Home › News › Schools
High gas prices pummel BVSD
District weighs options as fuel costs skyrocket
Filling the average 18-gallon gas tank with $4-plus regular-unleaded fuel has become concern enough for many of the nation's drivers -- but imagine having to fill a 60-gallon tank with $4.50-plus diesel gasoline.
STORY TOOLS
More Schools
- Columbine audit calls for change
- SWAT practice frightens neighboring Catholic school
- Casey students start at Platt
Share and Enjoy [?]
The Boulder Valley School District is facing that situation with its fleet of about 230 buses, which deliver thousands of students to 55 schools scattered over 500 square miles in Boulder, Broomfield and Gilpin counties.
Transportation officials for the district said budgeted for a gas-price spike in the new budget year -- the total proposed appropriation for the transportation department is $10.4 million, compared with the department's $10 million budget last year.
But officials are continuing to take a hard look at fuel-saving options -- both now and in the grim future of increasingly expensive gas prices.
"We anticipated some of this, and because of previous planning we're not hurting yet," said BobYoung, Boulder Valley's transportation director. "The real question is, 'Where's it gonna go?'"
At the end of the 2006-07 school year, Young said the district filled its fleet with $2.52 gas. The last tank of gas poured into buses at the end of this past school year cost $4.03, he said.
"We're looking at all our routes to make sure they're running efficiently," Young said. "We're making sure buses aren't having to travel any more than they need to."
The district also has implemented idle-reduction methods at bus stops and schools, and Boulder Valley several years ago received a grant to install engine pre-heaters in its vehicles.
Young said his department isn't yet at the point of discussing route reductions or charging students to ride.
"We have investigated pay-for-service, but we have not decided to implement anything like that," he said. "We have no plans to cut service to the students.
"But who's to say what can happen down the road?"
Boulder Valley's school board last week approved a small boundary change in Superior that reduces the driving distances on a few routes and thus cuts gas use.
"But there haven't been any boundary changes just for that purpose," Young said.
District spokesman Briggs Gamblin said school districts can buy gas at a slight discount, and every year Boulder Valley negotiates with fuel suppliers over how many cents over the wholesale rate they'll charge.
"You can't lock in a price for the whole year, but you can lock in a rate of profit," Gamblin said.
School districts around the nation are fighting the same battle.
A district in Kentucky is looking at reducing the school week to four days. Schools in North Carolina have scaled back field trips to cut back bus usage. And a district in Mississippi has reduced the number of varsity sports games, so its teams won't have to travel.
But Boulder Valley's transportation director said there are long and drawn-out processes associated with route changes and ride fees.
"That might be something the budget office and board want to look at," Young said. "But there are no proposals along those lines."
Young said his department and the budget office are gong to meet in the next few weeks to discuss the long-term gas outlook and how to adjust the district's system to accommodate for the rising prices.
Posted by freefuzz on June 16, 2008 at 4:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
now imagine you had to pay $7.50 a gallon like in europe.
Posted by EasyRider on June 16, 2008 at 6:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps BVSD should reexamine its policy of closing neighborhood schools in favor of large consolidated schools which require transporting students in school buses. Unfortunately it's too late for the much-loved Washington School.
But in order to do that we need to get rid of the arrogant uninspired current board and department heads and divide the large district into two smaller districts.
Posted by navghtivs on June 16, 2008 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"diesel gasoline"? Vanessa, diesel is the fuel used by diesel engine, and usually it is petroleum diesel; gasoline is petroleum spirit; they are two different types of fuel, the phrase "diesel gasoline" doesn't mean anything here.
Posted by rich on June 16, 2008 at 6:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
surfrider2
You'd have a different perspective of "empty" buses if you actually rode the bus. Every time I ride the AB, N, B or the Bolt the bus is near capacity.
Posted by FrictionSoul on June 16, 2008 at 7:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
freefuzz and surfrider2
You're both comparing oranges to olives to apples. The trust cost is relative to income and transportation alternatives, not to mention the value of the dollar to the Euro. Using your $7.50 per gallon, the equivalent would actually be "now imagine you had to pay $11.55 per gallon like in europe."
A US $4.00 per gallon, is a European's pocket change at $2.59 per gallon. If you head to the Nat'l Parks, some 80% of those hideous rental RVs are piloted by Europeans. America is a great, cheap vacation for them thanks in large part to Bush screwing the economy just like he screwed Texas's economy.
Posted by rabeu on June 16, 2008 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
surfrider, unless you are at the point of debarkation, a casual observation of a school bus on its route to determine its capacity usage is ludicrous. Have you actually sat at a school in the morning and watch all of the buses unload their students?
Also, the number of routes, and the length that those routes are needs to be balanced against what is the most optimum (or least disruptive) amount of time for a student to be on a bus, and not be overly impacted and thus at a scholastic disadvantage.
If you ensure that every bus has 40 kids on it, but the first kids on that bus have to ride for an hour or hour and a half, that is going to be detrimental to them then actually learning in school. Better that the bus has 25 - 30 kids who are on it for under an hour.
Posted by malohovno on June 16, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
if it wasn't for greedy big oil, school buses would be powered by wood chips and other biomass.
Posted by thecondoguy1 on June 16, 2008 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My kids walked to school..........
Ah, and the empty RTD busses, see them all the time, I guess that goes to our entitlement to public transportation.
and yes, what is "diesel gasoline"? sombody needs to get a real life education.............
Posted by ziggle on June 16, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They had better not think very hard about implementing pay-for-(bus)service, since they passed an override election just a couple of years ago that was technically a transportation override, though they directed the money into technology instead.
Posted by nuggethillrd on June 16, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Easy. The last I have known the district does not bus kids living less than a half a mile at the elementary level, or Mile at higher levels. But with the closing of schools withing those distances of where a large population of students lived, the district was setting themselves up for an added expense. I wonder if they accounted for this in their 'savings' in closing neighborhood schools?
Posted by Pickles on June 16, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
thecondoguy1: "My kids walked to school..."
I wouldn't really want to see the mountain kids walking to school (15 miles or more) in 20 below weather.
Our busses are FULL, I've never seen an empty bus.
Posted by teddy on June 16, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BVSD could build smaller schools in the neighborhoods so the kids can just walk to school.
Posted by rabeu on June 16, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For a school district with 28,000 students, a bussing capacity 230 vehicles seems incredibly small. Even taking off the 5,000 presumptive high school drivers leaves a lot more students than capacity.
If they are managing to transport all of the students who need to catch a bus with that few buses, then it sounds like they are managing pretty well.
Posted by louisebenson on June 16, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Transportation could be reworked if BVSD is localized into the Boulder Valley and the East Valley School Districts. Older kids in Boulder who are able should ride city buses. Buses going from Boulder to East Valley and back will be eliminated (that's 10-15 miles each way). The new Boulder Valley and East Valley Districts will not close walkable neighborhood schools and will open new walkable schools when needed. These schools can give incentives for "walking schoolbuses" and bikeriding.
Check out: International Walk to School Day, October 8, 2008.
http://www.iwalktoschool.org
Posted by Pickles on June 16, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Splitting the district into 2 isn't going to save the district any money on diesel fuel (or anything else). The same amount of kids will still need transportation. Ultimately 2 districts will just take money from the students & teachers.
"Smaller schools" ~ most of the schools within BVSD really are quite small. Look at the entire scope of the district and not just the one in your neighborhood. I'm all for smaller classrooms...but smaller schools isn't always the best answer.
"Int'l Walk to School Day, October 8" : Again, you're forgetting about ALL of the mtn kids (a good portion of BVSD). I really don't want my kids walking 15+ miles to school on a morning that averages below freezing. Again, look at the entire scope of the district, not just your neighborhood school.
I'm with Rabeu on this one. Overall it sounds like BVSD is doing fairly well given the circumstances. They don't have any control over fuel costs (they could work on locking in a price like the airlines do). However, diesel today has hit $5/gal on the mtn and I doubt that any fuel provider would be willing to lock anything in at this point.
Posted by sojourner on June 16, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know about the bus capacity in upper level schools, but in elementary, the buses are full. If you see a bus that is not full, it is probably at the start of its route. They start empty, drive their route, end up full. If you question this, hang out in front of an elementary school and watch the drop-off.
A few "off-the-top-of-my-head" ideas for making district bus systems more efficient:
1) Have fewer bus-stops. Kids can walk farther. The parents of younger children walk with them anyway. It won't kill a five-year-old (or the parents) to walk a half a mile. There is no need to have stops in front of every home or neighborhood.
For example: There are two pick-ups on Poplar Ave. (west of Broadway). This is a half mile stretch with a turn around at the neighborhood at the end. Change it to one stop at the 4-way stop in the center instead of two at each end of the neighborhood. One stop, less idling, shorter distance. Small cut, but small cuts add up.
2) It's too late for some, but keep the school boundaries small and school centered. Create or save small neighborhood schools where busing is minimal.
3) Give all of the older kids bus-tokens and tell them to figure it out. Completely eliminate buses. Perhaps the district could purchase them at a discount such that the total cost would be less than the cost of district buses. Teenage students should be able to manage a public transit schedule and that system is already in place.
4) Look into creative ways of purchasing fuel (as syntrade suggested above).
5) I know people don't want multiple cars on the road, but is it less expensive to drive several kids in a fuel efficient sedan or minivan than to haul them on a large inefficient bus? What is the mileage on those things? If it is less expensive to haul them via single cars, offer incentives for neighborhood carpools and eliminate the bus stops there. Crazy thought, crazy management, yes, but activist-palm-pilot-moms are an amazing resource. If it's "for the planet" and/or "for the children", it could sell.
6) Charge additional fees for overweight backpacks like the airlines.... :-)
Posted by sojourner on June 16, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
btw: The distance is TWO MILES from the school for middle school and up. You have to live outside of two miles or up in the mountains to get district bus service.
What tends to happen with kids in the outer rim of that two miles is that they bicycle, ride the bus or their parents take them, though I've seen a few walk in flip flops through the snow for long distances.
Posted by lynn_segal_aka_lds on June 17, 2008 at 2:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pickles 1:23 pm
Why don't you demand a school in the mountains?
Posted by lynn_segal_aka_lds on June 17, 2008 at 2:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Smaller buses/vans as part of RTD services. Yesterday.
Like VK says,relax, go play golf.
Posted by Pickles on June 18, 2008 at 7:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Lynn ~ Uh, we have some. Duh?
You might want to check the BVSD school list & boundaries. Not sure where you're going with that comment???
Posted by lynn_segal_aka_lds on June 18, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you live in the mountains, go to school in the mountains, come down just for essentials, not multiple times a day for commute to school and playdates with the flatlanders. But there should be a premium paid by the mountain residents for the extra expense to run the mountain schools, in the cases where they are accessible. Mountain residences are less expensive than flatland and contribute less in property taxes as a result. The carbon footprint of residing in the mountains is excessive and fragments wildlife and causes impacts in fire mitigation, resultant flooding risks and beetle infestation.
Posted by Pickles on June 18, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL, Lynn...what the heck have you been smoking?
I pay the SAME property taxes as anyone else within BVSD and my kiddies should be able to receive the same benefits as those that live within the REPUBLIC OF BOULDER limits.
Pay a premium? My carbon footprint is excessive? Wow, you've gone off the deep end & way off the scope of this blog.
Posted by playday on June 18, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Surfrider2: not sure I understand your comparison; Cherry (Creek?) school district is larger than BVSD and spends less on adminstration per pupil - therefore we must make smaller districts so we also spend less. Something missing in the logic on this one
Posted by louisebenson on June 18, 2008 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cherry Creek has 35 central admin positions for 50K students, BVSD has 42 for 28K. Go figure. Great graph on http://www.bvsdcape.org showing admin costs per student for large districts in Colorado, no linear relation of size and cost per student. CC most efficient. BVSD is least,Denver is 2nd, Jeffco mid-pack (is the largest in state). BVSD $700+/student, CC <$500, Jeffco $600+. This is money in BVSD that could be going into the classroom.
Posted by lynn_segal_aka_lds on June 20, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pickles--
Folks last nite at the SB meeting were suggesting ideally there would be 4 districts. Mountain, central Boulder, suburban and east. Then you'd feel the actual costs of mountain living.
Posted by Pickles on June 21, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lynn:
What is your deal with mountain dwellers??? Why live in Boulder if you have such issues?
4 districts? Someone may have suggested it, but would it actually get REAL consideration? I highly doubt it.
"Then you'd feel the actual costs of mountain living" ~ LOL, um ok....My neighboring school district (Gilpin) actually has LOWER taxes than most of the state (possibly the lowest? I'd have to check). They're sure "feeling it".
(Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Camera staff does not actively monitor comments. If you believe a comment breaks the user agreement, please flag the comment and someone will take a look at it.