School bus service benefits outweigh cost

Oahu is one schizophrenic island.

Traffic congestion is so bad that our government, on all three levels, wants to raise more than $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’s people.

Yet the state’s largest agency wants to get rid of a major transit benefit on all islands that could, if implemented and managed properly, reduce traffic by 20-30 percent almost immediately, with no further investment — while protect- ing our most valuable resource, our children, by getting them to and from school safely.

Hawaii’s Department of Education is trying to get rid of this major transit benefit, claiming it has little to do with education. It admits to the Board of Education and the Legislature that reducing school bus service will increase truancy — yet continues to recommend reducing it.

Yes, transit costs money, but the benefits outweigh the cost. That is part of the Federal Transit Administration’s 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 more efficient than city buses. It is a cost-effective way to transport students to and from their schools, at one-third the cost. In Hawaii, school bus service is four times more efficient than other transit, yet that apparently is too much for the DOE and the Legislature to fund. Much hype has been made about bid gouging, but not one company has been charged or disciplined; meanwhile, the benefits of school bus service are ignored and reduced.

The last two Legislatures 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 high-traffic environments; the risk of children being molested on city buses; the benefits to the community of reduced traffic on roads and around schools; the excessive consumption and cost of fuel sitting in traffic around schools; and more.

Instead, the DOE seeks to match the school bus fare with the fare of the city bus — $1.25 — 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. The DOE should be trying to maximize the service, not minimize it. Fill up underutilized school buses to get cars off the road by reducing the fare, not increasing it.

Finally, in the state’s search for funding options: federal law states that school districts can get school bus funds from the FTA. But shenanigans in Washington, D.C., have defined school buses with "charter, or intercity bus transportation or intercity passenger rail transportation," essentially making them ineligible.

U.S. Sen. Dan Inouye 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 would also help other school districts in our nation facing reduced school bus service because of economic conditions.