DOT Responds to CB4′s Calls for Bus Enforcement

After the loss of two cyclists in our district in June, Council Member Johnson and CB4 asked for and obtained separate meetings with DOT and NYPD.

DOT’s COO was on hand to clarify the procedure related to approval, management and  renewal of bus operations.

It turns out that DOT does not take in account historical bus safety information when granting a stop permit. This is something CB4 has long requested and currently evaluates as part of its due diligence.

The approved routes are currently not clear to bus drivers since there is only a truck map and it does not explicitly mentions that buses must respect the same routes ( although the law is clear on the subject).  DOT committed to publish a new map for buses.

DOT also agreed to toughen their stance with bus companies upon receiving complaints from the community, and be  diligent in not renewing the permits if the companies have received NYPD summonses

DSC_0016

Indeed one of the fundamental issue is that our city does not have a terminal for long distance buses, like other large cities do (Washington, Boston) . As a result they park at curb side everywhere in the city, thus encouraging buses to illegally use residential streets to reach their stops. This is why CB4 makes every attempt to have bus stops on the far west side an recommends the construction of a Long Distance bus terminal there as well.

Share
This entry was posted in CHEKPEDS, Clean Air, Congestion, Traffic Justice and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to DOT Responds to CB4′s Calls for Bus Enforcement

  1. Joseph O'Neill says:

    Building a bus terminal will only encourage an increase in bus traffic, whereas the basic position of CB4 ought to be that bus traffic should be reduced in favor of vastly safer, more efficient, and less environmentally destructive mass transit solutions, notably rail. Moreover the imminent advent of self-driving technology will, by all accounts, likely transform the mass transit landscape. Until we understand the effect and scope of such change, it would be premature to undertake any significant infrastructure projects.

  2. Team Chekpeds says:

    Right on . This is why we are advocating for the extension of the # 7 Subway to Secaucus. However due to the timing of Gateway which needs to come first, realistically this will not happen until 10 or 15 years from now. A minimal interim solution is required, not that any of us like it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>