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.

Brooklyn Disabled riders suing MTA over June 2010 service cuts


Shortline Bus

Recommended Posts

All you linked was PIX's video page, which didn't contain what you were talking about.

 

It will probibly be tossed out anyway.

 

Kamen sorry as I had hard time trying to paste/link it:o. If you or anyone else can go to the Pix page and link it as it's under news videos from last night 8/16/10 10pm newscast it still should be there.

The reporter was Arthur Chein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was only a matter of time before the MTA would come under fire for these cuts, especially the buses.

 

Never mind the WPIX link. Here same story from NY Crains.

 

Disabled suing left and right over MTA cuts

 

The lawsuits are mounting over the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's service cuts; disabled New Yorkers suing MTA, threatening same for Taxi & Limousine Commission.

 

By Jeremy Smerd NY Crain Business Weekly, August 17, 2010

 

The Taxi & Limousine Commission thought it was doing New Yorkers a favor when it authorized dollar vans to drive along five bus routes eliminated by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority earlier this summer. But if those vans aren’t equipped with wheelchair lifts, advocates for the disabled plan to sue the commission to stop them from putting the vans on the road.

 

“If the TLC wants to go ahead with inaccessible vans, we will sue them,” said Jim Weisman, an attorney with the United Spinal Association.

 

In a separate legal action, disabled riders on Tuesday sued the MTA over the service cuts, saying they violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

 

Those service cuts helped the MTA present a balanced $12 billion budget to its board last month. The budget included savings from service cuts and reductions, including cost saving changes made to the Access-a-Ride program for disabled riders. But advocates for riders who use wheelchairs say the cuts violate federal law guaranteeing them equal access to the same transportation system used by non-disabled riders.

 

“The combination of all these cuts means people with mobility impairments don’t have transit options,” said Jane Stevens, director of litigation for the New York Legal Assistance Group, which is representing one of the plaintiffs.

 

The plaintiffs want the MTA to restore eliminated and reduced bus and Access-a-Ride service. The MTA declined to comment.

 

The TLC approved its van program last month and had planned to have the vans on the road yesterday, but a TLC spokeswoman says the vans won’t be on the road until mid-September.

 

The TLC’s foray into territory normally reserved for the state-run MTA has also drawn the attention of the largest union representing transit workers, the Transport Workers Union Local 100, which filed an application to operate a van along one of the five bus routes.

 

Awarding the union workers a contract could pit against each other two historical allies—the TWU and disabled riders. It’s unclear whether the TWU would operate wheelchair accessible vans if awarded the contract. The TLC is not requiring the vans be equipped with wheelchair lifts.

 

The three disabled riders who sued the MTA recounted in the lawsuit how the service changes made taking public transit more difficult. RueZalia Watkins, who lives in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, but works in Manhattan for the Mental Health Association of New York, claims the bus cuts have made it almost impossible to commute to work and to travel for her work. She’s used a wheelchair for 17 years because of a combination of serious heart and lung ailments. She depends on Access-a-Ride to get to work but says it’s not practical to use Access-a-Ride for work trips during the day because it was too complicated to book trips.

 

She doesn’t use the subway because some gaps between the platform and the train cars are too wide. Earlier this year, she was unable to board a C train at the Hoyt-Schermerhorn station. To make it onto the next train, she had to call the police. "

 

 

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100817/FREE/100819837

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United Spinal Assocaition has let it's lawyers make it one more cog in the machine out to destroy the MTA by concering itself with the outcome and not the cause of them problem, just like the politicians and the union mouthpeices.

 

And these disabled riders do not have standing, if the MTA had become insistant on running non compliant buses, then they'd have a case. This is the problem with civil rights legislation in the this country, the lawyers have made so If i so much as look at someone cockeyed, I get labed a bigot, sexist, racist, what have you.

 

 

 

This can only end badly.

 

I don't know the United Spinal Association that well so I won't comment about them. However as a whole, Disabled New Yorkers do have a legit grip and were the worst ones hit by the recent service cuts especially those in Brooklyn.B)

Again totally scrapping the B39 for instance was a bad idea as many other Bus routes with less ridership were untouched.

IMO the B39 should still run 7 days a week from 6am-Midnight weekdays and 8am-8pm weekends.

 

Only slim hope of a return of a B39 IMO is an extension of the B24, Q59 or M15 Houston St Local Branch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only slim hope of a return of a B39 IMO is an extension of the B24, Q59 or M15 Houston St Local Branch.

 

They should send the M21 into Brooklyn to replace the B39. Maybe then it could operate daily. As for the B51, they should send the B61 into Manhattan to cover it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the United Spinal Association that well so I won't comment about them. However as a whole, Disabled New Yorkers do have a legit grip and were the worst ones hit by the recent service cuts especially those in Brooklyn.B)

Again totally scrapping the B39 for instance was a bad idea as many other Bus routes with less ridership were untouched.

IMO the B39 should still run 7 days a week from 6am-Midnight weekdays and 8am-8pm weekends.

 

Only slim hope of a return of a B39 IMO is an extension of the B24, Q59 or M15 Houston St Local Branch.

 

But the B39 was one of the lowest-used routes in the system, with about 1,000 riders daily. I think everything under it was eliminated except for the S60, which was merged with the S66.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the B39 was one of the lowest-used routes in the system, with about 1,000 riders daily. I think everything under it was eliminated except for the S60, which was merged with the S66.

 

Sorry Checkmate but I Disagree and I don't buy the (MTA) data for that B39 route. I am not sure you been on it but I say a Strong majority as much as 75-80% or more transfer from other routes either on the Lower East Side i.e M15, M14a or M9 or Willie B Plaza i.e B44, B46, Q54, Q59, etc. Plus often from times I bus fanned the B39, Drivers would let on 'free' riders as well with many people boarding claiming that 'they used up their metrocard', no $$$, etc. Sorry But IMO the B39 had more than 1,000 'daily' riders especially weekdays so in that case the metrocard data was not correct in that case.

 

That probably reason for lower than expected ridership data it was not recorded. Not to mention the Essex (F)(J)(M)(Z) station is still not ADA accessible. When Essex was being rebulit a few years back at least the Broad St. Bound platform should have been ADA accessible. Those riders could have then gone to either Bowery or Canal for Brooklyn/Jamaica Bound trains.

 

For those of you who mention the B51 while I also disagree with the cuts(IMO the B51 should have still stayed as a rush hour only line :mad:)at least in Downtown Brooklyn, the Court St/Boro Hall (2)(3)(4)(5) and soon Jay St (A)(C)(F) and Lawerence stations (R) have ADA access.

 

So that why I felt the B39 was among the most unfair of all of the June '10 cuts. I sadly agreed with the (MTA) on ending 24/7 (overnight)service on the B39 but still kept revised hours along lines of weekdays 6am-11pm, Saturdays 7am-11pm and Sundays 8am-8pm.

 

Just my takes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should send the M21 into Brooklyn to replace the B39. Maybe then it could operate daily. As for the B51, they should send the B61 into Manhattan to cover it.

 

 

Not a bad idea young man. :tup:;)Especially since the M21 is now only a Houston St Crosstown. Also ditto for the B61 as they could do a 'trial' and extend it at least during rush hours on the old B51 route. This extended B61 could then terminate at BMCC (Borough of Manhattan Community College)as our friend B35 via Church in another topic earlier on the bus cuts.

And if successful expand service i.e all day weekdays, Saturdays, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Checkmate but I Disagree and I don't buy the (MTA) data for that B39 route. I am not sure you been on it but I say a Strong majority as much as 75-80% or more transfer from other routes either on the Lower East Side i.e M15, M14a or M9 or Willie B Plaza i.e B44, B46, Q54, Q59, etc. Plus often from times I bus fanned the B39, Drivers would let on 'free' riders as well with many people boarding claiming that 'they used up their metrocard', no $$$, etc. Sorry But IMO the B39 had more than 1,000 'daily' riders especially weekdays so in that case the metrocard data was not correct in that case.

 

That probably reason for lower than expected ridership data it was not recorded. Not to mention the Essex (F)(J)(M)(Z) station is still not ADA accessible. When Essex was being rebulit a few years back at least the Broad St. Bound platform should have been ADA accessible. Those riders could have then gone to either Bowery or Canal for Brooklyn/Jamaica Bound trains.

 

For those of you who mention the B51 while I also disagree with the cuts(IMO the B51 should have still stayed as a rush hour only line :mad:)at least in Downtown Brooklyn, the Court St/Boro Hall (2)(3)(4)(5) and soon Jay St (A)(C)(F) and Lawerence stations (R) have ADA access.

 

So that why I felt the B39 was among the most unfair of all of the June '10 cuts. I sadly agreed with the (MTA) on ending 24/7 (overnight)service on the B39 but still kept revised hours along lines of weekdays 6am-11pm, Saturdays 7am-11pm and Sundays 8am-8pm.

 

Just my takes.

 

As far as the "free" rides go, there is a button that bus drivers press that records passengers who don't swipe their MetroCard. Whether or not the bus drivers actually recorded those passengers is a different story (I guess some bus drivers can get in trouble if they show too many farebeaters). As far as transfers go, those are recorded as riders, as are senior MetroCards and Student MetroCards.

They probably would've eliminated the B39 even if it did show higher ridership, just for the simple reason that it duplicated the (J)/(M)/(Z). They used that logic for a couple of other routes (the Bushwick portion of the Q24 and the Williamsburg portion of the B13)

I do agree with you that the B39 should've stayed until they made Essex Street ADA-accessable.

I'm not trying to convince you that it was right to eliminate the B39 (personally, I think it should've stayed), just the logic that the MTA used when they eliminated it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the "free" rides go, there is a button that bus drivers press that records passengers who don't swipe their MetroCard. Whether or not the bus drivers actually recorded those passengers is a different story (I guess some bus drivers can get in trouble if they show too many farebeaters). As far as transfers go, those are recorded as riders, as are senior MetroCards and Student MetroCards.

They probably would've eliminated the B39 even if it did show higher ridership, just for the simple reason that it duplicated the (J)/(M)/(Z). They used that logic for a couple of other routes (the Bushwick portion of the Q24 and the Williamsburg portion of the B13)

I do agree with you that the B39 should've stayed until they made Essex Street ADA-accessable.

I'm not trying to convince you that it was right to eliminate the B39 (personally, I think it should've stayed), just the logic that the MTA used when they eliminated it.

 

Very True Checkmated. Another issue is the chaos of Acess a Ride as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also the issue that customers that are disabled that used to take the B39 might just switch to Access-A-Ride, which is highly inefficient (it probably has close to the same costs as a taxi). If that ends up happening, a lot of the savings might have to be reinvested in Access-A-Ride.

 

According to the document that the TLC wrote up (go to capntransit.blogspot.com), the city favors operators that run accessable vehicles. However, the problem is that seniors pay the same fare as non-disabled people.

 

This dollar van plan is actually a pretty good idea, and it would probably work if the MTA or city could reimburse the operator for Student MetroCards, Senior MetroCards, Unlimited MetroCards, and transfers. However, if none of these are accepted, disabled people have less of an incentive to use more cost-efficient fixed-route service and more of an incentive to use Access-A-Ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should send the M21 into Brooklyn to replace the B39. Maybe then it could operate daily. As for the B51, they should send the B61 into Manhattan to cover it.

 

Pros & Cons of this idea

 

The pros would be that Brooklyn Riders have access into Manhattan again, the con is...to which direction?? Houston Street is a fairly busy corridor and I think the M21 should just stay as it is. You'd have to send the M21 down Allen and follow the old B39 route, while at the same time, its abandoning the other halves of Houston Street, not really a good idea in my view, it is creative though.

 

Sorry Checkmate but I Disagree and I don't buy the (MTA) data for that B39 route. I am not sure you been on it but I say a Strong majority as much as 75-80% or more transfer from other routes either on the Lower East Side i.e M15, M14a or M9 or Willie B Plaza i.e B44, B46, Q54, Q59, etc. Plus often from times I bus fanned the B39, Drivers would let on 'free' riders as well with many people boarding claiming that 'they used up their metrocard', no $$$, etc. Sorry But IMO the B39 had more than 1,000 'daily' riders especially weekdays so in that case the metrocard data was not correct in that case.

 

That probably reason for lower than expected ridership data it was not recorded. Not to mention the Essex (F)(J)(M)(Z) station is still not ADA accessible. When Essex was being rebulit a few years back at least the Broad St. Bound platform should have been ADA accessible. Those riders could have then gone to either Bowery or Canal for Brooklyn/Jamaica Bound trains.

 

For those of you who mention the B51 while I also disagree with the cuts(IMO the B51 should have still stayed as a rush hour only line :mad:)at least in Downtown Brooklyn, the Court St/Boro Hall (2)(3)(4)(5) and soon Jay St (A)(C)(F) and Lawerence stations (R) have ADA access.

Just my takes.

 

This is where your logic doesnt work. Only the (6) line platforms at Canal Street are ADA accessible, no other platform in that station has ADA access. Bowery does not have elevators and their escalators are not always in service. Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall on the (4)/(5)/(6) may have ADA accessibility but Chambers Street on the (J)/(Mx)/(Z) does not have any whatsoever, hence why the B51 and B39 were the alternatives to the subways.

 

The only thing I agree with in your statement is that the B39 did carry a lot of people, some freebies but a lot of people in general. The B51 was a gamble, one direction would be empty buses while the other direction would be full buses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United Spinal Assocaition has let it's lawyers make it one more cog in the machine out to destroy the MTA by concering itself with the outcome and not the cause of them problem, just like the politicians and the union mouthpeices.

 

And these disabled riders do not have standing, if the MTA had become insistant on running non compliant buses, then they'd have a case. This is the problem with civil rights legislation in the this country, the lawyers have made so If i so much as look at someone cockeyed, I get labed a bigot, sexist, racist, what have you.

 

I disagree; under the Americans with Disabilities Act, if the MTA says that they have been denied paratransit, but can show that they cannot use the subway because of inaccessibility, they actually do have standing to sue, as they are directly harmed.

 

I would guess that the violation claimed is in 42 USC 12143.

 

ADA of 1990, as amended 2008

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Checkmate but I Disagree and I don't buy the (MTA) data for that B39 route. I am not sure you been on it but I say a Strong majority as much as 75-80% or more transfer from other routes either on the Lower East Side i.e M15, M14a or M9 or Willie B Plaza i.e B44, B46, Q54, Q59, etc. Plus often from times I bus fanned the B39, Drivers would let on 'free' riders as well with many people boarding claiming that 'they used up their metrocard', no $$$, etc. Sorry But IMO the B39 had more than 1,000 'daily' riders especially weekdays so in that case the metrocard data was not correct in that case.

 

That probably reason for lower than expected ridership data it was not recorded. Not to mention the Essex (F)(J)(M)(Z) station is still not ADA accessible. When Essex was being rebulit a few years back at least the Broad St. Bound platform should have been ADA accessible. Those riders could have then gone to either Bowery or Canal for Brooklyn/Jamaica Bound trains.

 

When people come on the bus and don't pay the fare we press the F5 button to register that person riding the bus. So the 1000 riders a day is probably accurate because mainly disabled and senior people ride that line. Younger people will take the train unless the b39 is in the bus stop waiting for people to board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree; under the Americans with Disabilities Act, if the MTA says that they have been denied paratransit, but can show that they cannot use the subway because of inaccessibility, they actually do have standing to sue, as they are directly harmed.

 

I would guess that the violation claimed is in 42 USC 12143.

 

ADA of 1990, as amended 2008

 

 

I do agree that the (MTA) did not do enough to look and study harder in making these doomsday cuts and it's impact on the ADA Community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should send the M21 into Brooklyn to replace the B39. Maybe then it could operate daily. As for the B51, they should send the B61 into Manhattan to cover it.

 

B-61 service going to get mess up,because of traffic on the bridge during rush hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pros & Cons of this idea

 

The pros would be that Brooklyn Riders have access into Manhattan again, the con is...to which direction?? Houston Street is a fairly busy corridor and I think the M21 should just stay as it is. You'd have to send the M21 down Allen and follow the old B39 route, while at the same time, its abandoning the other halves of Houston Street, not really a good idea in my view, it is creative though.

 

 

 

This is where your logic doesnt work. Only the (6) line platforms at Canal Street are ADA accessible, no other platform in that station has ADA access. Bowery does not have elevators and their escalators are not always in service. Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall on the (4)/(5)/(6) may have ADA accessibility but Chambers Street on the (J)/(Mx)/(Z) does not have any whatsoever, hence why the B51 and B39 were the alternatives to the subways.

 

The only thing I agree with in your statement is that the B39 did carry a lot of people, some freebies but a lot of people in general. The B51 was a gamble, one direction would be empty buses while the other direction would be full buses.

 

That my point. Both the B51 and B39 should stayed at least as weekday routes until ADA access. I think in earlier someone pointed out that the Queens(Jamaica/Metro Ave)Bound platform at Essex would be very hard to install.

 

If that case the Broad St platform could still be ADA and then disabled riders could ride to either Bowery or Canal St (J)(Z) for service to Brooklyn/Queens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.