system. I subsequently asked the Superintendent of Schools to respond to your questions and he has provided me with the following information: 1. "What is the value of school tickets purchased and distributed for FY 1969, 1970, and 1971? (Tickets are purchased for ten cents each.) 2. "What is the estimate of purchase of school bus tickets for F.Y. 1972?" 4,325 It is expected that the ticket purchases by the D.C. Public Schools for the school year 1971-72 will not exceed $300,000. 3. "What procedure is utilized by the School Board to effect distribution of school tickets to students?" Children whose parents reside one and one-half miles from their zoned school and whose parents express a need for tickets in writing to the secondary school principal are eligible for tickets provided they are less than 18 years of age and the principal approves the request for tickets. The request in writing remains on file in the school and a consolidated list of eligible students is furnished to the secondary school office. Secondary school principals must certify that their bulk request figure is correct and a school representative signs for the appropriate number of tickets every two weeks in the Office of the Secretary of the Board of Education. Procedures for issuance in the local schools is not standardized. Some issue the tickets to qualified students each two weeks; others each week; and some issue on a daily basis. 4. "Are all tickets purchased used for transportation of school students?" Tickets purchased by the school system are issued only to students qualifying under the procedures outlined above in answer to question three. Tickets not used in any one school year are reserved for the following year. 5. "What control is exercised by the School Board over the distribution and use of the bus tickets?" The procedures utilized in distribution of the bus tickets is indicated above in answer to question number three. Supervision of issuance of tickets to students is delegated to the principals in accordance with those procedures and criteria. Once the tickets have been issued to the students, the school system exercises no control over their use except that students may be denied further bus tickets if they are found to be abusing the privilege. I hope that this information will be useful in your further consideration of H.R. 6638. Sincerely yours, GRAHAM W. WATT, Assistant to the Commissioner. WHY AN INCREASE IN SCHOOL RIDERSHIP WITH DECLINING SCHOOL POPULATION Mr. Dowdy. I am sure you have seen the table which is attached to the statement of Mr. Avery, showing the number of school fares subsidized for D.C. Transit and WMA for three years-1968, 1969, and 1970. The table shows that student ridership on the WMA line was 165,000 in 1968, which is the school year 1968-1969. This had reduced to 149,000 in 1970-1971. That reduction is rather consistent, I believe, with the fact that the school enrollment in the District of Columbia has declined from 158,000, or so, in 1968, to 150,000 in 1970. Contrary to that, the figures for the D.C. Transit, which serves most of the District, shows that student riders for 1968-1969 were 7.5 million. But even with the fewer students in 1970, as estimated, the student ridership is up to nearly 10,000,000. Do you have any explanations as to why the student fares did not decline with the school population as it did with the WMA Transit Company but show a 25 percent increase on the D.C. Transit? Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I really could only speculate, based on a general knowledge of the situation. WMA Transit Company provides school transportation under this law to an area of the city located east of the Anacostia River. A quick calculation would indicate to me that at the peak the number of school passengers carried by WMA on any school day would be something less than 5,000. The increase reflected in the D.C. Transit figures, I suspect, reflects several things. First of all, the awareness factor, the fact that as a new program is put into effect it does take time, whether it is a school transit program or one of a number of other programs, so all of those who are potentially qualified to participate in the program, actually begin to participate. It builds up. I suspect, too, that as the adult fare costs have increased, there has been a resulting increase in the number of students who have stopped paying a quarter and started paying 10 cents. The 10-cent fare involves some inconvenience, and I suspect for some students and some parents, when the fare was 25 cents or maybe even 30 cents, it was just more convenient to give the child a quarter or 30 cents to take the bus to school and not be bothered, in effect, with getting the certificate, going each week or each two weeks to buy the book of tickets, worry about whether the child had his tickets with him each day, and so forth. So, I think there has been the influence of that factor. Finally, there has been, during the period covered here, a change in school district boundaries, which I suspect, too, has influenced the number of children who have found it either desirable or necessary now to take the bus in order to travel from their home to a school which, in some cases, I suspect, is further away than their former school. So that would be, as I say, Mr. Chairman, a rather speculative answer, based upon a general understanding of what I believe is happening. Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Gude? Mr. Dowdy. Thank you, Mr. Watt. Mr. DowDY. Anybody else have any testimony on this bill? Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Watt, when can you get us that information? Mr. WATT. I will request it today, of the Board of Education, Mr. Chairman, and just as soon as the response is received, I will have it delivered to the committee. I would hope, certainly, within several days. Mr. DOWDY. If you need this note, (handing); it is not very distinct but it might remind you of what I asked. The report from Commissioner Washington has been placed in the record, I believe. The hearing is closed. (Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the hearing was concluded.) (Subsequently, the following letter was submitted for the record:) FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Subject: School-Fare Payment H.R. 6638, P.L. 90–605. Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, Committee on the District of Columbia, DEAR MR. DOWDY: This is a report by a special committee on transportation of the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia on H.R. 6638. We believe that the District Code mentioned in P.L. 90–605 or other legislation should define what is meant by "schoolchildren" and also define the reduced school fare with more specificity. The way it is now, the meaning of "schoolchildren" as well as the reduced fare to be charged (up to half the lowest adult fare) is left to the Transit Commission. In terms, it could encompass transportation for "children" all the way from kindergarten through college and even graduate school. As it happens, the Commission keeps the school fare at ten cents, in spite of inflation and progressive increases in adult fares, and interprets the term "schoolchildren" to mean those not over 19 years old, whether attending kindergarten or college. We have less objection to providing reduced school fares at the primary level than at the secondary level, but we strenuously object to letting college students up to age 19 ride for 10 cents at the taxpayers' expense, or at the transit riders' expense for that matter. A "child" may be old enough to vote but still young enough to ride to school for 10 cents. Voting age is not determined by a Commission. Irrespective of who bears the cost of reduced school fares, we believe that the meaning of "children" should be a matter of legislative determination rather than administrative fiat. A case might well be made for setting the school fare at half the lowest adult fare rather than specifying this as a maximum, lest the Commission continue to be as generous with the children as it was with the Company when it used only the gross operating revenues method as the basis for determining a fair return under Chairman Frederick J. Clarke, until brought up short in D.C. Transit System, Inc., v. WMATC, 350 F. (2nd) 753 (1965). There probably would be less bussing and less gerrymandering of school zone boundaries by the Board of Education if school fares were more realistic. Special provision could be made by the City for those on public assistance or otherwise unable to pay. While not directly involved in District appropriated funds, an interesting sidelight on school bussing is that it is provided free, courtesy of HEW and the Federal taxpayer, if the student lives more than 12 miles from home in his designated school zone. Thus, if the School Board gerrymanders the school zones far enough, the whole bus fare is assumed by the Federal Government, 11⁄2 miles seems a rather arbitrary distinction to determine whether the transportation cost is borne by the District or the Federal Government. We believe that continuation of the school-fare payment is unwarranted because, as explained in "Revenue Proposals", House Hearings, September, 1970, pages 273-276, the Board of Education has been using the automatic payment provision of the law to further its own ideas on how much bussing is socially desirable, in addition to that required by the Court in Hobson v. Hansen to relieve overcrowding, this in entire disregard of the economics involved or the attempted prohibition against the use of appropriated funds to provide transportation solely to change the racial balance in any District public school, P.L. 90-450, Sec. 401 (1). In addition to the Board's expressed intent to promote integration in locating new schools and in defining school districts (bottom of page 273 op. cit.), we note specifically the use of appropriated funds to pay the fare differential for junior high school students previously bussed from overcrowded elementary schools to continue with their class outside their school zone (page 273 of letter under "Secondary"). This changes the racial balance in cases where room is available in their school zone (page 275 under "Bussing from now-uncrowded schools"). The City Council has shown its disinclination to continue funding school bussing by voting to appropriate the school-fare payment only until August 31, the expiration date of the law. If the law expires, the Transit Company will not suffer, except monetarily, because the Transit Commission is legally obligated to set fares to produce a fair return. The opposition of the transit riders to pay for excess bussing may be expected to be more effective in causing the Board of Education to curtail excess-and illegal-bussing than previous ineffective taxpayer protests. If the Congress extends P.L. 90-605 beyond August 31, it will in effect be condoning the abuse by the School Board of the school-fare payment law which automatically causes the taxpayers to assume unlimited bussing costs. While P.L. 90-605 may save the adult bus rider about 5 cents in fare, the total bussing expense, we contend, is greater because the Board finds the automatic payment feature a handy device to avoid accountability for its liberal bussing program. We do not think that encouraging the Board's bussing program is good public policy. If P.L. 90 605 expires, we feel confident that some aggrieved fare-payer, now silenced by that law, may bring suit to compel the School Board to comply with P.L. 90-450, Sec. 401 (1). Let Judge Wright declare that one unconstitutional. We therefore request that your Committee not approve H.R. 6638. It is asked that this letter be made of record. Respectfully, DONALD R. CRONE, President. ALFRED S. TRASK, Transportation Committee. SCHOOL FARE SUBSIDY FRIDAY, APRIL 30, 1971 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:00 a.m., in room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Dowdy (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives McMillan (Chairman, Full Committee), Dowdy (presiding), Hagan, Fraser, Jacobs, Nelsen and Delegate Fauntroy. Also Present: James T. Clark, Clerk; Hayden S. Garber, Counsel; John Hogan, Minority Clerk; and Leonard O. Hilder, Investigator. Mr. DOWDY. The Subcommittee will come to order. I have been advised, since we closed the hearings on this bill (H.R. 6638), that Mr. Hahn wanted to testify. If he will come around, please. STATEMENT OF HON. GILBERT HAHN, JR., CHAIRMAN, CITY COUNCIL, ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID H. SCHWARTZ, AND ARTHUR J. BERGMAN, MEMBERS, CITY COUNCIL STAFF Mr. HAHN. These gentlemen with me are Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Bergman from the City Council staff. I would like to speak on the District of Columbia City position on the school bus subsidy. It has become apparent to us, not only in the District but in the metropolitan area, that the bus system must become publicly owned. We have seen the Virginia Legislature has recently passed the necessary legislation to amend the WMATC charter, and in this past month the Maryland Legislature has acted in the same way. If the Maryland Governor signs the bill, only the action of the Congress of the United States would remain to pass the necessary amendment to provide for acquisition of the bus company. This coming meeting of the Council of Governments, of which I am Chairman, I anticipate that on the 12th we will pass a resolution in the Council of Governments supporting acquisition of the bus company. It seems to us that Congress should not take action which would prolong the private operation of D.C. Transit and the other bus companies in the area. |