CUMTD Board Appointments

....for that matter, St. Joseph, Thomasboro, Tolono, Rantoul....look-out! Or at least start forming your own MTD now!

Tom Betz (chair of Policy Committee) said the Republicans "hate" George Friedman because he stands for a solid mass transit. Phooey. This is about accountability and oversight. Republicans aren't against mass transit in the areas that are truly served. But the MTD has a Pac Man mentality (News-Gazette words) with taxation and annexation. And they are NOT listening, only lipservice.

I have sumbitted an application for a seat on the CUMTD Board of Directors. Get to know me at http://www.toeppen.com

I see my role as that of devil's advocate.

Regards,
Dennis Toeppen

Thank you, IP, for at least recognizing that protesting against an unelected board is similar. You are at leat reasonable in accepting that there are some parallels.

I concede your points about the BOT "appearing" (my word) to be responsive. So maybe if the CUMTD "acts" responsive, without truly being so, like the BOT "acts" responsive without being so, that's good enough?

I may not have done any of the above. My knowledge of the application process is limited to what I found on the MTD and county websites. I obtained the application and tendered it to the county today.

Can you point me to additional information? I'm certainly willing to leap through the proper hoops.

Dennis

Scott,

Shame on me for not keeping myself better informed.

If Ms. Wysocki has any interest in pursuing an interview with me, I would gladly make myself available at any time tomorrow.

Dennis

No offense taken. Sorry if the first sentence of my message contained ambiguous emotional content.

I wish I'd made myself aware of the details of the selection process at an earlier date.

Was an application deadline published somewhere?

Is there any possibility of lobbying Ms Wysocki for a last-minute interview?

Dennis

As if the dems would actually consider someone who even questioned the wisdom of sprawling MTD into low density areas since the answer is so obvious.

Savoy alone probably has about 4,000 potential voters and growing to move away from frugality to tax (or borrow) and spend.

The fear mongers who suggest that the MTD will be annexing outlying communities would be well advised to familiarize themselves with the law. Mass transit districts cannot annex agricultural zoned land, and they cannot leapfrog over it to annex a distant town.

Appointing persons to the MTD who are totally clueless and just want to "play the devil's advocate" would be horrible public policy and that would hurt our entire community.

It remains a reasonable policy goal to require all persons living in the contiguous developed area of our community to share fairly in the costs associated with urban services, whether they personally ever get on a bus or whether they are just that driver who want the roads to remain uncongested.

Tell us, professor, which would be the wiser choice....those who have proven themselves untrustworthy, or those attempting to stand as a voice for change?

Anon 7:39

you should put your name on your comments, so we know who to serve them up to a little later.

Mr. Tapley, I know you are a busy man with a job, but why won't you respond to my schoolchildren transportation issue?

Have you just been too busy to respond, or is this the dirty little secret that your constituent families should know about, and you won't tell them the truth?

I don't know for sure, Anon, but I would think that whoever contracts to provide bus service for school children would be allowed to pick them up. Are kids in Savoy being picked up now?

IP said, "I generally favor direct election over appointment"

Me, too. But generally, not always. And not for the MTD.

As to the Federal Reserve Board, you should really get to know what they do. Among other things, in a nutshell, they set interest rates. They set the price of "fed funds", the interest rate on government obligations, T-Bills, T-bonds, the "discount rate", etc, which is immediately reflected in mortgage interest rates, and a little delayed in credit card rates, auto loan rates, and bonding authority rates, which may mean higher (or lower) rates and therefore obligations municipalities pay for bonds.

When "Greenspan" (he's the former fed chairman, he's out now, but is the name most are familiar with) speaks, the markets react.

Anon8:58;

"That issue, though, being an unelected board, is one side of it. I would fear too much polarization if the board was elected.

I don't think we really need anti-MTD people on the board. We need reasonable people on the board"

Why do you fear democracy? Who said any applicants to the board are unreasonable? What is your definition of unreasonable? Could it be "unmanagable by Volk?" Is not the elected County Board Polarized?

We need a system of checks and balances. What you are proposing is socialist, and that is exactly the mindset we do not need in a public position.

dev·il's advocate (dvlz)
n.
One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.

Anon 9:05:

Don't be ree-dik-u-luss!

If MTD, or any private entity for that matter, contracts with the school district to pick up school children, it takes its directive from the school district, not MTD. Therefore, whoever provides school transportation, provides it to ALL school children.

Speaking of children, what a childish notion. "Its my bus, and if you don't play by MY RULES, I'm gonna take my bus away from you.!"

GROW UP!

Anon:

So in your mind, if one entity, branch, or board is unjust, that make it okay? Dear God I hope your not in a power position.

Can you actually answer my questions though? I'll check back laterfor your answer. I'm going to go embezzle some public funds from starving children. Hey! Others are doing it, must be okay, right?!

Sheeesh!

Exactly what law are you referring to?

Tapley is the "expert", let him answer about the impact a SavoyMTD and/or a SWMTD will have on schoolchildren.

But he won't answer, because he knows the dark side of his issue is that it means the potential for growth, new families buying nice houses in his neighborhood, stops at the SWMTD border.

Anon,

Did you find that law yet or is your public funded lobbyist still writing it?

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]

Don't get me wrong--I agree that the private charter situation sounds indefensible.

My only concern is that forcing one public agency (UI) to charter from a private operator rather than another public agency (MTD) probably results in a higher overall cost to the taxpayer, benefiting only the private charter operator. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Hold on. There is an interesting article in which Volk is quoted that helps make sense of everything. A good thread name would be something like, "Chickens, Eggs & Building an Empire that Nobody Wants"

MTD exists to provide "legitimate mass transit". Other activities are outside its charter and are mostly not eligible for federal funding. Why? Because there are private businesspeople who have invested in buses and real estate and equipment who stand ready to serve customers who require contract and charter transportation. These businesspeople pay property taxes, fuel taxes, employment taxes and so on. If you owned a transportation company and you woke up one morning and found that your taxes were being used to operate services which compete with you, how would you react?

The government doesn't need to be in businesses which the private sector is willing and able to provide.

Remember, MTD came into existence because private companies had failed. If private companies would provide the services which MTD is providing, without subsidies, you wouldn't argue with that, would you? Well, then you shouldn't have any argument with those who react negatively to MTD invading areas where the private sector is providing adequate services without the operators having to suck on the government nipple.

If you want to live in a socialist state, where government provides most of the services you use on a daily basis, you're in the wrong place.

As for the Illini Swallow arrangement, it is even more horriffic than the Allerton complaint alludes to. MTD was not "operating charters for Illini Swallow" and paying a finder's fee. Instead, MTD was fielding charter calls, taking charter orders, operating charters, and paying Illini Swallow a 10% tribute for not blowing the whistle on MTD for operating illegal charters. At least, that's the way I heard it.

This is very interesting stuff! Unfortunately, most posters have moved from this thread since it started over 2 days ago. I hope IP recalls this issue sometime. People need to see this info.

Lazlo,

The U of I buses running in circles are not the subject of the FTA complaint. At issue are the illegal extracurricular activites of the MTD.

Life in Hell

I wasn't referring the the regularly scheduled UI campus service. One of the complaints on the "badmtd" site included the UI using MTD buses for student orientation. I assume that the MTD using excess capacity can provide that kind of incidental service to the UI cheaper than a private operator. Artificially requiring one taxpayer-financed agency (UI) to pay a premium for private buses instead of renting another public agency's (MTD) excess capacity sounds like soaking the taxpayer. If Champaign needed another snow plow one weekend and Urbana had an extra one, would you let Champaign "rent" from Urbana and reimburse them for their costs, or would you force Champaign to rent it on the open market?

Good analogy Charlie. Glad you're here.

....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.

Nobody's gotten my analogy yet. The soup kitchen shouldn't be allowed to use its grant-funded kitchen to serve paying private-sector customers. The city shouldn't be allowed to use its taxpayer-funded plows to service a private sector customer, whether it's a church or a video store. The MTD shouldn't be allowed to rent charter buses to private sector customers either, which is apparently what the law says and what the FTA said in its responses.

The proper soup kitchen analogy would be the power going out at the kitchen in the County Jail across the street. As a taxpayer, do you want to let the shelter kitchen feed the prisoners using the equipment you've already paid for, or do you want that equipment to sit idle while the County hands your tax dollars to McDonald's?

The proper snowplow analogy would be Champaign needing a snowplow that Urbana wasn't using at the moment (say, some of Champaign's plows broke down, or the snow was heavier in Champaign than Urbana). Maybe a better example would be Champaign Fire or Police calling for backup from Urbana, or vice versa, which happens all the time). Do you let the other agency's facilities sit idle, while you spend tax money renting the resources in the private sector, or do you let the first agency contract for service from the second?

This minor point has gotten far more attention that it deserves. I'm just surprised and a bit disappointed from a taxpayer's perspective that the "private charter" restrictions apparently don't exempt incidental service to other taxpayer-funded agencies. I tend to be suspicious of legislation that appears to favor transferring tax money to the private sector rather than minimizing the tax burden.

Absolutely, as far as the private sector goes, and as I've been saying over and over.

No one seems to want to address the issue of incidental service to public agencies, so never mind.

Ok, so the UI does have to spend tax dollars to rent from a private charter company rather than rent MTD excess capacity, even if the MTD is cheaper. Still sounds like corporate welfare to me, but at least it's consistent.

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.

Apparently, the County Board would prefer groupthink on the MTD Board, rather than consider even one contrarian. Remember the Bay of Pigs?