Why the G train should be pink
Feb. 20th, 2020 06:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sniffnoyI've made this argument to various people but haven't, I don't think, ever written it down. So here goes.
Right now, in New York, the G train is colored light green. Light green! Like, it's not just that it's green that's light, it's that it's light green as distinguished from the ordinary green of the 4/5/6 trains.
Obviously, this is stupid. Basic colors should be used if possible, not things like light green[0]. So, what basic colors are left?
Well, if look at basic colors in English, then red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple, pink, orange, and gray are already in use. Black and white are out -- too confusing. In English that would just leave pink, but I think we should be a bit more open-minded than that. In some languages, such as Russian, Italian, and Hebrew, cyan is also a basic color. Except, cyan is also already reserved; it's set to be the color of the T train, whenever that finally exists.
So, indeed, that just leaves pink. Therefore the G train should be pink rather than light green.
I'm sure the MTA will read this and realize they have to change it any day now. :P
-Harry
[0]Admittedly, the reason for this is somewhat reduced in a city where everyone refers to the trains by their letters/numbers instead of their colors. I think this is stupid too, and encourage people to refer to the colors here in New York as well. :P The usual counterargument is that sometimes the extra level of detail matters! Yes, sometimes it matters, but oftentimes it doesn't, and then it's just awkward to say "the 2 or the 3" instead of just "the red line". You can use just as much detail as necessary! Say "the red line" when sufficiently clear, say "the 3" when you need to specify. And it's not like the letter/number is fully determining, either! (Which honestly is annoying -- is that outbound A train going to Far Rockaway, to Rockaway Park, or to Ozone Park? Just specifying that it's the A train, and the direction, doesn't suffice here!) I mean they get by in Boston despite the splits in the green line and the red line up there, you know? No reason we can't do the same here.
Right now, in New York, the G train is colored light green. Light green! Like, it's not just that it's green that's light, it's that it's light green as distinguished from the ordinary green of the 4/5/6 trains.
Obviously, this is stupid. Basic colors should be used if possible, not things like light green[0]. So, what basic colors are left?
Well, if look at basic colors in English, then red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple, pink, orange, and gray are already in use. Black and white are out -- too confusing. In English that would just leave pink, but I think we should be a bit more open-minded than that. In some languages, such as Russian, Italian, and Hebrew, cyan is also a basic color. Except, cyan is also already reserved; it's set to be the color of the T train, whenever that finally exists.
So, indeed, that just leaves pink. Therefore the G train should be pink rather than light green.
I'm sure the MTA will read this and realize they have to change it any day now. :P
-Harry
[0]Admittedly, the reason for this is somewhat reduced in a city where everyone refers to the trains by their letters/numbers instead of their colors. I think this is stupid too, and encourage people to refer to the colors here in New York as well. :P The usual counterargument is that sometimes the extra level of detail matters! Yes, sometimes it matters, but oftentimes it doesn't, and then it's just awkward to say "the 2 or the 3" instead of just "the red line". You can use just as much detail as necessary! Say "the red line" when sufficiently clear, say "the 3" when you need to specify. And it's not like the letter/number is fully determining, either! (Which honestly is annoying -- is that outbound A train going to Far Rockaway, to Rockaway Park, or to Ozone Park? Just specifying that it's the A train, and the direction, doesn't suffice here!) I mean they get by in Boston despite the splits in the green line and the red line up there, you know? No reason we can't do the same here.
no subject
Date: 2020-02-23 12:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-02-23 06:34 pm (UTC)Really that's basically true in New York as well, if you interpret "downtown" as "all of Manhattan" rather than just downtown; the G train is the only train not passing through there. It's famously difficult to get around Brooklyn and Queens via mass transit in New York -- if your destination is east or west of you you can likely take the subway, and you can even go north/south if you happen to be near the G train in the west, but otherwise, if you want to go north/south, you can 1. go all the way west to the G train (or all the way to Manhattan!), go north/south there, and then back east, or 2. take the bus.
(And then there's areas of Brooklyn and Queens where the subway just doesn't really go at all... like Mill Basin, say...)
I guess this must be a problem in the Bronx as well, except that there it'd be going east/west that's difficult instead of north/south, but I never hear about that. Sure there's large parts of the Bronx not served by the subway either...
(Actually the subways don't go east/west in uptown Manhattan either, but that's probably not too bad to walk? Hope you're not carrying anything...)
Luckily I live in downtown Manhattan, like right at the nexus of the subway system, so this isn't a problem for me personally, but it's a big problem generally...
Kallisti
Date: 2020-03-03 02:15 am (UTC)Re: Kallisti
Date: 2020-03-03 02:17 am (UTC)