Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

felix123 said:
One more reason to just call it Line 3 when it opens. Bloor-Danforth and especially Yonge-University-Spadina were bad nomenclature.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't consider them to be bad nomenclature.... they were named after the roads they ran under. Line 1 was originally named as such because it ran under Yonge St, University Ave, Spadina Rd and in the median of what would have been the Spadina Expressway which we now just call Allen Rd. Line 2 was originally named as such because it ran underground in a parallel alignment with Bloor St. and Danforth Ave.
 
jordanmkasla2009 said:
I wouldn't consider them to be bad nomenclature.... they were named after the roads they ran under. Line 1 was originally named as such because it ran under Yonge St, University Ave, Spadina Rd and in the median of what would have been the Spadina Expressway which we now just call Allen Rd. Line 2 was originally named as such because it ran underground in a parallel alignment with Bloor St. and Danforth Ave.
Click to expand...
They're too long, they were used inconsistently, and they became inaccurate over time.
 
We could have them labeled based on where they connected. For instance, line 1 could be the Toronto line as it initially was to connect the old city of Toronto. Line 2 could be the Scarborough line because it originally connected to Scarborough. Line 4 could be North York Line.
 
micheal_can said:
We could have them labeled based on where they connected. For instance, line 1 could be the Toronto line as it initially was to connect the old city of Toronto. Line 2 could be the Scarborough line because it originally connected to Scarborough. Line 4 could be North York Line.
Click to expand...
This sounds even more confusing and less accurate. Not to mention Line 2 connected Scarborough and Etobicoke at the same time. Ontario Line is still a dumb name, though.
 
felix123 said:
They're too long, they were used inconsistently, and they became inaccurate over time.
Click to expand...
I would highly dispute that they became inaccurate. The point of a service name was never to highlight every single possible street, road, or residential crescent that the vehicle serves, it was supposed to be an overarching name that quickly calls out the most central and important portions of the route that the vehicle runs on (as much as the grumpy old man in me hates to admit it, Yonge-University is superior to Yonge-University-Spadina for that reason, though I will never consensually use the new name).

Bloor-Danforth especially is not a problem. If you are arguing that a whopping 2 stations out of 31 (6%) stations on the line (in an unknown, murky future, 5/34, or 14%) are not situated under Bloor or Danforth Avenues, doesn't that mean that every single named service must also be renamed to be fully accurate? Doing this would cause all kinds of delicious route name abominations, such as:

-19 Bay becoming the 19 Davenport>-Dupont>-Bedford>-Davenport-Bay-Queens Quay East-Dockside
-72B Pape becoming the 72B Lipton>-Pape-Riverdale-Carlaw-Commissioners-Saulter-Villiers-Cherry-Lake Shore-Queens Quay East-Bay-Front>-Yonge>-Wellington>-Bay
-504 King becoming the 504 Erindale>-Broadview-Queen-King-Roncesvalles-Edna>
-506 Carlton becoming the 506 Main-Upper Gerrard East-Coxwell-Lower Gerrard East-Parliament-Carlton-College-Dundas West-Howard Park.

Unless you're arguing to abolish route names altogether. I would not be against this, if for no other reason that we clearly cannot be trusted with them in this country. The fact that any dickhead can push through a political name such as the Ontario Line, Hazel McCallion Line, or Canada Line instead of something with wayfinding value is an absolute farce. And don't get me started on how long it took the goons that program the Flexity destination signs to clue in on the fact that when your sign already says "504 King", you don't need the bottom line to also say "via King". It is clearly a privilege that should be revoked.

micheal_can said:
We could have them labeled based on where they connected. For instance, line 1 could be the Toronto line as it initially was to connect the old city of Toronto. Line 2 could be the Scarborough line because it originally connected to Scarborough. Line 4 could be North York Line.
Click to expand...
I have a better idea: stop changing everything.
 
I think both names are as bad as each other. Relief Line is a completely utilitarian name with no wayfinding value; Ontario Line is a completely hollow political name with no wayfinding value.

I suppose credit must go where it's due for the fact that they restrained themselves from calling it the Doug Ford line.
 
I like the simplicity of Line 1, 2, etc., or Line A, B, etc., or red/blue/yellow/etc line. Even though I grew up knowing them as Yonge line or Bloor/Danforth line. Just for new comers - and also possible line extensions, you aren't stuck with place names - these generic names are a lot easier to remember IMHO.
 
We can keep both - name and route number.
The same is used on bus and streetcar routes. I don't see how that's a problem for rapid transit routes.
There are also large metro/train systems around the world (London, most rail lines in Japan) that use both name and number/colour, and they do just fine.
It just needs consistency.
 
futurebound said:
Just call them by their numbers. There is no value in having unique names for everything, have you ever heard a normal, regular person call Line 1 "Yonge-University-Spadina Line"? Most of the time people use "Line 1" or "Line 2" anyways.
Click to expand...

I've always used Yellow line, Green line, Blue line, and Pink line. It's far more straightforward for me that way. I've also heard others use colours as the identification.
 
futurebound said:
Just call them by their numbers. There is no value in having unique names for everything, have you ever heard a normal, regular person call Line 1 "Yonge-University-Spadina Line"? Most of the time people use "Line 1" or "Line 2" anyways.
Click to expand...
I use the names! Everyone thinks differently. There are plenty of people who can never remember which one is considered Line 1 vs Line 2, so having a descriptive tagline (even if not quite accurate), is a nice way to account for at least two ways of thinking. Names rather than numbers are also quite common in other countries (e.g. Japan).
 
I see no issue with having multiple means of identifying a line. But I do think the primary method should be the colored circled with the number along with its destination. Then you don't have to worry about eastbound/westbound/northbound/southbound which are a problem particularly for Line 1, but would somewhat be a problem for the Ontario line as well.
 
Dan416 said:
I see no issue with having multiple means of identifying a line. But I do think the primary method should be the colored circled with the number along with its destination. Then you don't have to worry about eastbound/westbound/northbound/southbound which are a problem particularly for Line 1, but would somewhat be a problem for the Ontario line as well.
Click to expand...
Except if we ever decide to build a loop line (some have proposed hypothetically extending the OL into a loop in the far future), it wouldn't have a destination (read: terminus) 😆.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top