Today Thu Fri
It is forcast to be Clear at 11:00 PM EDT on April 16, 2014
Clear
5°/1°
It is forcast to be Partly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on April 17, 2014
Partly Cloudy
8°/4°
It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on April 18, 2014
Mostly Cloudy
12°/4°

108 Comments

cityscape

Here’s What the TTC Wants Toronto’s New Subway Signage to Look Like

Bloor-Yonge and St. George stations will be the test sites for a new generation of signs.

The image above is only a mock-up from the TTC, but, if transit officials have their way, it will soon be reality. Bloor-Yonge and St. George stations are expected to become the test beds for a new generation of subway signage designed to make route information clear and consistent—which, at the moment, it frequently isn’t.

The big difference is that the new signs would have colour-coded numbers on them in addition to (and sometimes instead of) the familiar subway-line names. So, for example, the Yonge-University-Spadina line would be “line one,” the Bloor-Danforth line would be “line two,” and so on.

A staff presentation on the new signage [PDF], which will be considered by the TTC board at its meeting today, points out some of the advantages of moving to a numerical system, among them the fact that it would be very easy to assign new numbers to new transit lines. (That is, assuming Toronto’s planned transit lines are ever actually completed.) The report doesn’t say this, but the numerical system would also be a handy way of downplaying politically charged nomenclature like “Downtown Relief Line.”

A proposed pilot project set to begin before the end of the year at Bloor-Yonge and St. George stations would include not only new entrance signs, but also new wayfinding signs inside the stations and route signs on subway platforms. All the signs would share the same design elements (including the numbers), and TTC staff would interview riders and use the results to help decide whether to roll out the new signage systemwide.

The TTC started a similar pilot project on the 94 Wellesley bus route at the beginning of the year, and this latest report says the results have been positive, but that new, easier-to-read bus maps are “not universally appropriate.” Among the alternatives being proposed is a bus map that uses different line widths to show how frequently different bus routes run.

And the report also says that the TTC hopes to make more extensive use of its own font—music to the ears of design pedants everywhere.

Images courtesy of the TTC.

Comments

  • Graeme

    If 5 isn’t labelled “DRL” pretty soon, the new signs may collapse under their own weight.

    • nevilleross

      Really, who gives a shit about that now (especially considering the dumbass mayor that we have and his funding of the stupid Scarborough stubway that’s unfortunately likely to get buildt first)? One thing at a time. Let’s be postitve about this, for a change.

  • HotDang
    • Graeme

      This makes me sad.

    • dsmithhfx

    • innsertnamehere

      Kill me now! Comic Sans!

      • HotDang

        Comic Sans level planning should be reflected in the signage.

  • wklis

    Use the numbers for surface bus and streetcar routes. Instead, use letters for the rapid transit routes. IE. A—Yonge-University-Spadina, B—Bloor-Danforth, etc.

    • vampchick21

      They kinda do use numbers for the surface routes, i.e. 501, 504, 29, etc. We call them by the street name.

  • bobloblawbloblawblah

    “Future Line”

    One can always dare to dream.

    • Dinah Might

      I want to ride the Future Line! I assume it uses grav-lift Hyperloop technology and everyone wears silver jumpsuits while chatting with Venusians over space martinis?

      • bobloblawbloblawblah

        The TTC will have to buy a Flux-Capacitor for the Future Line.

      • nevilleross

        Amazing how people like you care about future stuff now, but when anybody tries building future stuff (like, say maglev or monorails) they oppose it, and it never gets built anyway.

        Just sayin’.

        • tyrannosaurus_rek

          @vandallaxys:disqus! You’re the reason we don’t have maglev monorails!?

  • Dinah Might

    Remember way back (20 years ago?) when the TTC was going to rename the lines after their colours, and give each station a funky crest-style logo? They tested it at Spadina and St.George and I think nowhere else, then it died.

    • tyrannosaurus_rek

      Didn’t it also start as a “pilot project”?
      The TTC has commitment problems.

      • http://joeclark.org/weblogs/ Joe Clark

        No, it was an actual user test. T-Rex hates it when the following pronoun is used, but I have all the documentation.

        • tyrannosaurus_rek

          *sarcastic claping*

        • Testu

          Do you have it posted somewhere? It would be helpful to have all this research available online, for reference.

          I didn’t see it on your blog but I only took a cursory look. A search returns a posting about the destruction of old signage but nothing specific to the user test beyond the one-off reference to St. George still having some test signage.

          • http://joeclark.org/weblogs/ Joe Clark

            It’s a few pounds of photocopies. I’m not “posting” it. Some documentation was born in print and will stay that way. You can come over and look at it if you want.

          • Testu

            Thanks, although I doubt I’ll take you up on that offer.

            Are you planning to do anything with your research?

          • http://joeclark.org/weblogs/ Joe Clark
  • bobloblawbloblawblah

    Of course, they could’ve named the lines after animals since we already have a White Elephant Line up on Sheppard.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    Alternate Future Line – it takes you to a version of the future where you decided to take that line instead of the Future Line.

    • dsmithhfx

      Back To The Future Line: A modified Ford Pinto in a tunnel that was never dug.

  • tomwest

    1) Can we re-name the first one as “Yonge-University line”. The Spadina bit is superfluous and confusing.
    2) Whatever we call the first one, can include the “Yonge” and other bit on maps. (If you stand on Union subway stattion, you’ll see signs saying “Yonge northbound” and “University-Spadina northbound”… but nothign on the maps to tell which is which!)

    • tyrannosaurus_rek

      The University bit is just as superfluous as the Spadina bit. If anything, it should be the Yonge-University-Allen line (6 stops on Allen, compared to 2 on Spadina and 5 on University).

      • Kivi Shapiro

        “Spadina” is because of the expressway, not the road (or the avenue). So the stops along the Allen, as well as St. Clair W., technically count toward the “Spadina” designation.

        • tyrannosaurus_rek

          The expressway that was never built, you mean?

          • innsertnamehere

            well half of it was built, and renamed “The Allen”

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            *taps nose*

      • tomwest

        It runs form University Avenue to York University (and beyond); whereas there’s a Spadina streetcar line to get confused with.

  • tomwest

    I like having numbers and names. A lot of people find it easier to remember numbers than names. Plus, it makes for a handy abbrviation on maps.

  • tomwest

    Best practice is to use “Way out”, not “Exit”. The latter should only be used for emergency exits.

    • OgtheDim

      That seems to be a distinction that most people do not make.

    • https://paul.kishimoto.name/ Paul Kishimoto

      Whatever they call them, I think it’s also best practice to *label* them “A”, “B”, “C”, etc.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    Why show the LRTs but not the streetcar routes?

    • OgtheDim

      Streetcars make baby Doug cry.

    • innsertnamehere

      because the LRTs are over twice as fast as even the fasted streetcar?

      • tyrannosaurus_rek

        I don’t see what the average speed of the mode of transit has to do with maps and wayfinding.

        • innsertnamehere

          helps people know what are the major trunk routes in the system that will get them around very quickly. if you included streetcars, you should include buses. LRT is much faster, and should be labeled so on the map.

          • iSkyscraper

            Streetcars are trunk routes, like it or not. Speed has nothing to do with it.

          • vampchick21

            So we shoudn’t put the King, Queen, Dundas and College streetcar routes on the map you are saying? Completely ignore the transit routes on four major (MAJOR) East-West streets? Gotcha. Cause, you know, never mind that each of the four lines run straight through destination neighbourhoods, tourist areas, business areas, totally ignore the fact that they are all packed every single day, inside and outside of rush hour. Not actually major trunk routes, won’t get you anywhere, don’t really count.

          • Sean_Marshall

            The 29 Dufferin is packed every single day, inside and outside of rush hour, serves tourist areas (CNE, West Queen West, etc), shopping destinations (Yorkdale, Dufferin Mall) and is certainly a trunk route on a major street.

          • vampchick21

            This is true. The bus that goes up Bay Street would also qualify. As would the Spadina route, the Finch route, and a few others as well.

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            Streetcars are major routes downtown (and on St Clair), (almost?) every route feeding multiple subway stations.

    • iSkyscraper

      Exactly right. Here is a map of Portland LRT – they still acknowledge the streetcars in some fashion:

      http://trimet.org/maps/railsystem.htm

      Same for Philly:

      http://www.septa.org/maps/system/

      Same for SF:

      http://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/maps/SFMTA-MuniMap-Web-9.2013b%20opt%20trim.pdf

      You always, always highlight surface rail, whether mixed-traffic streetcar/cable car or ROW streetcar or separated LRT. Idiotic not to.

  • OgtheDim

    Not sure most of line 1 has paid for itself.

    • HotDang

      It definitely covers operating costs.

      • OgtheDim

        On the Yonge side, but west of Union….

  • OgtheDim

    We have this thing called the PATH. Kinda gets in the way.

    That and the Queen and King streetcars are about the right capacity for the need. Now, if we got rid of on street parking…..

    • KRoberts

      Wow, you have NOT been on a Queen or King Streetcar in a while – they are way over capacity, I only manage to get on one (standing room only) because I’m coming from Liberty Village.

      But yes I agree street parking needs to be removed on both of those streets.

      • OgtheDim

        The capacity issues can be fixed without resorting to a subway.

        • tyrannosaurus_rek

          But arguably King or Queen deserve a subway line.

          • OgtheDim

            Ridership wise, I’m not sure of that. LRT would be a better fit, but that would require a willingness to ban cars and that will not happen. Its one of those situations where the form of the city built up around an area has caused the current train options to be reduced.

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            What does ridership have to do with deserving a subway line?

          • OgtheDim

            Are you Glen De Be in disguise?

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            “Seriously, the whole “deserve” a subway thing is right out of Ford’s playbook.”

            No, really?

          • OgtheDim

            Given this discussion has evolved into a subway line along King, which seems to be based on King “deserving” one, I stand by my statement.

            If you think only Fordinista’s and populists and fools like Glen De Be think in terms of deserving a higher order of transit, you havn’t been listening.

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            “Whoooosh!” to quote @dsmithhfx:disqus

          • dsmithhfx

            Whoooosh!

          • innsertnamehere

            LRT wouldn’t work on downtown streets, short of tunnelling it. There is a reason that Eglinton is being tunnelled through the central portion. Also, The DRL could very easily serve as a function of both relieving the 504 as well as relieving Bloor-Yonge.

          • nevilleross

            LRT would work on downtown streets, all that it requires is tunnelling to and from the downtown core as was proposed back in the 1970s for the LRT lines that were planned back then.

          • innsertnamehere

            Ridership would actually justify a subway as it would also act as a DRL. The DRL can actually serve more than one purpose believe it or not.

          • nevilleross

            @tyrannosaurus_rek: No, they don’t. OgtheDim is right when he says that we need LRT in the middle of the city instead of subways.

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            Are you being thick on purpose? I was clearly referencing Ford’s idiotic “deserve” criteria for subway construction.

          • nevilleross

            Sorry.

    • tyrannosaurus_rek

      There’s more ground below the PATH. In fact, there’s thousands of feet of unoccupied ground under even the lowest part of the city.

      • OgtheDim

        Deep tunneling has its own issues.

        Do people want to take 12 sets of stairs up when the escalators stop working? I know people who whine about the 6 sets coming up along the Sheppard line.

        • tyrannosaurus_rek

          Whiners can stay home. Unless the PATH undergoes rapid expansion in the next decade or two, only a handful of stations downtown would need to be particularly deep.

          • innsertnamehere

            St. Andrew and King specifically, which would need to be deep anyways to get under the existing subway lines.

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            I’m not sure what sort of incline subways can handle, but I think stations between the deepest would have to be just as deep, even if there’s nothing directly above to justify it.

          • innsertnamehere

            St. Andrew and King are right beside each other. The next stop on the western end will probably be Spadina, which is more than enough distance for the subway to rise up again. If they build a Jarvis stop it might have to be a bit deeper than normal (not really sure), but probably by only 1/2 a floor or so. If it is a Sherbourne stop, it could be regular depth as well.

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            This depends on how the line is eventually configured. I could see it following King West and then jogging north to Queen East, or following Queen West and dipping down to Front, which could put a station on Adelaide. A lot can happen when vote-beggers are in charge of transit.

            With the PATH nearly at John St, a station at Spadina and King might have to be a little deeper than typical.

          • nevilleross

            But people WILL be whinning about that, and nobody will be happy; try and be realistic about this rather than be obdurate and stupid as you’re being now. And what about the handicapped that would be using said deeply built subways? What would happen when they can’t use anything do to the elevators/escalators being out of service? OgtheDim has thought about this in ways that you and others haven’t.

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            Who shat in your cereal this morning? Being realistic is acknowledging you can’t build a subway station in space already occupied by other structures (such as the PATH and its attendant skyscraper foundations), that subways have hard physical limits when it comes to incline and corners and infrastructure requirements. Whining doesn’t override any of that – the choices are a subway station that makes some people “whine” because it’s deeper than average, or no subway station at all.

          • nevilleross

            Nobody shat in my cearal, sir; I’m just articulating the point that you’ve forgotten. Like it or not, this whining is going to happen when and if subways are built the way you think that they should be built. I have nothing against deeply built subway lines myself, but calamities do happen, and disabled people do take public transit; to ignore this is just the height of folly on anybody’s part.

          • tyrannosaurus_rek

            Who’s ignoring it? Build elevators. Build redundant elevators. We’re talking about PATH-connected stations, and the PATH is full of elevators too.

        • innsertnamehere

          well they could simply take 3 flights of stairs. It’s not like the PATH is 4 floors deep or something, you could make the concourse levels of the stations be one level below the PATH and you would be set. It would have to be a level lower regardless to allow for tunnels to go under the Yonge and University lines.

          • OgtheDim

            More then that. Go up to the Sheppard line. It takes 6 flights to get down to there. The PATH would require a deeper build.

          • innsertnamehere

            You mean Don mills? that’s because of a bus terminal that has much higher ceiling than you seem to think, as well as huge ceiling heights throughout the station. those ceiling heights could be reduced, along with an elimination of the underground bus terminal, and you would be perfectly fine.

    • Lee Zamparo

      Sure, maybe with the new larger capacity LFRVs :)

      On street parking on King, Queen, Dundas, College is just crazy between 7 a.m and 7 p.m. Banning it during those hours would be the most cost effective way to improve traffic throughput on those arterial roads. Not holding my breath for progressive thinking or political courage from this council though.

    • nevilleross

      @lia.hero: We also have this thing called ‘underground infrastructure’ that makes it hard to build more subways lines like the DRL (and that’s probably going to pose a problem for the building of said DRL.)

  • HotDang

    The alignment of the DRL is far from finalized. Union is an obvious target, but there’s discussion of Queen and King as well. Obviously they won’t both get a subway in any of our life times.

    • innsertnamehere

      Union is generally disregarded in modern planning circles, you can’t hope to push even more users onto an already severely overloaded station. Wellington, King, Richmond, Adelaide, and Queen are largely considered to be the possible routes, with King seeming to be the most popular. I like it because it has the potential to replace the 504.

      • vampchick21

        So if they have the DRL take folks to King Station, they can do away with the streetcar, cause, you know, no one uses it. Seriously? We’ll still need the 504 as evidenced by ridership levels, and unless they are putting a subway that starts at King & Roncensvalles and goes across to River Street, the DRL will not actually replace the 504 streetcar.

        • HotDang

          If they plan to use the rail corridor for the western portion, a King subway couldn’t go farther west than the train tracks north of Liberty village. From there it would loop up to Dundas Station. There’s still too much King St to service to not fill in the gap with something. I guess that they could switch to busses.

          • vampchick21

            See, all I’ve seen for DRL is the east end section branching off from a station along Bloor Danforth. Even if they are planning eventually to put in a second West end DRL, both are meant to serve those commuters who take the subway already by giving them a section option other than the already crowded YUS line to get to the offices downtown. Given the number of residences along King (condo and apartments and houses), there is still a need for the current streetcar.

          • innsertnamehere

            yes but those residents would switch to the DRL under my plan. running the DRL in the rail corridor is essentially impossible other than tunnelling it as all the space in the corridors are already taken up for all day GO rail. (4 tracks in the east and 8 in the west, filling up both rail corridors to their maximum designed width) DRL would run under King from Carlaw where riders could transfer from the queen streetcar or the king streetcar, run under king with stops at river, parliament and jarvis, connect to the existing two subway lines, continue westward under king with stops at Spadina, Bathurst, Strachan, Atlantic, Dufferin, Jameson, and Queen again where Queen passengers could transfer. There would simply be no demand on King if a DRL were to run on a route like that, and the Queen streetcar would probably be pretty lightly used. (though it should stay) 504 service could continue on Roncesvalles as you would have to only put only one station along there to ensure the DRL is time competative with existing routes so that it would still divert passengers from Bloor.

          • OgtheDim

            And all the people on Yonge north of Bloor who can’t get onto the subway in the morning just go………….?

            Ur looking at this in isolation of the greater needs of the system as a whole.

          • innsertnamehere

            how would you fix that? the DRL will relieve 12% of the current load on Yonge, running it up to Don Mills and Eglinton would relieve only 2% more, 14%. 4% relief from when the Spadina extension opens, and up to 35% relief when the Automatic train control comes online. The fix for north of Bloor really only comes from capacity improvements on Yonge as there aren’t any new possible routes that would have significant diversion rates. Running the DRL north of Eglinton would be insanely expensive, the “basic” DRL south of Bloor is already expected to cost $7.4 billion, adding tunnels all the way to Sheppard would add HUGE costs.

        • innsertnamehere

          …which is what I am suggesting. run it along king from Carlaw to Roncesvalles and run it up to Dundas west.

          • OgtheDim

            As has been stated before, the RL is needed to help the Yonge line from being a complete disaster.

            It needs to go farther north then Carlaw.

            As for it going past along King, my understanding is there is huge sewer pipe (plus the PATH) in the way.

            Not going to happen.

          • innsertnamehere

            sorry for the miscommunication, I was focusing on how it would replace the King streetcar. of course the DRL would run to Donlands or Pape station with a stop at Gerrard.

            Sewers can be moved, and will have to be if it runs perpendicular to the street, as it would block every other street in the core. PATH will exist no matter the route as well. The real tricky portions will be the parking garages for the office towers, they are much deeper and leave only the road ROW to use for subway construction. For that reason I have a feeling the DRL will largely use central platforms.

  • innsertnamehere

    Primarily numbers, but names on larger signs and to help people acclimatize to the new system.

  • iSkyscraper

    I have no problem with the use of numbers and colors and such.

    I have a huge problem with letting the in-house TTC staff handle this, since they can’t even lay out a PDF with correct spelling, grammar and bullet points.

    I have an enormous fucking problem with maps that ignore the presence of streetcars in North America’s biggest streetcar city. Every. Other. City. With. Streetcars. Puts. Them. On. Maps. What is wrong with TTC map makers? Streetcars are higher-order transit and should not appear like bus routes. They should go on the rail map in some form. Christ almighty, get with it, TTC.

    • Sean_Marshall

      These are rapid transit maps. The TTC classifies streetcars and buses as surface transit, and rightfully so as they have close stop spacing and serve a different purpose from the subway and LRT routes. The TTC doesn’t put Rocket bus routes on its rapid transit maps either. The TTC attempted at one time to equate the Harbourfront streetcar with rapid transit (even giving it a RT number, 604) but backed off.

      All the other legacy streetcar cities of North America (Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, Newark, Pittsburgh) don’t just put streetcar routes on their rapid transit maps. (New Orleans, the other legacy streetcar city, has no rapid transit.)

      And you’re not going to see the new DC streetcars on the Washington Metro maps. DC streetcars are neat and useful, but are not rapid transit.

      Boston’s streetcars – Green Line & branches and Mattapan High-Speed Line are part of the rapid transit network and evolved into a LRT system. So they are on its rapid transit map. Same with Newark and Pittsburgh, whose streetcars operate in streetcar tunnels and on separate rights of way on the surface. They are pretty much 100-year old LRT lines.

      Here’s SEPTA’s – it shows regional rail, the high-speed interurban and suburban trolley routes (100, 101 and 102) and the subway, barely shows the 15 Girard conventional streetcar (just where it connects to the subway/elevated) and does not show the surface sections of the subway-surface streetcar routes. I think the partial inclusion of the 15 Girard on this map looks clunky.
      http://www.septa.org/maps/system/index.html

      MUNI, in San Francisco, shows the Muni Metro and associated routes on its rapid transit map (which doesn’t show BART) but not the F Market & Wharves (the all-surface streetcar route) and Cable Cars. They show the streetcar subway and its services, which on the surface are a bit more like LRT than streetcars.
      http://www.sfmta.com/maps/muni-metro-map

      There’s simply no need to show 501-512 on the rapid transit map for Toronto. Besides, some trunk bus routes – like 36 Finch West, 39 Finch East and 29 Dufferin, have more ridership than most streetcar routes.

      • tyrannosaurus_rek

        These are rapid transit maps only if it’s decided that’s the only thing worth showing. It would be equally easy to decide to show streetcar routes too, or surface routes served by articulated buses, or only stations with the letter ‘a’ in their names. Those last two don’t sound as useful as the alternative, but the same is true of a map that includes LRTs but excludes streetcars.

      • iSkyscraper

        I want to address this comment as it is exactly the kind of mentality that has wasted one of the city’s prime assets.

        #1 – If you want to just have a “rapid transit map”, fine. I’m not putting the Spadina streetcar (which has in the past been called dumb names like the Spadina LRT, the Spadina LT, the Spadina Streetcar Rapid Transit and other stupidness) on the same plane as a suburban ROW true LRT. But the streetcars are a higher order form of transit than buses, period, and need to be shown and celebrated in some form. I think the SEPTA rail map you cite is exactly correct for this reason. Here is another example – it is the Portland rail map for their LRT network, but note it still shows their streetcar network in some fashion:

        http://trimet.org/maps/railsys

        Something along this format would be appropriate for the “rapid transit map” (which by the way should be in a square by the door, not squished over the door. Over the door should be reserved for line maps, but the TTC is too stupid to know what that is). And if you want to put GO on there too, why not? It’s also rail transit:

        http://readingcities.com/images/uploads/TTCmap2.jpg

        #2 – My main issue was with the system map, which SHOULD call out streetcars separate from buses. Just giving them a #500 number is stupid. Rail is a big deal regardless of speed — note it as such. Here is the SEPTA system map – this is exactly how the TTC system map should be done, with streetcar lines called out in color:

        http://www.septa.org/maps/region/pdf/phila.pdf

        Same for SF on its -system- map (I agree the Metro map only shows LRT lines):

        http://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/maps/SFMTA-MuniMap-Web-9.2013b%20opt%20trim.pdf

        You always, always highlight surface rail, whether mixed-traffic streetcar/cable car or ROW streetcar or separated LRT. Idiotic not to.

        You won’t convince me to go back to the 1940s, when streetcars were buses, buses were rare and there was no subway so a plain map with monochromatic lines did the trick. This is the root of the TTC’s retro-map mentality. The new streetcars are enormous and have off-vehicle payment, the streetcar network is worth billions and a major city asset, and the streetcars are also downtown, where most transit riders want to get to. For the love of all that is Toronto PUT THEM ON THE @!#@%@#%#@ MAP!

  • dsmithhfx
    • tyrannosaurus_rek

      It isn’t ugly at all, and it isn’t illegible when used properly.

      • dsmithhfx

        If you think the main purpose of a typeface is to evoke nostalgia, sure. However, considering the needs of millions of passengers per day, a sizeable subset of whom depend on being able to decipher it under less than ideal conditions (motion, variable lighting, various physical obstructions), perhaps we can do better. I’m no fan of Helvetica, but that’s kind of irrelevant: it is indeed better than the ttc custom typeface under any conditions, excepting at evoking nostalgia.

        • http://joeclark.org/weblogs/ Joe Clark

          For display, it’s fine. For text (cf. 94 route maps), it isn’t.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    Numbering lines makes sense when you have so many they can’t be colour-coded without repeats (blue and light blue would confuse a lot of people), but Toronto isn’t cursed with that problem. Just call them Yellow, Green, Blue, Purple.

  • innsertnamehere

    but there will be 40 less streetcars than currently..

  • http://www.corneliusquiring.com/ Cornelius Quiring

    If we’re going to be copying anyone, I think it should be London: their system is colour based. Visually based wayfinding is much simpler & intuitive than trying to associate numbers with a route.

  • treptower

    So many lines. Hard to keep track of them all.

    • dsmithhfx

      That’s what Rob said!