Longview schools to get some newer, greener buses
Thursday, November 27, 2008 5:30 PM PST
By Leila Summers
Printable version
E-mail this articleA state grant will help the Longview School District replace three of its oldest school buses with cleaner, more fuel-efficient models.
The state Department of Ecology grant provides up to $20,000 for each of the buses. Each bus costs just over $100,000 and will be in service next fall, said Rick Lecker, school district transportation manager.
The new buses are a “night and day” improvement in exhaust emissions, Lecker said. He said clouds of soot trailed the buses that will be replaced — two 1981 models and one 1982. Each of those has logged more than 450,000 miles — a “huge amount,” he said.
“This will give us an opportunity to put in some of the cleanest ... engines to date that meet 2007 emissions (standards),” Lecker said.
The district had planned to purchase three new school buses this year, Lecker said, but the grant is “definitely a reduction in future costs for us,” Lecker said.
Lecker plans to apply for the same grant next year to replace two other buses. The district has about 50 buses in its fleet.
This year, 33 school districts applied for Ecology’s bus replacement grants, and 21 districts were selected to fund 34 new buses, according to an Ecology press release.
Money for the grants comes from the state’s Motor Vehicle Account and from a hazardous substance fee, created under the Model Toxics Control Act voters approved in 1988. The money is dedicated to environmental cleanups and protection.
skibum wrote on Nov 27, 2008 7:14 AM:
" Looks like the tax payers will get to pick up the $80,000 tab per bus that the grant doesn't cover. Maybe we can get a new tax levy voted in to cover that. Give me a break! The yellow buses are fine with me....give the green ones to someone else! I certainly hope the axels are falling off of the buses that are being replaced. We tax payers can buy alot of bus parts for $240,000. "
Roudyruss wrote on Nov 27, 2008 9:15 AM:
" OK....Cut the budget to the bone yet they spend $240,000 to replace three busses that are not broken. "
Gondolapete wrote on Nov 27, 2008 10:48 AM:
" the 07 emission as well as the 2010 emissions for diesel engines is some of the most restrictive, costly EPA standards to date...we are legislating ourselves into bankruptcy...all in the name of "Saving the planet"..recent science data, has disproven global warming, and that is a FACT!!!!But of course we use the convenient term "Climate change" now so all bases are covered....hot or cold, it's all mans fault, so we must implement stupid laws to fight it!!!! "
Gondolapete wrote on Nov 27, 2008 10:50 AM:
" Hey Roudyruss, do you ever expect govt, to make a smart choice??? Even when we face financial collapse, they still spend money like it's comes from an endless source... "
RV wrote on Nov 27, 2008 11:22 AM:
" Come on people, I did not see anything in the article that said that taxes were being raised because of this purchase. Do any of you want to have your kids riding on an old bus that has over 450,000 miles on it? It sounds to me like the District was able to save you $20,000 per bus that they were going to have to replace anyway. But I guess that is taking the positive side when it is much more fun for some to always be negative. Get a life folks and look at the positive once in a while. "
cheney119 wrote on Nov 27, 2008 12:16 PM:
" Each of those has logged more than 450,000 miles a huge amount,You guys should take a class in economics; the concept is called the point of deminishing return. This move probably saved money. It is thanksgiving don't you people have some relatives to make miserable? "
vikingtwin5 wrote on Nov 27, 2008 12:21 PM:
" I knew it was too good to last, Pete. Please cite the source of your "science data". I guess 99% of us didn't get the memo. "
bobe374 wrote on Nov 27, 2008 2:01 PM:
" I have ridden on the busses with my kids to various field trips and the exhaust is inside the bus pretty strong. Enough to give me major headache, I can only imagine the damage it is doing to the kids. "
Longview 88 wrote on Nov 27, 2008 3:26 PM:
" How many unneccesary options will these buses have? I have seen Longview's newest buses, and I still can't understand why the district spends money on automatic tire chains when we get very little snow here, and the districts close at a light dusting. Some of their newer small buses have dark tinted windows also (as do most of Kelso's newer buses) which is another item that is not necessary on a school bus when our economy is in the toilet. "
skibum wrote on Nov 27, 2008 4:26 PM:
" Just for fun, I looked on Ebay for used buses. Found two smaller buses for under $5000 each. Now I'm sure a full sized bus would cost more, but probably not $80,000. Just like we are asking the airline CEO's to stop flying private jets to their meetings while asking the tax payers for a bailout, why does Cowlitz County need brand new state of the art $80,000 ECO buses. We have the highest unemployment around, and welfare applications are at an all time high. The school system is already crying for more money from the tax payers...for who knows what... and can't understand why people vote NO at the poles. Seems this bus replacement issue hasn't been thought out well with the current economic situation the world (to include Cowlitz County) is in. Makes spending $80.000 to save $20,000 look pretty silly. In fact, I have two used buses for sale. The original selling price is $40,000, but I will let Cowlitz County have them at a discount for $10,000 each. Think of the money the County will save if they buy from me instead. WAKE UP PEOPLE! "
vikingtwin5 wrote on Nov 27, 2008 5:02 PM:
" I think they got tinted windows so that you wouldn't get mooned. "
Gondolapete wrote on Nov 27, 2008 6:11 PM:
" vikingtwin...are you joking??? 99% of you didnt get the memo because 99% of you believe in non credible "science". a quick search of any reputable data not only shows accurate data, but also shows beyond a doubt that we are in a cooling period...FACT!!!!! but that does not fit into the "feel good science" you greenies want to rely on...everything is about saving the planet now, regardless of the cost,and the school district has found a way to take advantage of the new cult movement..just claim its good for the environment and cost is not a problem!!!! "
Ms. Z wrote on Nov 27, 2008 6:21 PM:
" I have a feeling if the article was about the school district refusing to replace three 25+ year old buses with something newer to transport our kids these same people would be complaining. Instead of them complaining about how the money was spent they would instead be complaining on how the school district didnt care enough about the kids to replace the buses. "
LittleJon wrote on Nov 27, 2008 11:02 PM:
" Gondola Pete is hilarious. "Global Warming has been disproven by recent science." Yeah, just like the trickle-down theory, compassionate concervative, and WMD's. Gee, I wonder if his scientific news sources are Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. "
vikingtwin5 wrote on Nov 28, 2008 12:11 AM:
" Pete, I only asked for a reputable source. I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition. Here's your chance to educate all of us ignorant greenies. By the way, writing "fact" in caps with a lot of exclamation points doesn't prove anything. "
mrsw wrote on Nov 28, 2008 12:16 PM:
" ??? What I don't understand is why Longview has such a screwed up boundary system. I drive into work each day from West Longview and follow a bus that pulls off of 52nd and drives to Northlake-with less than 25 kids. Why do they need to use a full size bus for this? Why don't these kids attend a school closer to their homes? If the district started THINKING they wouldn't need all of this money. Don't use full sized busses where you don't need them-you'll save on salaries, fuel, and wear and tear on the buses! 50 buses is a little much if you ask me. Decomission the old ones or use them as back up! Don't need to replace them! "
my2cents wrote on Nov 28, 2008 12:17 PM:
" I've always wondered why our schools teach environmental responsibility to our kids at every opportunity, then haul them around in vehicles that belch black, noxious clouds of smoke. I'm excited to see the district purchase new greener vehicles-it is about time. As far as the grumbling about the "options" on the bus-give me a break. A little extra for tint up front can save $ down the road for upkeep of the upholstery due to sun rot. Not to mention how stifling the buses get with the least bit of sun-every bit helps, the A/C can only do so much. Oh, yes, opening the windows to cool down-yeah, like 20-40 hot cranky kids are going to safely mind the driver and not mess around with the windows or toss stuff out. As a parent whose kids spend a lot of time on the bus, I'd rather our drivers have the best tools to transport our most precious cargo in the safest manner possible. We may not need snow chains very often, but when we do, I'd rather they be there and properly affixed than see a busload of kids crash down a hillside or into a slough in bad weather. As a taxpayer, I'm grateful the district and transportation office are being fiscally responsible and applying for these grants to defray the costs to taxpayers. Kudos to the school district on this one! "
Longview 88 wrote on Nov 28, 2008 12:39 PM:
" my2cents,
I can see to some extent the point about the upholstery. As for the chains, I can't see spending $2156.00 for them when regular chains would suffice for the relatively few times we need them. Some options I can see, but when each bus will have around $5000 in options this should be scrutinized closely. The information is readily available at http://www.k12.wa.us/transportation/specifications2008-09.aspx "
I can see to some extent the point about the upholstery. As for the chains, I can't see spending $2156.00 for them when regular chains would suffice for the relatively few times we need them. Some options I can see, but when each bus will have around $5000 in options this should be scrutinized closely. The information is readily available at http://www.k12.wa.us/transportation/specifications2008-09.aspx "
Gondolapete wrote on Nov 28, 2008 1:11 PM:
" Viking...the reason I do not supply any facts here is quite simple..I researched it myself..and so can you..once you learn to look beyond agenda science, you will see that the truth is actually quite the opposite..But I assure you, not one person here or anywhere else, will ever be able to show undeniable proof that man made global warming is happening..There is not any studies what so ever that has proven it as a fact..none, nada, zilich..and Nasa right now has some "splainen" to do...Which, if you kept up on that stuff, you would know why...NEXT!!!!!!!!!! "
Gondolapete wrote on Nov 28, 2008 1:19 PM:
" But for those of you that actually want to get true scientific facts with regards to so called man made global warming..I suggest you do research with places that actually study weather..Like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center as one, as well as Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Or you can rely on Al Gore and Hollywood celebs.. "
DW wrote on Nov 28, 2008 2:46 PM:
" I want the planet to be as clean as possible without the extinction of mankind. So here's to Viking and LittleJon. Man is not causing global climate change. The earf has warmed and cooled for millions of years, without man, and buying a few hundred thousand dollars in new buses isn't going to change a thing. The percent of CO2 has been much higher in the past than it is now, and man had nothing to do with it. Also, the planet has been virtually destroyed at least twice since life evolved, and the planet came back to life. Man doesn't have nearly as much influence in the planet as Al Gore and the enviro's would have you believe. I don't believe we should recklessly pollute, but I do believe we can exist and still drive cars without much harm at all. If we were really interested in finding ways to produce clean energy we would make wholesale improvements in existing technology and build nuclear power planet like growing corn for ethanol. Nuclear power does not pollute, especially if you reprocess the spent full like other countries do. If we got most of our energy from nuclear, the amount of waste one person would produce in a lifetime would be about the size of a nickle. And after reprocessing the radio activity of that waste is very low, and easily stored. We should be going nuclear not solar. "
slowburn wrote on Nov 28, 2008 3:04 PM:
" Is it possible this has nothing to do with the global warming debate, but rather an effort to have safer and more fuel-efficient buses that might actually save you bitter taxpayers money in the long run? "
vikingtwin5 wrote on Nov 28, 2008 5:13 PM:
" I did do some research GondolaPete and came to some strikingly different conclusions. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies(GISS), which you cited, categorically states in a May 2008 news release that human-caused climate change has impacted a wide range of natural Earth systems. To read in full go to http://www.giss.gov/research/news/20080514/. On side note the Wikipedia entry for GISS has links to the director of the GISS telling the NY Times and 60 Minutes how he was constantly pressured by Bush-appointed NASA officials to downplay any human-caused links to climate change. GISS is a part of NASA so I guess they do have some "splainin" to do. The EPA website http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html lists what's known, what's likely and what's uncertain. There's a lot more sites out there, even some naysayers like you. You want undeniable, 100% proof, you'll have to ask your great-grandchildren for that. Slowburn,you are right. Get nickel-and-dimed to death or start replacing before they are all are worn out. I don't have kids but if one life is saved or an accident is prevented because of worn-out buses, it's worth it to me. NEXT!!!!!! "
Past Month's Most Commented Stories