The 16th National Congress of School Transportation approved numerous changes to the National School Transportation Specifications and Procedures Manual to improve buses from front to back, but don’t expect manufacturers to be caught off-guard.
“Normally, two or three manufacturers are part of the advisory council that provides technical advice,” said Bruce Miles, engineering manager with Blue Bird Corp., who participated in his fourth NCST.
Miles said the manufacturers typically provide technical support for the Body and Chassis Writing Committee, suggesting when a proposed change might fall outside of federal standards or whether it’s even feasible.
Rusty Mitchell, product management director at Blue Bird Corp., added, “Blue Bird assists in helping the congress make the best decisions by offering a data-driven response to proposals. We do not base our responses on what is profitable, but on what is best for the industry.”
Mitchell said amendments to the manual, even those mandating a particular feature, typically do not create much disruption for manufacturers.
“Blue Bird is always looking for ways to offer the most options to our customers,” he said. “This means that most proposed changes are likely already an option with us—so we are ready for most specification changes that occur. In my 31 years of working with our engineering department, I cannot recall Blue Bird as not being ready for any specification change that has occurred.”
Miles said that some manual updates focus on servicing and have no impact on new buses.
‘A Little More Time’
Ken Whisnant, engineering manager at Thomas Built Buses in High Point, North Carolina, said the manufacturers’ involvement as technical advisors early in the process certainly gives visibility to any upcoming changes. Previously, delegates could propose any change from the floor “so we had a much tighter scramble for the OEMs to determine if what was being requested was possible and we didn’t necessarily have any awareness of what could possibly come up.”
With the new format, the Congress requires proposals to go through the various writing committees, eliminating unexpected proposals and reducing the floor work. For manufacturers, who must respond to manual amendments, Whisnant said, “We have the same amount of lifting to do; we just have a little more time to do that lifting.”
He added, “We have to make sure we’re ready whenever things become finalized and by the time states adopt it as the minimum standard.”
The more than 300 delegates represented 46 states, with each state having a single vote on proposed amendments.
By a vote of 24-22, delegates rejected a proposed change that would have mandated equipping buses with a crossing control arm mounted on the right side of the front bumper. Instead, the manual will continue to indicate that buses “may” be equipped with the devices.
Michigan delegate Fred Doelker, a traffic safety instructor and coordinator for a Grand Rapids-area transportation firm, said crossing control arms provide a “false sense of security” that cannot substitute for drivers counting — and accounting for — every student at every stop. Doelker also said poor road conditions in some parts of his home state “shake things loose” and would boost maintenance costs. Another concern, expressed by the Ohio delegation, was that the proposed change would be an unfunded mandate on districts and states.
Terry Voy, NCST’s on-site chairperson and representative of the Iowa Association of School Boards, said he was not surprised the issue was dispatched in a matter of a few minutes. “We’ve pretty much talked it through over the years,” he said. “And, of course, most states have mandated it.”
Mike Kenney, who recently retired as a regional transportation coordinator for the State of Washington and as chair of the School Bus Body and Chassis Writing Committee, said the crossing arms issue isn’t likely to fade into the sunset. “It was the same thing with the stop (arm) paddle. We kept hammering away at it every five years and, finally, it went,” Kenney said.
Peter Crossan, fleet manager for Boston Public Schools’ Transportation Department, said he still leans toward mandating crossing control arms even though he described the devices as “a maintenance headache.”
“I think they are good, but they are a huge maintenance cost. We have skinny streets, we had nine feet of snow last winter and we spent $20,000 on repairs,” said Crossan, who has attended congresses over the previous 20 years but was unable to attend this year’s event.
‘Start Spreading the News’
Delegates recognized and allowed for an additional entrance door on the left side of the bus.
“I call it the ‘New York bus’ because there aren’t a lot of district besides New York City that will use it,” Crossan said. “It doesn’t appeal to me because we don’t have a lot of multi-lane, one-way streets. We have a couple of boulevards with two lanes, but we either drop off on the correct side of the street or at signalized intersections.”
Kenney agreed, saying few districts are likely to press left-side door vehicles into service. He likes the adaptation because “anything you can do to keep them from crossing in front of the bus is a good thing.” But he also has his concerns.
“In an accident, it’s one more opening that increases the chance of ejection,” he said. “Capacity is another issue. You’ll lose at least a row of seats, probably two. It’s not something for rural districts.”
Another objection to the left-side door is driver visibility to the step well and second large opening in the floor and sidewall because, as Crossan noted, “bodies are strongest where there are no openings.”
Delegates also voted to encourage school transportation professionals to “ensure that any onboard video system in their vehicles provide visibility for the driver and of each occupant seating location, visibility forward of the vehicle, optimized frame rate and low-light recording capability.” That action step was taken “for the purpose of providing important data for accident investigations to ensure the safety of our school bus operations.”
Other amendments
The delegates also approved the following:
A universal “unlawful to pass” sign on the back of the bus. Lettering on the rear of the bus relating to school bus flashing signal lamps will read, “UNLAWFUL TO PASS WHEN RED LIGHTS ARE FLASHING” in three-inch black letters.
The rear emergency door can consist of all glass with approved safety glazing.
Vehicle manufacturers can develop a spray-on step tread covering and added units of measure to the burn rate. Step tread shall have a minimum overall thickness of .125 inch and a calculated burn of 0.1 mm per minute or less … Minimum overall thickness shall be .187 inch measured from the top of the ribs.
Language to include electric and heat pump heating systems in buses.
The exhaust can run through the bumper. “All manufacturers are providing this option. In some locations, it helps to prevent pipe damage in low rear-end clearance situations,” stated the amendment, which was approved unanimously.
Better definition of where white stobe lights can be located on the roof. (See story on page 16.)
Another revision marked the end of an era as delegates voted 42-4 to remove all language about bus clutches “as all school buses now feature an automatic transmission.”
“The NCST is a great process and it’s forward-thinking of the states to get together and do it. Having everyone in the same room to talk through issues has a tremendous benefit,” said Dan Kobussen, owner of Kobussen Buses Ltd., in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. “Even when states don’t adopt the entire manual, it’s a great resource to keep students safe.” λ
