The Limos.com Forum Has Moved!!!

As I am constantly searching for articles, laws and issues covering the transportation industry, I do run across some information that is directly related to my endeavors as well as other items that help tie in the issues as a whole. I'll provide links for all to read & become more educated with transportation.

economic regulation
Read under "State economic regulation of motor carriers" 2nd paragraph

labor laws

Read "Requirements" 2) b

LCT July 2008 "How Much Money Does Each Of Your Vehicles Make?"

A very good article for all to read & set goals by (don't have a heart attack LCT).

I personally know a Operator close to my heart who was grossing $800k to 1million yearly with 2-120's, 2-100's & 2 or 3 sedans. Until I got sidetracked with making the fight against regulators #1 priority with business on the backburner, my goal was to maximize the dollar on each vehicle with the vehicles placed into service being ones that will roll at pricing that the local market would accept.

Highlighted in this article is "Rose Chauffeured Transportation" out of Charlotte, NC who, with a fleet of 35 vehicles pulled in $4.7 million in 2007 with a projection of $5.8 million for 2008 which puts the vehicle to dollar ratio spot on with what my buddy was pulling in (except his figures were from 8 years ago).

Again, great article & good advice for maximizing your fleet dollars.

Interesting Court Decision regarding interstate commerce:

Decided 11/03/98 State of Wisconsin Court of Appeals DistrictIII

Case dealt with the levying of property tax against a Wisconsin Ferry Operation that provided intrastate transport to Washington Island a popular tour destination point.

The Court ruled that because out-of-state visitors were arriving at the Ferry via other conveyances of transportation for continuance of travel to the island, the Ferry transport was deemed to be interstate even though the trip is conducted wholly within Wisconsin.

"When persons or goods move from a point of origin in one state to a point of destination in another, the fact that part of the journey consists of transportation by an independent agency solely within the boundaries of one state does not make that portion of the trip any less interstate in character. That portion must be viewed in its relationship to the entire journey rather than in isolation. So viewed, it is an integral step in the interstate movement"

quote:

Originally posted by Dean Schuler:
P.S. WADE has been around since 1976-ask him about his adventures in BEIRUT ON THE BAYOU !!!!!!!!!!! PPS Like the time his chauffeur Mr. Hill had to pull his guns on the Bureau lackeys. Hilarious !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is about the third time that I have read about this. Wade, what happened down there?

This is an older article that is worth studying vice just reading:
MEARS Central Florida's Taxi Baron

After reading this my feelings are, Gypsy's go for it, as all is crooked!

quote:

Originally posted by Dean Schuler:
When I spoke to a large gathering of Florida operators in 2003, they were much dismayed when I told them to win they must spend BIG BUCKS in Federal Court. The corruption of the spanish parishes ( counties ) stretches from Louisiana to Florida to this day. It is un-American which is the worst insult I could ever say. P.S. WADE has been around since 1976-ask him about his adventures in BEIRUT ON THE BAYOU !!!!!!!!!!! PPS Like the time his chauffeur Mr. Hill had to pull his guns on the Bureau lackeys. Hilarious !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" R.Reagan

When I spoke to a large gathering of Florida operators in 2003, they were much dismayed when I told them to win they must spend BIG BUCKS in Federal Court. The corruption of the spanish parishes ( counties ) stretches from Louisiana to Florida to this day. It is un-American which is the worst insult I could ever say. P.S. WADE has been around since 1976-ask him about his adventures in BEIRUT ON THE BAYOU !!!!!!!!!!! PPS Like the time his chauffeur Mr. Hill had to pull his guns on the Bureau lackeys. Hilarious !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very Interesting, especially for those who are prohibited from obtaining permits required in other jurisdictions because your fleet doesn't meet up to economic standards ie, no Chrysler 300 or Hybrids allowed, resulting in loss of revenue:

"The Constitution's Fifth Amendment says no property shall be "taken" without just compensation. The concept of an injury through "regulatory taking" is familar and defensible. Such an injury occurs when a government regulation reduces the value of property by restricting its use."

George Will

quote:

Originally posted by TxLimoGuy:
Last paragraph is amusing...

Yet so true.....

Last paragraph is amusing...

Press Release from: Florida Intrastate Transportation Alliance

Tampa Cabbie Makes Plea To Cap Limousine

During the February 14, 2007 meeting of the Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission (HCPTC), Tampa Cabbie Charles Smalling pleaded with the Commission to place a cap on limousine permits.

The HCPTC an Independent Special District created by the Florida Legislature for the purpose of regulating public vehicle operations within Hillsborough County has expanded the role to a statewide regulatory agency based on the interstate transportation hubs located in Tampa. Under threat of arrest and vehicle seizure, intrastate motor carriers utilizing limousines and small buses
must submit their business operations to the economic regulatory control of the HCPTC to facilitate entering Tampa to load their prearranged and/or chartered intercounty bound passengers.

Outlying counties have seen tremendous growth over the past several years and so has the demand for transportation commensurate with this population explosion. Tampa Taxi operations are seeking ways to garner a piece of this action by obtaining additional restrictions and force the traveling consumer arriving in Tampa to the utilize local taxi service for transport to final destination.

A self-proclaimed spokesperson for the Tampa Taxi Drivers, Mr. Smalling recently presented to the Commission a petition signed by taxi drivers to halt the licensing of intrastate motor carriers under pretense that these carriers are taking business away from the local businesses. This has prompted some of the Commissioner's to call for research of capping the licenses.

George Vallee of Airport Car Services countered Mr. Smalling's pleadings and bewildered the clueless Commissioners with a reminder that there are issues and ramifications that must be addressed when seeking to restrict intrastate motor carriers operating within the stream of interstate commerce.

This is a change brought forth by the "Motor Carrier Safety Reauthorization Act of 2005" that I find interesting yet don't quite know how to put it into play yet:

Title 49 USC ss 13102 Definitions

( 20 ) Taxicab service - The term taxicab service means passenger transportation in a motor vehicle having a capacity of not more than 8 passengers (including the driver), not operated on a regular route or between specified places, and that -

( A ) is licensed as a taxicab by a State or a local jurisdiction; or
( B ) is offered by a person that -
( i ) provides local transportation for a fare determined (except with respect to transportation to or from airports) primarily on the basis of the distance traveled; and
( ii ) does not primarily provide transportation to or from airports.


When Taxi Barons attempt, by means of paying off the politicos, to create monopolies of the interstate transportation hubs can this law be used as ammo in fighting back? Law is pretty damn clear:

Local Transportation
Not Primarily Used For AP Transfers

BTW, this latest "interesting reading" piece is the Class Action Suit (argued Dec 2004) brought against Pittsburgh Transportation by its drivers seeking back over-time payments. The transportation company primarily provides intrastate transportation for the disadvantage & makes occasional AP transfers & tried to wiggle out of paying the OT by claiming the "once in a blue moon" transfers equated to the drivers being engaged as interstate providers.

The Drivers won.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: gunny,

Civilian personnel have odd opinions of what the law is Gunny !

quote:

Originally posted by gunny:
What I find interesting with the article covering the Federal Preemption:

Congress declared that state regulation of intrastate transportation of property has:
Imposed an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

Impeded the free flow of trade, traffic, and transportation of interstate commerce; and

Placed an unreasonable cost on the American consumers.


Under "State Economic Regulation of Motor Carriers"

"Most significantly, when a motor carrier of passengers is transporting property in intrastate commerce, the state will lack authority to regulate price, route, or service for any of the transported property. This is true even if the property is being transportetd in the same vehicle that moves passengers"

An example to cite is that Tampa restricts the intrastate motor carrier to either "luxury transportation" or "shuttle service" transportation & requires a Certificate of Public Convenience & Neccessity for both classifications. What Tampa in effect is doing is regulating "type of service" of motor carriers of passengers and property. This is done under claim that the State has conferred such authority through a special act of local application. Question & the challenge is, how can the State confer something that the State itself lacks the authority to do?

It sure appears to be the case. But thats just me out here in the North woods expressing an opinion and you know what they say about opinions and body orifice's

Pages 32-33

In the 1940s the supreme Court twice addressed the question whether Capital transit, a company that provided public transit almost entirely within the District of Columbia, was subject to the regulatory authority of the ICC. The Court's approach, in upholding the ICC's athority, focused heavily on the massive interstate movement of Capitals Transit's passengers; the facts of the two Capital Transit cases offer an instructive counterpoint to the facts of the case at bar. Thousands of Capital Transit's passengers were commuting government employees who rode the company's streetcars or buses within the District to transfer points where they boarded interstate transportation to Virginia. In its first opinion on the matter, United States v. Capital Transit Co., the court found that Capital Transit was subject to ICC regulation in part because it provided interstate service on one particular route that ran from the District of Columbia into Virginia. However, on a rehearing of the same case after Capital Transit had discontinued its sole interstate route, the court again found that the ICC had regulatory autthority. The court stood by its earlier holding that Capital Transit's transportation service - now provided exclusively within the District - was "part of a continuous stream of interstate transportation," and "an integral part of an interstate movement."

So based on this opinion, would a transportation service offering and providing transfers (aiports, bus stations, cruise ports etc.) to the residents of the community the service is based in be deemed to be engaged in "interstate transportation" even if the vehicles never cross state lines?

This is a little long but good reading regarding a courts opinion on intrastate/interstate transportation:

Read Pages 33-41

Yes
OK
Understood

The airport being a local/state agency is imposing an economic burden on a specific segment of the public by imposing a fee on a specific provider of that service. Get my point? If nothing else, it could be considered discrimination.

How AP use fees correlates with Federal Preemptions of State economic regulation of intrastate motor carriers is beyond me. But if it turns your world, go for it...

Kind of like the $10.00 fee that DTW is imposeing on the Public for the "privlidge" of having your private car parking in the Limo Parking area and the "privlidge" of entering a public Building when for $1.50 you could park your Sedan in the Vendors Public parking lot just like John Q. Public, go inside the public Building just like John Q. Public, greet your Client just like John Q. Public and walk out of the Building with your Client right behind you just like John Q. Public. The parking lot vendor could care less if you park there, your money is just as green as John Q. Publics.

For the more enlighted business traveler who does not need the assistance of the Chauffeur, perhaps a Drive by/scoop up at the Hotel on the upper level would be in order. Don't cost you a Dime for that. You are just picking up a Guest at the Hotel. It is done every day. For the real "creative" Guy, grab an off property parking lot shuttle, tip the Driver a "Buck" ride across the street and meet your Sedan service there. I guess my Taxi Roots are showing again.

Business's do not pay taxes and fees, the Business's customers pay taxes and fees.