President Bush signed H.R. 1 in August 2007 calling on TSA to perform within one year security risk assessments on school buses as well as commercial and transit buses, over-the-highway trucks and other critical infrastructure vehicles. Fast forward to today, and a release of the report by Congress by this spring appears to be a real possibility.

The report was called for by the 9/11 Commission that investigated the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, and it made resulting recommendations towards enhancing the protection of the nation's infrastructure, including transportation.

After several false starts punctuated by the Obama Administration taking over last January and the resulting review of ongoing federal programs germane to any presidential change, TSA representatives told the school transportation industry that the report would likely be made available last month, a deadline which obviously came and went without a peep.

But apparently, according to a source close to the situation who requested anonymity, Congress now has taken possession of the assessment, and it is now up to senators and representatives to review the document and make it public. The report is designed to share with congressional members the vulnerabilities that TSA found in vehicles such as school buses and to serve as the long-awaited tool enabling school transportation to lobby Congress for federal dollars.

Supposedly, the document lists vulnerabilities that school transportation has been pointing out for years. But now, well at least "soon," lobbyists will have a concrete document to point to.

In other school bus security news, STN learned from NASDPTS representatives who participated in a conference call this week with TSA that upcoming Information Sharing and Analysis Center activities are scheduled for March 26 in Albany, N.Y., and in Los Angeles May 5 and 6. There is also a tentative training event scheduled for Chicago this July.

It's tragic anytime a student dies on a school bus or outside of one. Most often fatalities and even injuries can and should be avoided in crashes similar to that between an Autumn Transportation school bus and a teen driver on Jan. 21 for any number of reasons. The obvious one in this case is if only Parikh had been wearing a seat belt. Proponents of Rep. Tony Guerra's bill to require three-point lap/shoulder belts on school buses say Parikh would never had become airborne and suffered the fatal head injury had he been properly restrained.

But the what ifs continue.

If only proper procedure had been followed, such as the company re-certifying a vehicle that had previously been taken out of service due to brake problems...

If only the bus driver had been properly certified to drive a vehicle as large as that particular Type C bus, and he if only he wasn't (allegedly) driving 80 mph when he was supposed to be going no faster than 50 mph...

If only a guardrail had properly kept the school bus from plunging off the highway and down a 20-foot embankment...

If only the teen driver who collided with the bus had been riding with his classmates to the robotics competition instead of taking his own car...

Maybe Parikh would be alive today if any of the above statements were true. But there remain far too many additional challenges arise from the logic that the only viable response is equipping all Connecticut school buses with lap/shoulder restraints in response to the state's first student fatality occurring in a school bus since 1972. In a perfect world, I, personally, would advocate for the restraint systems in school buses to ensure they are absolutely without a doubt, perceived or in reality, the safest mode of road transportation there is. The safety record speaks for itself, as only about six students die on board school buses each year compared to more than 300 in other vehicles while on their way to or from school.

Of course, Parikh died on his way to a school competition, but does that mean we must ignore the facts? Now, if Connecticut voters approved a bond measure that would pay for installing three-point systems in all new school buses (or retrofitting all school buses as some would have it), I'd say go for it. But is that realistic in this economy? STN obtained some figures on just how much it might cost, around $15,000 per bus to install the belts. That's a conservative estimate, mind you, as others have said the real cost would be more in the neighborhood of $20,000. But then, you must balance that against a lawsuit, at least one of which has already been filed against the school district, bus company and the teen driver.

Some data reported by a local newspaper and attributed to School Transportation News, meanwhile, has caused some heartburn among legislators who are debating the bill. The Hartford Courant quoted STN, and presumably an item on our School Bus FAQs Web page, that it would only cost about $1,500 to $2,000 per bus to install seat belts. But, in actuality, our Web site cites older data on what it might cost to install two-point lap belts on school buses, and in the same section it goes on to say that three-point lap/shoulders systems would be more expensive. Even with the lap belt data, we show that installing the systems nationwide could range from $450 million to $900 million dollars, and that doesn't factor in the maintenance costs. No writer from the Courant ever contacted us, or we would have gladly explained.

Perhaps some of the blame needs to be pointed at STN. It's extremely difficult in this industry to get one's hands on any cold-hard facts, especially us in the media. There's the challenge of 50 different states and D.C. administering their own operations, albeit in many similar ways. But there are seemingly as many funding or reimbursement formulas as stars in the sky. And costs, true costs, can be nearly impossible to come by as they not only vary state to state but district to district. The American School Bus Council knows full well the limitations to the industry of having limited data, which is why a major objective this year is to attempt to develop a centralized database of school bus law and other data. Still, we at STN and the entire industry must do better.

This all, of course, can only serve to further blur the whole school bus seat belt issue. Try explaining the foggy nuances to grieving parents, like Pratik and Dolly Parikh. They don't want to hear about how safe school buses are when they just lost their boy. They don't care about school bus under floors and the need for and additional costs of adding stronger anchorages for seat belts. They don't care that a tractor trailer crashed through the same I-84 guardrail just yards away from where their son's school bus crashed. They don't care about the very rational argument that public funds could be better spent on increased driver training, both for school bus drivers and teen students, as well as better highway engineering, vehicle crash avoidance technologies, and so on and so forth.

The Parikhs and parents all across the nation just want the facts, which are all all too hard to come by.

President Obama's State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress and to the American people centered on the struggling economy and the national unemployement rate of at least 10 percent. In as much, he vowed to spend an additional $4 billion this year on education. And a lot of states need a lot of money.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has proposed cutting state funding for K-12 schools by more than 9 percent. Meanwhile, next door, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal ordered a $248 million in cuts to the state budget, which prompted State Superintendent Paul Pastorek to seek slicing $16 million from the education budget. This could lead to school districts having to pay more to transport private school students, according to The Advocate News in Baton Rouge. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts and Michigan are a few more of the states that are navigating dire straits.

And, despite 30 state raising local taxes since the recession began in 2007 in an effort to balance the budgets, the CBPP says things are forecasted to get worse.

This all has ramifications on school transportation as many school districts and even some states like Maryland are looking at extending the life of school buses because schools are so cash-strapped they are unable to buy new vehicles. And there are the job eliminations, which often target support staff like "expendable" transportation service. And what about the effect on contracts?

It will be interest, to say the least, to see what happens.

What do you think about the President's pledge to funnel more federal funds to education, even as he promised last night to suspend all other discretionary spending? Could this benefit school transportation?

The Washington Post ran an interesting profile this week on Blubaugh, who heads the EPA's National Clean Diesel Campaign and was in charge of the Clean School Bus USA program since its inception in 2003. Now that Clean School Bus is part of the National Clean Diesel Campaign, which has opened up more potential funding to the school transportation industry for retrofitting older, higher emissions school buses or purchasing newer, cleaner burning buses, Blubaugh continues to advocate for the yellow bus, especially as the industry continues to be eligible to receive ongoing Diesel Emissions Reduction Program funds.

The name will ring a bell to many who attended the National Association for Pupil Transportation conference in November as he was a featured presenter. Blubaugh also gave NAPT a $5 million grant to help school districts to reduce monthly lease payments for CNG buses. NAPT said the National School Bus Equity Investment Lease Program will provide funds that can be recycled year after year. Blubaugh told attendees that the EPA expects to leverage over $120 million over the course of the program.

Last week, he was in La Jolla, Calif., for the National School Transportation Association's Mid Winter Meeting to speak to private school bus operators and to help recognize member companies that achieved NSTA Green Fleet Certification status. Eleven companies in all received awards for achieving emissions reductions in a large percentage of their individual fleets by purchasing later model school buses with advanced engine controls and installing engine retrofit equipment.

"I'm convinced the [Clean School Bus USA] program would not be the success it is today without your support," Blubaugh told those in attendance.

The National Clean Diesel Campaign is responsible for $13 of society health benefits for ever $1 it spends on emissions control technology and vehicle replacement. During the 2008 fiscal year, it awarded $49.2 million to the medium- and heavy-duty bus and truck industries and $300 million last year with funds tied to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. With applications still under review and awards expected to be announced soon, fiscal years 2009 and 2010 will see $120 million combined in funds.

NSTA recently announced a $2.443 million award it received from the EPA tied to DERA and ARRA money that went to three bus companies operating in Wisconsin and one in Minnesota for replacing buses and installing engine retrofit and idle reduction technology. Those companies, Dousman Transport, Riteway Bus, Durham School Services and M&M Bus Service also put up $5.314 million in matching funds. And the association is awaiting word on an additional grant request.

Of course, the school bus industry is competing with other sectors for this cash. But, as the Post points out and his relationship with NSTA proves, Blubaugh continues to be a key friend on Capitol Hill.

Last week, National School Transportation Association members heard an update from industry lobbyist Becky Weber on the status of the proposal inserted last fall by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) to not require King County Metro Transit to follow Federal Transit Administration regulations designed to protect private enterprise from unfair competition. Namely, the rule states that all local transit agencies that receive federal subisidies to purchase vehicles and equipment cannot provide contracted charter service when other local private operators that do not receive federal funds are willing and able to perform the work.

FTA provides up to 90 percent of the capital cost for transit buses. Not only is the charter rule designed to protect private companies from an unfair competitive edge but also to protect taxpayers from a double tax, as transit agencies also rely on local tax revenues. So, say UMA and NSTA, it’s a double dip.

“Private bus companies do not receive public assistance and cannot compete with public transits that do. It is just that simple,” said Ken Presley, UMA’s vice president of industry relations, in a statement. “While the exemption may mean subsidized shuttle rides for sports fans, what it really represents is a devastating loss of jobs, lost capital investment potential, lost tax revenue for the Seattle community, and the abuse of taxpayers’ dollars.”

Murray inserted the language at the request of King County Metro, which stood to lose lucrative business in transporting fans to Seattle Mariners baseball games and Seattle Seahawks and University of Washington football games. Originally, Murray asked for a statewide exemption but backed off a bit after receiving thousands of letters and phone calls in protest, thanks to efforts made by the Coalition of Private Passenger Transportation Coalition.

In talking to NSTA members, the real worry is that Murray’s provision, if successful in the final transportation bill, would set a precedent to allow transit agencies across the nation to sidestep the charter rule.

It’s shaping up to be a game of survival that could turn quite nasty.