[KevinT]

I hope once RERification work is over, GO can modernize some of its design language starting with its industrial looking logo.

Be careful what you wish for, just look at what happened to American Airlines: Their new logo looks like a hook-bladed carpet knife cutting through a shower curtain, and is pretty generic and meaningless; whereas that gothic Henry Dreyfuss penned eagle over Vignelli's AA had presence. You knew the moment you saw it exactly who and what it was.

Personally, I love GO's logo and I hope that it doesn't change for a long, long time.

 

[T3G]

Modernizing GO's logo seems like something some hack consultant would get paid 6 figures to suggest and the result would not generate any benefits whatsoever, but cost us a pretty penny.

It's a transit agency, it doesn't need to market itself. It has no competitors, besides the car, and no one is choosing to take the car instead of GO because they find its logo outdated. As long as it's not known for rickety rolling stock or cockroaches, anything else is simply superfluous.

 

[Jonny5]

Modernizing GO's logo seems like something some hack consultant would get paid 6 figures to suggest and the result would not generate any benefits whatsoever, but cost us a pretty penny.

Can I have that job please though? I am great with MS Paint. I'll even take only five figures for it!

A sample of my work. I suspect the current government will love it! Err I mean the Blue represents Lake Ontario... yeah, that's it.

That'll be $85,000.00 + HST, please.

 

[Reecemartin]

Ha! Never mind alphabet soup, NY has tons of stations with the same name and people function just fine. Here, we balk at the thought of Eglinton station retaining its extant name instead of being renamed to Eglinton-Yonge, lest it cause confusion.


What are you proposing? I dearly hope it's not to renumber those non-unique routes.

Ok so New York is bad but people survive so it's ok? I feel like that's a bad standard! Not confusing people is a worthwhile pursuit . . . it's a lot harder if you are ESL as well.
Not having unique routes across the region is bad! It's needless confusion! Even if we have to prepend a letter like in NYC that would be better . . .

 

[EnviroTO]

What are you proposing? I dearly hope it's not to renumber those non-unique routes.

You can renumber or prefix T54, M3, Y7, D5, etc. You don't need brand is my point. A bus is a bus when you have common wayfinding, common fare system, etc. Why make brand the focus.

 

[Deadpool X]

We can also add an extra number before the existing route numbers for 905 buses. For example, York Region can add 5 to its bus routes, so route 33 becomes 533. Mississauga can add 3, Durham can add 7 and so on. Routes that are already 3 lettered will have to renumbered of course.

 

[Northern Light]

We can also add an extra number before the existing route numbers for 905 buses. For example, York Region can add 5 to its bus routes, so route 33 becomes 533. Mississauga can add 3, Durham can add 7 and so on. Routes that are already 3 lettered will have to renumbered of course.

The extra numbers are already largely in use.

The TTC has base numbers like '20'

That extends beyond route 100

The TTC then uses 3 hundreds for night buses, 4 hundreds for Community buses, 5 hundreds for streetcars and 9 hundreds for expresses.

You'll also find lots of three digit routes in suburbia too.

Durham Region Transit uses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 at the start of various routes (3 digit)

Do we really want 4-digit routes?

 

[Deadpool X]

The extra numbers are already largely in use.

The TTC has base numbers like '20'

That extends beyond route 100

The TTC then uses 3 hundreds for night buses, 4 hundreds for Community buses, 5 hundreds for streetcars and 9 hundreds for expresses.

You'll also find lots of three digit routes in suburbia too.

Durham Region Transit uses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 at the start of various routes (3 digit)

Do we really want 4-digit routes?

In that case, some routes will need to renumbered like I suggested. There aren't many TTC routes with 4, 5 or 9 designation. Those should be easier to change. Other agencies can also look to renumber. It will be a one time pain but will make things easier in the long run.

 

[Willybru21]

Modernizing GO's logo seems like something some hack consultant would get paid 6 figures to suggest and the result would not generate any benefits whatsoever, but cost us a pretty penny.

It's a transit agency, it doesn't need to market itself. It has no competitors, besides the car, and no one is choosing to take the car instead of GO because they find its logo outdated. As long as it's not known for rickety rolling stock or cockroaches, anything else is simply superfluous.

I guarantee you a modern GO logo would be extremely similar to the very first one, and they would still get paid 6 figures for it.

 

[T3G]

Ok so New York is bad but people survive so it's ok? I feel like that's a bad standard! Not confusing people is a worthwhile pursuit . . . its a lot harder if you are ESL as well.
Not having unique routes across the region is bad! It's needless confusion! Even if we have to prepend a letter like in NYC that would be better . . .

First of all I'm not at all certain that New York is actually bad. Are there people who get confused by the King and Queen streetcars, for example, both stopping at the same cross streets? What about every other route that does the same? At a quick glance of the 97 Yonge bus map, there are no less than 16 intersections along Yonge with bus routes. If the parameters of your argument were to be followed, we would have to rename each of those stops to avoid confusion.


But my point was, New York could theoretically be confusing, and yet people get by just fine there. The city was brought up in counter response to the statement that we need Metrolinx's hackneyed, ugly T logo because otherwise, you won't be able to identify the transit stop you're looking at is the type you need. There is no global wayfinding problem in Toronto that warrants modification, except for, funnily enough, the poor signage within Union station (where did the comrades from Metrolinx screw up?). The T logo is a solution in search of a problem.

You can renumber or prefix T54, M3, Y7, D5, etc. You don't need brand is my point. A bus is a bus when you have common wayfinding, common fare system, etc. Why make brand the focus.

Sorry, but I find this to be a horrifying solution in proportion to the scale of the problem.

These routes from different agencies will overlap at how many stops at best? Half a dozen? It is a minor inconvenience that doesn't actually cause problems to anyone capable of critical thinking, and "solving" it will generate new costs in reprogramming signage, redoing bus stops, and reprinting maps. All because... what? We can't expect users of public services to do the bare minimum amount of thinking about what it is that they're doing?

We can also add an extra number before the existing route numbers for 905 buses. For example, York Region can add 5 to its bus routes, so route 33 becomes 533. Mississauga can add 3, Durham can add 7 and so on. Routes that are already 3 lettered will have to renumbered of course.

Again, see above. I am not at all a fan of frivolous renumberings.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Can I have that job please though? I am great with MS Paint. I'll even take only five figures for it!

A sample of my work. I suspect the current government will love it! Err I mean the Blue represents Lake Ontario... yeah, that's it.

View attachment 468671

That'll be $85,000.00 + HST, please.

That shade of blue isn't dark enough - ask if the police can see it at night.

AoD

 

[Deadpool X]

Modernizing GO's logo seems like something some hack consultant would get paid 6 figures to suggest and the result would not generate any benefits whatsoever, but cost us a pretty penny.

It's a transit agency, it doesn't need to market itself. It has no competitors, besides the car, and no one is choosing to take the car instead of GO because they find its logo outdated. As long as it's not known for rickety rolling stock or cockroaches, anything else is simply superfluous.

Visual elements and aesthetics are important, especially when GO is competing. Yes, it competes with cars and TTC.

By that logic, we should be okay with bare concrete walls in our new subway stations as long as trains are clean, we should be okay with the jersey barriers outside Union as long as they are protecting the pedestrians, we should be okay with spandrel filled condos as long as they are providing housing to people.

A better looking transit vehicle, whether it's the colour scheme or cleanliness, is important for people who have an option to drive and are sitting on the fence. We don't want people to think ugly vehicles must be for poor people who don't have any other option (New York's subway stations do give that vibe). People have preference on the colour of their car and some even pay extra for having a different colour, even if that doesn't do anything to car's comfort or fuel efficiency. If people care about the aesthetics of their personal vehicles, they would also care about aesthetics of the public vehicles even if to not that extent.

 

[T3G]

Visual elements and aesthetics are important, especially when GO is competing.

There is a world of difference between neglecting aesthetics and updating one's "brand" to keep up with the joneses.

What people care about is that their vehicle looks clean and presentable, is not dilapidated or rusty, not whether the brand is sufficiently up to date. Have you registered a noticable uptick in GO ridership since their rebranding in 2013? Or the TTC as their fleet has moved away from the kinder egg colours of the 1990s?

Yes, it competes with cars

And as I already said, the people who are choosing to use the car are doing so because they either perceive GO to be inconvenient, not financially competitive, not time competitive, or because they're asocial and don't want to share their space with the plebs. It has nothing to do with whether they find the logo or the livery up to date or not. NO rational, self sufficient adult is making decisions about which form of transport to use based on criteria like this.

and TTC

It really doesn't. GO and the TTC serve completely different markets; there are very few routes within the city that could be done both by GO or TTC. And when it comes to deciding between those routes, any sane, rational adult will weigh their options not on how ancient they find GO's brand to be, but on real, tangible things that people actually care about: how much will it cost them, in terms of money and time? Is it tenable to spend more money on GO to save time, or to waste more time on the TTC to save money? Are they in danger of getting shanked or pushed into the tracks? Will they get bedbugs if they sit down?

Fare integration with GO will change the balance a little bit, but again, the livery and logo of the transit system will not figure into that at all. The only people who care about such things are foamers and Metrolinx consultants.

By that logic, we should be okay with bare concrete walls in our new subway stations as long as trains are clean, we should be okay with the jersey barriers outside Union as long as they are protecting the pedestrians, we should be okay with spandrel filled condos as long as they are providing housing to people.

This is a really bizarre comparison to draw. All of the examples you cited are makeshift or incomplete states. GO's branding is neither makeshift nor incomplete. It is your opinion, nothing more, that it is outdated and in need of replacement. You would draw a more accurate comparison by saying that the colours of your local station are purple, but you don't like purple, you think it is outdated, so to move with the times we should adopt blue, or, red, or, in keeping with the general tone of 21st century industrial design, anthracite (see also: the colours chosen for the Eglinton Crosstown and Finch West LRTs). It is your opinion, nothing more.

But since you feel the need to make this comparison, no, I don't think GO's ridership would be materially impacted if they ran all their buses ghost white. New York's MTA basically did just that - their old livery was pitifully bland - for many years. Was there a big increase in ridership when they introduced the dark blue Cuomo buses? Do you see people avoiding the TTC or New York subways in favour of buses because they are not painted colours?

We don't want people to think ugly vehicles must be for poor people who don't have any other option (New York's subway stations do give that vibe).

And yet, New York has a very high subway ridership, and even the rich and famous can be counted among its users, which many other cities can't claim.

People have preference on the colour of their car and some even pay extra for having a different colour, even if that doesn't do anything to car's comfort or fuel efficiency. If people care about the aesthetics of their personal vehicles, they would also care about aesthetics of the public vehicles even if to not that extent.

That's a nice theory, but it again only goes so far. The people who pay extra for having a different colour are in no way a majority - if you care to look outside your window, you will see that an overwhelming majority of the cars on the road are white, gray, or black. At the same time, you will also note that most people's cars are in good shape - not rusty, dirty, scratched up etc. What this tells me is that people do not find the colour of their car, largely, to be so important as to justify shelling out extra for it, but they think it is important that their personal vehicle looks clean and well maintained.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Peak of the market retail. Love being tall.

 

[Willybru21]

The message that a user sent here in 2018 that said “The market is almost done, it’ll probably open soon” wasn’t quite correct.