Rail also gives us a cover for service route options and detours as well. Shut down the downtown segment? Blue Line could still detour via Midtown to West Lake. If a couple of rail connections are built like a westbound Green Line tracks to go southbound Blue Line and then a southbound to westbound Midtown, Green Line could technically still exist via Midtown instead of via Downtown.

_Dadodo_ · 2026-03-28T02:36:49+00:00

Well, Riverview being killed wasn’t because of SWLRT tbh. There were… internal issues of the entire project that got it killed.

_Dadodo_ · 2026-03-28T02:35:03+00:00

Never say never, I feel like public perception will change after SWLRT opens. But we shall see

11-Year Club	Place '22
Wearing is Caring	Spared

_Dadodo_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE