Pace/CTA Competing with private companies

[ibebobo]

Also, since the relevant provision of 49 U.S.C. says:

ibebobo:

Do you have a copy of those agreements with CTA and Pace?

Section 604.5--Charter Service Agreement

This section discusses the terms of the Charter Service Agreement

which is part of the Certifications and Assurances recipients are

required to enter into as a condition of receiving Federal funds (49

U.S.C. section 5323(d)).

One transportation association noted that there was an

inconsistency between our intention not to apply the charter service

requirements to third party contractors and the terms of the charter

service agreement.

Agency Response: In order to address this inconsistency, we have

added the clarification that this provision applies only to a third

party contractor when they are using vehicles purchased with FTA funds.

[ibebobo]

Section 604.5--Charter Service Agreement

This section discusses the terms of the Charter Service Agreement

which is part of the Certifications and Assurances recipients are

required to enter into as a condition of receiving Federal funds (49

U.S.C. section 5323(d)).

One transportation association noted that there was an

inconsistency between our intention not to apply the charter service

requirements to third party contractors and the terms of the charter

service agreement.

Agency Response: In order to address this inconsistency, we have

added the clarification that this provision applies only to a third

party contractor when they are using vehicles purchased with FTA funds.

Sec. 604.4 Charter service agreement.

(a) A recipient seeking Federal assistance under the Federal

Transit Laws to acquire or operate any public transportation equipment

or facilities shall enter into a ``Charter Service Agreement'' as set

out in paragraph ( of this section.

( A recipient shall enter into a Charter Service Agreement if it

receives Federal funds for equipment or facilities under the Federal

Transit Laws. The terms of the Charter Service Agreement are as

follows: ``The recipient agrees that it, and each of its subrecipients,

and third party contractors at any level who use FTA-funded vehicles,

may provide charter service using equipment or facilities acquired with

Federal assistance authorized under the Federal Transit Laws only in

compliance with the regulations set out in 49 CFR 604, the terms and

conditions of which are incorporated herein by reference.''

© The Charter Service Agreement is contained in the

Certifications and Assurances published annually by FTA for applicants

for Federal financial assistance. Once a recipient receives Federal

funds, the Certifications and Assurances become part of its Grant

Agreement or Cooperative Agreement for Federal financial assistance.

[ibebobo]

Sec. 604.4 Charter service agreement.

(a) A recipient seeking Federal assistance under the Federal

Transit Laws to acquire or operate any public transportation equipment

or facilities shall enter into a ``Charter Service Agreement'' as set

out in paragraph ( of this section.

( A recipient shall enter into a Charter Service Agreement if it

receives Federal funds for equipment or facilities under the Federal

Transit Laws. The terms of the Charter Service Agreement are as

follows: ``The recipient agrees that it, and each of its subrecipients,

and third party contractors at any level who use FTA-funded vehicles,

may provide charter service using equipment or facilities acquired with

Federal assistance authorized under the Federal Transit Laws only in

compliance with the regulations set out in 49 CFR 604, the terms and

conditions of which are incorporated herein by reference.''

© The Charter Service Agreement is contained in the

Certifications and Assurances published annually by FTA for applicants

for Federal financial assistance. Once a recipient receives Federal

funds, the Certifications and Assurances become part of its Grant

Agreement or Cooperative Agreement for Federal financial assistance.

[ibebobo]

OK. I am bring this back here where it belongs (I think). Let's go back to the specific rules of what a charter is. If there is a CONTRACT, wouldn't that be considered a charter? Do general CTA/PACE routes have a CONTRACT for a specific amount of time and price? The shuttle bugs do. Do the shuttle bugs serve the GENERAL PUBLIC? No. Do they operate during the middle of the day when the GENERAL PUBLIC might need to get to those destinations? NO. Do they have stops along the route where the general public can get on or off? NO. Can the GENERAL PUBLIC go from the corporations back to the Metra station in the AM? NO. Can the general public go to the corporations from the Metra station in the PM? NO. So who benefits? The corporations (big ones). PRIVATE COMPANIES that are willing and able to serve these routes should be running them......not PACE with public funds. Even if they are not taking away from Paratransit. The funds should be used elsewhere....not subsidizing private corporations, which is EXACTLY what they are doing. Now that they raised the sales and gas taxes to help cover the budget shortfall, what is next???? Why doesn't PACE give the corporations FREE service? Who draws the line of what is right and wrong? Where does misuse of public funds come into play? I want to see in writing where Pace is allowed to do this if it is within their service area. That is where people have pointed out I was incorrect. Everything I have posted says they can't.

[Busjack]

As I previously mentioned, this isn't the FTA. We can't resolve your dispute here. They have a contact us page.

You just want some psychological reinforcement for your crusade (which seems directed only toward the Shuttle Bugs, and not more obvious suspects). If you are so convinced, WHY NOT DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

[ibebobo]

As I previously mentioned, this isn't the FTA. We can't resolve your dispute here. They have a contact us page.

You just want some psychological reinforcement for your crusade (which seems directed only toward the Shuttle Bugs, and not more obvious suspects). If you are so convinced, WHY NOT DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

I will. I came here looking for answers. I have found some and appreciate what I have been shown. I looked at the UPS routes as what was suggested, but they actually make multiple stops and could be conceived as serving the public. The Niles routes certainly serve the public as do the UIC routes. Which others am I missing? I came here looking for some facts that I may not be aware of. So far, all the research I have done has shown that I am correct, although I would like to see something in writing (if there is) that says otherwise. I would assume that we have a variety of members here on this forum that are all taxpayers. Shouldn't this be of concern to everybody? If you or anyone else here is involved in any aspect of the shuttle bugs, I apologize and am not "picking" on you. The fact is this is wrong, whether legally or ethically and people need to be made aware of it. PLEASE show me links to where I am wrong.

[Busjack]

It isn't my job to do your legal research for you and prove that you are wrong. Prove to the FTA that you are right.

You are missing

• The 154 Wrigley Field bus.
  
• The X98 Avon bus.
  
• UPS buses, especially the 891 and 892 that stop only in Indiana (and clearly outside Pace's service area; the local carriers are GPTC and ECT).
  
• The Sox, Cubs, Bears and Great America expresses (stopping both at Schaumburg and Rosemont doesn't change the nature of the routes).
  
• The North Central initiative.
  
• Prairie Stone TMA service. (How is that TMA distinguishable from the Lake Cook one?) For example, the 1012 Subscription Bus.
  

As far as being a taxpayer, I find any subsidy for the 154 and "Ball Park Express" buses much more egregious than buses that get people to work. As well as leaving the CTA Board unreformed and having corruption in all levels of Illinois government. But there is very little that can be done in this forum about those problems, either.

Anyway, anything I say won't have any effect on you, so, file your complaint.

[Busjack]

PLEASE show me links to where I am wrong.

Since you want a link, maybe you should read about the history of the Lake Cook TMA before coming to any factual conclusions. That, of course, is only the starting point for your research.

[ibebobo]

Since you want a link, maybe you should read about the history of the Lake Cook TMA before coming to any factual conclusions. That, of course, is only the starting point for your research.

The TMA is doing a great job and always has. They have an "agreement" (contract) with PACE to provide service to the corportations and a contract with the corporations. Or, they set up a contract with PACE and the individual corporations. I'm not sure which it is, but there is a contract with a set time frame for a certain price with each of the corporations. This defines a charter as listed on the FTA's site. Now what they should be doing is bidding out the routes to private charter companies, not to PACE which uses federal funds. Makes it pretty hard for a private company to compete which is exactly why these rules were written. If a private company is unable or not willing to provide the service, then by all means....bring in PACE. That is just not the case. I have seen that web site before and I thank you for sending it again. Now, I am interested in the UPS routes, but I don't know if there is a contract with UPS and PACE or with anyone else. That is almost the same, except they do include a number of stops where the "public" could get on, unlike the shuttle bug routes.

[Busjack]

The TMA is doing a great job and always has. They have an "agreement" (contract) with PACE to provide service to the corportations and a contract with the corporations. Or, they set up a contract with PACE and the individual corporations. I'm not sure which it is, but there is a contract with a set time frame for a certain price with each of the corporations. This defines a charter as listed on the FTA's site. Now what they should be doing is bidding out the routes to private charter companies, not to PACE which uses federal funds. Makes it pretty hard for a private company to compete which is exactly why these rules were written. If a private company is unable or not willing to provide the service, then by all means....bring in PACE. That is just not the case. I have seen that web site before and I thank you for sending it again. Now, I am interested in the UPS routes, but I don't know if there is a contract with UPS and PACE or with anyone else. That is almost the same, except they do include a number of stops where the "public" could get on, unlike the shuttle bug routes.

As you previously admitted, you don't know, and certainly don't have the agreement between TMA and Pace. Why else did you ask me for it? Why do you assume that it prevents others from getting on the bus, especially since both the TMA history site, and the Pace site say that persons who are not employees of TMA members can pay the fare and ride?

You continue to make unfounded factual allegations, such as the Shuttle Bugs divert money from paratransit, and then don't admit otherwise when it is demonstrated that they are manifestly untrue.

Instead of posting uninformed innuendo to support your attack on the Shuttle Bugs, why don't you submit Freedom of Information Act requests and get copies of the contracts?

Your hypocrisy is shown by the fact that you asked what routes you were missing, I listed 6 types, and all you can say is that you'll look into the UPS ones. You certainly haven't rebutted what I said about the 154, X98, 891, and 892. You are also disingenuous in saying (at least twice) that the setup was "unethical" and now saying "The TMA is doing a great job and always has." You have a crusade against the Shuttle Bugs, to the exclusion of much more obvious suspects, previously listed. Disclose what you interest really is.

And to prevent a flame over my last statement, read the next legal point:

Unless you run a charter company that wants the business, you do not have standing as an intended beneficiary of either the Pace-FTA agreement (which you do not have, just a Federal Register listing of a model agreement) the statute (which you continually ignore) or the regulations. As you acknowledge: "Now what they should be doing is bidding out the routes to private charter companies, not to PACE which uses federal funds." You have only claimed status as a taxpayer. Since the Shuttle Bugs were started with federal grants, and 627 still has CMAQ funding, it would be more expensive to the feds to have to pay a private contractor. Hence, as a federal taxpayer, one would be more aggrieved, if we accepted your argument.

A final legal point--You would have to overcome a strong presumption that a program established with federal cooperation, and which still gets CMAQ funds, and has been in operation for 13 years was suddenly (and retroactively) rendered illegal by amended regulations. Apparently you know more than the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (or its predecessor CATS), which approved the grants. I really doubt it. And if the regulations have the kind of retroactive effect to which you attribute them, and make illegal a contract that was previously legal, they should be challenged in court.

But don't reply to me. You have a lot of research to do to ascertain the facts, and Freedom of Information requests and FTA complaints to file.

[ibebobo]

As you previously admitted, you don't know, and certainly don't have the agreement between TMA and Pace. Why else did you ask me for it? Why do you assume that it prevents others from getting on the bus, especially since both the TMA history site, and the Pace site say that persons who are not employees of TMA members can pay the fare and ride?

You continue to make unfounded factual allegations, such as the Shuttle Bugs divert money from paratransit, and then don't admit otherwise when it is demonstrated that they are manifestly untrue.

Instead of posting uninformed innuendo to support your attack on the Shuttle Bugs, why don't you submit Freedom of Information Act requests and get copies of the contracts?

Your hypocrisy is shown by the fact that you asked what routes you were missing, I listed 6 types, and all you can say is that you'll look into the UPS ones. You certainly haven't rebutted what I said about the 154, X98, 891, and 892. You are also disingenuous in saying (at least twice) that the setup was "unethical" and now saying "The TMA is doing a great job and always has." You have a crusade against the Shuttle Bugs, to the exclusion of much more obvious suspects, previously listed. Disclose what you interest really is.

And to prevent a flame over my last statement, read the next legal point:

Unless you run a charter company that wants the business, you do not have standing as an intended beneficiary of either the Pace-FTA agreement (which you do not have, just a Federal Register listing of a model agreement) the statute (which you continually ignore) or the regulations. As you acknowledge: "Now what they should be doing is bidding out the routes to private charter companies, not to PACE which uses federal funds." You have only claimed status as a taxpayer. Since the Shuttle Bugs were started with federal grants, and 627 still has CMAQ funding, it would be more expensive to the feds to have to pay a private contractor. Hence, as a federal taxpayer, one would be more aggrieved, if we accepted your argument.

A final legal point--You would have to overcome a strong presumption that a program established with federal cooperation, and which still gets CMAQ funds, and has been in operation for 13 years was suddenly (and retroactively) rendered illegal by amended regulations. Apparently you know more than the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (or its predecessor CATS), which approved the grants. I really doubt it. And if the regulations have the kind of retroactive effect to which you attribute them, and make illegal a contract that was previously legal, they should be challenged in court.

But don't reply to me. You have a lot of research to do to ascertain the facts, and Freedom of Information requests and FTA complaints to file.

Thank you for your reply and all your help. I do have information (in writing) that I choose not to disclose here and yes, I have more interest in this than just a taxpayer.

Thanks again......

[Busjack]

I do have information (in writing) that I choose not to disclose here and yes, I have more interest in this than just a taxpayer.

Thank you, too, for your reply.

There is little point in trying to make an argument here if you have undisclosed information. Also, if your interest is either (1) as indicated as one of an entity that has standing (i.e. a charter company), or (2) as a representative of a "public interest group," you don't need the investigative or legal counsel of an Internet forum.

Let's just leave it amicably at that.

[ibebobo]

Just FYI from the UMA:

UMA Members Prevail in Transit Infringement Cases

In two separate actions, UMA members Miller Trailways of Louisville, KY, and Jean’s Bus Service of Greenville, SC, were successful in obtaining favorable “Advisory Opinions†that led the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to issue “Cease and Desist†orders in both cases.

In the first case, the University of Louisville sought bids for an on campus shuttle operation and eventually awarded the $445,000 contract to Transit Authority River City (TARC). The University of Louisville established the routes and schedule. The service was not interconnected with the larger TARC route system. The FTA commented, “…it is charter service because the shuttle is provided at the request of a third party for the exclusive use of a bus or van at a negotiated price.†The FTA further concluded, “…it is appropriate to issue a cease and desist order in this case. Miller demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that it is more likely than not that TARC is providing unauthorized charter service to the U of L campus…â€

In a similar case, Jean’s Bus Service sought an “Advisory Opinion†when they lost a parking lot shuttle contract with the local YMCA to Clemson Area Transit (CAT). In this instance, the YMCA operated a remote parking lot with exclusive shuttles to and from the Clemson University stadium. In responding to the FTA’s inquiry, CAT alleged they did not have any contact with the YMCA and was providing the service under a subscription agreement with Clemson University. However, Jean’s Bus Service provided a photo that clearly depicted a CAT bus with a message board indicating “YMCA Shuttle.†FTA further determined that CAT’s agreement with Clemson University as “subscription service†appears to be another name for charter service. The FTA concluded by stating “It is also clear that Jean’s Bus Service suffered an economic loss as a result of this service…â€

“We are delighted that we were able to acquire the necessary evidence, and with the help of UMA, bring the illegal operations of Clemson Area Transit to light," noted Jean Cauley, President of Jean's Bus Service. "We are pleased that the FTA has ruled that the service is in violation of the Charter Service Rule and CAT can no longer provide it. It is important for charter operators to be alert and not let these types of services by transits slide."

“In both of these instances the operator used a new tool available under the revised Charter Service Rule,†states Ken Presley, UMA’s vice president of industry relations. The “Advisory Opinion/Cease and Desist†is less formal than an actual complaint and is intended to be a little quicker. We are proud of these operators for demonstrating courage and taking the initiative to halt the intrusion of transits into charter service. Every favorable decision is a win for the industry.â€

The FTA decisions can be viewed by clicking on the appropriate company... Jean's Bus Service & Miller Transportation

The United Motorcoach Association is North America's largest association for operators of motorcoach companies providing charter, tour and regular route services. Founded in 1971, UMA is comprised of over 1,100 members located all across North America, with more than 850 charter and tour bus operator members who provide transportation services in all fifty states, Canada and Mexico. Headquartered in Alexandria, VA, UMA is dedicated to protecting and promoting the interests of the entire motorcoach industry and providing its members with programs and services to enhance the success of their operations.

[artthouwill]

Just FYI from the UMA:

UMA Members Prevail in Transit Infringement Cases

In two separate actions, UMA members Miller Trailways of Louisville, KY, and Jean’s Bus Service of Greenville, SC, were successful in obtaining favorable “Advisory Opinions†that led the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to issue “Cease and Desist†orders in both cases.

In the first case, the University of Louisville sought bids for an on campus shuttle operation and eventually awarded the $445,000 contract to Transit Authority River City (TARC). The University of Louisville established the routes and schedule. The service was not interconnected with the larger TARC route system. The FTA commented, “…it is charter service because the shuttle is provided at the request of a third party for the exclusive use of a bus or van at a negotiated price.†The FTA further concluded, “…it is appropriate to issue a cease and desist order in this case. Miller demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that it is more likely than not that TARC is providing unauthorized charter service to the U of L campus…â€

In a similar case, Jean’s Bus Service sought an “Advisory Opinion†when they lost a parking lot shuttle contract with the local YMCA to Clemson Area Transit (CAT). In this instance, the YMCA operated a remote parking lot with exclusive shuttles to and from the Clemson University stadium. In responding to the FTA’s inquiry, CAT alleged they did not have any contact with the YMCA and was providing the service under a subscription agreement with Clemson University. However, Jean’s Bus Service provided a photo that clearly depicted a CAT bus with a message board indicating “YMCA Shuttle.†FTA further determined that CAT’s agreement with Clemson University as “subscription service†appears to be another name for charter service. The FTA concluded by stating “It is also clear that Jean’s Bus Service suffered an economic loss as a result of this service…â€

“We are delighted that we were able to acquire the necessary evidence, and with the help of UMA, bring the illegal operations of Clemson Area Transit to light," noted Jean Cauley, President of Jean's Bus Service. "We are pleased that the FTA has ruled that the service is in violation of the Charter Service Rule and CAT can no longer provide it. It is important for charter operators to be alert and not let these types of services by transits slide."

“In both of these instances the operator used a new tool available under the revised Charter Service Rule,†states Ken Presley, UMA’s vice president of industry relations. The “Advisory Opinion/Cease and Desist†is less formal than an actual complaint and is intended to be a little quicker. We are proud of these operators for demonstrating courage and taking the initiative to halt the intrusion of transits into charter service. Every favorable decision is a win for the industry.â€

The FTA decisions can be viewed by clicking on the appropriate company... Jean's Bus Service & Miller Transportation

The United Motorcoach Association is North America's largest association for operators of motorcoach companies providing charter, tour and regular route services. Founded in 1971, UMA is comprised of over 1,100 members located all across North America, with more than 850 charter and tour bus operator members who provide transportation services in all fifty states, Canada and Mexico. Headquartered in Alexandria, VA, UMA is dedicated to protecting and promoting the interests of the entire motorcoach industry and providing its members with programs and services to enhance the success of their operations.

In the University of Chicago sceanario, the CTA did an end around by charging passengers the regular fare and making the service "available to everyone". The route in question is the 192 route, which previously had been contracted out to Keeshin Charter (Coach USA), then Aries Charter. Yet the University subsidizes part of this route. Hmmm.

[jajuan]

In the University of Chicago sceanario, the CTA did an end around by charging passengers the regular fare and making the service "available to everyone". The route in question is the 192 route, which previously had been contracted out to Keeshin Charter (Coach USA), then Aries Charter. Yet the University subsidizes part of this route. Hmmm.

That's a bit of apples and oranges in this regard. Yes the CTA is charging standard fare for this route as it should since it's providing the service. However, as the route is configured it does interconnect with other CTA service, either in Hyde Park or downtown, which was not the case in the TARC example with the U of Louisville. Any Hyde Park resident or rider traveling through that neighborhood other than U of C students, faculty and employees can use the route to travel to and from downtown. Yes it's terminus is on the U of C campus but you'd have a harder time arguing it's just charter service since it connects with other CTA services and charges standard fare along with having the ability to be used for other destinations in Hyde Park or beyond besides U of C. The 128 and 154 are easier to sell as being charters because of their special fares that don't help you connect to other CTA services. Think of it this way. would you try to argue the 28 and X28 are charters for Olive Harvey College just because the both have a terminus on that campus? The 10 is partially subsidized by the Museum of Science and Industry, but it's not just used by museum customers. It's also use by riders traveling from point A to point B within the downtown area. So we have to be really careful what we call charter service just because a said route is partially subsidized a university or business looking to attract more people. If it has the standard fare and directly interconnects with other services of that transit agency, it's harder to simply claim charter service.

[artthouwill]

That's a bit of apples and oranges in this regard. Yes the CTA is charging standard fare for this route as it should since it's providing the service. However, as the route is configured it does interconnect with other CTA service, either in Hyde Park or downtown, which was not the case in the TARC example with the U of Louisville. Any Hyde Park resident or rider traveling through that neighborhood other than U of C students, faculty and employees can use the route to travel to and from downtown. Yes it's terminus is on the U of C campus but you'd have a harder time arguing it's just charter service since it connects with other CTA services and charges standard fare along with having the ability to be used for other destinations in Hyde Park or beyond besides U of C. The 128 and 154 are easier to sell as being charters because of their special fares that don't help you connect to other CTA services. Think of it this way. would you try to argue the 28 and X28 are charters for Olive Harvey College just because the both have a terminus on that campus? The 10 is partially subsidized by the Museum of Science and Industry, but it's not just used by museum customers. It's also use by riders traveling from point A to point B within the downtown area. So we have to be really careful what we call charter service just because a said route is partially subsidized a university or business looking to attract more people. If it has the standard fare and directly interconnects with other services of that transit agency, it's harder to simply claim charter service.

Not necessarily so. The question is are any federal funds being used by University of Chicago to pay for the service. If so, then this does cause a problem as this was a service that has been and could've been handled by a private entity, but were undercut by a public entity which also receives federal dollars. In actuality, the 192 is a reverse commuter route with the specific intent to deliver passengers from the train stations to the University of Chicago Hospital. It is a nonstop express route between these two points It is inconsequential that 1 person could "transfer" to another CTA route as that person would still be able to use a CTA service anyway. Under the private carrier, the cost of a ride was paid to the University which gave out 42 ride tickets which were punched by the driver of that carrier. The fact is this was an existing private contract which got bidded on and awarded to a public transit agency which would have an unfair advantage over a private carrier. It was structured to look like a route that could pass muster. I believe that if it could be proven that federal funds were being used to subsidize this route 192, there is a legitimate case to get CTA dethroned from this route. The other routes were initally a separate deal and was part of a new agreement, then 192 was a separate contract then got extended with the other routes as a new package deal.

[trainman8119]

Other than the 154, I don't think the CTA could be accused of charter service at all. The 128 is

nothing more than a shuttle from the train stations across the loop, and all that is being done is

to give that bus a Sunday run. I think you could argue against that being operated for private service (which, in a way, it is) whereas the 154 is out and out special service and that is it. I would think you could get away more if you parked the buses on Addison Street and called them a x152 instead and had them stop at all main streets.

I do think Pace is guilty of this charter/subsity stuff though. All of their subscription service, including UPS, and Sears, for example would fall into this category. These are paid for by private companies for use by their employees and are nothing but employee shuttles. And, to a point, IMO, I think their van-pool is also very close to this type of set up (even though they keep getting praised for this program).

[artthouwill]

Other than the 154, I don't think the CTA could be accused of charter service at all. The 128 is

nothing more than a shuttle from the train stations across the loop, and all that is being done is

to give that bus a Sunday run. I think you could argue against that being operated for private service (which, in a way, it is) whereas the 154 is out and out special service and that is it. I would think you could get away more if you parked the buses on Addison Street and called them a x152 instead and had them stop at all main streets.

I do think Pace is guilty of this charter/subsity stuff though. All of their subscription service, including UPS, and Sears, for example would fall into this category. These are paid for by private companies for use by their employees and are nothing but employee shuttles. And, to a point, IMO, I think their van-pool is also very close to this type of set up (even though they keep getting praised for this program).

I don't think the 154 could be considered a charter service for the simple reason that the Chicago Cubs nor anyone else subsidizes that service.

The majority if not all of the Sears subscription service was being operated by private carriers. I used to work for one such carrier that had one of the routes.

As for Pace UPS, funding is provided by the company, but to my understanding this was not put out for bid to private companies and Pace outbid them. I don't believe UPS gets any federal assistance to pay for the service.

The 128 is a special service for Bears game, but again, it is not subsidized at all by the Chicago Bears. It is just taking advantage of a market need.

Ironically, there used to be a Pace route that ran from Evanston to downtown Chicago that primarily served Northwestern students traveling between campuses, but the university switched from Pace to Royal American (now Free Enterprise) to run the service. Pace was actually more expensive.

[ibebobo]

I don't think the 154 could be considered a charter service for the simple reason that the Chicago Cubs nor anyone else subsidizes that service.

The majority if not all of the Sears subscription service was being operated by private carriers. I used to work for one such carrier that had one of the routes.

As for Pace UPS, funding is provided by the company, but to my understanding this was not put out for bid to private companies and Pace outbid them. I don't believe UPS gets any federal assistance to pay for the service.

The 128 is a special service for Bears game, but again, it is not subsidized at all by the Chicago Bears. It is just taking advantage of a market need.

Ironically, there used to be a Pace route that ran from Evanston to downtown Chicago that primarily served Northwestern students traveling between campuses, but the university switched from Pace to Royal American (now Free Enterprise) to run the service. Pace was actually more expensive.

Well, if the service is actually a "charter" as defined by the rules which I posted, the transit agencies are not even allowed to compete at all whether their costs are higher or lower than a private company. The shuttle bugs are what I initially was talking about and 2 of the routes have been taken over by a private company. There are more out there that will probably follow as they are a clear case of direct routes to their locations and not for the public's use. They are also set up by a third party which is part of the FTA's definition of a charter. If there is a clear market such as the Cubs or Bears that is a different story. This latest ruling should help private contractors and keep the transit agencies from doing what they are not supposed to do.

[Busjack]

Well, if the service is actually a "charter" as defined by the rules which I posted, the transit agencies are not even allowed to compete at all whether their costs are higher or lower than a private company. The shuttle bugs are what I initially was talking about and 2 of the routes have been taken over by a private company. There are more out there that will probably follow as they are a clear case of direct routes to their locations and not for the public's use. They are also set up by a third party which is part of the FTA's definition of a charter. If there is a clear market such as the Cubs or Bears that is a different story. This latest ruling should help private contractors and keep the transit agencies from doing what they are not supposed to do.

• As the press release you quoted states, there is an industry organization to which to take your case.
  
• The definition of charter service in the regulations is at 49 CFR 604.3( c ):
  

  ( c ) ``Charter service'' means, but does not include demand response
  service to individuals:
  (1) Transportation provided by a recipient at the request of a third
  party for the exclusive use of a bus or van for a negotiated price. The
  following features may be characteristic of charter service:
  (i) A third party pays the transit provider a negotiated price for
  the group;
  (ii) Any fares charged to individual members of the group are
  collected by a third party;
  (iii) The service is not part of the transit provider's regularly
  scheduled service, or is offered for a limited period of time; or
  (iv) A third party determines the origin and destination of the trip
  as well as scheduling; or
  (2) Transportation provided by a recipient to the public for events
  or functions that occur on an irregular basis or for a limited duration
  and:
  (i) A premium fare is charged that is greater than the usual or
  customary fixed route fare; or
  (ii) The service is paid for in whole or in part by a third party.

  
  

Clearly, the Shuttle Bugs do not come within this definition. An employer does not have exclusive use of the bus or van at a negotiated price. There is even a public bus stop posted for 629. Anyone with $1.00 ($1.75 after Jan. 1.) can get on at the Lake Cook Metra Station. Pace had to hold hearings to cancel a route; the employer could not do it unilaterally. Finally, the system was established in coordination with CATS, and with CMAQ funding, not by a private third party.

On the other hand, it sure appears that CTA 154 is charter service by this definition, since the only charge is for "parking." The UPS routes, especially those to Indiana, sure look close, as Pace would not have established them without funding from Workforce Development (although they are not fully funded by the third party in the sense that the riders have to pay the fares).

I thought we had put this aside before, but since you want to make your unfounded allegations about the Shuttle Bugs, again, I suggest you do the research required and take it to your trade association.

I don't think the 154 could be considered a charter service for the simple reason that the Chicago Cubs nor anyone else subsidizes that service.

Since no one is paying a fare, just for parking, then who is paying for that service? In fact, the CTA itself says the Cubs are subsidizing it.

[ibebobo]

• As the press release you quoted states, there is an industry organization to which to take your case.
  
• The definition of charter service in the regulations is at 49 CFR 604.3( c ):
  

Clearly, the Shuttle Bugs do not come within this definition. An employer does not have exclusive use of the bus or van at a negotiated price. There is even a public bus stop posted for 629. Anyone with $1.00 ($1.75 after Jan. 1.) can get on at the Lake Cook Metra Station. Pace had to hold hearings to cancel a route.

On the other hand, it sure appears that CTA 154 is charter service by this definition, since the only charge is for "parking."

I thought we had put this aside before, but since you want to make your unfounded allegations about the Shuttle Bugs, again, I suggest you do the research required and take it to your trade association.

The FTA commented, “…it is charter service because the shuttle is provided at the request of a third party for the exclusive use of a bus or van at a negotiated price.†The FTA further concluded, “…it is appropriate to issue a cease and desist order in this case. Miller demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that it is more likely than not that TARC is providing unauthorized charter service to the U of L campus…â€

In a similar case, Jean’s Bus Service sought an “Advisory Opinion†when they lost a parking lot shuttle contract with the local YMCA to Clemson Area Transit (CAT). In this instance, the YMCA operated a remote parking lot with exclusive shuttles to and from the Clemson University stadium. In responding to the FTA’s inquiry, CAT alleged they did not have any contact with the YMCA and was providing the service under a subscription agreement with Clemson University. However, Jean’s Bus Service provided a photo that clearly depicted a CAT bus with a message board indicating “YMCA Shuttle.†FTA further determined that CAT’s agreement with Clemson University as “subscription service†appears to be another name for charter service.

Route 627 - Discover - Takeda Shuttle Bug

This route provides weekday rush hour service from Lake Cook Metra Station via Lake Cook Road to Discover Financial Services and Takeda Pharmaceutical.

Route 580 - Vernon Hills Shuttle Bug

This shuttle bug provides rush hour service between the Vernon Hills Metra Station and American Hotel Register, Baxter IT Global.

Route 581 - Buffalo Grove Metra Station to Lincolnshire

This shuttle bug provides rush hour service between the Buffalo Grove Metra station and various corporate locations within the Lincolnshire Corporate Center.

Route 582 - Buffalo Grove Metra Sta. to Discover/Takeda/Baxter

This shuttle bug provides rush hour service between the Buffalo Grove Metra station and the campuses of Discover, Takeda and Baxter.

Route 623 - N Glenview-Metra-Allstate-CAREMARK Shuttle

This Shuttle Bug provides AM & PM weekday rush hour service between the Glen/North Glenview station on Metra's Milwaukee North Line and Allstate in Northbrook.

Route 625 - Lake Forest Shuttle Bug

Provides weekday rush hour service between the Metra UP North Line Lake Forest Station and the Metra MD North Line Lake Forest Station to and from CDW and HSBC.

Route 628 - Braeside Shuttle Bug 8

Provides AM & PM weekday rush hour service from Braeside Metra Station to Discover Financial Services, Baxter, Wolters Kluwer (formerly known as CCH Inc.), Parkway North and One Parkway North.

Route 629 - Braeside Shuttle Bug 9

Provides AM & PM weekday rush hour service from Braeside Metra Station to Jim Beam, Walgreens, CORPTAX LLC, Baxter Healthcare and Hewitt Associates.

Route 631 - Lake Cook Shuttle Bug 1

Provides AM & PM weekday rush hour service from Lake-Cook Metra Station to Discover Financial Services and Wolters Kluwer.

Route 632 - Lake Cook Shuttle Bug 2

Provides AM weekday rush hour service from Lake-Cook Metra Station to Baxter, Dade, Four Parkway North and One Parkway North. PM rush hour service from Baxter to Deerfield Metra Station.

Route 633 - Lake Cook Shuttle Bug 3

Provides AM & PM weekday rush hour service from Lake-Cook Metra Station to Walgreen Company.

Route 634 - Lake Cook Shuttle Bug 4

Provides AM & PM weekday rush hour service for Lake-Cook Metra Station to CORPTAX LLC, Baxter Healthcare, Walgreens and Hewitt Associates.

Route 635 - Lake Cook Shuttle Bug 5

Provides AM & PM weekday rush hour service from Lake-Cook Metra Station to Underwriters Laboratories and Omeda.

Route 576 - Deerfield Metra to Buffalo Grove/ Lincolnshire

This Shuttle bug provides rush hour service between the Metra Deerfield station and Siemens and Hewitt Associates in Buffalo Grove and Lincolnshire.

Now, if a sign is all that is needed to create a loophole then maybe Pace shouldn't put on there web site:

"Funding for the operation of this bus is provided by Metra and participating employers of the TMA of Lake Cook, whose financial contribution provides free service for their employees"

Also, the destination signs on these buses clearly state the corporation names as the destinations.

[Busjack]

Apparently, you didn't read my last post, especially:

I suggest you do the research required and take it to your trade association.

Also, you still refuse to say what your interest in this is (you previously denied that it was as a taxpayer), nor why you seem to defend examples that more clearly come within the definition, including 154.

You are not proving anything here by taking isolated stuff off the Pace website. Especially when you now want to extrapolate something from the press release, regardless of applicability, rather than read the regulation itself, which is a public document.

[ibebobo]

• As the press release you quoted states, there is an industry organization to which to take your case.
  
• The definition of charter service in the regulations is at 49 CFR 604.3( c ):
  

Clearly, the Shuttle Bugs do not come within this definition. An employer does not have exclusive use of the bus or van at a negotiated price. There is even a public bus stop posted for 629. Anyone with $1.00 ($1.75 after Jan. 1.) can get on at the Lake Cook Metra Station. Pace had to hold hearings to cancel a route; the employer could not do it unilaterally. Finally, the system was established in coordination with CATS, and with CMAQ funding, not by a private third party.

On the other hand, it sure appears that CTA 154 is charter service by this definition, since the only charge is for "parking." The UPS routes, especially those to Indiana, sure look close, as Pace would not have established them without funding from Workforce Development (although they are not fully funded by the third party in the sense that the riders have to pay the fares).

I thought we had put this aside before, but since you want to make your unfounded allegations about the Shuttle Bugs, again, I suggest you do the research required and take it to your trade association.

Since no one is paying a fare, just for parking, then who is paying for that service? In fact, the CTA itself says the Cubs are subsidizing it.

And I also agree 100% about CTA 154.

And if the employers agree to terminate their contract with Pace, then Pace HAS to have a public hearing but to continue to run the route with no financial help from the companies wouldn't make a lot of sense.

And for the grants, why did Pace quit the 2 shuttle bug routes that were taken over by a private operator??? I guess there wasn't a lot of "public" outcry.

Loopholes. Just loopholes.

[Busjack]

And I also agree 100% about CTA 154.

And if the employers agree to terminate their contract with Pace, then Pace HAS to have a public hearing but to continue to run the route with no financial help from the companies wouldn't make a lot of sense.

And for the grants, why did Pace quit the 2 shuttle bug routes that were taken over by a private operator??? I guess there wasn't a lot of "public" outcry.

Loopholes. Just loopholes.

1. Only one route 574 was turned over to a private operator. The other was cancelled because one of the 3 employers on the route (HSBC) closed shop, and the remaining route was consolidated. Maybe it doesn't make sense to run a bus to somewhere that is out of business, but the same could be said of Lakehurst Mall. Financial sense does not equate to violation of the regulation.

2. In that Pace HAS to hold a hearing, it shows that the third party did not unilaterally determine the route, as required by the regulation. It may be a loophole, but so is you can run sports service, so long as a premium fare is not charged. There may be no practical difference between the Super Bears Shuttle and the Soldier Field Express, but apparently the former wasn't allowed by the regs and the latter was.

3. If the third party had to sole right to set the route, by what right did Pace announce that it would have canceled the routes on Doomsday?

Like I said, you haven't done the research.

[ibebobo]

1. Only one route 574 was turned over to a private operator. The other was cancelled because one of the 3 employers on the route (HSBC) closed shop, and the remaining route was consolidated. Maybe it doesn't make sense to run a bus to somewhere that is out of business, but the same could be said of Lakehurst Mall. Financial sense does not equate to violation of the regulation.

The 2 routes in question (I have done the research) were 574 and 625. 574 is gone private and 625 runs to HSBC which is still there and very much alive (but not well as reported on CNBC "HSBC [HBC 54.88 0.26 (+0.48%) ] - has potential exposure of about $1.5 billion, the Financial Times reported, citing unnamed people close to the situation. The exposure is from loans it provided to institutional clients, mainly hedge funds of funds, that wanted to invest with Madoff, the FT reported."

HSBC pays for the route and CDW does not. It just happens to be next to HSBC.

You need to do the research.

2. In that Pace HAS to hold a hearing, it shows that the third party did not unilaterally determine the route, as required by the regulation. It may be a loophole, but so is you can run sports service, so long as a premium fare is not charged. There may be no practical difference between the Super Bears Shuttle and the Soldier Field Express, but apparently the former wasn't allowed by the regs and the latter was.

Ummmmm.......OK

3. If the third party had to sole right to set the route, by what right did Pace announce that it would have canceled the routes on Doomsday?

The third party had the right NOT TO RENEW THEIR CONTRACT WITH PACE which they have (had) and shouldn't. Then Pace had to hold the hearing to eliminate the route.

The soon to be ex Gov was pretty vocal about his wrongdoings until he got caught....