Owner pans tonight's proposed bus idling ban

This publicly owned bus enjoyed a lengthy idle last March while waiting for hockey players.
FILE PHOTO BY HAWES SPENCER

It's billed as a move for human health and the environment, that City Council may take advantage of a new state law that enables it to ban bus idling. However, one transportation company owner brands the proposed ordinance, which could hit bus operators with $50 fines for idling over 15 minutes, as potentially inequitable because it provides no escape clauses for private buses.

"It's tough enough to compete," says Dan Goff, who owns Old Dominion Charters, "but when they pass laws that exempt their own buses, that's not fair."

Goff, who became aware of the proposed ordinance via a call from a reporter, says that many citizens may not realize that the reason for the idling is usually climate-control–- that heating and cooling a bus takes a long time if the engine gets turned off.

"Would you want to get on a cold bus on a hot day or on a hot bus on a cold day?" asks Goff, who posted a lengthy critique of the enabling legislation

earlier this year in the public comment portion of a news site.

The proposed ordinance has no fine print, but the corresponding treatment for public buses–- i.e. the City's new "Idling Reduction Policy," which was enacted last September–- does.

Such policy says that school buses, for instance, will have no set limits, when "warmth of the bus is an issue," other than keeping idling to a "minimum."

Under threat of "disciplinary action," the policy allows public buses to idle for 15 minutes only on under-32-degree days or under other specific circumstances.

"I think their policy is well thought-out," says Goff. "The ordinance should reflect common sense instead of just having an outright ban."