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

4 hours 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.

Another thing is that this was all an NYCDOT plan. NYCT Simply agreed, and set the standards for what they wanted in terms of Bus Stop signage. For (MTA)'s case its different since the stops are maintained and owned by the DOT, not the (MTA). If you look at Long Island Bus's signage (MTA) had a metal sign for LIB, so this is more Jurisdictional and orchestrated by the DOT if you research closely. Unlike some other transit agencies who probably outright own the Bus Stop Infrastructure. In this city when it comes to the Bus Stop, the sign, shelter, etc under the Bus Stop's grounds, it's owned by the city. The only thing MTA can do is request to close the stop or negotiate with DOT a relocation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 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?

Very, VERY bad.

Share this post


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

Another thing is that this was all an NYCDOT plan. NYCT Simply agreed, and set the standards for what they wanted in terms of Bus Stop signage. For (MTA)'s case its different since the stops are maintained and owned by the DOT, not the (MTA). If you look at Long Island Bus's signage (MTA) had a metal sign for LIB, so this is more Jurisdictional and orchestrated by the DOT if you research closely. Unlike some other transit agencies who probably outright own the Bus Stop Infrastructure. In this city when it comes to the Bus Stop, the sign, shelter, etc under the Bus Stop's grounds, it's owned by the city. The only thing MTA can do is request to close the stop or negotiate with DOT a relocation. 

That’s weird to me that the transit authority doesn’t own its stops. But territoriality isn’t the norm out there since regional planning is mandatory and welcomed.

Share this post


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

Another thing is that this was all an NYCDOT plan. NYCT Simply agreed, and set the standards for what they wanted in terms of Bus Stop signage. For (MTA)'s case its different since the stops are maintained and owned by the DOT, not the (MTA). If you look at Long Island Bus's signage (MTA) had a metal sign for LIB, so this is more Jurisdictional and orchestrated by the DOT if you research closely. Unlike some other transit agencies who probably outright own the Bus Stop Infrastructure. In this city when it comes to the Bus Stop, the sign, shelter, etc under the Bus Stop's grounds, it's owned by the city. The only thing MTA can do is request to close the stop or negotiate with DOT a relocation. 

 

6 hours ago, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

Very, VERY bad.

Something that is obviously not grasped here: CMAQ grants are NOT that easy to be disqualified for, given that the MTA is pretty much in their "giveaway" zone. If you were in  Podunk, Iowa and you got grant money via a CMAQ, you would almost certainly be grilled over every expenditure/action you take -- in NYC (or LA, San Fran, Boston) not so much (if at all). -- HELLO, Baltimore ...... but let's leave that one alone for now.

One of the only other "grants" that have a bit of 'follow-up' attached to them is JARC outside of CMAQ. Pretty much, if you're at least somewhat on the ball as far as the paperwork, etc. is concerned, as well as if you've not been held up for ridicule (in 'administering' other grants, i.e. the Post doesn't do a feature on you), as a TA you don't have much to worry about. If you've gotten your hands on other similar grants, w/o (public) problems, you're basically a shoo-in. The MTA fits the bill in all of these.

As far as bus stop jurisdiction, the MTA should be the owner (since they are are "public benefit corporation" of the city -- in effect), but they CHOOSE to shrug off responsibility to the NYCDOT. Simple to understand why: DOT does all the other signs and the MTA would be in "conflict" with them somewhere along the way. That simple weaseling allows the MTA significant latitude, especially when the "blame-game" comes along: DOT dictates the streets/structure/traffic, MTA just shrugs its shoulders and says, "Hey, they're the "experts", we just go along with that 'expert' opinion." Hand-washing is even more important in government than with someone serving you your chicken mcnuggets.

Understand this: The MTA *could* under their state charter render any DOT opposition as moot -- because they are a public benefit corporation for their chartered areas. State supercedes local, even in this. Key is: the MTA CHOOSES not to, and pays the DOT to do what they're supposed to do when it comes to street-side operations.

  • Upvote 1

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.