Final Policy Strengthens Existing Regulations

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Sept. 16, 2008) — The Federal Transit Administration released its final policy statement that more clearly defines the terms “tripper service” and “exclusive” school bus operations, a win for school bus contractors in the fight against illegal competition by public transit agencies.

While respecting the United States District Court for the Western District of New York ruling concerning the Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA), FTA found the decision to be problematic because Congress’ original intent in passing the St. Germain Amendment of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 was to prohibit transit agencies receiving federal funding from illegally competing with school bus companies. FTA feared any legal precedence set in New York would hinder the ability to “execute and implement” the crux of the actual amendment elsewhere, as any false interpretation based upon the Rochester decision would negate the final policy. The policy statement reiterates that public transit agencies are not permitted to restructure their public transportation operations “dramatically to accommodate the needs of a local school district and its students.”

FTA stated that the RGRTA decision narrowly interpreted the word “exclusively” in FTA’s definition of school bus operations because a member of the general public was allowed to board a bus along any of the 240 new express routes created by RGRTA. The U.S. District Court ruling also broadly interpreted FTA's definition of “tripper service” by citing United States ex rel. Lamers v. City of Green Bay, which concluded that a grantee may “completely redesign its transit system to accommodate school children as long as all routes are accessible to the public and the public is kept informed of route changes.”

FTA’s statement went on to clearly define “tripper service” as allowable in instances, for example, where transit agencies increase service along particular routes to accommodate increased student riders before and after school or alter pre-existing route paths to accommodate students. FTA also further defined “exclusive” school bus operations as “any service that a reasonable person would conclude was primarily designed to accommodate students and school personnel, and only incidentally to serve the non-student general public.”

Before the National School Transportation Association’s rallying cry during its annual conference this past July, there were only 147 comments posted by the original June 18 closing date, and only a handful of private school bus contractors were represented. When writing the final policy statement, FTA said it took into account all 510 comments submitted as of Aug. 6.

The original rush of responses opposed to the FTA policy was attributed to a focused campaign by the American Public Transportation Association, which filled the federal register with comments from parents and educators beseeching FTA with concerns over cutting routes, with 141 comments from the Oakland, Calif., area alone. Calling the comments “unfounded,” FTA once again stressed that it is not calling for the elimination of any particular transit service for students; it is only attempting to clarify what is allowable under the existing regulation.