Re: Transfer mystery (341536) | |||
Home > BusChat | |||
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
Re: Transfer mystery |
|
Posted by BusMgr on Wed Jan 13 13:05:40 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Joe V on Wed Jan 13 07:55:29 2021. Sort of. Initially, franchises were granted for an individual route or routes as the city's consent for the proposed operation. There was no overall plan by the city, but instead the city responded to requests for its consent. In the city charter taking effect in 1901, section 1461 required, as a condition for obtaining the city's consent, that for a bus route that would operate on a street in which a street railway or bus route had already been lawfully established, for a distance greater than one thousand feet, the bus company that would be operating the newly proposed route would be required to obtain the consent of the company or companies operating the existing route or routes. But the city charter was amended in 1913, removing that requirement relating to overlapping routes. Then, in the 1930s, the city decided, as a matter of policy for Queens, to divide the borough into four lettered quarters, and to award a franchise for "all" the bus routes in each quarter to a single company. This plan excluded the street railway routes, which were being motorized around the same time. So while the city did, in fact, purposefully establish regional service areas, they were not complete monopolies because the street railway routes, as eventually replaced by bus routes, crossed through these regional zones. There was nothing in the law to prevent one company from operating a route on top of another route operated by a different company. That said, the later case of the Q53 is not related to that "competition" concern because its sole purpose was to replace the LIRR service between Woodside and the Rockaways. |
(There are no responses to this message.)