TransitFan88 Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now