-3

Ridership on the accessible buses has been negligible. During the three (3) years from 1986 to 1989, during which time Peter Pan had two (2) wheelchair-accessible buses in its fleet, each bus was used less than once every two (2) months as a wheelchair-accessible vehicle.

But for the costs borne by Massachusetts, Peter Pan could not afford to own and operate the fully accessible buses in its fleet. Peter Pan pays the Commonwealth of Massachusetts approximately $675 per bus per month, which enables the Commonwealth to recover the purchase price of the leased equipment less the cost of the wheelchair lift.

Under the Massachusetts bus lease program, a disabled person must give 24 hours' notice of this or her intent to travel. The purpose of that restriction is to enable bus operators to position a limited number of accessible buses and to enable paratransit service to be arranged at the trip origin and destination points. No such restrictions would be permissible under the language of the Senate bill.

Peter Pan derives approximately 50 percent of its operating revenue from charter and tour services. Even if the arguments advanced for installing lifts on all buses used in providing regular-route service were sound, they would not apply to buses

used exclusively in charter and special operations. This is because charter and tours are planned far enough in advance to enable accessible buses to be provided if there is a demand for them.

Peter Pan is prepared to guarantee that an accessible bus will be provided to every charter group that requests one. That guarantee can be met by purchasing one or two lift-equipped buses and by leasing buses from public operators. To require Peter Pan to install lifts on its entire charter bus fleet would not benefit any disabled person but would cripple Peter Pan.

Statement by Fred G. Currey, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Greyhound Lines, Inc., 901 Main Street, Dallas,
Texas 75202.

Before the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Committee on Public Works and Transportation, U.S. House of Representatives, September 26, 1989, regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act, H.R. 2273.

INTRODUCTION

This historic legislation will remove barriers for millions of Americans. Greyhound Lines supports the bill's objective of improving mobility for disabled Americans. Indeed, our company was founded 75 years ago to improve mobility for all Americans.

We support, however, an amendment that would require the intercity bus system, as a total system, to be accessible without requiring each and every bus to be accessible.

We respectfully petition the Subcommittee to amend the bill for the following three reasons:

1. The double standard. It is ironic that a bill designed to reduce discrimination in itself discriminates against the intercity bus industry. It does so twice:

The intercity bus industry is treated differently than all other forms of transportation.

The intercity bus industry is treated differently than all other private entities.

2. Loss of rural service. If the bill stands as passed by the Senate (S.933), the fully implemented cost to Greyhound Lines will be about $40 million dollars a year. We will have no alternative but to curtail service to thousands of small towns and rural communities. The result: reduced mobility for the disabled as well as all other Americans.

3. There is an alternative. There is a better way to achieve the goals of ADA without destroying intercity bus service to small-town America. As the House holds its hearings, Canada is launching a joint public sector-private sector pilot program to provide accessible bus transport on a major passenger corridor. We should do the same.

36-873 0-91-36

DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT OF THE INTERCITY BUS INDUSTRY

Rhetoric about ADA implies that it sets new standards for the field of "transportation." Nothing could be more misleading. For one thing, airlines and taxicabs are exempt. For some other modes of transportation, such as school buses and hotel shuttle buses, only some vehicles in each fleet must be accessible. Even in the public sector, Amtrak must make only one car per train accessible. In the private transportation sector, only the intercity bus industry is singled out for accessibility on each and every vehicle. is the difference between having, on the one hand, an accessible system, and, on the other hand, 100 percent accessible vehicles.

It

It is not enough to defend this double standard by saying it exists because airlines are not in the bill, that they are covered by the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (ACAA). The different treatment of air carriers and bus companies, plus the difference in the financial strength of the two industries, reveals the greatest inequity in ADA. According to the most recent figures available, for the 12 months ended September 30, 1988, the nation's airlines reported net profits of $611,420,000. By contrast, Greyhound Lines lost $17,000,000 last year, and forecasts a profit for this year of less than half that amount. Yet, the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that compliance with ACAA will cost only between $5.4 and $18.7 million annually for the entire airline industry. Greyhound Lines alone, however, will spend more than twice that much, at least $40 million annually, to comply with ADA.

The American system is based on fairness. That, of course, is the reason for ADA's broad support. Fairness requires all modes of private transportation to be treated equally, even if they are covered by two separate pieces of legislation. Greyhound Lines and the airlines should receive the same treatment.

ADA also discriminates by setting two separate and distinct standards for the private sector intercity bus industry.

The first standard requires "full and equal enjoyment of public transportation services. This is fair. It is essentially the same standard imposed on airlines in ACAA and on other forms of bus service in ADA.

The second standard is inappropriate for the private sector, unsubsidized intercity bus industry. It requires every new vehicle be "readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs." This standard for the private intercity bus industry was lifted verbatim from the section of the bill covering federally subsidized public transit services.

While the second standard may be appropriate in cases where it will be financed by U.S. taxpayers, it will devastate the private sector bus industry. It is a question of who pays. Greyhound's compliance with ADA will not be paid by American taxpayers. it will be paid by our customers, who are the least able to afford higher fares. It is nothing less than a regressive tax.

There is a second double standard, in which intercity bus companies are treated differently than other private entities. Throughtout the Senate bill, all other private entities are governed by standards of reasonableness that will prevent undue hardship. The bill takes into account "undue hardship" and significant difficulty or expense." It speaks of "demonstrated good faith" and "to the maximum extent feasible." Even for public paratransit systems, there are exceptions where the bill "would impose an undue financial burden." A full list of exculpatory provisions is attached to this statement. Only intercity bus companies are denied. access to standards of reasonableness.