Proper bus stop characteristics, NHTSA writes in "Selecting School Bus Stop Locations: A Guide for School Transportation Locations," include those with adequate lighting and those where students can congregate and wait for the bus that are at least 12 feet from the roadway, based on the Revised 2005 National School Transportation Specifications and Procedures. School transporters should also consider the surrounding environment, protection from local weather and whether stops should be located at mid-block or on street corners.

NHTSA also advised that the Transportation Cooperative Research Program's "Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops," which described the advantages and disadvantages of mid-block, near-side and far-side stops, was focused on public transit. Pedestrians on these buses cross behind the bus, but students are universally taught to cross in front of school buses.

NAPT, NASPDTS and NSTA contributed information to the report, which NHTSA compiled along with the help of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center and the National Center for Safe Routes to School.

The NHTSA guide states that it was created to address the fact that most states only address basic requirements or even guidelines when it comes to school bus stop safety, such as the minimum distance between stops, leaving most decisions up to individual school districts.

For example, the guidelines address concerns regarding parental responsibilities when it comes to supervising children who wait at bus stops or when the students arrive home in the afternoon and evening. While NHTSA said most school transportation professionals recognize parents should be supervising their children before the bus shows up and after it leaves the stop, it is "vital" that school districts clearly communicate these expectations to parents.

NHTSA made several recommendations regarding street-side characteristics for proper bus stop selection. They included: picking routes on streets with lower traffic volumes and lower posted speed limits; minimizing multi-lane roads or avoiding them altogether; selecting roads with sidewalks with sufficient space to walk along the roadway to the stop; and avoiding or limiting stops that require the school bus to make left-hand turns anywhere along the route. NHTSA also called for avoiding stops that require the school bus to back up, routes that cross railroads, if possible, and selecting stops that provide the best visibility for both drivers and student pedestrians.

Examples of poor stops would be those facing the sun during sunrise and sunset times, those obstructed by curves, hills, trees or other vegetation, streets with a large number of parked cars and approaching vehicles, and roads with snowdrifts from snow plows.

NHTSA also recommended that schools work with local departments of transportation on erecting school bus stop signage that indicates to other motorists at an "adequate distance" the presence of an upcoming school bus stop, per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Editor's note: The NHTSA guide book contains an error in the Introduction on page one. It states that, of the 20 school-aged fatalities each year in school bus-related crashes, "five of the children are injured on the bus." NHTSA instead meant to write five fatalities, on average, occur on the bus during crashes. A federal representative confirmed the error and said a fix was in the works.

The 89-page document seeks to amend FMVSS 208 on "Occupant Crash Protection" to include motorcoaches and school bus drivers and that all lap/shoulder belt anchorages and attachment hardware in motorcoaches meet FMVSS 210 that regulates the seat belts to withstand crash forces of 3,000 pounds applied simultaneously to the lap and torso of the belt assembly. The motorcoach seat belt systems would also need to accommodate a 6-year-old child all the way up to a 95th percentile adult male, be lockable for use with a child restraint system and be released by a push-button device, likely located in the driver compartment.

Public comments on docket number NHTSA-2010-0112 are sought by Oct. 18, 2010.

Currently, federal regulations only dictate that either two-point lap belts or the lap/shoulder variety be used by motorcoach and school bus drivers, though most school buses on today's market already are equipped with lap/shoulders. According to the National Highway Traffic Administration, 40 percent of motorcoaches manufactured in 2010 have lap/shoulder belts in the driver seating position that already meet FMVSS 210.

For motorcoach passengers, NHTSA estimated that lap/shoulder belts would save between one and eight lives and prevent 144 to 794 injuries per year.

The NPRM includes information on potential costs to the motorcoach industry. NHTSA calculated that lap/shoulder belts could result in a additional cost of approximately $12,900 per vehicle and a total annual, national fleet cost of $25.8 million based upon the approximately 2,000 new motorcoaches sold each year. The per vehicle cost is broken down to a cost of about $9,900 for adding the lap/shoulder belt equipped seats to a 54-passenger coach and $3,000 for reinforcing the coach floor and changing the seat anchorages.

There is also a potential increased cost tied to increased fuel consumption, as the seat belts and vehicle upgrades could add an additional 161 pounds to 269 pounds for each vehicle, which could result in another $800 to $1,800 spent per vehicle each year on additional fuel.

In all, motorcoach seat belts could result in nearly $30 million in costs to the industry. Meanwhile, NHTSA the annual benefits in reduced number of passenger deaths and injuries and associated costs could be as much as $130 million a year. If a quarter of motorcoach passengers wear the safety restraints, the industry could break even.

While NHTSA ruled two years ago in October on lap/shoulder belts for school buses, requiring them only for newly-manufactured smaller Type A school buses starting next fall and issuing voluntary standards for installing them in new large school buses, the NPRM pointed out that motorcoaches were responsible for eight times more fatalities in 2008 than occurred in school buses. Rollover crashes and ejection of passengers is a much bigger problem in motorcoaches due to vehicle construction, which includes large picture windows that can pop out of place during a crash.

NHTSA added that the NPRM should not be construed to mean that the federal government is again considering a proposal to require lap/shoulder seat belts in large school buses, citing increased costs to school district and the potential that more students would be forced to rely on less safe modes of travel to and from school.

"NHTSA does not believe that passenger seat belts should be required on large school buses," the NPRM states. "Instead, the agency believes that local school transportation planners should be given the ability to analyze the transportation risks particular to their needs, and to decide whether they wish to incur the cost of purchasing large school buses equipped with passenger seat belts."

Still, NASDPTS cautioned in a statement today that the NPRM "could trigger invalid comparisons between school buses and motorcoaches relating to overall safety and lap-shoulder belts." NASDPTS added that school buses must comply with more stringent safety standards than do motorcoaches, which include compartmentalization, roof strength requirements and numerous additional safety features.

Earlier this summer, Indiana State Attorney General Greg Zoeller issued a legal opinion that school districts that charge parents for school bus rides are violating the state constitution because schools there have never been granted the authority by the state legislature to do so. Pete Baxter, who retired last month as the state's director of student transportation at the Indiana Department of Education, said the issue came as a surprise to him when raised earlier this year by Franklin Township Community Schools, which was considering school bus fees as a way to reduce the transportation department's encroachment on the overall school budget.

Baxter's response was one of nearly three dozen nationwide in response to a School Transportation News survey of his counterparts responsible for administering school transportation programs through their respective state departments of education or affiliated government agency.

The survey found that, to the state directors' knowledge, at least 14 states including Indiana specifically prohibit any school district from charging parents bus fees for regular route transportation. Another 13 states indicated that nothing prohibits school districts from charging. The issue appears related to whether the state requires home-to-school transportation to begin with. According to the American School Bus Council, 18 states do not require regular route school busing of students.

But still, things are not cut and dry.

Nevada received guidance from its attorney general all the way back in 1981 that the board of trustees of a school district does not have the authority to charge a fee for transportation to and from school. In Virginia, June Eanes, the state's director of student transportation, responded via the STN survey that school districts are only allowed to accept payment for field trips that are a part of school program or extracurricular activity trips that students are not required to attend or participate in. Meanwhile, in Michigan, state law requires that, if school districts provide transportation route service for their pupils, they must do so without charge.

In Oregon, school districts are prohibited from charging parents when the student is eligible for regular route service. Similar to many states, Oregon's elementary students who live more than one mile from school and the state's secondary school students who reside more than 1.5 miles from school are eligible for school busing and, according to State Director Steven Huillet, exempt from paying.

Demonstrating how confusing the issue can be, other states weren't sure how to answer the question. Max Christensen, the state director of student transportation in Iowa, said the state doesn't allow fees to be charged beyond the two-mile limit for elementary and the three-mile limit for high school.

"Under those limits, districts are allowed to charge a fee, but over those limits, transportation is required by the district," he added.

Wyoming has similar rules to Iowa. Retiring State Director D. Leeds Pickering said that there are limited times when a school district can charge, but they may never charge for transporting a student who lives more than two miles from their campus.

Some states indicated they just don't know. Louisiana is requesting its own state attorney general issue an opinion on charging fees, according to Michael Coburn, the director of school bus transportation at the department of education. Leon Langley at the Maryland Department of Education said the state did not have any language one way or another on school bus fees. In Utah, State Director Murrell Martin said the department of education is presently exploring under what conditions school districts may be able to charge for transporting "ineligible" students to and from school.

Pickering, who for the past year has privately indicated to several peers and associates that he would be resigning, also began notifying industry representatives of his impending retirement during the recent STN EXPO in Reno, Nev., where he has been a mainstay since the show's inception and prior when it was known as the Western State Director's Conference. In all Pickering spent 37 years in pupil transportation.

"It has been my pleasure to serve as the Wyoming State Director of Pupil Transportation Services for the past 28 years. Over that time, I have seen some major changes in the way school bus transportation is provided – equipment improvements, policy improvements, CDL, Drug and Alcohol Testing to name a few," said Pickering in a statement. "I went from the youngest state director at the 1982 NASDPTS meeting in Portland to the longest-serving state director now. I had the privilege to serve with some of the legends in our field ... I have learned a great deal from everyone I came in contact with."

Pickering also resigned his position as vice-chairman of the NCST steering committee. He served a total of 10 years on the steering committees for the 14^th and 15^th NCST.

"I feel that the 15^th NCST steering accomplished some major changes to bring the process into the 21^st century," he added.

David Koskelowski was named Pickering's replacement, currently the program manager of pupil transportation and traffic safety. Koskelowski accompanied Pickering at the NASDPTS annual conference and NAPT Summit last year in Louisville, Ky., and has been transitioning into the lead student transportation role in Wyoming and into NASPDTS.

Meanwhile, Pickering's retirement is the most recent turnover at the state level. Last month, Pete Baxter retired from the Indiana Department of Education after a 34-year career there. Since, Baxter became the corporate director of business relations at Synovia.

Also this summer, Gilbert Perea retired from the New Mexico Department of Education after 26 years. Carlos Santiago was named his replacement.

Interim steering committee members for the 16th NCST were notified that the selection of Japikse, Ohio's director of transportation and a past-president of NASDPTS in 2005 and 2006, received approval by the industry associations.

He was nominated following the most recent NCST in Warrensburg, Mo., by Charlie Hood, the current president of NASDPTS. Japikse was selected to replace Pete Baxter, the most recent steering committee chair, after he announced his retirement from the Indiana Department of Education and that he'd be stepping down from his NCST post. Per NCST bylaws, NASDPTS is the organization that nominates new chairs. A 60-day approval period follows to allow representatives of NAPT and NSTA to confirm the selection. That timetable just concluded, and all parties agreed to anoint Japikse.

"I'm humbled and flattered to be asked to do this and follow in the footsteps of some outstanding predecessors," Japikse said. "I will be working with the rest of the committee and the industry to continue helping the NCST evolve and remain a viable resource for us."

One of the items Japikse will head is continuing the direction laid out by Baxter and D. Leeds Pickering, the retiring state director from Wyoming and a steering committee member for the 2010 NCST, to utilize Internet technology to allow for updates and proposed changes to the National Specifications and Procedures during the five years in between congresses rather than the industry waiting to introduce new ideas at the event held at the University of Central Missouri.

"We will be continuing the direction they've initiated to make it more of a dynamic, living and breathing process rather than a five-year static change system," Japikse added.

In other NCST news, Web users can now access every NCST document dating back to the first meeting in 1939 by clicking on the link "NCST Past Publications 1939-2005" located on the NCST home page.