Transportation: school vehicles; requirements for pupil transportation; modify. Amends sec. 10 of 1990 PA 187 (MCL 257.1810) & adds sec. 10b.
Senate Bill 467 would amend Michigan’s Pupil Transportation Act to tighten safety rules for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. It keeps the existing requirement that school buses meet federal motor vehicle safety standards and continues to prohibit most non-school buses with a seating capacity of 11 or more from being used for pupil transportation. The bill also preserves the ability to transport students with disabilities in mobile seating devices under applicable federal standards.
The bill’s main new provision would allow a school to contract with a public transit agency for pupil transportation only when no other suitable or economically viable option is available. Such contracts would have to include detailed safety, screening, and operational requirements, including route approval by the school, criminal history and fingerprint checks, driver age and driving-record standards, federal medical qualifications, compliance with corporal punishment and restraint rules, vehicle inspection verification, and reporting of costs, mileage, vehicle counts, and student counts. The bill also sets pickup and drop-off safety rules, including location restrictions, curbside positioning, and use of amber hazard lights.
SB 467 would amend MCL 257.1810 and add a new section 10b to the Pupil Transportation Act, creating a statutory framework for limited use of public transit agencies to transport pupils. It would impose new contractual and safety obligations on schools and transit agencies, and it would require schools to verify vehicle inspections and maintain specific contract terms before using transit vehicles for student transportation. The bill would also interact with other state laws and regulations governing school discipline, restraint, criminal background checks, driver qualifications, and vehicle safety standards.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a student-safety and transportation-oversight bill rather than a controversial policy expansion, with its emphasis on limiting transit use to situations where no other viable option exists and on imposing detailed safeguards.
The likely points of contention are the bill’s balance between flexibility and safety. Supporters would likely favor the ability to use public transit agencies when school buses are unavailable or too costly, while opponents may worry about student safety, background screening, driver qualifications, and whether public transit vehicles are appropriate for younger pupils. Another possible issue is administrative burden: schools would need to negotiate detailed contracts, verify inspections, and track costs, mileage, and passenger counts, which could be seen as necessary oversight or as added compliance requirements.