Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[TorontoBun]

I hope that isn’t the finalized version of the pole. I can easily see confusion come up as to whether the LRT is a different service (at an extra cost). The locals would eventually get it, but not so much the tourists or new residents from out of town.

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

I don’t mind the pole but what would’ve been a big improvement is back lighting. Something along the lines of the Viva blue backlighted signage to “pop out” from the surround environment (blue and white). For the Crosstown pole, the orange could be lite up with white backlighted lettering.

I hate to say it but so far these surface stops are almost the poor man’s version of the Viva stops. If we use Viva as the gold star for design, disregarding cost of course.

 

[ARG1]

I hate to say it but so far these surface stops are almost the poor man’s version of the Viva stops. If we use Viva as the gold star for design, disregarding cost of course.

Well at least our high property taxes up here pays for something, even if it is visual more than it is functional.

 

[Transportfan]

I hope that isn’t the finalized version of the pole. I can easily see confusion come up as to whether the LRT is a different service (at an extra cost). The locals would eventually get it, but not so much the tourists or new residents from out of town.

I was wondering what up with those signs. They should at least put a TTC logo on the pole as for all intents and purposes the Crosstown is a TTC line.

 

[MisterF]

Ultimately whether it's a TTC line or a Metrolinx line isn't really relevant. It's a rapid transit line in Toronto. The branding and wayfinding should be the same on all of them.

 

[KhalilHeron]

Ultimately whether it's a TTC line or a Metrolinx line is irrelevant. It's a rapid transit line in Toronto. The branding and wayfinding should be the same on all of them.

Until the region has complete fare integration you kind of have to specify which transit provider the station or stop is for so people know how much theyll have to pay.

 

[MisterF]

Until the region has complete fare integration you kind of have to specify which transit provider the station or stop is for so people know how much theyll have to pay.

According to Metrolinx the fare on line 5 is expected to be the same as the other lines, so there's no need to identify it any differently. I agree though, there needs to be full fare integration especially as GO service continues to improve.

 

[KhalilHeron]

According to Metrolinx the fare on line 5 is expected to be the same as the other lines, so there's no need to identify it any differently. I agree though, there needs to be full fare integration especially as GO service continues to improve.

Thats what i mean it should be identified as operated by the ttc so people (mainly tourists) dont confuse it with GO services or something.

 

[chinesehorse]

Ultimately whether it's a TTC line or a Metrolinx line is irrelevant. It's a rapid transit line in Toronto. The branding and wayfinding should be the same on all of them.

I think the "T" will be slowly finding itself to most rapid transit facilities in the GTHA.

The T works well (but maybe not the best) in creating a standard symbol for rapid transit for the entire region short of having an existing brand (such as the TTC) becoming a region-wide indicator for rapid transit lines (which I honestly wouldn't mind either). The wayfinding guide's inclusion of numerical route lozenges (originally developed by the TTC) for rapid transit lines under development such as the Hurontario Line lends the idea that rapid transit lines in the GTHA will probably be eventually branded similarly (with the T and operator logos below) and that emphasis on maps will shift from Toronto-centric to regional rapid transit with the T symbol becoming a standardised symbol for all rapid transit.

Curious to see though is how the TTC will integrate Metrolinx's wayfinding guidelines within their existing wayfinding guide from 2013. Relatively new TTC logo pylons representing rapid transit would have to be replaced if they decide to (or are forced to) embrace Metrolinx's wayfinding guide. Also curious is why brand new transit facilities such as the new Kipling regional bus terminal aren't using the latest wayfinding guidelines either (guess they weren't implemented in time!).

 

[superelevation]

When it comes to the economics of transit, commercial and residential density are two critical factors. Investing in the highest order transit makes sense if you have high density areas that will yield commensurate ridership.

If not, you're throwing money down the drain.

Sheppard is a perfect example of this. 27 years after construction began, the area is still suburban in nature. The line is woefully underused. It's basically an express route from Fairview Mall to Yonge-Sheppard. It doesn't matter how appealing you make transit when the rider/destination base isn't there.

Sheppard is fairly successful given the corridor, I think a lot of people would be surprised how busy trains are even off peak. With all the new development finally filling in around Bessarion even that station will likely be doing better. All this in mind the "TOD" is pretty terrible, its not really oriented towards the stations besides at Don Mills, at Leslie, Bessarion, and Bayview the density is actually set back from the stations making for especially inconvenient walking connections especially at Leslie. Literally the reverse of what Vancouver would do.

Not only should Science Centre station still be underground with the "elevated" alignment, but they should have just kept the line underground all the way until Science Centre.

They could have run it on the surface at the south side of the road and fixed literally all the problems for a very similar price.

A few things here...

Ionview is surrounded by apartments and will likely have alot of usage getting to and from Kennedy Station. Kennedy Station is not walkable from here.

Pharmacy is a major street in this part of Scarborough. There will likely be high demand here.

Hakimi-Lebovic has alot of commercial development around it and has a large redevelopment planned. When it opens it will be highly used.

Aga Khan is the one station I do think should have been eliminated.

Eglinton will work, the glass is a lot more than 50% full.

Many tweaks could have been done to make it even better. Full grade separation between Laird and Sc Centre. A better balance between the west and east, both being elevated instead of the tunnel in the west and at-grade in the east. Better transit priority. Slightly different stop spacing and stop locations. Heck, the colour scheme could be more imaginative than grey + white.

But, it will go such a long way up from the mixed-traffic bus, that I don't see much reason for complains.

Its an over ten year project with a pretty mediocre result - especially in the East. And for prices higher than subways in other cities, not surprising that people wouldn't be happy.

Too bad TTC doesn't have all the money in the world to satisfy everyone. The Labovic-Hakimi stop is there so people can walk to/from the store closer instead of walking to Pharmacy or Warden. Fair amount of people uses those bus stops so the removal would make it a pain for the locals.

Its almost as if cutting some stops, elevating and automating the thing would save money in the long run . . . but truth be told this isn't the TTC's money anyways!

No, that doesn't make the stops 100 metres apart! You can't measure from the stop in one direction, to the stop in the other direction! And if you did (and there's no reason to), it doesn't effect the places where vehicles can cross the tracks), then 330-90-90 = 150 not 100!

Superelvation talked of stations (not stops) being 100 metres apart, with vehicles crossing. This just doesn't happen.

First calling it a stop is odd in the first place, I thought the point of LRT was to elevate us beyond what streetcars and buses have . . .

Its hyperbole but its also a great measure of how poorly planned this line is, there is *no* reason to waste the best cross town corridor in the region like this. You literally have to walk 300m+ from you car to the store in most of this area. People can walk a few hundred meters, they will be healthier for it.

 

[sche]

I think the "T" will be slowly finding itself to most rapid transit facilities in the GTHA.

The T works well (but maybe not the best) in creating a standard symbol for rapid transit for the entire region short of having an existing brand (such as the TTC) becoming a region-wide indicator for rapid transit lines (which I honestly wouldn't mind either). The wayfinding guide's inclusion of numerical route lozenges (originally developed by the TTC) for rapid transit lines under development such as the Hurontario Line lends the idea that rapid transit lines in the GTHA will probably be eventually branded similarly (with the T and operator logos below) and that emphasis on maps will shift from Toronto-centric to regional rapid transit with the T symbol becoming a standardised symbol for all rapid transit.

Curious to see though is how the TTC will integrate Metrolinx's wayfinding guidelines within their existing wayfinding guide from 2013. Relatively new TTC logo pylons representing rapid transit would have to be replaced if they decide to (or are forced to) embrace Metrolinx's wayfinding guide. Also curious is why brand new transit facilities such as the new Kipling regional bus terminal aren't using the latest wayfinding guidelines either (guess they weren't implemented in time!).

Except...
Metrolinx seems to be using the T not to represent rapid transit, but just wants to plaster it everywhere. The T appears on new GO bus stops, and now on ECLRT.

This document http://www.metrolinx.com/en/greaterregion/projects/docs/wayfinding/MX_Wayfinding-FactSheet_Jan24.pdf says: "the ‘T’ was selected as the network identifier symbol in Wayfinding Standard and will be gradually implemented throughout the region"

So it seems ML wants to put this on all transit in the region.

According to ML, the T is supposed to just mean "transit" https://blog.metrolinx.com/2020/02/...ansit-wayfinding-identifier-hits-the-streets/

Who knows how much money and time they wasted on consultants and meetings to come up with this lame "T", but IMO this is totally useless and conveys just about no useful information. It gives no information whatsoever about the mode of transit, the level of service, the quality of service, the fares, nothing useful.

Saying "hey, there is transit here" is not useful information. I think it's pretty obvious that there is transit when I see a bus stop or subway station. A bus or train icon also conveys the presence of transit, but conveys a mode too. A number in a circle can convey the presence of transit, the mode, and the route.
Now with these dumb T things we need to put a T and a bus icon on a bus stop, 2x the number of icons. It's stupid.

And the funny thing is, on Metrolinx's wayfinding fact sheet (first link above), they state that they specifically did not wanted an icon that did not convey mode, yet they cite a bunch of international examples, almost all of them are icons that convey mode. Why are we citing international examples if we are choosing to do something wholly different?

 

[Undead]

^Metrolinx works in mysterious ways.

 

[Johnny Au]

Not only is the T logo lame, it's obviously plagiarized.

Many transit agencies around the world have a very similar logo. The MBTA's logo is the exact inverse of Metrolinx's T logo.

 

[MisterF]

Thats what i mean it should be identified as operated by the ttc so people (mainly tourists) dont confuse it with GO services or something.

It's more important to distinguish between different types of service than different agencies. Tourists don't care about who runs the trains, they just want the system to be easy to use.

I think the "T" will be slowly finding itself to most rapid transit facilities in the GTHA.

The T works well (but maybe not the best) in creating a standard symbol for rapid transit for the entire region short of having an existing brand (such as the TTC) becoming a region-wide indicator for rapid transit lines (which I honestly wouldn't mind either).

The problem with the TTC logo is that it doesn't identify rapid transit. It never has. It's found on subway stations, streetcar stops, and bus shelters. It's just a corporate logo. All it says is that there's some kind of transit run by that agency, nothing more. The Montreal metro is identified by a very distinctive down arrow, not the STM corporate logo.

Sounds like the Metrolinx T isn't going to be much better.

 

[JSF-1]

It's more important to distinguish between different types of service than different agencies. Tourists don't care about who runs the trains, they just want the system to be easy to use.


The problem with the TTC logo is that it doesn't identify rapid transit. It never has. It's found on subway stations, streetcar stops, and bus shelters. It's just a corporate logo. All it says is that there's some kind of transit run by that agency, nothing more. Sounds like the Metrolinx T isn't going to be much better.

Well in pretty much every case around the world its the same. Any transit agency that uses a T or an M does so because that's literally the agencies logo. Metrolinx to me is literally trying to re-invent the wheel here. TfL is probably one of the only agencies that distinguishes its services and even then they all use the same roundel since they are all owned and operated by the the same agency.