NOTE: I wrote this article as a staff writer for The Daily Texan.The article originally published in May 2004.

Sixty-two University of Texas shuttle buses allegedly contain an electrical system defect that causes engine fires, which makes the buses “unreasonably dangerous and a threat to the safety of bus riders,” according to a recent lawsuit.

Multiple bus fires have caused some shuttle drivers and members of the group Students for a Fair and Safe Shuttle to question ATC/Vancom of Texas’ bus maintenance procedures.

“You are riding a ticking time bomb,” warns a brochure handed out in February to UT students by members of Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1549, which includes UT shuttle drivers and mechanics.

But officials from Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which owns the buses, said since learning about the alleged defect, they and ATC/Vancom have implemented procedures to prevent fires, and buses are safe for UT students to ride.

“We’re constantly looking at our service with safety in mind,” said Dottie Lancaster, contracted services coordinator for Capital Metro. “I ride UT shuttle buses on a daily basis, and I’m never concerned about my safety.”

ATC/Vancom General Manager Chadwick Reese deferred specific comments about the fires caused by the alleged electrical system defect to Capital Metro due to the pending litigation.

“Safety is a priority for us,” Reese said. “That’s it in a nutshell.”

Capital Metro filed suit this year against Gillig Corporation, the manufacturer of two UT shuttle buses that caught fire in January 2002.

Jimmie Russell, a UT shuttle driver, was driving one of the buses referenced in the lawsuit when it caught fire. He said he was on Loop 360 driving a route for the Austin Independent School District.

There were about six children riding the bus who noticed smoke coming inside the bus through the vents. Russell said he pulled over and evacuated the children and saw flames coming from the back of the bus.

“With the blaze like it was, it could have caught the tree on fire and house on fire,” Russell said. “Those buses burn like toilet paper. Once it starts it just goes up in flames.”

When the fire department finally extinguished the fire, the interior of the bus was ruined.

According to Russell, the plastic by the dashboard was melted by the intense heat.

Those involved in operating or maintaining the buses and various experts have been involved in investigations to determine the cause of the fires, said Bruce James, an attorney with Matthews and Branscomb who is representing Capital Metro in the case.

The investigation is ongoing, and James said he expects Gillig to perform its own investigation as well.

Capital Metro’s investigation found the “likely cause of the fire was an electrical short or overheating in one or more of the fuses or wiring connections located within or near the engine compartment of the bus,” according to the lawsuit.

The bus electrical system provides power to start the engine and keep the bus running.

The lawsuit says all the buses Capital Metro bought from Gillig have the alleged defect. Gillig buses account for 62 of the 87 total buses in the UT shuttle fleet, said Capital Metro spokeswoman Libba Letton.

Capital Metro’s analysis showed bolts on the buses’ electrical panels needed to be tightened to prevent the fires, according to a statement released when Capital Metro filed suit against Gillig. In April 2002, following Gillig’s recommendation, Capital Metro implemented a policy to check and tighten the bolts every 6,000 miles, the statement said.

The two bus fires referenced in the lawsuit are not the only occurrences of fires and problems related to overheating or buses’ electrical systems, according to ATC/Vancom maintenance records obtained by The Daily Texan.

In the five years’ worth of daily statistics, which do not include records for 2002, among Gillig-manufactured buses, there are eight references to fires, burnt buses or the fire suppression system. The records contain 13 references to buses overheating and seven references to electrical-related problems.

Capital Metro officials said they could not provide details of any problems on Gillig buses due to the pending litigation.

For buses not manufactured by Gillig, there are three references within the records to fires or burnt buses.

Problems referenced in the daily statistics do not always reflect actual diagnoses of the buses’ problems, Letton said. The daily statistics list buses that are out of service for any given day, she said, and buses are put in general categories to explain why they are not running.

For example, one of the buses not manufactured by Gillig was out of service on Feb. 2, 2001, with a description in the daily statistics of “heater core shooting fire.”

The actual problem was in the bus’s defroster motor, which made the motor spark, said Carl Woodby, director of vehicle maintenance for Capital Metro, after researching more detailed maintenance records. The detailed records did not reference a fire, he said, and the bus was back in service after ATC/Vancom made minor repairs.

In Gillig’s response to the lawsuit, the company denies any defect in the buses.

“Their findings are incorrect. The problem is a lack of maintenance,” said Gillig President Denny Howard. “With improved maintenance, I don’t think they have that problem any more.”

Howard said the company is confident in its position but said he could not elaborate due to the pending litigation.

An ATC/Vancom mechanic who wished to remain anonymous said the two bus fires referenced in the lawsuit occurred within one week of ATC/Vancom receiving the buses from Capital Metro.

“They were using [the two buses] before ATC even inspected them,” the mechanic said. “They just got them from Metro and started using them.”

The two bus fires prompted the investigation, lawsuit and Gillig’s instructions to inspect and tighten bolts on the electrical panel.

The mechanic said he thinks Capital Metro often gives ATC/Vancom the worst buses from its fleet, and ATC/Vancom commonly puts the buses into service without performing detailed inspections.

“Lots of times, we get [a bus] from Metro, and it’s not okay,” he said.

Woodby said Capital Metro decides which buses to send to ATC/Vancom based on the bus’s size, because the UT shuttle contract specifies only 40-foot buses may be used. ATC/Vancom usually gets buses that have been previously used by Capital Metro, he said.

Before a bus is transferred, Woodby said, representatives from Capital Metro and ATC/Vancom inspect the interior and exterior of the bus, and Capital Metro will repair any damage found. ATC/Vancom also inspects buses’ maintenance records before accepting them.

“We make sure it gets its scheduled maintenance,” Woodby said. “We wouldn’t send a bus over there that hadn’t had its maintenance.”

Norm Couture, president of ATU 1549, which includes both shuttle drivers and mechanics, said he thinks the fires on the Gillig buses are due to the alleged design defect, not faulty maintenance.

“If blame is to be laid, I don’t think the blame resides with our mechanics,” Couture said. “I don’t believe there’s a lack of training, caring or due diligence on the part of the mechanics.”

Although the lawsuit claims Gillig buses are unsafe as manufactured, UT shuttle riders do not need to be concerned, because Capital Metro and ATC/Vancom procedures make the buses safe, said Bruce James, an attorney with Matthews and Branscomb who is representing Capital Metro.

“We certainly are aware and have passed onto ATC whatever we’ve gotten from the manufacturer on how to decrease any risk of fires in these buses,” James said.

Frank Edwards, member of Students for a Fair and Safe Shuttle, said shuttle drivers have told him that problems on their buses go weeks without being repaired.

Edwards, a history and sociology junior, said because of such reports, he questions whether ATC/Vancom is diligently tightening the bolts on the electrical panels to prevent the fires.

Woodby, however, said a Capital Metro employee randomly inspects UT shuttles to ensure ATC/Vancom is properly maintaining the buses. The employee visits the ATC/Vancom maintenance facility nearly every day and performs complete inspections on buses chosen at random, he said.

During this procedure, officials do inspect the tightness of bolts on the electrical panel.

ATC/Vancom’s safety record this year has improved considerably over last year, said Dottie Lancaster, contracted services coordinator for Capital Metro. In March 2003, the company had 2.72 accidents per 100,000 miles driven, and in March 2004 the number dropped to 1.82, she said.

For the purpose of safety statistics, Lancaster said, any property damage or injury on a bus is considered an accident. Accidents include things like a bus’s mirror hitting an object, a car rear-ending a bus, as well as problems like bus fires.

Letton said considering that Capital Metro aims to have a ratio of 2.71 accidents per 100,000 miles, ATC/Vancom’s record is commendable.

Capital Metro’s lawsuit against Gillig is scheduled for trial in December. In the meantime, maintenance to the UT shuttle buses manufactured by Gillig seems to be reducing the risk of fire.

The anonymous ATC/Vancom mechanic said no fires have occurred as a result of the alleged electrical system defect since the company implemented the policy to check and tighten the bolts on the buses’ electrical panels every 6,000 miles.