Pace the contractee

[Busjack]

Looking at the Pace Public Hearings Page, there were posts for 891 and 907. However, that set me to googling, and neither appears to be what it seems. While the CMAQ money ran out on 907, the Beacon News indicates that Oswego is going to take over responsibility for the route, but contract with Pace to run it, I suppose similar to in Niles. I also suppose someone here will propose that Oswego could have contracted with someone else, now that federal money isn't involved.

Similarly, with regard to 891, while it may be restructured with 892, the Times reaffirms, in the last paragraph of the linked article, my prior post that the Regional Development Authority was kicking in (along with UPS and the East Chicago [Casino] Foundation) to keep it going.

The main point of the Times article was related to the last one I made in the first paragraph. Apparently, after the Regional Bus Authority took over Hammond Transit, they bid it and its expansion out, and First Transit and some private paratransit provider won out over GPTC. In my mind, why was GPTC bidding, when the RBA should be taking GPTC and ECT over too? In any event, it does show that a private entity is willing to bid.

[ibebobo]

Looking at the Pace Public Hearings Page, there were posts for 891 and 907. However, that set me to googling, and neither appears to be what it seems. While the CMAQ money ran out on 907, the Beacon News indicates that Oswego is going to take over responsibility for the route, but contract with Pace to run it, I suppose similar to in Niles. I also suppose someone here will propose that Oswego could have contracted with someone else, now that federal money isn't involved.

Similarly, with regard to 891, while it may be restructured with 892, the Times reaffirms, in the last paragraph of the linked article, my prior post that the Regional Development Authority was kicking in (along with UPS and the East Chicago [Casino] Foundation) to keep it going.

The main point of the Times article was related to the last one I made in the first paragraph. Apparently, after the Regional Bus Authority took over Hammond Transit, they bid it and its expansion out, and First Transit and some private paratransit provider won out over GPTC. In my mind, why was GPTC bidding, when the RBA should be taking GPTC and ECT over too? In any event, it does show that a private entity is willing to bid.

I'll nibble on this one. There will always be a private entity that will take over IF they are aware of what is going on. I suppose that is their responsibility, although due diligence should be required. Remember, there has to be a private company that IS WILLING AND ABLE to provide the service. And in many times, it takes someone to file a complaint to keep things in line, such as the Indy situation where the private companies did complain and won. Now, will a private company be able to do it as inexpensively as a public one? I guess that depends on what the bid specs are.

[Busjack]

Now, will a private company be able to do it as inexpensively as a public one? I guess that depends on what the bid specs are.

The unclear portion in the Times article is whether the private company has to provide the equipment. My impression of the Hammond situation was that when Progressive/Coach USA was the contractor, it provided the Thomas buses. Then, there was an article that when they left and First Transit took over, the Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission had to go into emergency mode to get the 8 Optima buses being run since 2002. Those buses had a decal that they were owned by NIRPC but operated by the City of Hammond. But the Times article contained the reference that "The company's proposal included providing new buses to replace its aging, ailing fleet." I can't tell if this is a reference to the Optimas, the spare Thomas bus that apparently First Transit provided, or the expanded service.

A similar situation was noted in the Times with regard to the ChicaGo Dash buses (which rotjohns discovered), in that Free Enterprise used to provide the buses and the drivers, but now NIRPC owns the buses, courtesy of a CMAQ grant, while (in another article), Free Enterprise still provides the drivers.

Other than that, the only question is the labor rates. Apparently GPTC was able to match First Transit on the fixed route portion, but couldn't on the paratransit part. We know that CTA couldn't compete on the basis of labor rates with anyone, but, based on what trainman says, I don't know about Pace. The premise of this thread are that these are the routes on which Pace can't use RTA subsidies.

Update: If your question was about Oswego, the impression I got from the Beacon News article was that this was a "single source" deal, trying to cope with the expiration of CMAQ funds. I went into the Indiana deals because your reference to specifications sent me in that direction.

[Busjack]

The Passenger Notices indicate that the indicated changes went through. However, of possible interest to one person is the statement in the Oswego one "pending a possible service provider change." Maybe what I surmised is being considered.

[Busjack]

If anyone else wants to get into the theory about this, the Pace May Minutes may be of interest. What I noted is that while the 892 change went through with little comment other than "UPS is fully funding it," which according to the Times is not entirely the case, although it is fully funded, there was about two pages of kvetching about whether Oswego was going to pay for capital, whether this would tie up vehicles (even though the runs were cut in half) etc. Somewhere in the middle, it was mentioned that Pace is running UPS routes out of RTA territory, even though the board had just approved the one, to wit "Mr. Ross ... also noted that we currently have service with UPS which operates outside of the service area ...."

I agree that those areas paying taxes should not be subsiding those that don't. However, unless there is a real fear that counties out to DeKalb are going to be demanding Pace service, I smell a double standard here, but in line with what trainman said about Pace being subservient to UPS.

BTW, I still don't see why ECT, GPTC, or Free Enterprise can't run 892.

[artthouwill]

If anyone else wants to get into the theory about this, the Pace May Minutes may be of interest. What I noted is that while the 892 change went through with little comment other than "UPS is fully funding it," which according to the Times is not entirely the case, although it is fully funded, there was about two pages of kvetching about whether Oswego was going to pay for capital, whether this would tie up vehicles (even though the runs were cut in half) etc. Somewhere in the middle, it was mentioned that Pace is running UPS routes out of RTA territory, even though the board had just approved the one, to wit "Mr. Ross ... also noted that we currently have service with UPS which operates outside of the service area ...."

I agree that those areas paying taxes should not be subsiding those that don't. However, unless there is a real fear that counties out to DeKalb are going to be demanding Pace service, I smell a double standard here, but in line with what trainman said about Pace being subservient to UPS.

BTW, I still don't see why ECT, GPTC, or Free Enterprise can't run 892.

Regardless of who runs it, it still has to be paid for. If UPS was unwilling to pay Pace, why would they want to pay anyone else? Free Enterprise certainly wouldn't run it for free. I'm sure there would have to be some legal issues cleared for ECT or GPTC to even consider running it, and unless it was funded, I couldn't see either trying. Now if it were 100% funded, you have a possible case for Pace outsourcing this route, provided that the bids don't come in higher than the contracted rate. This could be especially true if the contractor is expected to provide equipment. Personally, I wouldn't trust any GPTC bus on the highway.

From my observation, I thought route 907 did well ridershipwise. Why does Oswego want to cut the number of trips? Is it a cost factor? I could see Pace wanting to possibly outsource this route, though it is a stretch to deadhead to/from Oswego.

[Busjack]

Regardless of who runs it, it still has to be paid for. If UPS was unwilling to pay Pace, why would they want to pay anyone else? Free Enterprise certainly wouldn't run it for free. I'm sure there would have to be some legal issues cleared for ECT or GPTC to even consider running it, and unless it was funded, I couldn't see either trying. Now if it were 100% funded, you have a possible case for Pace outsourcing this route, provided that the bids don't come in higher than the contracted rate. This could be especially true if the contractor is expected to provide equipment. Personally, I wouldn't trust any GPTC bus on the highway.

From my observation, I thought route 907 did well ridershipwise. Why does Oswego want to cut the number of trips? Is it a cost factor? I could see Pace wanting to possibly outsource this route, though it is a stretch to deadhead to/from Oswego.

I think you missed my point.

I was commenting on a double standard that the Pace Board had nothing to negative say about 892, so long as they thought UPS was paying for it--even though it is out of their territory. However, they kvetched a long time about Oswego.

Now, I am not suggesting that Pace outsource either route. As indicated by the title of this thread, and confirmed in the cited minutes, Pace is the contract operator. In the case of 907, it is fairly clear that Pace wants to get out from under that, and basically told Oswego to pay the full freight, including capital, or get another contract operator, and the Passenger Notice indicated that another operator might take that over.

You seem to have 892 confused with that. Pace acknowledged that it was fully funded, but said by UPS, when The Times said it was 1/3 UPS, 1/3 East Chicago Foundation, and 1/3 Northwest Indiana Regional Development Authority. Who is paying is probably irrelevant to Pace, so long as it gets paid. My point was that if it is 2/3 funded by Northwest Indiana interests, I see no reason why Northwest Indiana does not contract with one of its own TA's, or if, since there may be a legal impediment to either a city or a municipal corporation* running outside of its territory, a private operator, especially since Valparaiso for ChicaGo Dash and the Indiana RBA for EasyGo** hired Free Enterprise to run their Chicago express routes. I am not saying that Pace should be hiring any of them, because Pace isn't paying for the route.***

Let's also remember that, according to pace2322, Pace wrecked 6173 when a driver fell asleep on I94. Since that probably was on 891 (pace2322's post doesn't exactly confirm that), there was a capital cost for running that route. I doubt that UPS paid for that bus.

As far as cutting the number of trips on 907, it was clear that this was precipitated by the CMAQ grant running out, and Oswego being compelled to pay 100% of the deficit compared to no more than 20% under CMAQ.

__________

* The Times confirmed that GPTC is its own municipal corporation, but, unlike CTA, has its own taxing power. That came up with respect to difficulty in merging it with the RBA, but may be relevant to your legal point.

**Given also IndyGo, I guess Indiana bus services like Go in their names. Not horribly relevant to this point.

*** Probably no different than JobLink or whatever changed from Pace to CTA to go to Avon, apparently to get an artic. That didn't even require a hearing.,

[artthouwill]

I think you missed my point.

I was commenting on a double standard that the Pace Board had nothing to negative say about 892, so long as they thought UPS was paying for it--even though it is out of their territory. However, they kvetched a long time about Oswego.

Now, I am not suggesting that Pace outsource either route. As indicated by the title of this thread, and confirmed in the cited minutes, Pace is the contract operator. In the case of 907, it is fairly clear that Pace wants to get out from under that, and basically told Oswego to pay the full freight, including capital, or get another contract operator, and the Passenger Notice indicated that another operator might take that over.

You seem to have 892 confused with that. Pace acknowledged that it was fully funded, but said by UPS, when The Times said it was 1/3 UPS, 1/3 East Chicago Foundation, and 1/3 Northwest Indiana Regional Development Authority. Who is paying is probably irrelevant to Pace, so long as it gets paid. My point was that if it is 2/3 funded by Northwest Indiana interests, I see no reason why Northwest Indiana does not contract with one of its own TA's, or if, since there may be a legal impediment to either a city or a municipal corporation* running outside of its territory, a private operator, especially since Valparaiso for ChicaGo Dash and the Indiana RBA for EasyGo** hired Free Enterprise to run their Chicago express routes. I am not saying that Pace should be hiring any of them, because Pace isn't paying for the route.***

Let's also remember that, according to pace2322, Pace wrecked 6173 when a driver fell asleep on I94. Since that probably was on 891 (pace2322's post doesn't exactly confirm that), there was a capital cost for running that route. I doubt that UPS paid for that bus.

As far as cutting the number of trips on 907, it was clear that this was precipitated by the CMAQ grant running out, and Oswego being compelled to pay 100% of the deficit compared to no more than 20% under CMAQ.

__________

* The Times confirmed that GPTC is its own municipal corporation, but, unlike CTA, has its own taxing power. That came up with respect to difficulty in merging it with the RBA, but may be relevant to your legal point.

**Given also IndyGo, I guess Indiana bus services like Go in their names. Not horribly relevant to this point.

*** Probably no different than JobLink or whatever changed from Pace to CTA to go to Avon, apparently to get an artic. That didn't even require a hearing.,

I get your point about the appearance of a double standard. Maybe it was Fox Volley division griping. Perhaps Pace South was happy to get any work it could. There seems to be some strange loopholes that restrict some operations within a given territory within the state that do not apply between states. In other words, Illinois law may govern where Pace can and cannot operate within Illinois, but it has no jurisdiction concerning any operations across any borders like Indiana or even Wisconsin. Those states would have to have laws concerning that, and I am sure they would have no problem with Pace as long as they don't conduct any intrastate (pick up and drop off passengers in the same state) business. Obviously Pace would have to assume full liability for that service. I'm sure Illinois does not want to subsidize service for Indiana or Wisconsin residents even if they were traveling to work in Illinois. You are right, though, as long as the UPS service is fully paid for, Pace could care less who pays.

Given that Pace is willing to do the UPS service, there must be some other reason behind either Pace's willingness to do UPS or lack of willingness to run the Oswego Aurora feeder. The first thing that comes to my mind is the other Pace UPS routes, most notably 395 and 397. Even with the other route cuts, those passengers can get to these two routes and other UPS routes that Pace runs to Hodgkins and Addison. To let the Gary route go to a private operator my invite private operators to sue or underbid Pace.

[Busjack]

Not to be mean, but I don't think you have the legal background to be speculating about those kinds of matters. You don't link to any relevant law, and in fact the only relevant provision is s. 2.07 of the RTA Act.

Sec. 2.07. Extra‑territorial Authority. In order to provide or assist any transportation of members of the general public between points in the metropolitan region and points outside the metropolitan region, whether in this State or in Wisconsin or Indiana, the Authority may at the request and for the benefit of a Service Board, by ordinance, enter into agreements with any unit of local government, individual, corporation or other person or public agency in or of any such state or any private entity for such service. Such agreements may provide for participation by a Service Board in providing such service and for grants by a Service Board in connection with any such service, and may, subject to federal and State law, set forth any terms relating to such service, including coordinating such service with public transportation in the metropolitan region. Such agreement may be for such number of years or duration as the parties may agree. In regard to any such agreements or grants, a Service Board shall consider the benefit to the metropolitan region and the financial contribution with regard to such service made or to be made from public funds in such areas served outside the metropolitan region.*

(Source: P.A. 83‑886.) [empahsis added]

Hence there is no difference between inside the state but outside the RTA area or in Indiana, legally speaking.

In addition:

• I have never heard about a division having the power to say that it wants or doesn't want certain work. That decision is usually up to the Board. In fact, here in the Oswego case, the Board was pushing back against staff. On the practical side, I really doubt that Fox wanted to lose the jobs involved in at least 3 and probably 6 runs (if the Board does not get the guidelines it wants, and Oswego contracts it out as foreseen by the Passenger Notice).
• The transfer argument at Hodgkins makes no sense, at least in the absence (and permanent it appears) of the Tollway/Pace TIGER proposal to use it as a Compobus transfer facility. Someone is not riding from East Chicago at 2 a.m. to get to Midway at 4 a.m., via Hodgkins.
• As far as private operators suing or underbidding Pace, I know one member of this forum who would be in favor of it, and can't quarrel with him regard the policy behind allowing that. As indicated above, Pace does not have a mandate to serve Indiana, except with respect to a benefit to the metropolitan region. Also, as noted in a prior post, apparently the Indiana RBA and Valpo have no problem entering into contracts with such private operators as First Transit and Free Enterprise.
• The answer has been stated by trainman: i.e. Pace has prostituted itself to UPS, because at one time it paid for 20% of the entire system. The only principled argument in the Minutes is that the board is afraid that every place from Rockford to DeKalb will want service, but that didn't stop them from taking the CMAQ grant for three years. Also, the Minutes reflect a suggestion that Metra should pay for it, even though Metra would appear to be under the same constraint, which, again is total hypocrisy.

The only guiding principle is the one on which we agreed and which seems to animate all of these decisions--Pace doesn't care who pays so long as it is paid. It is just pickier in the Oswego case.

_________

*Interestingly, the Act does not seem to define "metropolitan region," except by implication from the ballot language in s. 105. Also, despite what the Pace board says, it doesn't seem to foreclose subsidizing the out of area rides, although it appears that the Act was so drafted as to facilitate arrangements between Metra and NICTD. It is just that the board does not want to do so, justifiably.

[artthouwill]

Not to be mean, but I don't think you have the legal background to be speculating about those kinds of matters. You don't link to any relevant law, and in fact the only relevant provision is s. 2.07 of the RTA Act.

Hence there is no difference between inside the state but outside the RTA area or in Indiana, legally speaking.

_________

*.

Given the scope of the law you quoted, would you say legally Pace could've bidded on Hammond local service? Not that Pace would've wanted to operate that service, but legally within Illinois law they could? I agree with you that the Regional board in Indiana possibly could've opened up bidding to GPTC, Free Enterprise, or Coach USA for the right to run the service IF UPS had opted out altogether. UPS doesn't mind funding service, but obviously wants some bang for its buck. We will have to wait and see how the combined Gary/East Chicago UPS fares. If ridership fails, then UPS will want to drop it and at that point, I wouldn't think anyone would want to fund it to keep it going.

I wasn't implying anything about passengers transferring buses in Hopkins. I was only saying that Pace wanted to keep whatever relationship it has with UPS, and if outside services were allowed to run similar services, that relationship would be in jeopardy.

Also based on the same law, are you saying Metra legally could run its UP-N line to Milwaukee WITHOUT state of Wisconsin approval? Not trying to be smart or pretend I know anything, just trying to make sense of the whole scope of things.

[Busjack]

Given the scope of the law you quoted, would you say legally Pace could've bidded on Hammond local service? Not that Pace would've wanted to operate that service, but legally within Illinois law they could?

...........

Also based on the same law, are you saying Metra legally could run its UP-N line to Milwaukee WITHOUT state of Wisconsin approval? Not trying to be smart or pretend I know anything, just trying to make sense of the whole scope of things.

In that the Act requires an agreement with the other entity, Metra wouldn't be allowed to run further into Wisconsin without a contract with Wisconsin. However, the earlier discussion about the Milwaukee to Kenosha corridor originally assumed that Metra would operate it; the later plans indicate otherwise. (Of course, the question with regard to Kenosha service is whether UP or Metra really runs it.)

As far as bidding on Hammond service, I guess Pace could if somehow the RTA found that it was required for the benefit of riders in the RTA area. Obviously, they have some deal for transfers between Pace and GPTC/HTS at the Hammond Transit Center, but Pace is only going one block outside the metropolitan area to facilitate that.

With regard to whether Indiana would bid it out to Pace, there is the issue, decided by the Illinois Appellate Court, that NICTD is only subject to suit in Indiana, even if the incident occurred in Chicago. Since the Illinois court said that each state recognizes each other's law, I guess one impediment to Pace contracting to provide service in Indiana would be that it would have to waive its right to be sued only in Illinois in personal injury cases.

[Busjack]

The June minutes shed light on the Board's view of this policy. Apparently, the Oswego arrangement remains, but I noted the following significant points:

• Routes 350 and 364 in Hammond are mentioned, but nothing really about on what legal authority they were extended into Indiana. They noted that it was Pace service and not requested by Hammond. I can assure you that before the RTA took over, Route 355 did not run into Hammond; we went to one of my mother's friend's house in Calumet City to catch the bus. 350 and 364 are newer routes, and given the start dates listed by Bill V., might theoretically have been justified by South Suburban Safeway having been a contract operator at the time they were instituted, but I tend to doubt it, since South Suburban was financially dependent on the RTA past 1973.
• The board did grapple with the UPS issue, and (I guess with all the route cancellations) is starting to realize that maybe it shouldn't be so dependent on it. Note, for instance, the references to how UPS gave Pace the land for the transit center, which (since the Tollway Express plan is dead) only serves UPS.
• The new policy stresses that the RTA has to approve all out of region service, something implied by the part of the Act I quoted, but which I did not take seriously (given the joke nature of RTA "oversight").

Also, this policy would seem to exclude the idea of Pace bidding against GPTC and First Transit for work solely in Indiana, as art asked.

[Busjack]

There is a notice to cancel Route 907.

The Patch says that Oswego decided to go with Kendall Area Transit instead of Pace, but apparently, again, Pace seems compelled to hold a formal hearing.