DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 358 556 EA 024 996

TITLE The Washington State Task Force on StudentTransportation Safety. Final Report.

INSTITUTION Washington State Legislature, Olympia.PUB DATE Oct 90NOTE 18p.PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

EDRS PRICE MFO1 /PCO1 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Elementary School Students; Elementary Secondary

Education; Pedestrian Traffic; Public Schools; SafetyEducation; *School Buses; School Safety; SecondarySchool Students; *State Action; *StudentTransportation; *Traffic Circulation; TrafficControl; *Traffic Safety; Vehicular Traffic

IDENTIFIERS *Washington

ABSTRACT

Findings of a study conducted by the Washington StateTask Force on Student Transportation Safety are presented in thisreport. The data-collection process involved four phases: meetingswith experts in student transportation and pedestrian safety; publicmeetings, informational work sessions, and tours of problems areas;task force meetings; and analysis of public comments. Findings arepresented in two categories--the safety of children walking to andfrom school, and their safety while riding school buses. Elevenrecommendations are made, with special attention to the background ofand action required for each. The recommendations are as follows: (1)

create a School Sidewalk, Pathway, and Bus Stop Improvement Program;(2) establish developer impact fees for sidewalks, pathways, andschool bus stops; (3) require school bus stops in new subdivisions;(4) establish statewide rules for crosswalk safety; (5) change lawsfor school bus stop violators; (6) provide resources for drivers ofspecial-need students; (7) provide school bus drivers with studentmanagement resources; (8) equip school buses with crossing arms; (9)

mandate a school safety education program; (10) provide hazardouswalking funding for social problems; and (11) replace obsolete schoolbuses. A list of task force members and a table of therecommendations' estimated costs are included. (LMI)

****************k******************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

,LrZ

)#4:e

OCTOBER 1990

Fat

Final report of theWashington State

Task Force onStudent

Transportation Safety

t ,

.

,......

_

.

, .

.

.

1,14'1,1;f1c

el. U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATIONOOKO 01 Educat.onai Research and Improvement

13'tint E UCAT1ONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

:1 494s document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or orgaruzahon0Ogonating .1

0 Minor ouchronchanges been made to improve

Points of new Of OpMoOfil StiltlIO al this dOCu-ment do not oCSilaroly represent off.cdoOERI posthon or policy

Xt.),

lit1.wAq431.; *FA k?SC'

7.71. 41

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

10 THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

,(z..:1.t%:(4.4;.71'714(#";Si- e . 'tai'INt

Final Report ofthe WashingtonState Task Force on StudentTransportation Safety

Chaired bySenatorPattyMunayRepresentative Grace ColeOctober 1990

I Pages

L Intzoduction 1

a. History dee Mak Farceb. lbakFatoe Mesnbetsbip

II Proem Used in Developing the Reconmendations 3

"IL Stmimary ofFmdings and noblem Ideniificzdian 4

a. Sai3ty afcbildren walking to and finm schools

b. Safety aftlaldren ridixg whx1 buses

Ar. Pmpaaed Recommendatims ix

Addrafaingtbe Identified Problems 6

4

I. Introduction

As the population of Washington has grown, the number of carsclogging our streets has increased dramatically. In some regionsof the state, especially in the Puget Sound area, this increasedtraffic has led not only to traffic jams on our freeways andarterials, but also extremely unsafe conditions for our children asthey travel to and from schooL

The problem is especially acute on rural, two-lane roads that havehistorically carried few vehicles Many of these once rural roadsare now jammed with cars during rush hours and at other timesof the day as development has overwhelmed the rural roadsystem. Often, these roads have no or inadequate shoulders,making it extremely dangerous for school children as they walk toand from school. While state, city, and county transportationagencies are attempting to upgrade the safety of these roads,many believe that additional efforts are needed.

In response to these safety concerns, which were expressed byparents, school officials, and others, the Washington Legislaturecreated the Task Force on Student Transportation Safety Thetask force was established in 1989 to develop recommendationsfor reducing the dangers that children face as they travel to andprom schooL More specifically, Engrossed Substitute House Bill2066 directed the task force to study:

(a) Student pedestrian safety while traveling to and fromschool, including pedestrian needs, hazardous walking conditions,school crossing guards, and other related issues;

(b) The need for edge stripping and curbing for roadwaysand identifying sources of fimding such projeds; and

(c) The need for school districts, counties, cities, and thestate to set standards for infrastructure improvements inconjunction with housing developments

Membership on the task force included four state legislators andrepresentatives of parents, the housing industry, the Office of theSuperintendent of Public Instruction, the Department ofTransportation, school bus personnel, the Stan Patrol, the TrafficSafety Commission, local law enforcement personnel, cities, andcounties.

1

Task Forceon Studentrfransportation Safety

Committee List

Representative Grace Cole, Co-Chair1st Legislative District

Senator Leo Thorsness11th Legislative District

Don Carnahan, SupervisorSPI, Pupil Transportation

Cary MatthewsWashington State Patrol

Jeff Cook, Transportation SupervisorNorthshore School District

Martha Shreve, School Bus DriverKennewick School District

Greg Nickels, Conlin-1minKung County Council

Mary WeisWA State School Directors Assoc.

Randy Scott, Asst. Executive DirectorWA State Assoc. ofCcamties

Ross Kelley, Transp Planning Engr.Spokane County

Senator Patty Murray, Co-Chair1st legislative District

Representative BrUce Holland47th Legislative District

Chuck Hayes, Program DirectorWashington Traffic Safety Commission

Tim Stevenson, llansportation SupervisorFederal Way School District

Sue Carnahan, Transportation SupervisorSumner School District

Irene JonesWashington State PTA

Loyd Fergestrom, Asst. Traffic FirigiripprDept. ofTransportation

Ron Weidner, ChiefTukwila Police Department

Jim Justin, Asst. Dir. for OperationsAssoc. of Washington Cities

Larry Sundquist, t, Bldg. Industry Assoc.Sundquist Homes

Process Used in Developingthe Recommendations

In developing the recommendations, the Task Force completed afour-phase process.

The first phase consisted of a series of background meetings inwhich experts in student transportation and pedestrian safetywere invited to make presentations. During these backgroundmeetings, the committee reviewed traffic and pedestrian accidentdata, the current condition of the state's school bus fleet withrespect to safety improvements, and the formula the state uses inpaying school districts for school bus costs. Recent pedestrian andschool bus safety legislation also was discussed.

The second phase consisted of three public meetings combinedwith informational work sessions with school district personneland local goveniment officials. The meetings were held in Kent,Spokane, and Bothell lbws lisped& problem areas were alsoconducted, allowing the task firm members to witness the unsafewalking conditions on once-rural roads, the congestion and trafficsurrounding urban schools, and a host of other problems.

The public meetings were designed to inform parents andresidents about the task force's responsibilities and to identifyproblems that needed to be addressed.

The third phase consisted of a aeries of task force meetingsdesigned to summarize and prioritize the identified issues, and toformulate recommendations for addressing the issues. The draftrecommendations were mailed, with a request for comments, toapproximately 70 individuals who testified at the public meetingsand work sessions.

As a result of the request for comments, approximately twenty

individuals responded. Phase four of the process includedanalysis and consideration of these public comments and finaladoption of the recommendations.

fN

3

M. Summary ofFindings anProblem Identification

Summarized below are the findings of the Task Force andproblems that were identified during the group's deliberations.The summary is divided into two categories. The first categoryinvolves issues related to the safety of children who walkor ridebicycles to schooL The second category pertains to the safety ofchildren who ride school buses.

A. Safety of Children Walking To and From School1. Infrastructure Improvements - In many regions of the

state, students are walking or riding bicycles to school onvery busy streets that have no sidewalks, small or nonexistentshoulders, and inadequate street crossing signals or markings.According to parents, school offneinls and local governmentrepresentatives, there is a need to construct additionalsidewalks, improve road shoulders, and improve the markingof street crossings within two miles of school buildings.

Related questions that were raised included:

(a) Who should be responsible for ensuring infrastructureimprovements are provided?

(b) Who should pay for the improvements?1 In new subdivisions?2 In existing subdivisions?3 Along city, county, and state roads

outside of subdivisions?

2. Traffic Control Measures - The potential fortraffic/pedestrian accidents in the immediate vicinity of schoolwas apparent, especially in urban areas and when schools arelocated on heavily used arterials. Spokane officlals, schooldistricts, and others emphasized the need to improve trafficcontrol measures in the immediate vicinity of schools.

3. Pedestrian Safety Education - While the State Patrol,local law enforcement authorites, school districts and theSuperintendent of Public Instruction offer traffic safetyeducation instruction, it was felt that currently availableresources were limited. In their view, the state needsto enhance pedestrian safety education for all elementaryschool students.

4

4. Legal Liability for Pedestrian Safety- On severaloccasions, the question arose as to who is liable for childrenwhen they walk to school. Also, under what circumstances areschools liable? If a school district places school patrolguards at an intersection several blocks from the school, is thedistrict liable for the students as they walk from the schoolto the intersection with the cruising guards? Representativesfrom the Spokane School District wanted to protect the districtfrom legal liability issues associated with providing additionalschool patrol guards at dangerous intersections notlocated within the immediate vicinity of school buildir7.Others felt that the larger question of liability also should beaddressed.

B. Safety of Children Riding School BusesL Accidents Occurring during Bus LoadingfUnloading -

In recent years, there have been several accidents whileTintnadine school buses. During the committee's deliberations,a young child was run over by a bus just after the child hadleft the bus. Many parents, school officials, and othersrequested that measures be taken to reduce the number ofaccidents that occur when children are loading and unloadingfrom school buses

2. Reducing Injuries when Bus Collisions Occur -Avery tragic 1988 church activity bus accident in Kentucky, inwhich 26 children and the driver were killed, reinforcedthe need to ensure measures are taken to protect passengersand drivers when collisions and other bus accidents occur.While the federal government instituted stringent safetystandards for buses in 1977, approximately 32 percent of thebuses in Washington were built prior to 1977 and thus do nothave the enhanced safety features. Many speakers thoughtthat steps needed to be taken to replace the pre-1977 buses,thus reducing the extent of passenger and driver injuries whenschool bus accidents do occur

3. Hazardous Walking Conditions - Under current state law,the state does not reimburse school districts for thetransportation of students who live within a one-mile radiusof a school unless it is determined that the child wouldencamter "hazardous walking conditions." The currentfccmula for making the determination

(continued on it page)

(continued from previous page)

of a hazardous condition involves only traffic- related hazards.It was felt by some parents that the formulas should berevised to consider "social hazards," such as areas with highcrime rates, and that greater weight should be given to traffichazards when considering the danger to younger students (e.g.,grades kindergarten through 3).

4 Bus Pullouts As a result of testimony and field observations,it became apparent to the Task Force that school buses areoften required to load and unload students at locations thatare hazardous to the children getting on and offthe bus, andthat are likely to result in bus/vehicle elisions. Providingsafer school bus pullouts for loading and inikaaling studentswas identified as a used that should be addressed.

5. Student Supervision Parents and school bus driversexpressed concerns with the difficulty of rrarinratning adequatesupervision of a large bus load of children. This problemmakes it more difficult for the driver to perform hisor herother duties in a safe manner. While it was agreed that theproblem was not widespread, districts were able to idPnlifycertain routes that tended to be more of a problem than others.In general, it was felt that school bus drivers should beprovided additional resources to effectively handle disruptivestudents on the bus.

5.

6. Special Education Bus Aides School buses and vans, oftenspecially equipped, are providing transportation to a largenumber of special education students who have a variety ofbehavioral, health, and emotional needs. On occasion, thesestudents need assistance while the bus is underway. Whilesome school districts provide aides on their buses, otherdistricts do not Several parents argued that additional fundsshould be provided to provide more aides on special educationbuses.

7. School Bus Safety Education While there are efforts toteach school children school bus safety, parents and educatorsfelt that additional resources were needed to enhance schoolbus safety education for elementary school students.

& Public Education and Enforcement of ExistingTraffic Laws A number of speakers and several Task Force

members were concerned that the public is not awareof the existing laws regarding passing buses during loadingand antna ding, and that laws prohibiting the passing of busesare not adequately enforced. There was also concern thatcurrent traffic laws pertaining to traffic safety in theimmediate vicinity of schools were inadequate and poorlyenforced.

(continued on next page)

IVforProblems

Recommendationsthe Identified

Based on the 'rusk Force's findings, the followingrecommendations were fixmulsted. The reader will note thatmany, but not all, of the identified problems are addressed in therecommendations Alist of tbe reo3mmendations, with theirestimated costs, are shown in1bble L

Table 1

Recccemendations cf the lbsk Farce an Student Illansportatin Safety

Title of Recommendation Costs to State/School Districts

1 School Sidewalk, Pathway,and Bus Stop Improvement

$100,000 Inventory, $? million for improvements to be shared bylocal and state governments

Program

2 Impact Fees for Sidewalks,Pathways and School Bus

None - (Developers/new homeowners pay)

Stops

3 Requiring School Bus Stopsin New Subdivisions

None - (Developers/new homeowners pay)

4 Establishing Statewide $300,000-$500,000Rules far Crosswalk Safety

5 School Bus Stop Law $55,000 for video system; Unknown add. costs to prosecute violatorsViolator Change

6 Providing Resources fordrivers of Special Need

$2,500,000 annually

Students

7 Providing Drivers Student $55,000Manager Resounes

8 Equipping School Buses with $500,000Crcssing Arms

9 Mandating a School Safety $250,000 annually-ProgmmSPI; $600,000 annuallySafety Ed.Education Program Of17WSP; $125,000 annually-Public Service Annotmcements

10 Providing Hazardous Unknown-Annual cost per 1000 kids is approx. $170,000.Walking Funding for Social Estimated maxim= $1,200,000 annuallyProblems

11 School Bus Replacement $15,000,000 annually

61`u

Recommendation #1

School Sidewalk, Pathway, and Bus StopImprovement Program

Summary of Recommendation:A School Sidewalk, Pathway, and Bus Stop ImprovementProgram should be created to identify and fund capitalconstruction projects that will enhance the safety of studentswalking to public schools, and the safety of children loading andunloading school buses. With the exception of school bus pullouts,projects would have to be located within a two-mile radius of aschool building.

The program would consist of three phases. Phase one wouldindude an inventory of hazardous streets and roads within atwo-mile radius of schools, and an inventory of unsafe bus stops.The inventory would focus on existing problems. Prior toconducting the inventory, criteria would be developed fordetermining if specific roads and bus stops are hazardous. Thecriteria could then be applic I on a school-by-school basis.

Phase two would be to develop a capital construction plan foridentifying priority projects, and determining which jurisdiction(school district., state, county, or city) has responsibility for makingthe priority improvements.

During phase three, finding from the responsible jurisdictionswould be sought, and construction would commence. It is likelythat funding would be staggered over a number of years, withhighest priority projects being funded first.

In concert with phase one, school walkway standards should bedeveloped to be applied when new schools are constructed. Thesestandards would require that walkway improvement projects becompleted within a two-mile radius of new schools prior to theopening of the school, or soon thereafter. Standards also would bedeveloped for school bus stops in new residential developmentsand when roads are improved.

7

The types of improvement projects that would be consideredinclude: construction of sidewalks and pathways; enlargement ofroad shoulders; painting of edge stripes and crosswalks;installation of curbing, rumble bars, speed control devices, trafficcontrol signals, and signs; construction or widening of school buspullouts; and other measures designed to increase studentpedestrian and bus safety

Background:As discussed in the identification of issues, a large number ofchildren are walling to school on busy streets that have nosidewalks or adequate shoulders. In addition, school buses areloading and unloading children in locations that are hazardousfor the chikken, bus driver, and motorists. The lack of safetyfeatures puts these children and especially younger students-atrisk of getting injured or killed by passing motorists. The risk isespecially high in regions of the state that are experiencing rapidresidential growth.

Some local jurisdictions, such as King and Snohomish Counties,have programs to fund sidewalks. However, it is dear that theamount of fimds available is inadequate to meet the identifiedneeds. Impact fees, which were permitted in the recently adopted"Growth Bill" (SHB 292), may also be a source of funds forpedestrian and school bus stop improvements. However, it is notexpected that these fees will be adequate to meet the identifiedneeds.

Action Required:Implementation of tbe program will require funding for the initialinventory, and state and local government appropriations for thepriority sidewalk, pathway, and school bus stop improvementsidentified is the inventory

The development of standards for sidewalks and pathways in thevicinity of new schools and standards for school bus stops willrequire legislation.

Recommendation # 2

Impact Fees for Sidewalks, Pathways andSchool Bus Stops

Sumnzary of Recommendation:Clarify that sidewalks, pathways and school bus stops are ek,7111Pfor developer impact fees.

Background:The 1990 Legislature passed legislation (SHB 2929) that allowslocal government to assess impact feeswhen new developmentsare permitted. The impact fees must be used for "public facilities"as defined in the bilL The current definition of public facilitiesincludes "public streets and roads." lb ensure that sidewalks,pathways, and bus stops are eligible for impact fees, it has beensuggested that the statutes be amended to specifically includesidewalk pathways, and bus stops in the definition of publicfacilities.

Action Required:Passage of legislation amending RCW 82.02.

8

Recommendation # 3

Requiring that Appropriate Provisions bemade for School Bus Stops in Subdivisions

Summary of Recommendation:Amend state law to require that appropriate provisions be madefor school bus stops in subdivisions.

Background:Under existing law (RCW 58.17.110), before a local governmentapproves a subdivision, it must make appropriate provisions forpublic health, safety, and general welfare, open spaces, streets orroads, other public ways, transit stops, schools and schoolgrounds, _Ind safe walking conditions for studentswho walk onlyto and from school. While transit stopsare included in thecriteria, school bus stops are not. 'lb help01=3 that school busstops are provided in new residential developments, it has beenrecommended that school bus stops be added to the list.

Action requiredPassage of legislation that adds "school bus stops" to RCW58.17110.

2,

Recommendation # 4

Establish Statewide Rules RegardingCrosswalk Safety

Summary of Recommendation:Adopt a program similar to the State ofArizona School SafetyProgram, which is a formalized, statewide program administeredby the Arizona Department of Transportation. The programincludes guidelines for:

School Site selectionOn-Site safetyOff-Site safetySchool safety programSchool orosaing controlsPedestrian signalsPedestrian overpassesSchool children as passengers

Of particular interest to the Ilisk Force were provisions in theArizona Revised Statute 28-797, School CrociAngs, establishingthe statewide, standardized school crossing program. Theprogram requires yellow marking of school crossings, yellowmarking of the center line of the roadway and the erection ofportable signs indicating that vehicles must stop when personsare in the crossing. The state sign manual provides the type andwording of portable signs indicating that school is in session, andpermanent signs providing warning of approach to schoolcrossings A fifteen mile per hour speed limit is established firvehicles transiting the signed school cross walk area.

The cat to implement this recommendation is estimated to bebetween $300,000 and $500,000 for the required special signing /painting and crossing guard training. Pavement marking costamight be minimal ifthe changes are phased-in during normalre-striping operations. Signing and paint stripe costs would beborne by the jurialictca responsible for maintaining the roadway.The crossing guard program would be the respcssibllityof theschools - using either adult or student crossing guards. Trafficenforcement would be routine, except being more visible at thebeginning of the school year.

9

Background:The reported effectiveness of the Arizona program in controllingtraffic at school crosswalks suggests the State of Washingtonwould benefit by replicating this program. Although the fatal andinjury pucture in Washington is better than that ofArizona, thecommittee recognized Arizona's overall management of the schoolsafety program; specifically, the cross walk safety programappears to be managed more consistently throughout the state.

Action required:The Legislature must amend state law related to speed limitsand crosswalks.

1

Recommendation # 5

School Bus Stop Law Violator Change

Summary of Recommendation:Two actions are recommended1. Change current law to make it easier to prosecute motoristswho violate the school bus stop law. There should be no direct costrelated to changing this law.2. Explore the feasibility of using a video monitoring system toassist in violator identification. The cost of a pilot program isestimated to be $55,000.

Background:Currently, when a school bus driver reports a school bus stop lawviolation to any law enforcement agency, the identification of thedriver is a problem for the pr sec of the offender. In manyareas of the state, prosecution of these violators reported byschool bus drivers is not pursued. Without the risk ofapprehension and prosecution, strict compliance with the schoolbus stop law will continue to be a problem. School bus driverscontinually comment on their frustrations of no follow-throughonthe violations they report to local enforcement agencies.

Iowa changed its state law with regards to the identification ofdrivers reported as stop law violators by school bus drivers. Whenreported, the burden of proof is placed upon the registered ownerof the vehicle passing the stopped school bus. The registeredowner must either pay the fine or identify the person who wasdriving the vehicle at the time the videlicet occurred

'Ib improve the ability of bus drivers to identify vehicles anddrivers who violate school bus stop laws, a pilot project to perfecta surveillance camera system would be helpful. The cameraswould be mounted on school buses operating on routes in areaswhere there is a high incidence of vehicles illegally passingstopped school buses.

Action Required:Legislative action will be required to change Washington law toimplement this proposed change. An appropriation will benecessary to explore the feasibility of the video system.

Recommendation # 6

Providing Resources for Drivers of SpecialNeed Students

Summary of Recommendation:Certain students with special needs must be provided extraatcention for their safety and the safety of other passengers whilethey are being transported in a school bus. The objective ofmonitors on such buses is to assist students with special needswhile the bus driver attends to the teak of safely operating theschool bus.

The cost to implement this recommendation is estimated to be anadditional $2,500,000 annually.

Background:Currently there are approximately 102 monitors assistingstudents and school bus drivers on 1,070 school busestransporting students to and from special education programsstatewide. Monitors on special transportation buses are necessarybased upon the needs of the students riding the bus. Drivers needhelp on buses transporting students with behavior disorders andstudents who need special attention for their health while the busis in motion. Drivers should not be required to concentrate onsevere student needs while driving the bus. Drivers may alsoneed help while loading and unloading students in mobilitydevices. This assistance is critical given the possible need torapidly evacuate the bus in an emergency. There are currently nostandards for the requirement of an assistant or monitor on aschool bus transporting students with special needs.

SPI should establish criteria which will determine when amonitor is required on a school bus transporting students withspecial needs. Transportation program or special educationfunding will be required to specifically cover the cost of thesemonitors.

Action Required:SPI must develop standards to determine when monitors shall beused on a special transportation bus. The legislature mustprovide appropriate funding to cover the cost of the mandatedmonitors.

1 .-

10

Recommendation #7

Providing Drivers Student ManagementResources

Summary of Recommendation:Conduct a pilot project to provide school bus drivers with schoolbuses equipped with a video monitoring system so that driverswill be somewhat relieved of the task of identifying disruptive

..,ents while safely operating the vehicle in traffic.

The objective is to provide resources to assist drivers with studentmanagement. The anticipated cost of conducting this pilot projectis $55,000.

Background:Special Report M2, Improving School Bus Safety, by TheNational Academy of Sciences, 1989, considered the benefits ofmonitors on school buses. They considered the cost effectivenessof monitors for reducing the number of student injuries andfatalities both inside and outside the bus. Monitors couldensinethat students remain in their seats with head and arms insidethe bus and they could reduce driver distractions through bettercontrol of the students. Monitors could also be used as crossingguards to accompany children (particularly younger children)across streets when they board or leave school buses.

Even though it was generally agreed that the use of school busmonitors could enhance school bus safety, the cost effectiveness ofsuch a program placed this consideration at the bottom tithe listof options to consider for improving school bus safety. If we wereto provide a monitor for each school bus in daily operation inWashington state, the additional annual cost is estimated to be$31,000,000.

Current rules allow school districts to use volunteers as monitorson school buses. Such a program properly initiated would requirescreening and training of the monitors. In addition, the role of themonitor should be dearly established with the driver havingultimate authority. It is only logical that any person allowed toperform a function for the school district would establish the sameliability for the district as a paid employee. The students andparents deserve that protection. Districts need to commit asubstantial investment in preparing volunteers for this taskthere is some concern about the ability to count the regularparticipation of an unpaid person.

11

Video monitors have been developed to aid the bus driver withstudent management Identifying which student is responsiblefor disrupting behavior while safely operating the bus is aproblem for the bus driver. Better administrative support forstudent discipline may be available to the driver with betterdocumentation ofthe student behavior problems. This approachhas the potential to provide the driver most of what would be thebenefits of another person on the bus without the extraordinarycost implications.

Action Required:SPI needs a special appropriation to conduct a demonstrationproject to evaluate the effectiveness of using video recordingdevices to improve student management on school buses. Thisproject must be evaluated for consideration of statewideapplication.

1

Recommendation #8

Equip School Buses with Crossing Arms

Summary of Recommendation:Install crossing arms on +he front bumper of all school buses. Thismandatory retrofit program could be acconiplisbed in one yearthrough a state coordinated effort. Student loading and unloadingsafety would be improved by installing these crossingarms onschool buses.

The cost to implement this recommendation is estimated to be$500,000.

Background:National statistics indicate two-thirds of all children killed inschool bus and pedestrian accidents are struck by school buses. Ofthose killed, two-thirds are struck by the front of the bus andone-third by the rear of the bus, usually the rear wheels (SpecialReport 222, "Improving School Bus Safety", The NationalAcademy of Sciences, 1989, p.125). Washington had a studentpedestrian school bus fatality during the 1989-90 school year.This pedestrian was struck by the front ofthe bus. Crossingcontrol arms are designed to free students to crossa minimumdistance in front of the bus. This device reinforces the instructionsprovided to students for safe loading and unloading procedureswhich attempt to keep the crossing children within the busdriver's view. North Carolina, South Carolina, V'irgi'nia andGeorgia now have mandatory crossing arm requirements. Twostates, which have mandated crossing control arms fir eleven andseven years respectively (North Carolina and Georgia), havedemonstrated impressive improvements in their school busstudent pedestrian accident experience. Georgia has mandatedthe crossing control arms since 1983, and has not experienced afront-end fatality after that date. In 1978, one year prior to theadoption of the mandatory crossing arm law, there were ninefatalities involving North Carolina school children in the loadingand unloading zones. Lees than nine have been killed in NorthCarolina in the 11 years Mice the crossing control arms became arequirement. Virginia has just completed a statewide mandatoryretrofit of crossing control arms on 8,000 school buses. They wereable to accomplish this far $500,000 because it was astate-organized and coordinated program.

12

Action Required:A specific legislative appropriation must be wide for this purpose.Ifit is to be a state coordinated effort M achieve Virginia'seconomy, SPI needs special authorization and it should be sonoted in the appropriation.

Recommendation #9

Mandate "lb and From School Safety"Education Program for AR ElementaryStudents and Adult Drivers

Summary of Recommendation:This recommendation will require that students are provided a"lb and Fran Scha Safety" education program at least twiceeach year within two weeks of the beginning of each school term.This program must cover both walking safety between home andschool and home and the bus stop, as well as bus ridership safetyfrom the bus stop to school and return again.

In addition, public service announcements aimed at the adultdriver will be prepared Pimlially for radio and televisionaudiences. The theme "When kids are walking to school, theycome first", has been proposed for the walking safety program.

The cost is estimated to be $250,000 onnnally for the ongoingneeds to support the statewide mandated program in the publicschools and an additional $600,000 annually to fund twelve moreSafety Education Mans (Sen) in order for the WashingtonState Patrol (WSP) to meet the current and anticipated futureneeds for supporting staxlent safety program related to travelingto and from school. In addition, annual expenditures for thepreparation and distribution of public service announcements areanticipated to be $125,000.

Background:Special Report 222, "Improving School Bus Safety," The NationalAcademy of Sciences, 1989, concluded that pupil educationprograms could be the moat effective activity in reducing studentdeaths and injuries for students traveling to and from school.Washington has no such mandatory program. Many schooldistricts have acme programs which promote student safety.However, these programs seldom reach all students in the districtwho could benefit The WSP has a SEG program with a portion oftheir cwriculum designed to assist advol districts, upon request,in "lb and From School &fay Education" and school buts driver

(continued on the neat page)

6

(continued from the previous page)

training. However the WSP SRO program does not have enoughstaffto handle ail current requests.

Rules requiring such a program will provide better quality anduniformity regarding student safety while traveling to and fromschool There will be improved student performance while ridingon buns. There will be a more coordinated effort on studentmanagement and discipline. More students will be presented aneducational program which will promote safer student pedestrianbehaviors.

Adult drivers need to be reminded of their responaulity for thesafety of students travelling to and from school Public serviceannouncements at the beginning of the school year remindingthese drivers about responsible driving behavior around childrenand schools will deliver an important safety message whichshould improve driver behavior.

Action Required:Appropriations need to be made by the legislature prior to theenactment of law or administrative codes requiring such aprogram.

Recommendation #10

Provide Hazardous Walking ConditionFunding for Social Problems Within One-mileof Schools

Summary of Recommendation:Funding will be available for the transportation of students whowould otherwise have to walk through areas where unacceptablesocial conditions exist. Statewide standards will be established foruse by law enforcement agencies and school districts.

The cost of this recommendation cannot be estimated because ofthe lecke/appropriate data The cost will be approximately$170,000 fir each 1,000 students transported under this provision.

Background:Currently, the state only funds the transportation of dnldren toschool if the child lives further than a one mile radius oftheschool The only exzeption is if it has been determined thatwalking to school would be hazardous. The determination of'hazardous walking condition?' is based only on roadway andtraffic conditions. Considering recent interest in itlxieot safety for

students walking to and from school and the changing socialconditions in the communities ofWashin' gton State, it isrecommended to recognize unacceptable social conditions as anindependent criteria fax qualifying students for transportationfunding. This would allow transportation fending for all eligiblestudents who would otherwise have to walk past problem areascreated by unacoeptable social documented by anofficial in charge of a law enforcement agency governing thatarea. The following conditions would be included: narcotics, sexoffenders, prostitution, "street violence ", dangerous animals, andenvironmentally dangerous conditions (toxic chemical dumps,etc.). This docimientation will need to be updated somuilly.Distance (length of the walkway in association with the hazard)will not be a factor in this qualification process and it will beindependent of any other qualification process fur transportationfinding within a one-mile radius of school

Action Required:SPI must revise the regulations to allow funding for HazardousWalk* Conditions recognizing social &Actors. Standards willneed to be developed to limit the scope of this recommendation.

Recommendation #11

School Bus Replacement

Summary of Recommendation:Student irtfety while riding school buses iii being compromisedbecause of the excessive number of pre-77 Lines in dailyoperation. Policies and procedures must be changed for fundingschool bus purdumes to retire obsolete school buses.

The cost cfthis systematic retirement of obsolete buses requiresreplacement (1470 buses every year. Estimated annual cost is$242 million. State frontfunding will require an increase inappropriations of $152 million per year. Over time, thisinvestment will reduce repair, operating and interest costs by hieamount.

Background:The statewide school bus fleet includes over 5,600 district-ownedbuses. More than 2,100 of these buses do not meet Federal safetystandards in effect since Apri11, 1977. These buses exposechildren to avoidable risk of injuries. In addition, 1,500 otherbuses are beyond normal life expectancy, resulting in annual cartsof $10 million for extraordinary avoidable repairs.

(continued on the next page)

13

(continued from the previous page)

School districts have been expected to finntAmd purchase ofschool buses with local special levies and school districts have notmet this requirement. In nine years' time, 75 percent of the schooldistricts have never attempted to pass a Transportation VehicleFund levy to purchase buses; less than 10 percent of the schooldistricts have attempted more than one bus purchase levy.Special levies for school bus purchases compete with levies foreducational programs and band proposals Sr school construction.These circumstances have severely limited local revenues for buspurchases. This has limited bus purchases and yieldedan agingschool bus fleet. State front- finding is necessary to ensurecontinuous scheduled retirement of obsolete and aging schoolbuses. This will also remove the current cash-flow penalty thatresults from the current school bus replacementprocess.

Salty of students will be greatly enhanced. Modern school busesprovide much greater passenger protection from high paddedseats and seat backs, protection from fuel spillage and fire,rollover protection, crush rasistance, and other major safetyimprovements in design and construction of school buses.

Efficiency and cost effectiveness of pupil transportation will beimproved. Continued operation of wall out buses is wasteful,requiring frequent and expensive overhauls and rebuilding,causing repeated dieruptions due to diminished reliability, andgenerate excessive amounts of air pollutants.

Action Required:RCW 28A.160.200 (former RCW 28A.41.540) must be amendedby the legislature. The legislature must appropriatean additional$15 million each year to fund the change. SPI will need to rewritethe regulations authorized by the new law.

14