Destination Signs

[RIPTA42]

It's said the Metra part for sometime now, at least for over a year when I took it last.

The switch happened in 2007, IIRC.

[jajuan]

Giving some thought to what a member posted some time ago about the NB X9 destination signs, perhaps the sign is meant to represent 'X9 to Irving Park/Red Line Station' which in that case would make the sign a little bit more accurate (though still not totally correct) since then it would mean the bus is going to Irving Park and the nearby Red Line station instead of designating a station by name. How it's displayed on one line instead of two leaves no room put a '/' in between Irving Park and Red Line station, similar to how SB 6 signs display '6 to 79TH S SHORE' instead of '6 to 79TH/S SHORE'.

[Busjack]

Giving some thought to what a member posted some time ago about the NB X9 destination signs, perhaps the sign is meant to represent 'X9 to Irving Park/Red Line Station' which in that case would make the sign a little bit more accurate (though still not totally correct) since then it would mean the bus is going to Irving Park and the nearby Red Line station instead of designating a station by name. How it's displayed on one line instead of two leaves no room put a '/' in between Irving Park and Red Line station, similar to how SB 6 signs display '6 to 79TH S SHORE' instead of '6 to 79TH/S SHORE'.

I don't know that the slash has that meaning, especially the sloppy way it was used on 156. Was it the LaSalle Belmont bus? Maybe it should have been.

If it were signifying a missing "via" (like Pace buses do on such signs as 250 O'Hare {flip}Kiss-N-Ride{flip}DesPlaines or 423 The Glen {flip}Glenview {flip}Harlem CTA), the X9 still should say Sheridan Red Line Station.

Not that consistency is a hallmark. Unless things recently changed, 55 and 63 ended at Midway Station, while 59 at Orange Line. The only possible justification would be that Midway Station is on 59th (or at least its driveway exits there).

[jajuan]

I don't know that the slash has that meaning, especially the sloppy way it was used on 156. Was it the LaSalle Belmont bus? Maybe it should have been.

If it were signifying a missing "via" (like Pace buses do on such signs as 250 O'Hare {flip}Kiss-N-Ride{flip}DesPlaines or 423 The Glen {flip}Glenview {flip}Harlem CTA), the X9 still should say Sheridan Red Line Station.

Not that consistency is a hallmark. Unless things recently changed, 55 and 63 ended at Midway Station, while 59 at Orange Line. The only possible justification would be that Midway Station is on 59th (or at least its driveway exits there).

Notice I did say perhaps thus making it all speculation, and I did say it still wouldn't be accurate with the slash. Either way we'll still know Sheridan station is meant since it is the only Red Line station close to Irving Park connecting with the route.

[jajuan]

I took a 126 last night and I noticed that the destination signs for the Medical District trips display '126 JACKSON' flip '126 to xxxx VIA MEDICAL DISTRICT' (displayed on two lines). When was this change done? It's a lot better than the prior '126 MEDICAL DISTRICT' flip '126 to xxxxx' signs. Now folks can stop asking during those trips 'Is this the Jackson bus?' when a big '126' could still be seen on the sign even if it didn't say Jackson.

[MetroShadow]

The new 157 has shown the two line signs, the NB trips are more unique.

And one of the FG routes have two-line signs as well. Not sure which route it was.

[jajuan]

The new 157 has shown the two line signs, the NB trips are more unique.

And one of the FG routes have two-line signs as well. Not sure which route it was.

Yes the 14 NB has the two line signs too. There are two versions of it actually. If I remember it correctly, on one version 'JEFFERY EXPRESS' is on the top line and the bottom flips beween 'TO MADISON' and 'JEFFERSON', similar to how the SB 157 signs flip between 'TO OGDEN' and 'CALIFORNIA' on the bottom line. I think the other version of the 14 signs has 'WASHINGTON' instead of 'MADISON'.

[jesi2282]

The NB signs on the #X9 have changed, they now display X9 ASHLAND EXP (flip) X9 TO IRVING PARK/SHERIDAN (on two lines).

[ArcherRider]

They fixed route #92 Foster to read

92 Foster

to Jefferson Park/

Blue Line instead of Jeff/Blue Line.

[Chicago13]

The NB signs on the #X9 have changed, they now display X9 ASHLAND EXP (flip) X9 TO IRVING PARK/SHERIDAN (on two lines).

Actually, the ones I saw in the last week said IRVING PARK/BROADWAY on two lines instead of IRVING PARK/SHERIDAN.

The 92 Foster buses all show JEFFERSON PARK/BLUE LINE on two lines (even the Flx's I saw), but the 81 Lawrence still has JEFF PK/BLUE LINE on one line.

[Zol87]

I have some questions and ideas.

Why do some bus routes like 63 say Midway STA instead of Midway CTA? Also why do the destination signs for buses to Jeff Park or Davis only say the CTA line. Why not also mention Metra?

I think STA should be used for intra model stations like Davis, Jefferson Park or Harlem (Green Line).

Also why do Pace routes like the 422 mention Northbrook Court and Linden CTA in both EB and WB trips? I can't tell whether its coming or going?

[Busjack]

I have some questions and ideas.

Why do some bus routes like 63 say Midway STA instead of Midway CTA? Also why do the destination signs for buses to Jeff Park or Davis only say the CTA line. Why not also mention Metra?

I think STA should be used for intra model stations like Davis, Jefferson Park or Harlem (Green Line).

Also why do Pace routes like the 422 mention Northbrook Court and Linden CTA in both EB and WB trips? I can't tell whether its coming or going?

STA is STATION. I might have commented earlier that it doesn't make much sense to say CTA on CTA. I also commented that it was inconsistent to have 55 and 63 MIDWAY STA and 59 ORANGE LINE. And, of course, the reason why METRA isn't mentioned is that the CTA doesn't recongnize it, except when it has to, such as 68 Park Ridge (and even then it was CNW for a long time). For that matter, you now have the inconsistency that 120 goes to OGILV STA, while 14 goes to MADISON-JEFFERSON, even though both are essentially the same place.

As far as 422, that indicates that it didn't automatically switch at the end of the line. The WB/NB sequence should be 422 OLD ORCHARD/422 GLENVIEW/422 NORTHBRK CT,* and SB/EB GLENVIEW/ 422 OLD ORCHARD/422 LINDEN. If it is working the sign should swap just as the bus makes the left turn from the Northbrook Court ring road.

Of course, Pace signs are inconsistent, and become even more so (i.e. the route names weren't used on routes such as 422 and 423 named after the terminals, until the Will restructuring, where route names such as 832 JOLIET/ORLAND PARK/ORLAND SQUARE appeared.

The last I saw, Pace had something like 309 GREEN CTA, instead of via GREEN LINE, which gets them even more into inconsistency.

____________________

*To avoid ambiguity, I used / to mean flip.

[cta5658]

When I see a 6000 on the #95W here's how their signs would look like:

WB: 95W WEST 95 *flip* TO EVRGREEN *flip* PLAZA

EB: 95W WEST 95TH *flip* TO 95TH/RED LN.

[Guest ctafan630]

Yes the 14 NB has the two line signs too. There are two versions of it actually. If I remember it correctly, on one version 'JEFFERY EXPRESS' is on the top line and the bottom flips beween 'TO MADISON' and 'JEFFERSON', similar to how the SB 157 signs flip between 'TO OGDEN' and 'CALIFORNIA' on the bottom line. I think the other version of the 14 signs has 'WASHINGTON' instead of 'MADISON'.

I personally do not like the way the destination signs read for these routes. Is there a reason why the CTA has decided to put the route name on the top and the destination on the bottom? With this new format, the font is smaller and more difficult to read from further away.

[Busjack]

I personally do not like the way the destination signs read for these routes. Is there a reason why the CTA has decided to put the route number on the top and the destination on the bottom? With this new format, the font is smaller and more difficult to read from further away.

I guess I hadn't comprehended the import of what jajuan was saying. It appears that they are doing what Toronto did when they first got the larger signs. Not having a full sized route number would be a departure for the Chicago area. Even Pace, when most signs on the Orion VIs had two line readings, and flipped the bottom, still had full sized numbers.

At least Toronto is polite, with the Sorry... before Not in Service.

[rmadisonwi]

I took a 126 last night and I noticed that the destination signs for the Medical District trips display '126 JACKSON' flip '126 to xxxx VIA MEDICAL DISTRICT' (displayed on two lines). When was this change done? It's a lot better than the prior '126 MEDICAL DISTRICT' flip '126 to xxxxx' signs. Now folks can stop asking during those trips 'Is this the Jackson bus?' when a big '126' could still be seen on the sign even if it didn't say Jackson.

You're welcome.

[qwantae]

So far since I started seen NFs on #56- Milwaukee route: on rear of NF says "N56", I don't know if it was a mistaken but I remember that route used to be 24/7 route until early 2000s.

[jajuan]

I guess I hadn't comprehended the import of what jajuan was saying. It appears that they are doing what Toronto did when they first got the larger signs. Not having a full sized route number would be a departure for the Chicago area. Even Pace, when most signs on the Orion VIs had two line readings, and flipped the bottom, still had full sized numbers.

At least Toronto is polite, with the Sorry... before Not in Service.

No the route number is still full size. The destination is in small font.

[Busjack]

No the route number is still full size. The destination is in small font.

Then, I guess ctafan630 was misleading.

[jajuan]

Then, I guess ctafan630 was misleading.

Actually I think he misunderstood my earlier post that he referenced because I didn't mention the route number but the actual destination part on the sign. So I guess he thought I was saying the route number was smaller. In all the signs for the routes (14, 92, 82 in the June 14th change thread, 126 hospital trips, and 157) mentioned the route numbers are still full sized. Only the destination part is on two lines, similar to how Champaign-Urbana's MTD does it.

[busfan2847]

I personally do not like the way the destination signs read for these routes. Is there a reason why the CTA has decided to put the route number on the top and the destination on the bottom? With this new format, the font is smaller and more difficult to read from further away.

You try getting STREETERVILLE/TAYLOR on a single line at full height on a 102" wide bus! The alternative is the bus announcing STREETERVILLE then TAYLOR - more confusing!

[Busjack]

You try getting STREETERVILLE/TAYLOR on a single line at full height on a 102" wide bus! The alternative is the bus announcing STREETERVILLE then TAYLOR - more confusing!

Or the Pace method: SRTVL/TAYLR. I still don't know why they regressed from the 2 line to the 15 character format.

[Guest ctafan630]

Actually I think he misunderstood my earlier post that he referenced because I didn't mention the route number but the actual destination part on the sign. So I guess he thought I was saying the route number was smaller. In all the signs for the routes (14, 92, 82 in the June 14th change thread, 126 hospital trips, and 157) mentioned the route numbers are still full sized. Only the destination part is on two lines, similar to how Champaign-Urbana's MTD does it.

I made a slight error in my original post. I meant to say "route name" but instead I said "route number". My post was in regards to the route name and destination being on two seperate lines in general. By making the route and destination two lines, the font becomes a lot smaller thus making it more difficult to read.

I'd rather have it the sign read Route name (flip)/ destination (flip)/ destination (continued if necessary).

A second option would be to place the entire route name on the first screen in a smaller font and then flip to the destination in a smaller font.

[Busjack]

Now that that's clarified, and given all the discussion of inconsistent philosophy, I guess the reason the CTA changed to 2 line signs is that it could. For the first time, virtually all CTA buses are using either Luminator orange LED signs, or Twinvision signs that, in either version, can show two lines (as they have on occasion). Maybe not having to start with a 1990s style sign and then converting the program to a newer one allows for more creativity.

As far as the size of the fonts, they have to be ADA compliant, but the manufacturers say they are.

But I suppose rmadisonwi has the real poop.

[jajuan]

I made a slight error in my original post. I meant to say "route name" but instead I said "route number". My post was in regards to the route name and destination being on two seperate lines in general. By making the route and destination two lines, the font becomes a lot smaller thus making it more difficult to read.

I'd rather have it the sign read Route name (flip)/ destination (flip)/ destination (continued if necessary.

A second option would be to place the entire route name on the first screen in a smaller font and then flip to the destination in a smaller font.

Again, even with the clarification of your post, try getting Streeterville/Taylor in one sign for example. With all the confusion on some of the Pace routes mentioned by others on the forum by trying to fit the info with three flips I'd say if CTA can get the relevant info fitted in two flips without those insane abbreviations then go for it. I'm quite nearsighted without my glasses and tested out if I could still make out the signs in the two line format without them and had no more problems than I might if the sign font were full sized. Plus if I'm at a stop that's served by both directions of a route I want to know right away if the bus approaching is the correct direction, not scrambling to rush to get out my wallet to reach my farecard or pass. If you're doing the destinations in three flips that takes too long to let people know that may be their bus.