Originally Posted by frinkprof
The merits of colours vs numbers vs letters vs named (rare, but they exist - Edmonton and Vancouver as close examples) rapid transit lines is debatable. However, colours isn't so far-fetched an idea as to call it "really, really stupid." Colour coding for rapid transit lines is widely used in practice - Chicago, Washington, Portland, Montreal, Boston, and many more examples. Many of these cities also use colour codes for different modes too - subway, bus, LRT, commuter rail. Their vehicle colours don't necessarily match whichever line they service, either.
Best practice seems to be to have one primary identifier and a secondary one as well. Numbers and colours (Toronto's Line 1 always shown as yellow, their Line 2 is green, etc.), letters and destinations, names and numbers, whatever. In Calgary, it's colours and destinations/directions. Red line South/Somerset, Blue Line Northeast/Saddletowne, Max Purple East Hills, etc. Should be pretty legible.
The biggest step that's been taken in the last 5 years or so with Calgary Transit is to really brand, push and treat differently the rapid transit network. For the longest time they just called the C-Train lines "201" and "202" and the early "BRT" routes "301" and "302" as if they were some nondescript bus service to Pineridge or Woodbine. It really spoke to the culture of the organization and was evident in many other ways for the longest time. Just have to phase out some of the dual names (Somerset-Bridlewood, McKnight-Westwinds, etc.)
|