Since the late 1970s, thousands of unlicensed “dollar” vans (they now charge $1.50 or $2) have provided rides in several New York City neighborhoods. The industry got started in earnest during the 1980-81 transit strike, and have proliferated despite occasional crackdowns by authorities. In the 1990s, the MTA estimated some 5,000 feeder vans operated in the city, shuttling passengers to subway stations in boroughs where conventional taxis are hard to find. The vans often run in direct competition with busy bus lines, providing faster, more convenient service. Robert Cervero’s 1997 book Paratransit in America features a rare scholarly examination of these vans, illustrated with this map describing the parts of Broolyn, Queens, and The Bronx where the vans are active.

A Brooklyn friend confirms the Flatbush corridor is alive and well, New Yorkers are welcome to chime in about the others. Generally operated by Caribbean immigrants, criticism often focuses on ethnicity and safety since the unregulated vans do not have to be inspected or carry insurance. The MTA and city officials accuse the vans of “poaching” bus riders and unsafe operations, and have sought to curtail the vans through occasional crackdowns over the years. Nonetheless even critics concede the operators are providing transportation services with no public subsidy.

The latest crackdown effort came after a hit-and-run accident in Brooklyn involving a dollar van driver who fled the scene fearing arrest. In response, the city began a ticketing blitz and began the process of designing a sticker to clearly identify which of the vans are among the 279 officially licensed carriers, who are prohibited from picking up passengers on-demand by city rules. For now, at least, an uneasy truce exists. “Some van operators argue that one-size-fit-all standards are wrongheaded,” observes Cervero, who asks “Should everyone be forced to ride in vehicles that are fairly new, meet high liability insurance requirements, and have comfortable, padded seats, paying a premium fare for these provisions?” For the time being in most U.S. cities, the answer is yes.

… Besides, so what if Shortell’s essay is offensive? Brooklyn College
is a public, secular institution, not a Bible college. The Sun claimed
Shortell’s disdain for religion would cloud his judgment of job
candidates, but there was never any evidence that this would be the
case. No student ever complained about his teaching; his colleagues
trusted him enough to elect him to the post; the student work posted on
his website is apolitical and bland. Predictions of bias, absent any
evidence, are just a backhanded way of attacking his beliefs. You might
as well say no Southern Baptist should be chair, since someone who
believes that women should be subject to their husbands, homosexuality
is evil and Jews are doomed to hell won’t be fair to female, gay or
Jewish job candidates. Or no Orthodox Jew or Muslim should be chair
because religious restrictions on contact with the opposite sex would
privilege some job candidates over others.

But nobody ever does say that.

… People who believe in academic freedom have got to take these incidents seriously and get active before it’s too late.

Lest you get too desperate, the author of the article points out the same thing happened to renowned writer and thinker Bertrand Russell. In 1940.

—–