# US DOT Crackdown on Chinatown bus companies



## afigg (Jun 1, 2012)

There was a widely publicized crackdown by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration of the US DOT in the news yesterday. Bloomberg article. They were cracking down on the low end Chinatown curbside bus operators. Who have in the past re-started under new names, so how effect the crackdown will have remains to be seen.

Amtrak might get some business from those passengers whose plans were disrupted by the crackdown, but I expect most of them will end up on other curbside bus operators.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 1, 2012)

As his partner said to Jake in "Chinatown": "Forget it Jake, it's just Chinatown!" <_<

(Hope Chicago starts doing this and other citiies too where these parasites freeload! :help: )


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jun 2, 2012)

To be clear Megabus was not a part of this crackdown. From THIS article:



> "This is a problem that goes back years," says Dan Ronan, senior communications director with the American Bus Association. "We are very pleased...DOT last night and over the last 36 hours has taken this action.
> "We think this is very good news."
> 
> No companies that belong to ABA were involved in the DOT investigation announced Thursday.
> ...


----------



## Anderson (Jun 3, 2012)

The Davy Crockett said:


> To be clear Megabus was not a part of this crackdown. From THIS article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm just wondering...could the DOT actually start impounding Chinatown buses that are stopped for an extended period of time (and taking down the VIN numbers, which IIRC should be on some of the hardware) and/or find a way to disbar owners from re-entering the bus business for an extended period of time? Another idea would be to rework the forms for DOT numbers and hit companies doing the number-switching game for either fraud of some sort (probably for misrepresenting themselves as a different operation) or for obstruction of justice (i.e. the number-switching game being a clear attempt to evade the law).


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jun 3, 2012)

Anderson said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> > To be clear Megabus was not a part of this crackdown. From THIS article:
> ...


I'm not sure what methods they are using, but LaHood said that the investigation is ongoing and that DOT is determined to get these operators off the roads permanently. There is/was also money to step up enforcement in the surface tranportation bill that is going nowhere in Congress.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 3, 2012)

The Davy Crockett said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just wondering...could the DOT actually start impounding Chinatown buses that are stopped for an extended period of time (and taking down the VIN numbers, which IIRC should be on some of the hardware) and/or find a way to disbar owners from re-entering the bus business for an extended period of time? Another idea would be to rework the forms for DOT numbers and hit companies doing the number-switching game for either fraud of some sort (probably for misrepresenting themselves as a different operation) or for obstruction of justice (i.e. the number-switching game being a clear attempt to evade the law).
> ...


Agreed. I heard that among other things, they've put into place a system where the worst owners are no longer able to even apply for a permit to operate buses without regard to what company name they choose. Granted that might not stop the owners from using a relatives name or something like that.

But the DOT is trying to get these guys off the road permanently.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 3, 2012)

AlanB said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


Hmmm...they might end up needing a "straw man" rule of some sort for those permits (since the "owner" could just operate a subsidiary run by someone else to get the permit). Still, it's good to see the effort; dangerously-operated _anything_ is bad news, be it buses (here), airplanes (ColganAir), or trains. The big problem with buses, I suspect, is that the barriers to entry are so low (a used bus or two and possibly one licensed driver to cover for the regular ones) that it's not even funny compared with virtually any other industry, and unlike with airplanes, you can't control to a highway like you can control it with an airport (or rail line).


----------



## Braniff747SP (Jun 4, 2012)

Glad they're cracking down on this. Better for the safety for all of us, and for passengers.



Anderson said:


> Hmmm...they might end up needing a "straw man" rule of some sort for those permits (since the "owner" could just operate a subsidiary run by someone else to get the permit). Still, it's good to see the effort; dangerously-operated _anything_ is bad news, be it buses (here), airplanes (ColganAir), or trains. The big problem with buses, I suspect, is that the barriers to entry are so low (a used bus or two and possibly one licensed driver to cover for the regular ones) that it's not even funny compared with virtually any other industry, and unlike with airplanes, you can't control to a highway like you can control it with an airport (or rail line).


I would certainly not call Colgan unsafe. No airline in operation in the US is 'dangerously' flying airplanes.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 4, 2012)

Braniff747SP said:


> Glad they're cracking down on this. Better for the safety for all of us, and for passengers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not at present, but IIRC there was a blowup after a crash back in the late 90s where it became clear that they were cutting _way_ too many corners on maintenance.


----------

