ANALYSIS In rural areas, children spaced far apart were once transported to school by horse and
wagon. After the first day of school, the horses learned the routes and simply repeated them day after day, eliminating the need for drivers. Te vehicles were cheap, and the engines ran effectively on oats. As our nation changed, pupil transportation’s development reflected our increasing ur-
School Buses,
Transit and Crossing Orientation By Ned Einstein
banization and, later, suburbanization. Tese developments included a new phenomenon known as traffic. As a safety matter, the need for pupil transportation grew to reflect a child’s inability to cross streets or negotiate intersections, as verified by studies like the 1968 Swedish study “Children in Traffic.” In simple terms, children below age 13, and par- ticularly below age 10, do not possess the physical, mental and emotional skills necessary to cross streets and intersections. Interestingly, these age benchmarks correspond to the structure of our modern U.S.
school system, dividing students among elementary, middle and high schools. Tis di- vision has grown, even more so in recent years, to reflect a reality of limited funding, higher vehicle costs, poverty-level driver wages and spiraling fuel costs. So, while rider- ship has mushroomed, costs have exploded since the horse and wagon days. Te result is an exodus from school bus to transit service for many high school students and, to a lesser degree, junior high students. Te transit industry has made at least token efforts to accommodate these riders:
a recent turn-of-the-century survey found that 80 percent of U.S. transit agencies en- gaged in some form of passenger training or system change to accommodate and/or protect student riders. Many in the pupil transportation community have applauded this training. Yet, I am particularly concerned about K-5 students, for whom I draw a line in the sand insofar as transit usage. Tis is partly because of the data, but it is largely because half of all crossing incidents of all kinds involving individuals of all ages relate to “crossing orientation.” And crossing orientation for transit bus ridership is the complete opposite of what is appropriate for pupil transportation. Crossing orientation, my term for the relationship between the crosser and the ve-
hicle, is neatly segregated by procedures reflecting bus equipment and passenger roles with respect to them. Namely, passengers should cross in front of school buses and be- hind transit buses, the latter of which includes letting the transit buses pull away from the stop before crossing the street. Occasionally, situations make even this stratification problematic, as when a transit bus stops at the near side of a signalized intersection and the just-alighted passenger has a green light intersection to cross in front of the bus. Once in the intersection, the light can change, and a third-party motorist can drive right by the bus and nail the passenger stepping out in front of it. Otherwise, the impact that incorrect crossing orientation has on both school bus and transit passengers of all ages is both devastating and haunting. In roughly half of all transit-related crossing incidents, the passengers cross in front of the bus. In the other half, the passengers cross behind it. A common response to this problem has been a call for training children to use transit.
Even Buster the Bus and his Type-D brother Barney have a cousin in Toby the Transit Bus. Teir merits notwithstanding, a K-5 kid already has enough trouble remembering to sim- ply cross in front of the school bus. If you trained these kids how to also ride transit, they would be faced with two daunting questions for someone of their age group: What type of bus was I just on? What type of crossing correlates with that type of bus? Tis is too much for K-5 students. Te alternative is to keep them on school buses,
and I say this having designed this nation’s only transit system used primarily to trans- port school children, a necessity when funds for that community’s general education school bus transportation evaporated overnight. I feel so strongly about this that I be- lieve it is worth retaining, even if we must coordinate or consolidate service for school children with service to other passengers, effectively permitting adults to ride school buses (rather than having school children ride transit). But while two federally-funded projects have tried (and failed) to examine this consolidation, the dynamics of our radi- cally-changing economy will force us into developing some new approaches in order to keep the K-5 kids on the yellow bus. ■
34 School Transportation News Magazine May 2010
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68