"Lane Bus"

[nomarandlee]

Though it reads oddly I think I get why they do it that way. They want the driver to read the word "bus" first in the foreground. That way the driver processes that the space is meant for buses in a much more clear and more immediate way than if it was worded in reverse. Seems a bit silly but I think it's a psychological move.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

NYC has its own unique road markings and street signs, separate from New York State DOT?

NYC has its own DOT responsible for roads and bridges in the city.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Though it reads oddly I think I get why they do it that way. They want the driver to read the word "bus" first in the foreground. That way the driver processes that the space is meant for buses in a much more clear and more immediate way than if it was worded in reverse. Seems a bit silly but I think it's a psychological move.

Yeah, but as I said that's a ridiculous assumption because nobody actually reads them that way. Especially when the words are right next to each other you read the whole thing at once and thus it becomes "LANE BUS." If they're spaced out it makes a little more sense, but I think even in those cases you still end up reading the whole thing in one glance.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Yeah, but as I said that's a ridiculous assumption because nobody actually reads them that way. Especially when the words are right next to each other you read the whole thing at once and thus it becomes "LANE BUS." If they're spaced out it makes a little more sense, but I think even in those cases you still end up reading the whole thing in one glance.

If you're driving behind another vehicle then it makes sense for the words to be backwards. You're going to see the word "BUS" first and then "LANE".

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

If you're driving behind another vehicle then it makes sense for the words to be backwards. You're going to see the word "BUS" first and then "LANE".

I don't really think so. The time it takes for the vehicle in front of you to pass over the LANE BUS words is going to be about 1 second, maybe 2 or 3 seconds at the most if traffic is slow. That's much too short a time to make any difference, and you're still going to see the whole thing at once as LANE BUS.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

I don't really think so. The time it takes for the vehicle in front of you to pass over the LANE BUS words is going to be about 1 second, maybe 2 or 3 seconds at the most if traffic is slow. That's much too short a time to make any difference, and you're still going to see the whole thing at once as LANE BUS.

That is why it is written backwards. It is designed to leave the least opportunity for misinterpretation. There is a greater chance that someone misinterprets by writing it top down than by writing it bottom up.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That is why it is written backwards. It is designed to leave the least opportunity for misinterpretation. There is a greater chance that someone misinterprets by writing it top down than by writing it bottom up.

Except, as I've been trying to say, nobody is going to read it that way.

Look again at the example in my first post:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0616...7i16384!8i8192

Notice also the car in the lane next to the words - it's not even big enough to cover up the entire set of words if it was driving over them. And when it does drive over them, it will take maybe 1 second to do so, during which time anybody driving behind them is not going to happen to just notice the "BUS" before they can read the "LANE."

It's simply a ridiculous standard.

[sopas ej]

Hmm...

To continue my "STOP" sign painted on the roadway thing, it seems the City of Los Angeles doesn't seem consistent with it. Some intersections have it and some don't; this particular intersection has them only painted on the one street but not the intersecting one: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0456...4!8i8192?hl=en

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Except, as I've been trying to say, nobody is going to read it that way.

Look again at the example in my first post:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0616...7i16384!8i8192

Notice also the car in the lane next to the words - it's not even big enough to cover up the entire set of words if it was driving over them. And when it does drive over them, it will take maybe 1 second to do so, during which time anybody driving behind them is not going to happen to just notice the "BUS" before they can read the "LANE."

It's simply a ridiculous standard.

Plenty of people will read it that way. While looking at street view, put your hand over the screen and move it as if a car is traveling on the road. This will demonstrate why they write it bottom up instead of top down.

[dchan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

NYC has its own DOT responsible for roads and bridges in the city.

Yes, but that's the case for most municipalities, albeit at a much smaller scale than NYCDOT. The state DOT is mainly concerned with their own state roads, many of which run through local municipalities. But state roads are usually a minority. Depending on the size of the municipality, there can be far more smaller local roads which are the responsibility of the city/town/county government, and not the state DOT. And this would include bridges/crossings as well. In that case, the roads would be tended by the city/town/county engineer's office or a similar department.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Plenty of people will read it that way. While looking at street view, put your hand over the screen and move it as if a car is traveling on the road. This will demonstrate why they write it bottom up instead of top down.

But yet again, it's just not going to work out that way. It will take a second for the car in front of you to traverse the writing. By the time you've even started looking at the writing, the car has already passed over it and all you're reading is the entirety of the "LANE BUS." It's just one of those things that sounded good in theory but didn't work out in reality.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by dchan

Yes, but that's the case for most municipalities, albeit at a much smaller scale than NYCDOT. The state DOT is mainly concerned with their own state roads, many of which run through local municipalities. But state roads are usually a minority. Depending on the size of the municipality, there can be far more smaller local roads which are the responsibility of the city/town/county government, and not the state DOT. And this would include bridges/crossings as well. In that case, the roads would be tended by the city/town/county engineer's office or a similar department.

Yeah, I think this is fairly unusual to how other states are structured though. For instance, in Detroit just about all of the major roads and highways are the responsibility of either the state of Michigan or Wayne County. The city of Detroit is responsible for the smaller tertiary streets, but these require very little maintenance. I think it's the opposite in NYC, where the city is responsible for most of the major roadways while the state is only responsible for a minority of them.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

But yet again, it's just not going to work out that way. It will take a second for the car in front of you to traverse the writing. By the time you've even started looking at the writing, the car has already passed over it and all you're reading is the entirety of the "LANE BUS." It's just one of those things that sounded good in theory but didn't work out in reality.

Depends on where you live, I guess. What I explained seems pretty obvious in NYC, but if you're in a place that doesn't have a lot of slow moving traffic then I can see how the scenario would be foreign to you.

[Pedestrian]

Of all the things I feel like complaining about, this is nowhere near the top of my list.

But to play along, in San Francisco they started just painting the bus lanes red a while ago and now when they repave streets (or when they created the new BRT line) they actually mix red coloring into the concrete for more durability.


https://www.sfmta.com/blog/brt-servi...begin-tomorrow

Incidentally, my condo is in this shot.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

you very rarely see words written on the road in Canada, so it always throws me off when I see it in the US. Be it "lane bus", "exit must", "left merge", or whatever.

Toronto does use written words, but just says "BUS"

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7833...7i16384!8i8192

why bother no one is going to see them being covered in snow 3/4 of the year.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

But to play along, in San Francisco they started just painting the bus lanes red a while ago and now when they repave streets (or when they created the new BRT line) they actually mix red coloring into the concrete for more durability.


https://www.sfmta.com/blog/brt-servi...begin-tomorrow

As long as it doesn't say "LANE BUS" I'm good with it.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

why bother no one is going to see them being covered in snow 3/4 of the year.

That’s a big part of it, I guess; minus the 3/4 bit. The pavement painting needs more frequent coatings given the abuse from salt and ice in cold climes.

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

I'm actually looking on Google street view to see if I can find equivalents in Toronto and Winnipeg but can't find any.

Maybe in Canada they'd be wary of putting words on streets because if you did them in English it might upset the French speakers.

Actually, although the word for bus in French is "Autobus"; the short version is "Bus", and it is about the only word painted on pavement in Quebec as far as I know.

[dchan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, I think this is fairly unusual to how other states are structured though. For instance, in Detroit just about all of the major roads and highways are the responsibility of either the state of Michigan or Wayne County. The city of Detroit is responsible for the smaller tertiary streets, but these require very little maintenance. I think it's the opposite in NYC, where the city is responsible for most of the major roadways while the state is only responsible for a minority of them.

Yes, many roads are tended to by counties because they have the over-arching resources that smaller municipalities within the county lack. The same goes for other civil services like policing, firefighting, garbage/recycling pickup and disposal, water & sewage, etc.

Detroit might not be a great example here because it's a very large city that has mostly depopulated. Therefore, it has a ton of existing infrastructure that was designed for a much larger population. Therefore, it makes no sense for a city of 670,000 to have large civil service departments to service infrastructure that was built for a city of 1.8 million. So I suppose that Detroit is in a sort of limbo in terms of who provides specific services in the city. If Detroit were still around 1.8 million, I guarantee that they would have a much larger municipal civil service departments and fewer state & county services.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by dchan

Yes, many roads are tended to by counties because they have the over-arching resources that smaller municipalities within the county lack. The same goes for other civil services like policing, firefighting, garbage/recycling pickup and disposal, water & sewage, etc.

Detroit might not be a great example here because it's a very large city that has mostly depopulated. Therefore, it has a ton of existing infrastructure that was designed for a much larger population. Therefore, it makes no sense for a city of 670,000 to have large civil service departments to service infrastructure that was built for a city of 1.8 million. So I suppose that Detroit is in a sort of limbo in terms of who provides specific services in the city. If Detroit were still around 1.8 million, I guarantee that they would have a much larger municipal civil service departments and fewer state & county services.

It has been the same way since Detroit was almost 2 million people. There has been no change in authority due to population drops and there never will be. Hence why sprawl is stupid.

[dchan]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

As long as it doesn't say "LANE BUS" I'm good with it.

In NYC, road markings are oftentimes a strong suggestion rather than an enforceable legal boundary. It's traffic & parking signage that often determines enforceability. Therefore, a red painted bus lane (with or without the "BUS ONLY" or "ONLY BUS" message) by itself with no accompanying signage is not enforceable.



Case in point, whenever I drive into Manhattan over the Williamsburg Bridge, I often drive on the red "bus lane" on Delancey St with no fears at all. There is no accompanying signage dictating whether this is a bus lane or the bus lane hours. Heck, I don't think there is even a "BUS ONLY" or "ONLY BUS" message. My guess on why this so-called "bus lane" exists? It's merely a strong suggestion of a bus lane in order to keep most cars off of it, but it is nothing more than a strong suggestion. The bridge traffic entering Delancey St is already a clusterf*ck, and would be an even larger clusterf*ck if there was a real enforceable bus lane.

There is also some confusion about the so-called street parking lines:



These lines are actually "edge of travel way" lanes that are meant to provide a set lane width for the traffic lane next to the parking lane. They are not meant to define what is a legal parking spot. Legal curbside parking is defined entirely by NYCDOT signage. Therefore, if there is a "edge of travel way" line but also a "NO STANDING ANYTIME" or "NO STOPPING ANYTIME" sign, then whether it is legal to park there depends on where the sign is and which direction its arrows are pointing.

This was a point of contention when the DOT resurfaced a popular pass-through street in my neighborhood (pass-through means that is is a street that connects two larger streets as well as a highway interchange). After the resurfacing, DOT applied new markings to the road, including these "parking lines" for the full block length. Daylighting at the corners meant there was a "NO STANDING ANYTIME" sign already there. However, after the new lines were installed, drivers started to park their cars at the corners because they interpreted the lines as a legal parking boundary. This issue seems to have subsided after a few drivers probably got a few $110 tickets for parking in a no-standing area.

So to repeat, traffic and parking regulation signs mainly dictate legal traffic/parking boundaries rather than road markings.