|
|
| Re: History of the Q19A/Q69 and the Q101R/Q100 (327669) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: History of the Q19A/Q69 and the Q101R/Q100 |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Mon Mar 12 16:03:02 2018, in response to Re: History of the Q19A/Q69 and the Q101R/Q100, posted by nh153 on Mon Mar 12 14:20:53 2018. The Rikers Island service operated along Steinway Street because that is the street upon which Stein Transit (and successors) had a right to use; the franchise for 21st Street had been granted to Triboro Coach for use by different routes.It is at least arguable whether MTA Bus Company has the right to operate the Rikers Island service along 21st Street. Section 6-202 of the New York City Administrative Code (a state law) prohibits the operation of bus routes in the absence of a franchise or right therefor. Section 1266 of the Public Authorities Law provides the MTA and its subsidiaries (including MTA Bus Company) with many rights. Do those rights include the right for MTA Bus Company to operate its buses along city streets, as required by section 2-606? In People v. Gallagher, 50 Misc.3d 317 (2015), the court discussed the "almost unfettered ability to maintain and operate the transportation facilities, equipment or real property that [an MTA subsidiary] possesses," but then held that "[t]his generous grant of power is limited to the upkeep of tangible physical or real property used to transport passengers." Seemingly, MTA Bus Company would not have the right to decide for itself where it may operate its buses, but would instead have to obtain the right to operate buses along a city street from the city itself. That is, the MTA may not take from the city its inalienable property for use by MTA buses any more so than the MTA may take and use buses owned by private companies for MTA's use; it is trespass in both cases. Yet, MTA Bus Company possesses no franchise or right from the city's legislature, the council, but instead only a letter agreement made by the mayor (dated December 8, 2004) that leases city assets, provides for city subsidy, and outlines liabilities and a dispute resolution mechanism, but does not provide for a general right to use the city streets. Nor could the mayor, on his own without an authorizing resolution from the city's legislature, grant such a right to the MTA Bus Company. At best, under the letter agreement that leased the city assets, the MTA could use the rights that Queens Surface Corp. had possessed--which would include the right to use Steinway Street for the operation of the Rikers Island service--but to the extent that Queens Surface Corp. operated the Rikers Island service along 21st Street without any franchise or right therefor, neither would MTA Bus Company have a right to do so either. A court would likely bend over backwards to allow the MTA Bus Company to operate the Rikers Island service along 21st Streetm, as it is presently doing, but it is at least arguable that it has no right to do so. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|