1. Question: Why must field trips generally be scheduled to operate at times that do not conflict with regular AM/PM route service?

Answer: The district currently utilizes about 688 buses and drivers to complete the approximately 1700 campus trips that are necessary to provide student transportation at AM or PM route time. The district does have spare buses and substitute drivers that, in limited instances, might be utilized for these cases. Substitute drivers, however, are utilized primarily to cover assigned driver absences and frequently the entire resource pool is depleted for this purpose. Field trips should be scheduled to avoid needing Transportation bus drivers between 6:00 - 9:00 a.m. or between 2:00 – 5:00 p.m. If needs for field trip service that conflict with route time are anticipated at your location, it is strongly recommended that school staff (employee) sponsors become trained and certified as school bus operators. The necessary training and certification is available through CFISD Transportation Department. This process should be initiated at least one (1) month prior to anticipated needs.

Answer: Our observations have shown that this practice reduces the time from 10-15 minutes to generally a maximum of 4 minutes that the first students aboard spend on a non-moving vehicle. This decreases student discomfort (time spent in the heat), misconduct problems at the time of loading, as well as misconduct problems en route due to starting the route under more positive circumstances.

3. Question: What is Transportation's role in assisting in the determination of school times?

Answer: Transportation cost is one of the factors considered when recommending school start times. The district's routing plan strives to provide transportation service for all the AM / PM campus "runs" required utilizing the fewest number of buses and drivers reasonably possible. This is accomplished by joining as many as three (3) geographically complimentary "runs" at sequentially scheduled campuses into a route serviced by one (as opposed to three!) bus and driver. When requests to change a campus starting time are explored, it must be determined if available time slots exist (or can be created) on bus routes that can service the campus/geographic region in question. If existing "slots" do not exist, the only way to offer service for additional runs at that time is to hire additional drivers and purchase additional buses.

4. Question: Why are 71-passenger school buses not equipped with seat belts for students?

Answer: Seat belts are not required in school buses because research by the Department of Transportation and others determined that compartmentalization was a better solution.

After extensive research during the 1970's, the Department of Transportation and its agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determined that the safest and most practical arrangement for school bus seating would be a "compartmentalization" concept. Accordingly, the new safety regulations established in 1977 included this requirement among many other improvements made that year.

Under the compartmentalization concept, seat backs in school buses are made higher, wider and thicker than before. All metal surfaces are covered with foam padding. This structure must then pass rigid test requirements for absorbing energy, such as would be required if a child's body came in contact with the padded back. In addition, the equivalent of a seat back, called "barrier", is placed in front of the first seat at the front of the bus.

In addition to padding, today's seats also must have a steel inner structure that springs and bends forward to help absorb energy when a child comes in contact with it. The steel frame must "give" just enough to absorb the child in the seat ahead. Also, of course, the seat is required to be anchored to the floor so strongly it will not pull loose during this bending action. And, the floor itself must be so strong that it will not be bent or torn by the pulling action of the seat anchors.

Finally, the requirement is added that seat backs can be no further apart than a distance that is deemed safe. Clearly, if the backs were too far apart, the child could be thrown too far before being cushioned and/or could be thrown outside the compartment altogether.

Some of the key arguments favoring compartmentalization over seat belts are as follows:

a. Compartmentalization is more manageable. The protective surfaces exist in place without depending on any action by the children or any extra special supervision by the drivers. Seat belts require discipline and supervision to keep them clean, unraveled and in use.

b. Compartmentalization works whether students have fully developed abdominal areas or not. Conventional seat belts, which are lap restraints only, are not suitable for small children whose abdominal area and bone structure are not adequately developed to take the force of a lap belt alone. They need the help of chest harnesses also, which adds to the complexity of a proper seat belt solution.

c. Compartmentalization, once it has done its energy-absorbing job, leaves the student free to escape the bus. Seat belts could leave students strapped in, upside down, perhaps unconscious, in burning or flooding buses.