Tesla granted a new interview to Sandy Munro, revealing more about future product plans.
Executives doubled down on Elon Musk’s promised timelines and plans during the chat.
This comes at a crucial time when Tesla can certainly use all the good news it can get.
Franz Von Holzhausen and Lars Moravy are among Tesla’s top brass—Von Holzhausen is the senior design exec, and Moravy serves as the VP of engineering. In other words, these two are practically walking encyclopedias of Tesla’s product plans. And now, they’ve decided to spill a bit more of the proverbial tea in a fresh interview with teardown expert Sandy Munro.
In this conversation, the pair delves into the challenges of developing and producing ambitious vehicles like the CyberCab and Robovan. Speaking of the small people mover, expect the CyberCab to continue its march toward a 2026 release date. Both Von Holzhausen and Moravy agreed that Tesla would manage to begin testing for Level 5 autonomy later this year too. Sure, those rideshare cars will use a real human backup working remotely but let’s see how it goes before we critique it.
CyberCab’s Surprising Range and Production Details
Moravy shared that the CyberCab will likely be powered by a battery pack smaller than 50 kWh, and still manage to deliver around 300 miles of “real-world” range. That would be impressive as most cars with that type of range currently have much larger battery packs. For instance, the Model 3 Long Range RWD uses a 79.7 kWh battery and has 363 miles of range.
The production side of things isn’t being left behind either. Moravy mentioned that Tesla will continue to lean heavily on its signature casting process too. The CyberCab will feature a large casting at both the front and rear, as well as door shell castings to help tie everything together. That aids in Tesla’s goal to cut costs and reduce complexity. Another move toward that goal is that the team isn’t going to paint the castings. They say they have corrosion under control so there’s no need.
Robovan Is Not Quite Ready for Prime Time
Switching gears to the Robovan, Von Holzhausen gave Sandy Munro a glimpse into the vehicle’s interior, though it seems Tesla’s still working through the details. The team has tried different configurations, but the one shown in the video features a 14-seat layout, which is a bit… ambitious. It’s easier to pick up on additional details in the light of day too. For instance, the seats look very wide compared to an everyday car.
While it’s safe to say the final design could shift quite a bit before the Robovan hits the streets (whenever that may be), this video provides an interesting peek into Tesla’s ongoing projects. And while Elon Musk is off doing, well, whatever it is he does remotely, Von Holzhausen and Moravy are still hard at work shaping the future of the brand.
Proposed legislation would penalize the Milwaukee Public Schools if the district cancels plans to place police officers inside school buildings. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
Republican lawmakers are proposing a law that would financially penalize the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) and the city of Milwaukee if they stop complying with a state law that requires police officers in schools.
The bill, coauthored by Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield) and Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), comes after months of noncompliance with state law by the school district. Wisconsin Act 12, which provided a boost in funding to local governments, included requirements that Milwaukee Public Schools place 25 school resource officers — sworn police officers assigned to schools.
The law took effect in 2023, and officers were supposed to be in MPS schools by Jan. 1, 2024, but the district missed the deadline. On Tuesday, the city and the school district voted to approve an agreement to install the officers in response to a lawsuit.
Donovan said during an Assembly Criminal Justice and Public Safety hearing Wednesday that it’s “unconscionable” the district took so long to follow through on the requirement.
“The biggest district, the one in my estimation that could benefit the most, has, along with the city, dragged their feet for 400 days. It’s absurd and the safety of our kids is at jeopardy,” Donovan said.
Citing a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report found MPS averaged 3,700 police calls each year over 11 years, Donovan said the calls were “pulling officers from street patrols to respond.” He added that “SROs trained specifically for school incidents can handle many of these situations quickly, leaving officers to stay in our communities.”
The school resource officer requirement was controversial when Act 12 was passed. Officers had not been stationed inside Milwaukee schools since 2016, and the district ended its contract with the Milwaukee Police Department in 2020 in response to student and community opposition to the practice. At Wednesday’s hearing, Wanggaard blamed the district’s contract cancellation on a “fit of anti-police bias.”
Many advocates opposed to police officers in schools have pointed to potential negative impacts.
A Brookings Institution report found that the presence of school resource officers has led to increases in use of suspension, expulsion, police referral and arrest, especially among Black students and students with disabilities.
The agreement that the Milwaukee Common Council and Milwaukee School Board both voted to approve Tuesday was in response to a lawsuit against the district.
In October 2023 the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) sued MPS and the city of Milwaukee on behalf of Charlene Abughrin, a parent in the district, arguing the district’s noncompliance presented a “substantial risk to her and her child’s safety.”
Last month a judge ordered the district and city to comply with the state law and instructed the district and the city to split the cost for the officers evenly.
According to the agreement, officers in schools will have to be properly vetted and required to attend state- and city-mandated training, including a 40-hour National Association of School Resource Officers course. The agreement also specifies that officers will not participate in enforcing MPS code of conduct violations and that school conduct violations and student discipline will remain the responsibility of school administrators, not police officers.
Despite the agreement, the bill’s authors said Wednesday that a law is needed to serve as an enforcement mechanism and address potential future noncompliance.
“If that agreement is terminated, this legislation provides a similar compliance framework to ensure that both remain in compliance with Act 12,” Donovan said. “To prevent the ongoing and future non-compliance, consequences must be in place.”
If the agreement is terminated, the bill would implement a timeline requiring a new agreement within 30 days, another 30 days for the city to certify with the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee that officers are trained and available. The district would then have 30 days to certify with the committee that officers are present in schools.
If there is noncompliance, 10% of the city’s shared revenue payment will be withheld by the state and 25% of the school district’s state aid payments would be withheld.
Under the bill, MPS would be responsible for paying 75% of the cost for the school officers program, while the city would be responsible for the remaining 25%.
Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) asked about the discrepancy between the 50-50 payment implemented by the judge and the one in the bill.
Wanggaard said that bill assigns a larger share of the cost to the school district because “it was MPS that made the schools less safe by not having officers in the school, not the city, and based on these factors and other conversations I’ve had, I believe MPS was the major cause of delaying returning officers to the schools.” However, he appeared open to amendments, noting that the bill is still pending.
MPS is opposed to the bill, in part because of the difference in how it apportions the cost.
The district said in written testimony that school officials have been working on getting a memorandum of understanding with the city for over a year, sought the selection and training of police officers, and worked to negotiate a fair apportionment. The statement noted that the district has no authority to train or hire officers.
The district statement endorsed a plan proposed by Gov. Tony Evers, which assigns 75% of the costs to the city and 25% to the district. The statement said that because “the school resource officers were part of a legislative deal negotiated without the participation of MPS and that provided hundreds of millions of dollars to the City of Milwaukee, the Governor’s proposal appears as the fairest.”
The district statement also called for the state to reimplement a law in the 2009 budget that allowed districts to use generated funds to “purchase school safety equipment, fund the compensation costs of security officers, or fund other expenditures consistent with its school safety plan.”
“Whatever the apportionment, there should be no debate that school safety costs be adequately funded,” the district statement said.
The Wisconsin Police Association and WILL support the bill, according to the state’s lobbying website.
With the increased usage of non-yellow vehicles transporting students, the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS) released a position paper that stated in no uncertain terms, vans and other alternative transportation vehicles should not be used in place of school buses.
“Using vehicles other than school buses compromises student safety and heightens the potential for disastrous crashes with student injuries and fatalities,” stated the guidance issued Wednesday. “Thus, alternative transportation should be avoided except when completely necessary to meet specific students’ school transportation needs and when proper oversight and safety regulations are established.”
Still, NASPDTS recognized that many school districts nationwide are actively using vans and alternative transportation services. NASDPTS said the the purpose of the document is to serve as a guide in response to the “ever-expanding” need for alternative transportation services for student populations and as a resource for districts looking to utilize non- yellow vehicles.
The paper referenced the congressional School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 [Title II – School Bus Safety of Public Law 93-492] of that resulted in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) issuance of safety standards that applied to all school buses built starting in April 1977. It also created regulations for school bus driver training and licensing to ensure that school buses would be a safer means of transportation than a standard passenger vehicle.
NASPDTS also quoted a 2002 NHTSA research document on School Bus Crashworthiness. “American students are nearly eight times safer riding in a school bus than with their own parents or guardians in cars. The fatality rate for school buses is only 0.2 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to 1.5 fatalities per 100 million VMT for cars,” the report reads in part.
NASDPTS listed multiple safety features of the yellow school bus, including its high visibility iconic yellow color, compartmentalization of students in padded and high seat backs, large vehicle size that reduces crash forces on passengers, emergency exits, rollover protection, child restraint systems, stop arms, and other FMVSS standards that increase the safety of students onboard the bus.
“According to NHTSA, these standards and regulations are why students are 70 times more likely to get to school safely when taking a school bus instead of a car,” stated the report, noting the safety records of school buses versus other vehicles. “The impressive safety standards indicate that the school bus should always be the first option for transporting students, with every effort to make that form of transportation occur.”
A definition of alternative transportation was “defined as the transportation of students in any vehicle that is not a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)-defined school bus, Multifunction School Activity Bus (MFSAB), Commercial Motor Coach, or Transit Bus defined by the Federal Transit administration (FTA).” The position paper noted that the increased demand for these van and passenger car vehicles is due in part to high demand for transporting students protected by McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act and students with disabilities who have individualized education programs, the ever-present driver shortage, and “less stringent” driver and vehicle requirements. To meet this demand, a growing market has emerged.
As also noted by the National Association for Pupil Transportation’s statement on this topic last year, NASDPTS expressed concern about the lack of safety requirements for alternative vehicles as well as the individuals driving them. These concerns include drivers not being required to possess a CDL, which could then enable them to bypass federally required criminal background checks, regular physical fitness examinations, and annual alcohol and drug testing, extensive training, certification and “continuous reviews for disqualifying driving infractions.”
Questions also arise such as are vans being serviced regularly? Are they outfitted with the latest safety equipment? Are they undergoing similar vehicle inspections as school buses?
The guidance for drivers of alternative transportation vehicles included recommended background checks, child protective clearances, emergency training procedures, vetted license and driving history credentials, annual training, drug and alcohol testing, regular physicals to ensure medical fitness to transport students, restriction of use of mobile devices, special training if transporting a student with an Individual Education Plan (IEP). Vehicles themselves should be equipped with signage to identify it as a student transportation vehicle, be regularly inspected to ensure proper functionality and safety and include necessary safety equipment.
Federal laws clarify that a vehicle transporting 11 or more persons, including the driver, is classified as a bus and then as a school bus, “if it is used, or intended for use, in transporting students to and from school or school-related activities.” The paper continued that federal law also prohibits school districts and county and state governments from renting, leasing or purchasing new 11-15 passenger vans that don’t meet FMVSS school bus or multifunction school activity bus standards for the purpose of transporting students to and from school or school related activities.
While the position paper looks to state and local government to regulate the use of a vehicle after its sold, it notes examples of van manufacturers providing written notification to their dealers on the prohibition of selling such vehicles to school districts. In some cases, a federal certification label of “Not School Bus” is affixed. NASDPTS also noted that this regulation does not currently extend to used vans.
The paper continued that vehicle dealers might be ignorant of these regulations or ignore them. Either way, a “non-conforming” full-sized van that has not been built to meet FMVSS school bus safety standards and is involved in a crash could leave the operating school district or transportation company liable for damages and could impact insurance coverage, depending on the policy. NASPDTS also noted that NHTSA has investigated and subsequently fined dealers that it found violated the law and sold vans to school districts, an action NASDPTS said it supports and encourages people to report sale or lease violations.
A letter from NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to chief state highway officials on Dec. 2, 2010, included observations on the lack of certain safety features on vans, as well as recommended alerts on safety related hazards to be sent to owners of passenger vans and vehicle inspectors.
“In addition, we would like to take this opportunity to remind all [state] commissioners that pre-primary, elementary and secondary schools should not use 12 or 15-passenger vans for transporting students because they do not provide the same level of safety as school buses meeting NHTSA’s safety standards,” the letter stated.
While NASDPTS recognized that a school bus may not always be the most feasible method of transportation, it emphasized the importance of preventing the use of non-conforming vans through strict state requirements that vans meet school bus structural and safety standards.
The NASDPTS paper included an analysis of state laws regarding the use of alternative vehicles. A survey to all 50 states asked if the state has “school transportation laws regarding the use of 12 and 15- passenger vans for travel to and from school?” Twelve states said no, with the rest saying yes. The survey also asked if there were state laws regarding the use of 12- and 15- passenger vans for travel to and from school-related events, to which 13 states said no.
NASDPTS added that states should “enact regulatory measures to enforce compliance with the revised statutes.” They also noted that school districts are sometimes unaware of these regulations and that a combined effort between “state and local student transportation officials, state associations, insurance companies, van manufacturers, automobile dealers, and rental car companies” to inform districts on laws regarding the purchase of vans to transport students as well as safety liabilities is recommended.
NASDPTS President Mike Stier thanked President-Elect Tyler Bryan and his committee for their extensive work on the paper.
A sample screenshot displays the type of real-time tracking data that Zonar Ground Traffic Control can provide student transporters, in this case using a van to pick up a student who is homeless. Photo provided by Zonar. Cover design by Kimber Horne
The first issue of 2025 highlights transporting students with special needs and disabilities. Read more about considerations of using non-yellow school bus vehicles, handling student behavior advice from TSD Conference speakers, how transportation can utilize Medicaid reimbursement, how to create a transportation plan for students with special needs and more! Also check out the 2024 TSD Conference Recap.
Atypical Student Transportation
Using non-school bus vehicles such as vans is nothing new but never so widespread, especially to address increasing rates of students being classified with disabilities and who are experiencing homelessness. Cost savings can be had, but at what price for safety?
Features
It’s All About Communication
TSD Conference attendees learn from experts on what students with disabilities are really saying when exhibiting behaviors on school buses.
Hurricane Response
Student transporters discuss how their operations were pressed into action by Hurricanes Helene and Milton as well as the lessons they learned for the next big storm.
TSD Conference Recap
See some of the action from the industry’s premier event for the transportation of students with disabilities and special needs. Read more about sessions throughout the magazine.
The yellow school bus might be the most iconic way for students to get to school but the industry is also increasingly utilizing alternative vehicles in circumstances where a traditional school bus may not be able or be the best option to accommodate the route or students.
“While it is always preferable that children ride on yellow school buses there are some areas and instances where this may not be possible,” reads a statement paper the National Association for Pupil Transportation (NAPT) released earlier this year and ahead of the National Congress on School Transportation in May. “In such situations, it is crucial that children are transported in the safest possible vehicles and driven by qualified, trained, and well-regulated drivers.”
The NAPT paper outlines the current emerging trend of alternative transportation and the association’s recommendations to student transporters who are using vehicles other than the school bus. It notes the ongoing shortage of school bus drivers is a contributing factor to the increase of use of alternative vehicles.
“As this trend has increased, NAPT believes it is important to clarify appropriate and necessary steps to ensure the safety of our school children when such services are utilized by school districts,” the statement says.
It comes as no surprise that safety is the top priority and consideration, which NAPT says includes driver qualifications, vehicle integrity and safety features. The statement recognizes that alternative transportation service providers have taken the initiative to set safety standards and that the NAPT has worked directly with some of these providers.
“Our purpose and interest is to create clearer and nationally applicable standards that can be employed by school districts to make appropriate decisions to meet their needs,” emphasizes the statement. “We intend to involve the alternate provider community in our efforts as partners and collaborators.”
School Transportation News discussed the statement with Peter Mannella, who is NAPT’s public policy and communications liaison. Mannella recently spoke at the Transporting Students with Disabilities and Special Needs Conference in November, leading a panel discussion on alternative transportation services for students with special needs. He mentioned the statement and pointed attendees to it on the NAPT website. He also said the NAPT took no position in publishing the paper.
Instead, he told STN that NAPT intentionally did not set standards but chose “to identify those elements or factors for which school districts should have standards, especially in the absence of national standards or even consistent state-level standards. Clearly, standard setting rests with federal and/or state agencies with input from professional associations like NAPT and our partners.”
During the Nov. 11 TSD Conference panel discussion, Mannella noted that the industry recognizes that alternative transportation can be a good thing “but it would be better if we could shape it differently, if we could put some restrictions or regulations or requirements around it to help us be sure we’re doing the right thing.
The NAPT statement lists what it describes as “clear and reasonable criteria” to help districts ensure that the alternative transportation service providers are not only able to meet the transportation needs of the students but that they are meeting the same or similar safety standards that are required of the yellow school bus and its drivers.
“We are seeing diverse approaches to these services including entry into the market of major private school bus contractors, parental arrangements and more,” Mannella said, which he added also emphasizes the need for consistent federal and state regulations.
He also advised districts to involve legal departments and insurance providers to make sure liability considerations are addressed.
“These arrangements are legal and financial transactions and need to be handled and managed accordingly,” he said. “It is incumbent on a school district to take reasonable care and precautions in ensuring the safety of their students and to not compromise on safety in those relationships, and that of necessity applies to alternate transportation providers.”
NAPT said alternative transportation providers should ensure that all their drivers have a current license appropriate to the vehicle they are using and have systems in place to require drivers undergo criminal background checks and random drug and alcohol testing. Training is also crucial, including training for emergency situations, loading and unloading, student behavior management, bullying and bullying prevention. Transporting students with special needs will also require drivers to be aware of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) requirements and provisions that need to be made.
The statement continues that vehicle safety requirements should include “adequate signage to ensure that the public is aware that the vehicle is transporting children, and that caution is needed.” There should also be frequent maintenance inspections to ensure that the vehicle is roadworthy and safe, in accordance with state requirements.
NAPT also lists evacuation training protocol, enforcement of vehicle capacity, and ensuring that safety equipment outlined in the IEP is onboard, which can include child restraint safety systems, capacity to secure wheelchairs or medical equipment, as factors that should be present.
“The board and our CEO/Executive Director [Molly McGee Hewitt] have determined that it is important for NAPT to offer members resources to help them in the performance of their duties for their schools and the children they serve. We believe this statement sets the table for further conversations and advocacy,” Mannella added
NAPT concludes the papers aying that it will continue to collaborate with state associations, business partners, the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, and the National School Transportation Association to continue the discussion, moving towards consistent, safety-centered federal/ state guidelines and legislations regarding alternative transportation.
WOBURN, Mass. — Today, Beacon Mobility announced TransAction Associates and Corporate Shuttles, a Woburn-based transportation industry leader for the public and private sectors, as the newest member of the Beacon Mobility family. TransAction Associates and Corporate Shuttles have been serving communities, businesses, and institutions across the Commonwealth for nearly 35 years with a focus on consulting, planning, and managing commuter programs and providing high-quality transportation services. With this acquisition, Beacon Mobility now serves its transportation customers through 27 companies in 25 states nationwide, including six companies in Massachusetts.
“TransAction Associates and Corporate Shuttles have been faithfully serving Massachusetts communities for over three decades and we are pleased to welcome them to our growing family of transportation companies,” said David A. Duke, Chief Development Officer for Beacon Mobility. “This organization not only provides a host of important services to the public and private sectors, but also has a dynamic and talented consulting team with expertise in data analytics and transportation efficiencies. We look forward to working with their teams during the transition as we strive to deliver comprehensive and essential transportation services to the Commonwealth and New England.”
“Since 1990, thanks to our incredible employees, we have delivered safe, reliable, and innovative transportation options to a variety of public and private sector clients,” said Cindy Frené, President and Founder of TransAction Associates and Corporate Shuttles. “We are proud of what we have accomplished and look forward to the new opportunities that will be realized as part of the Beacon Mobility family.”
“TransAction’s talented team is ready to support and strengthen transportation initiatives across different sectors,” said Michele Brooks of TransAction Associates and Corporate Shuttles. “As we continue to grow our operations and portfolio, we are thrilled to join the Beacon Mobility team and look forward to our future partnership.”
Founded in 1990, TransAction Associates and Corporate Shuttles operate out of their facility in Woburn and offers a range of shuttle services and transportation programs. TransAction currently provides shuttle services for a variety of clients, that include municipalities, hospitals, developers, universities, and employers. The managed services and consulting options can collect and analyze data, research and evaluate options for clients, and make recommendations on implementation.
The TransAction Associates and Corporate Shuttles team is comprised of nearly 130 highly skilled employees and operates a fleet of more than 100 vehicles ranging from vans to shuttle buses and includes accessible services.
About TransAction Associates and Corporate Shuttles
TransAction has been an industry leader and a trusted name in transportation for nearly 35 years. TransAction Associates focuses on consulting, transportation planning, and managing commuter programs. The TransAction Corporate Shuttles division officially spun off in 1995 to provide reasonably priced, high-quality transportation services with an emphasis on safety. Working with TransAction means clients get an experienced leadership team committed to delivering a standard of excellence on every project from planning to marketing to operations. To learn more, visit: https://www.transactiontransportation.com
About Beacon Mobility
Beacon Mobility is a growing family of transportation companies committed to serving the diverse needs of their customers. Now operating 27 local brands in 25 states, their experienced, compassionate, and dedicated team takes pride in their ability to create customized, mobility-based solutions that empower people to get where they need to go. To learn more, visit: https://gobeacon.com/
Login
