What’s in a name?
Posted on 01. Mar, 2010 by Tony Arranaga in News
UPDATE: Twitter discussion
Station names should reflect the local landmarks along the 20 mile starter light-rail starter line in the metro Phoenix area, according to the folks over at the Arizona Rail Passenger Association.
Short, simple station names help riders find their destinations quickly. They help tourists know what is along the line. They make maps easier to read. Stations become sources of neighborhood identity. Naming stations after street addresses is cold, confusing and unhelpful.
-Arizona Rail Passenger Association
You can read the post in its entirety here. Keep in mind, METRO already has signage at the stations with names that reflect a nearby landmark. However, as a community, should we start calling those stations by the local landmark or the official METRO name? Would using landmarks as names make it easier to give directions to friends? Reaction is mixed on my Twitter feed. @BAHjournalist says ‘I think landmark names would be extremely confusing for tourists or people unfamiliar with spots along the rail route.’ Meanwhile, @Pablorazzi says ‘I like the idea of using landmarks. I think we AZ natives have been doing it for years.’ What do you think? Feel free to post your comments after the picture.
5 Responses to “What’s in a name?”
Leave a Reply
Follow Me
Chloe
01. Mar, 2010
I like street names. They’re obvious.
Sam Mittelsteadt
01. Mar, 2010
Hmm … I don’t know how many people would find the benefit in naming a stop after a nearby mall (Park Central, or the now-defunct Tri-Cities) or a region like Eastlake or Smith-Martin. (I’ve lived here more than a decade and never heard of Eastlake, and I have no idea what Smith-Martin is, either.) Lindley’s concept of streets “not being on many maps” makes me think he’s not looking at the right maps.
And it is indeed Price Road. Loop 101 (the freeway) happens to run alongside it.
But the idea of Convention Center / City Hall is appealing and logical, too.
Tony Arranaga
02. Mar, 2010
Chloe and Sam – I’m still on the fence. I know METRO in Washington DC has station names and it’s fairly easy to navigate around the city. In comparison, NYC uses street names for some of the stops and it gets a little confusing.
Here in Phoenix, I like the idea of major landmarks as station names, but I kind of feel like the city has bigger problems to deal with at the moment…like budget and service cuts!
Sean
02. Mar, 2010
This was also an impassioned position from an individual at the Friends of Transit conference, as you, Tony, already know. The reasoning that Rick Simonetta, the first CEO of Metro, provided for the current naming convention based on streets, was that the emergency responders wanted it that way, so that they could ensure that they could respond as quickly as possible to citizens’ needs.
Phoenix needs the station names to be streets right now. Why this is is most concretely understood through the emergency responders’ perspective, however the same reasoning applies to Valley citizens in general: The Light Rail is new. The Valley is still defined by the automobile and roads. While there is a small (though larger than expected!) and growing population of us that appreciate, utilize, and understand the benefits of this new transportation alternative, we are still educating the Valley as a whole. We need to educate more people and introduce more Phoenicians to the benefits of transit-based life before we start making station names what non-transit riders would consider to be more “abstract”.
There is an undefinable critical mass, however, at which point the system will benefit from changing station names to major attractions (Arts District, Heard Museum, Central Station, Stadium Station, ASU 1, etc). We’re just not QUITE there yet….
Tony Arranaga
09. Mar, 2010
I think as time goes on, the general public will define the station names on their own, especially since the location names are already posted on the platforms.