What’s in a (Station) Name?

Posted on November 22, 2008 at 4:12 pm by Karl Junkin

Two station names, four stations nowhere near one another.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but higher-order transit stations aren’t there to smell sweet, they serve an important navigational purpose, and the proportion of that importance is directly related to the size of the system. As the network of the GTHA is poised to grow by a significant measure, the importance of the names for higher-order transit stations is going to grow in step with it, especially if a fare-integrated network comes to fruition. Naming stations in large and growing networks can become complicated and/or problematic if a cautious, comprehensive approach isn’t taken towards the issue, and addressing it will be an exercise in management and planning, with the name of the game being “Foresight.”

The name of a station may be seen as a minor detail, and it is true that it is one of the final things to be decided in design and construction since a decision on the name isn’t required until the interior finishes stage. However, changing the name later, after the service is operating and an integrated component of the network, comes with a high price. Changing it later is more expensive than the first time the name is decided and built into the network, and involves a lot of co-ordinated, less-evident-but-no-less-important changes within the system. “Crescent” is a good example… which the TTC changed to ”Rosedale” at the last minute.

The key is that stations are not stand-alone structures. Even as a piece of architecture, stations tie into the running structure for the transit vehicle (which falls under civil engineering, not architecture). In denser areas, stations may be built into other buildings, prime examples include St.Clair West, and Bloor-Yonge. Then, of course, there is the larger network that the station is a part of, making the term “stand-alone station” an oxymoron.

Transit stations’ names appear in many more places than just the station itself. They appear on various maps, such as system wide maps and local routes’ individual route maps, not only of the service provider whose network the station belongs to, but potentially those of other service providers if a transfer is present (or nearby), city and regional map publications, and even on Google Maps or similar services. They appear on directional signage in the neighbourhood (unless it just says “to subway”). Changing this name later does have a fair share of expenses attached, when one considers how many times certain maps appear across the system or how many signs in the area point towards a station. If the station is a terminus for a route, that means new destination sign configurations. Don’t forget the automated stop announcement system. Co-ordination is a very big deal, and such a change should only occur together with another significant system change, such as a new transit line opening or a new station added along an existing service.

Indeed, the public gets used to the names assigned to stations and re-adjustment isn’t instantaneous. St. Andrew and St. Patrick stations have never had their names changed, despite the wards of the same name (from which the stations got their names) no longer being in existence.

Station naming has been historically simple since higher-order transit lines were relatively few, but now that higher-order networks are taking real shape in a way that is unprecedented in the region (if not the country), problems that have never been an issue before are starting to creep into view, and such problems must not be allowed to fly beneath the radar. With all the proposals coming forward over such a wide region, a region that is supposed to be integrated, coordinated, even unified, more importance than just geographic relevance now becomes placed upon the naming of higher-order transit stations, due to the scale the network is growing into. If conflicts sprout up in the network, the risk exists that riders, particularly new riders (ever so important in getting a better modal split in the region), will be confused.

The network has existing problems:

Take Eglinton. Eglinton GO and Eglinton TTC stations are nowhere close to one another. If someone from Scarborough calls up a friend and suggests meeting at Eglinton station, it’s concievable that they may never find each other since at the agreed meeting time, they inadvertently end up 10s of kilometres apart. This is particularly possible if SuperGO appears on the Lakeshore East corridor.

“Meet me at Bloor Station,” someone from Brampton may suggest, and one person may end up at Yonge while the other is near Dundas West. This is bad news for the network, and this is a situation that needs to be brought under control before it becomes a widespread issue. The opportunity to stop a potentially frustrating problem before it spreads beyond the first few instances is available for the taking, if there’s enough awareness of the issue.

There are other instances that are potential trouble, but as of yet aren’t serious. These include Scarborough Centre and Scarborough GO, a significant nuance since GO Transit services both, but with different modes (no GO Bus service ever goes to Scarborough GO train station). Scarborough GO can be considered a bit of a curiousity in regards to its naming, as Cliffside or Cliffcrest would have better followed the pattern GO typically sticks to instead of Scarborough GO, based on this map of the city. When one considers GO has 7 rail stations in Scarborough proper (Scarborough, Eglinton, Guildwood, Rouge Hill, Kennedy, Agincourt, and the recently relocated Milliken (which was in York Region prior to its relocation to the opposite side of Steeles Ave. E.)), a number that may rise in future, a strong argument for renaming Scarborough GO materializes.

Interesting to note, based on the same map, is that “Eglinton GO” isn’t necessarily named after Eglinton Avenue, but there is a part of the city on the north side Eglinton Avenue by the GO Station called “Eglinton,” thus following GO’s typical practice. The same applies to “Danforth GO.”

The TTC grappled with the station naming issue as the Sheppard subway neared completion with its connection to the Yonge line. There were a couple of suggestions considered, including “Yonge North,” but eventually settled on “Sheppard-Yonge” to avoid the confusion that may result from two Yonge stations in the network, as well as the issue of there being no such street as “Yonge St. North” in Toronto, in contrast to many major east-west avenues, which have been applied to the naming of stations on the Spadina subway line, as well as Dundas West on the Bloor line and Lawrence East on the SRT.

There’s more potential problem cases on the way; Woodbine (Bloor-Danforth subway, and proposed for the GO Georgetown Line), and Mount Pleasant (GO Georgetown Line and proposed for the Eglinton underground LRT). These cases would be even further apart from one another than the existing cases above, but even worse, the two lines in question connect to one another or are proposed to connect to one another (at a point other than Union Station).

Richmond Hill is another problem potentially on the horizon. Richmond Hill GO and Richmond Hill Centre bus terminal are not the same place/area, and the subway extension on Yonge from Finch is going to have to include some resolution to this.

While unrelated to any subway extension, Newmarket GO and the Newmarket Bus Terminal is another instance of the same problem. These are about 3km apart, and Metrolinx, together with York Region, is proposing both be served by the same “rapid transit” corridor (presumably LRT, given the popularity of the Yonge corridor).

“King” would also have to be resolved, as this station currently exists in two parts of the Yonge corridor, but on different service providers’ networks (King is the zone boundary station on Viva Blue, as well as the southern-most subway station on Yonge St.).

The proposed Highway 7 Rapidway, counting as higher-order, will also have a number of conflicts with the subway, including Bayview, Leslie, Warden, Kennedy, and McCowan.

York University is going to be another problem point in a few years, as GO and TTC rail stations of the same name will be at different locations. Some may indeed wonder what the fate of the York University GO station will be when the subway is extended to the campus with a connection between the Barrie GO corridor and the new subway extension at Sheppard West station.

Bramalea and Bramalea City Centre is a situation similar to Scarborough’s. Again, both are serviced by GO Transit, but in this instance GO bus services also reach the Bramalea GO station in addition to the Bramalea City Centre terminal.

This is a situation that can get out of hand if the broader network is not taken into consideration when naming transit stations, and a policy should be put into place to not only keep such problems under control in the future, but to consider what measures should be taken to fix existing known problems in the network.

One future consideration worth bearing in mind as well, would be the name “407 Transitway” as a station on the Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension (TYSSE). What if other higher-order transit lines connect to the 407 Transitway? Nevermind some people’s comments on the name sounding awful (which is subjective, unfortunately), the idea that the proposed station is the only 407 Transitway station is potentially overstating the station’s place in the network. What about Longbridge and Yonge, the site of the only Park’n'Ride lot on the proposed Yonge subway extension, which is right beside the 407? That station also counts as a 407 Transitway connection. So does Bramalea GO. Maybe “Beechwood” as an alternative name to the TYSSE’s 407 Transitway station is more appropriate?

This list is by no means a complete listing of the instances where this issue currently occurs, nor where potential future instances could occur. This is just to get people thinking about the broader network and make sure it is co-ordinated and easily used by everyone, especially new riders. While bus stations will inevitably have duplications due to the reality that street names are inevitably duplicated, the higher-order stations need to go to greater lengths to avoid this issue, as they are the backbone trunk lines carrying medium- and long-haul trips.

Can you add anything that’s missing to this list?

32 Comments

What happens when the Transit City’s stations and stops come into being?
You will have Bathurst stations and stops on the Eglinton LRT and the Finch West LRT. What names would they have? Bathurst Center or Bathurst-Eglinton and Bathurst North or Bathurst-Finch?
Then there’s the station or stop on the Jane LRT at Dundas and St. Clair. Would that become Dundas West West or Dundas-St. Clair or Dundas-Jane or Dundas-Jane-St. Clair?
Now New York City totally ignores that using duplicate names for its subway lines, a throwback to the days of the origina different subway companies (IRT, BRT, BMT, IND). It now uses the subway lines numbers along with the station name.
So maybe we use use our subway line numbers along with the station name. So that Yonge-Bloor could become 2 Yonge—1 Bloor and Dundas West becomes 2 Dundas West.

Comment by W. K. Lis — November 22, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
I’ve known friends to be confused by the “strange” fact that Royal York subway station is in Etobicoke (named after the street, of course), while The Royal York (a landmark surely more well-known among than the street) is across the road from Union station. Likewise, Osgoode subway station (named for Osgoode Hall, naturally) is at Queen and University while Osgoode Hall law school has long since migrated well north of Downsview station (eventually to be served by the station at York University).

These aren’t problems to be solved, of course, but they do feel a bit like the old “why do we drive on parkways, but park on driveways?” complaint about naming confusion.

As for St. Andrew and St. Patrick stations — sure, the wards are gone, but the churches (or, should I say, the parishes?) for which the wards were presumably named still stand.

Comment by Greg Smith — November 23, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
Err, I meant “well-known among visitors”.

Comment by Greg Smith — November 23, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
The map that I linked to I think offers a viable model for naming stops along Eglinton, Finch, and most of Transit City except for West Waterfront (which is still a legacy line at the end of the project). I think using neighbourhood names results in a better feel and integration of the infrastructure into the urban fabric, since it makes it more personal to the areas served compared to a street that runs clear across town and has several duplicates across town.

Comment by Karl Junkin — November 23, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
Just exactly where are the hoards of people lost and confused waiting to meet people who are going to other stations of the same name?

There are many, many examples of other cities that have duplicate station names and they seem to get along perfectly fine. Am I missing the fact that people in the GTA are really stupid, or does my high opinion overshoot the reality.

The duplicate names in NYC has been mentioned, and we always like to say we are “world class” along the same lines as NYC. I was in Buenos Aires last week where there are many duplicates (Callao and Pueyrredón on the B and D lines, and soon-to-open Corrientes on the H line is some distance from the station of the same name on the Celeris LRT) for a city that names correspondence stations with different names on each line (Bloor-Yonge style). Even the LRT operations in Cleveland have duplicate stations on its Blue and Green lines (Southington, Lee, and Warrensville).

While it would be nice to have every station with a unique name, is this really necessary? Especially if we are talking about stops in different municipalities. So what if there is a Bayview stop on the Sheppard Subway and one on VIVA Purple/Pink? Or, should we make a change to avoid the mass confusion this calls. In fact, let’s not stop there: why don’t we make OC Transpo change the name of the Bayview O-Train station, just in case?

Toronto is a city that has had a Danforth Avenue and a Danforth Road since early on, and the city seems to get along pretty well in spite of this.

Comment by Calvin Henry-Cotnam — November 24, 2008 @ 8:36 am
Even more confusing, sometimes local transit operators will label stations differently from GO transit. Take, for example, GO Transit called Bramalea City Centre “BRAMALEA C.C.” versus Brampton Transit buses, which refer to it simply as “City Centre.” Of course, this is a good reason to always ask the bus driver if they’re heading your way…

Karl, you’ve touched on an important subject, albeit one which is often overlooked. It is desireable to have a unified/centralized naming convention for all major transit stations; it is definitely within the scope of Metrolinx. It would be interesting to see if Metrolinx has even discussed the subject. Of course, while it is desireable, it is not neccessary – given the choice between more infrastructure and better organization of the infrastructure we have, I suspect that Metrolinx would prioritize the former rather than the latter.

Comment by Peter Kucirek — November 24, 2008 @ 8:50 am
I’ve been in NYC and got off at the wrong Canal Street station, as there are about 5 of them IIRC. Unique station names, like in London UK, and Paris, amoung the different transit providers, is essential for ease of movement.

Transit signage aims to be complete and non-ambiguous, so the user does not have to delay – I see many people standing in the way at Bloor-Yonge station every week trying to figure out where they are and which platform to go to to get to their end station or destination.

Station names are essential parts of transit signage, as Karl’s pointed out. If you doubt me, ask Joe Clark, joeclark.org.

Comment by Mike Olivier — November 24, 2008 @ 9:15 am
I,m with Calvin on this issue. I just do not see why having duplicate names is a major issue. We have to understand, that we are not going to have a system where the agencies lose their identify. There is still going to be YRT/Viva, TTC, MT, etc. Changing a station on GO transit just because it is similar, or duplicate of a station on another agency seems like unnecessary work.
I have not heard any complaints of people getting confused about where they are, because of a station name.

Yes, station are essential parts of transit signage. Which is why duplication is necessary sometimes.

Comment by Justin Bernard — November 24, 2008 @ 10:05 am
The problem hasn’t gotten out of hand yet primarily because GO service is not frequent enough for its stations. Once we see all-day frequent GO rail service on most lines, and especially when fare-integration happens, which can blur the lines between YRT/MT/GO/TTC/et-all (although I agree with Justin that they’ll still exist in some form or another), then the issue can start to have an impact.

Yes, we should assume that every potential rider is not a transit veteran that knows how the system works complete with all its quirks. New riders will not necessarily be aware of such things, and may end up like Mike Olivier in New York. If we want new riders to become regular riders, and also have them use the system for off-peak trips, easy network comprehension is a strong asset.

Comment by Karl Junkin — November 24, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
“Yes, we should assume that every potential rider is not a transit veteran that knows how the system works complete with all its quirks. New riders will not necessarily be aware of such things, and may end up like Mike Olivier in New York.”

Right. But there is a reason that Canal St. is repeated. Canal St is crisscrossed by 5 different subway lines. Not to be rude, but how can you be confused if someone tells you “Use the A Line, and get off at Canal St”?
I do not think it is likely, that the network in Toronto would become so big, and complex that duplicate names will confuse new riders.

Comment by Justin Bernard — November 25, 2008 @ 9:48 am
On navigating between Dundas West and Bloor stations; from a reader of my Metro column:

“- there is still a total lack of coordination between the TTC and GO at Dundas West. I don’t understand why this glaring omission continues. Never mind a permanent connection between the two, there aren’t even (unless I’ve missed them) signs indicating … that the other is just footsteps away! “

Comment by Ed Drass — November 25, 2008 @ 11:18 am
A key part of the point is that it is easy to leave out the “take the A Line” part. If that information isn’t included for whatever reason, written or spoken, then there’s going to some complication in navigating the network.

I’ve lived in Tokyo for a few years. Tokyo has this problem. There’s even a book about this very problem of station naming in Greater Tokyo where the names are confusing (it’s only available in Japanese though, so don’t go looking for it).

One example from there is Koganei, which lies to the north of Tokyo, but in Tokyo proper, not far from Shinjuku, there’s Musashi-Koganei (Musashi is a prefix that indicates a former era’s area name). Koyama has the exact same instance, with Koyama north of Tokyo, and Musashi-Koyama in southern Tokyo proper.

Tamagawa and Seibu-Tamagawa is another one, where the only difference is one of the stations has the railway company name in front of it as part of its official name. This is not that uncommon, but in this instance, the stations are strikingly far apart compared to other cases where practice is implemented.

I could go on forever on examples here, Tokyo has a bad case of this problem since there are some 15-20 different railway operators in the immediate area. The point is that we can avoid this in the GTHA if we’re smart. The best cure is prevention! We don’t have a real problem right now, but that’s not an excuse to just ignore it and let it grow unmitigated.

With the Eglinton LRT, we have a great, convenient opportunity to just rename the complex to Yonge-Eglinton Centre station, or something like that.

Similarly, I’d argue that Bloor-Yonge should follow Sheppard-Yonge’s example, and modify signage to include both station’s names, hyphenated, at both platforms. That Bloor-Yonge modification wouldn’t even require modification of any existing maps, transfers, or destination signs, just the automated station announcement system.

The solutions to this aren’t that complicated, so we should make the small effort to fix this, since it can be combined with other expansion projects in the pipe for a co-ordinated and simultaneous change in the network that can make the costs involved in renaming an existing station substatially reduced if not rendered negligible altogether.

Comment by Karl Junkin — November 25, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
Bloor Station is poorly signed. There is no doubt about that.
Has anyone contact the TTC, and GO Transit about these issues? If no one complains, or make efforts to let the agencies know, little will get done.

Comment by Justin Bernard — November 25, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
Perhaps I can ask the person who sent me the comment to go through normal channels and see how the TTC and GO respond.

That might be educational.

Comment by Ed Drass — November 25, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
Google’s Blog alert sent me to this post because of the term “regional map.” This discussion should be useful to subscribers of Regional Community Development News, so I will include a link to it in the November 26 issue. It can be found at
http://regional-communities.blogspot.com/ Please visit, check the tools and consider a link. Tom

Comment by Tom Christoffel — November 26, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
The Royal York comment is quite true. Until the end of my teenage years I assumed (never venturing near either) that the Royal York hotel was at Royal York subway.

Richmond Hill Centre is an idiotic name cooked up by YRT. It was built adjacent to an existing and appropriately-named transit station, Langstaff. And it is nowhere near the centre of Richmond Hill — it is nestled on the southern border, which runs about 15 km from south to north. It should just be called Langstaff, or else something else new.

Comment by Disparishun — November 27, 2008 @ 11:43 am
To add to the confusion Disparishun, the Yonge subway extension will serve 6 stops past Finch…Cummer/Drewry, Steeles, Clark, Royal Orchard, Langstaff/Longbridge, and Richmond Hill Centre.

Langstaff subway will be south of Langstaff GO, which in reality will be closer to Richmond Hill Centre station. Hopefully the people of York Region (most of which will be new to transit after the subway expansion) will be able to understand which is where!

Comment by J — November 27, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
Ok. How is Langstaff/Longbridge station confusing? It is at the intersection of Yonge and LANGSTAFF. You people are really taking this station name issue too seriously. You are assuming the average commuter is an idiot, who cannot figure out the difference between a subway station, an a GO station.
No offense, but how can you even assume that a subway station is named after a hotel? It’s common knowledge that a station would be named for the intersecting street.

Comment by Justin Bernard — November 27, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
It’s not obvious at all. It is not obvious that GO and TTC rail stations would be in completely different locations. To write people off as “idiots” when it is just ignorance (which is reasonable) is a bad strategy for trying to increase ridership.

Comment by Karl Junkin — November 27, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
Justin, you ask two questions. First, how can I assume that a subway station is named after a hotel? I didn’t — rather, my preteen self assumed that the two were named for the area, or the street, or something similar. You may not know this, but many subway stations are named for things like neighbourhoods (like Rosedale) or major attractions (like Museum or Yorkdale). You are incredulous that someone could make this mistake. Now you know they can.

Second, how is Langstaff/Longbridge confusing? Answer: Langstaff is the name of a GO station, so many will expect that to be the location of the TTC station, especially if they do not grasp the extent to which the GO and TTC don’t want to know from each other.

You may not know this, but Langstaff is the old name for that whole area (old village name). It lives on in things like Langstaff Secondary School, Langstaff Community Centre, etc. In the other words, it is not always necessarily associated with the street name.

Comment by Disparishun — November 27, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
Karl, I am not writing people off as idiots. You are not giving people enough credit. Duplicate station names are not going to decrease ridership, or confuse people. A crowded bus, or train, poor service and constantly delayed trains is going to be much more worrisome for a commuter than 2 agencies using the same name. We had have duplicate names for years, without much of an issue.

I know many stations are named for neighbourhood. Stations are named for the prominent feature, or intersection around it. Yorkdale is named for the mall, Downsview for the airfield, park, and community. The point is, the station is named for the feature, or intersection. TTC Bayview Staton makes sense. VIVA Bayview station makes sense. We are talking about 2 different agencies with station many km apart!

I know the GO rail stations. I used to frequent that station when I had to commute to my office in Markham from Brampton. You’re making assumptions. How is someone going to confuse Langstaff/LONGBRIDGE subway station with Langstaff GO Station? It’s simply not going to happen. Even so, it would be easier to change the name of the subway station, since it’s still in the design phase.

Sure, and like I said before a station is usually named after a prominent feature, or intersection. In this case, York Rapid decided to name the station after Langstaff, and Longbridge rds. Considering the fine job they have done in designing the extension so far, I am going to assume they have their reasons for the naming.

Comment by Justin Bernard — November 28, 2008 @ 9:29 am
I agree with you Justin in that duplication is not going to deter ridership or cause mass confusion. Most people can connect the dots.

Where the confusion arises, from my perspective, is when you’re trying to make connections between transit modes. I certainly wouldn’t want anyone to get off at Langstaff/Longbridge Subway station assuming they’re a short hop to Langstaff GO, when in reality they should have got off one subway station later (RHC).

So most of the naming “problems” don’t bother me at all, but its when they are close in proximity that we may have a problem.

Comment by J — November 28, 2008 @ 11:13 am
Oh we should note that these subway station names may change between now and actual implementation. Still have until 2015 to get things right.

Comment by J — November 28, 2008 @ 11:15 am
Justin, if I understand correctly, you are saying that it is fine to give non-adjacent transit stations identical names; that doing so cannot lead to confusion, an “unwarranted assumption”; and that the reason it cannot lead to confusion is that “people are not idiots”. Is this accurate? And do you make this argument for all transit users, including commuters and occasional users such as tourists, or just for commuters?

(You also say that a crowded bus, or train, poor service and constantly delayed trains is going to be much more worrisome for a commuter than 2 agencies using the same name. But I assume that this is just rhetoric, and that you know that fixing the one and doing the other right have nothing to do with one another and are not a zero sum game.)

Comment by Disparishun — November 28, 2008 @ 11:27 am
“Justin, if I understand correctly, you are saying that it is fine to give non-adjacent transit stations identical names; that doing so cannot lead to confusion, an “unwarranted assumption”; and that the reason it cannot lead to confusion is that “people are not idiots”. Is this accurate? And do you make this argument for all transit users, including commuters and occasional users such as tourists, or just for commuters?”

Yes, it is fine to have duplicate station names, because the duplicate station names are on separate lines run by separate agencies. And it has not lead to any confusion yet. We are experiencing significant increases in ridership, and I have yet to hear about mass confusion between stations with the same name that are operated by different agencies. you’d think people who are used to living in a region with many duplicate street names would have no problem. And I doubt they have any problems, considering the lack of concern.

My argument is you are making an issue of a non-issue, and I submit to you, that your idea of trying to provide unique station names will lead to greater confusion, and unnecessary costs to create new maps, pay for advertising, change any automated stop announcement etc, etc.

Well, here is the problem. There is NOTHING to fix when it comes to station names. If anything, you have the potential of adding confusion if you change station names just to suit some assumption that people are do not know how to read a map, or to jot down directions properly. I,m sorry, but we are not going to be having such a complex regional network that a few duplicate names is going to confuse thousands. It hasn’t happened yet, it’s not going to happen in the future.

J: Exactly. I understand where you’re coming from. What is expected, is that it will be well communicated through personal maps, and maps in the vehicles, and maybe even automated announcements that RHC is the major transit centre.

Comment by Justin Bernard — November 28, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Grin. Thanks.

(I don’t understand why you think only “mass” confusion or confusion by “thousands” is relevant, and I don’t understand why you think only commuters and not occasional users like tourists are relevant. Nor do I understand why you think it is a major effort to rename stations that do not exist, nor how doing so could cause confusion — they don’t, after all, exist. But all that is, I suppose, another story.)

Comment by Disparishun — November 28, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
It’s not going to cost much money at all to re-name key stations when maps are going to be reprinted anyway when new lines are added. The key is to co-ordinate such changes to happen at the same time so that all the new system changes only need to be printed and co-ordinated once, in unison.

As I indicated earlier, the problem isn’t much of an issue right now because GO Transit frequencies are too poor for it to matter to many people. However, this is going to change as GO increases its frequencies as per Metrolinx’s plans.

I’ll also remind people that over the next 25 years, we’ll be seeing 3 million new people in the GTHA. That’s a 50% increase. Not all of them will become new riders, but we want the system to be as friendly to new riders as possible. An easy-to-navigate system where potentially confusing higher-order transit station name duplications don’t happen is valuable to keeping the system friendly to the new usersj. Our public transit system will be critical to keeping the urban environment livable, and that means we need as many new users we can get onto the system, so we should go out of our way to avoid the minor potential irritances.

Always keep in mind:
Losing riders is easy. Gaining riders takes a lot more work.

If you build it, they will come. If you build it well, they will stay.

Comment by Karl Junkin — November 28, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
Oh, and please keep in on topic… I have housekeeping powers on this thread.

Comment by Karl Junkin — November 28, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
You will have to reprint mew maps, and guides. You are going to have to pay for advertising to remind people of the changes. You might have to deal with the possibilty of comunities fighting any name change. It can happen.

Even with higher frequencies(assuming this plan is even fully realized), the majority of commuters, new and veteran are not going to confuse Eglinton GO Station with Eglinton Subway station. I,m sorry Karl, but is simply not going to happen, even with higher frequencies on GO. And spending time, and money on what you finally admit it a minor irritant is not good use of limited resources.

You assume that 3 million riders will be using transit to travel long distances. We will have 3 Million riders, but a good chunk at that will be local travel. As stated before, new riders will be attracted to better service quality, and frequency. If you want a user friendly system, I would focus on better communications. An article on Spacing about the antique maps in the TTC is a good example of poor communication. Better signage, clean vehicles.

We are not going to lose riders because of duplicate station names.

Comment by Justin Bernard — December 1, 2008 @ 8:58 am
Whenever the DRL is ever built, I would wonder what name they would give to a station at Dufferin Street and Queen Street West? By then, the Dufferin jog should have been removed, so placing it at Gladstone Avenue and Queen Street West would not serve the buses (or streetcars) on Dufferin. More likely it would be placed right at the corner of Dufferin and Queen.
Now historically, there was a train station on the south side of Queen Street West opposite Gladstone Avenue. It was called the “Parkdale” station. So for historical reasons, I would call the DRL station at Dufferin and Queen the “Parkdale” station.
Now for the colours for the “Parkdale” station, if there would be an secondary entrance to the station one block south of Queen at Joe Shuster Way, then the appropriate colours would have to be RED and BLUE with YELLOW trim (for Joe Shuster’s creation).

Comment by W. K. Lis — December 1, 2008 @ 10:53 am
J wrote, “Oh we should note that these subway station names may change between now and actual implementation. Still have until 2015 to get things right.”

They sure will, in fact, they already have. Up until a few months ago, the presentations on the subway had the Langstaff/Longbridge station named “Bunker” (the next street south).

Comment by Calvin Henry-Cotnam — December 1, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
@Justin; Printing the new maps for route extensions are going to be the same cost regardless of whether or not a station name is changed. Kill two birds with one stone and a fortune is saved rather easily.

Advertising of the name change is unnecessary… how much advertising was there for Sheppard-Yonge when it was renamed? Not much that I noticed. The station itself will have a few notices around it, maybe, but those are dirt cheap (they’re equivalent to flyers or posted bills). Other signage changes, if present, will be more expensive than any need to advertise, which isn’t a need anyway, since the new maps would count as advertising already by default.

As for public opposition, if it is being changed from a road name to an area-specific name (which is the most likely scenario), I’d be more inclined to bet there’d be more public support than opposition.

The fact remains that you are making an assumption, without back-up, that nobody could possibly ever be confused by this, even with GO Trains running every 5 minutes. This is a baseless assumption, and to counter it, I, along with others that have commented, have experience in other places on earth where people can and do get confused by similar station names. It’s an issue there, and it can become an issue here if we are not careful. The only reason why I have consistently (there’s nothing “finally” about it) stated that it isn’t currently a big problem, is because of the low frequencies of GO Train operations today and that there aren’t too many instances yet (but it is set to grow). It will become a big problem if we don’t make ourselves aware of it now, and fix the problem before it spreads.

Important to note is that the names of stations that make up the network map is a critical component in system communication and comprehension. You just admitted, finally, that communication is important to the users, and station naming across the network is absolutely a part of that. It’s worth the small investment needed to fix these issues. The future issues to come, many of which I’ve identified in the blog post, can easily be avoided with prudent planning and foresight.

Comment by Karl Junkin — December 1, 2008 @ 7:24 pm