Home ∑ Maps ∑ About

Home > BusChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2 3]

< Previous Page  

Page 2 of 3

Next Page >  

(341489)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 11 23:47:14 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Catfish 44 on Mon Jan 11 23:20:59 2021.

Some archaisms last a while. Like ďGrand Avenue - Newtown.Ē

In any event someone else pointed out that it had to have been in Far Rockaway proper.

Post a New Response

(341490)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 11 23:49:11 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by TransitChuckG on Mon Jan 11 14:57:48 2021.

There are both Bay streets and Beach Streets in Far Rockaway. Not many Bay streets.

Post a New Response

(341491)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Catfish 44 on Mon Jan 11 23:56:50 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 11 23:49:11 2021.

Beach streets begin at about Beach 2nd Street and run out west to Breezy Point at Beach 222nd Street which is about 11 miles, right?

Post a New Response

(341492)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Catfish 44 on Mon Jan 11 23:59:00 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 11 23:47:14 2021.

In my neighborhood nobody would call an block in Rockaway Park Rockaway Beach.
On the other hand, the debate over the Rockaway Park and Belle Harbor border will probably never be settled.

Post a New Response

(341493)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 12 00:08:49 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Catfish 44 on Mon Jan 11 23:56:50 2021.

Iíve always wondered why it starts from 2nd and not 1st. 2nd is right on the border so there isnít room for a 1st.

Post a New Response

(341494)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Jan 12 00:13:03 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 12 00:08:49 2021.

I donít know. Maybe it was a superstition.

Post a New Response

(341495)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 12 02:09:11 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by BusMgr on Mon Jan 11 23:45:19 2021.

Prior to the IND going to Rockaway wouldnít there have been a de facto double fare anyhow since back then there were no free transfers between the subway and the bus?

Post a New Response

(341496)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 12 02:10:01 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Jan 12 00:13:03 2021.

You mean like some buildings not having a 13th floor?

Post a New Response

(341497)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jan 12 07:09:35 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Joe V on Mon Jan 11 08:11:17 2021.

Hmm. . .maybe if you took the Q60 to Jamaica LIRR, then took the LIRR to Far Rockaway, your ticket would be good for GBL buses there waiting for you in Far Rockaway?

Post a New Response

(341498)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jan 12 07:31:36 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Snilcher on Mon Jan 11 11:23:57 2021.

So far my best guess is that GBL wanted to be a part of any commuter itinerary involving both Queens Blvd and the Rockaways, and was just cutting its losses that they themselves didn't have a direct connection from Jamaica to Far Rockaway.

Figuring that their riders would end up (unfortunately) on the Q113 or LIRR anyway, GBL probably wanted to "stay relevant" by not charging another fare at the "other end" of the Q113 / LIRR. Keep your GBL transfer from one end and use it on the other end. So at least you're not paying 3 or more fares.

All speculation though.

Post a New Response

(341499)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by pragmatist on Tue Jan 12 09:02:23 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jan 12 07:31:36 2021.

Back then, NYC Board of Franchises (Pre DOT days) would have been involved in the fare decision. I don't believe the bus lines operating agreements allowed them too much flexibility in what they could charge.

Post a New Response

(341500)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Jan 12 09:20:02 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by randyo on Tue Jan 12 02:10:01 2021.

Yes.

Post a New Response

(341501)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Jan 12 09:20:27 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jan 12 07:09:35 2021.

Perhaps

Post a New Response

(341502)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 12 09:33:34 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by BusMgr on Mon Jan 11 23:45:19 2021.

Sounds like pre MSBA and pre SCT Nassau and Suffolk Counties, with fare zones and hit and miss transfers.

Post a New Response

(341503)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by BusRider on Tue Jan 12 09:47:48 2021, in response to Transfer mystery, posted by Snilcher on Sun Jan 10 20:49:38 2021.

Came across this:

Older Thread

Perhaps, could it be some form of a three-legged transfer with a behind the scenes agreement with Far Rockaway?

I found a book from 1932 about bus operations, very interesting read and surprising how good condition it is minus the discoloring. But, it appears many franchises and private companies at that time had many unusual ways of business and some that would definitely not be accepted today. I say this because thereís a small chapter from the Fifth Ave Company in Manhattan and the way they thought to develop timetables stated though it was very unusual for common practice they feel it was best for their operation. Then, on the other hand some interesting practices and is beyond me why it couldnít work today!

Also, you could analyze the serial numbers if you really had the time on your hands :).

Are there any local Rockaway Historians that any of you know of, if one exists?

Post a New Response

(341504)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Jan 12 11:27:51 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by BusRider on Tue Jan 12 09:47:48 2021.

Emil Lucev was the local historian but he passed away a few years back.

Post a New Response

(341505)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jan 12 11:34:17 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by pragmatist on Tue Jan 12 09:02:23 2021.

If that Board went so far as to decide what free transfers would and would not be permitted between two lines of the same company, then that was really harsh!

Post a New Response

(341506)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Snilcher on Tue Jan 12 11:36:24 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Jan 12 09:20:02 2021.

And in Korea there are buildings (like a hotel I stayed in) that have no 4th floor. The number 4 is symbolic of death or something like that.


Post a New Response

(341507)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Snilcher on Tue Jan 12 11:42:08 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 12 00:08:49 2021.

Perhaps there used to be a Beach 1st St. where the Atlantic Beach Bridge / Nassau Expressway is now. That's just a guess based on the (google) map.

Just like there's no 61st Avenue in Queens, except for a segment in Douglaston/Little Neck near the city line, because of the LIE.

Post a New Response

(341508)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by BusRider on Tue Jan 12 11:48:51 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jan 12 11:34:17 2021.

Thatís like organized crime of transit!

Post a New Response

(341509)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by BusRider on Tue Jan 12 11:49:58 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Jan 12 11:27:51 2021.

Oh okay, thank you for that. I was just trying to help though not being a native.

Post a New Response

(341510)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Jan 12 12:36:15 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Snilcher on Tue Jan 12 11:42:08 2021.

You might be on to something because the current bridge is slightly west of the original.

Post a New Response

(341511)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 12 12:39:52 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Snilcher on Tue Jan 12 11:42:08 2021.

Thatís possible, but whatís weird is that B2 is already entirely in Nassau County.

Post a New Response

(341512)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by pragmatist on Tue Jan 12 13:50:31 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by BusRider on Tue Jan 12 11:48:51 2021.

That's pretty close to what they were! And the second the city started subsidies, forget it.

Post a New Response

(341513)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by pragmatist on Tue Jan 12 13:54:22 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by pragmatist on Tue Jan 12 13:50:31 2021.

Old timers involved in private transit will remember the power a man named Morris Tarshis held, but most people never heard of him.

Post a New Response

(341514)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Jan 12 15:24:05 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 12 00:08:49 2021.

Yeah I suppose so. I also didnít know that Beach 3rd was the first block in Queens.

Post a New Response

(341515)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 12 17:14:46 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 12 12:39:52 2021.

I looked at an old map and it shows the creek immediately east of the bridge as being the border. So I'm going to say "surveying error."

Post a New Response

(341516)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Jan 12 18:05:32 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 12 17:14:46 2021.

What year was that map from?
Itís moot point because itís understood that the border is on B. 2nd street but the construction of the bridges (1927 and 1952) had nothing to do with the loss of Beach 1st street according to the aerials from 1924 and Ď51. The border is in its current position in 1951 but in 1924 it is east by a couple hundred feet maybe.


Post a New Response

(341517)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by BusRider on Tue Jan 12 18:31:08 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by pragmatist on Tue Jan 12 13:54:22 2021.

Similar to Moses?

Post a New Response

(341518)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by pragmatist on Tue Jan 12 20:36:04 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by BusRider on Tue Jan 12 18:31:08 2021.

Everyone knew who Moses was and what he was doing. Tarshis was more of "the man behind the curtain" He was around for the first cable TV franchises, few remember that. But NYC was governed differently, in that era, there was something called the Board of Estimate which had enormous power, the Borough Presidents had 2 votes each, the President of the City Council, Mayor and Comptroller had 4 votes each. The power is now Mayor/City Council. Deals were structured differently.

Post a New Response

(341519)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by BusMgr on Tue Jan 12 20:44:24 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by randyo on Tue Jan 12 02:09:11 2021.

For the sake of simplicity, consider a journey only between, say, Howard Beach and the Rockaways. By bus, it would have been a two-zone fare on a single bus route (route Q21). To Far Rockaway, it would have been either one three-zone fare (route Q21A) or two two-zone fares (Q21, then Q22). From Brooklyn to Far Rockaway there was no choice by having to pay two two-zone fares (Q35, then Q22). By the time the subway was extended to the Rockaways, its double fare was, at lease in some cases, less expensive than the bus.

Post a New Response

(341520)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by BusMgr on Tue Jan 12 20:53:39 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jan 12 11:34:17 2021.

That is correct. The franchise granted by the Board of Estimate specified the transfers required. Take a look at the form of the then-proposed franchise for Green Bus Lines in the March 5, 1947, issue of the City Record, starting at page 1612. The transfers are given in Article VII, on the following page. (Search the City Record for other franchises.)

Post a New Response

(341521)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by BusRider on Tue Jan 12 23:09:20 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by pragmatist on Tue Jan 12 20:36:04 2021.

Yeah I seen a video about how I think it was as late as 1976 that the board of estimate in terms of power had way more leeway then city council, I think something in 1980 itís budgets changed all of that. But, I was thinking in terms of transportation itís like the current school bus companies thereís like five companies but the same owner. Staying on topic though, I donít see the benefit for Green Bus Lines if it was all the same owners unless it simply made business look ďbetterĒ on paper and pleased certain locals, I donít know.

Post a New Response

(341522)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by BusMgr on Tue Jan 12 23:33:41 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by BusRider on Tue Jan 12 23:09:20 2021.

As to "owners": Green Bus Lines had many stockholders, no single person owning more than 2 percent of the company. Triboro Coach and Jamaica Central Railways also each had many stockholders, most of whom (but not all) being identical to the stockholders of Green Bus Lines. Jamaica Central Railways was the sole owner of Jamaica Buses and a one-third owner of Command Bus Company. Green Bus Lines and Triboro Coach were each one-third owners of Command Bus Company. The three companies were also each one-third owners of Varsity Transit and TFM Paratransit. Later, the companies were reorganized and continue in existence today as GTJ REIT.

Post a New Response

(341523)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by pragmatist on Tue Jan 12 23:41:44 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by BusRider on Tue Jan 12 23:09:20 2021.

It could be anything, there are lots of reasons why companies do that.

Board of Estimate was done away with because in 1989 the SCOTUS ruled that its makeup violated the previously affirmed concept of "one man one vote" since a Borough President of a low population Borough like Staten Island had the same vote as a high population like Brooklyn, so their voting is not a proportional representation. The only place that stands is the US Senate, but that is specifically ensconced in the Constitution.

Post a New Response

(341524)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by pragmatist on Tue Jan 12 23:47:57 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by BusMgr on Tue Jan 12 23:33:41 2021.

But the Coopers controlled.

Post a New Response

(341527)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jan 13 07:40:25 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by BusMgr on Tue Jan 12 20:53:39 2021.

Thanks. Ugh. . .poor bus companies! And poor riders!

This is part of why I never complain about fare increases. Riders today don't realize how much better they have it now. A single fare that isn't that comparably bad (when inflation is taken into account). No zones, free transfer to subway, very few bus-to-bus transfer restrictions (and no requirement to be standing at a particular corner), and of course unlimited options for very frequent riders.

Post a New Response

(341528)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Joe V on Wed Jan 13 07:55:29 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by BusMgr on Tue Jan 12 20:53:39 2021.

When the city was handing out franchises in the first half of the last century, didn't they more or less do it by geographic territory, therefore becoming regional monopolies ? (i.e. the Q53 could not compete 100% with the Q11).

Post a New Response

(341529)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Joe V on Wed Jan 13 07:58:20 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jan 13 07:40:25 2021.

Same thing happened in Nassau and Suffolk with a couple of dozen private bus companies at one time, but there are no transfers to the LIRR.

Post a New Response

(341530)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by BusRider on Wed Jan 13 10:14:49 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jan 13 07:40:25 2021.

Particular corner?

Post a New Response

(341531)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by pragmatist on Wed Jan 13 10:34:49 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jan 13 07:40:25 2021.

I grew up in what was called a "2 fare zone" Most people heading to work took the Q65A to Continental Ave, a smattering walked to Kissena and took the 25/34 to the 7 train

Post a New Response

(341532)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 13 11:45:36 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Jan 12 18:05:32 2021.

There are examples of "paper streets" that were on planning maps but were never actually built. The 1924 map shows some kind of building on the east side of B2, and it looks like the block could easily have been enclosed by a B1 on the opposite side, but which was likely never built.

1909. That map doesn't have any streets in the area and those streets that do exist are all named (no numbering yet, even on the mainland). So I decided to see if there were any other Queens maps from after 1909 and I found this one which lists a Beach 1st! Mystery solved?

Post a New Response

(341533)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Snilcher on Wed Jan 13 12:05:47 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by BusMgr on Tue Jan 12 20:44:24 2021.

Depends on what part of Brooklyn. If coming from New Lots rather than Flatbush, it would have been the Q21A, no more than three zones (as compared with four zones using Q35/Q22).


Post a New Response

(341534)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jan 13 12:06:10 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by BusRider on Wed Jan 13 10:14:49 2021.

Particular bus stop. Until the MetroCard era, you had to use your paper transfers at the actual transfer point and only there. (No walking a few blocks along the route, getting a slice of pizza, and then getting on your connecting bus at that new location).

Post a New Response

(341536)

view threaded

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.

Post a New Response

(341537)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by BusMgr on Wed Jan 13 13:05:57 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by pragmatist on Tue Jan 12 23:47:57 2021.

The Cooper family "controlled" those companies through a voting trust. That is, many (bot not all) of the shareholders executed an agreement allowing the Cooper family to vote their shares in elections. This created some internal tension because the founding of Green Bus Lines as an association, and later as a corporation, was both William Cooper and John Succa. The successors to the Succa interests, the Eagar family, were left with less influence as a result of the voting trust that vested effective corporate control in the Cooper family. However, since the Cooper family held only a minority interest itself in the stock of the various companies, and the family was not entitled to any substantial profit interest of the company. Family members were officers of the companies, and salaries were earned through that employment, but they were never "owners" of the companies. Indeed, the chairman of the corporate group, Jerome Cooper, was very much bothered by the casual use of the term "Cooper companies" by many--because it ignored the interests of the many shareholders of the companies--and he especially railed against the use of that term by officials of the City and the Transit Authority because they knew better.

Post a New Response

(341538)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by BusMgr on Wed Jan 13 13:06:10 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by pragmatist on Tue Jan 12 23:41:44 2021.

The irony is that it had been the Board of Aldermen which had the power to grant franchises, but corruption in that board led to the power being shifted to the Board of Estimate. Now the power has shifted back to the "corrupt" Board of Aldermen (albeit since renamed the Council). Well, sort of.

In the state of New York, the power of a city to consent to the operation of a bus line (grant a "franchise") is vested in its legislature. However, the post-1989 charter prohibits the Council from actually selecting a specific franchisee. Instead, for the Council to make an award, it must adopt resolution authorizing a city agency to competitively solicit and select a franchisee, based on the franchise terms established by the Council in its authorizing resolution. The Franchise and Concession Review Committee then reviews and approves the city agency's solicitation and selection process. The city agency then executes the written agreement that grants the franchise, in accordance with the Council's authorizing resolution. Finally, the mayor must approve the franchise for it to take effect. So at least in theory corruption from the Council in the award of franchises is avoided . . . but it seems clear that under this new system there could be corruption from the authorized city agency.

The larger problem with this process is that it really turns the entire historic consent process upside-down. It had been that a transportation corporation would be established to operate a particular route or routes. The company would subsequently receive the consent of the city (a franchise) to use the city streets to operate the route intended. But the manner in which the post-1989 charter requires franchises to be granted, the city has the lead role in determining route or routes to be operated. A private company with an idea can no longer simply receive the city's consent for its plan. And there's no reason why the city should not be able to give such consent (because franchises are non-exclusive, multiple persons can be given distinct franchises for joint use of the same streets). But turning the process upside-down, the post-1989 charer stifles private initiative. Obtaining the consent of the city requires private companies to grease the wheels for the city itself to initiate the franchise process.

Post a New Response

(341539)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by BusMgr on Wed Jan 13 13:08:14 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Snilcher on Wed Jan 13 12:05:47 2021.

Depends on what part of Brooklyn. If coming from New Lots rather than Flatbush, it would have been the Q21A . . . .

True. Carelessness on my part in not being more geographically specific!

Post a New Response

(341540)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by Catfish 44 on Wed Jan 13 14:22:01 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 13 11:45:36 2021.

Wow very interesting
Iíll take look at those maps when I get home.

Post a New Response

(341541)

view threaded

Re: Transfer mystery

Posted by BusRider on Thu Jan 14 00:14:18 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jan 13 12:06:10 2021.

Wow, never knew it was that specific. Thanks.

Post a New Response

[1 2 3]

< Previous Page  

Page 2 of 3

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]