[ARG1]

The fact that the language uses 2 completely different words to describe 2 similar colors has nothing to do with how objectively similar or dissimilar said colors are. Sky blue is to navy blue almost exactly as the bright green is to the dark green, so your argument should also apply had we used a completely different name for bright green (which we do, sometimes, i.e. "electric lime"). In spoken language the confusion of "which blue line?" is easily addressed by specifying "light/dark blue" (same with green), but looking at a map I don't think most people would confuse the colors or misuse them interchangeably. I, for one, can't imagine using lime green to denote TTC line 2.

This is completely off topic, but I wanted to share this so here goes. In the context of Moscow, I'd argue that it actually makes a bit of sense, since Lines 3/4 are pseudo local/express versions of each other. I don't want to get into a spiel about the history of these lines, but to make a long story short, the modern day Line 3 was a complete reroute of the modern Line 4 that removed any and all above ground segments. This was done since at the time one of the major goals of the Metro was to function as a civil defense tools that can double as bomb shelters, and as way for people and high ranking officials to escape the city undetected in the case of war. This is why both lines run so close together and in 2 cases have duplicate station names (something that you normally never see in Moscow).

That being said if we're talking about line colours in foreign languages, its important to highlight the psycholinguistics angle, which is that the way you perceive the world (in this case colours) is shaped by the language you learned it with. If you grew up learning that navy blue and sky blue are 2 completely separate colours the same way we would differentiate pink and red as being 2 completely separate colours, there's a high likelihood the way you interpret the colours are quite different as well. The same applies in the other direction, many languages see blue and green as being 2 different shades of the same colour "grue". Now as someone who doesn't speak any of those languages, I find the concept to be insane, but to many people, blue and green are very similar colours.

 

[81-717]

That being said if we're talking about line colours in foreign languages, its important to highlight the psycholinguistics angle, which is that the way you perceive the world (in this case colours) is shaped by the language you learned it with. If you grew up learning that navy blue and sky blue are 2 completely separate colours the same way we would differentiate pink and red as being 2 completely separate colours, there's a high likelihood the way you interpret the colours are quite different as well. The same applies in the other direction, many languages see blue and green as being 2 different shades of the same colour "grue". Now as someone who doesn't speak any of those languages, I find the concept to be insane, but to many people, blue and green are very similar colours.

Linguistics have little to do with science, though, which can actually objectively measure things like this. If there were some language that taught that red and green are in fact different shades of the same color, it wouldn't make it true any more than claiming that 2+2=3.

You brought up the topic of blue & green being different shades of "grue", which relates back to the fact that sky blue is in fact blue mixed with a significant amount of green. Objectively speaking, colors exist on a continuous spectrum, rather than a discrete number of different, disconnected colors, so yes you could pick an arbitrary part of the spectrum that would contain all the colors from green to blue, red to yellow, etc.

The funny thing about our eyes and brain is that they're actually horrible at providing objective information.

That's true, plus there's also the theory that all colors in their entirety are nothing but an illusion of our brains and don't actually exist, which also means that light & brightness don't either (the only things that exist are wavelengths & photons which we perceive as color & light). Our senses alone may not be enough to provide objective information, but we do have scientific instruments capable of doing so (i.e. detecting & measuring infrared/UV/gamma wavelengths which our senses can't detect, period).

and how the language you speak does in fact change how one sees colours.

As someone whose first language is Russian (no, I haven't been to Russia in over 20 years, and no I don't support present-day Russia), it was always counterintuitive to me that blue vs. sky blue were considered different colors in the language, I always intuitively thought of them as just different shades of blue, but ofc being aware of the gradient between them (one is closer to green than the other) helps clear up that misconception.

but to many people, blue and green are very similar colours.

What doesn't make sense even to me is that objectively the primary colors are red/green/blue (RGB), instead of red/yellow/blue which makes more intuitive sense. In other words, green & blue are actually as different as red & green or red & blue.

 

[ARG1]

Linguistics have little to do with science, though, which can actually objectively measure things like this. If there were some language that taught that red and green are in fact different shades of the same color, it wouldn't make it true any more than claiming that 2+2=3.

You brought up the topic of blue & green being different shades of "grue", which relates back to the fact that sky blue is in fact blue mixed with a significant amount of green.

The funny thing about our eyes and brain is that they're actually horrible at providing objective information. Our brain is amazing at distorting images and changing how we perceive colour based on its surrounding context, however it also means that as far as the human experience goes, metrics such as gradients that determine how similar 2 colours are to each other are frankly irrelevant when discussing how people perceive different colours. That's why you can go online and find numerous colour based optical illusions that makes use of how much our brain messes with things like colours. I can keep going but this is extremely off topic and the only thing I can really say at this point is there are a ton of reading materials out there especially in regards to psycholinguistics and how the language you speak does in fact change how one sees colours.

 

[17_Bean_17]

Working on a video covering the progress of the project, anyone have good arial shots of the downtown stations that I could use (with credit!). Also if anyone has interesting project milestones that you think should be highlighted let me know!

Pulled together from released information - italic are major milestones:

Exhibition:

• Exhibition
  • 2/3 Tower Cranes Installed.
  • Foundation Works ongoing for platforms.
  • Foundation Works ongoing for North Headhouse and TPSS.
  • TBM Portal very close to complete excavation to 20m depth.
• King-Bathurst
  • Cavern (sequentially excavated out from North Shaft) has reached both headwalls (full 150m length) - excavation progressing into bottom half.
  • South shaft excavation roughly 3/4 complete.
• Queen-Spadina
  • Cavern has reached both headwalls.
  • South shaft excavation roughly 1/2 complete.
• Osgoode
  • Cavern works have begun from fully excavated South Shaft.
  • Acoustic shelter installation underway at North Shaft.
• Queen
  • Excavation has begun.
  • Acoustic shelter paneling underway at East Shaft.
  • Gantry crane installation underway at West Shaft.
• Moss Park
  • Excavation completed.
• Corktown
  • Shaft excavation nearly completed.
  • Preparations underway for Sequential Excavation of connection between shafts under Front Street.

 

[A 6264]

many languages see blue and green as being 2 different shades of the same colour "grue"

It's not just a language thing, some people have trouble seeing the difference. I don't know if it's an eye or a brain thing, but my father thought the two were almost the same colour, and when I'd point something out as being green, he would say no, that's blue, and later my mom would quietly tell me to ignore what my dad said, because he always gets it wrong! Years later, my father had corrective surgery to his eyes, and said he can see colours "better than ever", but I've never asked him if he can tell blue from green now. I've never had any problem telling them apart, so it must not be hereditary. So I appreciate that it's a problem for some people, even if not for me.

A couple more off topic responses, if that's okay:

there's also the theory that all colors in their entirety are nothing but an illusion of our brains and don't actually exist

Well some people also say, how do you know you're not just a brain in a vat, and everything you've experienced in your entire life is an illusion.
But to address the rest of what you said, the fact that light is just photons and energy, doesn't mean that colours don't exist or have meaning, it just means that for some alternate non-human sentient mind, what photons and energy do, are not decipherable, and don't matter to it. The entire universe would be meaningless matter and energy, if you couldn't perceive the patterns they make.

it wouldn't make it true any more than claiming that 2+2=3

To anyone who says this, I like to say, please solve this: 1.7 + 1.7 = ____, and express the entire equation with all numbers rounded to the nearest whole number. This isn't a cheap trick, it's a reminder that whole and real numbers aren't the same thing, and converting between them, or otherwise rounding numbers without regard to what you're trying to accomplish, has its consequences.

 

[81-717]

Well some people also say, how do you know you're not just a brain in a vat, and everything you've experienced in your entire life is an illusion.

Yes, I'm having an entire existential crisis over all these mental gymnastics.

The entire universe would be meaningless matter and energy, if you couldn't perceive the patterns they make.

A conscious observer is not required for the universe to exist (only the reverse is true). Meaning/purpose isn't required either.

To get back on the topic of the OL, I just realized there won't be a station between Queen/Yonge & Osgoode, i.e. at Bay street, matching the alignment of Union and Bay on line 2. Was it ever included in early concepts/plans, and rejected due to being too close to the adjacent stations (despite being about the same as the distance between Bay & Bloor/Yonge)?

 

[TOtramz]

Yes, I'm having an entire existential crisis over all these mental gymnastics.


A conscious observer is not required for the universe to exist (only the reverse is true). Meaning/purpose isn't required either.

To get back on the topic of the OL, I just realized there won't be a station between Queen/Yonge & Osgoode, i.e. at Bay street, matching the alignment of Union and Bay on line 2. Was it ever included in early concepts/plans, and rejected due to being too close to the adjacent stations (despite being about the same as the distance between Bay & Bloor/Yonge)?

well station construction costs have gotten a lot more expensive since the 1960s.......

 

[A 6264]

A conscious observer is not required for the universe to exist (only the reverse is true). Meaning/purpose isn't required either.

100% agree. I meant to say, the entire universe would be meaningless matter and energy to you, if you couldn't perceive the patterns they make.

To get back on the topic of the OL, I just realized there won't be a station between Queen/Yonge & Osgoode, i.e. at Bay street, matching the alignment of Union and Bay on line 2. Was it ever included in early concepts/plans, and rejected due to being too close to the adjacent stations (despite being about the same as the distance between Bay & Bloor/Yonge)?

Maybe Doug is trying to tell Olivia that Toronto City Hall is not important enough to have a stop!

 

[ARG1]

To get back on the topic of the OL, I just realized there won't be a station between Queen/Yonge & Osgoode, i.e. at Bay street, matching the alignment of Union and Bay on line 2. Was it ever included in early concepts/plans, and rejected due to being too close to the adjacent stations (despite being about the same as the distance between Bay & Bloor/Yonge)?

IIRC, the original plan for the DRL had "Queen-Yonge" station closer to Bay than Yonge, and even Osgoode Station was to the east of the intersection for easier City Hall access. It wasn't great to say the least. As for why you can't have stations at all 3 intersections, its just too expensive. OL stations are being built extremely deep under Queen Street - nothing like the 3 floor deep stations on Line 2. To say that the theoretic costs are incomparable is putting it lightly.

 

[Steve X]

Actually, the one of the Relief Line plan has one centerpiece City Hall Station with long walkways connecting to both Osgoode and Queen. There was never a plan with 3 stations. Even Line 2 doesn't have 3 stations that close together.

 

[NoahB]

Yes, I'm having an entire existential crisis over all these mental gymnastics.


A conscious observer is not required for the universe to exist (only the reverse is true). Meaning/purpose isn't required either.

To get back on the topic of the OL, I just realized there won't be a station between Queen/Yonge & Osgoode, i.e. at Bay street, matching the alignment of Union and Bay on line 2. Was it ever included in early concepts/plans, and rejected due to being too close to the adjacent stations (despite being about the same as the distance between Bay & Bloor/Yonge)?

To answer your question. The Ontario Line plan itself skipped a Bay Street station from the get-go. At least publicly. But previous plans toyed with the idea.

In 2016, we had this ridiculous situation where they were planning the Relief Line where both Yonge-Queen and University-Queen were inside the U. Yonge-Queen probably would have connected to Bay Street.

In 1968, a study, one alignment proposed a single station would have been placed on Queen Street between Yonge and Bay and be connected to both.Plus a station under Queen-University. Similar to the above.
Here is a photo from the book Rapid Transit in Toronto by Edward J. Levy:

Stations going west mostly mirrored the ones we ended up with on Bloor with stations at Queen and: Spadina, Bathurst, Gore Vale (Christie), Shaw (not quite Ossington), Northcote (not quite Dufferin), Lansdowne, and Roncesvalles (Dundas West). Studies newer than this were not so generous with stations.

In 1944's, the Queen streetcar subway plan it had a station on City Hall Station(Queen-Bay ish), along with Queen-Yonge and one at Queen-York. I imagine stations were going to be much smaller than the giant Subway stations we have now on Line 1 and 2.

 

[smallspy]

To get back on the topic of the OL, I just realized there won't be a station between Queen/Yonge & Osgoode, i.e. at Bay street, matching the alignment of Union and Bay on line 2. Was it ever included in early concepts/plans, and rejected due to being too close to the adjacent stations (despite being about the same as the distance between Bay & Bloor/Yonge)?

The distance from the center of Bloor/Yonge Station to the center of St. George is almost 1.1km. Bay is roughly half-way between the two.

The distance from the projected center of Bloor/Queen Station to the center of Osgoode is a shade over 600m.

That should be clear enough as to why there won't be a station at Bay on the Ontario Line.

Dan

 

[A 6264]

OL stations are being built extremely deep under Queen Street - nothing like the 3 floor deep stations on Line 2.

You mean... that unfinished east/west platform they built under Queen Station in the 1950s isn't going to be the platform for the Ontario Line? My illusions are shattered again.

 

[fanoftoronto]

You mean... that unfinished east/west platform they built under Queen Stataion in the 1950s isn't going to be the platform for the Ontario Line? My illusions are shattered again.

Unfortunately, no those unfinished stations will not be used for the Ontario Line.

Metrolinx wanted to avoid all utility relocations and avoid the complications of underpinning existing subway stations as much as possible so decided to have the OL be deep bored tunnels roughly 30m deep. Petition to change the name of the Ontario Line to Bedrock Line!

Even if they wanted to, though, they couldn't use the unfinished tunnels as they would be too small for the trainsets they want to use.

 

[smallspy]

Metrolinx wanted to avoid all utility relocations and avoid the complications of underpinning existing subway stations as much as possible so decided to have the OL be deep bored tunnels roughly 30m deep. Petition to change the name of the Ontario Line to Bedrock Line!

Meanwhile, they will be underpinning Pape Station.....

Dan