nfitz
Superstar
That's a station? Are they out of their minds?
Here's a 2019 image of the north service entrance to the Line 5 yard.
|
|
|
- Thread starter TheTigerMaster
- Start date
Here's a 2019 image of the north service entrance to the Line 5 yard.
crs1026
Superstar
ARG1
Senior Member
Well its a false comparison. The GO logo specifically refers to the GO Trains and Busses. The idea of the T is to have a general symbol that represents all of transport in the GTHA including GO, TTC, YRT, MiWay, DRT, BT, etc.
The problem isn't that they want to have a global unifying logo, the problem is the logo they chose is awful.
nfitz
Superstar
The other problem is that Metrolinx is in it's own perverse bubble, and ignores that few other agencies are going to adopt this. Especially with that colour.
No fear though - the folks responsible for branding at Metrolinx will be out of a job, if they don't completely change it every 5 years. They haven't finished painting the GO vehicles from the last rebranding!
Amare
Senior Member
I think the bigger problem is, Metrolinx had the awnser right in front of them if they wanted to use a symbol (one that people are already somewhat familiar with):
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I have no issue with the generic rondel T - as uninspired as it is - the issue is, just what is it suppose to represent? Transit in general? That's pretty much all but useless. Is not being able to find transit really an issue here?
AoD
crs1026
Superstar
^I'm not sure why (other than empire building) a single generic logo is so necessary or why people feel we need to program everyone to look for a symbol that ML will only change in a few years. Is this a national thing? Or will I still have to look for something else in Montreal?
If more generic branding is needed, I would stick with the generic train-LRT-subway-bus drawn images as appropriate. With the logo of the specific operator underneath.
I would never, ever use a black and white graphic for wayfinding.... visibility at night has to be terrible.
Even London double deckers indicate which operator is running that route.
- Paul
If more generic branding is needed, I would stick with the generic train-LRT-subway-bus drawn images as appropriate. With the logo of the specific operator underneath.
I would never, ever use a black and white graphic for wayfinding.... visibility at night has to be terrible.
Even London double deckers indicate which operator is running that route.
- Paul
ARG1
Senior Member
The idea is to have a single recognizable brand across the GTHA. For a lot of people - especially tourists and Torontonians who never leave Toronto, using a transit agency you aren't familiar with can be daunting. The idea is say you're someone who lives in Toronto, if you go to Durham and for whatever reason want to use the transit system there, you will encounter the exact same wayfinding, bus stop design, and what not so that it makes using transit more appealing. This is especially important if in the future we move towards more cross-regional service with fare integration where the existence of separate agencies and services becomes questionable.
Again conceptually, this is actually a really good idea and something that we should be moving towards, but if we have to standardize the entire GTHA to one standard, we have to make sure its a good standard, and unfortunately this one ain't it.
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
The problem is it sounds good on paper however Metrolinx so far had failed to use it in their most recent projects. The new bay concourse doesn't use it, the new union station bus terminal doesn't use it nor does the new terminal at kippling. They plan to update the several years from now apprently where as the TTC when they changed theirs did it very quickly.
crs1026
Superstar
I’m not sure this concept carries as much weight in reality as is argued because
a) proportionately, most transit users are local repeat users and have learned the variations in local signage
b) if the unified signage is unique to the GTA, tourists will still find it unfamiliar until they acclimatise and
c) variation in vehicle route/destination signage and indication route direction may be a bigger anxiety (“Is this bus the 52A and does this one go towards Yonge or away from it?” is a bigger uncertainty for a rider in unfamiliar territory than “Is this the bus stop?”).
But having said that, I agree…..if a single unified symbol is a good idea, ML has delivered a really poor one.
- Paul
PS - a pet peeve - I did once have a tourist ask me where the 60 Leafs bus went - because the destination sign read GO LEAFS GO….. if wayfinding needs to be uniform then standardising bus destination signs and banning promotional slogans is a place to start !
Last edited:
turini2
Active Member
Frankly - I like the T. There's far too much single operator thinking in the GTHA - TTC ignoring GO ignoring MiWay ignoring etc etc.
Stations with identical or unhelpful names, adjacent stations with different names, cross boundary fares etc. And don't get me started on TTC bus stop information!
A step towards coordinated branding of "there's transit here" is step in the right direction - Translink in Vancouver also has the "T" and it looks great. If it takes the iron fist of Metrolinx to force it through, so be it. That's what a regional body is for, right - doing the best thing for the region!
Coordinated wayfinding - even better. (However, Line 5 should have the line bullet at the station entrances!)
Stations with identical or unhelpful names, adjacent stations with different names, cross boundary fares etc. And don't get me started on TTC bus stop information!
A step towards coordinated branding of "there's transit here" is step in the right direction - Translink in Vancouver also has the "T" and it looks great. If it takes the iron fist of Metrolinx to force it through, so be it. That's what a regional body is for, right - doing the best thing for the region!
Coordinated wayfinding - even better. (However, Line 5 should have the line bullet at the station entrances!)
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
There’s nothing wrong with unified branding, in principle. The issue is Metrolinx’s execution is terrible.
This signage could represent anything. Could it be a parking lot? Yes. Hospital? Why not. A beauty supply shop? Sure. It’s a nice sign that communicates zero information to those not already familiar with this branding.
In a world full of signage and branding, there is nothing distinctive or recognizable about a black sign with a “T” on it. This completely blends in with the environment. They couldn’t even be bothered to add any iconography whatsoever to indicate that transit services exist here. I would have zero expectation that someone looking for a transit station would find it based on this signage.
Transit signage needs to be bold, distinctive and instantly recognizable. The TTC logo does that. The GO transit logo does as well. But this new branding fails on all three points.
This branding and colour scheme might look nice, but design isn’t just about how things look, it’s about how they work. Metrolinx has created a very visually appealing brand that, on a functional basis, does not work.
Last edited:
Johnny Au
Senior Member
Metrolinx and GO renaming Lincolnville GO Station to honour 200-year-old elm tree, October 16
The station is now called Old Elm.
en.wikipedia.org
The station is located 500m south of the former Lincolnville GO Station.
The station is now called Old Elm.
Old Elm GO Station - Wikipedia
The station is located 500m south of the former Lincolnville GO Station.
blaixx
Active Member
The station will be located 500m south of the current one when it is completed in 2022. It's weird that they didn't just wait for the new station to open before renaming it.
Amare
Senior Member
Hopefully this is temporary, not a fan of this artwork at all:
