TTC Destination Sign Irregularities

[TransitFan88]

I've always wondered why the TTC's destination sign format has so many inconsistencies. I'll admit, no transit system is perfect no matter how big or small it is. I personally love the TTC's format because it clearly states the route number, name, and destination (including via designations) all at a glance whereas other systems such as DRT (Durham Region Transit) have a format that only displays the route number and name (takes up entire sign with big numbers/letters), no destination (of course, there are exceptions). However, I don't see a reason as to why certain destinations are bolded, spaced out, or shortened and others aren't. Can't there be a standard that all signs should obey?

Lets take this as the "standard" for a TTC destination sign, the 47B:

Destination signs from:

http://www.majhost.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=146035&n=48

Big route number, slightly larger bolded route name, slightly smaller unbolded destination.

Here are some examples of inconsistencies:

Bolding on the destination line:

compared to

Spacing differences (destination line only):

compared to

Short forms on the destination line:

compared to

Bolding on the destination line is also seen here.

Bolding and spacing differences on the destination line:

Also, for some odd reason, the "Eglinton East" part of '34C Eglinton East - To Kennedy Stn' seems to be in a font different from the standard font (sorry about the bad quality photo, I'll try to get a better one):

Of course, the list goes on...

Name a route or branch that has a slight irregularity in its destination sign format.

[Orion9131]

O-K...?

Is it really that big of a deal?

[IRT_BMT_IND]

Some signs do not have the route number on the left, instead, it is on the top line, in normal sized text.

[smallspy]

Think about it for a second - how many different signs are there in the master program? Likely close to a thousand.

You think it's possible for one person to enter all of them into a computer?

While I agree that it would be better to have them all consistent (bold route, standard destination, spaced lettering where possible), I would be more concerned that the information uploaded to the sign is correct before it becomes consistent in form.

By the way, your picture of the 34C uses the exact same font as all of the other signs.

Dan

[Orion9131]

I'd be more concerned, if the destination info was misleading or incorrect.

[UrbanToronto]

What I don't like are how on some destination signs, the route number is included in the top route name line. I really notice this on the 165 Weston Road North signs, but am sure I've seen this elsewhere (32C for some reason comes to mind).

I do prefer the TTC's format over the alternative, used by Mississauga Transit (and later Brampton Transit) where they use one large text line and flash through it.

Except on the RTSs (where a lot of the signs appear to be broken), the signs generally work well. The combination of the orange sign and the blue LED advance lights work great for letting people know a bus is coming, especially at night.

[DavidH]

What I don't like are how on some destination signs, the route number is included in the top route name line. I really notice this on the 165 Weston Road North signs, but am sure I've seen this elsewhere.

Problem is, there is no other way to fit the entire route name on it, unless they start abbreviating. Personally, I don't think that using "Weston Rd N" would be horrible, but the TTC presumably feels otherwise.

[UrbanToronto]

Problem is, there is no other way to fit the entire route name on it, unless they start abbreviating. Personally, I don't think that using "Weston Rd N" would be horrible, but the TTC presumably feels otherwise.

Perhaps, but I don't think that's the reason. They can fit Willowdale-Senlac, so 'Weston Rd North' should be a piece of cake. Could it have something to do with a lengthy destination?

[Articulated]

Perhaps, but I don't think that's the reason. They can fit Willowdale-Senlac, so 'Weston Rd North' should be a piece of cake. Could it have something to do with a lengthy destination?

165 has 3 numbers (4 once including the branch letter), so that takes up a lot of room (IMO 1/4 of the entire sign!). It's fittable in Horizon signs, but legibility becomes a bit of an issue when trying to squish it in. Also for consistency, the MAX2000s have a lot less pixels, and they must use the upper-case number. Even using the smaller number, 165D Weston Rd North is a very very tight fit!

As for legnthy destinations, 165A is the longest, and it takes up most of the bottom line on the MAX2000s, and Major Mackenzie (D/F and now G) takes up a lot of room as well. 165,B,C are all short though.

IIRC, for Horizon signs the 165 branch uses full-height numbers.

For reference, 129 uses the same format, since McCowan North is fairly long too. 129A and 129 southbound have the number on the upper level (long destinations), while Horizon signs have the full legnth number (To Steeles is shorter).

[wil9402]

Some signs do not have the route number on the left, instead, it is on the top line, in normal sized text.

What I don't like are how on some destination signs, the route number is included in the top route name line. I really notice this on the 165 Weston Road North signs, but am sure I've seen this elsewhere (32C for some reason comes to mind).

Yes, 32C is an example of this type of destination sign, with the route number on the top line.

[TTC_1203]

The TTC destination sign format is very effective, and in my opinion should be adopted by all GTA transit systems to minimize confusion and promote standardization. The only problem I have with the TTC's format is when the route number gets displayed in small characters on the upper row next to the route name. The route number should always be displayed in big characters for maximum visibility. It would also be nice to see symbols used on certain routes, i.e. having an airplane symbol on routes serving Pearson. It would also be convenient for a full bus that isn't picking up any more passengers to display a message on the destination sign like "BUS FULL" or "TAKE NEXT BUS". It seems nicer to see this on a bus, rather than getting my hopes up and having it drive by me. Just a suggestion...

[rollsign29]

Think about it for a second - how many different signs are there in the master program? Likely close to a thousand.

You think it's possible for one person to enter all of them into a computer?

While I agree that it would be better to have them all consistent (bold route, standard destination, spaced lettering where possible), I would be more concerned that the information uploaded to the sign is correct before it becomes consistent in form.

By the way, your picture of the 34C uses the exact same font as all of the other signs.

Dan

Wrong. The "Eglinton East" portion is the smaller 7 pixel height text. The standard is 8 pixels.

Most of the time, you only see the 7 pixel height font on the bottom line (skinny font only) and occasionally on the side signs ... although I pay less attention to those.

There are a few issues with some of the signs having the route number in small numbers along the top. The main reason is the name is too long (Flemingdon Park comes to mind). An Alternative reason is that the destination is too long (32C to JANE & LAWRENCE). Both of these can be corrected and everyone (including myself) can live happily ever after ...

1. Abbreviate the Route names (This is done for 165 Weston Rd North). So, why can't we have 100 Flemingdon Pk. (when necessary)?

2. Convert the destination to the skinny font. This will correct all of the issues I am aware of when this applies (32C to Jane & Lawrence, 49A to Burhamthorpe & Markland, for examples)

[smallspy]

Wrong. The "Eglinton East" portion is the smaller 7 pixel height text. The standard is 8 pixels.

Right....the height of the text is different.

The font, however, is the same.

Dan

[TransitFan88]

Wrong. The "Eglinton East" portion is the smaller 7 pixel height text. The standard is 8 pixels.

So far it's the only sign I've seen like that. Not sure why it doesn't fit - on the way to Eglinton Station, its the standard 8 pixels with the bottom line bolded (TO EGLINTON STN)...

[busman]

I figured i'd add this in...

On the 8 Broadview route, when the bus is going to eastbound, the sign on the back of the bus aleternates between " 8 - COXI", but when the destination sign is changed to the westbound trips, it just says "8"

[* Mr. Black *]

I figured i'd add this in...

On the 8 Broadview route, when the bus is going to eastbound, the sign on the back of the bus aleternates between " 8 - COXI", but when the destination sign is changed to the westbound trips, it just says "8"

what about 100D

where they actually use the word ROUTE on the sign??

ROUTE 100D

FFEMINGTON PARK

Also... a on going mistake maybe?

on the megamax signs (fishbowls etc) when on 32D going eastbound....

32D EGLINTON WEST

*change*

S T A T I O N

(there is no "TO" destination)

I think that they should change the signs to the format they use in Mississauga, Or YRT, one line only for route *change* destination....

Lets take this as the "standard" for a TTC destination sign, the 47B: (Sorry in advance about using your destination signs Ryan; it's only meant for show here. Let me know if it's a problem and I'll remove the links to them asap)

Destination signs from:

http://www.maj.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=146035&n=48

Big route number, slightly larger bolded route name, slightly smaller unbolded destination.

Here are some examples of inconsistencies:

Bolding on the destination line:

compared to

Spacing differences (destination line only):

compared to

Short forms on the destination line:

compared to

Bolding on the destination line is also seen here.

Bolding and spacing differences on the destination line:

Also, for some odd reason, the "Eglinton East" part of '34C Eglinton East - To Kennedy Stn' seems to be in a font different from the standard font (sorry about the bad quality photo, I'll try to get a better one):

Of course, the list goes on...

Name a route or branch that has a slight irregularity in its destination sign format.

What i have noticed, is that all the BOLDED destinations are on route extentions.... where the bus does NOT terminate at the regular terminus.... maybe thats why they are bolded.... to help people see they are on the right bus.... (as if the letter beside the number isnt enough...)

[shambala]

What i have noticed, is that all the BOLDED destinations are on route extentions.... where the bus does NOT terminate at the regular terminus.... maybe thats why they are bolded.... to help people see they are on the right bus.... (as if the letter beside the number isnt enough...)

Huh? Help people see they are on the right bus? For that to work, people would actually have to look up and read the sign for once to actually know what bus they are on,...and even then! Nope, just give me those huge megamax font sizes on MT. You can read those from a mile away.

[wil9402]

1. Abbreviate the Route names (This is done for 165 Weston Rd North). So, why can't we have 100 Flemingdon Pk. (when necessary)?

Speaking about using Pk instead of Park, I noticed on 67 Pharmacy if I'm not wrong that on the Horizon signs the bottom line shows "To Victoria Pk Stn"? Why would they shorten it to Pk when there is more than enough space to add the A and R in. If I'm not wrong, 24 shows "To Victoria Park Stn"

Also... a on going mistake maybe?

on the megamax signs (fishbowls etc) when on 32D going eastbound....

32D EGLINTON WEST

*change*

S T A T I O N

(there is no "TO" destination)

That's not a mistake, there is no space to add in the "To" so they left it out. There are a couple others routes that are missing to as well. IIRC, the sign for 32D looks like this "32D Eglinton West > 32D Eglinton West > Station".

[Articulated]

Speaking about using Pk instead of Park, I noticed on 67 Pharmacy if I'm not wrong that on the Horizon signs the bottom line shows "To Victoria Pk Stn"? Why would they shorten it to Pk when there is more than enough space to add the A and R in. If I'm not wrong, 24 shows "To Victoria Park Stn"

That's not a mistake, there is no space to add in the "To" so they left it out. There are a couple others routes that are missing to as well. IIRC, the sign for 32D looks like this "32D Eglinton West > 32D Eglinton West > Station".

First one, probably the person who programmed in the sign. They could've adapted it from the Matrix:MAX signs which are more common on 67, and don't have enough room for the full sign. (Just 'Victoria Pk North' barely fits in, have to sqeeze the spaces) so it might be more convienent for customers to remember it as that.

Second one, pretty much most routes terminating in York Region use that for Matrix:MAX, as the main terminus is Major Mackenzie, which fills up the sign by itself. For Horizons, I find that whenever the bottom line is bolded, there is usually not enough room for the TO (example 41B with Steeles/Petrolia and 21A/B and 43B with Scarborough Centre).

[Orion VIII]

First one, probably the person who programmed in the sign. They could've adapted it from the Matrix:MAX signs which are more common on 67, and don't have enough room for the full sign. (Just 'Victoria Pk North' barely fits in, have to sqeeze the spaces) so it might be more convienent for customers to remember it as that.

Second one, pretty much most routes terminating in York Region use that for Matrix:MAX, as the main terminus is Major Mackenzie, which fills up the sign by itself. For Horizons, I find that whenever the bottom line is bolded, there is usually not enough room for the TO (example 41B with Steeles/Petrolia and 21A/B and 43B with Scarborough Centre).

Major Mac would work!

[* Mr. Black *]

That's not a mistake, there is no space to add in the "To" so they left it out. There are a couple others routes that are missing to as well. IIRC, the sign for 32D looks like this "32D Eglinton West > 32D Eglinton West > Station".

I have watched the sign on the fishies.... (i live near the terminus) it doesnt change twice...

32D EGLINTON WEST > S T A T I O N

I figured that the sign was too small for the "TO"

but maybe that is fishbowl spacific.....

[wil9402]

I have watched the sign on the fishies.... (i live near the terminus) it doesnt change twice...

32D EGLINTON WEST > S T A T I O N

I figured that the sign was too small for the "TO"

but maybe that is fishbowl spacific.....

If I ever see a Newlook or D40 on 32D again, I'll check.

[TransitFan88]

First one, probably the person who programmed in the sign. They could've adapted it from the Matrix:MAX signs which are more common on 67, and don't have enough room for the full sign. (Just 'Victoria Pk North' barely fits in, have to sqeeze the spaces) so it might be more convienent for customers to remember it as that.

Second one, pretty much most routes terminating in York Region use that for Matrix:MAX, as the main terminus is Major Mackenzie, which fills up the sign by itself. For Horizons, I find that whenever the bottom line is bolded, there is usually not enough room for the TO (example 41B with Steeles/Petrolia and 21A/B and 43B with Scarborough Centre).

How does the 190 fit "To Scarborough Centre"?

This is how the 43B should look like (except expand CTR to CENTRE):

By the way, the 122 destination sign below is missing the "DR" designation - To Roywood Dr

[ttcgeek]

Speaking about using Pk instead of Park, I noticed on 67 Pharmacy if I'm not wrong that on the Horizon signs the bottom line shows "To Victoria Pk Stn"? Why would they shorten it to Pk when there is more than enough space to add the A and R in. If I'm not wrong, 24 shows "To Victoria Park Stn"

WB 12B trip on both the front and side sign show "VICTORIA PK STN." On the front it's bolded while it isn't on the side. And yes, on horizons for thr 24, it does show "VICTORIA PARK STN."

[TransitFan88]

78 St. Andrews displays "78 TO BAYVIEW" on its side destination sign.