Bus fare? That'll be one can
It's a chance to save 75 cents and make a difference at the same time: on Thursday, riders can take The T for a fare of one canned food item instead of the normal 75 cents. Enlarge video
Reader poll
Public Transportation
- City staff report on public transit
- Letter to the Editor: T efficiency (08-12-07)
- T spared cuts, at others' expense (08-08-07)
- City may reverse course on cuts to T (08-07-07)
- Letter to the Editor: Save the T (08-07-07)
- City's T service marks 8.6 percent ridership increase (04-21-07)
- City leaders propose fare increase for T system (04-12-07)
- City considers raising T fees, tightening para-transit rules (02-22-07)
Major service cuts to the T, the city's public transportation system, once again are building steam.
City staff members are conceding that service cuts of 30 percent to 50 percent may be needed in 2009 and beyond to keep the T financially viable during tight budget times.
"This could be very, very painful," Cliff Galante, the city's public transit administrator, said of possible reductions in routes or service hours.
No decision on whether to cut service to the T has been made and likely won't until sometime in mid-2008. But commissioners at their meeting tonight are expected to open the door for the largest cutbacks the 6-year-old system has experienced.
Commissioners are scheduled to give staff members approval to start the process to find a contractor to run the T beginning in 2009. The city is issuing the request for proposals with Kansas University in an effort to find one contractor that can run both the city and KU bus systems. But as part of that request for proposals, the city is requiring bidders to provide three separate price proposals: one to keep the system operating at its current level of service; another to cut service hours by 30 percent; and another that would cut service by 50 percent.
Some city commissioners said such large cuts, or perhaps eliminating the service, will have to be considered in the face of tight budget times at City Hall.
"The first thing we have to decide is whether we can afford the service at all," City Commissioner Mike Amyx said.
Any cuts to the service will be met with opposition. City Commissioner Boog Highberger said he would fight to keep current service levels, even if it required additional city spending.
"As a community, we need to be willing to pay for public transit," Highberger said. "As we look at a future where fuel is going to be more expensive, I think public transit is going to become even more important."
Galante said it was nearly certain that the city's cost to run the T would increase significantly unless service cuts are made. Some city leaders have held out hope that combining forces with KU would result in cost savings. Galante thinks that is highly unlikely in the short term.
That's in part because the city's current public transit contract is a bit of a sweetheart deal. The city's diesel costs are capped at $1.62 per gallon, even though diesel fuel now is nearly twice that amount. Galante said any future contract wouldn't shield the city from fuel increases. The transit system uses about 170,000 gallons of fuel each year.
Another factor is the city's current bus maintenance facility likely will need to be expanded or relocated to serve both KU and city buses for the long term.
Galante said it wasn't yet known what changes would have to be made to the T system if the city opted for either the 30 percent or 50 percent reduction in services. He said the cuts could involve a reduction in service hours and the elimination of some routes.
"What I could guarantee you is there would be a lot fewer buses running on the street," Galante said.
To put the potential cuts in perspective, city commissioners last summer contemplated cutting service by about 15 percent in an effort to shore up a sagging budget. Those cuts, which ultimately were rejected after members of the public objected, would have closed the T at 6 p.m. instead of 8 p.m.
City Commissioner Mike Dever cast one of the key votes to increase the city's property tax rate in order to avoid cuts to the T last summer. He said he wasn't sure he was willing to do that again.
"My commitment was to maintain the level of service until we can determine what we can afford as a community," Dever said.
Commissioners meet at 6:35 p.m. tonight at City Hall, Sixth and Massachusetts streets.
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.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
KS (anonymous) says…
Hippies, you better unite again. Another cause. Just before Christmas, too.
cowboy (anonymous) says…
Get these buses out of the neighborhoods and service the major east / west and north south arteries. This has been poorly conceived from day one
LogicMan (anonymous) says…
"Get these buses out of the neighborhoods and service the major east / west and north south arteries."
Ditto. Only Iowa, 6th, Mass, and 23rd -- to the major employment, shopping, and apartment areas on them.
Oracle_of_Rhode (anonymous) says…
Let them eat Deciphera!
average (anonymous) says…
I've never been on a T by myself. I've been on some with 15 passengers, though never full-full.
The whole system was designed to fail from the outset. The 'staggered pulse' downtown (waiting 20 minutes each way) and the very-rare bus on the route that would capture the most car-free and parking-discouraged population (KU campus) are signs of a designer who wanted the bus to fail. The fact that these things never changed is a sign that those who wanted it to fail are still in power. If we don't want to do better, admit it and give up.
deskboy04 (anonymous) says…
The four people that ride the T will be upset by this.
Wilbur_Nether (anonymous) says…
It's easy to cut services like this, because those riders who use it for convenience/to avoid driving/etc. have other options. Those riders who don't have difficulty advocating for their own needs. If the cuts go as deep as these predictions, the more humane solution would be to simply stop pretending and eliminate the service altogether. An enlightened community, though, would rally to the T and require the Commission keep it...and increase coverage.
werekoala (anonymous) says…
If they were really interested in saving/upgrading the T, they would be gathering the information as to how many passengers/hour ride each bus. That could be very enlightening, because while I don't doubt that members of this forum HAVE seen semi-full buses, I personally never have.
So if we have to make cuts, the obvious place to do so would be on the buses/routes that are not being filled. The real reason we don't I suspect, is that if it came out that for long periods of the day there are few or no people making use of this service.
After all, 421,864 rides a year sounds good until you realize you have to divide that number by 365 (1156 rides/day), consider that most of those will be round-trip (578 rides/day). Then consider there are, what, 8 buses? That's 72 people each bus is servicing each day.
You don't need a full size bus, operating full time, to get 72 people around town. I think it would be cheaper to give these people taxi vouchers than paying to run multiple buses 14 hours straight every single day.
If we are going to have the bus system, make it more adaptable - maybe a petition process where if people can collect enough signatures to get from point A to point B at time C, the system would do it. And 15 stops in a row at the same time and place where no one is there, don't stop there any more! And concentrate of getting from centers of lower-income housing to centers of employment and shopping. And maybe a late-night run for non-students to major housing centers.
In closing, let me say that I think the concept of public transit is an important one, but the system as it currently runs is a huge misallocation of resources, and given the city's budget woes, it is an unsustainable one.
toefungus (anonymous) says…
Yes!!
JOEHAWK (anonymous) says…
Doesn't the word "service" mean you are actually providing one? If people don't ride the T, then there is no "service" to cut, just M-T buses driving around.
Either ride the damn thing or get rid of it. The T is not even close to being viable. I'd like a service that shovels my driveway and mows my grass. However I don't think the less fortunate people in town would appreciate paying for that that. Well I don't appreciate paying for a bus service that is not viable. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the need for a service for people to get around town, but this service doesn't work. Try again.
nobody1793 (anonymous) says…
Perhaps we could scrap the bus system in lieu of a Lawrence Bullet-train system: Just picture it, Mass St. to Wakarusa in 5.4 seconds. I'd totally ride that. We could even connect it to the KC "Funkhouser Xprezz".
pilch (anonymous) says…
It would be cheaper just to give out taxi vouchers than to keep this thing going.
nugget (anonymous) says…
How will I live without that routine ear splitting roar as another T rounds--make that lumbers--around the corner near my home, empty, as usual? I'm all for public transportation, if it's needed. The simple fact is, the route I'm on, no one is riding. I know two people that use the route on occasion. They even giggle about it. "No, not many folks use it" my neighbor says. When will supporters face up to the fact the system is grossly over-built? They're employing buses as if this were Philadelphia or D.C. Driving around a bus that has probably 24 seats with two people inside (on a good route) makes no sense.
I don't get it. A normal four passenger automobile would serve many of these routes.
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
As I understand it, the original concept was built on a grant, which was poorly managed from the start. No further funds were pursued to maintain the T and I'm sure no real route studies were done. I've always held that the T was put in place to placate us "hippies", "left-leaning lunatic fringe", "tree-huggers" and others (as the anonymous posters are so willing to point out). It was also designed to fail from the start: the routes were poorly designed; there was no coordination with the KU bus system because of local politics; and the system was poorly promoted by the city rather than being built up.
Disregarding what the anonymous posters sarcastically write, the fact of the matter is that the T cannot survive without major overhaul. It is a drain on the city's resources and will become a greater drain in the future. In the near term, the only thing that can be done is to decrease the services. In all probability though Lawrence will lose the T and with it any form of public transportaion. This, I believe, has been the goal of the City Commission since the T was started.
Granted, I like my car as much as the next person, but if giving the chance my wife and I walk or take the T. I know the city will discontinue the T, which is a loss. We're still within walking distance of the grocery and downtown, and we can still walk so we're not impacted as much. However, there are some who will be impacted, even if they're only the "one or two riders" cited by the anonymous posters. This is an unfortunate loss for the city, which has greater implications than many realize or are willing to admit.
As a final note, two additional reasons the T failed and almost any public transportation will fail in Lawrence is because of our sprawl development style and the car culture in which we live. Enough has been said about both of these though.
/********/
(I'm me, who are you hiding behind your hood of anonymity?)
deskboy04 (anonymous) says…
It doesn't reduce oil consumption if no one rides on it. No one rides it. I don't care what their figures say...the busses are always empty, or close to it, when I see them.
nekansan (anonymous) says…
Reality_Check, I'd love to see you support the claim that the T reduces oil consumption. Large buses driving at far less than full capacity for over 12 hours/day does not sound very fuel efficient to me. Do you have hard data to support that? If you use the numbers in the story 170,000 gallons to provide 421,864 rides works out to about .4 gallons/ride. Even an Hummer could drive across town in Lawrence on .4 gallons of gas. Sounds like the most environmentally responsible thing to do is shut it down now and give everyone an H2.
justsomewench (anonymous) says…
how about having employers contract with the T to make rounds prior to and just after shifts. my guess is that a fair number of people that work in east hills business park would be impacted if that route were to suffer.
they could sell the concept as an employer's contribution to the community and to the environment. it may even increase ridership if employers contracted to share in the expense in exchange for services that benefited their shift schedules (including 3rd shift).
that may be too logical, though.
cerberuspuppy (anonymous) says…
I've just about had it with this town, and this is a great example of why.
It's perfectly obvious that Lawrence needs some kind of public transit. Ask some of the city's biggest employers, like Wal Mart or NCS. Or any manager of a restaurant, especially fast food. But, yeah, who cares about those losers, huh? I guess "these people" as you call them, just want a handout so they can get to their lousy jobs.
And no, the SLT, even when we do finally get it pushed through, isn't going to solve all of our traffic problems. The main drags can't really be widened any more, and if we sprawl out much more, we'll be in Topeka.
It's clear that consolidating the two different bus systems could make the whole thing much more efficient. But it's also pretty obvious that the T was designed to fail, and not just from the way the routes are set up. If they really wanted to salvage it, wouldn't they be talking about streamlining the routes? Or advertising revenue? Every other city bus I've ever seen has ads on the sides, and for good reason. Or maybe even attempts to increase ridership? Crazy, huh?
I'm also sick of the smug, snide, spiteful attitude from the "yuppies" on this issue. I'm so sorry the bus is taking up all that space and crowding your Ford Exploder, which is carrying... only two people...
As for our inept and corrupt "leaders", we don't "find" them, we just keep re-electing the same idiots over and over again until they have a lock on the Commission. That much is our own fault.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
Bring in some German transit experts to redesign the system, then have the City staff and run it rather than contracting it out. It should be possible to get from anywhere to anywhere 24/7 in less than an hour.
LogicMan (anonymous) says…
"TWO people?"
The driver, and the person at the other end of the cell phone. :-)
matahari (anonymous) says…
more people will be riding it as the price of gas increases, and it will, and they will
Wilbur_Nether (anonymous) says…
werekoala wrote "...let me say that I think the concept of public transit is an important one...."
That comment seems disingenuous to me.
MattressMan (anonymous) says…
Anybody ever been to Longmont? I've never used their public buses but their system did catch my attention when driving into town. First thing I noticed were park and ride facilities before even reaching the city limits. It is interesting how different places make it work. Even though they are part of the rtd kind of looks like they at least thought out their routes etc.
http://www.rtd-denver.com/SpecialRide...
doc1 (anonymous) says…
Deskboy. I think they have five riders now. Get your facts straight. Haha Just kidding.
Kontum1972 (anonymous) says…
hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa.....the CC..hahaha!
lawrencechick (anonymous) says…
Can we just cut the bus size? Why did we ever think we would need the same size buses that Kansas City and Topeka use?
BanjoBoy (anonymous) says…
Nobody rides the bus
Nobody rides the bus
And another one stops
And another one stops
And another one stops at the light
Hey, nobody's gonna sit by you
Nobody rides the bus
break it down
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…
Those people who say that nobody rides the buses don't ride the buses. I have tried to look into the buses when I drive, and unless I want to have a wreck, there's no way I can see that much. I can at times see one side, but if there are people on the other side, you wouldn't be able to see them. When I ride the bus occasionally I will be the only one on it, until we make stops again, and by the time we get downtown there are several people on it.
I do agree the routes should be changed to the main arteries, north, south, east, west that run more often. The routes now are inconvenient.
Most posters who want to get rid of the buses, also argue in favor of the SLT, because they keep telling us that Lawrence isn't a small town anymore, and we need more roads. But cities have mass transit, so why shouldn't we? Are we a city or not? Quit contradicting yourselves.
justforfun (anonymous) says…
WHAT!!! No inflated #'s of how many people use the MT. This is the way Boob fights for it time and time again. Oh wait a minute our commisioners are tired of lying to us.HA!
George_Braziller (anonymous) says…
I've been on every form of public transportation in 17 different countries and countless major cities and never have had a problem figuring out the times and routes even if I didn't speak the language -- but I find the T-maps and schedules extremely confusing and poorly designed. They are not user friendly at all.
none2 (anonymous) says…
dorothyhr says...
"Those people who say that nobody rides the buses don't ride the buses. I have tried to look into the buses when I drive, and unless I want to have a wreck, there's no way I can see that much..."
---------------
Just how fast are you going when you see a bus? Unless you are speeding or have a really low vehicle such as a Corvette, you can see all the way through the bus. They have windows all the way around.
The problem with the buses is that they have all these huge buses that are way under utilized. Why didn't they stick to small vans and then grow as the demand grew? Also, why didn't the city support where the demand was? I'm specifically talking about the JO that takes people from Lawrence to Johnson County. That is a successful route that the city was too stingy to support. They could save more money by simply giving away bicycles to those that needed transportation than to keep these empty monstrosities running.
FYI, I am NOT for the SLT on 32nd street. It seems stupid to make a new road when they could just widen 31st or just make the road near Well's Overlook the route to take to K-10.
none2 (anonymous) says…
Anonymous user
cerberuspuppy (Anonymous) says:
"I've just about had it with this town, and this is a great example of why.
It's perfectly obvious that Lawrence needs some kind of public transit. Ask some of the city's biggest employers, like Wal Mart or NCS. Or any manager of a restaurant, especially fast food. But, yeah, who cares about those losers, huh? I guess "these people" as you call them, just want a handout so they can get to their lousy jobs..."
--------------------
Oh yes, back in the 80's and 90's, we had fast food workers, Wal-Mart workers (oh yes, and Kmart & Gibson's workers back then too) passed out on the sidewalks from their long journeys to their employers. In the winter several were frozen to the sidewalk until the spring thaw came. Those that tried to bike usually died of heart attacks before they reached their destination from the stress of pedaling. The unemployment rate was much higher back then because people simply didn't have a job to go to on their block.
Thank goodness for the T, it saved countless lives and caused the unemployment rate to plummet in Lawrence. Now we simply need to go one step further. We need to have the city provide motorized electronic chairs so that we don't have to walk a step once we leave our dwelling places. It might not be good for the shoe industry, but at least we will all know that the city cares for us because they make sure we don't have to waste our energy on self-locomotion as that is SO old fashion.
George_Braziller (anonymous) says…
Small vans that are accessible to all users required by the ADA for public transportation don't come with a small price tag. A full conversion with a lowered floor and a ramp runs about $60,000 for ONE vehicle. And that's just for a mini-van. They are also not designed for long-term use. A 16 passenger runs about $125,000. The city was money ahead buying the full-sized buses.
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
Let's see, what sort of comments do we have above?
Hmm, it looks like the anonymous kooks outnumber those offering suggestions. Yet, that's typical for almost every subject.
The city has several options that I see.
First it can join with the KU bus system under one contractor. That was discussed briefly in the article. The cost will be higher of course, but so is everything else.
Second it can cut back routes and possibly times of service during the day. This would lessen the impact on those who do ride the T.
Third, it can cut the size of the busses. However the cost factor involved with that option might be prohibitive.
Any combination of the above.
cerberuspuppy (Anonymous) made several good suggestions. Each one is viable. Read his/her post.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/dec...
The only problem is that I don't think the CC will even approach those.
/***********/
MatressMan (Anonymous) writes about Longmont (that's in Colorado, to the west of Kansas). "First thing I noticed were park and ride facilities before even reaching the city limits."
Park-and-rides are all up and down I5 also MM. They make sense. In fact, Haskell could make a bit of revenue by charging people to park next to the stadium while they road the bus to JOCO and into KC.
/***********/
werekoala (Anonymous) . Good suggestions. Good post.
/***************/
northtown (Anonymous) writes ...
"I walk,and i get from North lawrence and home faster than i can ride the bus.I have tested the stupid thing.To many stops,to much waiting on nobody to get on,and i was the only person on the bus!!"
I agree with you, the route through North Lawrence is terrible. Did you ever recommend a chnage to the route?
/**********/
As a final note, I really wonder if the majority of the anonymous kooks above have ever ridden the T. On second thought, they probably haven't.
/***************/
(I'm me. Who are you behind your anonymous hood?)
asiansensation (anonymous) says…
Try riding the number 8 in the afternoon. That'll answer if you need it or not. That thing is full it seems like all the time.
Godot (anonymous) says…
The city should replace the buses with a few Scions and have them run only on the major thoroughfares.
justfornow (anonymous) says…
Since the City Government seems to be in competition with legitimate businesses in town (Golf course), why don't we have 2 or 3 bus stops in each neighborhood and start busing the kids to/from school each day on the T. The school district can pay a fee for each kid, also somehow incorporate KU into the deal, the buses would be full and the T would be saved along with teaching a new generation the positives of Public Transportation. I grew up in east Lawrence(Kennedy area) and would walk to central jr high every day , would have loved to get on a warm bus instead. Sorry Laidlaw
none2 (anonymous) says…
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says:
"Let's see, what sort of comments do we have above?
Hmm, it looks like the anonymous kooks outnumber those offering suggestions..."
--
It is obviously you have to stoop to name calling with those that disagree agree with you because you are on the loosing end of a debate over an expensive city service for which the majority of residents get little in return.
I also think it is amusing that people like yourself that support such large public expenditures will on one hand whine about people who drive SUV's and yet defend the city having full sized buses that are practically empty.
I would call that a double standard. (FYI, I don't have an SUV.)
Before you want everybody to continue to pay for your pet projects, I think you need to consider that people do have legs. Public transportation obviously is important to the frail elderly and disabled, and I seriously doubt you would get anybody begrudging those sectors of the community. Realize that there WERE programs in place for that segment even BEFORE the "T" even existed.
This town has been spread out for quite a while, not just the last six or so years that we have had the T. I have biked several times from North Lawrence to places as far away as Home Depot. I suppose I should complain that the city didn't pick me up at my door and take me to wherever I want to go, but I don't because I'm able bodied.
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
none2 (Anonymous)
You're right, I did allow myself to be drawn into the ad hominem attacks. I try not to let that happen. Sorry about that. However, you should realize that at least I acknowledge writing and being accountable for that statement. I don't post anonymously.
You write that I'm on the losing end of a debate. If you re-read my post heyond the first paragraph you'll see that I acknowledge the loss of the T as a fait accompli. I'm not debating that, just stating the obvious.
I aagree that the city's sprawl development style has been going on for a long time. I grew up here and have watched it happen, so I do know how long it's been going on, and like you I've walked or biked over a large part of the city. I'm simply saying the sprawl is of the reasons for the T's failure.
Read today's paper (20 Dec 2007) and you'll find a letter to the editor offering one solution to cutting expenditures by cutting back on Eagle Bend, possibly discontinuing the city's subsidizing of Eagle Bend all together. The T is not the only place that that can be cut. Here's an example of a proposal that could help alleviate the city's expenditures.
I commend you for biking around town, it is a long way from North Lawrence to Home Depot. Well done.
/************/
(I'm me. who are you behind your hood of anonymity?)
Wilbur_Nether (anonymous) says…
Sorry, Ralph, but facts and sensible thought only confuses most of us around here. You're right on (nearly) all counts. But it doesn't make a whit of difference--many posters on these threads don't let reality get in the way of our opinions.
cityengineer (anonymous) says…
The city is using a contractor from back east somewhere that is making a killing off it's own employees. The current contractor has major problems keeping help, as can be observed by the constant ads they run each week in the employment classifieds. The employees voted in a union a few years ago that has done little for the employees, as the transit drivers in Lawrence are the lowest paid in nearly a 150 mile radius. You get what you pay for, and by the looks of many of the transit drivers and by the level of service, Lawrence is getting seriously ripped-off. Pay better wages and keep better people. Get rid of the rude and sloppy drivers, and put professionals behind the wheel. Also, the busses are CRAP! I see the transit and KU busses broke down all the time. Maybe the city should work together with KU to organize one single system, boot that crappy union out of the way, and run the transit system like a company and make some money instead of handing out huge contracts to minority owned companies who take the biggest percentage of revenues and keep for themselves. Talk about a sweetheart deal for the current contractor. They (the contractor) whine how they aren't making any money, but I can promise you for certain that if they weren't, they wouldn't be interested in contracting with Lawrence or any other city to begin with. They treat thier employees like crap, and that's exactly what they get in return. I say we scrap'em and start over with our own, right here at home. Keep the money in Lawrence!
cerberuspuppy (anonymous) says…
Let me get this straight- the same CC that can't find the funds for the T is subsidising a golf course? Why am I not surprised?
I guess they need some place to work out their shady deals, and smoke-filled rooms are harder to come by with the smoking ban.
Oh, yeah, didn't they also want a shiny new library, just because Topeka got one? And didn't they cave on the new Wal Mart? Probably without even requiring them to actually pay taxes. Such bold leadership, always looking for new ways to screw everyone equally.
cerberuspuppy (anonymous) says…
As for the hours, let's be honest. Many people who ride the T are not working 9-5, Mon-Fri. They work all kinds of different hours, and often on Sundays if they can make other arrangemnents. And many riders either can't afford a car or can't afford a decent one; I for one would like to see fewer rusted muffler-less clunkers on the streets.
And there is a need for this service. Just because the need isn't being served well doesn't mean it's not there. I'm sorry if you don't think that need is worth a small increase in taxes. I disagree.
I may not be an expert on the whole situation, but at least I don't say "I'm not using it, therefore it's worthless". I hardly ever see more than two people in an SUV, but that doesn't mean they're never full. I don't have any kids, but I still believe in the necessity of supporting public education. I don't have a car, but I still see the necessity of maintaining the roads.
Nor am I inventing things out of whole cloth, or jumping to ridiculous conclusions about socialist slippery slopes. I could just as easily (and more credibly) raise the specter of $5/gallon gas or LA-style traffic jams on 23rd street.
But for now, gas and land are still cheap. So let's keep sprawlin' and guzzlin'!