Metrolinx has proposed new names for several stations in the Eglinton corridor:
- “Keele” to “Silverthorne”
- “Dufferin” to “Fairbank”
- “Bathurst” to “Forest Hill”
- “Avenue” to “Oriole”
- “Bayview” to “Leaside”
- “Don Mills” to “Science Centre”
- “Ferrand” to “Aga Khan & Eglinton”
Comments will be accepted by Metrolinx until October 7, 2015.
Updated October 2, 2015 at 9:30 am
Although the consultation affects only the stations listed in red in the list above, other changes are proposed including renaming “Eglinton West” to “Allen”.
The asterisk beside “Mt. Pleasant” is actually an error, and should be beside “Eglinton” because the proposal recommends a “change” from “Eglinton-Yonge”. Of course, the station isn’t called that yet.
Updated October 2, 2015 at 12:50 am:
The comments that have already been left on Metrolinx’ site suggest that many of their proposals are not exactly popular. I cannot help think that whoever is responsible for this report has a poor sense of Toronto (maybe another consultant who does all their work on Google Maps?), nor a sense of which neighbourhood names are actually used.
I cannot help think of the mystery surrounding stations at “St. Andrew” and “St. Patrick” that memorialized old ward/parish names that almost nobody knew fifty years ago, but which are now an inherent part of the city’s mental map of itself. Taking old names for an area may provide an historic link, but confuse people who have no idea of where these places are.
Of course we already have a precedent with Steeles West Station that has been renamed “Black Creek Pioneer Village” in reference to an attraction that is quite a distance from the station, and we almost got “University City” for Finch West.
Has anyone noticed, by the way, that this is called “Keele & Finch” in the “future” map in the report, “Leslie & Eglinton” is labelled “Sunnybrook Park” on the same map, and SmartTrack is nowhere to be found.
I think the concept of having the attraction names as stops would really benefit Torontonians and tourists.
Steve: This works provided that the attraction isn’t obscure, that a simple intersection name isn’t a better description of the location, and that we don’t start having something like the “Coca Cola Science Centre” station.
I really don’t think that the idea should be any different than New York. I am pretty sure people can deal with the notion of Don Mills station – on the Eglinton Line or the Don Mills Station on Sheppard, or Warden on Eglinton and Warden on the BDL. People will find a way, and it would be easily short formed, using the line number or name initial (Don Mills- S, Don Mills – E, Warden – E, Warden-D). I would rather have an instant reminder of the general area in the city (and hence knowing which direction and how far), than having to think about where the station is and therefore direction of travel and distance when I am going somewhere. I like having a sense of how far, just based on knowing which intersection I just passed with the current naming convention.
Steve: At the risk of pointing out the obvious, when people are on surface routes, they have no problem with the fact that the same street crosses multiple routes, e.g. Bathurst.
Meanwhile, we should remember that “Bay” was originally to be called “Yorkville”, but that became a subtitle thanks to the unsavoury reputation the neighbourhood had in the 60s. The original name for “Rosedale” (a neighbourhood) was “Crescent” after the street it sits on. These things can be argued both ways.
Yes, however, most people know where Rosedale is, and given that Crescent is frankly a very small local street (not a major thoroughfare) that would be narrow for a cul de sact were it in Mississauga, this is a better geographic indicator of where you are. As for Yorkville, that is another question.
Steve: And how many people know where “Chester” is? It is both a street and a village name, although the village is actually well north of The Danforth.
I wonder, it – along with Old Mill – are 2 of the least used stations on the BDL, I wonder to what degree this makes it more so. Of course – Rosedale is not well used either (nor is Summerhill).
Steve: The usage pattern is simple: Chester has no connecting surface routes and is surrounded by low-rise residential buildings. Summerhill is a tad better, but not too much density nearby there either. Rosedale and Old Mill both have low volume surface connections, and again serve primarily low density neighbourhoods. A good comparison is York Mills where almost all of the traffic comes from bus feeders, not from walk-ins.
I had to look up “parclo” to see that it meant what I thought it did, a partial cloverleaf and found out it is an Ontario invention. The province does get somethings right. That is where I would put one if I had to. I can’t see there being a high demand there but who knows.
Perhaps they were afraid of it being mistaken for Crescent School which started in Rosedale. It was, if I recall correctly, once located in Crescent Town between Dawes Road the Victoria Park near the subway. Again if my memory is right they sold that site for a wad of money to developers and moved to their new site on Bayview near the Granite club, a shorter walk to meet parents for lunch.
Totally unrelated but I remember a Toronto DJ, Jungle Jay Nelson on CHUM, giving a traffic report that said traffic was delayed because there was an accident at the intersection of 504 and 506. What you don’t know where that is? Call the TTC. This was just after the change to route names instead of numbers.
They don’t necessarily have to have the stop announcements include “& Eglinton” though. The stop can be formally named “Warden & Eglinton,” and appear that way on the map, but just say “the next stop is Warden” for the announcement.
Steve: If I were feeling very cynical, I would wait until the stop names have the force of a Ministerial announcement, at which point they will be untouchable, at least until a new government decides to rename everything in its own image.
The MOT currently places carpooling parking lots in these locations, and some are served by GO bus routes (e.g.: 404 & Aurora Road/Wellington).
Steve: This is all rather amusing considering that any parking lot that will fit in a cloverleaf would provide only enough business for a few trains’ worth of passengers.
Oh exactly, however, I wonder whether nobody thinks to build a large complex at the corner of Summerhill or Shaftsbury, or Crescent and Yonge? Is it because too few people know where it is? Making it harder to market – this leaves a perfectly marvelous residential street. Whereas a couple of blocks up from Summerhill – Rosehill and even Jackes being close to St Clair (sold as at St Clair – everybody and their dog knows where that is) have substantial density. I do not understand – given there is a park directly across from the end of Crescent, why there are not a couple of massive condo buildings there – increasing ridership – same for Shaftsbury, and Summerhill for the Summerhill Station.
Steve: Are you honestly suggesting that people don’t know where Rosedale is or that it would be hard to market? The reason that Yonge and Crescent isn’t a forest of condos is that (a) two of the four corners are occupied by parkland and (b) it’s Rosedale. You don’t just drop any old skyscraper into that neighbourhood, although they are creeping up Yonge Street with many condos in easy walking distance of the station.
Your argument shows an interesting “dark side” to the “subways * 3” argument because many residents of existing lower density neighbourhoods do not want high rise forests springing up around them, but of course they do want their own subway station, just not too close to their front door. I suspect that if there were automatic “as of right” upzoning of lands within “x” metres of rapid transit stations, the debates about where these stations (and even lines) would go would be very, very different.
You are giving away your unfamiliarity with probably the most expensive part of downtown Toronto.
Ah, but which intersection of 504 and 506?
Precisely! For a native of Buffalo, anyone remember his show on channel 7 at 5:00 p.m., he had a good knowledge of Toronto and the RCAF, but that is another story.
Every little bit counts. It’s probably a good idea to attack congestion from all angles. I think more carpool lots would also help with the TTC’s perception among (vocal) drivers, which for the most part is terrible. Carpoolers are, granted, a small volume of TTC passengers but still deserve some attention. More carpool lots will make carpool lanes on the highway more attractive as well. But I digress.
Isn’t the parkland the result of preliminary work on the long dead crosstown expressway?
Steve: No. The expressway would have been at Summerhill Station, not Rosedale.
This is a good example of somebody making bad decisions because they are blindly following (assumed) convention or rules to the letter without considering whether they make sense. In this case, they are trying to jump through hoops because of an unnecessary need to avoid duplication with other stations.
Metrolinx says that they are naming stations according to the following principles:
Most of these fail on at least three of the five criteria (#1, #2 and #4, and possibly #3) because Metrolinx is rigidly trying to satisfy #5 to the letter.
I think a lot of people would argue that the University line, and all the “West” stations, set the precedent that is now being followed. But it is worthwhile to recollect why duplication was avoided in those cases. Specifically, you had the potential for two stations with the same name, on the same line. That is the key distinction. It should be fairly apparent that there would be problems with having two “Queen” stations on Line 1. Even Dundas West falls under this rule, since it was named in an era when there was still (supposedly) the potential for interlining between B-D and Y-U-S, such that they technically would have been on the same line. There is no such issue with having a Dufferin station on the Bloor line and a Dufferin station on the Eglinton line.
Metrolinx says that their goal is to “make transit easier to navigate and avoid customer confusion”. That should be to name the stations after the nearest major cross street — period. They need to keep it as simple as possible. Only exception should be where there is a major, permanent landmark with a permanent name and no suitable intersecting street name.
Quick — where do you get off if you are visiting at Yonge and Eglinton and need to get on Dufferin bus? Or if you want to get to a store that you only know is somewhere near Bathurst and Eglinton?
Actually Steve, I used to live on Pine Hill road, for many years – although quite some time ago (Park and Rosedale roads). The north side of Crescent at Yonge is not park, so only 2 of 3 corners. As I mentioned earlier the park across Yonge street (with the rinks in the winter) is right there, however, it is not very wide north south, and the commercial development on the north side is not high rise. I will grant you that the local neighborhood is extremely well connected, vocal, and well prepared (and able) to voice their opinion and defend their position.
Steve: I was counting northwest and southwest as separate “corners”, one with Ramsden Park, and the other with low rise buildings. The southeast corner is the green space in front of Rosedale Station, and there was a big fight some years ago about a proposal to develop this. Ergo, two of four corners.
However, it still surprises me, given the fact that there is park right there, that there has not been a more concerted effort to work on the community to permit upzoning on Crescent, for the exact reason that it is extremely tony (may be too weak a word) and would be very desirable. While this may be a very expensive area, why would condos, not be still more valuable, especially from Yonge to say Cluny on Crescent. Yes I realize the requirements to get all the neighbours to agree to permit any development (a silly little sunroom on our house required getting permission from every household that could possibly have seen it, and this was a trivial change ) I would still have thought the value potential – would at least be creating a visible war. Although I will also say – I would root for the residents (not that they need my help) even though I no longer live there, because it is a very nice street.
I would note there is low rise development on both sides of Yonge there – which is really my point. While people know where Rosedale is – do they really have a handle on where the station is itself. I used to walk through the neighborhood quite frequently, as this station was much easier to board the train at, than Bloor (which was a bit closer). However, it does not exactly have the feel of a major street, and neither the street nor the station are exactly high visibility.
While I know that Rosedale residents, will go to great lengths to preserve the enclave, it still seems odd that there has been so little encroachment – although many, many moons ago somebody did manage to build that low rise apartment on Rosedale road, across from Pine Hill (Rosedale and Park) to your point I remember the war, when someone made some unpopular major changes to a house on Park (gave it far too modern/boxy a feel to fit).
It’s really sad actually that this Province neglects some of the most important areas of the City. Every time I pass by East Eglinton, East Lawrence, Kingston/Markham or Kingston Galloway, it disgusts me to know that no quality transit being built or planned for these citizens in my lifetime.
These areas are built up, house high levels of low income and these areas could use a boost of re-development over most other areas in the City. This is absolute neglect to an area for the lone reason that it offers minimal political financial support while other areas of the City have more a more prominent political voice & ensure the focus stays away from other areas. This is an even bigger issue then the SSE vs. SLRT debate but similar in the way Politics deliver major bias in building this City.
Steve: Well, all I can say is that Scarborough was offered an LRT network, and was talked into throwing it away for the subway they “deserved” for blatant political reasons. Meanwhile, recent CBC coverage of transit issues from Kennedy Station found lots of riders whose complaints were that the buses were unreliable and packed.
I agree with Metrolinx’s goal to create unique station names, especially when we are talking about creating an integrated system with integrated maps. Line 2 has a station called Keele. Viva has a station called Keele. Line 5 has a station currently called Keele and the current plans for the Finch LRT have a station called Keele. I don’t think they should all have the same name. Keele North, Keele South, Keele Midtown, Keelesdale all seem to be choices that could easily lead to “I’ve been waiting for you at insert-wrong-station-with-name-very-similar-to-correct-station for over an hour,” situations for no good reason. Full intersection names for surface stops (with cross streets names first and the option to truncate the other street name) and unique names otherwise, seems like a good plan. I did a Google Maps search of “Silverthorn Toronto” and was brought to a location that was about 300m away from the planned stop. That’s before Google has even added the stop to the map. This seems like pretty good wayfinding to me.
I think, for the most part, the planned names for the underground stops make sense, with the exception of Oriole Park, which I think fails in large part because it doesn’t even follow Metrolinx’s own guidelines. Can’t they just call it Avenue Rd? Is there a plan to place another high order transit stop on Avenue Rd?
My other quibble is with the name Aga Khan & Eglinton, which is another station that doesn’t follow the naming convention laid out by Metrolinx. Aga Khan isn’t a street name, it’s an honorific title bestowed on a person who I assume doesn’t spend too much of his time standing at Ferrand Drive and Eglinton Avenue East. Call it Aga Khan Museum, Aga Khan Park or Ferrand & Eglinton but Aga Khan & Eglinton will either have me looking for a street called Aga Khan or expecting Prince Shah Karim Al Husseini to greet me as I alight at the station. While a royal reception would be amazing, maybe let’s just set the expectation that the station is near the museum by naming it after the museum.
Steve: I have a problem with uniqueness especially depending on the scale of “integration”. Do you intend that nowhere else in southern Ontario any transit station can be called “Queen” or “King”? I just did a quick check of the LRT map for KW, and found the following “duplicates”: Allen, Queen, Victoria Park. On the Hurontario line, there are : Queen, Eglinton, Dundas, Main and Highway 407. If I can find these in five minutes (most of which was looking up the URLs), surely Metrolinx planners can do the same and see how futile their attempts might be.
I was wondering if Joe M is undercover Steve M to stir passionate debates and make your site more popular.
Steve: I can assure you that Joe M is a completely different person.
No, I just think it should be a goal. Is there a way to build a network with names that make stations easy to find and cause minimal confusion? Yeah. Does that mean that the words used in any one station will never appear anywhere else in the system? No…but I think that if duplication of station names can be avoided it makes sense to try to avoid it. A good example is the proposed Oriole Park station. There’s no need for that name in a network that already has Oriole station. Yes, they have different names and are far apart but why build in duplication when you don’t have to? That’s all I’m saying.
I think that’s why at grade stations with names like “Birchmount & Eglinton” make sense. I think most of us are just going to use the name of the cross street BUT by formally putting & _______ at the end, we have names that give precise locations for situations where there could be confusion.
1: Let’s meet at Birchmount and take the train together.
2: Birchmount & Eglinton?
1: No, Birchmount & Sheppard. (That’s my wishful/misguided hope that the Sheppard LRT isn’t dead.
I think Metrolinx’s solution for surface stops addresses most of the duplication you’ve referenced. “Dundas” on the Hurontario LRT will likely be “Dundas & Hurontario.” If the rest of the network follows the naming convention, where we have duplication in names (Dundas, Birchmount, etc…) the precision of the “& ______” suffix should eliminate confusion…though that assumes Metrolinx will follow it’s own rules. Renaming Avenue and calling a station Aga Khan & Eglinton make me wonder.
This is really unnecessary in a grid system as people should know that several lines, rapid or not, stop at the same street at different addresses. Personally I think the “&” is more useful for the Spadina subway since it doesn’t stick to one street on its way south. I’d also resist giving stations neighborhood names since its important that the station’s name implies a more precise, as you say, location. No Google search required.
We are trying to fix something that’s not broken.
This whole thing boils down to the purpose of a name. It should be relatively short and contain some descriptive element to the object. I would say it should be 2 to 6 syllables and 1 to 3 words.
Kevin Richardson’s example need not be explicit in the station names, as done in Waterloo’s GRT (Weber at King, which there were three of on the same bus route). If all the East-West routes follow a naming convention of cross-streets or widely known features (Union Station, High Park), then in conversation we can tack on the “and line” to clarify.
From personal experience, the first time I came to Toronto (to get an international visa), I arrived by Greyhound at Toronto Coach Terminal near Dundas St. West and Bay St. I boarded the subway at Dundas station, but after six hours of mind numbing waiting, I conflated the street with the station, and on my return journey, I went to Dundas West Station (consequently I missed the last Greyhound).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Back when I was taking the GO, I saw someone get fined for having a ticket to Kipling station but travelling on the Georgetown line, where the station at Kipling is called Etobicoke North.
I would guess that even more people would make that mistake if Etobicoke North was called Kipling North.
It all comes down to how you use the system … if you are only ever using it to get to landmarks – then unique names (Museum, Aga Khan) make sense … but if you are trying to get around on a regular basis, or are new to the city and trying to orient yourself underground then the only way to do it is with X&Y names … especially if we build a DRL where we won’t be following one street or maintaining north/south or east/west.
In the end though naming stations that are above ground is silly … you can see the road signs just like drivers can … and the announcements should just call out the cross roads so everyone knows where they are.
Joe M: Confirmed. lol I have much shorter hair & can’t grow a beard. All we have in common is that we are both frustrated transit users but we come from completely different parts of the City & have completely different needs.
Downtown and fringe areas need funding for a DRL & some better frequency on their local routes.
Scarborough needs a miracle … certainly needs a less political, fairly integrated, more thought out transit plan to be funded & serve the future of the entire area. Instead of picking winners and losers for these plans which already set the bar extremely low.
A friend of mine at University missed his flight home to Switzerland because the ticket said Toronto Hamilton International Airport so he went to Mount Hope in Hamilton. He was really disappointed with the little airport.
I would argue Joe, that Scarborough needs the DRL as well, along with the full pop implementation of TransitCity – not a cherry picked version. This RER and redistribution of all buses within Scarborough that were no longer needed due to implementation of all TransitCity routes (full length Malvern, Sheppard East, Morningside Hook, BRT, bus plan) to me should offer Scarborough really solid service – although I would agree getting it now – would require a miracle. I am also willing to bet that whatever comes out of the SSE will end up being a half baked mess, costing tons of money and only really scratching the surface of the need. RER and Rapid transit services need to be integrated within Scarborough if the region is to really benefit (ie LRT & BRT to GO stations on Stouffville, and Lakeshore East).
Well, I was thinking about the original route proposed in the 1940’s which would have used the Rosedale Valley ravine rather than the later route which would have followed Yellow Creek.
Steve: Ah yes, that route down Rosedale Valley was a real mess, but the Yellow Creek version [aka David Balfour Park] was no treat. It’s one legacy is the DVP/Bayview/Bloor ramp that is positioned to connect with the unbuilt expressway at the east end of Park Drive Reservation.
The DRL could be seen as a big benefit to Scarborough if only there was a transit system worth riding to get there. The SSE/DRL is will be of great value for a large part of Toronto.
If the SSE doesn’t get hi-jacked in the next couple years then BRT’s should be looked at to surround Scarborough’s perimeter at some (Sheppard, Eglinton, Kingston Rd, & the Ellesmere-Durham BRT to feed into the Subway system.
All Scarborough got was a choice of a half baked, half funded (not even), half-assed integrated LRT plan vs. a half baked subway plan.
Transit City would have been good if funded in full but the McGuinty Liberals toyed with Scarborough and Ford took Political advantage of the strange LRT proposal. Even if politics never allows a useful local transit network in Scarborough to see funding for another 100 years the SSE will do a lot for integration of Scarborough into Toronto and although not close to enough rapid transit to serve properly it will provide a very solid foundation none the less.
And only 3-4 stops for Metrolinx to name….
The surface stops naming is too cheesy with the exception of the underground names. I would’ve have preferred to retain the namings with the exception of Victoria Park and Warden. The namings could have been like: Leslie South, Don Valley, Wynford, Bermondsey, Eglinton Square, Pharmacy, Golden Mile, Birchmount and Ionview.
From the looks of it Steve, they could have named Eglinton Stn. to Eglinton-Yonge Stn. or Midtown Stn. to make it more convenient. Metrolinx seems to please with station names.
This is the problem with too many people voting for their narrow self interest, and by knee jerk feel good reactions. Somebody needs to present a real integrated region or at least city wide vision, and then really sell it, including the principals behind why what is what. We can find the money to do an SSE in Scarborough, which means we can fund TransitCity plus. Need to present a vision, a funding plan, with a timeline and implementation order that doesn’t change with the wind. The funding for SSE, would cover at least what Miller proposed in Scarborough.
Why don’t they just use the street name followed by the line number? E.g., the station at Yonge & Dundas would be “Dundas 1” and Dundas West would be “Dundas 2”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Would Dundas 1 be at Yonge or at University? What would you do about St. Clair and St. Clair West? There would also be 2 Lawrences, 2 Sheppards etc. Would you rename the Part of Line 1 west and north of Union? Why don’t they just use intersection; Dundas and Yonge, Dundas and University etc.?
Steve: Not to mention when a new station is added to the network. This would give us “Lawrence 1” at Yonge, “Lawrence 2” at Allen Road, “Lawrence 3” at the SRT, and who knows what we would call Weston Station. Given that it’s the oldest of the lot, it should really be “Lawrence 1” shouldn’t it?
This is almost as bad as starting the platform numbering in Union at “3” because “1” and “2” were reserved for the subway even though they are never referenced that way.
Hmmm, does it strike anyone else that the five principles MetroLinx wants to follow, to make station-names unrecognizable, is in serious conflict with the recent decision to try to get riders to refer to routes as Line 1, Line 2, Line 3 etc.?
I noticed that the underground stations are considerably farther apart than the above ground stations. Surely any arguments as to how far apart the stations should be would apply to both the above ground and underground stations?
Are there any plans to run an occasional bus along Eglinton, for the elderly, or those with strollers, to help them avoid a long walk?
Steve: Yes, there will be a bus running from Mount Dennis to Don Mills Station.
Hi, Robert. You asked, “Would Dundas 1 be at Yonge or at University? What would you do about St. Clair and St. Clair West?” No changes should be made to the names on the Spadina-University line. Those names are already established. Changing them now would just cause confusion.
Steve – Why base the numbering on the age of the stations? The intention is to have short station names that contain helpful information re. the station’s location. This can be done by naming the cross-street and indicating the number of the line on which the station is located. Names formed in that way would assure a unique name for each station (assuming the stations on the Spadina-University line keep their current names).
Steve: The reason I used the age was that if this numbering scheme had been in place, stations would obviously have been numbered in the order they were built whether that made sense or not.
I wasn’t suggesting that they be changed, just pointing out the problem with using that system with a U shaped line that runs from Front street to the far north.