Archive for Friday, July 18, 2008
Group to discuss ways to save bus system
With budget shortfalls and a possible sales tax vote in November, the future for the Lawrence Transit System still remains cloudy.
July 18, 2008
Advertisement
A citizens' group is forming in hopes of saving the city's public transit system, but that does not necessarily mean it'll be rallying support for a proposed public transportation sales tax.
"A sales tax is going to hit hardest the actual people who ride the T," said C.J. Brune, a neighborhood activist who is helping organize the citizens' group. "To pass a sales tax to just keep the T running is going to be a totally uphill battle, even for progressives."
Instead, Brune hopes that a Monday evening meeting will produce alternative ways to save the T, which is facing a $1 million budget shortfall in 2009.
The meeting will be at 7 p.m. at Lawrence Public Library, 707 Vt.
The other option that city commissioners have considered - but thus far rejected - is increasing the property tax mill levy to pay for the transit shortfall. It likely would take a 1.5 to 2.5 mill increase to cover the shortfall.
City Commissioner Boog Highberger said he will propose at Tuesday's City Commission meeting that the mill levy be increased enough for 2009 to keep the T operational, with the provision that the mill levy would be reduced in 2010 if voters approve the sales tax.
Highberger has proposed that plan before and failed to get the necessary two other commissioners to join him. Highberger said he'll vote against any city budget proposal that doesn't include guaranteed funding for the T.
"I can't support a budget that gambles the bus system on a sales tax vote," Highberger said.
Highberger also said he'll urge fellow commissioners to reconsider their plan to place two separate sales tax provisions on the November ballot. At present, commissioners have expressed support for placing a 0.2 percent sales tax for transit and a 0.3 percent sales tax for improved street maintenance, sidewalks and infrastructure.
Highberger believes the two sales tax initiatives should be combined to give the transit system the best chance of winning approval.
"By the city making it two separate questions on the ballot, they have doomed it in my opinion," Brune said. "You either are a bus driver, a bus rider or someone with an extreme social consciousness to vote for it."
But a majority of city commissioners have supported making the bus question a separate ballot issue so that voters have a clear forum for either expressing support or opposition to a city-run bus system.
Some commissioners also have expressed optimism that the transit sales tax will pass, given the rising price of gasoline and new efforts on the part of the city to combine its transit service with Kansas University's bus system.
City commissioners are expected to dive deeply into the subject at their 6:35 p.m. meeting Tuesday at City Hall, Sixth and Massachusetts streets. At that meeting, commissioners are expected to set the maximum mill levy for 2009, which is one of the last steps before giving final approval to the budget. Commissioners are expected to vote to officially place the two sales tax questions on the ballot at their Aug. 5 meeting.
18 July 2008
at 1:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
Insure these T buses and hope they get stolen. Lol. What a relief. Why is the City paying this California company, “middlemen” to run a bus system that's failed. Then theres a local city appointed board of people that are un-qualified to run a garden hose over-seeing this Calico.
It like and army hired to catch lighting bugs for sunshine. Lol.
18 July 2008
at 6:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LogicMan (Anonymous) says…
“The meeting will be at 7 p.m. at Lawrence Public Library, 707 Vt.”
I hope some economically-minded thick-skinned people show up to help balance the discussion …
18 July 2008
at 6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
moderationman (Anonymous) says…
Why is the T a failed system? Is it merely because it runs a deficit? Name one US mass transit system that doesn't require subsidy. I'll give you a hint, there are none. The T provides a valuable service to the community. To discontinue a bus service in the midst of $4 gas would be folly indeed. There are those who call the system the emT. Those who apparently have never used it. I do, and I have yet to be alone on a bus either coming or going. Often, it is standing room only for part of the ride. The T is something worth saving.
18 July 2008
at 7:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Instead of leeching off of society, why don't the riders of the T pay their own way?
Why do people like myself have to take care of you T riders?
Why not ride a bike?
Why not live closer to your job?
18 July 2008
at 7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Currently it costs Lawrence taxpayers approximately $8.00 to provide a single ride on the empTy. For that same amount of money most people can buy two gallons of gas which will take them and a passenger 40 miles when and where they want.
Before anyone should even consider increasing taxes and “saving the empTy” for those “standing room only” riders the fares should be increased to cover half the cost of the service, $4.00. Running empTy buses all over Lawrence does not make either ecological “scents” nor economic “cent$”
18 July 2008
at 7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
LogicMan (Anonymous) says:”The meeting will be at 7 p.m. at Lawrence Public Library, 707 Vt. I hope some economically-minded thick-skinned people show up to help balance the discussion :”
Great idea, I've always wanted to go into a room of rabid socialist and be called “a rich hate filled planet killing global warming denier.” Just how open to rational discussion of economics, the ecological soundness of running huge buses with an average of 7 riders, or the population density needed for cost effective public transportation do you think these folks are likely to be? I get more than my minimum daily requirement of abuse posting anonymously.
18 July 2008
at 7:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Why do people like myself have to take care of you T riders?”
Because we all enjoy the benefits provided by low-wage workers.
“Why not ride a bike?”
Kind of obvious, isn't it? Not everyone is capable of riding a bike, and for those that are, it's quite often not practical.
“Why not live closer to your job?”
The likely reasons for this are too numerous (and obvious) to list. At least they live in the same town their job is in, unlike those who want way more public money spent on the SLT so they can drive to another town 5 minutes faster.
18 July 2008
at 7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thebaker (Anonymous) says…
“”I can't support a budget that gambles the bus system on a sales tax vote,” Highberger said.”
In other words, I don't want to listen to the people of this town. Their wants and opinions do not matter to me.
18 July 2008
at 7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
average (Anonymous) says…
Seven years later, and we *STILL* can't get all the buses to meet at the same place at the same time. A “pulse”, like pretty much every bus system of our size on the planet? We still have the “twenty minute loiter” each way. The T was designed to fail. If fixes are impossible, the fix is in.
18 July 2008
at 8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Low wage earners are whom? Mcdonalds employees?
Why do I have to take care of T riders? Why can't they take care of themselves?
Who are they that they are so special that they should be taken care of?
18 July 2008
at 8:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…
Boog is right in his assertion that the only hope of passage is to combine the sales tax questions. How ludicrous is it that we have to increase sales tax to merely have decent streets, let alone fund the most miserable failure of monumental proportions? Yeah, right, we need nice, smooth roads for the filth spewing Lawrence Liberal Limo to tote all those invisible riders around.
I, personally, cannot wait to cast my vote to make this most disgraceful waste of tax dollars disappear. This is a huge part of why the PLC has also disappeared, except for the remaining lame duck dinosaur. It must be very frustrating for him to see his Shangri-la dreams go down the drain.
18 July 2008
at 8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
moderationman (Anonymous) says:
“..Often, it is standing room only for part of the ride. The T is something worth saving.”
–––––––––-
I sure wish someone would take a picture of these “full” emTy's. Or is this kind of like the Lochness monster?
18 July 2008
at 8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sjschlag (Anonymous) says…
“Instead of leeching off of society, why don't the riders of the T pay their own way?”
You can take the T too. It's not like you have to “qualify” to ride the bus. You choose to pay your own way, because you obviously prefer the operation of your own motor vehicle. Which is more than okay. However, with gas prices increasing wouldn't it be nice to have a choice? Wouldn't it be nice to have an alternative to driving? Let's fix the system. The T is something we can all use and benefit from, not a taxi service for lower income workers.
18 July 2008
at 8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
repaste (Anonymous) says…
Right Bozo, ” the times they are a changing” it is force bigger than us. 440,000 rides times $8 = $3.5 mill? A little operational input from some “economic mind ” might help. There isa time and a place to think with your money, just not everywhere. Conservative no tax policy sure seems to make my overall taxs soar… Sales tax is one of the most regressive taxes. How about that 9 cents we give to the credit card co's for every gall. of gas. Far right socialism?
18 July 2008
at 8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
“You choose to pay your own way, because you obviously prefer the operation of your own motor vehicle”
So why do I have to pay for my transportation and the few riders of the T?
How in the heck did Lawrence surrive prior to the T?
Why do I have to take care of the few people that ride the T?
18 July 2008
at 8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
barrypenders (Anonymous) says:
“How in the heck did Lawrence surrive prior to the T?”
––––––––-
Life was horrible prior to Dec 16th, 2000 when the bus system started. They used to find people frozen on the sidewalks during the winter during their morning pedestrian commutes. Likewise, there were lots of cases of heat stroke victims on the sidewalk during the summer months.
Once we got the T, unemployment went way down due to the fact that these thousands of people who never had transportation were finally able to go find jobs. Sales tax revenues when way up as these same people were finally able to go shop. Children and elderly were no longer malnourished because grocery stores and restaurants were now in reach. Lawrence finally reached that point of utopia that we are at today!
18 July 2008
at 8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
It is extremely regressive thinking to get rid of public transportation at a time when the whole country should be moving as much as possible to public transportation.
The problem with the T is that it is not easy enough for more people to ride it. The routes and times need to be altered. Charging even more will only decrease ridership.
I maintain the T helps the city prosper in ways that cannot easily be measured. My teenagers take the T downtown - at least one of them does this on any given day - and spend all their money there. With two parents working we cannot chauffeur them downtown during working hours every day and they would not be able to support the local economy the way they do. Money spent at local business is money circulating locally and sales taxes increased.
I am more disappointed in the shortsightedness of this city commission than I can say.
Improve the T. Anything else, at peak oil, is stupid.
18 July 2008
at 8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…
“However, with gas prices increasing wouldn't it be nice to have a choice? Wouldn't it be nice to have an alternative to driving?”
We do have a choice, and it is more than clear what people choose. I suppose one of the solutions KMA is going to come up with is to try to force people to board the bus. Desperate, last ditch efforts because they know this tax will not pass. The numbers are greatly against them, so now they have to find some creative ways to continue to force the non-riders to pay for the few riders. They are probably the same ones who care so much for the environment - unless it threatens to kill their filthy, polluting, gas guzzling, street eating bus.
Why are there even fewer bozos on the bus in these days of $4.00 gas?
18 July 2008
at 8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
repaste (Anonymous) says…
Those SUV's are subsidized as well, the increased accident, higher repair cost, cost to build are all spread to smaller cars, not to mention tax incentives.
18 July 2008
at 8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
repaste (Anonymous) says…
Hey, the sales tax for streets, I do not drive why the heck should I pay for your streets when I buy a gallon of milk? Get real folks, you cannot make a rational case that you are “paying someone's way” by financing the T. The decreased cost to the city as a whole are a great bargain. Grandma saiz 'penny wise, dollar foolish”
18 July 2008
at 8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…
“Why do people like myself have to take care of you T riders?”
“Because we all enjoy the benefits provided by low-wage workers.”
… and… even if we didn't “benefit” from these, our *fellows*.
18 July 2008
at 8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Stain (Anonymous) says:
“… My teenagers take the T downtown - at least one of them does this on any given day - and spend all their money there. …”
––––––––––––––-
It is too bad with the high rates of obesity that we don't want to encourage young people to walk or ride bicycles. They now have to be driven everywhere they go. Likewise, I would think it would behoove parents to encourage their children to save money instead of spending it all.
We are encouraging the future generations to be lazy and broke.
18 July 2008
at 8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
repaste (Anonymous) says…
Hey none, you see very many overweight people in cities where mass transit rules? The bus requires a lot of walking, it inables you to go from 15 & Wak to 9th & Iowa. The bus is part of a healthy lifestlye.
18 July 2008
at 9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lindad (Anonymous) says…
Stain - you are right on all points!
& Moderationman also
I have used the T in the past & am seriously considering how to make it work now - though I live & work farther from the last points than I like - but - with right shoes for after the bus maybe I can make it work.
The T routes do need work!
I, too, when I have ridden, have never been the only one on the bus though usually it has been 1/4 to 1/2 full.
I grew up in an area with public transportation & when we came to Kansas was very dissappointed that such a wonderfully community had no public transportation. Riding a bicycle or moped, even discounting bad weather days when it wouldn't work well & be able to go dressed nice to work - is too dangerous with the traffic in this town.
The T is a major plus for this town - run right - it should attrack people and businesses to this town - if talk of getting rid of it or pricing it out of existence doesn't keeping re-occuring
18 July 2008
at 9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
repaste (Anonymous) says:
Hey none, you see very many overweight people in cities where mass transit rules? The bus requires a lot of walking, it inables you to go from 15 & Wak to 9th & Iowa. The bus is part of a healthy lifestlye.
–––––––––––––––—
If someone can walk from 15th and Wakarusa to 9th and Iowa then they don't need the bus. Yes I have seen overweight people on public buses.
If you want to get healthy, just walk or bike. The only thing the bus represents is a crutch. Throw away that crutch, and liberate yourself from the need to be physically pampered. It will add years to your life just to walk, jog, run, or bike.
18 July 2008
at 9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
The “T” bus system is quite flawed - I and my wife have wanted to use it from several different locations in town where we lived. Each time it would have taken about 45 minutes (including a 20-minute wait downtown), rather than a 10-15 minute drive.
Also, we would have had to go away from our destination to get downtown to transfer.
This combination of poor routes and schedules makes it impractical for many working people to use the buses.
Unless ridership increases dramatically, the bus system is a poor bet environmentally as well - the buses get about 6mpg.
In addition, for the fare collection to be commensurate with other public transit systems, fares and/or ridership need to rise.
I have expressed my concerns to Mr. Galante, who runs the system. He didn't seem very interested in them.
Please contact him if you have similar concerns and ideas - maybe if he got more public input he'd be more interested.
Thank you.
18 July 2008
at 9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
Also, most other bus systems don't take you from door to door.
They require a little walking on each end, and/or between transfers.
Apparently folks here expected/demanded door to door service, which is why the bus snakes around downtown rather than simply stopping on major streets.
18 July 2008
at 9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Haiku_Cuckoo (Anonymous) says…
“A sales tax is going to hit hardest the actual people who ride the T,”
Ummm…so? Since they use it the most, it only makes sense that they help support it. Why on earth would non-T riders be expected to foot the bill?
18 July 2008
at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…
jafs: “The “T” bus system is quite flawed - I and my wife have wanted to use it from several different locations in town where we lived. Each time it would have taken about 45 minutes (including a 20-minute wait downtown), rather than a 10-15 minute drive.”
I have to agree.
As a student living off-campus without a car (some 20 years ago), I relied heavily on the KU bus system to get about, and not only for transportation to and from classes. I don't recall ever having to endure long waits or lengthy walks.
My (albeit limited) experience with the T is that I spent more time walking and waiting than I did commuting, and this includes time waiting while ON the bus. Who has *hours* to get around town?
So, I've opted out, personally… but anyone *needing* this resource-anyone prepared to make the effort to maintain employment or otherwise provide for a family with limited means-has my “subsidy.”
18 July 2008
at 9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tvc (Anonymous) says…
The other day people were complaining that bicycles should not be on the road. Today we don't want to fund the T. I guess I will go fill up my SUV with ethanol and drive around town.
18 July 2008
at 10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
McShindig (Anonymous) says…
rarrrr!!!!!!! buses bad!!!!! buses bad!!!!!!!
18 July 2008
at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Stain (Anonymous) says: “It is extremely regressive thinking to get rid of public transportation at a time when the whole country should be moving as much as possible to public transportation.”
Why? You seem to imply there is some economic or ecological advantages to running 6 miles per gallon buses with and average number of 7 riders (the mean number of riders is likely much lower) per route. It is just more rhetorical nonsense from people like Boog who don't mind putting the whole of Lawrence's economic health in jeopardy so long as the empTy is never cut no matter how unsound. In point of fact as the price of gas goes up the less the empTy makes any sense at all.
As for the “socially conscious” voters, what other competing social good could be accomplished with the $2,600,000 per year, year after year, that we waste on running empTy buses? Food pantries, breaks for the elderly on utility bills, City recycling programs? Don't imagine the empTy doesn't suck money from these potential initiatives as well.
If the empTy is so important to the quality of life of the riders why doesn't the City Commission raise the fare? $4.00 per ride covers half of the cost with the City picking up the other half, that is what you call a “compromise” and it is a fair fare. The bus huggers position is no matter what the cost (at least no limit I have heard), no matter how many other good things could be accomplished with the money, the City must have the empTy and the fare must never be increased. That ideological intransience is the major reason Lawrence can't move forward on this and many other issues.
18 July 2008
at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bowhunter99 (Anonymous) says…
Let me understand this… Boog knows the public will not vote for the mT so he wants to tie to something else so they're forced to vote for it…
huhmm…………… Time for Boog to go!
He doesn't want the people that use the system to pay for it. He wants others to do so… and he's going to try to do everything he can to save something the citizens do not want…
let the people vote! 2 separate issues so we can voice our oppinion on both subjects individually.
18 July 2008
at 10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“You seem to imply there is some economic or ecological advantages to running 6 miles per gallon buses with and average number of 7 riders (the mean number of riders is likely much lower) per route.”
If all 7 riders drove separately in cars getting 20 miles per gallon, that would be less than 3 miles per gallon. So, yes, even at 6 mpg, the bus uses less gas than taking SOV's. Not to mention the decreased need for parking lots, reduced congestion, etc., etc. These advantages get even better with increased ridership, and this system has apparently been designed to limit ridership.
Fix the T, don't scrap it.
18 July 2008
at 10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
foodboy (Anonymous) says…
I am a 65 year old retiree with no car, a bike and good walking shoes, but I still need the T for trips to the doctor(before one of the cynics asks, I tried finding one within walking distance, but none were taking new patients), grocery and an occasional movie and Target trips. I see people going to and from work, kid going to the pool, rec center and, I assume, people interested in not driving for what ever reason. For those who complain that the buses are not always full, why not complain that you see fire engines not in use. It's periodic demand requiring constant supply.
18 July 2008
at 10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
“If” those 7 riders have cars.
That's a pretty big “If”.
18 July 2008
at 10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
foodboy (Anonymous) says:
“I am a 65 year old retiree with no car, a bike and good walking shoes, but I still need the T for trips to the doctor..”
––––––––––––—
May I asked how you got around prior to Dec 16th, 2000 when the T first started service?
18 July 2008
at 10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LogicMan (Anonymous) says…
There's an interesting short history of Lawrence's and KU's trolley and bus systems on-line at:
http://history.lawrence.com/project/c…
18 July 2008
at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“That's a pretty big “If”.”
And if they don't have cars, without the “T,” they wouldn't be going to work, or school or shopping, or the doctor, or some other activity that allows this community to function better. It's a cinch that most “T” riders aren't just joyriding.
18 July 2008
at 10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyspunk (Anonymous) says…
“May I asked how you got around prior to Dec 16th, 2000 when the T first started service?”
Considering that was 8 years ago, he may not have been a retiree and may have had a car. Good job trying to be a twat though.
18 July 2008
at 10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyspunk (Anonymous) says…
My only issues with the T are the overly optimistic arrival/departure times and the policy of “pull the cord when you want to get off.” If the T can make it from 6th and Kasold to 9th and Mass in 10 minutes, I would be incredibly surprised. Also, what is with the 8:00 arrival time downtown? Not very logical really, especially if you work at 8:00. I love my job, but I have no desire to be here 30 to 40 minutes before work. =)
Until I get my bike fixed, I may take the T to work a few days a week. Will just have to pull my butt out of bed a little earlier I guess and find something productive to do before 8!
18 July 2008
at 10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
Jafs,
I'm not surprised you had that experience with Cliph at the transport office. he put in a punitive set of fare increases with only the justification of decreasing usage on the paratransit. paratransit riders, least able to absorb increase, fares increased by 50% and a few months later, an additional 33% compounded. most paratransit rides *don't require* the big heavy low-mpg buses, a small four-door would do fine! heck, for many, a small two-door could cover paratransit rides.
***
one very simple way the T in its current form discourages ridership: buses aren't set to the same time each hour; in other words, you can't know that your route passes your stop at a certain time each hour. your bus starts from downtown at varying times during each hour! this means that potential riders don't know intuitively when to catch the bus! just simply putting the routes on a syncronized clock, so you could catch your bus at 35-past the hour, each hour, would increase ridership!
18 July 2008
at 11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
monkeyspunk (Anonymous) says:
“May I asked how you got around prior to Dec 16th, 2000 when the T first started service?”
Considering that was 8 years ago, he may not have been a retiree and may have had a car. Good job trying to be a twat though.
–––––––––––––—
That is right it was ONLY 8 years ago that we didn't have the T. Can you count to eight? Yes you have to use more fingers than on one hand, but if you need help counting, I'm sure someone can teach you basic math.
I don't know many people who drive at 57, and stop at 65 unless they become physically incapacitated. Lawrence had services available to the elderly and handicapped prior to the T. You need to read and learn more about what goes on and has gone on in the past, than to just scream that the T is a necessity that we cannot live without.
18 July 2008
at 11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nobody1793 (Anonymous) says…
Topless bus drivers.
18 July 2008
at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
Reduce the T buses down to 5 small buses.
Then fire the Calico which manages the T.
Then fire all the appointees that we don't need.
Then run the 5 T buses like a cab company, picking up handicap people and charge a comparable rate and then vouchers can be given to the needy.
If a moped driver runs over a T buses there just has to be too many of them running around town.
18 July 2008
at 11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Thanks for the link, LogicMan. It was very interesting (http://history.lawrence.com/project/c…).
What is interesting to note is that fares were 20 cents back in 1958, yet people get so bent out of shape that 50 years later, people pay $1.00.
Also it is interesting to note that WHEN there was a true interest in shared transportation, it was not funded by public money. It was only when there was a decline in interest in this that governmental bodies got involved.
Finally, it is shocking to read that this Steven McMurry embezzled $257,000 from KU on Wheels and only served 6 months of an 8 to 20 year sentence. It stated the conditions were that he repay all the funds, yet as of 1996 he paid back less than $3,000. He should either to back to jail or pay full restitution. Whether you are for public transportation or not, such a person deserves maximum punishment.
18 July 2008
at noon
Suggest removal
Permalink
blessed3x (Anonymous) says…
(Assuming 5 day schedule, I don't know if the T's run on the Weekend.)
Somebody kicked out the 7 person per bus figure and I thought, shoot, that's about what my minivan holds!
20 brand new minivans @ $20,000 ea = $400,000
20 drivers @ $15.00 per hour = $624,000 per year
Add 50% for benefits, insurance, AD&D, etc… = $936,000
Insurance on the vans $1000 per van per year = $200,000
50 miles/day/van = 250 miles/week/van =13,000 miles per year/van x 20 vans = 260,000 miles per year/20 mpg (that's what my van gets in town) = 13,000 gallons x $5.00 per gallon (figuring on the cost going up) = $65,000 for fuel
Routine maintence and repairs = $1,000/van/year (these are new vans) = $20,000.
Single administrator and assistant (takes the phone calls, handles paperwork, etc.) = $50,000/yr + $30,000/yr = $80,000/yr + 50% for benefits = $120,000
Rent office Space and Van Lot (Complete Guess) = $3,000 per month = $36,000/year
At the end of the year donate old minivans to local charities to allow for purchase of new ones.
Total cost with NO liability on the part of the riders = $1,777,000 .
Charge just $0.25 per mile (about 1/20th of a cab ride) and the total cost of the program is $1,712,000 per year.
Please check my match.
The public is still spending money to subsidize the system but we just saved nearly a million dollars and we don't have these huge vehicles on the road, blocking traffic, belching out huge amounts of diesel fumes, etc… The customer gets picked up at their door and delivered directly to their destination. Twenty-two people just got decent jobs. Also, dozens of charities and organizations will receive VERY nice minivans at no cost at the end of the year.
If you wanted, you could sell the vans at a deep discount for $10,000 ea = $200,000 making the minimum total cost $1,512,000 or keep the minivans for 3 or 4 years to dramatically lower costs over time.
You would have the flexibility of running a portion of the vans as a taxi service and having the remainder run set routes. The current system is incapable of picking up people at their doors. Roll this system and some of the other transportation systems (ATA, etc…) together and you could cut costs even further. Equip each van with a bike rake and a few vans with handicap accessible equipment and I think we have a winner.
Anybody want to take a guess on what would happen to me if I showed up at the meeting with this idea?
18 July 2008
at 12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lawrenceguy40 (Anonymous) says…
I travel along 6th most days to and from my work. Since the MT has been running I don't remember ever seeing more than two passengers on a bus. What a waste of taxpayer's money (that is your money, my money and even the MT rider's money). Just half that amount would buy 500 taxi rides per day for those who truly cannot drive. The other people (and that includes the current MT employees), who currently are happy at accepting the charity of their neighbors even in these hard times, would have to find work and buy a vehicle like the rest of us. That would increase the tax base and make more money available for the disabled transit system.
18 July 2008
at 12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Convert the T buses to natural gas.
18 July 2008
at 12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Transit/School and Shuttle Bus
Natural Gas Buses emit 50% less nitrogen oxides (NOx), 90% less sulphur oxides (SOx), and 97% less small particulates than conventional diesel buses.
Over 30% of buses built in North America this year are natural gas powered.
Ontario, Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Cornwall and Toronto all have natural gas powered buses.
Los Angeles, Atlanta, Syracuse, Birmingham, Providence, Fort Worth, San Diego, among others, have adopted a policy of ONLY buying natural gas powered buses.
18 July 2008
at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Become an NGV Owner
Are NGVs right for me?
Natural gas vehicles are quickly becoming the vehicles of choice for many businesses, governments and individuals that are committed to cleaner transportation alternatives. Add to that the significant fuel savings that available when using Natural Gas and you have a winning formula for your vehicle fleet. A large selection of vehicle platforms can operate on natural gas, including full-sized vans, pick-up trucks, taxi cabs, panel and courier vans, even forklifts and ice-resurfacers.
Your decision to choose natural gas for vehicles should be based on:
how much you drive,
how much you pay for gasoline, and
what your driving habits are.
And remember, when you choose to run on Natural Gas, you are making a driving decision that results in cleaner air to breathe for all of us!!
To find out if an NGV is right for you or your business, ask yourself the following questions:
Am I interested in saving money on fuel and maintenance costs?
Is my business concerned about air pollution?
Do I/we drive vans, pick-ups or large passenger cars?
Is most of my/our driving done within a certain urban area?
If you answered yes to two or more of these questions, natural gas vehicles may be the right choice for your business. There are many vehicle options to consider. Click here to find out more about after-market, natural gas conversion options and click here for factory built NGVs.
18 July 2008
at 12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Barrypenders, I know your intentions mean well, but think about the long term direction.
If Natural Gas is so plentiful, then why is everybody's natural gas bills going up? Why are the natural gas wells not doing so well out in SW Kansas? The reason is because there isn't enough (at least domestic) to allow for all the growth that the industry would like. If natural gas was so plentiful, then they would have simply built two natural gas electrical plants in SW Kansas and we wouldn't have all this debate about coal fired plants. Sure we can import natural gas since there is plenty around other parts of the world. However, like oil it is another limited resource where we would get get more into debt with foreign governments which in the long run isn't a good idea. We need something that can be done within this country.
The long term future is probably Hydrogen, Electrical, or something yet to be discovered/invented. I was sad to hear yesterday on NPR that hygrogen fuel cell technologies may be 15 years out before you'll see them in your driveway. If we could put men on the moon about 40 years ago, why cannot we set our minds to energy independence to help our planet as well as rid ourselves of these countries on which we don't want to be dependent.
Finally, I am surprised that there isn't more emphasis put on communications instead of transportation. Don't haul people around if you don't need to. It is a lot cheaper to haul around electrons over the airwaves or wires than to haul people around for things where people's physical presence really isn't required.
18 July 2008
at 12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
HMcMellon (Anonymous) says…
If you project the ridership during the past few months (since gas prices have dramatically risen), the T would be in the black, especially if fares increased a little to cover increased fuel costs. Unfortunately, most of our commissioners are not very bright. Given their continued support for building homes for communters and sorting warehouses for trucked-in goods, they apparently believe that fuel prices will soon go back to $1 per gallon. Other communities in our region have intelligent commissioners, who are not laboring under such delusions. Why don't we???
18 July 2008
at 1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
screedposter (Anonymous) says:
“…I can't wait to see these folks when they get in charge of health care.”
––––––––––––––-
There is a big difference between wanting affordable health care or a government sponsored system versus public transportation. You actually CAN get by without public transportation. It may be an inconvenience not to have it, but you don't die. (Ambulance service is separate from public transportation.) .
Where as you could loose everything — including your life if you end up with a medical condition and no insurance. I don't know many medical treatments that cost $1.00 or even $10.00 — unless you think all you need is some aspirin and a band-aid.
18 July 2008
at 2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Public transportation take cars off the road thus improving traffic congestion and air pollution.
Then there are people in Lawrence who do not own cars because they have become unable to drive for a variety of reasons or cannot afford to own a vehicle.
Then there are those who understand the importance of not driving each time to a desired destination.
It appears as though this commission wants to kill the T because a .2 percent sales tax is not enough to keep the T in operation and commission members know this. Do not vote for anyone who will not commit to supporting public transportation.
Why Public Transportation?
http://www.publictransportation.org/
18 July 2008
at 2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beebo (Anonymous) says…
Riders pay less than ten percent of the annual budget for the bus system. 6.6% to be exact for 2007. Why even bother to collect ANYthing from the riders, then you could cut payroll costs for the folks that empty the fareboxes, count the money, issue the passes, make the deposits, and account for all that activity. 6.6% — that is just embarassing and downright ridiculous. Lincoln, NE is at 14%…..
18 July 2008
at 2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
foodboy (Anonymous) says…
none2 (Anonymous) says:
foodboy (Anonymous) says:
“I am a 65 year old retiree with no car, a bike and good walking shoes, but I still need the T for trips to the doctor..”
-
May I asked how you got around prior to Dec 16th, 2000 when the T first started service?
Foodboy replies:
I relied(and still do occasionally) on the kindness of others, but I enoy being able to be self-sufficient. Whether you're 14 or 40 with no car, being able to get around Lawrence with being a burden on others allows you to be independent. All those who are so adamantly against the T, please get compile a list of young people, families with 2 or more jobs and only one car, people with disabilities or those without cars and provide them 6 day a week transportation at a reasonable rate.
18 July 2008
at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
“what were they thinking ?
Oread Inn subsidies
LJW story, Oread Inn Subsidies up for approval:”
A verbal explanation of how local developers rip the taxpayers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWVOPy…
The explanation helps all understand our local problem.
18 July 2008
at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
handley (Anonymous) says…
maybe their is a law against it but why not sell advertising on the T-bus system
18 July 2008
at 3 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Sell ad space on the buses like every other bus system does.
18 July 2008
at 3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says…
change the fares! $1.00 for everyone over 12 years old. No exceptions. Bus passes , $60.00 a month. No exceptions. Sell ad space. There are lots of merchants desperate to put their name someplace, not to mention KU athletics. Now then, how about this, why are KU students going to show their KU pass and ride the T for free? How much is the city getting from the KU bus system? And since the KU bus charges non ku students one dollar, then the T should be equal fare. The commission does not have the guts to raise the fare. For companies whose employees ride the bus, then the company could help subsidize their bus pass. Has anyone on these “action committees” ever considered talking to employers? And the city should stop giving money to the Drop In Center for it to turn around any buy bus passes from the city.
Where is the city auditor? Is he still sitting on Funksfrontporch?
18 July 2008
at 3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
xbusguy (Anonymous) says…
With actual cost per boarding in excess of $45.00 for the T, taxi rides would be more cost effective. Riders would have to qualify for $1.00 rides. The rest of us pay 5.00. Transportation susidy of 1/2 mill could possibly cover it with the Fed match.
18 July 2008
at 3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
HMcMellon (Anonymous) says…
screenposter, I'm not sure you need to increase fares at all. I doubt it is correct, but a post above that said it costs $8.00 per passenger for the “T i” when it is 10% full. Obviously, if it were full, it would cost only 80 cents per passenger. The City probably wouldn't need a fuel surcharge at all given the current need for mass transit and increase ridership that has occurred in the last six months.
I know that all is over your head since it sounds like you are one of the guys who supported borrowing trillions from the commies in China and the totalitarians in Saudi Arabia to pay for all of Bush's boondoggles and give-aways to the tax-sucking monopolies. BTW, the price of gas would still be reasonable were it not for you guys causing the value of the dollar to drop 40% due to your liberal and foolish fiscal policies of “borrow-and-spend.”. It's time for change and time to send you commie-loving, liberal fiscal idiots back to the asylum you came from and put some true fiscal conservatives in office both locally and nationally.
18 July 2008
at 3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
At 6mpg vs. 20mpg, it would take about 3-4 passengers to make the T equal to driving separate cars.
That assumes that the T is taking a straight forward efficient route to your destination, which is often not the case.
For example, to get from 6th and Michigan to 31st and Iowa (both fairly populous areas), you have to take a bus downtown (away from your destination), and then back out. Of course the route out is not as direct as one could drive it.
If you combine those inefficiencies, I believe it would take more like 6-7 passengers just to break even environmentally, assuming no one gets more than 20mpg in their cars.
The smart (and obvious) way to structure the buses more efficiently would be to have them drive along major roads in both directions. That way, using my example above, one could pick up a bus heading west on 6th to Iowa, and transfer to a bus heading south on Iowa (which is how I would drive). It's direct, takes less time, and would make the system more accessible and usable for most people.
It is also the way that good bus systems are structured in larger cities, which have excellent usage of their public transportation systems.
Also, fare collection usually accounts for a higher percentage of the costs.
Restructuring the routes/schedules to make the system more usable, and increasing fares to make fare collection a more reasonable percentage, would go a long way towards making the system more economically and environmentally sound.
Again, please contact Cliff Galante at the city to share your comments - I've spoken with him and relayed my thoughts, which he seems fairly uninterested in.
18 July 2008
at 4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
so spiderman/cool is panting after $7 gas, in part caused by the enviros/greenie-wheenies preventing us from drilling! that's corrupt, and they claim to be so sensitive about the needs of the poor! riiiiiiight.
and, I'm still waiting for sliderman/unCool to fulfill his promise of the other day and go away! he really said it! let's see him do it.
***
Topless bus drivers.
I don't know, some of those men, I think it'd be a money-loser. now, onbus movies? onbus concessions?
maybe that'll bring some money after all. if you want the topless thingy, the T needs to do a calendar: “the women of the T” showing them in bus-related poses.
you know, the ads on the sides of the bus don't have to be static, painted-on perminent signs. instead, we could put on big LED type screens that could be programmed. it could feature the daily special at jefferson's…if they had one. it could change every week, highlighting the sale at Checkers. you'd get more money than with painted on ads.
18 July 2008
at 4:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
wow,
screedy, you are starting to sound *gasp* conservative!
you are correct, the same logic, and they want to manage health care! if I were in canada, I would have died several times over because of the lack of specialists, and the waiting lists to see them! no, not exaggerating!
and, what an amazing rant by mellonHead! just amazing.
18 July 2008
at 4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal