Archive for Friday, August 8, 2008
Leader of the T taking job in Las Vegas
The administrator of 'The T' is off to a bigger, brighter city and leaving the bus system at a time when it's future is in doubt.
August 8, 2008
Advertisement
The leader of the city's public transit system is leaving his post later this month.
Cliff Galante, the city's public transit administrator since 2005, has taken a job to manage the fixed route bus operations for the city of Las Vegas and surrounding communities, according to a press release issued by Lawrence City Hall Friday morning.
Galante's last day on the job for Lawrence will be Aug. 22.
The city won't immediately start a search for a new transit administrator. The remaining members of the city's transit staff and members of the city manager's office will assume Galante's responsibilities on a temporary basis.
The future of the city's transit system has been questioned during this summer's budget process. The system is facing a $1 million operating shortfall in 2009, and city commissioners have pulled all property tax funding for the transit system from the 2009 budget. Instead, they are asking voters on Nov. 4 to approve a two-tenths of a cent sales tax to fund transit operations.
In a prepared statement, Galante said he was moving on for career advancement.
"The opportunity to work with a regional system in the country's fastest growing city is truly the major leagues in my profession, and an opportunity to move to the next level in transit," Galante said.
More like this
- Lawrence hires transit administrator May 24, 2005
- Use of city buses down 72 comments / July 20, 2007
- 'T' ridership on the rise 43 comments / June 22, 2006
- CIty of Lawrence hires new transit administrator 8 comments / April 24, 2009
- City considers raising T fees, tightening para-transit rules 58 comments / February 22, 2007
Top ads RSS
- Quiet revolution taking place in America November 25, 2009 · 47 comments
- Blog: How Has Obama's Stimulus Helped You? November 21, 2009 · 23 comments
- Dropping home values may not accurately reflect market November 25, 2009 · 12 comments
- Turbine manufacturer passes on Lawrence site November 24, 2009 · 45 comments
- Blog: Ode To Your Protection Set To Holiday Songs November 24, 2009 · 10 comments
- Lawrence men charged in recent auto burglaries October 8, 2008 · 18 comments
- On the street: Is Thanksgiving your favorite holiday? November 25, 2009 · 20 comments
- Stay or leave? It's business as usual for Mangino in wake of probe November 25, 2009 · 15 comments
- Lambert performance causes stir November 25, 2009 · 13 comments
- AD should go November 24, 2009 · 56 comments
- Lawrence likely to land distribution center November 24, 2009
- Dropping home values may not accurately reflect market November 25, 2009
- Budget cuts lead to plans to close 18 National Guard armories November 25, 2009
- Haskell freshman dies in Montana jail November 24, 2009
- Message warns students at Perry-Lecompton not to attend class today April 20, 2007
- KU students develop marketing plans for Freedom's Frontier National Heritage Area November 24, 2009
- Stay or leave? It's business as usual for Mangino in wake of probe November 25, 2009
- Cornish hens: a special little meal November 25, 2009
- Federal government seeking easement on 1 million acres of Flint Hills November 25, 2009
- Former OU basketball coach Billy Tubbs to speak at Lawrence Chamber of Commerce meeting November 24, 2009
8 August 2008
at 10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pace (Anonymous) says…
Maybe we can get the “schedule and routes” adjusted to the people rather than the downtown shops desire for the 20 to 40 minute shopping spree. A lot of riders have real problems with what should be a thirty minute ride becoming an an hour and a half because of rigid and bizarre scheduling and routes. Maybe, just maybe the next one will think service not ego.
8 August 2008
at 10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yellowdot99 (Anonymous) says…
Come on, the guy jumped ship because the T is dying a slow death, and so no one will take over the job, and schedules will stay the same mess as they are now.
8 August 2008
at 10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
somebodynew (Anonymous) says…
He obviously sees “the writing on the wall” and is getting out while the getting is good. It is unfortuate about the timing because yellowdot is correct, no one will change anything because of the vote coming up.While not a supporter of the mT, I do think if it had been designed and run better it might have worked. At this point I think it just needs to go away (except for the paraT).
8 August 2008
at 10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alm77 (Anonymous) says…
I think they should find someone who has worked in the system in Ames, IA. I've heard outstanding things about their system, and it's a city/college effort.
8 August 2008
at 10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Ah, yes!The rats begin to leave the sinking ship!They will take their plague elsewhere.
8 August 2008
at 10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
It'll be easier for him to “gamble” with everyone's money in Vegas. Sorry. I just had to say it.
8 August 2008
at 10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LogicMan (Anonymous) says…
“He obviously sees “the writing on the wall” and is getting out while the getting is good.”Very true. And this now gives the majority of the CC the “cover” for shutting down the T right now (but not the essential parts of the T Lift, hopefully). No need for the vote anymore.
8 August 2008
at 10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
no doubt he's moving on to a bigger and better job…good for him…
8 August 2008
at 11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
logicsound04well said…
8 August 2008
at 11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yellowdot99 (Anonymous) says…
Let the city give the problem of the T to one of the High Shcool classes to work out all the problems. Instead of paid they get fail or passing grades. They learn about city goverment, how to design a business the correct way and the city will get a good bus system. Its a win win for all and a good description on a class full of good, smart, kids future resumes.
8 August 2008
at 11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
vavs0929 (Anonymous) says…
yep yep.. the ONLY problem I have with the T is that my ride to work should only be on 1 bus for maybe 30 min at most… instead I have to use 3 busses and take an hour. Boo. All becuase I have to go all the way downtown to come back up 6th st.
8 August 2008
at 11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Marion…”The rats begin to leave the sinking ship!They will take their plague elsewhere”Funny.
8 August 2008
at 11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
screedposter…”Best. Headline. Ever”I think the LJWorld hires the same people that write fortunes in forturne cookies to write headlines to all their articles.
8 August 2008
at 11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
yellowdot99 (Anonymous) says:”Let the city give the problem of the T to one of the High Shcool (sic) classes to work out all the problems. Instead of paid they get fail or passing grades.”If it were all that easy even you could do it.
8 August 2008
at 12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OnlyTheOne (Anonymous) says…
Rats, sinking the deserted ship.With the “temporary” reassignment of his duties to City staff there's no way any route or operation changes that might save the T will be made.Thanks bobble-heads!
8 August 2008
at 12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
His moving on to the Vegas job likely has nothing to do with the problems of public transit here in Lawrence. Las Vegas is at least 10 times as big as Lawrence, and the paycheck, while likely not 10 times greater, is almost certainly much higher than he could ever expect to get here.
8 August 2008
at 12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
“Olympic Taint”I don't get it…could someone explain the humor?
8 August 2008
at 1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mikeyj (Anonymous) says…
“Olympic Taint”http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=taint
8 August 2008
at 1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Zype (Anonymous) says…
Satirical: When thinking “Olympic Taint” to yourself, try to think in a cruder, more perverted way.You'll probably see the humor then.
8 August 2008
at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Thanks for the clarification mikeyj and Zype
8 August 2008
at 2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
music_luvr (Anonymous) says…
I know Cliff and his family. Nobody in this city wants the T to succeed more than he does. Nobody. So crucify him all you want. But this city and the people in it set this system up to fail.And now you get your wish. I'm just glad that this good and honorable man found a job before he lost his because the city cares more about re-election and this stupid comment board than it does about its poor and elderly.Good luck, Cliff. I know it has to be better there than it was here.
8 August 2008
at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…
Good night mT.
8 August 2008
at 3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
srj (Anonymous) says…
If your job was decided on a vote, would you send out job applications before the vote too? I sure would.
8 August 2008
at 3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
music_luvr (Anonymous) says:”I know Cliff and his family. Nobody in this city wants the T to succeed more than he does. Nobody. So crucify him all you want. But this city and the people in it set this system up to fail.”––––––––––- It is failing because it was design by few for the few.”And now you get your wish. I'm just glad that this good and honorable man found a job before he lost his because the city cares more about re-election and this stupid comment board than it does about its poor and elderly.”–––––––––––- Yep, all of us who don't support the T are evil, vile people who steal money from the poor, beat up babies and children, trip the elderly on the sidewalk, and wheel the handicap into the streets with on going traffic. We all drive SUV's and are out to mow down anybody who gets in our way — unless they are standing in a holy pot hole. On the other hand, there are the few, the proud, the blessed who selflessly think only of others 24x7: the poor, the elderly, the children, the disabled. These saints know exactly what tax payers should fund at any cost: An eternal government-funded, wet nurse who can provide warmth and nourishment to each and every citizen. Why eat, walk, run, bike, work, or think for yourself. Uncle Sam may want US, but WE want and are entitled to Aunt Samantha. She will carry us, feed us, wipe us, and do everything for us since we cannot do anything for ourselves.
8 August 2008
at 3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
A good, adequate and well-functioning public transit system has nothing to do with nanny-statism, none2. It has everything to do with helping others help themselves (by getting to their jobs, for instance) and recognizing that the single-occupancy-vehicle cult has long since outlived our ability to afford it.
8 August 2008
at 3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
unite2revolt (Anonymous) says…
I love how this town chews up and spits out the young talented people that it claims it so desperately wants.Glad to hear you are moving on to greener pastures. In typical Lawrence fashion I am sure you will be replaced by some local who knows nothing about busses or public admininstration and has to hire extra assistants to do your old job.
8 August 2008
at 3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:A good, adequate and well-functioning public transit system has nothing to do with nanny-statism, none2. It has everything to do with helping others help themselves (by getting to their jobs, for instance) and recognizing that the single-occupancy-vehicle cult has long since outlived our ability to afford it.––––––––––––Oh really? Then why do T proponents thank that the only entity that can provide this service is the government? That is about nanny state. (Perhaps organizations like Freenet should be disbanded until the government takes on that service?) Likewise why are bikes, scooters, etc not considered a valid option? For instance, many years ago Lawrence (KU) had a white bike program to help people get around.The old adage is give someone a fish and they eat for a day, teach them to fish and they eat for a lifetime. That is about helping people help themselves. It never meant that you should teach them to fish every day for the rest of their lives and eventually, maybe, they can feed themselves. With such an attitude people never get to grow up and take responsibility.
8 August 2008
at 5:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KUnlv13 (Anonymous) says…
As a former Lawrencian & Jayhawk, and now LasVegas resident, I need to refute naysayyers that feel we are inheriting a doofus in this gentleman. With access to a plethora of PublicAdmin grads in the surrounding area, I am confidant in and welcome Mr. Galante to assist the development of one of the nation's most efficiently ran public trans. systems that has no assistance from Subway or Lightrail (and as earlier mentioned within one of the nation's fastest growing cities ). Regularly on-time and clean, and a new double-decker styled fleet to keep you damn tourists gambling is quite a feat for a state currently with one of the nation's most fiscally disastorous governors, Jim Gibbons.As for Lawrence, I visit regularly and wish the best to all of you. Please keep it positive, as it is that attitude amongst citizens that I truly miss most about the MidWest.
8 August 2008
at 6:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Then why do T proponents thank that the only entity that can provide this service is the government?”Why? Because there are some things that government is just better able to provide. (I know that's heresy among adherents of the anti-gummint of any kind religion.) Nowhere in the world do public transit systems make a “profit.” And I would take your demands of free-market purity a lot more seriously if you demanded that each and every subsidy to single-occupancy vehicles were removed, as well.”That is about nanny state.”One of the silliest refrains ever to emanate from the wingnut echo chamber.”(Perhaps organizations like Freenet should be disbanded until the government takes on that service?)”What does Freenet have to do with public transit? But while you're changing the subject, if government is going to take anything over, it should be companies like Sunflower and ATT, who both have government-sanctioned monopolies, but are largely unaccountable to anyone.”Likewise why are bikes, scooters, etc not considered a valid option?”Yep, they are an option. But in case you hadn't noticed, they aren't the same as a bus, which isn't the same as a car. Wouldn't it be nice if we had all of those options?
8 August 2008
at 6:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dandelion (Anonymous) says…
Good riddance. How did he get a job in a big city? He did a really lousy job here. His mommy must have known someone. There will soon be no bus system in Vegas after this guy gets done with them.
8 August 2008
at 6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
xbusguy (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: “Then why do T proponents thank that the only entity that can provide this service is the government?”Why? Because there are some things that government is just better able to provide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!From a former bus contractor…. learn the facts
8 August 2008
at 6:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dandelion (Anonymous) says…
music_luvr (Anonymous) says:I know Cliff and his family. Nobody in this city wants the T to succeed more than he does. Nobody. So crucify him all you want. But this city and the people in it set this system up to fail.And now you get your wish. I'm just glad that this good and honorable man found a job before he lost his because the city cares more about re-election and this stupid comment board than it does about its poor and elderly.Good luck, Cliff. I know it has to be better there than it was here.If he was so good, why didn't he try and change the routes? Why isn't there advertising on the buses? There are ads all over the KU buses. They paid to put their ads there. Every bus system I've ever used in cities have ads all over, including the bus stops. I'm not sure what he did at his job, except make sure it failed, probably like our city leaders told him to. Maybe he'll have to work for a living in Vegas. Either that or they are looking for a way to get rid of their bus system. He wouldn't last long in real business, that's sure.
8 August 2008
at 6:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
KUnlv13 (Anonymous) says: “As for Lawrence, I visit regularly and wish the best to all of you. Please keep it positive, as it is that attitude amongst citizens that I truly miss most about the MidWest.”I am positive that Las Vegas has the population density and the economic resources to support mass transit and that Lawrence doesn't.
8 August 2008
at 7:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
toe (Anonymous) says…
Maybe he was “T”eed off.
8 August 2008
at 10:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
If he happens in Vegas!Hope he stays in Vegas!Good luck!
8 August 2008
at 10:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…
Read headline. Immediately thought “Alternate Headline should be:rats…then rushed to see if someone had also thought….–Marion (Marion Lynn) says: Ah, yes!The rats begin to leave the sinking ship!They will take their plague elsewhere.===Darn you Marion!!!:)–-Taint? Who in the world thought of that one. Is there an origin for that?
8 August 2008
at 11:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hollaback (Anonymous) says…
Wow…the failure isn't the T administrator's fault…iits the knuckleheads who wouldn't let him do what he needed to do to run the service. No money for new buses, no money for better frequency so real peopke could ride, no money for better maintenance, no money. Ask the commissioners just where all the money for the T has gone. We all paid in to support bus service…that money DID NOT go to the T. Hey Journal World, maybe you should do story on that! Looks like Cliff, at least, had a conscience. No one else did. Cliff got the last laugh and left with his integrity intact. We all could learn a thing or two from him.
8 August 2008
at 11:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hollaback (Anonymous) says…
again…the money we designated for transit never made it there! That's why we have such shoddy service. Don't blame. Instead ask why! If I were a reporter I would be all over this one.
8 August 2008
at 11:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hollaback (Anonymous) says…
And finally, I agree that we do chew up and spit out the young talented people we desperately claim we want. We are doomed to remain a little one horse town unless we stop the madness. Read this blog. My God people, are you all insane? Just look at our low class blue collar neighbors to the west. Their residents support the transit system, they get all the money they are supposed to and they have tons of people using the bus like crazy. HELLO!!! Aren't we smarter?
9 August 2008
at 1:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
hollaback (Anonymous) says: “Just look at our low class blue collar neighbors to the west.”Marion writes:Say what?
9 August 2008
at 8:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
I spoke with Mr. Galante about the possibility of redesigning the system to be a “grid” system, which seems to me would work for a larger percentage of the population.He didn't seem interested in that, merely in repeating that we needed to spend more money or cut service.A well-designed bus system would serve more residents, and not be some sort of social service. It would make a larger percentage of its' operating costs from fare collections. With more people riding them, the buses would be more environmentally sound.Unless the city redesigns the system, I will have a hard time supporting tax increases to pay for it (and I am generally in favor of public transportation, and would like to use it).It's ludicrous to have to spend 45 minutes on the bus for what would be a 10 minute drive.
9 August 2008
at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
jafs— the current system is a compromise determined primarily by the limited funds available. They've designed it so that it covers most of the city, but because of the limited funding available, that means 40 minutes between buses, at best, and a 20 minute layover downtown if you need to change buses.If they went to the system you propose, while it might increase the frequency of some buses, it would almost certainly mean that many areas of town would no longer get any bus service.Bottom line— you get what you pay for. If we want a real bus system, it will need both increased funding (and the 2/10 cent tax won't do it) and a merger with the KU system.
9 August 2008
at 9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
geekin_topekan (Anonymous) says…
Marion writes:Say what?+++I believe she is refering to Topeka.I thought she meant W.Lawrence at first.I said”Say wha??'.
9 August 2008
at 10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TheInsider (Anonymous) says…
In reading your comments I find them all very interesting. So lets address a couple of issues individually. 1) It is federally mandated (ADA) that if there is a fixed route system there has to be a para-transit system. Simply put, if the fixed route goes away you will most likely not have door to door service. 2) Funding - the earlier comment about Ames, IA they are funded very well. Lawrence, however, is not obviously. The money that was set aside to fund the T through prior sales tax initiatives was not entrilely used for the T system hence the recent service cuts. There has been no federal grants obtained to assit with funding, there is no bus replacement schedule, (the big busses have more miles on them than what they were designed to have). MV Transportation (the company that opeates the contract) loses money year after year on this system. Which in turn is like MV Lawrence to work here.Why don't you all stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution. Quick to know the perceived issue with “knowing all of the answers” but don't understand the big picture.There are people trying to make the T work with everything that they have….just to have people who don't understand complain.
9 August 2008
at 10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TheInsider (Anonymous) says…
correction from above - “Which in turn is like mv paying Lawrence to work here.”
9 August 2008
at 10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
hollaback (Anonymous) says:”Just look at our low class blue collar neighbors to the west. Their residents support the transit system, they get all the money they are supposed to and they have tons of people using the bus like crazy. HELLO!!! Aren't we smarter?”We MAY be smarter but there a lot more of them and they have more money. It is called population density and tax base and it provides both the riders and the money to support mass transit. In 2007 the 357,698 Wichita residents ranked 67th in per capita income, the 122,113 Topeka residents ranked 173rd, and the 88,605 Lawrencian's ranked 258th. Pop quiz (to determine how smart you really are), “Which of the above cities have both the population and the tax base to support a mass transit system?” So Topeka and Wichita have mass transit advantages of both population and tax base to use and pay for mass transit. The question then becomes, “What in Lawrence's current budget would you cut to keep the empTy buses?TheInsider (Anonymous) says:”MV Transportation (the company that opeates the contract) loses money year after year on this system.”Really? MV Transportation is a private corporation and as far as I know ONLY the owners of MV Transportation know what they make or lose. Are they really all that generous that they lose money every year but are just so good hearted (or stupid, you choose) that they subsidize our empTy buses? We pay $200,000 per month, every month, every year, and MV Transportation still lose money? How long do you think this can go on? TheInsider (Anonymous) says:”Why don't you all stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution.”So here is my solution to the problem, cut every part of the cities budget (except Fire and Police) and increase fares riders pay to 25% of the cost of a ride, approximately $2.00 to pay for the service. Then cross your fingers and hope that Lawrence's population and per capita income grows. Fat chance given the PLC/GRA “growth is bad(tm)”, “new business is worser(tm)”, positions for, near as makes no difference, the last decade. In the alternative recognize the current demographic and economic realities and dump the empTy.Raising our sales taxes to the Johnson County level while Lawrence's per capita income is less than 60% of Johnson County taxpayers ($29,137 vs. $50,781) is only going to take more money away from all the other local businesses and their workers.http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/
9 August 2008
at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hollaback (Anonymous) says…
She's a he, thank you very much. I agree with the Insider. Wake up Lawrence. Let's put some people in office who we can trust. Let's hold our “electeds accountable.” This is such a waste of energy!
9 August 2008
at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
hollaback (Anonymous) says: “This is such a waste of energy!”If by “wasted energy” you mean a waste of diesel fuel, I could not agree more.
9 August 2008
at 11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Lawrence's low per capita income means we need public transportation even more than those wealthier cities, sigmund.
9 August 2008
at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sjschlag (Anonymous) says…
“Really? MV Transportation is a private corporation and as far as I know ONLY the owners of MV Transportation know what they make or lose. Are they really all that generous that they lose money every year but are just so good hearted (or stupid, you choose) that they subsidize our empTy buses? We pay $200,000 per month, every month, every year, and MV Transportation still lose money? How long do you think this can go on?”They aren't generous, they aren't good hearted. They signed a contract. MV is bound to the city and will continue to lose money until the contract they signed in 2001 is up in Jan 2009. Need I remind you that the city locked into a fixed fuel cost of $1.98 a gallon for diesel….with fuel hovering around $4.50-$5 a gallon the city isn't helping out with that….MV is having to absorb those extra costs. We need to ask ourselves if it is really worth it to blanket the entire city with bus service. There are just some parts of town that refuse to ride, and routes through these parts of town have low or no ridership. It's easy to sit back and say “cut those routes”, but the second you start talking about that, someone from that neighborhood will complain about service getting cut, that they paid for with their tax dollars. It's a lose-lose situation. A grid system running down arterial streets would no doubt help to increase ridership and make the bus system functional, but the truth is that parts of town would lose bus service. We may just have to suck it up, and cut service. Public transit systems like ours really are set up to fail. Frequency is so low that nobody rides, but we can't afford to raise frequency so people will ride. In the end ridership is so low that the administration decides to cut the route, even though demand may exist. People want to ride the bus, people want an alternative to driving, they just don't like the idea of spending an hour and 40 minutes on a bus or waiting for a bus when you can drive for 10 minutes. Until that changes, nobody will ride the bus in Lawrence.
9 August 2008
at 12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
godroxs (Anonymous) says…
If the city would change the schedule to fit the average workers who keep this town going with tax money. The T would servive and people like myself who work second shift would be able to use it. But until the city wises up it is their own fault that the T is dying.
9 August 2008
at 2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: “Lawrence's low per capita income means we need public transportation even more than those wealthier cities, sigmund.”It also means we can't afford it AND all the other city services, at least in its current form. Constantly increasing the budget with additional taxes isn't a viable option in the long term and eventually other city services will have to suffer to support the empTy. Best to understand and deal with the reality now than later.So if we are down to measuring “needs” which other city services that people “need” are you willing to cut? If the city “needs” mass transit, why do so many (95%?) not use it? The good of the many or the good of the few?How do we measure “need”? People “need” gasoline and one way we know that for a fact is that some of the worlds largest companies make record profits supplying that need, world wide. Fewer people need buggy whips and again we know that because very few people can make a profit supplying that need. gl0ck0wnr (Anonymous) says:”The problem (among other things) is that the theoretical demand curve and actual demand curve demonstrate that raising the fare much more would essentially kill demand. I have no problem with that, I'm just pointing it out. Here is some quick math I did based upon pricing/demand on the system using city numbers:”Interesting and I bet you are not far off on your analysis. Do you mind sharing the source of your data with me? The nice thing about raising fares is that will quickly show MV Transportation, its new director, and the City of Lawrence which routes are valued and which ones are not valued and needed. By pruning the system of the least used (assuming riders will pay money for rides they “need”) we could reduce costs and focus resources on those routes that are most used, valued, and needed. A smaller bus system might better fit to the real need in Lawrence. I am not against buses, I am against a bus system that is to expensive yet meets the needs of to few people at the cost of other needed services. Raising taxes is not a solution and $2.00 per ride is still a bargain for something that costs $8.00 to provide.gl0ck0wnr (Anonymous) says:”Oh yeah, and if any LV readers see this - I've been banned.”What is “LV” and why would you be banned?
9 August 2008
at 2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Windlass (Anonymous) says:”The City Commissioners want their developer buddies to get $1 million to build tennis courts at LHS. That's what it's really all about.”A million dollars!?!?! Even assuming you are correct that is less than 6 months subsidy to MV Transportation and it is a one time budget item, not year after year. Still Dr. Evil would be proud!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmXHvGZiSYWindlass (Anonymous) says…”It suits me fine to get rid of the bus. To me it means I'm going to save a bundle because of all of the businesses and doctors I won't get around to. Doing me a huge favor.”Which raises the other contradiction in the pro-bus arguments. “People are poor so the need the bus to go downtown to spend all their money.” If you have all this money to spend take a cab or carpool or just drive your Prius. If you don't have money to pay increased fares of $2,00, you don't have that much to spend downtown or anywhere else. Pick one, but not both arguments, they have a hard time being true at the same time.
9 August 2008
at 2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
gl0ck0wnr (Anonymous) says:”LV = Larryville,com. It seems when it comes to enforcing rules there, some animals are more equal than others.”LOL, and being banned there is a bad thing because?
9 August 2008
at 3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TheInsider (Anonymous) says…
Here is a thought for everybody….how does the State of Oregon continue to provide excellent service and Oregon does not even HAVE sales tax. Where exactly does our money go as a whole?Infastructure like road conditions, public school system???hmmmm.
9 August 2008
at 3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Windlass (Anonymous) says:”For two years now I've been seeing folks hitch U-haul trailers to their private vehicles or their private vehicles hitched to U-haul trucks and everybody's leaving Lawrence. I've never seen such a high number of for sale signs like there are throughout Lawrence.”Just two years now? If you are going to be taxed like Johnson county and pay for homes like Johnson county wouldn't you want a per capita income like you can get in Johnson county? Buy a vowel and get a clue.Windlass (Anonymous) says: “Houses are sitting empty, retail space is sitting empty, new development is sitting empty, LMH hospital beds are empty like never before, Lawrence is something like 2 mil in the red when Lawrence has always had a strong local economy:.it's all City Commission bullsh**.”Housing all across the country are sitting empty, it was in all the papers, maybe you heard something about it? Take out the amount we spend on the empTy over the last decade and the deficit goes away. The no-slow-smart growth PLC/GRA chickens are coming home to roost and yet you place all the blame on this Commission? I am no fan of the current Commission but at least they are attempting to deal with the mess.
9 August 2008
at 3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Sigmund— ” If the city “needs” mass transit, why do so many (95%?) not use it?”At least 40 minutes between buses; 20-minute layover downtown to change buses; buses don't run after 8 pm or on Sundays; large sections of the town are poorly served by the current routes; city, businesses and schools do a poor job promoting and encouraging its use.
9 August 2008
at 8:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Windlass (Anonymous) says: Only saying that Lawrence, KS. used to be the best place to live anywhere in Kansas.”Marion writes:Yeah, in about 1970 before the Pseudo-liberals got hold of it.
9 August 2008
at 11:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
What will we do with all those little glass covered bus stop sheds after the T's gone?Phone booths!No!Hot dog stands!No!Homeless sheds for panhandlers!No!Produce stands!Maybe!
9 August 2008
at 11:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
greenvera (Anonymous) says…
As much as Lawrenciens poke fun at Topeka, their transit system is wonderful. My family and I just moved from Lawrence to Topeka along with many others who are starting to move closer to their jobs in Topeka. Lawrence is no longer worth it…and Topeka has many more options for kids. And again the transit system is organized, swift and popular. My immediate family and I are not poor or elderly and we will continue to save money on gas, reduce our threat to the environment, and contribute to the community by riding public transit.
10 August 2008
at 11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Windlass (Anonymous) says:”Only saying that Lawrence, KS. used to be the best place to live anywhere in Kansas.”I think it still is! !t is only the Lawrence government that I have a problem with. 99% of the people that I know (of all political stripes) are decent smart people. A little quirky sometimes, but they seem to tolerate me just fine even when we disagree. Currently the only real heartburn I have is with the politics (form 'poly' - meaning many, and 'ticks' - blood sucking parasites). The previous Kommission works a deal to bring Deciphera to town and then the current Mayor screws it all up by failing to follow the law, 'technically.' In the aftermath the current Commission cries more tears than a tele-evangelist caught with two under aged boys in a cheap hotel sacrificing puppies to Satan and promise “openness” and “transparency” and hires an auditor.Have you seen an auditor's report? Did the Mayor ever reveal her interest in the partnership? Was anyone 'technically' punished? Do you know who benefits from all the private partnerships and private corporations who do business with the city and hide their identity? The answer to every problem is “more taxes will solve everything!” Have a firetruck that needs Viagra? Vote for more taxes because our ladder truck has erectile dysfunction and your house might just burn down, probably. Want to maintain the current infrastructure? Vote for more taxes or likely we won't get around to it till the next decade, maybe. Want a cost effective bus system that is responsive to the city and whose ridership increases at a rate greater than its expenses? We can't be bothered.We have plenty of money to subsidize fire sprinklers for wealthy downtown landlords including the empty Masonic Temple, a global warming committee who wants a “wellness center” for City Hall, and legal fees to Johnson County law firms to lose to WalMart, no problemo. We have plenty of time, money, and energy for everything but essential services which all will require new taxes, sorry.They scream “we need affordable housing” yet don't allow new construction because the increased supply might hurt their property values and someone other than themselves might make a buck. They chant “we need more jobs” but the business czar is there to protect current businesses from competition. You want the empTy? Fine, cut somewhere else. You want new manly firetrucks that can get it up every time? Great, let private property owners downtown pay for their own fire sprinklers. You want affordable housing and new jobs? Let employers and builders start businesses and build new homes and apartments.EVERY Lawrence City Commission, as far as I can tell, see its job to protect their friends existing income and businesses and fund their pet projects at the expense of everyone else and stifle growth of any kind, except the growth of City government and taxes.
10 August 2008
at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Windlass (Anonymous) says:”I'm already accustomed to purchasing what I need and what I want from other states, which means I pay shipping and handling, but I don't pay sales tax. Why fork over money to Lawrence or the State of Kansas? It's just money they can't handle.”Because it is the law? If you buy something online and the retailer doesn't collect sales tax you are supposed to pay it along with your income taxes.http://www.ecommerce-blog.org/archives/the-myth-of-tax-free-internet-sales/ecommerce-blog, “The myth of tax free internet sales,” December 12, 2007
10 August 2008
at 11:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hollaback (Anonymous) says…
Ok…let me simply break this down for you.Access to public transportation is a huge enhancement when attempting to recruit businesses to our city. We just need to take advantage of that tool. T services connect employers to their work forces. For example, service or entry-level employees often have limited mobility. Offering employees a transportation alternative enables employers to recruit quality employees while experiencing less absenteeism and turnover. Additionally, public assistance partners also use T services to support their clients entering the work force. The T also provides mobility for the disabled and seniors. Again, a major attractor when recruiting business to our city.Operating an agency the size of the T probably creates and sustains jobs. Think about the countless subcontracting opportunities from fuel purchasing, to printing, to supply needs and cleaning requirements, right down to lawn maintenance opportunities. The T's business is critical to the sustainability of many Lawrence small businesses. In fact, the T may even create jobs.Another important consideration is that the T has played a huge role in capital improvements to boost real estate values in our city. Always important to attracting and retaining new businesses, real estate served by public transportation like the T can almost always command higher rent and tends to maintain higher value than similar properties not as well served. The T has a critical role in our city's safety management plan. And, they are a major partner in our area's safety management.Although you may not be a bus user, each time a person steps on a T bus, they are preserving our beautiful city by reducing traffic congestion. The T does its share when it comes to traffic mitigation. Face it, If only half of the people who routinely use our services had a car, there would be as many as 300 additional cars on our city streets every day. In a city like ours, you can't ignore that fact.Using the T saves money. According to the American Public Transportation Association, nationwide, public transportation saves more than 855 million gallons of gasoline, or 45 million barrels of oil. Right here at home with fuel and insurance premiums at an all time high, it makes sense to park your car and ride. And, so many people have done just that. The T is one of the fastest growing transit systems for a city our size, in the nation.Finally, nationwide studies show that where there is a strong transit presence, the community flourishes. We need public transit for so many reasons and more. Galante did the best he could with what he had…which wasn't much. The tone is set at the top. If the commissioners supported transit, our transit system would have far less problems. It is our fault that the T is fading. And if we let it die at a time when we are becoming more and more dependent on oil, then we deserve what we get.
10 August 2008
at 11:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hollaback (Anonymous) says…
By the way…the buses are NOT empty…they are just not bursting at the seams the entire time they are operating. Too bad those non-suporters are so short sighted.
10 August 2008
at 11:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Let me break it down for you. Lawrence has to few people and to small a tax base to support mass transit. Supporting the empTy is breaking the budget at City Hall. What City services would you cut to maintain the empTy $200,000 plus per month, each and every month, $2.6 million dollars, year after year, drain on the budget?
11 August 2008
at 12:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
By the way …. name a single employer that cares how employees get to work, one employer that came to town because of the empTy (MV Transportation doesn't count), or one employer that will leave if we dump the empTy (again, MV Transportation doesn't count).
11 August 2008
at 4:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
hollaback (Anonymous) says:”By the way:the buses are NOT empty:they are just not bursting at the seams the entire time they are operating. Too bad those non-suporters are so short sighted.”–––––––––-What have you been smoking??? Are you unable to look in a bus that has windows all the away around and not see the empty seats? Are all the riders laying on the floor or less than 4 foot tall? You write all this flowery pros, but have yet to put any substance to it. What employers have come here or been retained here because of the T? What critical local or area wide safety management has need for the T? Are we going to get rid of ambulance and police cars and just have EMT's pick up people by bus and/or have police use the bus instead of their patrol cars? Also as a typical property owner, my valuation went up every year before the T even existed. Lately, the values have gone down. So what part does the T play on values?You say if the commission supported the T, it would have less problems? The T has existed since 16-Dec-2000. Are you saying none of those commissioners over the years supported it? They certainly voted it into existence. What constitutes support? Buy even LARGER buses, MORE drivers, MORE routes, MORE frequent runs, MORE stops? Realize that such a grandiose extensions of an under utilized service require MORE money from the tax payers. What are you going to propose to get people to user the T? Are you going to want the city to FORCE people to ride the T by closing roads, raising parking fees, leaving more pot holes around, forcing employers make their employees ride it? Just what do you want the commission to do?If you want the T, then fine, you pay the cost for it or start your own private bus service. Why should the average tax payer be forced to pay for a failed system that was created by the few to server and benefit the few? The T hasn't helped the employment here as no one can show any correlation of unemployment before vs. after the T's creation. The T definitely hasn't had any affect on my property's value. Finally, you claim that “nationwide studies show that where there is a strong transit presence, the community flourishes.” The T has been around for almost eight years, just how many more years do we have to wait for Lawrence to flourish? A saying that was popular in elections years gone by still applies today: “Where's the beef”!
11 August 2008
at 11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dadofkasey (Anonymous) says…
So you all are saying we're just not big enough, or that our service isn't good enough or that people aren't riding enough. It's not like you put a service out and people come flocking…but in this case they have. Lawrence Transit is one of the fastest growing systems in the nation. You cannot expect the buses to be filled every second of every day. As for the comment about the commissioners not supporting transit…they don't. If they did, they wouldn't siphon off the money that we as voters dedicated to the operation of the system when we voted to get it started. Maybe if our transit staff had better resources they could run a more efficient system that was super convenient and wildly popular, instead of having the system limp along. In my opinion, the whole siphoning off thing is nothing less than theft…right out of our pocket! I ask you to hold your commissioners accountable.Better yet, lets give all of our transit money to Topeka and have them run our bus system for us. They sound like they have a clue!
11 August 2008
at 11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dadofkasey (Anonymous) says…
According to National Transit Database reports, Lawrence Transit ridership has almost doubled every year since it began. What do you expect? It's still new. give our transit system to topeka! They will support it. They support theirs and it runs great. “They” is the board that makes progressive decisions like our commissioners should. Lets hold these goons accountable.
11 August 2008
at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
dadofkasey (Anonymous) says:”So you all are saying we're just not big enough, or that our service isn't good enough or that people aren't riding enough.”Correct.dadofkasey (Anonymous) says:”According to National Transit Database reports, Lawrence Transit ridership has almost doubled every year since it began. What do you expect? It's still new.”Doubled EVERY year? I doubt it and provide a link. So what would you cut in the City's budget to pay for the 2.6 million dollars a year, year after year, to continue the empTy?
11 August 2008
at 5:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
What is hot about Topeka's transit? Of the people I know who live in Topeka, I have never heard of any of them taking the transit there. I worked there years ago, and at least at that time, no one was impressed with the Topeka Transit.Furthermore, their regular fair is $1.25 which is higher than the T's. They also don't have Sunday service. They don't have extended hours except what sounds like a subsidized taxi service — which by the way you have to call in advance. They don't even have a comprehensive online map of all their routes.
11 August 2008
at 6:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
It would be nice to compare & Contrast nearby transits. This is what I found on Topeka:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20080629/ai_n27887906 “Public transit services in many Kansas communities - including Topeka - receive funding from federal, state and local sources, as well as from patrons who use the services.For Topeka Transit ($7.7 million 2008 budget.)1) 47%: Local Property Taxes: a 3-mill levy assessed to the city's homeowners.2) 27% : Federal3) 18%: fairs4) 5 %: state5) 3 %: “other” sources Nearly 2 million rides on Topeka Transit buses are expected by the end of the 2008 fiscal year, which ends Tuesday.Topeka had the second-highest number of bus riders in Kansas in 2007 with 1.7 million, trailing only Wichita - a city of nearly three times Topeka's population - which had 2.2 million.”
11 August 2008
at 7:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
none2, would you perform a simple experiment. set your butt down somewhere, anywhere on any bus route for 1 full day, 6am to 8pm and tell me there are no riders ever on the buses.
11 August 2008
at 7:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
beobachter (Anonymous) says:”none2, would you perform a simple experiment. set your butt down somewhere, anywhere on any bus route for 1 full day, 6am to 8pm and tell me there are no riders ever on the buses.”––––––––––––-Did I ever say there were NO riders EVER? You want to put words into people's mouths. I simply have said I typically see empty buses whenever I see them pass by which isn't just ONE place, ONE time period, or ONE part of town.If you want to save the T, then start riding it more. Get your friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc to ride it often. Vote for your sales tax that will ear mark funds exclusively for the T as opposed to just a general fund from property tax. Don't be in the crowd that thinks it is an entitlement and that begging and screaming loud and long enough you'll just get your way.Don't villanize people who expect some fiscal accountability as being anti-poor, anti-disabled, anti-elderly. For instance, I don't recall anybody who criticizes the T on ljworld.com as being against para-transit. Treat the tax payers' money as it were your own. Don't just throw money at something because you can or want to.
11 August 2008
at 7:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
none2, I simply said your facts are lacking. last year 388,000 people used it. how many less cars were on road and how much less road wear and tear was there? how many fewer wrecks and traffic jams. not everybody has finances to own car and pay associated costs. But most of these people do pay taxes, indirectly thru rent, utility taxes, sales taxes, after all, the infinite wisdom of Kansas leaders imposes a tax on food. And all of us do eat. At least all those I know do. The schedule needs to be adjusted and usuable. It is needed in spite of the hysteria against it by far too many who can't see the forest for the trees.
11 August 2008
at 7:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
But it is being used. How is the city funding that any different than funding road maintenance? This number of riders mean less vehicles, therefore less wear and tear on roads. And added benefit, less drivers causing chaos and accidents because of cell phone embedded in ears.
11 August 2008
at 8:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
none2 (Anonymous) says:”It would be nice to compare & Contrast nearby transits. This is what I found on Topeka…”Great idea so I started to look around the Interweb and this is what I found:Fixed Route FaresAdult CashFull fare ……………………. $1.25Reduced fare ……………….. .60¢(Must show Topeka Transit ID for reduced fare)Monthly PassesFull fare ……………….. $33.00Reduced fare …………. $22.00(Must show Topeka Transit ID for reduced fare)http://www.topekatransit.com/If we decide to keep the empTy fares should increase to at least this level for a variety of reasons that I won't repeat here (see above).”Topeka Transit is funded through the city's mill levy, federal and state grants and fares. “Fares make up only 16% of funding,” Nesbett-Tucker said. “Each Topeka property owner supports transit through the mill levy. Our users should share a larger proportion of the funding. The national average is approximately 22%. As good stewards of local, state and federal funds, we must consider fare equity,” Nesbett-Tucker continued.”Ridership increased 51% between 2000-2008 and this is considered “one of the fastest growing Transit Authorities in the nation.” http://www.topekatransit.com/FareIncr… highly doubt that ridership on the empTy doubled every year as some claim. So question, is there a private corporation that runs Topeka Transit or do they subcontract out the service to a private corporation with unknown shareholders like MV Transportation?
11 August 2008
at 8:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
CarterFaucheaux (Anonymous) says…
388,000 people rode the T last year in a town of less than 100,000? That is incredible. We should make beobachter the director of marketing for the T and it would definitely not be done away with.
11 August 2008
at 8:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
carter, glad I'm not like you. Think about what that means.
11 August 2008
at 8:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
If the national average is fares make up 22% of the funding that means that there are some that fares make even more. Setting fares at 25% of costs or $2,00 per ride is not unreasonable. Changing the management of the system away from MV Transportation, a private corporation, with one who is more open minded about the size of their buses and the current spoke and hub design would give me some confidence that someone is actually working to make the current system more responsive and efficient. Maybe more frequent runs on more popular routes during the busy part of the day and vice versa, something anything, would give me the impression that they do more than simply cashing our $200,000 check every month, month after month, year after year.
11 August 2008
at 10:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Raising fares and varying the sizes of buses should definitely be on the table, Sigmund, but even if that is done, neither current funding nor the .2 cent sales tax will be sufficient to run the system optimally. There needs to be a merger with the KU system and at least .3 cent tax to make it work.But rather than a sales tax, a better idea would be a parking lot tax, and a requirement that any companies receiving tax abatements should subsidize bus passes for their employees. Or how about having both the high schools remove at least half of their student parking areas (and using that land for actual educational purposes.) There are likely many other ways that would both discourage car driving, encourage bus riding. But the implementation of the bus system has never been anything but half-assed.
11 August 2008
at 10:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“No one literally thinks that the system is entirely unused - that is a strawman thrown up by the pro-T folks.”So, you're saying that the “pro-T folks” are the ones bandying about the term “empTy?”” If I remember correctly, something like 75% of the riders don't own cars, “Well, the logical conclusion from that would be that if they can no longer take the bus to wherever they currently go, they will probably get there in a car, even if they don't own one— no consultation fee required for that bit of observing the obvious.
11 August 2008
at 10:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
BTW, the size of the buses is much less an issue than the frequency. Increasing the frequency of the buses would cause an increase in ridership greater than that of any other single factor.
11 August 2008
at 10:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Assuming the average rider is a regular and s/he rides round trip (2 rides per day, sure some ride more and some ride less, just on average), the empTy could have as few as 550 unique regular riders and still meet the 388,000 rides per year. Now assume s/he is a regular rider but all rides are one way (no round trips) and only 1100 unique regular riders is all that would be needed to meet 388,000 rides per year. Lawrence is listed as having 90,000 populations so our $2,600,000 per year serves less than 2% of the Lawrence population.
11 August 2008
at 11:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Sigmund (Anonymous) says:”none2 (Anonymous) says:”It would be nice to compare & Contrast nearby transits. This is what I found on Topeka:”Great idea so I started to look around the Interweb and this is what I found:”––––––––—Sigmund, What I was really looking for was the funding. I'm really shocked that I couldn't find it for Lawrence, but could for Topeka. Topeka has a 3 mill levy on property tax just for the bus that makes up 47% of the cost. Boog had suggested an increase in the mill levy almost an additional 3 mill from what I understand 26.* to 29.*. If that was an additional 3 mill levy, then what current levy is used to support it, and why would it take 3+ mill levy when Topeka stops at 3.Another thing to keep in mind is that I wonder if the ridership of the T also gets a significant boost from parents, alumni, and visitors to KU games — in other words subsidized busing where the only benefit to local people is the increased retail on those days. If that is the case, then perhaps the downtown merchants would like to pick up some of the tourist tab.
14 August 2008
at 12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jiminkansas (Anonymous) says…
gl0ck0wner says:”Oh yeah, and if any LV readers see this - I've been banned.”No gl0ck according to krisadiar:”i gave glock a short time out. when the period is up i do hope he returns because, like many of you, i enjoy the variety he offers.-kris”If that doesn't work maybe they'll start giving spankings!Jim
14 August 2008
at 12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Assuming the average rider is a regular and s/he rides round trip (2 rides per day, sure some ride more and some ride less, just on average), the empTy could have as few as 550 unique regular riders and still meet the 388,000 rides per year.”Just goes to show you that with a properly funded and designed system, there are literally thousands of potential riders out there waiting for a system that actually works.