I just now got off the phone with Jim Turpin, of Penney for your thoughts. I saw a link to a story about the CU-MTD being sued complained about by Allerton Transit Co. for using CU-MTD buses at the John Deere Golf Tournement in Moline, concerning an intergovernmental agreement that Allerton Transit claims is a violation of federal law. I told him that I had seen a link to the story on, ILLINIPUNDIT.COM open thread 08-01 07 www.badmtd.com A link is posted at the bottom of that page. Why can't the NG dig up this kind of news...or do they want this kept under the radar?
Where is the News-Gazette on this?
Posted August 2nd, 2007 at 10:52 AM by Gregg
FWIW, I was in the Quad Cities during the week of the golf tournament (work related training). I had a friend who was living there, so after training he would pick me up and we'd hang out. We were driving through downtown Rock Island and I saw at least two (maybe three, I can't remember) CUMTD buses sitting in a fenced in parking lot near a bunch of other mass transit buses. Needless to say, it caught my attention, but I blew it off thinking that maybe CUMTD just sold their respective MTD those buses and they hadn't been painted their colors yet. But now it all makes sense.....
I'm a reporter at the News-Gazette. I'm aware of it and will report on it. BTW, it's a complaint, not a lawsuit, We don't just report complaints without giving all sides an opportunity to respond
I have a problem with Federally subsidized CU MTD buses purchased for public transportation being leased for private usage like golf tournements or even public usage that restricts ridership like the school districts. This seems like a push of the "public benefit" envelope for taxpayer dollars.
I have 2 questions, mainly in response to "Oil Man".
1. Was the project bid to all, public and private, and did the MTD come in lowest? If so good, if not bad.
2. Did the MTD make money? If so, good. if not, bad.
I don't believe that a public entity funded with public dollars should be contracting for private events. How is it the the MTD had enough "extra" buses to do this and cover their routes? The next time they are asking more money, perhaps they should address this issue. I have to wonder why an event in the Quad cities had to come clear to Champaign to lease buses. Something just doesn't make sense to me about this.
I look forward to the News-Gazette story. Be interesing to hear what all sides have to say about it.
As to Champaign Dweller's comments, we do live in a town with a seasonal population, so it's not too hard to image MTD having excess capacity in the summertime and finding entreprenurial ways to deploy it. I'm interested in hearing all the sides before I draw conclusions.
Thanks to IlliniPundi for providing an early heads-up on this, That's several this month. It will be interesting to see other stories that haven't been fully explored getting some additional attention.
Anonymous--you raise an interesting point. I'll wait to hear more on this.
FTA Complaint = Lawsuit brought before FTA against FTA recipient
Think unlegislated subsidy. When transit district provides buses at below-market rates to a golf tournament, they are essentially handing tax $ over to the golf tournament.
Think about this:
Private operator pays: License plate fees, motor fuel tax, property tax, and thereby supports the community.
Transit district pays: No license plate fees, no motor fuel tax, no property tax. They take from the community and are supposed to give back to the community in the form of services which community collectively agrees are worthwhile to have around (if community actually thinks that - this is an issue for tapley to speak to). They aren't supposed to give away the benefits of their tax exemptions and their subsidies to entities who can afford to pay the full cost of charter bus services.
I have 2 questions, mainly in response to "Oil Man".
1. Was the project bid to all, public and private, and did the MTD come in lowest? If so good, if not bad.
From what I've gathered in following this story (I'm quite intrigued by this, so I've been watching it rather closely for a while now), the service solicited private bids only for technical reasons, without any realistic consideration of them. For some reason (probably because they're "cool" and "progressive"), they specifically wanted 60' articulated buses. Surprise surprise, the CU MTD has plenty of them, but private companies don't have any. It didn't matter that the private companies could still acomodate the passenger volume.
2. Did the MTD make money? If so, good. if not, bad.
Yes, they made money - but substantially less money than a private company would have made.
2. Did the MTD make money? If so, good. if not, bad.
Yes, they made money - but substantially less money than a private company would have made.
I'm not so sure that $1000/week for a $600,000 bus is such a good deal for MTD or the taxpayers who support MTD. If those buses put on 10,000 miles (possible given the frequency of the operations and the length of the routes) in a week, MTD got only $.10/mile for the buses. That seems like reasonable amortization cost for a Honda Civic, but not for a $600,000 bus.
Realize that the usage consumed rubber, oil, inspection time (buses have to be inspected every n,000 miles), maintenance, etc., in addition to reducing the remaining life of each bus.
At first blush, it seems reasonable to lease excess capacity during seasonal lulls. If bidding irregularities, inadequate compensation, public vs private enterprise issues are involved that would be a separate issue. I think the larger issue is transparency, and Volk doesn't have a great reputation there.
I always wondered how the public bus company donated enough money to be listed in the gold section of the Krannert programs.
BTW I'm a proud member of the Southwest Champaign MTD, and it would not bother me in the least to see those arrogant (insert slur) brought down a notch or two.
"I have a problem with Federally subsidized CU MTD buses purchased for public transportation being leased for private usage like golf tournements or even public usage that restricts ridership like the school districts."
If managed sensibly, MTD's involvement in something like this should contribute to lower costs. We should not put unnecessary restrictions on government entities that prevent them from looking for creative ways to reduce taxpayer burden. Why not encourage it? If we found out that the MTD made good money on unused buses while the students were gone, I'm inclined to give them a pat on the back.
Not withstanding, I am very pleased to see pressure from the public to increase transparency and accountability.
MTD receives subsidies to operate services which users are unwilling to purchase at their full cost. MTD does not receive subsidies to compete with for-profit private businesses, in fact, they are specifically prohibited from doing so. MTD has repeatedly ignored the rules, and they've received at least one cease and desist letter and at least one "judgement" against them. Yet they continue to create/participate in subterfuge to circumvent the regulations.
We've had this discussion before in this forum.
To view a rather thorough discussion of the impropriety of MTD's activity, please visit:
www.illinipundit.com/2005/12/06/cumtd-board-appointments
B is for Business:
You need to broaden the scope of your analysis. If government entities (who do not pay fuel tax, property tax, etc.) all got into business with their idle assets, many private businesses would shrink or fail. Private businesses pay fuel tax, property tax, payroll tax, income tax and so forth. When they fail, they stop paying such taxes. MTD gathering a few extra bucks by employing idle aassets may seem harmless enough, but it's not. And it just happens to be illegal.
If you follow the link I posted above, you'll want to scroll down to about:
On December 9th, 2005 at 12:09 AM, Lazlo (not verified) said
That's where you'll find the economics debate.
This particular post sums it up well
Lazlo,
How do I respond to the snowplow analogy...
Champaign and Urbana plow the snow of their taxpayers. Champaign is paid by Champaign residents, Urbana is paid by Urbana residents. Also in the market are private individuals who own pickup trucks with snow blades. Let's say both Champaign and Urbana own the same number of snow plows per street mile, or whatever the relevant measure is. They each have the same snow plowing capacity.
A snowstorm comes. Both Champaign AND Urbana are overwhelmed and at full capacity. Champaign asks Urbana for help. Urbana, being at capacity, says, sure we'll rent you snow plows at the same rate that we'd have to pay someone from the private sector to help us out, to make up the lost capacity that we give you.
So I'm not sure how that plays out.
Say Urbana has an extra snowplow. Champaign wait wait wait, the analogy is wrong. You have to make your story a little different.
Let's say that a CHURCH (non-profit, non tax paying) asks for snowplowing help after a storm...
So, Billybob (a private citizen) has purchased a snowplow. He knows that it will not yield a steady stream of income, and he's not even sure it will yield any income at all -- it all depends on the weather. So Billybob has made a certain expenditure in exchange for a probablistic future cash flow.
A storm hits. Someone at the church knows someone at the City of Champaign. He calls that friend and asks if a snowplow can swing through the church parking lot on its way down the street. The friend says, sure, and a plow swings through the church parking lot and clears the snow. Doing so doesn't use much fuel or labor, and it doesn't use up much of the life of the snowplow. But it's a complete disaster for Billybob and others like him who have invested in snow removal equipment.
Billybob was counting on little revenue spikes when it snows, but instead of getting $1000 per snowstorm, he only gets $500 per snowstorm, because the City keeps swinging through the church parking lot. When Billybob's snowplow wears out, he doesn't replace it. And others who were contemplating getting into the snowplow business dont, because they have heard about Billybob's plight. So the Billybobs of the world don't invest in capital and engage in productive activity. The snowplow dealers of the world don't sell snowplows. And snowplow manufacturers sell fewer snowplows (mostly to government concerns). Everybody up and down the food chain pays fewer taxes, and the only party available to plow snow is the City.
....but the City is now having its own financial troubles because there is less tax revenue to support the City. So the City raises taxes, which further stifles private investment and so on and so forth.
Also Lazlo, First of all, keeping government out of markets served by private business is not at all the same thing as subsidizing private business. By default, government does not belong in business. Government belongs on the sidelines, preventing people and entities from harming one another. The default state of the world is not government running things. Second, you're talking about two different tax jurisdictions. The bulk of MTD's funding comes from the Federales. The Federales are not in the business of running state universities. States run state universities. If MTD provides services to a state university, that's equivalent to unlegislated funding. Another source of funding for MTD is local property taxes. Do you want to see your property taxes funding campus bus tours for suburban parents? How about federal funds? The costs associated with running a state university need to be borne by the state university, and offset by tuition, fees, and state subsidy. Third, there is no guarantee that MTD can operate buses more cheaply than the private sector. What if MTD's out of pocket operating costs are higher? With private firms, profit-seeking behavior and competition ensures efficient behavior. I'm not sure that MTD is particularly efficient at anything. Having MTD do all UI work, just because they're both government-run does't guarantee that taxpayers will come out ahead. Fourth, I think you missed the slippery-slope element of the situation. If there's not a bright line which the transit companies are not permitted to cross, they are prone to gradually seep into more and more inappropriate areas of operation. Volk is a pretty good example of the problem. He's wandered into all sorts of areas where he doesn't belong, and he only retreats when someone slaps him back into his place. Finally, we're not really talking about MTD excess capacity. If you look at the complaint, you'll see that MTD was conducting charters during peak hours for scheduled service. That means MTD either bought extra buses so that they could handle charters, or it means they have too many buses to begin with, or it means that they used backup equipment to fulfill charter orders -- but the backup equipment would not be available to serve in its backup role if it's off running a charter. For all the aforementioned reasons, it is CRUCIAL that MTD stick to the mission outlined in its charter, and to the mission covered by its FTA funding agreement. Otherwise, someone (private operator, taxpayer, other taxing body, etc. )winds up getting the shaft. Have I convinced you yet?
Last one, I promise: Lazlo, Here's another argument. Let's pretend there is no MTD. When UIUC wants to give suburban parents a tour of campus, they have two options: produce the bus service internally, or hire a private firm to do it. Assuming UIUC isn't interested in roll-your-own solution, they hire one of several competing firms. Since the market is competitive, UIUC gets a fair deal, the private carrier makes a few cents, and everybody's happy. Now there's an MTD. MTD offers the service at a lower price, because they have excess capacity and they don't have to pay fuel tax and they don't have to pay property tax on their facilities, and so forth. And the private operators lose the business. The end result is that a government-funded (therefore taxpayer funded) entity has just deprived a private entity of income and profits. That's simply unacceptable So what's wrong with reversing the temporal order of that argument? Nothing, because it is equivalent read in either direction. The end result of MTD competing with private enterprise is that private enterprise gets the shaft, and said shafting is paid for by taxpayers. Ready to say uncle yet? I can keep spouting prose until my hands are numb. On December 10th, 2005 at 06:45 AM, Lazlo (not verified) said: Ready to say uncle yet? I can keep spouting prose until my hands are numb. LOL. I appreciate that someone finally responded to the specifics of my argument, and you hit on most of its weak points: the presumption that the MTD service is cheaper than its private equivalent; the presumption that the MTD would be using excess capacity; and the glossing-over of the jurisdictional issues. I'm not sure I buy the slippery-slope/bright-line argument because legislation is rampant with exceptions for public agencies and not-for-profits, but I wholeheartedly agree that the MTD seems to have operated in bad faith with regard to charters in general, so it's probably legitimate not to give them the benefit of the doubt with regard to this specific situation. So sure, what the hell. Uncle. :)
On December 9th, 2005 at 06:28 AM, The Night Before Christmas (not verified) said:
Ok, here goes. A pseudo-factual story about MTD. It's factual as far as Life in Hell knows, but it hasn't been carefully fact-checked. Please pardon grammatical flaws and bumpy continuity - I can't devote too much time to this.
First, see this: http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1978/ii781021.html
Back in the 70's, Volk took the job of MTD general manager. He quickly discovered there was not enough money. He also discovered that the MTD was providing bad service. With bad service, he knew that he'd have a hard time getting farebox revenue up, but he also knew that he'd have a hard time getting money from elsewhere. So he did what any private sector businessperson would do - he put some effort into improving the level of customer service USING WHAT HE ALREADY HAD. That was Frugal Bill.
Frugal Bill worked hard to make due with what he had, but probably found that getting farebox revenue up was a difficult battle. Raise fares, ridership goes down, revenue goes slightly up or maybe down. Decrease fares, and nobody leaps from their cars into buses, so revenue probably goes down. What a nightmare!
Somewhere along the line, Frugal Bill realized that the more bodies he handled, the more convincing his arguments for funding would be. And the more funding he could get, the more riders would have, and so on. And so Frugal Bill's focus shifted from designing and operating a bus system that made sense from an economic standpoint (finite system serving densely-populated areas or areas densly populated with people without cars or who otherwise depend on public transportation) to running a system that would attract grant money. Frugal Bill turned into Grant-Writing Bill.
Grant-writing Bill got better and better at writing grants and selling politicians on his ideas and his vision. Bill's system grew, he moved into nicer and nicer buildings, and he bought more buses and newer buses. Bill Volk shoveled the government money in, and the buses went round and round -- with more and more riders on them (but was riders per bus/mile increasing? probably NOT). Bill started to think he was one cool cat.
Grant-Writing Bill missed trolleys. National City Lines had ripped them all out long ago. He wanted to bring trolleys back to Champaign-Urbana. Maybe that should be his life goal, his crowning achievement, his legacy, he thought. But trolleys are expensive. He'd need lots and lots and LOTS of riders before he'd be able to write a grant for a trolley system.
So Grant-Writing Bill looked around. Where can I get riders, he thought? So he cast his eyes on U of I. Hmm, thousands of people walking a few blocks to class, thousands of people coming and going from U of I in cars, aviation students going to class at the airport. If only I could scoop them all up and put them in MTD buses.
A number of other universities already had buses transporting students in circles. Huskie Line, at NIU, was a good example. They had buses running all over the place, and students liked it. But unlike Grant-Writing Bill's system, Huskie Line didn't gobble tax dollars. Here's a quote from the Huskie Line website (12/8/05): "The Student Association Huskie Bus System is funded by NIU student fees and farebox revenues. All bus system routes and policies are established by the Student Association Mass Transit Board. For information on the bus system, routes or schedules contact..." Hmm, Grant Writing Blll thought. If I could convince U of I that there would be public safety and other benefits from having buses running in circles, maybe I could get the U of I to pay for something like Huskie Line. And I'd get the riders I need for...dare I dream...A TROLLEY!
Grant-Writing Bill headed off to the U of I to press the flesh. He convinced them that they needed buses running in circles, even though everyone knows 19 year olds can get around fine. He promised them speedy, efficient service with buses provided by the Federal Government, with only a fraction of the operating cost coming out of U of I's pockets. And those costs, he argued, could easily be passed through to students. Hmm, U of I thought, that sounds like a good idea. They were sold.
Grant-Writing Bill went back to his typewriter, cranked out some grant requests, and soon had more than twice as many buses. A little while later, buses were circling U of I with greater and greater frequency, burning thousands of gallons of diesel fuel each month and tearing up the streets -- all so students wouldn't have to walk a few blocks to classes. Not many people realized it was a waste of tax dollars.
But Grant-Writing Bill now had something very valuable: BIG RIDERSHIP NUMBERS. He was now an Indy, or a Cleveland, or something like that. Never mind that 90% of his annual ridership was students who didn't need his service. Never mind that many of the trips were short hops - from one end of the quad to the other. He had his RIDERS.
Bill started preaching his gospel of urban planning to anyone who would listen. Some of it was good, valid stuff. Some of it was self-serving bovine excrement. But people seemed to like and respect Grant-Writing Bill, and admire the power he possessed as a result of running a rather large empire. Plus, Bill was willing to give any politician or government entity or charity free charter buses and lucrative sponsorships. Grant-Writing Bill was turning into KING BILL.
Next, King Bill proclaimed that his kingdom shall have a palace. He envisioned a place where all transportation providers (including MTD) would converge to serve the needs of subjects. And it would have thousands of square feet of commercial space to cover the operating expenses of the buildings. Most importantly, it would have a plaque on the front so the world would know what King Bill had done.
The palace was built. But King Bill knew very little about managing commercial real estate. And tenants were hard to find. When he did find tenants, they were quickly alienated by King Bill's inept management. There were lawsuits and all sorts of problems. Why can't everyone do what *I* want, King Bill thought?
After a few tries at filling the building with real commercial tenants, King Bill threw up his hands and found a bunch of government-funded organizations to occupy the building. King Bill was comfortable dealing with people like that.
The palace didn't wind up being the vibrant hub of transportation and activity which King Bill had envisioned. Instead, it wound up being just another expensive government building. And at least one transportation provider who wished to serve the palace was turned away, because King Bill had a feud with that provider. Never mind that the building was built to serve the PUBLIC. Why not have it serve King Bill's ego needs, too (instead)?
Eventually, King Bill got up the nerve to pitch a trolley system. It was met with a great deal of resistance. King Bill spent lots of money on consultants and lawyers and travel and P.R., but the subjects simply would not go along with his expensive trolley idea.
Golly, King Bill thought, that trolley folly was VERY costly. Where can I find more money? And then he remembered that he has the power to TAX his subjects.
As he laid in bed, King Bill imagined the boundary of his empire creeping ever outward, gobbling up more and more property and increasing his annual budget and ability to obtain more grant money. Golly, he thought, I don't even have to provide service to increase my income, I can just increase the size of the district.
When King Bill's subjects heard about his new plans, they decided they'd had enough...[to be continued]
Looking at the pdf complaint,I notice that MTD changed title of their agreement with metroLink from "Coach Lease Agreement" to "INTERGOVERMMEh TAL AGREEMENT". But it's the same agreement. Any legal beagles out their have any idea why they'd do that?
"You need to broaden the scope of your analysis. If government entities (who do not pay fuel tax, property tax, etc.) all got into business with their idle assets, many private businesses would shrink or fail. Private businesses pay fuel tax, property tax, payroll tax, income tax and so forth. When they fail, they stop paying such taxes. MTD gathering a few extra bucks by employing idle aassets may seem harmless enough, but it's not. And it just happens to be illegal."
I would like to retract my previous statement without condition. It is extremely frustrating to me when our political culture measures progress on the increase in budget instead of achievement. Reading into the MTD, they are definitely the problem and not the solution.
I don't understand where all you MTD haters are when governments shovel tens of millions of dollars in grants and subsidies to real estate developers. And when the developers decide they can't make enough money what what they've already agreed to build, the governments just give them more money. Why aren't you guys up in arms every day about that, like you are with the MTD? Could it be that you and your buddies aren't the ones who use the MTD, while you and your buddies are the ones who benefit from the real estate development the taxpayers are funding?
Anonymous--I've seen plenty of complaints about subsidies to developers. We've had lengthy discussions about the downtown, etc. Someone else brought up an interesting point. Why should the MTD be using tax dollars to donate to anything? I've seen information that they donate to the local PBS channel, etc. If I, as a taxpayer, want to contribute to some charity, I should be allowed to do so, but I don't want any governmental entity donating my tax dollars to the charity of their choice just so they can expand their influence.
"I don't understand where all you MTD haters are when..."
Division of labor. We keep an eye on MTD, you keep an eye on real estate concerns. And we both keep each other posted on interesting developments.
Champaign Dweller,
It would seem to me that somewhere along the way the MTD probably allots some of its budget for advertising and promotions. It would also seem to me that doing so in a manner that benefits other local entities might just be a form of responsible advocacy.
If you can figure out where the boundary lies between legitimate advertising and giving away money to ingratiate others, let us know. If you can't, then it is probably best for MTD to avoid "advertising" which consists of giving away cash.
I am so glad there are people who wonder about the charitable donation items that the CU-MTD gives away with tax dollars. I would love to know the total. While I'm sure every organization is worthwhile, it seems improper for my tax dollars to go for what amounts to self-promotion and PR for Volk and Costello.
I don't mind the straight-up ads on the TV and radio promoting the value and contribution of riding the MTD. But places like Crisis Nursery just don't seem right. Public tax dollars for mass transit should go to mass transit.
I bet we'd be shocked by the places and amount of their PR.
How about firing up the old generic bus and letting
AbbotVolk & Costello drive it all over town and explaining who is getting the "free money"???? Then maybe run up to Moline to "blow the cobs" out of it!!!News-Gazette's article on the complaint linked.
Wow, that's a stunningly superficial article.
Maybe the whole issue is superficial and is being pushed by someone with an axe to grind with the MTD and who brought up in a forum known to be frequented by like minded individuals? Only a shot in the dark....
Seems to me that responsible journalists contact both sides of an issue and research it, not just post opinions and accusations on the internet. That is just my opinion though.
(sorry for the friday afternoon snark, cubbies have me in a mood)
FTA/Metrolink claim that golf shuttles were an innocent extension of existing routes is false.
Here is qcmetrolink's route 55:
www.qcmetrolink.com/img/route55-big.jpg
Here are the golf shuttle routes. Be sure to zoom in on the area where the routes converge.
maps.google.com/maps/ms
As you can see, the golf shuttle routes bear no resemblance to Metrolink's route 55. Clearly, Metrolink made false representations when obtaining FTA approval to use MTD buses, and FTA may have been complicit. FTA is both transit cheerleader/benefactor AND regulator.
Typical News-Gazette.
Reading that article was like having a lawn and leaf bag full of cotton balls sprinkled over my body.
The article does not seem to add any information. Everything said in the article is in the letter of complaint.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/snellvilletalk/entries/2007/08/02/why_is_funding.html
Why is funding of public transit seen differently?
By Susan Gast | Thursday, August 2, 2007, 04:00 AM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Woods never examines the underlying legal issues. It's just a he-said, he-said, with the only speakers on one side of the issue. I agree that this sort of superficial reporting is typical of the Gazoo. They should hire an actual investigative journalist or two.
That's a neat map...how does one draw that with google ? I noticed that reporter called people who were not available to talk. One was on vacation and another couldn't take a call. Why didn't the guy call them back?Bill Volk says that what he did was legal. He always says that, even though we all know that some of his actions are quite questionable and sometimes notso legal. His opinion doesn't seem to carry much weight since he's the one on trial, in a manner of speaking. There should be some legal analysis or objective information in this. The reporter couldn't crack a law book or regulation book or something? It's like he made four phone calls, talked to two people on the same side of the issue, and put the whole thing to bed in 15 minutes...
Here's what's new: RTA had already approved what Toeppen complains about. Hence complaint is moot. no story. Learn to read, conspiracy freaks
Anon 01:21,,,,,,,,Conspiracy freaks!!!!!:) What time of the month doe's Volk hand out the payola envelopes ??
Try reading the complaint Anonymous 1:21 before you name call.
The NG story felt warm & soft like a CU MTD fairy tale.
RTA? I don't see any mention of the Regional Transportation Authority in anything.
Just because Volk received approval does not mean that he made accurate representations. If you read the complaint you'll see that they did not. Volk and MTD have a long history of making inaccurate representations.
There is a complaint on the badmtd web sight which talks about Peoria Bus helping MTD get permission to do u of i work by lying for them. Search pundit using allerton and you'll probably find it. MTD had to pay many thousands in damages to settle that case and keep FTA from deciding it.
I don't think anyone should ever assume MTD is innocent or that MTD is telling the truth.
01:21 PM, Anonymous really needs to think before she or he talks.
here is is:
PRIVATE BUS OPERATOR COMPENSATED FOR CHARTER VIOLATIONS
Dennis Toeppen, the President of ABA member Allerton Charter Coach, Inc. of Champaign, Illinois has settled a charter bus complaint and received $13,200 in compensation from the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District for alleged violations of the charter bus regulations.  This is the first time that a private bus operator has received monetary compensation as a result of a charter complaint.  (Earlier this year the Federal Transit Administration withheld $622,000 from Akron Metro upon finding a pattern of charter violations, but the local private operators received no damages from that decision, which is on appeal.)
The Conciliation Agreement, signed by the parties on August 8, 2006, provides:
1. CUMTD will pay Allerton Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($13,200.00) in compensation for the service provided by CUMTD for the University of Illinois Foundation Meeting on September 21-24, 2005, and the North American Snow Conference on April 30-May 3, 2006.
2. CUMTD will refer any inquiries from potential charter customers to the Yellow Pages Directory rather than to specific private charter bus companies.
3. Before entering into an agreement to provide any contract bus service beyond normal regular route scheduled bus service, CUMTD will provide notice of the contract and a copy of its contents to the Regional FTA Administrator in Chicago, to Allerton, and to the American Bus Association at its headquarters in Washington, D.C.
4. Allerton will withdraw its April 19 and May 5, 2006 complaints against CUMTD, and its demand for withholding of FTA funding from CUMTD due to CUMTD violations of the FTA Charter Service regulations (49 CFR Part 604).
Allerton has now withdrawn its complaints against CUMTD with the Regional FTA Administrator in Chicago. In a prior proceeding, the Regional FTA Administrator found that the CUMTD had committed a pattern of 73 violations of the charter rules and ordered the CUMTD to cease and desist from further violations. Allerton Charter Coach v. Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District, Charter Complaint No. 2004-10 (decided February 8, 2005). Allerton is represented in these proceedings by ABA General Counsel Richard Schweitzer.
here:
complaint about mtd/peoria bus
http://www.badmtd.com/complaint/mtdcomplaint0406.pdf
I like that n-g tried to make themselves relevant by reporting on something they normally wouldn't report on, but by their actions cemented their position as irrelevant - by producing a meaningless fluff piece that reads like a mtd press release.
n-g has become and will remain irrelevant, until it goes out of business because everything relevant is happening in other media. like here for instance.