Vermont transit providers say public buses can supplement school transport but federal rules limit door‑to‑door service

Members of the Vermont House Health Transportation Committee heard Feb. 6 that public transit agencies already carry students on regular routes and can increase service for schools, but federal rules and vehicle limitations prevent them from replacing school bus systems or providing door‑to‑door pickup.

Jim, chair of the Vermont Public Transportation Association Board of Directors and executive director of Tri‑Valley Transit, told the committee that Federal Transit Administration rules allow public transit providers to serve school‑age children using so‑called "tripper" service that runs on regular public routes. "We can provide access to school‑aged children on our public transit routes," Jim said, adding that agencies can increase frequency or add vehicles when school is in session.

The discussion matters because some legislators and staff are exploring ways to reduce transportation costs and improve rural access by better coordinating school and public transit services. Committee members asked whether public transit could substitute for or supplement traditional school bus routes, how transit providers are funded, and whether safety or operational issues arise when children ride with the general public.

Tri‑Valley Transit serves schools along corridors such as Route 7 through Middlebury and in the Upper Valley, Jim said, and the agency provides service to roughly 27 secondary schools and six postsecondary or adult‑education institutions in varying degrees. In Middlebury, he said, the regular Route 7 service stops at shopping centers and school properties, allowing students to board along the route; accommodating the extra riders typically requires adding capacity and building schedule slack because "the more riders you have on a vehicle, the more time it takes," he said.

Committee members asked whether federal regulations bar providers from going far off established routes or offering door‑to‑door pickup. Jim said the regulations permit limited actions: agencies may run more frequent service on existing routes, make small route alterations to stop at or near school grounds, and use fare systems that give students different fare treatment. However, he said, public transit providers are not authorized to provide exclusive, door‑to‑door service in the same way yellow school buses do and must avoid competing with contracted school bus services.

The committee also discussed electrification and vehicle availability. Jim said many Vermont routes rely on "cutaway" vehicles for rural service and manufacturers have not yet produced federally approved electric models in that size, limiting fleet electrification outside larger city bus fleets.

On safety and operations, Jim said there is no federal minimum age for children to use public transit; age policies are set by providers. He said transit agencies require background checks, random drug and alcohol testing for drivers, field supervisors, two‑way radios and on‑bus alarm systems, and driver training. "We operate under the expectation that we are responsible for the safety of all of our riders regardless of age," he said. The committee discussed the idea of school‑paid monitors riding with students as one possible option to address superintendent or parent concerns.

Several legislators said school districts could contract with local transit providers and pay for service from school budgets. Jim said some schools or towns already support transit providers through contracts or town budgets, but funding arrangements vary by community and must respect federal rules about competition with school bus operations.

Committee members also raised the 2021 BEIC feasibility study on combining rural transit and school transportation; Jim described that study as limited in scope but said conversations between school systems and transit providers have increased since COVID and that public transit can be one part of a broader solution for rural transportation needs.

The committee did not take formal action at the meeting. Members concluded by thanking Jim for testifying and considering further follow‑up about regulation details, funding options and route planning tools that might improve efficiency.