search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
News SPECIAL REPORT


A California program aims to introduce zero- emissions school buses to rural school districts.


Ready for Take-off Pilot projects deliver difference-making data for transportation professionals across the country


WRITTEN BY ERIC WOOLSON C


oast-to-coast pilot programs are helping school districts and government entities identify better ways to fund and deploy environmentally friendly vehicles, maximize trans- portation staff effectiveness, increase students’ ability to


participate in more activities and improve bus rider safety. Of course, not every pilot project works out exactly as expected. But that’s part of the trial-and-error nature, noted Darren Muci,


director of operations for Wichita Unified School District 259 in Kansas, when looking back on a study that pressed bus drivers into service as cafeteria custodians. “We felt the concept of utilizing drivers was both novel and a positive approach,” he said. School board members agreed when approving a contract with


First Student to pay bus drivers $15 per hour to work two-hour, mid-day custodial shifts in 16 pilot schools. Te hope was to provide drivers with more hours a day between routes, freeing up custodians for other projects and holding down costs in the process. A big plus, Muci said, was that drivers were “already known to many of our students and staff members and they’d already had significant vetting and full background checks.” “From a safety perspective, we knew they would mesh with our needs and that would be a real positive,” he said, adding the pilot started well but struggled under perceptions of an overly heavy workload. Tere were also staffing dependability issues, Muci said. “It was a great idea we felt going in,


Darren Muci 32 School Transportation News • JULY 2017


but it just didn’t work out that way.” Still, he said he has no regrets and indicated a future pilot project might be worth a try. “Looking back, the concept of the drivers already being vetted was a positive. We, along with First Student, did our due diligence. We had safe individuals who could work with the kids,” he added. “We’d need to address the dependability aspect.” In Eureka, California, the Rural School Bus Pilot Project’s


results are decidedly upbeat. Erin Squire’s enthusiasm is obvious as she details the progress of the $10-million grant program designed to accelerate the “turnover of California school bus fleets to lower carbon transportation choices, especially in rural school districts who have less access to other funding sources.” “We were just amazed at the number of applications,” said


Squire, special projects coordinator with the North Coast Uni- fied Air Quality Management District. She noted small and rural districts traditionally have the oldest and higher-polluting fleets yet lack adequate funding to replace or upgrade vehicles. Te district—one of 35 across California—was asked by state Sen. Mike McGuire and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to administer the statewide project allowing public schools to apply for either a fleet expansion for zero-emission school buses or replace conventional-fuel buses with hybrid or internal combustion engines that use renewable fuels. Although the program was designed for rural districts, the first-


round application process was opened to urban and suburban districts, too, as administrators sought to measure interest. “We received 422


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