fund new buses by other means. Likely candidates include taxes, bond referendums or other sources, and in a local municipal environment that already has many needs to fill. “Whenever I speak before a group of school transportation professionals about the topic I always ask. ‘Who would buy a clean burning bus with such new technology if a grant was not paying for it?’ Tere would never be a hand up,” says Pudlewski.
IMPLEMENTING NEW TECHNOLOGY School districts are responding to available grant and trust funds, when and where available. Like those districts around Sacramento, a slowly increasing number of schools are buy- ing new alternative fuel buses such as propane and CNG, and a smaller number in California and New England are securing grants for electric drives. Others are opting for lower-emission technology such as improved transmissions. Te technology is often made possible through funding assistance. Lion Bus, the Canadian manufacturer, produces electric school buses as well as diesel. For the former, the company touts its products as having a range of 75 miles, which can save $28,000 in fuel costs annually. It also boasts low maintenance with a longer lifecycle. Of course, it’s also free of emissions. Tis is not only good for the environment, but also for the safety of students who avoid inhaling higher levels of toxic fumes from vehicle exhaust. For electric buses, range remains a constant consideration, which currently can limit the viability of electric technology, not to mention the necessary infrastructure to support it. Electric does not yet make sense for student transporters operation school bus routes or more than 30 miles one way, especially those in ru- ral areas. More charging stations not only around town but throughout counties are required. Despite all this, school districts are slowly buying buses with clean technology and better energy conservation—but usually with assistance. Alternative fuel is another option. Some school districts
are turning to clean burning propane instead of diesel fuel. West Virginia’s Monongalia County Schools operates 11 propane school buses, with two more recently ordered. District officials say they are pleased with the quieter, clean- er-burning buses. Te purchase decision was influenced by a reduced total cost of ownership. Tough the initial outlay of the propane buses versus diesel was between $8,000 and $8,500 more, the propane combustion costs about 18 cents per mile with a payback in about nine years. During an STN webinar in March, Steve Smith, the director of transportation for MSD Warren Township School Corporation in Indiana that oper- ates more than a dozen propane school buses, said he’s seen the incremental cost fall to just more than $5,000 per bus. In South Carolina, the state legislature is stepping in, despite tight budgets, to buy buses that burn propane. In
See Us At Booth #337 50 School Transportation News • JUNE 2017 CELEBRATING25YEARS
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 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92
