Grand River Transit - Printable Version +- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com) +-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14) +--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25) +--- Thread: Grand River Transit (/showthread.php?tid=13) Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
|
RE: Grand River Transit - chutten - 09-06-2016 (09-06-2016, 07:58 AM)Canard Wrote: Ehhhhhh, I really hate that. I actually just cringed. Why can't it be mixed-case Helvetica? :( How many inches-per-dot do you think those signs' resolutions are? :) I'm not sure they aren't using small-caps Helvetica. All I can tell is that it's sans-serif. RE: Grand River Transit - Markster - 09-06-2016 I like the change! The SMALLCAP format is pretty adorable, and it helps quickly determine which phase of the sign you're looking at. (09-06-2016, 10:10 AM)chutten Wrote: How many inches-per-dot do you think those signs' resolutions are?I see what you did there RE: Grand River Transit - Pheidippides - 09-06-2016 Pretty sure none of those fonts and practices are AODA compliant. RE: Grand River Transit - KevinL - 09-06-2016 (09-06-2016, 10:41 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: Pretty sure none of those fonts and practices are AODA compliant. Really? What do the regulations require, then? RE: Grand River Transit - timc - 09-06-2016 I find smallcaps harder to read at a distance than allcaps. RE: Grand River Transit - Canard - 09-06-2016 (09-06-2016, 10:10 AM)chutten Wrote: I'm not sure they aren't using small-caps Helvetica. All I can tell is that it's sans-serif. ...this should not be a thing. Ever. (...except the Stranger Things intro sequence) RE: Grand River Transit - timc - 09-06-2016 Now this is some beautiful work: https://www.creativereview.co.uk/type-design-helps-parisians-catch-right-bus/ RE: Grand River Transit - Canard - 09-06-2016 I could live with that! Those are lovely buses, too. I'd take those as a close second behind our Nova's. I really don't like the new buses. RE: Grand River Transit - Pheidippides - 09-06-2016 I stand corrected. Apparently there are no specific limitations on the signage in terms of font face, case, or minimum size. Some of those requirements are specified under the trails regulations though (e.g. must be a sans serif font). Best practices for AODA written documents are avoid use of all caps/italics/bolding/underline, use a sans serif font (like Helvetica/Arial), a minimum of 12pt, and row spacing of 1.15pt. With the new consistency and font it actually looks like they are moving toward greater compliance not less. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/110191#BK65 Signage 58. (1) Every conventional transportation service provider shall ensure that all of its transportation vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 2013 to which this section applies display the route or direction of the transportation vehicle or its destination or next major stop. O. Reg. 191/11, s. 58 (1). (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the signage displaying the route or direction or destination or next stop may include pictograms or symbols, but the signage must, (a) be visible at the boarding point; (b) be consistently located; © have a glare-free surface; and (d) be positioned to avoid shadow areas and glare. O. Reg. 191/11, s. 58 (2). (3) Every conventional transportation service provider shall ensure that the signage displaying the route or direction or destination or next stop, (a) is consistently shaped, coloured and positioned, when used in the same type of transportation vehicle to give the same type of information; and (b) has text that, (i) is high colour-contrasted with its background, in order to assist with visual recognition, and (ii) has the appearance of solid characters. O. Reg. 191/11, s. 58 (3). RE: Grand River Transit - Canard - 09-06-2016 What about tones and chimes? I was told by an internal Rapid Transit team member that our trains for ion can't have a unique chime because there are very specific AODA requirements for this, and so they just wanted to stick with "the TTC chime*". * - actually the UTDC chime - ask me why! RE: Grand River Transit - Pheidippides - 09-06-2016 Looks like a new platform for the 204 was poured at Queen and Homewood. I don't know what else it could be; the placement is quite odd. This is looking down Homewood with my back to Queen: Also, after reading the discussion today about the GRT signage I was able to notice it on the way home. I definitely like the outside signs better, the inside signs not so much. They have shortened the inside signs so there is no scrolling on the longer route names and stop names and thus it cycles faster through the "Next stop", "Stop Name", "Date/Time", "Route Name/Number." The problem I see is that the short forms are not always intuitive. I could figure out "Univ. v. Wsmt." pretty easily, but "Fairview v. W&C" took me a minute to unravel as Fairview via Weber and Connaught - and I ride that bus regularly. Finally, has the GRT policy on children changed or just the wording? It used to say: "Children under 5 (maximum three children per paying customer) = FREE" now it says: "Children 4 years of age and under (maximum three children per paying customer) = FREE" To me they mean the same (<5 years are free and you are considered 4 even if you are 4 years 364 days and 23hours old - you are still under until you turn 5), but to some it may not. RE: Grand River Transit - D40LF - 09-06-2016 (09-06-2016, 08:27 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: but "Fairview v. W&C" took me a minute to unravel as Fairview via Weber and ConnaughtCourtland* To further prove your point. RE: Grand River Transit - timc - 09-07-2016 (09-06-2016, 08:27 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: To me they mean the same (<5 years are free and you are considered 4 even if you are 4 years 364 days and 23hours old - you are still under until you turn 5), but to some it may not. I think that "under 5" means the same as "4 years of age and under". But it's mostly an honour system anyway, isn't it? Bus drivers aren't going to ask for ID. It's pretty hard to tell a 4-year-old apart from a 5-year-old. On the other hand, 6-year-olds and some older 5-year-olds are usually given away by their smiles. :-) RE: Grand River Transit - Canard - 09-07-2016 (09-06-2016, 11:56 PM)D40LF Wrote:(09-06-2016, 08:27 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: but "Fairview v. W&C" took me a minute to unravel as Fairview via Weber and ConnaughtCourtland* That is horrible. Who thought that was a good idea?! New users and visitors to the city will be totally lost and confused. That is not how you build confident ridership! This is why I don't like buses - way too confusing to figure out. Trains, dead simple. RE: Grand River Transit - Pheidippides - 09-07-2016 (09-06-2016, 11:56 PM)D40LF Wrote:(09-06-2016, 08:27 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: but "Fairview v. W&C" took me a minute to unravel as Fairview via Weber and ConnaughtCourtland* That's pretty funny. Guess my brain was still booting up after an extra long weekend. |