News   Jul 10, 2024
U of T's Rotman Commerce Design by Danish Architects 3XN Unveiled
 1.9K     1 
News   Jul 10, 2024
News Roundup for July 10, 2024
 650     0 
News   Jul 10, 2024
Slice of Town
 983     0 

Transit Fantasy Maps

What, so it's supposed to look like something that Joe Madureira would spend a week making? In case you haven't noticed, the point of logos is elegant simplicity. The more elegant and more simplistic you can make it, the better it is. Metrolinx's logo is certainly simple, but I find that the combination of colour use and simple shapes gives it a nice charm. Should we not be saying it's a government organization? Does the TTC receive any less stick because it's logo is more complicated? Does that make people forget that it's a government organization?

If you're going to turn that around, I'll note that it's important for Metrolinx's face to be throughout the system. If it's going to be running things, it'll be important to have a cue that shows that you're still within the single regional system. And a simple but easily recognizable stamp is the perfect thing to represent that.

yllianos, I also like how you could just stick each logo on to every vehicle from every system without even a paint job, and it'd still seem right at home.
 
Second_in_pie said:
In case you haven't noticed, the point of logos is elegant simplicity.
Click to expand...

Thats a pretty broad oversimplification of graphic design.

Second_in_pie said:
The more elegant and more simplistic you can make it, the better it is.
Click to expand...

While the Metrolinx logo is certainly brain dead simple, being heavily dirived from nearly every other M in a circle logo, elegant it's not.
 
I think its partly because most of the other ones are logos specifically for their subway/metro systems. The TTC never developed a different branding for their subway. Compare to a place like Montreal where the STM has a forgettable logo, but the Metro logo itself is quite good (In my opinion anyway).
 
nfitz said:
Wow ... the TTC one really stands out as not being clear.
Click to expand...

It's a wide format logo displayed in a square format on that site. So it looks smaller and more compressed then many of the other logos which are square.
But yes, the logo could be cleaned up a touch, and was durring the St. George signage experiment. But the TTC refuses to use it.
That said it reduces well enough as seen on tokens.
 
picard102 said:
It's a wide format logo displayed in a square format on that site. So it looks smaller and more compressed then many of the other logos which are square.
Click to expand...
Perhaps ... but when wandering around the city finding subway stations, I find it a heck of a lot easier to spot a Metro entrance in Paris, a London Underground station, or a Metro station in Paris; than I do in seeing the TTC entrance.

And I tend to know where the Toronto entrances are for a station I seldom use ... unlike in Europe.
 
I made this post in the Transit City thread, but I think it makes more sense to post it here:

So I finally finished my map, unfortunately the size of it is too large to be effectively shrunken down and still be readable. I have posted it on my blog instead of here, because at least there its semi-readable: http://jandrew86.blogspot.com/2010/08/fantasy-map-for-toronto-transit.html

If anyone would be willing to host the full image on their site, I would be very grateful.

A couple things I have done:

1) I have taken a page from NYC's books and labelled individual routes along the various lines. Subway routes are numbered, LRT and BRT routes are lettered. Black station dots are local stations, white station dots are either express stations, or simply the only stations on the line (ex: B-D only has white dots, because there is no express route on it).

2) I mentioned earlier the Queen thing. I figured a good cost-saving measure would be to build the local stations to accomodate maximum 2-car trainsets, this would save on construction as well as maintenance costs, as the stations would be much smaller, and thus cheaper to build. Only the express stations would need to have full length platforms.

3) The lines with the funny shading on them are dedicated express tracks (the 5 and A trains run on the express tracks). The E, F, G, and H BRT routes could potentially run some express buses too.

4) The D Train is a version of the Jane LRT. Same ROW north of Eglinton as the current proposal, but south of Eglinton it uses a combination of the A train tracks and the B train tracks to go through downtown and terminate at Queen East Stn. I figured a Jane LRT that at least went downtown would be much more useful than the current proposal. Not necessarily a fan of LRT on this corridor, but the interlining potential makes it at least worth looking at.

Questions and comments welcome. I do realize at first the map looks pretty confusing, as it's a pretty radical departure from a typical TTC map. Also maybe some different things on there that people haven't really seen before.
 
Last edited:
One thing I don't see any point in is what looks like a subway along Bay Street. The distance between Yonge and University is already negligible. Why do we need yet another subway line in there? Waste of funds if you ask me. Furthermore, you cut off the Lakeshore LRT at Long Branch, whereas it should go to Port Credit. And the Bloor line should go to Square One.
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
One thing I don't see any point in is what looks like a subway along Bay Street. The distance between Yonge and University is already negligible. Why do we need yet another subway line in there? Waste of funds if you ask me. Furthermore, you cut off the Lakeshore LRT at Long Branch, whereas it should go to Port Credit. And the Bloor line should go to Square One.
Click to expand...

It's an express subway, a very long-term project, but something interesting to put in there none the less, essentially doubling the capacity of the Yonge line. And yes, extending the Lakeshore branch to Port Credit does make sense. And with the Bloor line to Square One, I think Eglinton makes more sense, especially when people can transfer onto an express service (the A train) at Martin Grove that would be only 10 stops to downtown. Also, you'd be upgrading the existing BRT ROW to LRT, much cheaper than a subway to Square One which would essentially serve the same purpose.
 
That could be all be done by 2020.........................oops, I meant to say 2120 given Toronto's torrid 6km/decade average subway expansion record.
Mind you if you were in Vancouver you could have 51 km of it done in 15 years line Vancouver will have done between 1999 and 2014 but that's "different".
How much of that system map will be at grade/elevated or is this how thing assume another tunnel near Walmart like the TTC and City Hall seem determined on building?
From what I can see only a small portion Eglinton & Queen is in the original city of Toronto and does not have the benefit of rail ROW. Toronto should have a firm rule that any systems that do not go thru dense urban areas MUST use elevation. ROW, and at grade or only a slight trench. This is how the rest of the planet does it and hence huge expansions in the rest of the world and basically nothing for Toronto since the 70s.
 
ssiguy2 said:
That could be all be done by 2020.........................oops, I meant to say 2120 given Toronto's torrid 6km/decade average subway expansion record.
Mind you if you were in Vancouver you could have 51 km of it done in 15 years line Vancouver will have done between 1999 and 2014 but that's "different".
How much of that system map will be at grade/elevated or is this how thing assume another tunnel near Walmart like the TTC and City Hall seem determined on building?
From what I can see only a small portion Eglinton & Queen is in the original city of Toronto and does not have the benefit of rail ROW. Toronto should have a firm rule that any systems that do not go thru dense urban areas MUST use elevation. ROW, and at grade or only a slight trench. This is how the rest of the planet does it and hence huge expansions in the rest of the world and basically nothing for Toronto since the 70s.
Click to expand...

You should know as well as anyone that I'm not a big fan of at-grade in-median LRT. In fact, I envision the only portions of this system actually using that are the tail-end of the Eglinton line into Square One, and the outer portions of the B and D lines (original Queen streetcar and Jane LRT). Portions of the E, F, G, and H BRT routes will use curbside lanes (specifically along McCowan, Highway 27, and Kingston Rd. The rest would be Ottawa-style BRT, running mainly through hydro corridors. And of course, trenched through the Richview corridor, and elevated through the Golden Mile.

But as for an elevated guideway along Queen street or the central portion of Eglinton, hell no.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top