Comment Log Display

March 26, 2008

Mary D. Nichols, Chair
California Air Resources Board
1001 I Street,
Sacramento, California 95814

Regarding: 	March 27 Board Meeting
		Agenda Item 08-3-4 School Bus Guidelines

Dear Chair Mary Nichols:


School transportation is a critical issue for many school
districts.  The current school transportation system is clearly
broken.  The recently released State Auditor report (March 2007 –
Report 2006-109) recommended that the California Department of
Education seek legislation to revise the current law so that 1)
all school districts that provide transportation services could
receive funds, and 2) ensure that all school districts are funded
equitably for the Home-to-School Transportation program.  

As you know, California is dead last in the percentage of children
that ride school buses – 16%.  The national average is 54%.  Our
national ranking is a disgrace.
The state pays less than 50% of the current cost of
transportation.  The state pays 0% for any increase in
transportation service or cost due to 1) increase in the cost of
fuel, 2) school bus replacement, 3) increase in the number of
students served, or 4) providing transportation services for those
students who are at risk of failing or not passing the exit exam
and need to take supplemental instructional services after school
or in the summer months.

School Transportation has been severely underfunded.  In the last
20 years, transportation aid has grown by 40%, inflation by 90%,
and K-12 expenditures per pupil by 130%.
School buses are the safest form of transportation for children –
safer than walking, cars, or transit buses.  All new school buses
will have seat belts.  Using school buses means fewer accidents,
injuries, and fatalities.  Using school buses means less
congestion, improved air quality, and less dependency on foreign
oil especially with alternative fueled buses.

The 2005-06 budget provided $12.5 million for the replacement of
school buses.  I was satisfied with the distribution of those
funds.  Unfortunately, I have concerns with the proposed
distribution of the $200 million from Proposition 1B for the
replacement of school buses and the installation of traps.

I am extremely opposed to the staff’s proposal for a school
district match of $25,000.  There was nothing in the
voter-approved proposition or in the enabling legislation that
gave ARB the authority to require such a match.  If ARB wants to
require a match, ARB should have introduced legislation to get
that authority.

I am also opposed to the unrealistic state cost cap of $140,000
per school bus.  This will mean that those school districts that
want to purchase a CNG school bus will have to pay a ‘match’ of
$30,000 to $45,000.  With the exception of the South Coast air
quality district, which mandates CNG school buses, this will have
the unintended consequence of causing school districts to purchase
diesel school buses because of the lower school district match.  It
will also cause school districts to purchase ‘fully loaded’ diesel
school buses that cost up to $165,000 (state share of $140,000
plus school district match of $25,000).  I have no problems with
reasonable cost caps that reflect the actual cost of school buses.
 I would recommend that ARB give that authority to the local air
quality districts and have them create reasonable cost caps based
on the most recent school bus purchases by the school districts in
their air quality district. 

Finally, I would propose that ARB recommend to the air quality
districts that at least 75% of the Proposition 1B funds be used
for school bus replacement.  Because of the lack of funding, our
school districts have one of the oldest school bus fleets in the
nation.  These funds will replace school buses that on the average
were built more than thirty years ago.  The California State
Department of Education has stated that school buses should be
replaced before fifteen years of service.  Your staff is
recommending that at least 25% of the funding be used for school
traps.  I believed the voters approved the $200 million in
Proposition 1B believing that the overwhelming amount of funds, if
not all the funds, would go for school bus replacement.

The school transportation programs in my school districts are
severely underfunded.  The imposition of a $25,000 match may mean
than many of our school districts will not be able to replace
their old school buses.  Thank you.


Roger Love
Oroville Union High School District
Transportation Department