Pace/CTA Competing with private companies

[Busjack]

625 is still there. The HSBC to which I was referring was on 623-624 at Sanders and Willow Road in Prospect Heights.

For that matter 634 and 637 were combined. No indication of any employer input on that.

As far as not renewing the contract. Since Nick Blaise is gone, and then if Niles doesn't renew its contract to pay the fares on 411-413, do you think Pace is going to keep them? Pace sure pulled the Naperville 787 and 788 when Naperville said it wanted to put its resources elsewhere. You acknowledged that those weren't charter routes, but Pace has no reason to keep them other than Niles is paying. Of course, anyone can get on the Niles Free Bus, but anyone can also get on a shuttle bug if they pay $1.

Finally, if you look at the Pace minutes, it wasn't that some employer did not renew its contract with Pace. The employers pulled out of the TMA because they took Pace's threat of Doomsday cuts seriously. You have your cause and effect backwards.

[ibebobo]

625 is still there. The HSBC to which I was referring was on 623-624 at Willow Road in Prospect Heights.

For that matter 634 and 637 were combined. No indication of any employer input on that.

As far as not renewing the contract. Since Nick Blaise is gone, and then if Niles doesn't renew its contract to pay the fares on 411-413, do you think Pace is going to keep them? Pace sure pulled the Naperville 787 and 788 when Naperville said it wanted to put its resources elsewhere. You acknowledged that those weren't charter routes, but Pace has no reason to keep them other than Niles is paying. Of course, anyone can get on the Niles Free Bus, but anyone can also get on a shuttle bug if they pay $1.

??????????

Finally, if you look at the Pace minutes, it wasn't that some employer did not renew its contract with Pace. The employers pulled out of the TMA because they took Pace's threat of Doomsday cuts seriously. You have your cause and effect backwards.

Well, unless you get every corporation who pulled out to speak on why they pulled out (which you can't) the minutes from Pace are irrelevant. Doomsday may be the reason or may be one of the reasons or not the reason at all. Maybe they knew about the upcoming FTA rules and decided to do the right thing?????

I'm done. I actually have to work today.

[Busjack]

Well, unless you get every corporation who pulled out to speak on why they pulled out (which you can't) the minutes from Pace are irrelevant. Doomsday may be the reason or may be one of the reasons or not the reason at all. Maybe they knew about the upcoming FTA rules and decided to do the right thing?????

The imagination knows no bounds.

And my point was that they pulled out of the TMA, forcing Pace to hold a hearing, rather than they canceled a charter contract, WHICH YOU NEVER PROVED EXISTED.

[ibebobo]

The imagination knows no bounds.

And my point was that they pulled out of the TMA, forcing Pace to hold a hearing, rather than they canceled a charter contract, WHICH YOU NEVER PROVED EXISTED.

WRONG!

They didn't FORCE Pace to hold a hearing. Pace could have continued to run that "public" route indefinately.

But why would they if they didn't have a contract? This would certainly imply to a logical person that there was a contract.

And BTW, they did not cancel a contract. They just did not renew. Why? Like I stated, there may be many reasons.

[Busjack]

WRONG!

They didn't FORCE Pace to hold a hearing. Pace could have continued to run that "public" route indefinately.

But why would they if they didn't have a contract? This would certainly imply to a logical person that there was a contract.

And BTW, they did not cancel a contract. They just did not renew. Why? Like I stated, there may be many reasons.

I thought you had to get to work.

And you still never proved that there was a charter contract to cancel or not renew.

Let us know when you find it.

And your admission that Pace would have had to continue running a public route if it had not held the hearing means IT WAS A PUBLIC ROUTE. Just like the ones in Naperville.

[trainman8119]

You know this is a silly banter going on here. That said, however, I think

both parties are correct. In the strictest legal term, Busjack is probably

correct in stating that Shuttle Bugs are not Charters. That said, however,

when a private company gives their money towards a public service, I think

that pretty much says it all. Whether it is Discover, HSBC, UPS, Chicago Cubs,

Pace, CTA, Metra. If a public entity solicits funds from a private entity to

operate a service using public property, I think it is wrong. If the said public

entity feels they can't operate the service, maybe said public entity shouldn't

be operating that service. If the private company wants to pay, then they should

be using private operators (such as Free Enterprise, for example) for said service

and have it operate as it is, not under the suspicious titled public route.

[Busjack]

You know this is a silly banter going on here. That said, however, I think both parties are correct. In the strictest legal term, Busjack is probably correct in stating that Shuttle Bugs are not Charters. That said, however, when a private company gives their money towards a public service, I think that pretty much says it all. Whether it is Discover, HSBC, UPS, Chicago Cubs, Pace, CTA, Metra. If a public entity solicits funds from a private entity to operate a service using public property, I think it is wrong. If the said public entity feels they can't operate the service, maybe said public entity shouldn't be operating that service. If the private company wants to pay, then they should be using private operators (such as Free Enterprise, for example) for said service and have it operate as it is, not under the suspicious titled public route.

I mostly agree, especially with regard to such things as 154, X98, 891 and 892. For that matter, I don't see why the feds funded construction of a transit center, either on UPS property in Hodgkins, or immediately adjacent thereto, and apparently only for the use of UPS.

As I previously indicated, I pretty much agreed with respect to the Special Events buses into Chicago, and stated, in connection with Doomsday, that unless Pace could prove that those buses had a significant impact in reducing congestion, I could not see any justification for local taxpayers subsidizing them.

On the other hand, the Shuttle Bug system was not established by employers (certainly not individual employers), but as a cooperative effort between CATS, Deerfield, Northbrook, and the TMA, with the assistance of federal funding, and has clear congestion mitigation and reverse commuter purposes. Employers may come and they may go, but they are not chartering buses.

I guess trainman is also saying that the U of C should use a private contractor, as it did before this arrangement was made around the turn of the millennium. Maybe so, but that doesn't affect the conclusion that those are public routes (I used a transit card on them a couple of times). Since Bobo was claiming that routes such as the Shuttle Bugs and thus the U of C ones, which basically are no different (the employer pays the fares, but anyone can ride by stuffing the farebox), are charters, one has to look at the regulation itself and see that neither violates it.

Thus, as trainman recognizes, there is a distinction between policy and legality. The Shuttle Bugs are clearly legal, as defined in the regulation. One may argue that all of this is a sham, but the regulation says that a violation exists only if the FTA finds it (49 C.F.R. 604.3(v)). I said to Bobo to take the complaint to the FTA six months ago, but he hasn't provided any evidence that he has done so. And as he recognizes, there is a trade association to help him.

[ibebobo]

I thought you had to get to work.

And you still never proved that there was a charter contract to cancel or not renew.

Let us know when you find it.

And your admission that Pace would have had to continue running a public route if it had not held the hearing means IT WAS A PUBLIC ROUTE. Just like the ones in Naperville.

So you would agree that it is a charter if there is a contract?

[Busjack]

So you would agree that it is a charter if there is a contract?

No. It has to be a "charter contract." It also has to meet all the stipulations in the definition of "charter service" in the regulation quoted earlier today.

There is certainly is a contract with Niles to "pay the fares." There are undoubtedly contracts with Highland Park and Naperville to pay the short on the recovery ratio. Pace said it had to have an agreement with Naperville to pay the additional costs before it would put the 2600 series buses there.

I told you before, make a freedom of information request and find what contract exists. Then, after reading it, read the regulation and see if the contract comes within it. Do the same for 154, 891, 892, etc.

And as I said at the end of my response to trainman, there is no violation unless the FTA finds one. Your work is cut out for you, and it does not consist of trying to convince others on this forum.

[trainman8119]

On the other hand, the Shuttle Bug system was not established by employers (certainly not individual employers), but as a cooperative effort between CATS, Deerfield, Northbrook, and the TMA, with the assistance of federal funding, and has clear congestion mitigation and reverse commuter purposes. Employers may come and they may go, but they are not chartering buses.

I guess trainman is also saying that the U of C should use a private contractor, as it did before this arrangement was made around the turn of the millennium.

Seeing as how the U of C is basically a public institution, no. I have no problem with the set

up of the U of C routes. In fact I think it is a pretty cool shuttle through the Hyde Park area.

The Shuttle Bug though, I don't know. Maybe it is just my archaic mind set. I have problems

with some of the things Pace does, such as the Shuttle Bug, subscription and van pool. I realize

the CATS, TMA and such and the purpose of the reverse flow. It, theoretically, benefits Pace and

probably more so, Metra. As I type this, I think maybe you are correct in putting this in

the class of the Schaumburg and Niles type of service. So, as I think about it...as long as

the companies are not privately funding this service and calling the shots(as is the case with UPS), I'll change my tune on the Shuttle Bugs and vote yea !!!!

[Busjack]

Seeing as how the U of C is basically a public institution, no. I have no problem with the set

up of the U of C routes. In fact I think it is a pretty cool shuttle through the Hyde Park area.

Having gone there (as you could surmise) the U of C is as private of an institution as there is. The free rides are only for its employees and students. Of course, others can take advantage of it if they pay, but the intent was not to benefit Hyde Park as a whole.

Not that I believe that a shuttle system operated by UIC (a state university) throughout Little Italy using CTA equipment would be any different.

So, as I think about it...as long as the companies are not privately funding this service and calling the shots(as is the case with UPS), I'll change my tune on the Shuttle Bugs and vote yea !!!!

While UPS may be calling the shots on the routes in Illinois (again, one would have to see the contracts to know for sure) apparently they are not calling the shots on 890 and 891. That service is being subsidized by Workforce Development in Gary and the Casino Foundation in East Chicago (according to the Times of Northwest Indiana). In fact, if I remember correctly, the Times reported that Calumet City (which is in Illinois) tried to get in on the 892, but Pace said it would have to pay for that (I finally found the link). Apparently, though Pace held a hearing to knock down 892 from 2 to 1 buses.

I'm not going to argue with something that gets people to work at 3 a.m., but if the quibble is over the legality of charter service, this sure looks more like it.

[trainman8119]

Having gone there (as you could surmise) the U of C is as private of an institution as there is. The free rides are only for its employees and students. Of course, others can take advantage of it if they pay, but the intent was not to benefit Hyde Park as a whole.

Still okay, seeing as how the CTA shafted many college students into the forced

purchase of the UPass, even if they never intend to use it.

While UPS may be calling the shots on the routes in Illinois (again, one would have to see the contracts to know for sure)

I know for a fact UPS calls the shots from my days there. Any time UPS would want a change,

the planners would go into a tizzy to figure out how to get it done and fast !!! UPS also pays

the entire freight for those routes, and therefore feels they have the right to dictate Pace policy

on it.

[ibebobo]

Seeing as how the U of C is basically a public institution, no. I have no problem with the set

up of the U of C routes. In fact I think it is a pretty cool shuttle through the Hyde Park area.

The Shuttle Bug though, I don't know. Maybe it is just my archaic mind set. I have problems

with some of the things Pace does, such as the Shuttle Bug, subscription and van pool. I realize

the CATS, TMA and such and the purpose of the reverse flow. It, theoretically, benefits Pace and

probably more so, Metra. As I type this, I think maybe you are correct in putting this in

the class of the Schaumburg and Niles type of service. So, as I think about it...as long as

the companies are not privately funding this service and calling the shots(as is the case with UPS), I'll change my tune on the Shuttle Bugs and vote yea !!!!

The companies ARE privately funding them. At least part of them. The other part comes from tax dollars. They get a bill from the TMA for their portion which is based on the number of employees they have (not the number riding, but the number of total employees). Where the money goes is something I can't answer. All i know is that there are a lot of private companies that could be running the service and not using public money to subsitize those routes which clearly do not serve the general public. Although Pace likes to disguise them as "public" routes by letting anyone ride by paying a fare. When the companies participating on rt 574 did not renew the contract or AGREEMENT and of course there was no "public" riding Pace was forced to have a hearing to discontinue in keeping with the "public route" image. Just loopholes. The fact is it is unethical what they are doing and I'm not going to get into a pissing match with Busjack. Now all but HSBC is now out of 625 and they are paying for that route by themselves. I wonder how long that will last. And then the rest??? We will see but I doubt it will last very long.

[Busjack]

The fact is it is unethical what they are doing and I'm not going to get into a pissing match with Busjack.

You made the unethical charge before, and then said the TMA was doing good work. I pointed you to the regulation, yet your posts (such as "you would agree that it is a charter if there is a contract?") show that you refuse to read it. You think every employer's action in dropping out of the TMA is because they share your view about the regulation. How egocentric.

You said you had an interest, other than a taxpayer, but refuse to disclose it. Apparently you are a charter operator. Then you have an association to process your FTA complaint, as the press release indicates. But, apparently you rather engage in a p____ match here than do anything useful about it.

And you keep making factual allegations about contracts that you have never read. Post the accounting records on what actually HSBC is paying. And since you previously said that 625 was stopping in front of CDW without CDW paying, there goes your private run theory. Isn't it amazing that you argue both sides? Where actually are the facts? Why do you continually avoid the inconvenient ones? Isn't that a p___ match?

Also, apparently you are now obsessed with 625, when there are 16 other routes to consider. You didn't even know about HSBC on 623. You even asked here about 574 a month AFTER it was canceled and then said you hadn't "been following that much." So I guess we can eliminate you as Olson Transportation (or having any real interest in bidding on that service).

Come back when you can post an FTA decision with your company's name in it. But we are tired of your unfounded accusations, especially when there are more obvious targets, which I have previously mentioned. And you play loose with the facts, thereby losing your credibility.

[ibebobo]

You made the unethical charge before, and then said the TMA was doing good work.

There are a lot of people that do good work. That does not mean they do it ethically or legally.

I pointed you to the regulation, yet your posts (such as "you would agree that it is a charter if there is a contract?")

I asked you if you would agree that it was a charter if there is a contract.

show that you refuse to read it. You think every employer's action in dropping out of the TMA is because they share your view about the regulation. How egocentric.

I CLEARLY said in post 52, 'Doomsday may be the reason or may be one of the reasons or not the reason at all. Maybe they knew about the upcoming FTA rules and decided to do the right thing?????'

There a lot of questions implied there....nothing that directly said that WAS THE ONE AND ONLY REASON.

I said there may be

You said you had an interest, other than a taxpayer, but refuse to disclose it. Apparently you are a charter operator.

I didn't know I had to disclose anything here. Do you disclose your name, address, or occupation? What do you do? How are you so knowledgeable about everything? When the membership here requires that information, I will give it or decide not to be a member.

Then you have an association to process your FTA complaint, as the press release indicates. But, apparently you rather engage in a p____ match here than do anything useful about it.

This is a discussion forum. If and when I decide to register a complaint I know exactely how to do it. But if I am a charter operator as you assume and I file a complaint, what do you think the chances of ultimately getting the contract would be?

And you keep making factual allegations about contracts that you have never read. Post the accounting records on what actually HSBC is paying.

Won't happen here.

And since you previously said that 625 was stopping in front of CDW without CDW paying, there goes your private run theory.

I said CDW was right next to HSBC.

Isn't it amazing that you argue both sides? Where actually are the facts? Why do you continually avoid the inconvenient ones? Isn't that a p___ match?

I don't think so.

Also, apparently you are now obsessed with 625, when there are 16 other routes to consider. You didn't even know about HSBC on 623. You even asked here about 574 a month AFTER it was canceled and then said you hadn't "been following that much." So I guess we can eliminate you as Olson Transportation (or having any real interest in bidding on that service).

Probably too late to bid on that service if I was interested. So far these routes have been the only ones that I found out (after the fact) that changed so of course I am interested.......

I also said I agree with the other routes you and trainman had mentioned, but I am not in those areas to see how they operate. It's not that I think those also are being run illegally, I just don't know too much about them.

Come back when you can post an FTA decision with your company's name in it. But we are tired of your unfounded accusations, especially when there are more obvious targets, which I have previously mentioned. And you play loose with the facts, thereby losing your credibility.

Well, I guess you speak for everyone. But then you do tend to belittle anyone who does not agree with what you say or speak proper English. As far as obvious targets, see my comment above.

Like I said, this is a FORUM, not a courtroom. You are not the judge, even if you are in the outside world. Every court case has a lawyer that loses the case. The FTA looks at what is REALLY happening and will interpret what is being violated.

By the way, if you look at the post with the FTA's decision, the last line says that "subscription service" appears to be another name for charter service. There are many ways to interpret what "charter service" is, not just by the strict definition of which the loopholes fall.

[ibebobo]

Don't know how my last post got screwed up, but here it is in entirity:

You made the unethical charge before, and then said the TMA was doing good work.

There are a lot of people that do good work. That does not mean they do it ethically or legally.

I pointed you to the regulation, yet your posts (such as "you would agree that it is a charter if there is a contract?")

I asked you if you would agree that it was a charter if there is a contract.

show that you refuse to read it. You think every employer's action in dropping out of the TMA is because they share your view about the regulation. How egocentric.

I CLEARLY said in post 52, 'Doomsday may be the reason or may be one of the reasons or not the reason at all. Maybe they knew about the upcoming FTA rules and decided to do the right thing?????'

There a lot of questions implied there....nothing that directly said that WAS THE ONE AND ONLY REASON.

You said you had an interest, other than a taxpayer, but refuse to disclose it. Apparently you are a charter operator.

I didn't know I had to disclose anything here. Do you disclose your name, address, or occupation? What do you do? How are you so knowledgeable about everything? When the membership here requires that information, I will give it or decide not to be a member.

Then you have an association to process your FTA complaint, as the press release indicates. But, apparently you rather engage in a p____ match here than do anything useful about it.

This is a discussion forum. If and when I decide to register a complaint I know exactely how to do it. But if I am a charter operator as you assume and I file a complaint, what do you think the chances of ultimately getting the contract would be?

And you keep making factual allegations about contracts that you have never read. Post the accounting records on what actually HSBC is paying.

Won't happen here.

And since you previously said that 625 was stopping in front of CDW without CDW paying, there goes your private run theory.

I said CDW was right next to HSBC.

Isn't it amazing that you argue both sides? Where actually are the facts? Why do you continually avoid the inconvenient ones? Isn't that a p___ match?

I don't think so.

Also, apparently you are now obsessed with 625, when there are 16 other routes to consider. You didn't even know about HSBC on 623. You even asked here about 574 a month AFTER it was canceled and then said you hadn't "been following that much." So I guess we can eliminate you as Olson Transportation (or having any real interest in bidding on that service).

Probably too late to bid on that service if I was interested. So far these routes have been the only ones that I found out (after the fact) that changed so of course I am interested.......

I also said I agree with the other routes you and trainman had mentioned, but I am not in those areas to see how they operate. It's not that I think those also are being run illegally, I just don't know too much about them.

Come back when you can post an FTA decision with your company's name in it. But we are tired of your unfounded accusations, especially when there are more obvious targets, which I have previously mentioned. And you play loose with the facts, thereby losing your credibility.

Well, I guess you speak for everyone. But then you do tend to belittle anyone who does not agree with what you say or speak proper English. As far as obvious targets, see my comment above.

Like I said, this is a FORUM, not a courtroom. You are not the judge, even if you are in the outside world. Every court case has a lawyer that loses the case. The FTA looks at what is REALLY happening and will interpret what is being violated.

By the way, if you look at the post with the FTA's decision, the last line says that "subscription service" appears to be another name for charter service. There are many ways to interpret what "charter service" is, not just by the strict definition of which the loopholes fall.

[Busjack]

The FTA looks at what is REALLY happening and will interpret what is being violated.

Like I said, take your case there. I am pointing out only the obvious flaws in what you say, including the inconsistencies that kill it.

Since I am not a judge, my opinion if I "agree it is a charter if there is a contract" is irrelevant, then. So, why did you ask for it?

I didn't know I had to disclose anything here.

But since you did disclose that you had an interest other than a taxpayer, it is is fair to inquire into what motivates your obsession. Now maybe you might be an officious intermeddler (like one I know on another forum) or a 7 year old child (no offense to the one who admitted it here), in which case we can assess you opinion and purported facts. But since the only interest recognized by the FTA regulation is of a charter operator, that is the only one that really counts.

[twyztdmynd]

I am reletively new here and have interest in this topic. I don't know if this helps but from a drivers perspective. I drove for Colonial back in 1999-2002 and drove "subscribtion routes" at Prairie Stone (1006,1012,1015, and 1017) Personally I was partial to the 1017, starting at the Sears parking lot at 79th and Kenwood to Sears HQ in Prairie Stone. I drove the route into its final days. What struck me funny is that we used subscribtion passes only... no cash fares. Routes were designed with no stops in between. The passes were not available to the general public. Only being a valid employ of Prarie Stone ( more specifically sears) were you able to obtain one. At Prairie stone we had a Pace employee/coordinator/ supervisor, Brian. Passes were available thru only Pace and Brian. Also refer to the special contract to riders on 1012 webpage (http://pacebus.com/pdf/Rt1012_Agreement.pdf) These routes were designed only for Sears employees transport from city sears loca's to the new hq. Colonial was called a 'contract carrier' hence the term contract. As a matter of fact every year the 'contract' was up for bid amongst several charter companies. After 9/11 ridership dramatically dropped. 1017 after a public hearing at Sears was cancelled. Passengers of the 1017 tried to wage a petition to keep it alive. Pace refered them to Colonial and were able to continue the route but the cost would be mainly on the riders. At that point the route would just be a charter.

Sum up... yes contract was necessary and no, public was not allowed. Pace NW had the equiptment but Pace seemed to appreciate bids from local charter operators. If there was no funding on the route, PACE had no problem encouraging riders to pursue other options of commuting.

Godbless all Cta/Pace/Colonial Drivers in this nasty weather. Happy Holidayz

[Busjack]

Wierd that I can't get the quote button to work on twy...'s post, but anyway,

twy:

Were you using Pace or Colonial equipment? The relevance of that question is that the FTA reg. only applies to equipment purchased with federal funds.

Also, the regulation is within the past year, so the only thing it can now affect (that is classified by Pace as a subscription route) is 1012 95th to Prairie Stone. Since it says it is run by Colonial (not Academy) does it use a Colonial bus?

I knew that when Colonial had 610, it used its own equipment. Some former subscription buses (1018 and 1023) were run by Pace North Shore with Pace equipment, but they are long gone (also, I think someone posted a picture indicating that 1023 was interlined with 626).

Slightly off point, but my understanding was that the subscription buses were part of the price the state paid to get Sears to stay in Illinois when it moved from Sears Tower and wanted incentives to go to Hoffman Estates. One could also conclude that the need for the buses decreased once Sears' business did (especially after Lampert took over).

[twyztdmynd]

Used Colonial's coaches.... most bought new... one used in my profile pic.

sidenote: Also I remember when CW transportation ran the 626 used old MC5C coaches... almost a transit style seat, but privatly owned equiptment as it did on the 616.

[Busjack]

sidenote: Also I remember when CW transportation ran the 626 used old MC5C coaches... almost a transit style seat, but privatly owned equiptment as it did on the 616.

I also remember old coaches, believe they were numbers 826 and 840. By then I believe Keeshin had the contract. Then they got the 2120s from Pace (I rode one of those when there was still a contract driver), and then Pace took over the route.

[Busjack]

Once again reasons why private funding for routes is ridiculous !!!! "Professional" operations being restricted due to demands put on the agency by the "non professional" passenger (note, I used the term instead of "customer"). Same stuff Pace goes through with Sears and UPS. Outrageous !!!!

At least one (132) that fell under my radar. Of course, there seems to be a number of stops other than Wrigley (the gum, not the Field), so this might be like how you classified the 170s.

It seems like you are complaining more about outsiders calling the shots than the transit authorities receiving the private subsidies per se. Maybe it indicates a charter operation, but more likely trying to find any revenue source to increase one's empire and union employment, as indicated in the old NWI Times article that UPS is 20% of Pace's business.

Sort of like the chef complaining that the customer wants spaghetti with his risotto. Or Macy's complaining about provincial folks wanting Fields back.

[trainman8119]

It seems like you are complaining more about outsiders calling the shots than the transit authorities receiving the private subsidies per se.

That is exactly what I am complaining about !!! Next, they are going to want exclusive Hybrids on the route, because they are "green". This is exactly the problem with transit in Chicago right now. Instead of running an efficient professional operation, everyone gives in to what eveyone else wants, regardless of the consequences. Decisions should be made under the umbrella of the professionals (of which we now know there are none of those in charge) calling the shots to make the operation more efficient. Instead we have private companies demanding certain types of buses, bikes and stroller users being catered to (causing delay after delay), politicians mandating free rides, and executives cutting corners to save their bonuses (unfortunatley, this is not singled out to transit).

In this case, if a Flxible bus is assigned to route 132, then so be it. It's a bus, for pete's sake. It is a shorter specialized route in which this type of bus may be feasable. Let the pros call the shots. If you don't like it, then don't use it. I believe this would make for a more reliable and efficient system instead of every Tom, Dick and Harry demanding whatever they want !!!

[Busjack]

Instead of running an efficient professional operation, everyone gives in to what eveyone else wants, regardless of the consequences. Decisions should be made under the umbrella of the professionals (of which we now know there are none of those in charge) calling the shots to make the operation more efficient. Instead we have private companies demanding certain types of buses...

After my cable internet went out for a half hour, I realize that the Macy's analogy is apt.

I suppose that if private entities want to call the shots, they should be like 400 E Randolph and the Prudential Building and hire Coach USA. Of course, that might cost them more money. Northwestern U. finally figured that out, but went with the private contractor.

On the other hand, the public transit authorities seem, in effect, to prostitute themselves to the extent that they rely on private money. But, if the Times is correct, and 20% of Pace drivers want to fend for themselves in the private market...

For that matter (to throw out another wild idea) Pace North Shore could cut out most of its routes (except 215) and substitute community vehicles (like it did in West Joliet), and people would probably prefer that.

[trainman8119]

But, if the Times is correct, and 20% of Pace drivers want to fend for themselves in the private market...

I would be willing to bet that if the private contractors took on the Pace operators,

it wouldn't hurt them one bit. Remember, Pace doesn't pay their drivers squat...

especially in the outer areas (Fox Valley, Heritage and Elgin). In fact, for a long

time, Pace preferred retired CTA operators because they would work part time cheap

with minimal benefits, while collecting CTA retirement.

And, shouldn't it be about service and not about making money ??? I realize that

you need money to operate, but it seems that these guys sometimes forget what

they are in business for. Why else would there be less and less seats on a bus with

an attitude of the more we cram in the better (ie. standees).

I reckon some of my beliefs here are a little archaic...but you know, it was nice

walking to a bus stop at one time knowing that a bus was a little more than 10 or

less minutes away, without all the bells and whistles out there today trying to make

ones life, so called, easier.