News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.5K     0 

In the case of Clearview ADA, it always felt more to me as it was designed to be optimal for reading text up close, like off a page, not for reading text off a sign a few blocks down the street - however someone branded it as the universal most legible font and now agencies are just playing along.

Clearview was specifically designed to be used on highway/road signage, when the reader would have a limited amount of time to take in the data and would be trying to read it a quickly changing focal lengths as they approached it.

It is quite literally the polar opposite to a font designed to be read off of a page.

Dan
 
Clearview was specifically designed to be used on highway/road signage, when the reader would have a limited amount of time to take in the data and would be trying to read it a quickly changing focal lengths as they approached it.
Well that doesn't exactly apply to transit stops which will mostly be accessed by pedestrians who aren't running at 120km/h.

And while this is opinion, I can't say that my personal experience with Clearview on Highways has been all that great, I personally find Highway Gothic much easier to read.
 
This is a point I bring up all the time about Metrolinx' insistence on using Clearview ADA, maybe on a technical level it could be considered more legible than the traditional TTC Font (although I raise serious questions about that claim), but is it significantly more legible, or are we pulling hairstrings over a tiny percentage point?
The TTC typeface didn't even have numerals until 2013. I'm not even sure if they have a lowercase letter set. It's a fine font for displaying the station name on the platform, but for actual wayfinding we have much better alternatives.
 
The TTC typeface didn't even have numerals until 2013. I'm not even sure if they have a lowercase letter set. It's a fine font for displaying the station name on the platform, but for actual wayfinding we have much better alternatives.
What makes the TTC typeface great in my eyes, especially for outdoor wayfinding is the big bold letters which makes it very easy to distinguish letters from a distance with minimal confusion. This means that it is far more easier to read and identify the name of a station on some banner when a block or 2 away. Meanwhile Clearview ADA, or at least Metrolinx' implementation of it seems to have a massive Kerning problem. The letters are far too squished together and makes reading the word challenging. Just look at the Old Elm signage from the previous page and notice how there is very little separation between the 'E' and the 'l'.
 
What makes the TTC typeface great in my eyes, especially for outdoor wayfinding is the big bold letters which makes it very easy to distinguish letters from a distance with minimal confusion. This means that it is far more easier to read and identify the name of a station on some banner when a block or 2 away.
Signage in all caps is not easier to distinguish. It's by far proven to be worse and takes more cognitive load to parse.
That you're used to the particular word forms after years of seeing them doesn't mean they are better.

Meanwhile Clearview ADA, or at least Metrolinx' implementation of it seems to have a massive Kerning problem. The letters are far too squished together and makes reading the word challenging. Just look at the Old Elm signage from the previous page and notice how there is very little separation between the 'E' and the 'l'.
The letter spacing isn't ideal. That doesn't mean the problem is the typeface.
 
Any reason this project only planned to save 20% of time? And approx 40 minutes for 10
KM. Are theses number accurate?

With track separated and transit priority I would have expected something faster.
 
The TTC typeface didn't even have numerals until 2013. I'm not even sure if they have a lowercase letter set. It's a fine font for displaying the station name on the platform, but for actual wayfinding we have much better alternatives.
I'm pretty sure I've seen numbers in the subway tiles (relating to escalators?) before 2013.
 
Last edited:
Any reason this project only planned to save 20% of time? And approx 40 minutes for 10
KM. Are theses number accurate?

With track separated and transit priority I would have expected something faster.
I won't say that time and speed isn't important, but vehicle capacity is the major transit issue along Finch West. A lot of buses, at least pre-pandemic, were showing up every few minutes completely packed to the gills.
 
I'm pretty sure I've seen numbers in the subway tiles (relating to elevators?) before 2013.
According to their in house team they had to create them ahead of stations like the 407 opening.

I would imagine other signage in the stations used something similar (Futura), but not the same as the station name in the tiles.
 
Any reason this project only planned to save 20% of time? And approx 40 minutes for 10
KM. Are theses number accurate?

With track separated and transit priority I would have expected something faster.

40 min for 10 km would be very slow, 15 kph. Doesn't sound like the correct quote.

Other modeling predicted 22-25 kph LRT speed. If so, then the LRT should travel from Finch West subway to Humber College (11 km) in 27-30 min.

Maybe, 40 min is the prediction for original Finch LRT plan (Yonge to Humber College, 17 km)? That would be consistent with the speed forecast.
 
40 min for 10 km would be very slow, 15 kph. Doesn't sound like the correct quote.

Other modeling predicted 22-25 kph LRT speed. If so, then the LRT should travel from Finch West subway to Humber College (11 km) in 27-30 min.

Maybe, 40 min is the prediction for original Finch LRT plan (Yonge to Humber College, 17 km)? That would be consistent with the speed forecast.
Thanks for your input. The info was from Metrolinx and seems to be from 2019. Hopefully your right 27-30 would be much better considering the “relatively low” frequency planned. 5-7 mins during peak could be better versus what buses can do.
 
Last edited:
Metrolinx official FAQ says the averge service speed including stops will be 20km/h. The trip is expected to take 34min.
1689138218692.png
 

Back
Top