Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Union Tpke

Bus Stop Sign Redesign

Recommended Posts

Fantastic find! I always wondered about when they made the switch to these signs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, the well-designed signs that somehow violate US law (because politicians have a bad tendency to be idiots).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

Fantastic find! I always wondered about when they made the switch to these signs.

What a shame many signs in Queens and Brooklyn haven't seen those updates (as recently as 2018).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

What a shame many signs in Queens and Brooklyn haven't seen those updates (as recently as 2018).

I can believe Queens, but how many parts of Brooklyn lack these signs? (No, I'm not talking about the construction-related signs...)

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Lex said:

I can believe Queens, but how many parts of Brooklyn lack these signs? (No, I'm not talking about the construction-related signs...)

Not one.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Fantastic find! I always wondered about when they made the switch to these signs.

No problem. There are so many things from the documents I want to share. It takes forever to upload them and rotate them. I am making albums, such as for bus service changes, to make things easier to find. If you are interested in something particular, I could move it to the front of the queue.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Lex said:

I can believe Queens, but how many parts of Brooklyn lack these signs? (No, I'm not talking about the construction-related signs...)

"Major" stops, such as in Flushing, downtown Forest Hills, Kew Gardens near the subway, downtown Jamaica tend to have them, but go one stop down the route and they have the old signs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Union Tpke said:

"Major" stops, such as in Flushing, downtown Forest Hills, Kew Gardens near the subway, downtown Jamaica tend to have them, but go one stop down the route and they have the old signs.

It's probably more of a priority to have the ones near the subways or transfer points. If a road only has one barely-changing bus route, it's unlikely they ever will update them.

For example, up here in Menands along Route 32, they still have the old signs for the 22. Given that the 22 continues to serve Menands, replacing the signs is a pointless gesture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, MTA Bus routes are much more likely to have the old signs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Also, MTA Bus routes are much more likely to have the old signs.

The only Queens route besides the Q52/Q53 that’s gotten most of its stops changed to the modern signs is the Q25. I thought the other routes were going to see the same changes but not yet. I noticed that if the old signs break or the stop is moved they replace it with a modern sign. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lex said:

Ah, yes, the well-designed signs that somehow violate US law (because politicians have a bad tendency to be idiots).

Agreed. They could’ve thought about that before they installed the signs all over the place, because if I recall correctly, parking signs are to be rectangular instead of circular. Didn’t the federal government consider denying highway aid money to the city as a result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Agreed. They could’ve thought about that before they installed the signs all over the place, because if I recall correctly, parking signs are to be rectangular instead of circular. Didn’t the federal government consider denying highway aid money to the city as a result?

You did read the entire thing, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Feds are really more concerned about signage on interstates and others part of the National Highway System, in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). But--following the MUTCD to the letter is NOT "law": some states follow it completely, some states have their own modifications (like New York).

But even the Feds can't keep up with their own signage. In 2004, FHWA wanted signs in the new font Clearview, something that Michigan and another 9-10 states adopted. However, effective 2016/2017, the Feds said, "Nah, let's go back to the old Highway Gothic".

So, does that mean that because of their about-face, the FHWA sent the states that adopted their dictates for using Clearview because it was supposedly "more easily readable" a nice huge check to cover making new replacement signs in Highway Gothic, and all the costs of removal/mounting? Of course not!

Likewise, the MUTCD has now adopted (as of 2009) using the fluorescent green-yellow background for most school signs. Here we are in 2019, ten years later, and do you see any of the old plain yellow school signs up? Sure you do! It was obviously a priority for the FHWA to adopt the more reflective/identifiable background, but not enough to require uniformity through dictating states do a replacement plan (because that costs money). The way they get around that is to do the weasel-words: "The new signs must be installed when making a replacement of an existing sign."

Really, the Feds have nothing to say about the MTA lollipops, especially since they were "invented" and installed some 20 years ago. Hell, most of this country's Transit Agencies' bus stop signage is in violation of MUTCD/the Feds, from mounting levels to locations along streets to the actual fonts used or size of the sign itself. (A big no-no according to the MUTCD is regarding reflection: If the sign is not in an illuminated location, it has to have a reflective coating, blah blah blah. From those absolutely hilarious pictures of "safe bus stop locations" of Bee-Line that were posted in another thread -- on the shoulder of a busy highway -- are those bus stop signs reflective? Probably not.)

Real problem is that the MTA lollipops aren't somehow a priority for the remaining MTA Bus routes using the old sheet metal signs. But, hey, there's only so much time in 15 years to do something like that, right?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Union Tpke I still see an old sheet metal sign on the 206th Street bound 16 at Baychester on Strang Avenues. I wonder why that hasn't been changed to the one on the Pelham Manor bound 16 at the same location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say lets take a trip down memory lane....

I recall a bus stop for the Q44 and Q74 on Main St N/B at 61st Road (near Horace Harding). There was no pole at all to mark the bus stop. All that was there was a yellow painted curb and some painted letters which simply said something like "TA Bus Stop" within the roadway. This was circa 1990. Sure was simple, but not very helpful to the newer commuter.

As for the sheet metal signs vs the lollipop signs, I'm almost indifferent. As long as the bus shows up and the ride is uneventful, I'm content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DetSMART45 said:

The Feds are really more concerned about signage on interstates and others part of the National Highway System, in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). But--following the MUTCD to the letter is NOT "law": some states follow it completely, some states have their own modifications (like New York).

But even the Feds can't keep up with their own signage. In 2004, FHWA wanted signs in the new font Clearview, something that Michigan and another 9-10 states adopted. However, effective 2016/2017, the Feds said, "Nah, let's go back to the old Highway Gothic".

So, does that mean that because of their about-face, the FHWA sent the states that adopted their dictates for using Clearview because it was supposedly "more easily readable" a nice huge check to cover making new replacement signs in Highway Gothic, and all the costs of removal/mounting? Of course not!

Likewise, the MUTCD has now adopted (as of 2009) using the fluorescent green-yellow background for most school signs. Here we are in 2019, ten years later, and do you see any of the old plain yellow school signs up? Sure you do! It was obviously a priority for the FHWA to adopt the more reflective/identifiable background, but not enough to require uniformity through dictating states do a replacement plan (because that costs money). The way they get around that is to do the weasel-words: "The new signs must be installed when making a replacement of an existing sign."

Really, the Feds have nothing to say about the MTA lollipops, especially since they were "invented" and installed some 20 years ago. Hell, most of this country's Transit Agencies' bus stop signage is in violation of MUTCD/the Feds, from mounting levels to locations along streets to the actual fonts used or size of the sign itself. (A big no-no according to the MUTCD is regarding reflection: If the sign is not in an illuminated location, it has to have a reflective coating, blah blah blah. From those absolutely hilarious pictures of "safe bus stop locations" of Bee-Line that were posted in another thread -- on the shoulder of a busy highway -- are those bus stop signs reflective? Probably not.)

Real problem is that the MTA lollipops aren't somehow a priority for the remaining MTA Bus routes using the old sheet metal signs. But, hey, there's only so much time in 15 years to do something like that, right?

In 2018 Clearview was actually reinstated.

https://www.equipmentworld.com/font-designed-for-easier-readability-on-roadway-signs-is-reinstated-two-years-after-fhwa-prohibited-it/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez I thought that the MTA just introduced a brand new bus stop sign style for a second, not something from 1997 🤦‍♀️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s no bus stop sign for the Q113 and Q114 on Rockaway blvd by the 5 towns shopping center. I’ve always driven over there and never seen any but both bus lines stop there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that M18 setup correct? It was 8th Street, like the M3, before it was Harlem as the last stop? Totally forgot about that...throwback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m amazed that to update bus stop signage, (MTA) needed a federal grant.

How bad are you at managing money that you need a hookup to make sure folks know where your product is?

  • LMAO! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, WestFarms36 said:

I thought that had happened, when there was reference to it in another discussion here. And the only real reason for the flip-flop was because a bunch of other states started implementing Clearview and pushed-back against the FHWA.

Besides, if Clearview is somewhat more superior since being conceived in 2004, sure is odd that the Europeans and Australians haven't jumped on that bandwagon. It's right up their street to have an excuse to spend bundles of money in order to reduce traffic accidents, and do such a thing in the name of "safety" for the public (with little to no real effect in the end).

7 hours ago, Deucey said:

I’m amazed that to update bus stop signage, (MTA) needed a federal grant.

How bad are you at managing money that you need a hookup to make sure folks know where your product is?

CMAQ grants are pretty easy to come by, especially for places like NYC and LA. But it is interesting that the USDOT gave the NYCDOT money to actually come up with new signage, while (supposedly) the FHWA has a fit over the design not being compliant with their rules (Feds vs. Feds).

The MTA's addiction to Fed money paid off in this case. Too bad the "transit peers in other cities" haven't copied (directly or indirectly) the same design. Those lollipops would do wonders around here to both better identify stops, as well as clarify where the route goes.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DetSMART45 said:

CMAQ grants are pretty easy to come by, especially for places like NYC and LA. But it is interesting that the USDOT gave the NYCDOT money to actually come up with new signage, while (supposedly) the FHWA has a fit over the design not being compliant with their rules (Feds vs. Feds).

It’s just interesting that RTD/LACMTA, SF Muni, and a few other places have been doing signage with destinations included since at least the 80s, and bore that as part of the cost of doing business, while NY needed a grant.

Also, other places’ fares are lower than NY too. Pretty sure there’s a business practices correlation somewhere in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Deucey said:

It’s just interesting that RTD/LACMTA, SF Muni, and a few other places have been doing signage with destinations included since at least the 80s, and bore that as part of the cost of doing business, while NY needed a grant.

Also, other places’ fares are lower than NY too. Pretty sure there’s a business practices correlation somewhere in there.

Yeah, but those California TAs got PLENTY of CMAQ grants for other projects of theirs, since those grants were practically born to tackle the problems of Air Quality in not only California but NYC. NYCT probably did claim to the Feds that improving bus stop signage would lead to better air quality by reducing dwell times (customers wouldn't get on the wrong bus and take up time asking the operator), for example.

Besides it's not like the MTA is not going to try to get as much Fed funds as possible, especially given that they're the largest TA in the country. It is good to be #1, at least in that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.