Traffic congestion on Oahu is so bad that we are now speculated to be the most choked-up in the Nation. Our government, on all three levels, wants to raise over $5 billion for a transit project that proponents admit will not reduce traffic, but only hold the line, while suggesting that it will provide other benefits for Oahu鈥檚 travelers. Yet the state鈥檚 largest agency wants to get rid of, or severely reduce, a major transit benefit on all islands that can, if optimized, reduce traffic by 20-30 percent during select hours almost immediately with no further investment 鈥 all while providing the benefit of protecting our most valuable resource, our children 鈥 by getting them to and from school safely.

Hawai’i’s Department of Education is trying to get rid of a major transit benefit, claiming it has little to do with education. The DOE admits repeatedly in reports to the Board of Education and the Legislature that reducing school bus service will increase truancy by various margins 鈥 yet continues to recommend reducing that service. Yes, transit costs money, but the cost is far outweighed by the benefits. That is part of the Federal Transit Administration鈥檚 mandate. The whole theory of transit funding is that for every dollar spent, many more dollars are returned as benefits to communities. Historically, school bus service has been three times as efficient as city buses. It is a cost-effective transit system for transporting students to and from school, at one-third the cost.

In Hawai’i, school bus service is four times as efficient as other transit services yet that is too much for the DOE and the Legislature to fund! The last two Legislatures have required a cost-benefit analysis from the DOE on school bus service. But the DOE wrote barely a paragraph on the subject; it did not even do a decent financial analysis. It decided that school bus service costs money and has little to do with education, other than being the greatest factor in reducing truancy.

A cost-benefit analysis would have shown, among other things, the dangers to children of walking in a high-traffic environment with and without sidewalks; the risk of being molested and other sexual misconduct on city buses; the benefits to community of reduced traffic on roads and around schools; the excessive consumption and cost of fuel sitting in traffic around schools; and much, much more.

Instead, the DOE seeks to match the school bus fare with the fare of the city bus 鈥 $1.25 鈥 when the city bus is much less efficient and costs four times more. The fare for school bus service should never have been allowed to get above 30 cents a trip 鈥 one fourth of the city bus fare. The DOE should be trying to maximize the service, not minimize it. Fill up underutilized school buses to get cars and children off the road by reducing the fare, not increasing it.
In the State鈥檚 search for funding options: Federal law states that school districts can get school bus funds from the Federal Transit Administration (49 USC 搂 5323). But Washington, D.C., shenanigans have defined school buses with 鈥渃harter, or intercity bus transportation or intercity passenger rail transportation,鈥 essentially making school bus service ineligible for funding (49 USC 搂 5302).

Fortunately, we have U.S. Senator Dan Inouye who could look into this matter and explain that school buses are actually community public transportation vehicles and school districts that use school buses qualify for FTA funds. This will also help other school districts in our country that have to reduce school bus service because of the current economic situation.

School Transportation News published an online article in May, 2011 based on a survey conducted by the American Association of School Administrators estimating that, all things being equal, 20,000 student transportation jobs (likely drivers) will be lost over the next year out of an estimated 60,000 “classified” education jobs. This directly affects how children get to school. The strategy of having school bus programs ineligible for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) subsidies under 49 USC 搂 5302 has failed exclusive school bus programs. Proponents of this ineligibility insist that it protects school bus programs from encroachment by FTA subsidized transit agencies. However, FTA-subsidized transit “tripper” services are transporting school children with impunity showing that the defining Federal legislation is having no benefit for school bus services and serves only to enhance transit services. If a school bus route or school bus program is lost 鈥 due to the current economy 鈥 the FTA-subsidized tripper service can legally step in and service those lost routes and the routes of the lost school bus program 鈥 all because school busses are not considered special public transportation under 49 USC 搂 5302. Instead, school busses are included with busses and trains that travel between cities, even though school busses are in fact urban and community busses.

The school bus definition in 49 USC 搂 5302 appears to be protecting FTA funded transit agencies at the expense of exclusive school bus programs for school districts in dire economic straights today for which the defining action was said to be taken. This is in direct contravention of Congress’ intent as indicated by additional transit laws and regulations. Based upon its interpretation of the Federal transit and school bus operations regulations, the State of Hawai’i had plans to discontinue mainstream school bus service on the island of Oahu starting with the 2012-2013 school year. The $11.4 million cost was cited as too expensive for the state’s total $79 million student transportation program; yet, municipalities and states cannot build a bridge for $11.4 million and a mile of two lane highway costs $20 million.

To put the funding amounts in perspective, and using Hawai’i as a model, the city bus service on Oahu (TheBus) has a budget of more than $200 million. The FTA provides “TheBus” with an average of $20-30 million in grants annually in the past. Oahu, where the HDOE wants to eliminate mainstream school bus service has traffic congestion that is estimated to be the worst in the Nation in some studies. This congestion will get much worse without school busses and with the price of fuel increasing, this congestion is taxing for parents driving their children to school and increases our net consumption of fuels at the worst time 鈥 when fuel costs the most. Some school districts across the Nation have already discontinued school bus service. Imagine the impact these job cuts have on local and national unemployment rates, think of the traffic congestion and resulting pollution that are caused at and around schools all across the country. And, again, think of the students who are being forced onto city busses to ride with the pedophiles and sex offenders.

The existing subsidy strategy pits the financial might of transit agencies with support and subsidies from the Federal government against not only private school bus contractors but also against small school districts that derive their limited income from property taxes. This is not David and Goliath. It is a recipe for what has happened 鈥 the school districts lose. Property taxes, the most common source of funds for schools and therefore school bus service, are not able to keep pace with the costs of education and transportation in our current economy. Today, property taxes are in serious decline due to the nature of the current recession. The property tax funding scenario for school systems is at least half a century old and times have changed significantly since it was created.

Unfortunately, Federal law mandates that school bus design be updated every five years and the lifetime of a school bus is limited. This is costly and in recent years the price tag of a school bus has doubled. The result is the safest and largest transportation system in the world, but it is now much more expensive. Labor costs have also risen significantly.

The National School Transportation Association (NSTA) submitted testimony and supplemental testimony during the June 2008 hearings in Congress on the Proposed Policy Statement on FTA’s School Bus Operations Regulations. NSTA provides data that clearly demonstrates that school bus programs would get much more value out of each subsidy dollar than transit services. NSTA says:

“. . . we are compelled to point out that the cost of public transportation is in fact much higher than the cost of school bus transportation. Using either the cost per passenger mile or the cost per bus, transit is three times as expensive as school bus service, notwithstanding the superior safety and security features of the yellow bus. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics puts the per-passenger-mile cost of public transit at $0.94 compared to school bus service at $0.34 (2003 figures). And a comparison of transit and school bus operating costs conducted this year by FirstGroup, the largest bus operator in the country, showed a national average annual cost per bus of $53,072 for transit and $17,465 for school bus. In addition, transit buses are 66% more expensive to maintain than yellow buses, and yellow buses are 44% more fuel-efficient than transit buses. [See FirstGroup鈥檚 comments at 0184.] So while it may be true that the cost to a school district for student transportation by federally-subsidized transit bus is less, it is simply a matter of cost-shifting; the cost to taxpayers is actually much higher.” (Supplemental Testimony) (emphasis added)

It would seem that it would be in the interest of the United States Government to get as many dedicated and exclusive school busses back on the road as possible to save money. Subsidies for exclusive school bus programs would reverse the failings of the property tax system funding school districts. After the fall is reversed, it would be in the interest of the FTA’s funding programs to increase subsidies for school bus programs, even if they would be at the expense of transit agencies, so school busses could be put on urban routes to get students off of city busses so that there is more room for adults. And, again, think of the students who are being forced onto city busses to ride with the convicted sex offenders and pedophiles. If the city busses operate at reduced load as a result, then city busses can be taken off the road at a savings for the transit agency and reduced costs of transit operating subsidies for the FTA.

It is obvious in the law and regulations that Congressional intent has always been to save exclusive school bus programs at the expense of transit services; most likely because school bus services are so safe and economical. Otherwise, Congress would not have created exceptions for exclusive school bus programs so they can get grants. There are also other protections to keep transit agencies from starting school bus programs with city busses like they have managed to do anyway.

It is time for the Federal Government to stop letting influential transit advocates dictate what is good for the country for transit special corporate gain at the expense of our Nation and our children. Congress needs to allow school bus programs to get competitive with their cost effectiveness through FTA subsidies and help our children and their parents once again.

To save the mass transit and safety benefits of school bus service, the Federal Law needs to change to allow school districts to receive FTA funds for their school bus services.

In 49 USC 搂 5323 the code provides support for exclusive school bus programs run by school districts. (The misspelling of schoolbus is part of the ploy.)

搂 5323. General provisions on assistance

(f) Schoolbus Transportation.鈥
(1) Agreements. 鈥 Financial assistance under this chapter may be used for a capital project, or to operate public transportation equipment or a public transportation facility, only if the applicant agrees not to provide schoolbus transportation that exclusively transports students and school personnel in competition with a private schoolbus operator. This subsection does not apply

(A) to an applicant that operates a school system in the area to be served and a separate and exclusive schoolbus program for the school system;

But, in 49 USC 搂 5302 鈥 the definitions 鈥 school bus is excluded from FTA funding along with any form of between-cities transportation. Yet, discriminatory public transit like elderly, handicapped and reverse-commute (inner-city workers transported to suburbs) is included as “special transportation”. School bus service is discriminatory, “child-security specific” public transit and is thus also a “special transportation”. And because it is urban, school busses have nothing to do with the intercity transportation with which it has been pigeonholed. The actual definitions in the law, 49 USC 搂 5302, are;

(10) Public transportation.–The term “public transportation” means transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing general or special transportation to the public, but does not include schoolbus, charter, or intercity bus transportation or intercity passenger rail transportation provided by the entity described in chapter 243 (or a successor to such entity).

Furthermore, Federal Regulations 49 CFR 搂 605.11 Exemptions, would allow school bus districts to have part of their school bus programs funded by the FTA if not for the misnomer in the law 49 USC 5302 that inappropriately excludes school bus service.

搂 605.11 Exemptions says.

A grantee or applicant may not engage in school bus operations in competition with private school bus operators unless it demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator as follows:

(a) That it operates a school system in its urban area and also operates a separate and exclusive school bus program for that school system; or

By allowing school districts to subsidize school bus service with FTA grants, school bus service can get back to full operations in Hawai’i and other school districts. But if the US budget problems persist, increasing the subsidies will allow school busses to take back school bus routes by underselling tripper services and offering school bus convenience and safety for children and peace of mind their parents at a savings for all taxpayers.

Where Do We Go from Here

The current situation in which we find ourselves is the result of the actions of past Hawai’i DOE administrations. The current Superintendent finds herself between a “rock and a hard spot”. Also the previous BOE was involved in our predicament and now we have a new BOE to move us in a different direction. The last critical factor in our problem is the last governor who, as noted in the Superintendent’s memo for the June 19th meeting of the BOE in section 4. Discussion (b.); the amendments to Chapter 27 of the last BOE were approved by Governor Linda Lingle and became effective on June 15, 2009. (Also, not all parties were noticed for the hearing(s) that produced the amendments making the amendments extrajudicial). We need to start anew, a “New Day” if you will, and not rush through this process required by the Legislature and the citizens of Hawai’i.

In the Superintendent’s memo for the June 19th BOE meeting Section 4. Discussion (a.), the Superintendent notes that the Department of the Attorney General advised that fare-setting should not have been delegated to the DOE, with the approval of the BOE, as was done in the document Governor Lingle signed. The amount of the fare should also have remained in the rule.

There is a glaring need for the BOE to provide strong guidance for the DOE on the school bus service issue today. All actions by the BOE and DOE being taken today and in the near future are being taken in a void, a void that the Legislature asked twice to be filled by important information; 2011 and the last session. In the 2011 session the Legislature asked for a “Cost Benefit Analysis” to be executed for school bus service so that the moneys given to the DOE could be justified and show cause why the program should continue to be funded. The last session had to spell out what a “Cost Benefit Analysis” is so that there would be cause to fund the program next year. The failed actions of the DOE in response to the lawful requests of the Legislature in 2011 resulted in the reduced funding by $17 million in 2012.

This failure was due to a lack of guidance between BOE installations and new DOE administrations. Only a miracle could have solved this problem. The Legislature wants to give the money to the DOE for school bus service, but the DOE has no idea how to ask for it. It is up to the BOE to provide guidance on this critical issue. This is the primary source of funds to keep this vital service to the community, parents and students operating efficiently. The BOE needs to require the DOE to hold hearings or meetings to gather information for a cost benefit analysis of school bus service ASAP. This could be one of the first actions of the consultant that is hired by the DOE to investigate and make recommendations regarding the school bus issue in Hawai鈥檌. It could also be a part of any hearings conducted for the updating of Chapter 27.

The next source of funds (not yet tapped) are the transit funds of the Federal Transit Administration as noted earlier. The United States Code (Federal Law) states that school districts that operate their own school bus program can get funding from the FTA (49 USC 搂5323). The Code of Federal Regulations even regulates it with similar wording (49 CFR 搂605.11), but school bus is defined absurdly as being a service between cities like AMTRAC trains and Greyhound and Trailways busses (49 USC 搂5302). This is simply not true.

Senator Dan Inouye can resolve this issue and help solve school bus problems across the country if the BOE and DOE petition him to reconcile this issue. It is critical that the BOE resolves, with the DOE, to ask Senator Inouye to correct this serious flaw in Federal Law. Others cannot do the job for the Board and the Department.

Finally, the Statement of Purpose in 搂8-27-1 of the school bus document in question at recent BOE meetings (Chapter 27) states that, “The purpose of this chapter is to facilitate compliance with State compulsory attendance law, and to comply with 搂302A-406, HRS, and Federal Law relating to the provision for a free and appropriate public education, specifically the provision of transportation services to disabled students and to provide access to equal educational opportunity without undue transportation hardships.”

Facilitate means, “to make easier . . . help bring about”. The modifications to Chapter 27 over the last ten years, and the current proposals, do nothing of the sort. What have we gotten? Section 4. Discussion (i) of the June 19th Memo: “Educational implications 鈥 Reducing student transportation services and increasing cost for some students may cause increased student tardiness and absenteeism, to the detriment of their academic success.” In fact what has occurred over the last ten years is a concerted effort to impede transportation services to school children. We need a “New Day” for school bus service desperately.

A Basic Comparison of School Bus Service VS TheBus

*Act 164, SLH 2011 (HB 200, H01, SOl, C01, Section 131)

Action Requested

No funds for FY2012-13 shall be expended for home-to- school transportation costs not mandated by state or federal law, provided the ODE report on comprehensive analysis of alternatives for providing student transportation, cost-benefit analysis of each alternative, prioritized transportation routes, examination of fee schedules and pricing strategies, evaluation of other jurisdiction programs, and recommendations including actual costs of all services.


About the author: Ken LeVasseur has been a school bus driver for 32 years and for the last twenty years has also been a project administer on school bus and truck issues. In years past he was also a lobbyist for the school bus association. This paper is not written with the approval or permission of his employer or the school bus association and is solely the result of Ken’s research and interests. If Ken advocates for anyone it for the students, parents and communities being impacted by the recent Board and Department of Education actions.

Support Independent, Unbiased News

Civil Beat is a nonprofit, reader-supported newsroom based in 贬补飞补颈驶颈. When you give, your donation is combined with gifts from thousands of your fellow readers, and together you help power the strongest team of investigative journalists in the state.