TransPar Pupil Transportation Study 9-2010

Discussion Draft - September 2010
Pupil Transportation Study
Prepared for:
Lee County Public Schools
September 2010
Discussion Draft – September 2010
Lee County Public Schools Pupil Transportation Study

2010
Executive Summary
TransPar Group, Inc. was retained by the Lee County Public Schools (LCPS) to conduct a
review of its pupil transportation system.
There were five primary areas of review:
 Safety
 Operations
 Customer Service
 Cost Control
 Maintenance
At all times during our engagement, the Transportation Department and all other District
staff were cordial, responsive, helpful, and demonstrated keen interest in improving any area
or process possible. Although team members were very busy with their daily tasks, each
found time to accommodate our information needs and requests. All aspects of the
transportation compounds were well organized and well kept. We judge the transportation
group to be proud of their operation, and that LCPS provides an enviable workplace for those
desirous of working in a pupil transportation system.
We derived that over the past few years there had been considerable pressure to reduce
buses, costs, and personnel. We found that this persistent pressure and the scaling back
has tested, and continues to test, the transportation team in meeting fiscal and operation
expectations. Although the team appears poised to work even harder with even less, we
caution that a balance should be maintained between safety, performance, and efficiency.
TransPar’s principal findings arising from our study of the Lee County Public
Schools pupil transportation system are as follows:
 The LCPS bus service is perceived to be very satisfactory per the school principals.
 The accident rate, currently at .56 accidents per 100,000 miles is exceptional
reflective of a solid training program and dedicated driver staff.
 The utilization rate of maintenance facilities is superior.
 LCPS’ transportation costs have been declining since 2007-08.
 The LCPS transportation system cost per bus is only 3% higher than the Florida
average and its cost per student is consistent with choice programs we have
encountered elsewhere.
 The current school bell time structure facilitates long bus ride times.
 Adopting an alternative school bell time structure should reduce ride times but might
not substantially reduce costs.
1 of 43
 The number of school choice options within each zone creates transportation
complexity, cost, and long ride times; however, the cost of establishing additional
redundant programs to reduce transportation might offset any savings.
 The system retains too many buses in inventory.
 As is often the case the schools’ financial management information and measurement
processes are not readily compatible with transportation.
It is not uncommon that the opportunities for improvement in a report such as this will
become the target of some controversy or an immediate attempt to “fix it”. Our findings and
recommendations will highlight areas that require thorough analysis of the matter to assure
that the proposed solution has the desired impact. Our experience is that the findings
should be carefully reviewed and openly discussed among the involved parties, such that
several broad points of consensus can be reached as to how to proceed. The end result
should be a prioritized list of confirmed action items, timelines, and financial targets.
The District employs a controlled choice strategy for student assignment. School choice
systems often result in higher comparative transportation costs than for geographically
based student assignment. The high transportation costs may be offset by cost efficiencies
with better building capacity utilization rates, as the District has some flexibility within the
choice system in assigning students to balance building enrollments. Most importantly, the
choice strategy may achieve better academic performance. Additionally, some federal
requirements, such as AYP, require transportation. Finally, some programs are expensive to
establish throughout the District making transportation a cost saving alternative to
duplication. This study does not attempt to quantify the benefits of the controlled choice
strategy on building utilization, regulatory compliance, or academic achievement.
2 of 43
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Table of Contents 3
Introduction and Study Overview 4
Section I: Financial Data and Analytics

A. Lee County Compared to Other Florida Counties 6
B. System & Program Costs 7
Section II: Service, Operations and Organization

A. Daily Transportation Service 10
B. Drivers & Attendants 12
C. Operations Staffing - Other 16
Section III: Fleet Management

A. Vehicle Inventory 19
B. Vehicle Maintenance 20
C. Management Information Systems 24
Section IV: Bus Routing

A. Routing Practices 26
B. TransPar’s RouteYield™ 30
C. Impact of School Bell Times on Transportation 35
D. School Bell Time Scenarios 38
Section V: Open Enrollment

A. Student Assignment 41
B. Impact on Transportation 41
Appendices
2007-08 Florida County Comparables A
Principals Transportation Survey B
Bus Route Charts C
Buckingham & Royal Palms ESE School Charts D
3 of 43
Introduction and Study Overview
Lee County in southwest Florida has an estimated population per the Lee County Public
School’s website1 of 585,000 which places it in the top ten most populous counties in Florida.
Lee County has grown rapidly since the last US Census in 2000 when the population was
reported at 440,8882.
The website references a 2009-10 pupil enrollment of 80,400 making Lee County Public
Schools (LCPS) one of the largest fifty school districts in the nation. There are 93 traditional
schools plus 21 charter schools. The Transportation Department website references that
59% of the student enrollment is transported on one of 700 school buses which operate over
12 million miles annually. (Note: This calculates to 47,436 students being transported and
very near the October 2009 FEFP state submission count.)
The transportation budget for 2009-10 is approximately $48 million; state transportation
funding proceeds should be approximately $20 million, effectively reducing the net cost of
transportation operations to the District of $28 million.
LCPS utilizes an open enrollment program spread over three designated choice zones
wherein students may choose any traditional school within the student’s home sub-zone or
adjacent sub-zone(s). There are three sub-zones within each zone. Students may also
select from some zone-wide magnet and attractor programs, a few of which are shared by
multiple zones. All students enrolled in an approved school or program living beyond a two
mile walk from that school are eligible for bus transportation. There are two county-wide
ESE programs at which virtually all students are transported because of their IEP.
Because of the open enrollment program, LCPS transports a higher proportion of their
student enrollment than in a traditional, community school program, and most other counties
in Florida. LCPS transports 54% of its enrollment per the recently published 2007-08 FDLOE
Quality Link Transportation Profile, which is the highest ratio of any district with an
enrollment of more than 50,000. The state-wide average is 38%.
With runs averaging more than an hour, the school choice dynamic and the two consolidated
ESE centers translate into longer bus runs than typically seen in a community school
environment,. The challenges of traffic congestion of Fort Myers, Cape Coral, canals and the
islands also contribute to longer than average bus ride times.
TransPar was engaged to perform a comprehensive review of the LCPS transportation

operation and assess the relationship and peculiarities of the transportation system within
the open enrollment program. We were guided to perform our analysis based upon the
school choice program being long term.
1
www.leeschools.net
2
US Census Bureau State and County QuickFacts, 4/13/2010
4 of 43
TransPar has performed comprehensive transportation studies for dozens of school districts
across the country and served hundreds of customers with engagements specific to their
needs. Comprehensive studies were completed over last several years for Orange and St.
Lucie Counties in Florida, Wake County Public Schools in North Carolina, Clark County School
District in Nevada, Capitol Region Educational Council in Connecticut, Lakota Local Schools in
Ohio, and the State of South Carolina Department of Education. More information can be
found on TransPar at www.transpar.com.
5 of 43
Section I: Financial Data and Analytics
A: Lee County Compared to Other Florida Counties
An analysis of Lee County’s transportation data from 2007-08 as compared to other Florida
counties has highlighted the dynamics of serving a school choice program.3 See Appendix
A for the analysis details.
Note: FLDOE has not published the 2008-09 data, projected to be released in late 2010.
TransPar noted that LCPS had implemented cost and bus reduction initiatives in 2009-10 that
may markedly change some factors to the better, however it is impractical to forecast the
2008-09 Q-Link data and how it may compare to the other counties. We would expect that
LCPS will continue to improve compared to similar districts in transportation efficiency
factors.
TransPar compiled the Q-Link data for ten Florida counties in addition to Lee for comparison
purposes. The counties we included were: Brevard, Broward, Collier, Hillsborough, Orange,
Palm Beach, Pinellas, Polk, St. Lucie, and Seminole. These comparables were selected based
upon input from District representatives and TransPar’s judgment. Lee, Pinellas, and St.
Lucie Counties reported 80+% of their 2007-08 and 2008-09 K12 student membership as in
“controlled open enrollment”4. Dade was specifically excluded from the sample because of
its size. This sample of ten may not be ideally comparable, but certain county’s data could be
gleaned and compared based upon the reader’s intent.
2007-08 FLDOE Quality Link Data

Lee 10 State
Selected Efficiency Factors County Comps Average
% of Enrollment Transported 54% 37% 38%
% of District Budget Cost Spent on Transportation 8% 5% 5%
% of Costs Recovered from Funding 36% 43% 43%
Buses per School 9 5 n/a
ABO – Average Bus Occupancy 57 68 64
Students Transported per 10,000 Miles 29 36 34
Students Transported per Bus Stop 7 3 n/a
Cost per Bus $64,939 $67,246 $63,045
Cost per Mile $3.22 $3.49 $3.35
Cost per Student Transported $1,129 $967 $977
Net Transportation Cost per Student Transported $665 $502 $506
Net Transportation Cost per Student Enrolled $363 $191 $196
These additional details were noted:
3
The Quality Link Florida School District Transportation Profiles School Year 2007-2008, published
March 2010
4
Per Florida Department of Education Bureau of Student Assistance Office of Public School Options
November 30, 2008, Controlled Open Enrollment Annual Report for 2008-2009 School Year
6 of 43
 LCPS utilized more buses per school than all sample counties.
 LCPS spent a higher % of the District expenditures on transportation than all sample
counties.
 LCPS spent almost double per student enrolled on transportation than the sample
counties and the state average.
 LCPS transported nearly twice as many riders per bus stop as any other sample
county.
As the table portrays, LCPS’ school choice program contributes to a variety of transportation
inefficiencies as compared to comparable counties, and state averages. Consideration of
these factors in transportation-related management decisions should allow for sound
decision making.
Note: It appears the LCPS bus stop data for 2007-08 is in error. The number of morning
bus stops in Trapeze in January 2010 was 17,000+ and the average eligible riders per stop
were 3.1. Only 6,500 stops were submitted to the state for 2007-08; 16,500 may have been
closer to the right answer. Thus, we must discard any transportation efficiency conclusions
as to bus stop and load assignments.
B: System and Program Costs
TransPar explored LCPS’ historical transportation costs and trends. We sought “rollup”
financial reports from which to confirm the budget and past expenses; either such rollup
reports did not exist or they could not be located. As an alternative solution, the team
generated “Budget Overview” reports out of PeopleSoft for the 2010, 2009 and 2008 fiscal
years. The reports were voluminous in pages, line items, and columns of data. The line
item expenditure data was not grouped by cost category (such as by wages) and lacked an
alpha (text) description of what the line items represented. We were provided departmental
and account reference listings from which we endeavored to categorize costs and analyze
trends.
FINDING: The historical transportation costs were not readily available in a user-
friendly format.
RECOMMENDATION: Accurate and logically organized transportation cost and
operating data histories should be formally prepared and serve as ongoing fiscal
management tools.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Indeterminable; there is business risk in operating a large
operation without basic and relevant financial data.
7 of 43
We categorized the costs by major wage line item as possible and practical. Our cost
compilation is as follows:
Transportation Costs per Budget Overview Reports (in mils)

2009-10 2008-09 2007-08
Cost Category Budget Expenditures Expenditures
Driver $ 17.4 $ 19.6 $ 20.6
Attendants 2.9 3.3 3.7
Other 5.0 5.4 5.5
Total Wages 25.3 28.3 29.8
Benefits 10.7 11.2 11.8
Total Labor 36.0 39.5 41.6
Fuel 5.8 5.8 7.9
All Other 6.6 5.0 5.7
Total Costs $ 48.4 $ 50.3 $ 55.2
The operating costs declined in 2008-09 from 2007-08 and are budgeted to again decline in
2009-10. The reduction is primarily in labor costs. We were informed that the 2009-10
budget was developed based upon the assumption of operating approximately 40 fewer
buses in 2009-10 than in 2008-09. TransPar did not validate whether 2009-10’s costs are
tracking on budget nor did we validate how many fewer buses are being operated than in
the previous year, although 650 operated the day of our bus activity survey.
COMMENDATION: The financial data confirms cost reduction occurred in 2008-09

as compared to 2007-08, and costs are forecasted to further decline in 2009-10 as
compared to 2008-09.
We calculated the 2009-10 budget ESE operating costs to help quantify the financial impact
of this specialized and typically expensive service. Attendant wage and benefits costs were
fully allocated to ESE. All other costs were allocated to ESE (or non-ESE) based upon the
proportion of ESE bus run time or ESE bus run count (as determined by TransPar’s
RouteYield™). This approach allocates costs based upon time or effort and provides more
integrity than allocating costs based upon the number of students transported. The
following are estimates of program costs which should be referenced in making program
based transportation planning and operating decisions:
8 of 43
Calculated Transportation Cost Factors

Factor Non-ESE ESE Combined
Bus Time % 75.1% 24.9% 100.0%
Bus Runs % 75.8% 24.2% 100.0%
Allocated Costs $ 33,334,178 $ 15,037,757 $ 48,371,935
Daily Buses 496 155 650
Daily Bus Runs 968 309 1,277
Daily Scheduled Riders 50,950 2,432 53,382
Daily Actual Riders 34,587 2,413 37,000
Cost per Bus $ 67,342 $ 97,018 $ 74,418
Cost per Bus Run $ 34,436 $ 48,666 $ 37,879
Cost per Routed Rider $ 654 $ 6,183 $ 906
Cost per Actual Rider $ 964 $ 6,232 $ 1,307
Based upon this analysis we will establish three broad, baseline assumptions about LCPS’
operating costs:
Baseline Metrics for Transportation Cost Management

Baseline Metric Non-ESE ESE Combined
Annual Cost per Daily Bus Operated $67,000 $97,000 $74,000
Annual Cost per Bus Run $34,000 $48,000 $37,000
Annual cost per Rider $1,000 $6,000 $1,300
The cost relationship between ESE and all other transportation costs is typical. The inability
to achieve density with ESE transportation and the added cost of a bus attendant spikes the
ESE costs per bus, bus run and rider.
These factors do not tightly correlate with the 2007-08 FEFP findings for several reasons.
First, the 2007-08 data is two years old and LCPS has experienced cost and bus count
reduction. Second, the FEFP pupil counts are based upon an eleven day ridership period and
are not comparable to a single day count or the number of routed riders. Third, the
mechanism for counting FEFP, ESE weighted riders is different than just counting riders on
ESE designated buses.
9 of 43
Section II: Service, Operations and Organization
A. Daily Transportation Service
1. Service Satisfaction: Principal Survey Findings
TransPar surveyed the school principals to measure their perceptions of the various aspects
of the transportation service. The results serve to establish benchmarks and guide the
transportation department to improving customer service where opportunities are identified.
The survey findings can be found in Appendix B.
This survey was conducted online beginning March 22, 2010. The Principal Survey was
presented to 84 school principals or assistant principals at 84 school sites. We received 59
responses: 11 high schools, 12 middle schools, 30 elementary schools and 6 other. In
general, the percent of responses received were slightly above normal and provide sufficient
information to draw conclusions. Moreover, studies show that the “no responses” infer that
non-respondents are satisfied with the service and that no material issues exist.
TransPar found the following results to be extremely favorable. Highlights of the survey
show Principals/Assistant Principals to be:
 Satisfied to very satisfied regarding Student Management Techniques and Following

Procedures.
 Satisfied to very satisfied regarding Drivers’ Responsiveness to Complaints/Issues.
 Satisfied to very satisfied regarding Transportation Department Responsiveness to
Complaints/Issues.
 Satisfied to very satisfied regarding Courtesy of Drivers.
 Satisfied to very satisfied regarding the Appearance of Vehicles.
 Satisfied to very satisfied regarding Appearance of Drivers.
Overall respondents were pleased that buses arrived on time for the start of the educational
school day.
All but one respondent indicated that they have a safe loading and unloading area. We
recommend that the transportation department review the site as industry standards show
that fatalities are most likely to occur in loading and unloading areas.
Area described in the written comments section that may need improvement is:
 Additional driver training.
The results as to service satisfaction exceed the results we typically see. There was no
definitive problem or weakness noted.
10 of 43
2. Dispatch & Daily Service
The dispatch function was operating effectively with no significant shortcomings identified.
COMMENDATION: Dispatchers utilize various types of logs that track what runs or
activities need to be covered; service coverage was very good in spite of a driver
shortage.
There were, however, areas of weakness with the current operating monitoring processes:
 The AVL (automated vehicle locator) is only being used to locate a bus when a parent
or interested party calls with an issue; the AVL data can prove where the bus was or
was not. The system is not being used proactively to monitor on-time bus
performance. There was no documented method for tracking service performance.
Shortcomings with AVL reports were identified during our visit and the staff contacted
Trapeze for support.
 In most cases drivers do not report directly (face to face) to Dispatch. The buses are
keyed alike so there is no key control in the drivers’ rooms. This practice poses these
risks:
o A driver could fail to show and dispatch would not know until a parent or
someone called looking for the bus. In some cases drivers are required to
call-in on the radio to verify they are there. This burdens the dispatcher as
he/she is monitoring the phone, talking with drivers, dealing with various
issues and may lose track of who has called in.
o Without a Dispatcher or Supervisor observing the driver force “fit for duty”
status is not verified. It is unlikely that any impaired personnel could be
identified.
3. Accident Rate
An objective indicator of the effectiveness of the training program is the District’s accident
rate. A well run school bus transportation program should average about one accident per
100,000 miles, or better. A difficulty in drawing comparisons is that an ‘accident’ can have
different definitions. For Lee County, per state guidelines, an accident must have a property
or a liability claim of at least $1,000 to be counted as an accident. In other states there is
no minimum value while still others have higher minimums.
We estimate that the accident rate for LCPS for the 2009-10 school year through the month
of February is 0.56 accidents per 100,000 miles. Our underlying assumption is that the
buses are averaging about 2000 miles per bus per month. It is our judgment that this rate is
quite favorable and it may be concluded that the training program is effective.
COMMENDATION: LCPS’ bus accident rate is better than the national average.
11 of 43
4. Activity and Charter Trips
School activity and charter trip reservations are made through the Transportation
Department. There is extensive paperwork across the process, and there is no automation.
The trip clerk must reference five driver seniority lists in order to assign the driver. Charters
are not allowed during “home to school” or “school to home” times. Trips are charged back
to the school or billed to the customers. The trip rates had recently been increased, and the
pricing appeared sufficient.
B. Drivers & Attendants
1. Safety and Training
Pupil transportation and safety go hand in hand. Pupil transportation is regulated by

numerous agencies that place certain requirements and standards upon the industry. It is
up to local management to ensure that all applicable rules, regulations, laws and standards
are adhered to. A sound safety climate is fostered by rigorously screening applicants,
thorough training, diligent documentation, scheduled inspections and continuous
observations.
Initial training offers the first opportunity to mold and develop positive attitudes. The
selection of training personnel and the sequencing of training curriculum are highly
important. Training departments should posses positive attitudes, energetic staff, sequential
curriculums, and excellent tracking methods.
Drivers are hired as substitute drivers and assigned permanent routes as they become
available. The interview process is routinely followed for every applicant to include a
comprehensive Pre-employment Check List including a Release of Records. Upon completion
of 40 hours of school bus driver training, new drivers receive:
Training Pay: $290

Fingerprinting conducted on site
Drug Testing conducted on site
Physical conducted on site
Basic School Bus Driver Training follows the Florida Department of Education Driver
Curriculum.
Ample certified trainers are on staff and an adequate training area is provided. Training is
well documented and organized. Training is thoroughly tracked and scheduled to assure
accuracy and adherence to state requirements.
Upon completion of training a New Hire Packet is provided to include an Employee

Handbook. Bidding of routes are posted and objectively assigned by seniority.
Yearly driver performance reviews are conducted for all drivers.
12 of 43
2. Driver Supply
LCPS’ driver supply is well below the level needed to provide reliable service. There are 41
open positions representing 6.3% of the total routes. The inventory of open positions is:
Driver Open Position Status

Open
# of %
Compound Driver
Routes Open
Slots
South - Six-Mile 9 174 5.2%
Estero 0 18 0.0%
East - Buckingham 7 93 7.5%
Leonard 11 129 8.5%
West 14 240 5.8%
Totals 41 654 6.3%
These are strictly open (unassigned) routes; routes that are scheduled to be performed each
day but for which no driver is assigned. Absent drivers (which average 5-7% on a daily
basis according to staff) would be added to this amount to determine the daily staffing
shortfall. Around 50 sub drivers are used to cover for absences and open routes, but there
are not enough sub drivers to prevail with 41 open slots plus 30+ daily absences. (We noted
51 subs paid on payroll for the first pay period of February.) As a result, some daily buses
are not utilized as there is no driver available to drive it. (We would estimate 5-15 per day
based on the data we reviewed.)
A shortfall of this significance places tremendous stress on the system as dispatchers assign
resources and routes are improvised daily by the dozens. Buses are circling back or being
diverted to cover pieces of routes. On time performance suffers. An abundance of
unplanned covers and the pressure to meet time demands can result in safety concerns.
Financially, the situation creates some additional payroll costs and overtime across drivers
working on that day, including causing the subs to work 8 to 10 hour days. However there
is likely some net savings associated with not filling the 41 positions. Thus, filling the slots
may add some cost to the system.
The un-staffed work is somehow getting done within the daily service. This implies that
there is slack in the routing system. This can be contributing to more daily buses being
assigned than necessary, a condition of built-in excess.
We were informed that 15 driver applicants were in the training process, and 125 driver
applications were on hand.
13 of 43
FINDING A: Lee County offers a competitive wage an enviable workplace and

ample driver training; however, we find that the District has 41 open drivers’ slots.
Currently, 15 applicants are in training and 125 applicants are on hand.
RECOMMENDATION: Transportation should improve and accelerate the process
for interviewing applicants and processing viable candidates, getting them trained
and behind the wheel.
FINDING B: There are 41 open driver slots representing 6% of the total driver
positions. This creates tremendous stress on performing daily service in a
consistently reliable and safe manner.
RECOMMENDATION: Hire and dedicate a regular driver to each daily route.
Utilize subs to fill absences, not to regularly fill open positions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT of A & B: The cost of 41 more full time drivers will be mostly
offset by reduced sub driver pay and driver overtime, however there will be some net
increase in cost as this recommendation would put all daily buses in service every
day. With proactive management, the slack that has been built into the routes can
be purged which would reduce the number of daily buses needed. The goal should
be to add the drivers and optimize the service so as to avoid any measurable cost
increase.
3. Driver and Attendant Payroll
The bus operation pay categories per the Support Personnel Association of Lee County
(SPALC) labor agreement are:
 UAR – Unassigned Relief Driver – guaranteed 7 hours.

 Bus Operator – guaranteed 7 hours (6 ½ route time + ½ hour admin time).
 Bus Attendant / Monitor – guaranteed 6 hours.
 Sub Driver - guaranteed 4 hours, with no benefits & no trips.
There is a route or bid draw before school starts, and the driver pay times are locked in at
the “bid time” for the route selected. Because of the nature of the bus schedules, virtually
all drivers lock into a route that exceeds eight hours per day, and are thus assured of
overtime, even before assignment of trips. However, the Association caps the bid (or lock-
in) pay at eight hours, thus the payroll system compiles pay at the eight hour of lock-in and
virtually every driver’s pay is overridden by the actual hours worked.
The bus schedule dictates that most drivers work more than eight hours per day. We were
provided the payroll details for one ten day pay period – February 1-12, 2010. The following
data was compiled from that detail:
14 of 43
Driver & Attendant Payroll Recap

Regular Overtime Regular Overtime % of % of
Category Count Hours Hours Pay Pay Hours Pay
Drivers 703 51,042 10,121 $787,014 $237,739 16% 23%
Attendants 154 11,156 2,270 $138,920 $44,543 17% 24%
Sub Attend 24 1,464 727 $18,674 $14,090 33% 43%
Sub Drivers 51 3,520 380 $28,162 $4,569 10% 14%
Totals 932 67,543 13,499 $972,770 $300,941 17% 24%
Overtime premium pay is a considerable element in the LCPS transportation program, with
pay in excess of eight hours representing 24% of the wages, and the overtime premium (the
50%) representing $100,000 per payroll, or $50,000 per week, or $5,000 per day. The
average driver and attendant days are 9.1 hours. This long day and the overtime pay may
be the result of:
 The 2 hour 30 minute gap between the starting bell times (7:15 and 9:45).
 The driver idle time between the bell times.
 Long bus routes.
 Non-efficient route design (zero rider stops, backtracking, etc.).
 Drivers covering for absent drivers or open positions.
 Activity or charter trips.
We requested the top driver wage earners for the 2009 calendar year in order to ascertain
the impact recurring overtime can have on a driver’s compensation. Five drivers earned
more than $50,000 in 2009, with $59,951 being the largest W2 compensation amount.
FINDING: There is a substantial amount of built-in driver overtime in the system (24%
of wages), and an abnormally long driver work day (9.1 hours). The current strategy of
operating longer days with fewer buses exacerbates the cost component.
RECOMMENDATION: Management must be cognizant of this matter, and consider
alternatives to address it. Collapse the current bell time structure by at least 5, and
possibly 10 minutes to alleviate paying the drivers for unproductive time in between their
first and second schools.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: A five minute morning and afternoon reduction per driver would
shave time from driver pay – all of it at overtime rates. Five minutes of pay across 650
drivers is $3200 per day (650 x 5/60 x $30/hour x 2 (AM & PM)), or $576,000 per year;
10 minutes would be $1,152,000.
SPLAC bus employees are paid in a manner that levels out the driver pay such that each
paycheck alternates between 9 and 10 work days. We have had experiences with similar
systems and recognize the benefit of the drivers receiving a standardized pay amount.
However, every pay-leveling system we have seen is inordinately cumbersome, often
requiring additional clerical staff to perform the recordkeeping tasks. Also, we find that
managing driver payroll from the standpoint of overtime and excess pay is unduly
complicated, if not impractical. Furthermore, the employees may not be aware of what they
are to be paid and why. Systems that cannot be managed and that cannot be understood
15 of 43
by the workers are generally not of good economic value. It may be worthy to pursue a
simpler solution that allows the District to more reasonably manage its wage and payroll
processing costs.
4. Comments from Stewards
We met with representatives of the drivers’ labor union and explained TransPar’s
assignment, then fielded questions, comments, observations, and ideas from those
representatives. Overall, the attitude of those we met with was supportive and constructive.
We found a few common themes amongst their input:
 Routing bus stop sequence is less than ideal, and “makes no sense”.
 Routes are not well packaged.
 Some drivers have one hour layovers, and arrive at their next school an hour before
they are scheduled to be there.
 Buses are driving too far to get to their first stop; move them closer.
 The assignment of buses and drivers by compound should be reviewed; Estero in
particular.
 GPS on buses is a “waste”; it isn’t being used.
 There is up to an hour of driver layover (idle) time between routes.
 The absence rate amongst the drivers is too high and needs attention.
 Too many drivers are on work comp leave.
 There is not sufficient “quality control” over operations.
 The drivers are satisfied with the maintenance operation.
C. Operations Staffing - Other
1. Current Organizational Structure
Transportation is dispersed primarily among four compounds. The organization is lead by

two ‘co-directors’ who share administrative accountabilities. Maintenance is led by a
Supervisor of Garage Operations whose primary accountability is vehicle maintenance of the
yellow school buses and the District’s administrative vehicles, the so-called ‘white fleet’.
Operations, or the daily execution of the service, are the accountability of two directors split
on the basis of geography. The analysis in this section will concern only operations; the
maintenance analysis may be found in its own section.
The primary organizational strategy for operations is to align supervisors, assistants and the
drivers for which they are responsible within the school choice zones that they serve.
Program based attendance schools are assigned as well.
We were provided organizational charts for each compound, which adequately detailed the
positions and incumbent personnel. The organizational chart detailing the administration
support positions was not well detailed, and the positions and staff counts were determined
from discussions with the co-directors.
16 of 43
The operations at each compound are supported by a team of dispatchers and support
clerks. Routing is performed in a more centralized fashion, and is led by a manager at the
South (Six Mile) compound.
2. Staffing Benchmarks
In its fifteen years as a transportation manager and consultant TransPar has developed
staffing benchmarks for planning the organization of personnel. The basis of 150 buses (trip
buses, excluding spares and excess) as the span of control for a manager is the result of
working with over 100 transportation departments throughout the country. Below are the
general guidelines:
Transportation Department Staffing Guidelines
Function: Staff: Route Bus

Operations
Terminal Manager 1:150
Dispatcher 1:50
Payroll Clerk 1:50-150
Extra Trip Clerk 1:50-150
Maintenance (add spares to

ratios)
Service Manager 1:300
Shop Foreman 1:100-150
Lead Mechanic 1:50-100
Mechanic 1:25
Parts Clerk 1:150-300
Shop Clerk 1:150-300
Safety/Training/Recruiting
Manager 1:100-500
Trainers (part time; also 1:50
drivers)
Routing/Planning
Regular Transportation 1:50-150
Router
Special Education Router 1:25-100
Map Specialist 1:100-500
Budget/Ops Analyst 1:100-500
(Source: TransPar Group, Inc. © 2010)
17 of 43
Utilizing the benchmarks TransPar ‘scaled-up’ the staffing requirements to reflect an

operation of 650 route buses. An additional router position was provided for given the high
complexity that results from transportation demand being ‘choice’ driven rather than
geographically based. Further, the classification categories of employees did not purely
match the model and modifications made. The table below generally categorizes the
employees and allows for a quick comparison of forecast (TransPar model) and actual (Lee
current staffing levels):
Staffing Benchmark Recap

Category Forecast Actual Difference
Supervisors/Assts. 4 8 4
Dispatchers 13 12 <1>
Routers 7 6 <1>
Clerical Support 7 6 <1>
Specialists 3 2 <1>
Total 34 34 0
Note: Specialists forecast positions are: Operations Analyst, Map Specialist & Safety Manager
COMMENDATION: The operations organization is staffed at a level consistent with

the best practices we find throughout the country.
The use of assistant managers is not readily contemplated in the TransPar model. Based
upon the principal survey results, it is evident that a high level of service is enjoyed
throughout the District, no doubt the result of a high level of responsiveness. Therefore we
are reluctant to recommend any net change in staff count to the organizational staffing.
Our observations led us to conclude that a few positions or responsibilities might be

differently dedicated for more managerial ‘impact’. We sensed the co-directors and their
immediate reports were more consumed with the minutia of daily operations than is prudent,
which can result in too much fixing of problems and not enough elimination of the causes of
problems. One or two supervisory positions might be more closely aligned with the co-
director to provide specialized support in routing integrity, fiscal controls, customer care,
driver staffing, etc. These positions should only be funded by broadening the span of control
of assistant supervisors (otherwise reducing their number).
18 of 43
Section III: Fleet Management
A. Vehicle Inventory
We were provided a bus list with service status from which we extracted this information:
In Service Fleet Buses

Compound Daily Buses Spare Buses Total Buses
East – Buckingham 93 22 115
Estero 18 3 21
Leonard 129 21 150
South - Six Mile 174 39 213
West 240 47 287
Totals 654 132 786
Based upon this data, the spare ratio is 20%, well beyond the industry norm of 10-15%.
This level exceeds what we expected given the shop shift schedule does not cause many
buses to be pulled during the day for service. We are aware that school activity needs can
force a higher spare ratio, however it was not evident that demand necessitates this level of
buses.
Where high schools require a consistent demand for activity buses during prime time often
districts will dedicate one or two activity buses to a high school, wherein those buses are
parked at the high school. This can relieve considerable operational challenges from the
Transportation Department and streamline activity demand and fulfillment. With the
apparent excess level of buses, there may be availability for allocating equipment
accordingly.
In addition, other fleet lists contained approximately 94 more buses than the 786 and were
described as “mothballed” or “ready for auction” or “excess”. The status of this group of
buses was to us uncertain, and it is our contention that they should be considered to be in
the vehicle inventory until they are formally removed from service and made available for
sale.
We noted uncertainty as to whether these excess buses were or were not still on the
inspection schedule. Ideally, any excess bus should be tagged as out-of-service, locked up,
removed from the inspection list, and no longer maintained by the shop. Then they should
be sold as quickly as possible. If a bus is selected for “parting out” or ‘cannibalization”, the
bus should be incapacitated and removed from all bus lists to eliminate any confusion over
its status.
FINDING: There are 50 daily buses and 94 excess buses that are not required to
meet the daily service needs of the system.
19 of 43
RECOMMENDATION: Establish a 10% spare factor (66 buses), allocate one bus to
each of the 14 high schools for dedicated activity services, then sell the 134 excess
buses in an organized manner.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The 2008 Yellow Bus Book values 10 year old fleet ready full
size buses at $8,000. 134 x $8000 = $1,072,000.
The bus fleet counts by model year are as follows:
Per this data, 649 units are less than 10 years old (2002 or newer). The life cycle of a
typical school bus averaging 15,000 to 18,000 miles annually is 200,000 miles and 12 years.
Assuming the District will not be increasing the size of its bus fleet, it should forego
purchasing new buses in 2010/11.
B. Vehicle Maintenance
The bus fleet is dispersed across four large compounds located in each quadrant of the
county, West, Buckingham, Leonard, and Six Mile. Each has ample parking and a
maintenance operation. A satellite location is in Estero, on the far south side of the county.
The facilities, office, and shops were in very good condition, well kept, and did not pose any
immediate identifiable safety concerns. Work conditions appeared enviable.
The locations of the facilities were such that deadhead could be reasonably managed.
Regardless, the school choice program and county-wide programs challenge the logistics of
where the buses are parked and the schools they serve.
The overall appearance of the fleet was satisfactory.
20 of 43
1. Mechanics and Repairs
The maintenance team and process appeared to be a relative strength of the overall
operation. Processes were orderly, and shop equipment and parts inventories were in their
place. We were told there had been no measurable maintenance overtime since December.
We were provided “Monthly Service Ratio” reports for each shop that recapped the
maintenance staffing, service requirements, and staffing ratios. The ratio of vehicles
serviced per mechanic ranged from 21 to 24, which was deemed to be within industry
standards. However, we noted that the grand total of the school bus counts reported on
each shop’s analysis was 933 school buses (excluding service vehicles), far exceeding the
786 “in service” fleet vehicles. We tallied 58 charter school, training, and other buses but
were unable to fully reconcile the 933 reported buses back to the 786 in fleet ready
condition.
Recap of Buses, Buses in Service & Technicians

Buses per In Service
Shop In Service Number of Bus to Tech
Compound Report Buses Technicians Ratio
East - Buckingham 222 115 6 19
Estero 21 21 1 21
Leonard 163 150 9 17
South - Six Mile 241 213 11 19
West 286 287 13 22
Totals 933 786 40 20
This shop staffing data excluded shop foreman, supervisors, body repair mechanics and shop
custodians, which is appropriate in determining the bus to mechanic ratio. Each shop
performs the maintenance on a few service vehicles. Regardless of all the reconciling items,
it appears that the LCPS vehicle to technician ratio in the low 20s is below the industry
standard range of 25-30. This is reinforced by there not being any technician overtime. This
may indicate an excess of five or more mechanics. Several possibilities may be contributing
factors, including:
 40 buses were removed from operation in fall 2009, reducing workloads.

 Inaccuracies or uncertainty as to how many school buses are supported by each
shop.
 Inclusion of “out of service” buses in the maintenance cycle.
FINDING: The “Monthly Service Ratio” management tool did not correlate to fleet
counts and may misrepresent the sufficiency of technician staffing.
RECOMMENDATION: Establish 25 buses per technician as the goal and align
management reporting to measure adherence.
21 of 43
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The information was not of sufficient integrity to determine

if a shop or shops are overstaffed by one or more technicians. Each technician
represents about $40,000 of annualized cost.
The technicians work in shifts such that many buses need to be supported across few service
bays. This creates the luxury of working on buses when they are not serving the schools.
We were told that very few buses are pulled off routes for inspections, as they are inspected
off-hours or mid-day when the buses are at the terminals. This arrangement results in
superior utilization of facilities and curtails the operational need for spare buses.
During interviews with staff the teams noted that approximately 40 fleet buses were listed as
out of service, awaiting some type of repair or component that prevented the bus from
safely operating. This is a significant number (approximately 5% of the fleet) and the
reason for each bus being out of service should be more fully investigated as this may be
contributing to the high spare level.
PeopleSoft is being implemented as the new maintenance software system, and the
transition to such had not been completed prior to our visit. This transitional process
resulted in there being no readily available records for us to measure maintenance
compliance such as inspections, PM programs, oil changes, and other services. The only
information available to us was the schedule of “30 Day” inspections. (In Florida, buses
must be inspected each 30 school days, which translates into every six calendar weeks.)
The data below is a snapshot of a thirty day inspection schedule from Feb. 18 to Mar. 31.
Inspection Schedule vs Bus Count

2/18-3/31
In Service
Compound Inspections
Buses
Scheduled
South - Six-Mile 207 213
Estero 21 21
East - Buckingham 117 115
Leonard 156 150
West 298 287
Totals 799 786
Because PeopleSoft was not operational it was impossible to confirm whether these
scheduled inspections actually resulted in completed inspections. This table shows 799
buses were scheduled for service while only 786 buses were in service. A deviation of only
13 may not be material given 26 buses, on average, must be inspected every school day.
However the deviations by compound and our uncertainty over which buses are and are not
on the inspection forms cause us to highlight this matter for further inspection.
During our discussions with maintenance technicians, foremen and a steward these
comments were offered, for which we performed no subsequent follow-up or validation:
22 of 43
 Technician’s salary increases are not tied to performance.

 Technician training is infrequent, if not non-existent (computers, electronics).
 Drivers are not notified when bus maintenance write-ups are completed.
 No formal MSDS training is conducted for either driver or mechanics.
 Mechanics were not observed wearing eye protection.
 No formal facility safety inspection exists.
 Needed parts purchases are held up because of “budget restraints”.
 Mechanics “rob” parts from other buses in order to fix another.
 Communications with upper management is poor.
 There is no drug testing of staff.
2. Inventory Control & Purchasing
There is a strict process followed for purchasing parts and making routine operating
expenditures. Purchase needs are funneled through purchasing personnel who measure
progress against the budget, consolidate orders, and coordinate the purchase process.
Management regularly monitors spending. The process is rather tedious, but it serves as a
good cost control discipline.
The entire Transportation Department is in the process of moving to a new parts and repair
software package in PeopleSoft. PeopleSoft will track assets, staff, inventory, maintenance
records, maintenance tracking & compliance, work-order recording and printing and
PM/inspection scheduling.
The Transportation Department’s PeopleSoft system implementation and transition was

behind schedule, and “live” maintenance and parts inventory data was unavailable during
our visit. We were informed that within a few weeks everything should be back to normal.
We informally examined the shops and stock rooms at each compound, other than Estero.
There is no centralization of parts inventories, so each compound had commonly needed
items in stock. We noted no excesses other than tire inventories.
Parts inventory levels were reported as follows:
Parts Inventory Information

Parts Parts
Inventory
Location Inventory Inventory Buses
Per Bus
Count Value
South - Six-Mile 1204 $ 177,699 213 $ 834
Estero 91 $ 6,445 21 $ 307
East – Buckingham 873 $ 126,794 115 $ 1,103
Leonard 515 $ 82,306 150 $ 549
West 768 $ 88,618 287 $ 309
Totals 3451 $ 481,862 786 $ 613
23 of 43
Six Mile and Buckingham each had in excess of 100 new tires in tire rooms, tire racks, and/or
in fenced areas. In addition, Six Mile had dozens of takeoffs where the tread appeared to
exceed minimum standards. We did not confirm the status of those takeoff tires.
Regardless, the inventory of new tires exceeded what was described to us as the process for
buying and stocking tires and our conclusion was that this may be worthy of follow-up by
Transportation Management.
Recently reported weekly tire inventory levels were as follows:
Weekly New Tire Inventory Report Recap

Jan Jan Jan Jan Feb Feb Feb Avg. Bus Avg. Per
Location
7 13 20 25 1 8 20 Count Count Bus
Six-Mile 115 294 205 213 0.96
Estero 21 0.00
East 100 224 230 209 191 115 1.66
Leonard 71 52 154 164 156 139 143 126 150 0.84
West 29 37 71 104 117 80 73 287 0.25
315 52 415 465 260 256 726 311 786 0.45
The data is inconsistently reported and may not be an adequate tool to manage tire
inventories. Regardless, the recently reported tire inventory levels appear high for the bus
count requirements.
C. Management Information Systems
1. Shop Systems
PeopleSoft is being implemented throughout the District, having commenced in 2008, and
Transportation is the last department to come on line. PeopleSoft is not designed for school
bus maintenance so a tremendous amount of work and labor was needed by transportation
staff and programmers to customize the maintenance application to fit the needs of
transportation. This Transportation Department implementation and transition was behind
schedule, and “live” maintenance and parts inventory data was unavailable during our visit.
This undertaking was creating extensive effort on certain team members, creating day to day
conflicts as to how and where to invest their time. The install process has created a backlog
of files that need imputing, there were hundreds of repair order files awaiting input into the
system. There was discussion of retroactively entering repair orders dating back to 1989;
we could not determine the necessity for doing such.
The implementation has resulted in a lack of information on current maintenance compliance

and cost. We were informed that within a few weeks everything should be back to normal.
24 of 43
FINDING: The PeopleSoft maintenance application was behind schedule and the
department was without live data; concerns over the deadlines, amount of pending
work, and the viability of the end product.
RECOMMENDATION: This project is in need of dedicated project management.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: A District IT resource should be assigned, or PeopleSoft
should be required to finish the project.
2. Other Systems
Regardless of the software implementation challenges, there were few useful reports to aide
in the management of the fleet and fleet maintenance program. While considerable effort
was being expended to clerically record, list, and/or process information, negligible high level
management information was readily available. For example, multiple bus listings were
provided and there were integrity issues with each, including multiple buses not on any list.
The buses were not categorized correctly as to daily route, spare, excess, etc. Some buses
on the list were not physically where they were reported. The quality of the data was not
useful to manage with. The inconsistency in the bus inventory list appeared to translate
over onto the 45 day inspection listings, which may include some buses not deemed to be in
service and others may have been missing from the list.
We were provided reports summarizing mechanics. The reports varied by location and did
not lend themselves to easily assessing whether the technician staffing was appropriate for
the bus assignments.
The Trapeze AVL system was said to be in good working order, but management reports
either could not be generated or the data was otherwise not useful. There was no
information available to measure on-time performance.
There were budget reports, but the reports contained substantial minutia and could not
readily be summarized. It was not possible for TransPar to ascertain where the operation
stood against key line items such as driver wages or parts expense.
FINDING: There are few informational tools from which to manage the operation.
RECOMMENDATION: An operation of this size should have a formal process for
generating and reviewing management information as to bus service, safety, fleet,
routing, costs, etc. This data will allow management to proactively manage versus
reactively manage operations. This information is essential for planning purposes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: A cost reduction of 3-5% is a viable goal when moving from
minimal management information to a sophisticated management system. 3% of
$46 million is $1.38 million.
25 of 43
Section IV: Bus Routing
A: Routing Practices
TransPar evaluated the Transportation Department’s routing practices. We found nothing

abnormal as to the routing system or its operation. LCPS utilizes Trapeze for its routing
software, which is a proven, nationally recognized system. The software and underlying
map were sufficiently up to date and there were no noticeable delays in system performance
or processing speed. Users appeared to have good working knowledge of the system. The
Trapeze parameters were set and functioning within reason.
We were provided copies of routing policies and guidelines and determined that the routers
had a good understanding of the routing objectives.
We explored how students are assigned to schools and the process followed to determine
transportation eligibility. The same was done for students with IEPs (Individualized
Education Program) that required specialized transportation or bus attendants; these
processes appear sound. We were particularly impressed with the website tool that allows a
parent to enter a residential address, and the program produces a roster of bus stops for
each school that the student may choose from. Proximity schools (walking schools) are
clearly noted.
COMMENDATION: Parents and constituents have ample on-line resources

available from which to make informed school choice decisions as such relates to
transportation.
Several routing practices are worthy of more explanation:
1. School Arrival Times versus School Bell Times
A critical component of efficient routing is working backwards from each school’s opening
bell time to the first student’s bus stop. This necessitates determining when the bus must
arrive at the school for the student to get to class on time. This becomes complicated as
LCPS offers breakfast programs at all schools (except for middle schools). This requires the
buses to arrive at each school 15-20 minutes earlier than the first instructional bell. The
District has established a school arrival time of 25 minutes before the opening bell for the
high schools and 30 minutes for K8 and elementary schools. The bus is deemed “late” if it
arrives inside the 25-30 minute buffer window. This buffer was represented by management
as being fairly firm; buses are expected to unload before that time. However, our
RouteYield™5 routing examination revealed that 230 morning buses arrived at the school 10
minutes or more after the scheduled school arrival time, representing 18% of the bus runs
that morning.
5
RouteYield™ is TransPar’s process and propriety software for assessing transportation system
efficiency.
26 of 43
In the afternoon, we found 27 bus runs that arrived at the school more than 10 minutes
beyond the school’s release bell, generally meaning the students were waiting at the bus
ramp for the bus.
We noted inconsistency with route design as to school arrival times, as one router was
designing the route in Trapeze from the school arrival time and backwards, but then adding
5 or 10 minutes of additional cushion to allow for on-time leeway.
FINDING: Buses are arriving too late for the breakfast program; 230 morning buses
(18%) arrived at the school more than 10 minutes later than the appointed arrival
time.
RECOMMENDATION: Revisit the school arrival time guideline; determine what to
enforce, and how to enforce it.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There may be no additional cost to accelerating delivery for
the 230 buses as the guideline may simply be too aggressive.
2. Bus Load Counts
Eligible riders are assigned to bus routes, and appear as a “load count” in Trapeze. While a
high school student may be eligible for transportation, that student may drive himself or find
another ride to school. Thus, it is a common industry practice to assign more high school
students to a bus than there are seats on that bus, sometimes assigning as many as 100 to
a bus that can seat only 50. LCPS properly attempts to set the high school load counts
appropriately for the ridership trend at each high school. Overbooking does not necessarily
lead to overcrowding, as the bus driver and routers work to prevent such.
3. Zero Load Count Bus Stops
Our review of trip sheets (bus run manifest detail) found a higher than normal frequency of
bus stops that had a zero load count, meaning that no eligible rider was assigned to the
scheduled bus stop. We were provided a list of zero load count stops (excluding activities);
we counted 2407 such stops. Most stops are counted twice for the morning and afternoon,
thus there are about 1203 morning zero rider stops. This represents 7% of the 17,095
morning bus stops in the system. That no one gets on the bus at that stop is not the real
problem; the problem is that the scheduled route diverts the bus to that stop and adds time
to the bus and the bus run to service that stop. Morning routes are designed from the
school arrival time backward, thus zero rider stops unnecessarily push back the starting bus
time. Morning buses following routes with zero rider stops will get ahead of their pickup
times and may have to park or idle for periods of time. This is not the case in the afternoon,
as the driver will know there is no student to unload at such stop, and may alter or shorten
the route accordingly; it is generally not a problem when students are dropped early at their
afternoon bus stops.
FINDING: 7% of the scheduled bus stops have no riders assigned. The high level
of zero load count bus stops deteriorates routing efficiency and adds unnecessary
and unproductive time to the system.
27 of 43
RECOMMENDATION: Regularly review and delete zero rider bus stops; at a

minimum before route bids and again each fall.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Assuming each bus stop consumes two minutes of stop time
or bus route deviation this consumes 4812 of unproductive minutes daily or over
850,000 or 14,000 hours annually. At $30 per hour, this is $420,000.
4. Space Available Courtesy Riders
LCPS allows students living within two miles of their assigned school to ride a school bus to
school as courtesy riders. Such students must register with the school, then must find their
way (walk or parent transport) to an existing bus stop beyond two miles from their school.
Transportation is granted on a space available basis. The underlying assumption is that the
bus is already in the neighborhood and already stopping at that particular stop, so if the bus
has empty seats then there is no incremental cost to transporting these walkers. If the bus
becomes “full”, then courtesy riders are bumped off the bus on a seniority basis.
The number of courtesy riders could not be readily determined in the Trapeze system. The
most recent FEFP data submission (Oct. 2009) showed 2092 courtesy riders.
FINDING: Over 2000 pupils are transported as courtesy riders, for which LCPS
receives no state funding. This represents about 4% of the total routed load count.
RECOMMENDATION: The transportation of courtesy riders should be discontinued
to achieve the highest degree of transportation efficiency and eliminate as many
minutes of non-essential transportation time as possible from the scheduled runs.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Although the bus run times may fall by several minutes,
there is no direct financial incentive, although the current practice inhibits the
identification of lightly loaded buses – targets for consolidation. Indirectly, if the bell
times are altered and routes shortened to reduce the number of buses, the
elimination of 2000 riders could allow a more precise fine tuning, representing
anywhere between 1 to 10 buses that could be eliminated from service.
5. Bus Routing Strategies and Design
ABO - An important routing strategy for LCPS is that of increasing ABO, or Average Bus
Occupancy. This is a key factor in determining Florida state funding. A higher ABO is
rewarded with a higher rate of funding. LCPS is increasing its ABO by extending run times
and adding stops and riders. The school bell time spacing is so broad (nearly two hours
apart) that bus runs can be lengthened without threatening service. The tactic of
lengthening bus runs to increase ABO prohibits the opportunity to repackage buses with
three routes instead of just two, and leads to a “frozen denominator” as the number of
buses cannot be decreased by triple routing.
FINDING: LCPS increases its ABO by lengthening bus runs, adding more stops and
more riders. LCPS’ maximum ABO is capped at 50-60 because the best it can do is
transport two bus loads each morning and afternoon, not three bus loads.
28 of 43
RECOMMENDATION: A higher ABO will be achieved by reducing the dominator –

the number of buses. This can be accomplished by transporting the same number of
pupils using fewer buses, such as in a three tired system. The ABO determines the
funding rate as a percent of costs. Increasing the funding rate AND reducing the
costs is the ultimate objective.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Increasing the ABO from 57 (LCPS’ ABO) to 64 (state
average) would change LCPS’ 36% funding recovery to the state average of 43%.
Assuming no operating cost change, this would correlate to $1.1 million of
incremental funding for LCPS.
Number of Bus Stops – There is a guideline that the maximum number of bus stops for any
bus run should be around 15. This guideline has grown to 20, but there are now 222
morning non-ESE bus runs with 20 or more stops, including 51 with 25 or more stops. In
our experience, the number of bus stops is not used as a parameter for establishing route
design or efficiency. We recommend the guidelines be: 1) filling up the bus, and 2) not
exceeding a maximum ride time. The number of bus stops will follow.
Routes - TransPar examined the bus route paths and stops for four schools in order to
assess the integrity and efficiency of the route designs. These schools were Allen ES (A),
North Fort Myers Academy for the Arts MS (N), Lehigh HS (L) and Trafalgar MS (T). The
route diagrams can be found in the Appendix C. We acknowledge that our lack of local
knowledge as to streets, canals, hazards, and traffic may cause us to draw uninformed
conclusions, but by looking at the students for each of these schools plotted on a map, and
how the buses were servicing those students, we found apparent issues and opportunities
for improvement. Again, we are approaching this from the standpoint of reducing the route
times and how to more efficiently get the students to and from school.
Observations include:
 Bus routes have first stop and last stop within blocks of each other, so the buses are
circling back. Can the first stop students become last stop students, so that the bus
ride is shortened? Can the route start farther away from the school and pickup the
students closer to the school last? (395T, 2631T, 2726L, 2791T, 2792T)
 Bus routes are doubling back very near previous stops, even crossing over its initial
path. Is it necessary that the route double back? Can bus stops be moved or re-
sequenced so that the stops occur the second time by, rather than the first time by?
Can the first bus stops be eliminated and those students walk to the backside stop?
(385L, 395T, 2726L, 2791T, 2792T)
 Bus routes have the first stop nearest the school and the last stop farthest from the
school. Can this be reversed to reduce the length of time students are on the bus?
(395T, 2702L, 2917L)
 Zero rider bus stops are a problem for routing design. With nearly 1 in 10 scheduled
bus stops being void of riders, this leads to extensive route integrity issues.
29 of 43
 Bus stops are spaced approximately ¼ mile apart in many areas which may be
unnecessarily creating excessive stops and wasting time. With a 1 ½ mile walk to
the bus stop policy, it appears there is ample opportunity to: 1) merge/consolidate
bus stops, and/or 2) cause students to walk to the bus instead of the bus driving to
the student. We note buses going into corridors and connecting adjuncts where it
appears the stop could be outside such. (2726L)
 Some bus routes were not following a logical course, with routes crossing one
another and jumping to non-adjacent neighborhoods. It appears that unbundling
them could result in shorter and tighter routes. (955L, 2704L, 2827N, 2829N, 2835N,
2838N)
We deliberated as to why the bus runs would be so disjointed. During our study, we learned
that the 2009-10 budget cuts had forced the elimination of about 40 buses, possibly before it
could be strategically determined how and where the buses could be eliminated. Given the
broad amounts of time between the school bell schedules, routes may have been
cannibalized across the remaining routes, without re-routing. Thus, a previously well
packaged 50 minute bus run became a 70 minute bus run with a 10 minute detour to jump
to another section of town.
If such, it may be that many bus runs have become disjointed with 5 to 15 minutes of
inefficiency in each. Collapsing the 5 to 15 minutes from the average bus run is essential to:
1) reducing ride times, and 2) better packaging the buses for a three tier structure.
FINDING: The sampling of bus routes reveals design or service execution integrity
issues.
RECOMMENDATION: Routing policies and parameters should be revisited and
confirmed. Every route should be reviewed with the objective of shortening it by 10
minutes or curtailing it at 60 minutes. This should be done on a school by school
basis, starting with high school non-ESE routes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: A 5 to 15 minute per run reduction would shave time from
driver pay – all of it at overtime rates. Five minutes of pay across 650 drivers is
$3200 per day (650 x 5 / 60 x $30/hour x 2 (AM & PM)), or $576,000 per year.
B: TransPar’s RouteYield™
A bus survey was coordinated on Wednesday, February 24 – a typical school day, albeit with
a brief afternoon downpour. Each driver completed a survey that recorded bus arrival and
departure times and rider counts for each school served. This allowed TransPar to take a
snapshot of one day’s bus service from which we could ascertain how many bus runs
occurred, to where, how long each run took, and how many rode.
This process is similar to the FEFP, but yields considerably different results than the four
time a year FEFP counts. The FEFP counts identify how many riders rode at least once
during an eleven day period, thus it represents the number of “regular” riders. Never should
TransPar’s RouteYield™ rider count exceed FEFP data, as students may be ill, catch a ride to
school, have an early or late school activity, etc.
30 of 43
1. Bus Survey Data Findings
On the day of the survey 1,277 bus runs transported 34,548 riders in the morning; 1,276 bus
runs transported 36,607 in the afternoon. 650 buses were in service that day. Overall the
system utilized about 85% of the available bus time and 50% of the available seats (as
adjusted for school type). A recap of the morning and the afternoon activity is as follows:
31 of 43
The RouteYield™ data bore out the anticipated results . . . consistently long bus ride times.
RouteYield™ measures the time students were on the bus, not the time the bus took to get
to the first stop or back to the bus compound; it is live time. Bus runs averaged 65 minutes
in the morning and 63 minutes in the afternoon. Although morning ESE runs averaged
longer at 67 minutes (87 for the two ESE only schools), discarding them from the math
dropped the average to only 64 minutes. Again, this excludes the bus deadhead and is not
representative of the actual length of a bus run from the bus origination to destination and
return. Add 10-15 minutes in most cases, and a bus run may require 75 to 80 minutes from
end to end.
Overall, the buses are not approaching seating capacity; instead they are running out of
time. Each school category (elementary, K8, middle, and high school) averaged about 30
riders. About 25% of the high school buses were “full” reaching a capacity of 40, but all
other school types were not limited by seats.
Thus, we can conclude that time – not pupils - is the constraining factor in LCPS’ route
execution and efficiency. Elements that create or consume time include cul-de-sacs, gated
communities, zero rider stops, space available riders, generous school arrival times waste
32 of 43
bus time, and worst case scenario (spring training and snowbird) traffic congestion
assumptions.
2. Actual Ridership versus Assigned Riders
As referenced in the routing section, LCPS assigns more high school students to buses than
actually ride those buses. Thus we should find that the actual rider count is much less than
the assigned rider count, the load count. The RouteYield™ survey found only 34,548
morning and 36,607 afternoon riders; it is likely that 37,000 or more unique riders rode a
bus at least once that day. The work done in LCPS’ January 8, 2010 snapshot indicated
there were 53,382 assigned morning riders. Thus, on the day of the survey only about 70%
rode a bus. The most recent FEFP submission data indicated 47,425 riders were accounted
for during the 11 day October 2009 count; an 88% ridership rate.
This data is typical in the industry, and accentuates the challenge the routers have in
building routes and filling up buses. TransPar’s RouteYield™ data is discounted as “not
representative of average ridership”. Yet, it is a truer number of what happens each and
every day because students are absent from school, ride with a parent, have a school
activity, or are of driving age. Transportation should be aware that absenteeism creates
additional capacity on buses and can be planned for on a day to day basis. The planning
fulcrum balance is somewhere between the RouteYield™ tallies and the FEFP counts.
We applaud Transportation for having referenced the FEFP rider counts as the volume of
students transported daily on its website, and not the Trapeze assigned load count, as this is
a truer representation of the service level.
3. Schools with Bus Run Consolidation Opportunities
RouteYield™ points us to schools where the buses serving that school might be consolidated
based upon some buses having considerable time or capacity available. The following
schools each had three or more runs utilizing less than 60% of the time AND 60% of the
seats in both the AM & PM, indicating a prime target for consolidating bus runs at that
school:
33 of 43
Schools with Run Consolidation Opportunities

Arrival Bus AM PM
School Type Time Tier Target Runs Target Runs
Alva ES/MS 7:30 2 3 3
Challenger MS 9:30 4 5 6
Colonial ES 7:30 2 6 5
Cypress Lake HS 6:50 1 4 3
Franklin Park ES 7:30 2 7 4
Gulf ES 8:45 3 3 5
Gulf MS 9:30 4 3 3
Ida S. Baker HS 6:50 1 3 5
Mirror Lakes ES 7:30 2 3 7
Pine Island ES 8:45 3 4 4
Riverdale HS 6:50 1 3 11
Veterans Park K8 7:30 2 3 5
Total Targets 12 47 61
FINDING: There are 47 bus runs at 12 schools that should be considered for
consolidation across existing bus runs at those schools.
RECOMMENDATION: Review the routing at these 12 schools with the objective of
eliminating at least two routes at each school, for a total of 24 routes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Assuming an even distribution of buses such that a bus, not
just a bus run, can be eliminated, 12 buses could be purged at $74,000 each for a
savings of $888,000 per year.
4. Stratification of Bus Runs by Time
Although the average bus run is 65 minutes, there is substantial disparity as to the run time
groupings.
Groupings of Run Times

Length Count %
60 minutes or less 544 43
> 60 & < 70 minutes 236 18
> 70 & < 80 minutes 214 17
> 80 & < 90 minutes 153 12
> 90 minutes 130 10
Total 1,277 100
5. Low Rider Bus Runs
The survey data indicated 27 ESE bus morning runs transported two or fewer students;
these runs averaged only 42 minutes in length. There were 20 non-ESE bus runs with 10 or
34 of 43
fewer students; these runs averaged 51 minutes in length. All low rider bus runs should be
scrutinized regularly for consolidation opportunities.
FINDING: There are buses operating with very light loads and with run times less
than average that may be targets for adding more riders.
RECOMMENDATION: Research all lightly loaded buses with available bus time and
ascertain how to make the bus run more productive. This includes assigning riders
from other buses with longer ride times, or eliminating the lightly loaded bus by
assigning those riders to other buses
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Persistency with this process will ultimately consolidate
buses. Our experience is that at least one out of each ten such buses can be purged
from the system. At $74,000 per bus and 47 targets, the savings objective is five
buses and $370,000.
C: The Impact of Bell Times on Transportation
1. Bell Time Tiers
The RouteYield™ data allowed us to establish the current “bell time transportation tiers”, an
approach for examining the school schedules and their impact upon bus transportation
service. LCPS’ school bell times are as follows:
School Bell Times by School Type

School Bus Arrival Instructional Closing Bell Length of
Tier Type Target Time Start Time Time Trans Day
1 High School 6:50 7:15 1:45 6:55
2 Elementary & K8 7:30 8:15 2:15 6:45
3 Elementary 8:45 9:15 3:30 6:45
4 Middle 9:30 9:45 4:00 6:30
The gaps between each school type tier are as follows:
Gaps Between School Time Tiers

School Bus Arrival Instructional Closing Bell
Tier Type Target Time Start Time Time
1 High School n/a n/a n/a
2 Elementary & K8 :40 1:00 :30
3 Elementary 1:15 1:00 1:15
4 Middle :45 :30 :30
35 of 43
The LCPS bus schedule is arranged so that a typical bus will serve Tier 1 and Tier 3, or it will
serve Tier 2 and Tier 4. The table below rearranges the data to display the gaps between
each transportation tier:
Gaps Between Transportation Time Tiers

Group A Buses
3 Elementary 1:55 2:00 1:45
Group B Buses
2 Elementary & K8 n/a n/a n/a
4 Middle 2:00 1:30 1:45
We will refer to LCPS transportation structure as a two-tiered tandem structure because

there are two sets of buses performing two distinct services, in tandem with each other.
Understanding that a bus is scheduled to serve only two schools each morning and afternoon
– not three or four schools – is vital to understanding the dynamics of LCPS’ system. Per the
data above, the buses serving Tiers 1 & 3 have one hour and 55 minutes of available service
time in the morning (1:45 in the afternoon). Tier 2 & 4 buses have two hours in the
morning (1:45 in the afternoon). As the average live time bus run is 65 minutes, this
schedule affords an extensive amount of time for each bus to perform its scheduled bus
route or run.
2. Pros and Cons of LCPS’ Two Tier Tandem Structure
Pros:
 It allows sufficient spacing to accommodate the long bus ride times that result from
county-wide and school choice programs.
 It aides in increasing ABO (Average Bus Occupancy) as long runs help fill up the
buses.
 It curtails the length of a driver work day, as no driver is on the clock for the entire
school day.
 It is easier to package and execute than a more tightly structured system.
Cons:
 It creates built-in “idle time” for many bus runs (those less than 90 minutes), which
adds non-productive time to those driver’s pay packages.
 It does not allow for triple tiering of buses; the four distinct start time groupings are
too narrow to serve tiers 1, 2 & 4, or tiers 1, 3 & 4.
 It caps the LCPS maximum achievable at ABO at about 60, as ABO can never benefit
from three trips on one bus.
 It requires more buses and drivers than an efficiently structured three tier system.
36 of 43
FINDING: The two tiered transportation service prohibits buses from achieving
maximum fiscal efficiency, that of servicing more than two schools daily.
RECOMMENDATION: Consider the merits and impacts of a three tiered structure.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The elimination of a bus saves $74,000 of operating costs. The
elimination of each 10 buses represents $740,000. Targeting a 50 bus reduction (7.7%),
LCPS could pursue $3.7 million cost reduction. (There may be some offsetting cost
reduction for a longer driver day.)
Our experience in the industry causes us to recommend pursuit of a three tier system.
When flexibility exists to control the school start times to the extent that adequate blocks of
time can be configured between predominate start times, then a three tier system delivers
the better efficiency. A three tier system can typically result in a 7 to 8 hour driver day, with
a 9 hour day sometimes being less costly than operating more buses.
Four tier systems are often impractical, as the driver day exceeds 9 to 10 hours, and on-time
performance becomes a key concern.
Two tier systems are sometimes the only practical solution when there is no flexibility in
school start times (such as no schools can start earlier than 7:45), long bus ride times are
palatable or are the norm, or when the length of school instructional days vary by more than
30 minutes (such as high school days being 45 minutes longer).
Given the present LCPS’ bell schedule has a wide spread (from 7:15 a.m. to 9:45 a.m.) in its
instructional start times of which the public is familiar with and not up in arms about, we
suggest LCPS consider adopting a three tier structure, the first tier schools starting at 7:15
and the third tier schools at 9:45. The second tier would logically fall half way between
those two at 8:30. The structure would be as follows:
Three Tier System

School Bus Arrival Instructional Closing Bell Length of
Tier Type Target Time Start Time Time Trans Day
1 High School 6:50 7:15 1:45 6:55
2 Elementary & K8 8:10 8:40 2:55 6:45
3 Middle 9:30 9:45 4:00 6:30
These bell times would allow for the following gaps between bells in which to perform
transportation service:
Gaps Between School Time Tiers

2 Elementary & K8 1:20 1:25 1:10
3 Middle 1:20 1:05 1:05
37 of 43
In order to bring balance to the transportation system, alternative and ESE programs might
be pushed forward into tier one. Then some elementary or K8 schools would be realigned
into tier one or three. The objective is to have as many buses as possible perform three
circuits each morning and afternoon.
3. Pros and Cons of a Three Tier Structure
Pros:
 It reduces the number of buses and drivers needed to serve the system.
 It forces bus runs to get shorter, not longer.
 It allows reasonable spacing to accommodate the long bus ride times that result from
county-wide and school choice programs.
 It improves ABO (Average Bus Occupancy) by allowing three student loads per bus,
up from two.
 It eliminates driver and bus “idle time” in between tiers; it is more productive.
Cons:
 It is more challenging to route and pair the buses.
 Bus runs of more than 65 can disrupt a three tier system; runs must be capped.
 It will cause most driver workdays to be between 8 and 9 hours daily.
 It will be disruptive for many families and parents.
D: Bell Time Scenarios for Consideration
TransPar developed three bell time scenarios premised upon a three tier transportation
delivery structure for the District’s consideration. These were prepared primarily to
demonstrate the impact of such a change and promote conversation as to the plausibility of
such. The scenarios were developed by rearranging the bus run detail by school as found in
the RouteYield™ process, and judgmentally aligning schools to achieve the desired degree of
balance. A brief discussion of this process follows:
1. Current Situation
Current School Arrival Times:
1st 6:50 All High Schools

2nd 7:30 Elementary, K8, and Palm Schools
3rd 8:45 Elementary Schools
4th 9:30 All Middle, 1 Elementary, 1 K8 & Buckingham Schools
Buses are dedicated to either the 1st and 3rd tiers or the 2nd and 4th tiers, so each bus
averages two runs; only a handful have three runs scheduled. There is a 15-30 minute
window of idle bus time in between tiers. 650 buses are currently utilized to perform 1277
bus runs in the morning (2.0 runs per bus).
38 of 43
2. Alternatives for Consideration
A balanced three tiered system should allow for the operation of fewer buses as a perfectly
balanced system would perform one third of the 1277 bus runs in each tier (1/3 of 1277 =
426 buses). We do not see 426 as a viable objective because of the long bus ride times with
160 (13%) exceeding 90 minutes in length and 540 (43%) exceeding 70 minutes in length.
It will take considerable time and effort to reduce route times such that 95% can fit within
the proposed structure. Thus, we foresee an objective of operating 600 (50 fewer) buses in
Year 1 of these scenarios which will allow for sufficient cover for the long bus runs and on-
time performance. As routing is fine-tuned during Year 1 on a school by school basis,
further efficiencies can be achieved and the bus count lowered to approach the peak number
of bus runs in each tier.
Strategies Applicable to All Proposed Scenarios:

 Establish three distinct school arrival times (rather than four), with the goal of having
most buses perform three bus runs each morning and again in the afternoon.
 Royal Palm and Buckingham ESE bus service averages more than 60-70 minutes which
will prohibit those buses from performing three runs. Thus, set Royal Palm and
Buckingham arrival times to allow for those buses to perform two runs and not disrupt
other operations: ideally 7:30 and 9:15.
 Establish 80 minutes between school arrival times to allow for the completion of bus
runs averaging 60-70 minutes in duration.
Scenario A (Plan A)
Strategy: Establish three bell times but do not enforce bus run balancing across all three
because 6:50 is too early for elementary and middle school arrival times. Advance
alternative & tech schools to 6:50, and then balance the next two tiers.
School Arrival Time Groupings:

1st 6:50 High & Alternative Schools
2nd ESE 7:30 Royal Palm & Island Schools
2nd 8:10 K8s & Elementary Schools
3rd 9:30 Elementary, Middle & Buckingham Schools
Result: Bus runs by tier are 327, 477 and 473; 477 is the peak bus demand. Year 1 goal =
600 buses; Year 2 goal = 580-590 buses.
Scenario A Savings Estimate Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Bus Reduction 50 60 70
Buses in Operation 600 590 580
Cost per Bus @ $74,000 $3,700,000 $4,440,000 $5,180,000
Add 30 Minutes per Bus @ $30/Hr x 180 $1,620,000 $1,593,000 $1,566,000
Net Savings $2,180,000 $2,847,000 $3,614,000
39 of 43
Scenario B (Plan B)
Strategy: Establish three balanced bell times, thus a group of schools must move forward to
6:50. Advance alternative, tech and K-8 schools to 6:50, then balance the next two tiers by
moving elementary schools, keeping all middle schools in the 3rd tier.

1st 6:50 High, Alternative & K8 Schools
2nd 8:10 Elementary & Royal Palm Schools
3rd 9:30 Elementary, Middle Schools & Buckingham Schools
Scenario B Savings Estimate Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Cost per Bus @ $74,000 $3,700,000 $5,550,000 $7,400,000
Net Savings $2,080,000 $3,975,000 $5,915,000
Scenario C (Plan C)
Strategy: Establish three balanced bell times, thus a group of schools must move forward to
6:50. Advance alternative, tech and some middle schools to 6:50, the rest of the middle
schools into the 2nd tier, then balance the 2nd and 3rd tiers by moving elementary schools.

1st 6:50 High, Alternative & Middle Schools
2nd 8:10 K8s, Elementary, Middle & Royal Palm Schools
3rd 9:30 Elementary & Buckingham Schools
Scenario C Savings Estimate Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Cost per Bus @ $74,000 $3,700,000 $5,920,000 $8,140,000
Net Savings $2,080,000 $4,381,000 $6,682,000
40 of 43
Section V: Open Enrollment
As referenced in the report introduction, LCPS utilizes an open enrollment program spread
over three designated zones wherein students may choose any traditional school within the
student’s home sub-zone or adjacent sub-zone(s). There are three sub-zones within each
zone. Students may also select from various zone-wide magnet and attractor programs, a
few of which cross multiple zones. There are two county-wide ESE programs. All students
enrolled in an approved school or program living beyond a two mile walk from that school
are eligible for bus transportation.
We further explored the dynamics of the choice program with the Planning Department. We
were provided details and explanations supporting that the LCPS choice program allows the
District to allocate pupils across its system to balance enrollments across schools and
classes. It possible that by allowing choice, and the District having the flexibility to assign,
that many millions of dollars are saved or avoided by fully utilizing buildings and maximizing
class size.
A. Student Assignment
We reviewed the process for parents selecting and prioritizing schools. Parents are provided
warnings that selection of schools without proximity may result in long bus rides, and a
reasonable degree of parental coaching is provided by Student Assignment when a particular
school choice presents transportation challenges. We were particularly impressed with the
website tool that allows a parent to enter a residential address, and produces a roster of bus
stops for each school that the student may choose from. Proximity schools (walking schools)
are clearly noted. Regardless, schools are selected and assigned that result in a student not
attending a school that he/she could walk to. Our experience is that some parents will
intentionally select a school in order to receive bus transportation. Nothing prohibits or in
any way penalizes such choices.
B. Impact on Transportation
We approached the school choice program from the standpoint of bringing more synergy to
the transportation requirements. School choice typically creates long bus rides and sparse
density. Buses travel a long distance and do not get full. In Florida, ABOs are accordingly
depressed. Buses tend to travel by multiple schools before arriving at the destination school.
Long bus runs cause problems with pairing buses, particularly in multiple tiered school bell
time structures. Two tiers are challenging; three tiers are problematic. Pupils tend to get on
the bus or arrive home in the dark.
41 of 43
1. Many School/Transportation Combinations
Looking deeper, we sought out components that may create the longest bus rides. Of
particular interest was the zone and sub-zone structure. A student may attend any school in
his/her home sub-zone, plus any adjacent sub-zone. This affords all students in sub-zones
W-2, E-2 and S-2 the choice of ALL schools in their zone; thus all sub-zone 2 residents have
50% more school choice options than sub-zone 1 and 3 residents. This expanded choice
outcome increases the transportation possibilities for sub-zone 2 students. Curtailing the
sub-zone 2 choice to a certain radius from the student’s residence may eliminate the most
inefficient transportation possibilities.
2. Bypassing Multiple Schools in Route to Assigned School
Also from a transportation perspective, the “extent” of choice impacts transportation. That a
northernmost E-1 sub-zone student may select a southernmost E-2 sub-zone school further
stretches the bus transportation solution. Practical examples may include a student near:
 Bayshore ES in E-1 north selecting Gateway ES in E-2 south (bypassing 8 closer ES

schools, including 2 in home zone).
 Manatee ES in E-2 north selecting Mirror Lakes ES in E-3 south (bypassing 4 closer ES
schools, including 3 in home zone).
 Three Oaks ES in S-2 south selecting Allen Park ES in S-1 north (bypassing 7 closer
ES schools, including 2 in home zone).
If the extent of choice could be narrowed to exclude at least the most inefficient
transportation options, this may be of tremendous help in reducing bus ride times and
eliminating non-essential bus runs.
FINDING: The school choice rules allow for a broad spectrum of dissimilar bus
transportation obligations, driving up cost and bus ride times.
RECOMMENDATION: Define the school choice menus such that the most
inefficient transportation solutions can be avoided. Limit the time and/or distance a
student will be transported to schools in the opposite side of home zones.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Although there would be some operating cost reduction for
any shortened route, the goal primarily addresses a reduction in ride times by 10-20
minutes on far reaching bus runs.
3. Magnet & Attractor & ESE Programs Overlapping Nonadjacent Sub-Zones
Some schools are zone-wide or multi-zone schools. The multi-zone schools are structured to
satisfy certain geographical or school placement circumstances, and entail some inescapable
bus transportation between zones. Zone wide magnet or attractor programs serve an entire
zone, which may entail transportation from one extreme to the other as the schools are not
necessarily in the center of each of the three zones. For example, a Bokeelia (Pine Island)
student in West sub-zone 3 may select North Fort Myers Academy in West sub-zone 1. This
42 of 43
is a 25 mile and 35 minute bus run (assuming no other stops) when traffic is light. These
occurrences will be problematic with reducing bus run times.
We noted buses transporting ESE students across zones and crossing the Caloosahatchee
River bridges, apparently to deliver the student to a school to satisfy the student’s IEP.
(Examples: Allen Park 1008 & 2892). In an attempt to quantify the extent of such ESE
buses across zones, we asked how many ESE buses were crossing zones; the answer was
31. This is a daunting hurdle to achieving transportation and routing efficiency.
We mapped the students attending Buckingham and Royal Palm ESE schools; see Appendix
D. These charts clearly convey the transportation challenges for servicing county-wide
programs within ride time and cost expectations.
We recommend carving out nonadjacent sub-zone and across zone transportation and
managing it differently and consider it as “uncommon transportation”. Accept that this
child’s transportation will be exceptionally long and have the parents confirm that the choice
is made with the full knowledge of the unusually long ride. When monitoring service and
responding to community complaints or criticism, categorize these services as outside the
norm.
If a 65 passenger 10 ton school bus is not a practical mode of transportation, then pursue
another, more environmentally friendly, mode such as a taxi or private sedan or a call-a-ride
service.
FINDING: Educational program circumstances create “uncommon” transportation

runs; such runs may be the target of unfounded criticism and distract from normal
operations.
RECOMMENDATION: Segment “uncommon transportation” away from standard
transportation. Consider uncommon solutions for these transportation challenges,
such as alternative modes of transportation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Trading a bus for another means of transportation can
reduce costs. An ESE bus run serving two students each morning and afternoon
costs $48,000, or $24,000 per year per student. This is roughly $260 per day or
$130 per day per rider. Less expensive solutions are available, particularly when a
vehicle can transport multiple riders.
- - - - End of Report - - - -
43 of 43
Appendices
A
Florida Lee 10 County Hillsbor- Palm
FLDOE Q Link 2007-08 Totals County Average Brevard Broward Collier ough Orange Beach Pinellas Polk St. Lucie Seminole
Data
Area in Square Miles 54,252 804 1,122 1,018 1,208 2,026 1,051 908 1,974 280 1,875 573 308
Population per Square Mile 303 566 971 476 1,365 131 977 1,025 585 3,317 265 346 1,226
Paved Roads - Miles 86,424 4,181 2,966 2,690 4,752 1,125 4,702 3,706 3,297 3,480 3,169 1,325 1,410
Membership 2,645,424 80,541 122,157 74,364 258,746 42,709 193,062 174,033 170,877 107,882 94,165 40,342 65,390
Eligible Transported 1,015,234 43,800 45,802 28,095 75,277 16,904 73,256 68,422 53,786 44,233 46,587 24,434 27,024
Adjusted Transported Students 1,025,678 43,989 46,460 28,339 76,298 17,033 74,048 69,160 55,794 44,420 47,199 24,627 27,686
Hazardous Walkers 33,236 1,203 1,674 1,058 1,213 948 9,004 979 1,384 698 154 544 755
K-12 Riders with Disabilities 39,421 1,450 1,547 799 2,739 297 2,801 1,448 2,623 1,962 1,436 697 670
Non-Eligibles Transported 80,985 1,438 2,951 1,053 4,023 1,569 14,161 579 111 1,384 2,104 1,043 3,478
School Centers Served 81 129 89 216 52 209 183 164 131 137 43 61
Bus Stops 348,869 6,500 16,106 9,259 31,792 5,059 31,762 26,081 8,975 19,985 12,912 7,600 7,636
Transportation Personnel 1,035 1,030 578 1,851 456 1,482 1,760 1,136 982 913 516 625
Daily Buses in Inventory 727 688 492 1,250 277 1,022 938 831 718 550 408 396
Activity Buses 49 29 2 190 10 14 35 36 - - 1 -
Buses in Daily Service (FEFP) 15,899 765 668 457 1,225 282 978 1,038 644 704 547 399 404
Average Bus Occupancy 63.9 57.3 68.4 61.5 61.5 60.1 74.9 65.9 83.6 62.8 85.2 61.3 67.0
Total Miles (mils) 298,883 15,415 12,879 7,240 16,760 5,241 19,759 19,760 17,500 16,105 9,676 8,278 8,469
Total Costs (mils) $ 1,104,358 $ 58,802 $ 50,420 $ 24,858 $ 97,616 $ 23,569 $ 75,729 $ 81,088 $ 56,398 $ 53,625 $ 37,792 $ 27,224 $ 26,301
Less Bus Purchases (mils) $ 102,010 $ 9,123 $ 5,513 $ 2,413 $ 8,499 $ 1,070 $ 10,360 $ 13,208 $ 2,920 $ 7,414 $ 4,751 $ 3,474 $ 1,020
Operating Costs (mils) $ 1,002,348 $ 49,679 $ 44,907 $ 22,445 $ 89,117 $ 22,499 $ 65,370 $ 67,880 $ 53,478 $ 46,211 $ 33,040 $ 23,750 $ 25,281
Total Costs less Bus +10% (mils) $ 1,128,959 $ 56,260 $ 50,648 $ 26,379 $ 99,675 $ 24,927 $ 73,742 $ 76,699 $ 59,018 $ 52,358 $ 37,745 $ 27,181 $ 28,755
Funding (mils) $ 483,593 $ 20,434 $ 21,593 $ 12,598 $ 35,696 $ 7,428 $ 35,662 $ 30,182 $ 27,025 $ 20,645 $ 23,388 $ 10,999 $ 12,304
Total District Costs (mils) $ 23,495,656 $ 711,777 $ 1,067,471 $ 605,649 $ 2,319,530 $ 437,572 $ 1,632,940 $ 1,501,350 $ 1,541,864 $ 969,811 $ 804,885 $ 343,940 $ 517,165
Florida Lee 10 County Hillsbor- Palm

Efficiency Statistics Totals County Average Brevard Broward Collier ough Orange Beach Pinellas Polk St. Lucie Seminole
% Transported 38.4% 54.4% 37.5% 37.8% 29.1% 39.6% 37.9% 39.3% 31.5% 41.0% 49.5% 60.6% 41.3%
Transported per Bus Stop 2.9 6.7 2.8 3.0 2.4 3.3 2.3 2.6 6.0 2.2 3.6 3.2 3.5
Transported per Trans Position 42 44 49 41 37 49 39 47 45 51 47 43
Disability % of Transported 3.9% 3.3% 3.4% 2.8% 3.6% 1.8% 3.8% 2.1% 4.9% 4.4% 3.1% 2.9% 2.5%
Disability % of Membership 1.5% 1.8% 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% 0.7% 1.5% 0.8% 1.5% 1.8% 1.5% 1.7% 1.0%
Daily Service Buses per School 9.4 5.2 5.1 5.7 5.4 4.7 5.7 3.9 5.4 4.0 9.3 6.6
Miles Per Daily Bus Per Year 18,799 20,150 19,285 15,842 13,681 18,585 20,203 19,036 27,174 22,877 17,688 20,746 20,963
Funding Recovery % Adj Costs 42.8% 36.3% 42.6% 47.8% 35.8% 29.8% 48.4% 39.4% 45.8% 39.4% 62.0% 40.5% 42.8%
Transp Tot $ % of District Costs 4.7% 8.3% 4.7% 4.1% 4.2% 5.4% 4.6% 5.4% 3.7% 5.5% 4.7% 7.9% 5.1%
Trans Ops Cost % of District Costs 4.3% 7.0% 4.2% 3.7% 3.8% 5.1% 4.0% 4.5% 3.5% 4.8% 4.1% 6.9% 4.9%
Ops Cost Per Bus $ 63,045 $ 64,939 $ 67,246 $ 49,113 $ 72,748 $ 79,785 $ 66,840 $ 65,395 $ 83,040 $ 65,641 $ 60,403 $ 59,525 $ 62,577
Ops Cost Per Mile $ 3.35 $ 3.22 $ 3.49 $ 3.10 $ 5.32 $ 4.29 $ 3.31 $ 3.44 $ 3.06 $ 2.87 $ 3.41 $ 2.87 $ 2.99
Ops Cost Per Adj Transported $ 977 $ 1,129 $ 967 $ 792 $ 1,168 $ 1,321 $ 883 $ 981 $ 958 $ 1,040 $ 700 $ 964 $ 913
Net Cost per Transported $ 506 $ 665 $ 502 $ 347 $ 700 $ 885 $ 401 $ 545 $ 474 $ 576 $ 205 $ 518 $ 469
Cost per Member $ 379 $ 617 $ 368 $ 302 $ 344 $ 527 $ 339 $ 390 $ 313 $ 428 $ 351 $ 589 $ 387
Net Cost per Member $ 196 $ 363 $ 191 $ 132 $ 206 $ 353 $ 154 $ 217 $ 155 $ 237 $ 103 $ 316 $ 198
Transported per 10,000 Miles 34 29 36 39 46 33 37 35 32 28 49 30 33
best or most efficient

worst or least efficient
B
TransPar Group, Inc.Principal's Evaluation: What level does your school serve?
TransPar Group, Inc.Principal's Evaluation: Factor: Drivers' student management
techniques and following of procedures.
TransPar Group, Inc.Principal's Evaluation: Factor: Drivers' responsiveness to
complaints/issues.
TransPar Group, Inc.Principal's Evaluation: Factor: Transportation Department
responsiveness to complaints/issues.
TransPar Group, Inc.Principal's Evaluation: Factor: AM buses are timely.
TransPar Group, Inc.Principal's Evaluation: Factor: PM buses are timely.
TransPar Group, Inc.Principal's Evaluation: Factor: Courtesy of drivers.
TransPar Group, Inc.Principal's Evaluation: Factor: Appearance of vehicles.
TransPar Group, Inc.Principal's Evaluation: Factor: Appearance of drivers.
TransPar Group, Inc.Principal's Evaluation: Does your school have safe bus
loading/unloading areas?
TransPar Group, Inc.Principal's Evaluation: Does your school have school
personnel watch bus loading and unloading?
C
Illustration of Routes, Stops and Students
Routes 2631 & 2792 to Trafalgar MS
Illustration of Students riding Routes

2631 & 2792
2,631 (42)
2,792 (49)
Trafalgar
Illustration of Stops for routes
2631 & 2792
2,631 (21)
2,792 (20)
9:14 A.M. 9:14 A.M.

9:09 A.M.
9:03 A.M.
8:20 A.M.
9:12 A.M. 9:00 A.M.
8:22 A.M.
9:07 A.M. 9:06 A.M.
8:27 A.M. 9:10 A.M.
8:58 A.M.
8:25 A.M.
Gleason Pky
8:18 A.M. 8:38 A.M.
9:04 A.M.
SW 37th Ter
Skyline Blvd
8:41 A.M. 9:00 A.M.
8:35 A.M. 8:42 A.M.
8:54 A.M.
8:58 A.M.
Pelican Blvd
8:52 A.M.
8:55 A.M.
8:44 A.M.
8:49 A.M.
8:51 A.M.
8:53 A.M.
8:47 A.M.
8:41 8:39
A.M.A.M.
8:51 A.M.
Cape Coral Pky W

8:42 A.M. 8:45 A.M.
8:23 A.M.
8:48 A.M.
8:27 A.M.
8:35 A.M.
8:30 A.M.
8:32 A.M. El Dorado Pky W
Prepared 3/30/10
File: 2361_2792.wor
Routes 395 & 2791 to Trafalgar MS
_395_2791Stops by BUS_NUMBER
395 (12)
2,791 (14)
TRAFALGAR395_2791 by BUS_NUMBER
395 (27) 8:50 A.M.
2,791 (21)
8:48 A.M.
8:42 A.M.
8:55 A.M
8:31 A.M.
8:30 A.M.
8:45 A.M.9:10 9:08
A.M.A.M.
8:57 A.M
8:39 A.M.
8:42 A.M. 8:59 A.M.
8:26 A.M.
9:06 A.M.
8:36 A.M.
8:48 A.M. 8:24 A.M.
9:04 A.M.
9:05 A.M.
9:01 A.M.
8:53 A.M.
8:21 A.M.
8:56 A.M.
8:58 A.M.
Prepared 3/30/10
File: 395_2791.wor
LEHIGHSR385_2926_2917 by BUS_NUMBER
Illustration of Routes, Stops and Students 385 (55)
Routes 385, 2726 & 2917 to Lehigh Sr 2,726 (66)
2,917 (44)
_385_2726_2917Stops by BUS_NUMBER
6:25 A.M.
385 (10)
2,726 (11)
2,917 (11)
LeHigh
6:31 A.M.
6:24 A.M. 6:33 A.M.

6:13 A.M.
6:34 A.M.
6:14 A.M.
6:17 A.M. 6:21 A.M. 6:36 A.M.
6:29 A.M.
6:37 A.M.
6:40 A.M.
6:36 A.M. 6:38 A.M. 6:38 A.M.
6:43 A.M.
6:31 A.M. 6:28 A.M.
6:10 A.M.
6:22 A.M.
6:14 A.M.
Prepared 3/31/10
File: 385_2726_2917.wor
Routes 2657 & 2702 to Lehigh Sr
LEHIGHSR2657_2702 by BUS_NUMBER
2,657 (46)
2,702 (38)
6:09 A.M. _2657_2702amStops by BUS_NUMBER

6:06 A.M. 6:11 A.M. 2,657 (8)
2,702 (6)
6:13 A.M.
6:03 A.M.
6:15 A.M.
6:15 A.M.
6:06 A.M.
5:58 A.M. 6:05 A.M.
LeHig
Prepared 3/30/10
File: 2361_2792.wor
LEHIGHSR955_2704 by BUS_NUMBER
Illustration of Routes, Stops and Students 955 (62)
Routes 955 & 2704 to Lehigh Sr 2,704 (39)
_955_2704Stops by BUS_NUMBER
955 (8)
2,704 (7)
LeHigh
6:30 A.M.
6:32 A.M.
6:28 A.M. 6:18 A.M.
6:20 A.M.
6:27 A.M. 6:16 A.M.
6:13 A
6:38 A.M. 6:37 A.M. 6:30 A.M. 6:29 A.M. 6:27 A.M. 6:25 A.M.
6:44 A.M.
Prepared 3/31/10
File: 955_2704.wor
LEHIGHSR385_2926_2917 by BUS_NUMBER
Illustration of Route 2726, with half mile buffers 385 (55)
from 40th & Vera Ave 2,726 (66)
2,917 (44)
_385_2726_2917Stops by BUS_NUMBER
Clyde A
e Ave
a Ave
Unice
Brian A
a Ave
Yv
y Ave
Ave S Vera Ave
n Ave
32nd St SW
ora Ave N
Alan
Denis
32nd S
Ave
385 (10)
2,726 (11)
Rena Ave
2,917 (11)
Wanda Ave
Villa Ave
Bruce A
Xelda Ave S
Colin Ave
Alah Ave
Brian St 33rd St SW
Sara Ave
34th St SW 34th
ve
35th St SW
36th St SW
37th St SW
Sunshine Blvd
37th St
9th St SW
38th St SW
39th St
Ruth Ave
Me
ado 6:31 A.M.
wR 6:29 A.M. 40th St SW
Rd dN
Susan Ave N
Me 41st St SW
ado
wR 42nd St SW
d
43rd St
Sta
te R
oad
82
44th St SW 44
SW
St
45th St 45th St SW
rd
Ru
Me
43
ado
th
wA
Ln
ve 46th St SW
Oliver Ave
47th St SW 46th
Rd
Loraine
lub
Sally
nC
Gu
Prepared 3/31/10
File: 2726_40Vera.wor
Lee County School District
Illustration of Students attending Allen Park Elementary by Bus Assignment
AllenParkStudsAM by BUS_#
1008 (5)
1077 (39)
137 (6)
2650 (45)
2665 (30)
2666 (36)
2686 (4)
2691 (5)
27121 (5)
27123 (6)
27133 (4)
2875 (5)
2876 (2)
2880 (18)
2889 (2)
289 (92)
2892 (5)
290 (99)
2926 (7)
293 (7)
2969 (4)
393 (54)
394 (31)
Prepared 2/5/10
File: AllenPk.wor
Illustration of Students attending N Ft Myers Acadmy by Bus Assignment
N River Rd
80
Road
State
NFMSA_AMStudents by BUS_#
2614 (29)
2618 (54)
2622 (51)
27100 (56)
er
Ri v
2826 (52)
St 2827 (62)
at
ee
e 2828 (30)
Ro
d NW
tch
ad 2829 (27)
I sla nd R 2830 (61)
aha
Pine 82
Sta
2831 (70)
s
2833 (83)
te
loo County Road 884
2834 (61)
Hig
Ca
2835 (64)
h
P in
way
2836 (55)
2837 (58)
eI
St
9
2838 (80)
s la
3
r in
gf
nd
St
e ll
State Highway 865 at

ow
So
e
R
Rd
oa
und
d
82
Prepared 2/5/10
File: NFMA.wor
D
Illustration of Students attending Buckingham Exceptional Center
MIBuckinghamAMStuds by BUS_
117 (6)
126 (9)
127 (5)
130 (5)
140 (5)
238 (2)
N River Rd 264 (7)
266 (4)
8 0
Road 1,014 (9)
State 1,016 (11)
1,017 (5)
1,020 (11)
Buckingham Center 2,682 (6)
2,684 (2)
2,698 (8)
2,886 (7)
27,139 (5)
er
Ri v
St
at
ee
e
W Ro
tch
ad
aha
82
Sta
s
loo
te
County Road 884
Ca
Hig
h
way
9 3
State Highway 865 St
at
e
R
oa
d
82
Prepared 3/31/10
File: Buckingham.wor
Illustration of Students attending Royal Palm Exceptional Center
Royal Palm
Students by Bus #
1,042 (7)
1,047 (20)
2,005 (10)
2,812 (11)
2,919 (22)
2,920 (26)
2,924 (18)
N River Rd 2,925 (13)
Ro a d 80 2,926 (18)
State 27,141 (11)
er
Royal Palm
Ri v
St
at
ee
e
W Ro
Rd N
tch
d ad
Islan
Sta
Pine 82
aha
te
County Road 884
Hig
s
loo
P in
h
way
Ca
eI
s la
St
9
at
3
nd
State Highway 865 e

R
So
oa
d
u
82
nd
Prepared 4/25/2010
File: RoyalPalm.wor

TransPar Pupil Transportation Study 9-2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TransPar Pupil Transportation Study 9-2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discussion Draft - September 2010

Pupil Transportation Study

Lee County Public Schools Pupil Transportation Study

There were five primary areas of review:

Lee County Public Schools Pupil Transportation Study

Introduction and Study Overview 4

Section I: Financial Data and Analytics

Section II: Service, Operations and Organization

Section III: Fleet Management

Section IV: Bus Routing

Section V: Open Enrollment

Lee County Public Schools Pupil Transportation Study

Introduction and Study Overview

TransPar was engaged to perform a comprehensive review of the LCPS transportation

Section I: Financial Data and Analytics

A: Lee County Compared to Other Florida Counties

2007-08 FLDOE Quality Link Data

These additional details were noted:

B: System and Program Costs

Transportation Costs per Budget Overview Reports (in mils)

COMMENDATION: The financial data confirms cost reduction occurred in 2008-09

Calculated Transportation Cost Factors

Baseline Metrics for Transportation Cost Management

Section II: Service, Operations and Organization

A. Daily Transportation Service

1. Service Satisfaction: Principal Survey Findings

 Satisfied to very satisfied regarding Student Management Techniques and Following

 Additional driver training.

2. Dispatch & Daily Service

4. Activity and Charter Trips

B. Drivers & Attendants

1. Safety and Training

Pupil transportation and safety go hand in hand. Pupil transportation is regulated by

Training Pay: $290

Upon completion of training a New Hire Packet is provided to include an Employee

Yearly driver performance reviews are conducted for all drivers.

Driver Open Position Status

FINDING A: Lee County offers a competitive wage an enviable workplace and

3. Driver and Attendant Payroll

 UAR – Unassigned Relief Driver – guaranteed 7 hours.

Driver & Attendant Payroll Recap

4. Comments from Stewards

C. Operations Staffing - Other

1. Current Organizational Structure

Transportation is dispersed primarily among four compounds. The organization is lead by

Transportation Department Staffing Guidelines

Function: Staff: Route Bus

Maintenance (add spares to

(Source: TransPar Group, Inc. © 2010)

Utilizing the benchmarks TransPar ‘scaled-up’ the staffing requirements to reflect an

Staffing Benchmark Recap

COMMENDATION: The operations organization is staffed at a level consistent with

Our observations led us to conclude that a few positions or responsibilities might be

Section III: Fleet Management

In Service Fleet Buses

The bus fleet counts by model year are as follows:

The overall appearance of the fleet was satisfactory.

1. Mechanics and Repairs

Recap of Buses, Buses in Service & Technicians

 40 buses were removed from operation in fall 2009, reducing workloads.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The information was not of sufficient integrity to determine

Inspection Schedule vs Bus Count

 Technician’s salary increases are not tied to performance.

2. Inventory Control & Purchasing