It is time once again for the economic Rubik's Cube of school bus production. The puzzle is no easier to unravel this year than last. In fact it is more difficult.

"Generally speaking the market was stronger this year (than last), but how much is debatable," one major bus manufacturer observed. Debatable? Indeed that is a fair assessment, particularly in a year that has seen the price of a large school bus rise about $2,000 due to the EPA emissions standards, and increases an estimated 3-5 percent due to spikes in the price of commodities such as steel and plywood. Meanwhile, another major bus builder, just as emphatically, described the market as "stagnant."

Readers should understand that data for the STN survey lags. It is gathered for the just concluded school year. So the data presented here covers Sept. 1, 2003 through Aug. 31, 2004 , or the fourth quarter of 2003 and Q1, Q2 and Q3 of 2004. Readers are further cautioned not to confuse the results published here with results published elsewhere that report calendar year data.

Moreover, the STN survey is conducted of all school bus body and chassis builders in the U.S. and Canada . Blue Bird, Corbeil, Collins, Girardin Minibus, IC Corp., International Truck and Engine, Liberty Bus, Mid Bus, Thomas Build Buses, U.S. Bus Corp. and Vancon reported their bus body production data. Meanwhile, Blue Bird, General Motors, Ford Motor Co., International Truck & Engine and Freightliner/Thomas reported school bus chassis production data.

The STN survey does not tabulate bus sales due to the fact that the final sale to states, school districts or contractors, is typically handled by school bus distributors. The complexity of obtaining 100 percent reliable information from several hundred distributors would be daunting, if not impossible, to say the least.

Here then is what the annual STN School Bus Production found. And readers are cautioned to understand these data, in the words of bus builders themselves, as "directional," not exact.

Overall school bus production was more robust than expected. Manufacturers reported building a total - includes Type A small buses, Type C conventional and Type D transit-style buses - of slightly more than 43,000 units.

Before readers experience a Maalox moment, we hasten to point out that these data include a style of vehicle not normally associated with school bus production, along with a few other wrinkles in the market. Namely the new multifunction school activity bus, along with a handful of allowable alternate vehicles and van conversions.

What distinguishes the MFSAB from the industry's traditional A, B, C and D configurations is the absence of conspicuity warning systems, stop arms, flashing lights, color, etc., though it meets rollover and crashworthiness standards

So is the MFSAB a true school bus or something else? Most respondents believe it is a school bus, though at least one does not. All of the MFSAB built last year were in the Type A gross vehicle weight range (up to 14,5000 GVWR), but they could just as easily move into the Type C 19,500 GVWR range. Moreover, there is not a consensus of where to place the GMC 4500/5500 Kodiak/Topkick chassis.

However these issues are finally resolved, the small bus market continued to show robust activity. Builders reported manufacturing a total of 7,437 small buses, excluding the MFSABs. Unlike their brethren in the large bus segment, small bus builders tend not to disagree with these data about their segment.

At a minimum they are optimistic. Eight companies now compete in this market. They reported building 1,775 multi function school activity buses. That compares with a total of 32 MFSABs the previous year, though in fairness the category was brand new in the last quarter of the previous year.

The Type C market was problematic. Four manufacturers reported building a total of 24,585 Type C conventional buses. Surprisingly that's up slightly over 2 percent compared to a year ago. One of these companies, Corbeil, announced it is exiting the Type C market altogether. That will affect mainly the Canadian market as Corbeil does not sell its Type C buses in the U.S. Moreover, it was never a major player in the Type C segment never accounting for more than 7-8 percent of the overall Type C market. Effectively, what that means is, we now have one less competitor in this segment.

Meanwhile, in the Type D transit-style market, bus production was off again for the fourth consecutive year in a row. It fell to 7,716 units in 2003-04, declining 523 units or 6.3 percent compared to the previous year. During the 1999-2000 school year, a record of 11,341 Type D buses were manufactured; this segment has declined steadily since. In fact this year's data puts Type D bus production slightly lower than the 7,900 units builders reported manufacturing in 1993-94.

Demand for alternate fuel buses remains flat. No alternate fuel Type C conventional buses were built. In the Type D category, only 290 alternate fuel buses were manufactured, representing 3.9 percent of the total Type D market. That compares with 3.3 percent a year ago and 3.4 percent two years ago.

Source: Reprinted from School Transportation News Buyer's Guide, January 2005. All rights reserved.