Lawrence residents should get ready to spend more money on public transportation, even if the city's T merges with the heavily used Kansas University transit systems.
A new public transit report delivered to city commissioners Wednesday estimated that the city will need to spend at least an additional $500,000 per year on upgrading buses and a maintenance facility, regardless of whether the city merges its system with KU.
In reality, the city should consider spending much more on public transportation, according to the report. The study recommends a merger with KU and also recommends that the city spend an additional $1.2 million per year on public transit to help fund an extension of evening hours, improve frequency on several routes and create a new north-south route in the western part of the city.
In short, the wheels fell off any idea that a much talked about merger with KU would produce cost savings.
"Much of this seems to be pretty counterintuitive," City Commissioner David Schauner said of the report, noting that the recommended option would increase the city's financial commitment by 100 percent but would increase service by only 33 percent.
"I guess I would say, 'welcome to public transit,'" said Dan Boyle, the consultant who is studying the system for the city and KU.
City commissioners stopped short of committing to spend any additional dollars for public transportation, but did say they wanted to have conversations with KU administrators and student leaders to discuss a possible agreement that would merge the systems into a coordinated system overseen by a single advisory board. The board would be jointly controlled by city, university and student representatives. A merged system likely couldn't begin operating until at least 2008.
"I think we're going to have to compare these costs and look at what we can't do in other parts of City Hall if we fund it," Mayor Mike Amyx said. "It is going to be real important to see what we can't do or what we would have to put off."
A merged system also would require significant amounts of new money from KU student fees and from KU in general. Under the recommended option, the students - who run the heavily used KU on Wheels system - would increase their contributions from $1.07 million per year to $3.17 million per year. That would require a significant fee increase, but the new system would provide students with newer buses to replace their 22-year-old fleet. It also would allow all students to ride any KU or city bus for free. Currently, in addition to paying a student fee, they have to buy a bus pass for about $140 per year.
KU - which operates a separate park and ride bus system - would see its annual contribution increase from $300,000 per year to $1.42 million per year. Some of that new funding likely would be generated from an increase in parking permit rates. The university hopes expanded bus service will cut down on its needs to build expensive parking garages.
Boyle, the consultant, estimated that if the city follows the report's recommendations that ridership could increase by 35 percent. Ridership increases would primarily be driven by allowing all students to ride the bus for free and the addition of evening hours that would stretch to 11 p.m. for several routes in the city. Currently, the city bus system shuts down at 8 p.m.
The report, though, offered a lower cost option. The city still would need to increase its annual funding by $500,000. That's largely because the city's fleet of 10 buses is expected to reach the end of its useful life by the end of 2008 and will need to be replaced. The lower cost option would not create any new routes or hours. It would increase the frequency of some routes by reallocating resources from lesser-used routes in the city and increase the number of transfer points between KU buses and city buses.
The city receives a little less than $2 million per year in federal funding to help operate the T. Boyle said he expected a merged system would attract additional federal money, but he said the system would still need the new local dollars mentioned in the report.
The city primarily provides local funding for the T through a property tax. Fares, which currently are 50 cents per ride, provide about 5 percent of the system's operating revenue. The report recommends raising the fares to 75 cents in July 2007 and to $1 in July 2008, if the city provides the additional services recommended in the report.
Related stories
- 6News Video: Major improvements to the Lawrence bus service won't come without significant increases in funding
- See the executive summary the Lawrence Coordinated Public Transporation Development Plan put together for the city and Kansas University (.pdf)
- Consultant favors bus system merger
- City, KU consider merging busing
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
average (anonymous) says…
It wouldn't have cost a penny to start with a non-asinine system to begin with.
Let's see... what is the absolutely most popular route, serving the most car-less people and difficult to park locations? The route across KU. So, do you put twice the frequency of every other route on that route or half the frequency? Half, if you're the T planners.
Whoever scheduled the T failed their exams. There are only two good systems. "Grid", in the larger cities, has reasonably timed transfers at intersections throughout the city. "Pulse", as used by almost every smaller system has as many busses as possible at the central location at the same time for transfers.
The 'half every twenty' garbage downtown is a miserable system. Yesterday, I was at KU needed to get a car from a North Lawrence shop. I would have gladly taken the T... hell... would have paid several dollars for it. But, I was 20 or so minutes since the last KU bus. Thus I would have had to wait for an hour on campus, ten min. on the bus, twenty downtown, and five on the bus. It was faster to walk (and fall) 2.5 miles in ice pellets and slush than ride our transit system.
I lived and worked on the same side of the "split" for a while and rode the T plenty. I live on the wrong side now, and the system is basically unusable.
Solution? Find somewhere to put in a proper transfer point. It doesn't have to be right at 9th and Mass (though if the city could buy either empty field at 9th and NH, they would do fine. No more "waiting twenty", no more running two blocks to catch the bus you're trying to catch across the street that doesn't want to wait for you.
If money is available, run the KU route at least every cycle (maybe figure out a way to tap KU fees for it) and extend service a little later a night. Pie in the sky? A few additional runs corresponding to USD 497 start/stop times.
But, I've always thought that whoever designed the system we have now really wanted it to fail. The not insubstantial ridership we have is a testament to the need we have, not the quality of the system.
KS (anonymous) says…
My advice to the University of Kansas is to "run, not walk" away from this as fast as you can. Hang on to your wallet, folks. Somebody has to pay for this and it's not all coming from the students. BTW, college students just get up and running at about 11PM to go out and party. If you want them to ride the bus, you need to extend the hours to about 3 AM. Besides, they are like most Americans, they want the freedom of driving their own cars. Gosh, the lack of public transportation in Lawrence is how they convinced Mom and Dad that they should have a car here at school. Public transportation will never break even. I guess the answer is to make the problem bigger!
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
The city should kick this consultant to the curb and try to live within its means. Another half million a year is bull$hit.
cowboy (anonymous) says…
Surely you jest !
Why not just dig a huge hole and we can all drive by and throw dollars away into the big black hole.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
We could all pretend that gas won't be $5 a gallon within a couple of years, and we could assume that we'll have national leadership that remains in denial about global warming, and just sh*tcan the whole system.
And we can tell all our city residents who can't drive for whatever reason that they should just quit their jobs, get rid of their houses or apartments, and move into the Salvation Army.
Now that would be "progressive."
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
Bozo - we could pay for taxis to drive people around and come out ahead over what the T is costing us! It is an inefficient use of resources.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Issue taxi vouchers to those who need transportation; save millions.
none2 (anonymous) says…
The T is a miserable failure. Why didn't they start with smaller buses and work their way up until they had the ridership numbers to justify a fleet of full sized buses? I think this was someone's pet project that failed, and no one in power is willing to admit it. It would probably be cheaper to buy bicycles for those who don't have cars than to continue to support this monstrosity. It is a waste of tax payer's money as well as fuel.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
I guess as long as you don't actually think very far into the taxi plan, it sounds like a good idea.
The city currently runs 10 buses, and at peak periods, they have considerably more passengers than 10 taxis would hold. I'd guess it'd take at least 50 taxis to carry all of those passengers.
So the cost of running 50 vehicles with 50 drivers and no federal subsidies would mean that costs to the city would actually rise under such a system, and you would lose all progress that has been made in establishing the bus system here.
There's a difference between a simple plan, and a simplistic one.
Godot (anonymous) says…
One bus getting very poor gas mileage costs $200,000; 10 x $200,000 is $2,000,000.
One Toyota Matrix getting 35 MPG costs $15K. 50 x 15,000 = $750,000.
Besides, private companies would own and operate the taxis, and would simply charge the city per ride, eliminating maintenance, insurance, fuel, employees and benefits from the city budget.
Free enterprise steps in, charges the city a fair price, and the city is still millions ahead while implementing a more efficient transport system more attune to Lawrence than the large, basically empty, buses trolling around looking for passengers.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
A taxi could also be a nine to twelve passenger van.
hawkbygod (anonymous) says…
$1.07 million per year to $3.17 million per year in Student Fees
$300,000 per year to $1.4 million per year in University Contribution
Lets see, we pay more and we give up total control over our bus system to bail out the City's terrible system. Thanks but no thanks City of Lawrence. KU on Wheels should continue fulfilling its mission - Moving Students between their homes and Campus.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Besides, private companies would own and operate the taxis, and would simply charge the city per ride, eliminating maintenance, insurance, fuel, employees and benefits from the city budget."
Uh-- do you really believe that there would be no connection between fares charged to the city and the expenses involved in providing the service?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"These buses make me sick to my stomach when I get behind one...the poisons that they produce is gawd awful!"
Those would be the University buses, not the city buses.
Godot (anonymous) says…
What was I thinking? Not Toyota Matrix; Scion XB - the tonka toys that have lots of room and are easy to get in and out of.
Bozo, there is no connection between fares and expense the way it is now. The only way the city can increase ridership is to give rides for free. That means that the need actually has to be enticed.
The cost of the city paying even an inflated price per ride to a privately owned taxi system would be a fraction of what the city has been advised to spend by this consultant; and it would be way more cool.
I
estespark (anonymous) says…
"Fares, which currently are 50 cents per ride, provide about 5 percent of the system's operating revenue."
The transit system in St. Louis, which is heavily utilized by a transit captive market and includes light rail had 43% of its operating expenses paid by fares in 2005.
I believe the fare structure is essentially $1.50 a ride and $50 for a monthly pass. There are provisions for employer discounts, students, seniors and the severely economically disadvantaged.
merrill (anonymous) says…
It takes a while to discover where frequency needs an increase.
Bigger commercial type vehicles have far greater life cycles than van type vehicles.
Residents do want the bus to run later so some will probaly run until 11PM.
Apparently when gas $3.00 per gallon a significant increase in ridership was the order of the day. Price is inching back up. If @ 3.00 a gallon commuters realized the bus was a good option why not do it often.
Do a bus date with your lover of choice. Do a bike/bus date and ride your bikes home after beer/wine and/or dinner or perhaps after a movie. No doubt about it a bus could improve the quality of life.
Mom and Dad children enjoy bus rides so why not take a ride around town all for their enjoyment. Ride the bus to the Art Center or to the park.
jrlii (anonymous) says…
The simple fact is that bus systems are transportation of last resort: They are so incredibly inconvenient walking is a reasonable alternative.
I've used public transportation in Boston and London and liked the service, but that was with grade-separated rail. Trains ran every FIVE minutes.
Face it: Lawrence doesn't have the population density to make fixed route public transportation functional.
A call for service system would be much cheaper and more functional.
jafs (anonymous) says…
The current public transit system is completely unacceptable! Even before I was aware that fares only account for 5% of the total cost, I thought the system sucked. Now, I am convinced of it - and the idea that we should spend millions to increase ridership by offering students free rides is absurd! In addition, the buses are extremely inefficient - I believe they get fewer than 10mpg - and are not environmentally friendly. Also, the schedules and routes are not well-designed. Who's terrible idea was this? A good public transit system would include well-designed routes and schedules (thus increasing ridership), pay for more of it's operating costs with fares, and be more environmentally friendly (especially in a town like Lawrence). Also, I notice that property taxes, which can be increased without discussion or debate, are paying for the system. Something's wrong here.
JOEHAWK (anonymous) says…
Please take the 500k and put it toward improving sports facilities for our youth. That way the money would serve thousands of kids vs. the few hundred riders the T has.
This reminds me of the old joke about the US agriculture agent found crying at his desk. When asked why he was crying, he said "my farmer died and they fired me".
Just substitute bus driver and rider for agent and farmer.
I've never seen more than 3 people on a bus at any one time.
KS (anonymous) says…
Well, the vote is in. Get rid of the "T". Boy, would I love to be standing outside today waiting for a bus to be late.
lawrencian (anonymous) says…
You know, I own that Toyota Matrix, and if the city buses, which do go by my house in North Lawrence, could actually get me to work (on campus) on time, I would rather ride it than have to drive. But until they revamp route 8, I'll be driving -- I don't get paid to be at work an hour early (7), and don't get to show up at 8:15, either. Now that the 'T' is here, it won't be going away, so I think investing a little to make it the most useful, efficient system possible is not such a terrible idea!
kshiker (anonymous) says…
This is just another non-essential city service that no one uses, but everyone who pays our extraordinarily high property taxes are forced to subsidize it. Maybe we wouldn't have to drive our vehicles all the way across town if you would let us have some retail near our homes!
For those who actually do use the service, here is a bright idea. How about we require the actual users of the system to pay a fee which will actually cover at least 50% of the operating costs of the service instead of making the 95% of the people in the city who don't use the service pay 95% of the cost??? Just a thought.
Please feel free to ridicule this suggestion bozo! I love your insightful, biting commentary on life as a hippie in Lawrence.
dviper (anonymous) says…
Schauner and the PLC (Pathetic Liberals & Communists) supporters have never seen a tax increase that they don't love. They love the entire tax base of the city and US taxpayers (federal money) subsidizing less than 1% of the Lawrence population to ride a bus. The city of Lawrence does not need a public transit system. The university does need one, and should run away from anything the city wants to do as fast as possible.
Posters blue73harley and Godot have got it right. We as a city can let private enterprise work to fill this WANT (not a need) by less than 1% of the population. Everyone would benefit, except the PLC crowd that wants more bloated government, more frivolous spending and higher taxes.
This is just another reason to add to the long list of reasons to vote the 3 PLC commissioners off the city commission in April.
cowboy (anonymous) says…
just for grins who paid for this consultant to construct this ridiculous report ?
Why not frame the debate into what changes need to be made to equipment / routing , that would make the operation cost effective. Take the recommendations and swallow the bitter pill .
Its costs me about 5% of what I make daily to get around so if the rate needs to jump to 2.00 per ride to cover costs so be it.
commuter (anonymous) says…
Merrill:
What dream land are you living in? I personally do not like riding a bus. My kids really do not enjoy it as much as you may think. Just because you and few your friends like it, doesn't mean everyone does.
Merrill trust me man lay off the pipe, if you stay on it you will start to look like Boog. Then you will only be allowed to ride your bike.
You must remember we live in kansas not New York, San Francisco, Chicago or Seattle. The traffic isn't as bad as is more high density areas.
My company has hired people from Chicago, New York and LA. I work in Topeka and these people move to Kansas City Metro area and just rave on how fast they get home now compared to where they used to live.
grimpeur (anonymous) says…
Apparently, the loud few here would continue to subsidize the most wasteful consumer of public resources of all: the single-occupancy motorist.
The amount spent pandering to the "needs" of the SOM
far,
far,
far outweigh the costs of public transportation. Space needed to store empty vehicles; another space for said vehicle at each retail establishment visited; wear and tear on the roads; time wasted sitting in traffic with other SOMs who are likewise complaining about how traffic volumes (artificially inflated by SOMs exercising their 'right' to drive, alone, every day, both ways) dictate that another street be widened, constructed, or reconstructed; apparently infinite appetite for petroleum; apparently infinite widening of rumps; amount spent on securing of resources overseas; messy oil alliances and puppet governments gone bad, and then requiring military solutions; pollution; lack of safe routes for students and employees (because no one bothered to look further than the "needs" of the SOM); unnecessary cars cluttering up residential neighborhoods near KU and LHS, with the attendant lunch trash and blocked driveways; able-bodied KU and LHS students and employees driving <1000 yards when they should be walking or biking, thereby artificially inflating demand for parking lots, garages and street repairs (just look at 1700-1900 Louisiana or the oversold KU permits); stupidity of oversize, gas-guzzling, street-busting vehicles; vicious circle of sense of entitlement to all these.
And so forth.
Public transit is a public benefit, especially for those of us who own (perhaps two) cars but who walk or bike and therefore are subsidizing the habitual laziness and inertia of those could, but refuse to:
consider alternatives to their car habit, such as walking, biking, or busing;
carpool;
live near work or work near home;
drive sensible vehicles;
plan better;
separate their identity from that of the car they drive (without their car, they're nothing);
realize they're part of the problem (but still criticize the solution).
If you're among these problem children, then look in the mirror before you complain about the relatively small cost of providing public transit, because you, not buses, are wasting the resources of this city.
And this nation.
bankboy119 (anonymous) says…
bozo, how can you say that the Ts are good for the air? They produce just as much pollution as the KU buses if not more. They are terrible. And there is no reason that the public transit system should not pay for itself. If it can't, then it is not an alternative that is worth investing in at this time.
madmax (anonymous) says…
I know........lets buy a bunch of brand new Buses that none will take, that way, they will always be new!
JOEHAWK (anonymous) says…
Grim,
What planet are you from? There are a million logical ideas, but if the people don't want to embrace them, you can't make them.
for example, I hate welfare programs. I think we should help people in need but not lazy people. The problem is that we create these programs and then we don't manage them well.
The T was the dream of a bunch of people who want to help poor people without transportation, help save the environment, etc. We allowed these idiots to run an economically unsustanable idea to benefit an extremely small percentage of the population past the city commission. Many of the idiots are in the city commission.
Vote them all out, our city commission should be voted out just like the republicans were. They've done a fiscally poor job, they have not addressed the needs of the majority, just the minority.
estespark (anonymous) says…
KU on Wheels has been run very successfully by Student Senate for a long, long time AND has more ridership than any other transit agency in KS. Leave it be.
If the City and campus bus systems are merged all buses will have to conform to ADA guidelines which will cause student fees to skyrocket and most likely lead to a property tax increase.
estespark (anonymous) says…
I wonder what the elected officials in Holcomb think of this study's recommendations? Have they weighed in as of yet?
Yeoman2 (anonymous) says…
I said junk the "T" two years ago. Spending public tax money so indigent people can have their bikes towed around town is a stupid waste of public funds. And the incredible waste of fuel to move empty vehicles over a "scheduled route" is madness. But with the current elected commission, such damned foolishness is the norm. (See the letter to whoever is planning the electric plant in western Kansas, claiming that this community is behind their distended oppositional views). But until the electorate wakes up and sees the criminality of these individuals, nothing will change. Hail Satan! He always seems to rule, eh??
Godot (anonymous) says…
Grimpeur has figured out the "right" way for all of us to live and is determined to force us to comply by taxing us to the point that we cannot afford to drive cars, or commute, and must live close to our jobs and ride public transportation (one of the causes of high taxation) to get there.
Kim Jong Il would love you, Grimpeur.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Dubya's vanity war in Iraq will cost you and everyone else in Lawrence enough in extra taxes to run the T for decades, just so you can continue to drive your car and smell only your own farts, Godot.
jafs (anonymous) says…
Grimpeur's idea rests on the assumption that public transportation is efficient and much-utilized. While I support that idea, the current system is not in line with that. The buses, as I mentioned, get in the neighborhood of 10mpg, are quite polluting, and are very underutilized, due to bad routes/schedules. Also, the recommended monetary increase is non-trivial, and would only improve ridership by allowing free rides to students, according to the article. This makes no sense to me.