PATH Network Expansion (various, various, various)

[W. K. Lis]

The current TTC logo

should not be altered too greatly. People here know that it is the TTC, and changing it greatly would not be welcome by most.

It has changed over the years.

but could be tweaked.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

AFAIK, the Financial District BIA is paying for this map. If the Downtown Yonge BIA chipped in, maybe it would extend further north!

You see, this is problematic. The PATH needs a unified approach to it, led by City Planners with assistance from the BIAs, not the other way.

What is the PATH? Sam Mizrahi is advertizing Bloor-Yonge as the PATH these days.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

The common suggestion on the reddit thread over the map redesign is something that has been mentioned on here before:

"Here's a crazy idea. Name the streets and put up street signs. Tada."

I ultimately agree. Name these underground streets, hell even give stores 'street numbers', and we solve much of the navigation issues with the PATH.

 

[MisterF]

I like the TTC logo for the agency in general, but they should have a separate logo for the rapid transit system specifically. Like Montreal has with STM and the metro. Or even YRT and Viva.

Appears not.

I never really understood what was achieved on the old map by including the clusters at the St. Patrick's subway, Discovery District and College Park. Those clusters are not connected to the main network, and are for the most part a good distance away.

Those clusters serve the same function in those parts of downtown and are officially part of the PATH network. There's no need to exclude them just because they're not physically connected. Again using Montreal as an example, their underground city has several disconnected sections. IMO, the PATH should also include the underground network in the Bloor-Yorkville area, which is pretty sizeable.

 

[Skeezix]

[...] Those clusters serve the same function in those parts of downtown and are officially part of the PATH network. There's no need to exclude them just because they're not physically connected. Again using Montreal as an example, their underground city has several disconnected sections. IMO, the PATH should also include the underground network in the Bloor-Yorkville area, which is pretty sizeable.

Okay, but my question is what was achieved by including them on the map, not what is their official status and function. Official status and function aren't really relevant to someone trying to figure out how to get somewhere. This isn't a status or function map, but a wayfinding map. Those clusters are not close by, and none of them really amount to anything (there are not really comparable in any way to the Berri-UQAM cluster in Montreal which connects the UQAM campus, the Grande Bibliothèque and the bus station, and is among the most used portions of the underground). If the map can be made larger and simpler, and thus more user-friendly by deleting clusters that are not connected to the main PATH, then frankly I don't see what is achieved by including them on the map. If those other clusters aren't particularly relevant to users trying to get from A to B in the main network, then eliminate the irrelevant information. Finding one's way in the PATH is hard enough if the map is cluttered with extraneous information for the sake of status and function.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Okay, but my question is what was achieved by including them on the map, not what is their official status and function. Official status and function aren't really relevant to someone trying to figure out how to get somewhere. This isn't a status or function map, but a wayfinding map. Those clusters are not close by, and none of them really amount to anything (there are not really comparable in any way to the Berri-UQAM cluster in Montreal which connects the UQAM campus, the Grande Bibliothèque and the bus station, and is among the most used portions of the underground). If the map can be made larger and simpler, and thus more user-friendly by deleting clusters that are not connected to the main PATH, then frankly I don't see what is achieved by including them on the map. If those other clusters aren't particularly relevant to users trying to get from A to B in the main network, then eliminate the irrelevant information. Finding one's way in the PATH is hard enough if the map is cluttered with extraneous information for the sake of status and function.

They should be the main focus of the map within their respective areas, and in the rest of the sytem, be placed on a box to the side.

But I think they should include the College Park system at a minimum, because it might only be a decade or so until the idea of the College Park system being connected with the rest of the system becomes very feasible/realistic.

 

[Skeezix]

They should be the main focus of the map within their respective areas, and in the rest of the sytem, be placed on a box to the side.

But I think they should include the College Park system at a minimum, because it might only be a decade or so until the idea of the College Park system being connected with the rest of the system becomes very feasible/realistic.

If the cluster at College Park ever connects to the main PATH, or if it expands significantly (through the Chelsea and 363 Yonge sites, and possibly others), then certainly revisit it. But can't see why would clutter the map today for something that might happen in a decade or so.

It's just my opinion.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Just about any of the underground connections for Toronto's subway and rapid transit lines (Crosstown LRT) could be parts of the PATH system. Who knows what PATH will grow to be like in 2116?

 

[MisterF]

Okay, but my question is what was achieved by including them on the map, not what is their official status and function. Official status and function aren't really relevant to someone trying to figure out how to get somewhere. This isn't a status or function map, but a wayfinding map. Those clusters are not close by, and none of them really amount to anything (there are not really comparable in any way to the Berri-UQAM cluster in Montreal which connects the UQAM campus, the Grande Bibliothèque and the bus station, and is among the most used portions of the underground). If the map can be made larger and simpler, and thus more user-friendly by deleting clusters that are not connected to the main PATH, then frankly I don't see what is achieved by including them on the map. If those other clusters aren't particularly relevant to users trying to get from A to B in the main network, then eliminate the irrelevant information. Finding one's way in the PATH is hard enough if the map is cluttered with extraneous information for the sake of status and function.

The same thing that's achieved by including the area around the CN Tower or the Eaton Centre. It shows you where you are and how to get where you're going. The Berri-UQAM cluster is comparable to the Yonge-Bloor cluster, which is just as busy as much of the main PATH, connects major buildings over several blocks, and has the city's busiest subway interchange. Adding these areas wouldn't clutter up the map. Montreal's network goes from Atwater Station to Berri-UQAM, which is the same distance as from Front to Bloor. Their maps are actually less cluttered than Toronto's, IMO. If the PATH map is cluttered, it's not because of how much of the city is covered, it's because it's badly designed. And that's why they're redesigning it.

If the cluster at College Park ever connects to the main PATH, or if it expands significantly (through the Chelsea and 363 Yonge sites, and possibly others), then certainly revisit it. But can't see why would clutter the map today for something that might happen in a decade or so.

It's just my opinion.

College Park is already part of the PATH and is included in the official map.

 

[Dan416]

For fun I removed the "wings" from the TTC logo just to see how it would look.

Click on them to see them properly.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Just about any of the underground connections for Toronto's subway and rapid transit lines (Crosstown LRT) could be parts of the PATH system. Who knows what PATH will grow to be like in 2116?

I foresee the need for the clusters at Yonge-Eglinton and Yonge-Sheppard being mapped out one day.

 

[rbt]

College Park is already part of the PATH and is included in the official map.

Was included. Seems to be gone again.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...-simplify-byzantine-path-map-take-a-look.html

New map looks pretty good but I'm not sure it's wise to reduce subway stations to single points. The second (south) connection to King is no where close to the "King Station" point on the map.

I do like the separation of the "main flow" from the side flows. Also, getting rid of the "future connections" seems wise.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

For fun I removed the "wings" from the TTC logo just to see how it would look.

Click on them to see them properly.

Not an indication/criticism of your skills - but it looks awkward. How about just have a sans-serif T set in (and touching) a circle in TTC red - simple, identifiable, easy to replicate and adaptable to multiple contexts.

AoD

 

[W. K. Lis]

Instead of dots representing subway stations, they should show the station boxes instead.

 

[Dan416]

Not an indication/criticism of your skills - but it looks awkward. How about just have a sans-serif T set in (and touching) a circle in TTC red - simple, identifiable, easy to replicate and adaptable to multiple contexts.

AoD

It's not really skill. I used Paint to remove the wings from the official logo. It's simply how the existing logo looks like without the wings, with no other changes at all. I don't have the skills to do what you suggest unfortunately.