Quote:
Originally Posted by Standpoor
^^
Well said.
I always thought that the circle line could use white/black and get away with it. The signs would be a white circle on a black background or a black circle on a white background. Kind of like the London underground sign but in white and black. Everyone would call it the circle line but maps/signs would be able to use a black line.
|
Circle line...lol That's a pipe dream if there ever was one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orulz
Naming lines after their colors on the map is a convenient unification of cartography, planning, and reality, but the colors tell us nothing about destinations, neighborhoods, history - the nature of the places where they go. Tell me, why must Chicago, which is so attached to calling its highways by their names in spite of the fact that they all have perfectly good numbers, also "give in" to this incredibly dull trend?
|
The naming of highways has loose ties to Chicago and Illinois history (Jane Addams, Adlai Stevenson, Bishop Ford, etc). Either way, it's easier to say the name and know exactly what stretch of road I'm talking about. I-90 isn't nearly as descriptive as Jane Addams, Kennedy, Dan Ryan, or Skyway...which all carry the I-90 designation.
As far as transit coloring. Colors are just simple as hell. Which line? The red colored one. For most tourists, knowing the street names isn't all that relevant, especially in a grid-heavy city like Chicago. "Take the Sheffield Line to DePaul, get off and walk one block east to get to the restaurant"; or "Take the Red Line to Fullerton, get off, walk one block east to get to restaurant". It's the same thing, and for a tourist I doubt it makes much difference.
I could see the issue if there were a gazillion lines like Paris or NYC and having close or duplicate colors. But Chicago will never reach that point, at least not in my lifetime. At the end of the day I don't really care, I just don't see the need for that change.