[DECISION]{.underline}

Tripper Operations, Green Bay Transit System

Lamers Bus Lines, Inc.

Complainant

v\.

Green Bay Transit System

Respondent

I. [Summary]{.underline}

This decision is the conclusion of an investigation commenced as the
result of a complaint received from Lamers Bus Lines, Inc. (Lamers)
against the Green Bay Transit System (Green Bay). The Urban Mass
Transportation Administration (UMTA) has concluded that, although
certain assailed operations of Green Bay comply substantially with the
requirements of the tripper service provision (49 CFR §605.3), our
investigation disclosed misunderstandings of the regulations. The
Respondent is ordered by this decision to correct the practices that do
not comply with UMTA\'s requirements.

II\. [Background]{.underline}

Lamers filed a complaint with this office on June 19, 1981 and submitted
additional information on August 10 and September 4, 1981. The complaint
alleged, [inter alia]{.underline}, that respondent Green Bay is engaging
in school bus operations prohibited by UMTA\'s regulations (49 CFR Part
605).

Specifically, Lamers alleged that Green Bay was running three extra
school units which follow the regular route but do not follow the
established time table and use school extra destination signs, in
addition, they allege that Green Bay had instituted special service for
summer school students by extending the existing Route 13 in Ashwaubenon
for use exclusively by school children. Lamers contends that this
service constitutes charter service as the route begins or ends at the
school, the route was extended merely for the convenience of the
students and goes directly to the school once full, buses run only once
in the morning and once in the afternoon, an extra bus was added to
cover this service, and the school collected the fare. Finally, Lamers
asserts that provision of this service by Green Bay is underpriced
because of the federal subsidy and constitutes unfair competition.

In support of these contentions Lamers has supplied certain maps,
timetables and other documents as well as photographs of buses used to
provide the service complained of.

III\. [Response to the Complaint]{.underline}

Green Bay filed its response to the Lamers complaint with UMTA on July
29 and August 28, 1981. Green Bay replied that its service is a
\"tripper\" service as defined by 49 CFR §605.3 and the service is
therefore permitted by UMTA\'s school bus regulation. [See]{.underline}
49 CFR §605.13.

Green Bay admits that, in the case of the Ashwaubenon summer school
service, one of the regular buses made a slight route deviation (1.3
miles) for two trips per day and that additional tripper buses were
added to handle this service so that the regular bus schedule was not
interfered with. However, Green Bay defends this practice in that the

service for the most part parallels the regular route and was added at
the request of the Village of Ashwaubenon. Furthermore, students pay the
regular fare. Therefore, it denies that this was a charter type
operation.

Green Bay also admitted to discharging students on school property but
defended this practice on the basis of safely to the students since
there was construction being undertaken near the regular stop. Finally,
Green Bay admitted to using \"School Extra\" signs and justified this
practice on the basis that the previous operator had been using this
sign since the mid-1900\'s.

In support of its contentions, Green Bay provided some press clippings
regarding the construction and a letter from the Village of Ashwaubenon
requesting the route extension.

IV\. [Findings and Determinations]{.underline}

In order to determine whether the service is impermissible, it is
necessary to compare the current operations of tripper service with the
tripper service criteria (49 CFR §605.3). We have established the
following findings and determinations on the basis of such an analysis.

A. [Regularly Scheduled Mass Transportation Service]{.underline}

Green Bay has a published route map showing routes and timetables.
Several schools are served directly by the regular routes and these
schools are noted on the map legend. There does not seem to be any
question about the validity of this service. However, this map does not
show the 1.3 mile extension of Route 13 to serve Ashwaubenon summer
school. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that this route
extension was ever published as a separate map for the summer period,
although the route layout was distributed by the Ashwaubenon School
District as part of the summer course information. Thus, we find that

Green Bay conducts some legitimate tripper service, but that the Route
13 extension to serve Ashwaubenon summer school should have been
published in order that the public nature of the service can be
emphasized.

Green Bay contends, and Lamars does not deny, that the route deviations
were conducted on a daily basis for the six weeks that the summer school
was in session. To be considered regularly scheduled it is sufficient if
tripper runs operate only while school is in session, a practice
followed in Green Bay. However, to the extent that such route deviations
are to be conducted in the future, they must be published on maps
available to the public.

Furthermore, using a terminus on school property and the use of \"School
Extra" headsigns, render Green Bay's claims that the service is open to
the public unpersuasive. We are unable to find that the Route 13
extension was known to and therefore open to the general public.

> C. [Designed or Modified To Accommodate The Needs of
> School]{.underline}
>
> [Students and Personnel]{.underline}

As noted in 49 CFR §605.3, the transit operator is permitted to
specially design routes to accomodate the needs of students as long as
these routes are open to the public and are part of Green Bay\'s
regularly scheduled service. Most of Green Bay\'s routes meet this
criteria. Only certain aspects of the Route 13 extension, however, meet
the criteria.

As stated previously, the extended service on the summer school route
was operated regularly during the times when school was in session.
Further, the service is extended at hours calculated to coincide with
school opening and closing times. Both of these are legitimate
modifications. This service continues beyond the normal route terminus,
a distance of approximately 1.3 miles, which is a permitted modification
if made known to the public and serves regular stops. Finally, the buses
take students directly to the school for discharge and boarding which is
not permitted because it bypasses regular stops. Therefore, we find that
certain of the modifications were impermissible.

D. [Fare Collection or Subsidy System]{.underline}

Students using tripper service pay the school fare charged to all
students throughout the system. Although the students using the
Ashwaubenon summer school service appeared to have been offered the
opportunity to purchase their school passes at the school these passes
were issued by Green Bay and are part of the normal fare collection
system.

Special fare collection procedures are not prohibited by the regulation
and we see no reason why the arrangement should be considered a
violation of the regulation.

The complainant has produced evidence, in the form of a photograph, to
show that Green Bay employed a \"School Extra\" sign rather than a
regular route number sign for at least some of its buses. Green Bay did
not deny this and in fact asserted that they would \"continue to use the
\'School Extra\' destination sign, on all school trippers, until such
time UMTA informs us differently\".

Destination signs on buses which include the word \"school\" are not
permitted by the regulations under 49 CFR §606.3. We find that Green Bay
has employed signing procedures of obvious impropriety.

F. [Regular Service Stops]{.underline}

Harmon Charges that buses load and unload students on school property
and that this is not a regular stop. The regular stop is on the street,
one block from the school. Green Bay justified its actions on the basis
that there was construction being undertaken where the buses normally
stop and that it would be unsafe for the children to walk through the
construction. Harmon contends that the construction did not Justify
using the school yard for loading and unloading of passengers.

We find that the loading and unloading of passengers in the school yard
is not a regular service stop. It is not certain whether the public
would be allowed to use a stop if it were on school property or whether
the stop would be visible to the public. Both of these criteria must be
met in order for us to find that a stop on school property is a regular
stop.

G. [Regular Route Service, as Indicated in Published
Schedules]{.underline}

See discussion in Section IV.B. [supra]{.underline}.

V. [Other Matters]{.underline}

The complainant alleges that the service provided by Green Bay by the
Route 13 extension was really charter service and that therefore Green
Bay is required to cover the costs of the service out of its revenues,
and that the service cannot be provided during peak hours. Green Bay
responded that they were not providing charter service but rather
tripper service as allowed by the regulation.

The school bus regulation allows grantees to provide tripper service and
for the most part Green Bay\'s service falls within this definition,
therefore we find that Green Bay is providing tripper service and not
charter service and Harmon\'s allegations on this matter are unfounded.

VI\. [Conclusions and Order]{.underline}

Green Bay has conducted tripper service with respect to the Route 13
extension in contravention to certain provisions of UMTA\'s school bus
regulations; however, the basic route configuration comports with UMTA
requirements.

Green Bay is ordered to make the following corrections to the tripper
service within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order:

1\) Green Bay shall assure that no restrictive destination signs are
displayed on vehicles employed in the provision of tripper service. The
word \"school" shall not appear in such signs. Rather the regular route
sign should be used.

2\) Green Bay may continue to turn and queue buses in the parking lots,
if they place a publicly-accessible bus stop on the school premises
where students board and depart the buses, and place appropriate signs
at the street indicating to the public where on the school premises the
bus stop may be found, if this is not readily apparent.

3\) Green Bay must indicate in published schedules the route
configuration of tripper service routes that do not follow the regular
routes. These can be shown either on the base map or on separate
schedules, referenced on the base map, and available to the public.

The respondent shall obtain the concurrence of UMTA on all modifications
made to satisfy the changes mandated by this decision,

Submitted by Brigid Hynes-Cherin, Regional Counsel

Region V, Chicago

March 3, 1982

Approved by G. Kent Woodman, Chief Counsel

May 10, 1982