LJWorld.com

Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…

Just don't build 2 roundabouts. Problem solved.

Those things cost a half million a pop.

Daytrader23 (Anonymous) says…

Why don't you send the planner to Switzerland so he/she can learn how public transport is supposed to work. Also having bus only lanes would help by creating such a traffic problem that most people would rather do the park-n-ride option then try to drive through town. Raise parking fees. Create bike lanes. It works in almost every other city in the world. Lawrence won't figure that out for another 20 years though.

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Present the measure thus way:

Public Transportation Yes or No

Sidewalk Rehab Yes or No

Street Rehab Yes or No

The economic stimulus portion is not clear enough to warrant support from the public. Commissioners have not proven themselves, either now or in the past, to be able to make the right decisions. In other words there is no hard evidence to support what they think is economic growth. The Chamber of Commerce,city and county commissioners and the planning commissioners simply enjoy spending lots of money without knowing if that spending will actually create economic growth. Sprawl in any form jeopardizes economic growth.

Forget round-a-bouts. Use speed bumps which are very effective and much less expensive.

LogicMan (Anonymous) says…

They are at least two separate issues. If by votes, keep them separate.

But much better is to do the right thing now, and pare back the T significantly. I'm available, at my regular consulting rates, to do the redesign. :-)

justforfun (Anonymous) says…

If you combine both sales tax questions as one it will FAIL and there will be no infrastructure increase! Majority of people want to see the T go away. Oh yea and Boog as far as raising property taxes further to support the T go ahead and stick it where the sun don't shine!!!

nugget (Anonymous) says…

Just watched the T lumber noisily around my corner, engine groaning, its size meant to haul dozens of people on a route where there are none. Only problem, it was empty, as usual. Never more than 3-4 people at max, but usually carrying only a salary earning driver.

chic (Anonymous) says…

A bunch (or just one smart) local business should sponsor the bus. They could give passes to riders who shop at their store(s). So, if you ride the bus to their store, it's free.

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

Vote NO on the utterly disgraceful waste of tax payer dollars known as the T.

Because I care about Lawrence and its residents, I will be telling everyone I know to vote against further funding of the T.

Eride (Anonymous) says…

A city needs proper roads before a bus system. Get rid of the T.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Amyx actually asked staff members for an estimate of how much money the city would free up for the 2009 budget if public transit operations were discontinued. The answer: About $1.3 million in a budget that is expected to be among the more challenging in recent memory.”

$1.3 million divided by 85,000 residents divided by 365 days equals about 4 cents a day per resident.

I say increase that funding to 20 cents a day, and build a system that actually works, rather than one designed to fail.

Snowgurl0 (Anonymous) says…

Getting rid of the “T” would be the worst decision Lawrence residents could make. For starters, the Highway Trust Fund is going bankrupt this year. That means, no federal money for roads/bridges. That means, local funds will be sought after, so you need to be prepared to take that money from somewhere. You're also dealing with high gas prices, and they're not going down. They never will. Is Lawrence REALLY willing to cut off the lifeline that is the “T?” Think about other people besides youself and understand that many people use the T to get around town. 1/3 of residents can't drive so how are they going to get around? Someday when you're too old or can't afford to drive, or just flat out don't want to drive, public transportation will be there. New Flash: Public transportation is the way of the future. Do you really think the economy can afford to pour money into the “black hole” of roads and bridges while the population continues to rise? You can only add so many lanes to a road and highway. When are we going to say enough already?!

Godot (Anonymous) says…

There goes Bozo with fuzzy math again. $1.3 million will not sustain the T; to keep it at its current levels will require at least another $1.2 million.

The question really should be, how much does it cost per person who uses the T (not counting paratransit because that portion is covered by a Federal grant).

Someone posted on another thread that it represents a subsidy of $15 per ride.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“There goes Bozo with fuzzy math again. $1.3 million will not sustain the T; to keep it at its current levels will require at least another $1.2 million.”

OK, say you're right— then we're up to 8 cents a day. Increase that to 20 cents a day, and we can have a system that actually works, especially if merged with the KU system.

dano (Anonymous) says…

The LJW sub headline represents pro-T bias. “Sales tax vote could be one way to save system.” Perhaps LJW, some voters are not trying to “save” (spend a million dollars more than what we spend now) a bus that carries one passenger PER BUS every six minutes.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Even Galante deduced, from the results of the survey that was conducted, that the only way to make the T work would be do increase ridership, and that, apparently, people in Lawrence value their time too much too waste it by riding the T. No matter how much money you throw at the T, it will never gain the ridership necessary to make it viable.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Even Galante deduced, from the results of the survey that was conducted, that the only way to make the T work would be do increase ridership, ”

Which exactly why the system needs to be improved. They system was designed to be inadequate for most potential riders, with predictable results.

Informed (Anonymous) says…

Just why, bozo, should each and every citizen of Lawrence further fund the T? Wouldn't this put an undo burden on many families and individuals that are already looking for ways to make ends meet?

It's very generous of you to just offer up my wallet, but I think I'll pass.

Snowgurl0 (Anonymous) says…

Godot:
The entire T fleet is federally funded not just the paratransit.

A side note: public transportation will never be a money making venture, although I would like to see ridership increase…

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

I think it is a great idea to put it to a vote.

If there are that many bus riders it will surely pass…or not.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Just why, bozo, should each and every citizen of Lawrence further fund the T? ”

Because even if you don't personally ride the T, a well-functioning transit system makes the city a better place to live, and even you benefit from that.

Informed (Anonymous) says…

I realize that a well-functioning transit system makes the city a better place to live, but I seriously doubt that Lawrence, as a 'stand alone' city, will ever have one. Having grown up back east, I know what a well-functioning system looks like. My friends and I could take the bus to anywhere we wanted to go. And that was many years ago.

Again, please don't offer up my wallet on something that you even admitted was destined to fail, by design, from the start.

tvc (Anonymous) says…

Record gas prices and we want to cut the T! I think now is the time to invest in the T.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Again, please don't offer up my wallet on something that you even admitted was destined to fail, by design, from the start.”

That argument can be made for at least 50% of the city's budget. Which other items should we also be cutting?

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Snogurl, if the entire T is Federally funded, then some Federal funds are being misallocated.

Informed (Anonymous) says…

“That argument can be made for at least 50% of the city's budget. Which other items should we also be cutting?”

Great way to try to divert attention away from the real point of my comment, bozo: Lawrence will probably never have a well-functioning (viable) public transportation system. At least not until it is part of Topekansas City.

Compy (Anonymous) says…

I love Lawrence, I tend to forget I am in Kansas most of the time, except when I read coments about the T, and realise, there are STILL people who think Cheap Petroleum will last forever (newsflash: your precious car is about to become one big albatross round your neck). Grow out of the high school mindset that “Riding the bus is for children” and smell the rising costs of fuel.

Proud to be in the .4 % of Americans who commute to work via bicycle.

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

Good ol Lawrence, the hayseed town it is ready to shut down something that was setup basakward in the first place at a time where mass transit ridership around the country is up but that makes sense for us. Three buses systems running at the same time and yet an intelligent routing system can't be implemented. We can't tell city and university employees they will need to use the bus so right away we will find out what is working and what isn't working. No, can't do that because we are progressive Lawrence LOL!!!

Snowgurl0 (Anonymous) says…

Godot: What do you mean misallocated? Federal funds account for about 50% of operating costs of the funding for the system, and that's being generous. FTA funds are looking grim so I wouldn't count on those for long either. It's always a bad idea to rely on federal funds as the economy rises and falls constantly.

offtotheright (Anonymous) says…

I was near campus one day this week. There were three ku buses following each other, no riders, and 2 “T” buses in the exact same block with no riders.

That is really smart!

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

It is amazing to me that the student ran bus system was more logical and practical then what we have now. All that was needed was extending the student bus system and instead we got a the most bizarre system of bus service I've ever seen anywhere.

gl0ck0wnr (Anonymous) says…

Kill the T. Each rider on the T costs taxpayers $7.5 per one way trip. It makes no sense to spend $15 per user to get someone to and from a location using a virtually empty bus. There is no demand for this service and with Lawrence facing increasing economic difficulties, it should focus on core services.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Lawrence will probably never have a well-functioning (viable) public transportation system. At least not until it is part of Topekansas City.”

I disagree. We all spend way more than 20 cents a day, apiece to build and maintain a road system that primarily benefits the owners of cars (and trucks.) Spending a tiny bit more so that we all have access to a good bus system that would truly benefit everyone, and give everyone access to and use of our very expensive road system seems like a no-brainer to me.

Snowgurl0 (Anonymous) says…

You said it Bozo!

Another point to consider: There has been much talk about another gas tax. It's inevitable there will be the tax, it's just a matter of when. So not only will you be paying the 4.00/gal gas, but the increase tax on that, car payments, insurance payments, maintenance, etc. The list goes on and on. And we think a slight increase in transit funds is ridiculous?!

If poor service is the problem, fight for that instead of getting rid of it. A lot of folks can't afford the nonsense that goes into vehicles. 40.00 a month gets you unlimited rides around Lawrence. Can't beat that! I'm willing to bet that most of the negative supporters have never actually ridden the bus.

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

Come on bozo this is Lawrence. Riding the bus might mean you have to ride with people who aren't in the same professional yuppie class. We couldn't have that. Can someone explain why people think Lawrence is progressive? America is waiting.

Informed (Anonymous) says…

You're right, Snowgurl0. I've never ridden the T. Why should I? I work in KC. When I'm in Lawrence, I can get anywhere the T goes FASTER by walking or riding my bike. That's many people's point: the T is incredibly inefficient in its routing.

I'd love to see a successful public transportation system in this town, but, like bozo has already said, the T was destined to fail from its inception. Why should people trust that it can be righted now? That's why many people are so opposed to pouring more money into this black hole.

Snowgurl0 (Anonymous) says…

It's just a much a black hole as funding road infrastructure. It doesn't make money. We spend billions to fix it only to destroy it. And then, uh oh, concrete prices go up, federal funds have gone belly up, what do we do now? Same situation, tax the local community. I understand the system might be inefficient for some, but why not push for increased services? Yes, that will cost more money, but this is a service that Lawrence CAN improve over time, and will be an asset to the community. Much better investment than encouraging more cars on the road. Because believe it or not, one person per vehicle is extremely inefficient, extremely costly to the environment, infrastructure, and yourselves. And if Lawrence truely is as “progressive” as they seem to think, the citizens will see the insanity of dropping the tranist service.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Record gas prices are precisely the reason to cut the T. Why? Because the operation costs double, at a minimum, while the ridership remains the same. People are not going to waste hours of their time to ride the T when they could walk or ride a bike to their destination in less time.

Informed (Anonymous) says…

Lawrence is only progressive in its own mind and when it suits its purposes.

bennyoates (Anonymous) says…

The T is always pretty much empty, so I say fill it up. Fill it up with all the homeless deadbeats in Lawrence, the communist gay tree-huggers, and anyone who even thinks of voting Democrat. Then napalm the whole worthless bunch of them for using up MY tax dollars.

offtotheright (Anonymous) says…

I'll agree with that!

TopJayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Okay, stay with me now, this will be expensive. I think we should build a light rail system that stretches from Manhattan Ks. to Odessa Mo. It would also encompass Topeka, Lawrence Eudora. The KC metro area, you would run it into shawnee and Overland Park to Olatha, then up to downtown KC, and out to the sports complex. Then on out to about Odessa and back. Think of the ridership! Admittedly light in some areas, but heavy in others. All stops are “park and ride.” You could commut from Lawrence to your jobs in Topeka and KC. Think of the tracffic on K-10 daily. You could use it if you lived in Overland park and worked in downtown KC. Chiefs games KU games, KSU games. Students migrating from Topeka to KU and KSU Make it high speed. Run a spur up to KCI.

Massisvely expensive? you bet. But it would have the numbers to pay off.

TopJayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Just think of the gasoline savings from sitting in traffic on 23rd st everyday. And integrate the KU bus line into it of course.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

In the early 20th century, there used be just such a system, TopJayhawk, and it was quite successful, using more primitive technology serving a population that was considerably less dense. It could work again, if we want it, too.

But too many of us want to remain hermetically sealed in our private cars, going ever further in hock to the Chinese, and fighting wars over oil to keep the oil supply flowing.

TopJayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Hey Bozo, thanks for responding… I didn't know that and I consider myself somewhat of a history buff. But look. What would you say the population of the all of these areas. KC metro: 2milllion.
Topeka metro. 200,000
Manhattan 60,000
Lawrence 100,000 ? you tell me.
total at least 2.4 million folks.

That's two states =four senators, and a bunch of Congressmen. Federal help, gasoline tax, 2.4 mill in tax mill levys Tickets and permits to ride. Money from a parking tax in all of these towns. That's a lot of money, and when you stretch it out over fifty yrs or so and the use of bonds. and what alll . I think it is totally doable.

Daytrader23 (Anonymous) says…

WOW, in my first post I said it would take Lawrence 20 years to figure this transit system out. After reading some comments I can clearly see it will take the people of Lawrence 20 years to figure it out. Progressive? Lawrence?
Compared to what? Some red neck trailer park out in the sticks?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

I think your population estimate is pretty close.— probably pushing 3 million if you go into Missouri a ways.

Yes, it could happen. And if we had the share of the Iraq war debt of those 3 million people, we'd have been a long ways towards paying for it.

TopJayhawk (Anonymous) says…

I think you would have to make if practicle for use. Eg. Trains every 10-15 minutes. Limited stops for time pruposes. Route it to go by Universities, major employment centers Sprint Center and sports complex in KC. Shopping areas like the plaza and Legends. etc.

It would be high speed technology.

You could get Federal Money. a small gas tax in all usage areas. raise parking fees at all parking lots and garages in all areas. put a 10% surcharge on all sporting, theatrical, and concert tickets. And even all of our percious tshirts that we buy KU, KSU Chiefs, whatever. I know this will cost upwards of a Billion dollars, but that is spread over years of usag.

And if daytrader23 has a better way, I'm all ears.

TopJayhawk (Anonymous) says…

You would need to have some bus feeder lines in some areas. fueled of course by bio-mas fuels, it's green, sustanable, and whole areas of downtowns would smell like french fries, which would make people hungry, and they would buy a meal and pay more taxes to it…LOL

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

If buses are so useful how come the City maintains a fleet of private vehicles for city employees? Becasue just like the vast majority of Lawrencian's (99.9%), the “empTy” is a huge waste of time and driving a car is much more cost effective, productive, and dependable.

As a bonus modern cars with a single rider are better for the environment than “empTy” unless the buses are close to full, which I have never personally witnessed, because late mdoel cars use less fossil fuel per passenger mile than “empTy” buses. The only good thing I can say about the “empTy” is that they don't use ethanol and therefore are not personally responsible for starving a third world nation.

Keeping wasting money $2.5 million annually on the “empTy” and Lawrence could soon follow Vallejo, CA and our ex major-slash-gorcery clerk into bankruptcy.
http://www.nbc11.com/politics/16185467/d…
“Vallejo Votes For Bankruptcy”

“The city faces a $16 million deficit in the 2008-2009 budget starting July 1 and unsuccessfully negotiated with its police, firefighter and electrical workers unions for contract concessions through 2012. Public safety salaries comprise 74 percent of the city's general fund budget.”

none2 (Anonymous) says…

TopJayhawk (Anonymous) says…

“I think you would have to make if practicle for use. Eg. Trains every 10-15 minutes. Limited stops for time pruposes. Route it to go by Universities, major employment centers Sprint Center and sports complex in KC. Shopping areas like the plaza and Legends. etc…”

====================

The problem you haven't really come to terms with is these towns & cities haven't been build with one place in mind for a long time. You get that feeling just from reviewing the current public transportation — ie JO routes:

http://www.thejo.com/pdf/jctsystemmap200…

Take a case in point. You live in Lawrence, and you have a job interview at Sprint headquarters in OP. You take K-10 Connection to either JCCC or the Edwards campus:

Try plotting a course to get from there to the Sprint campus with existing bus routes. Keep in mind that you really don't want to bike or walk as a lot of these professional places don't want you looking sweaty, etc.

Now take that same idea and think how many different light rail track paths would be necessary to get to all these destinations. The big problem is the layout of our communities. There are just to many points of origin and points of destination. I think it would be a nightmare for ANY public transportation system one might propose.

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

none2 it isn't rocket science and the k-10 is just part of a larger bus system the JOCO has. Something tells me if you are trying to prove you are smart enough for a job at Sprint that figuring out how to use the bus should be a pretty good indicator of your smarts. And why are we talking about the job interview, how about the daily commute to job? And besides many of those “professional” places have showers and whatever else if you really do work up a sweat walking a few blocks. Sounds like just a bunch of excuses to justify not making changes. People fighting in Iraq are doing their part can't you do anything?

Snowgurl0 (Anonymous) says…

none2 is right: with so many sprawling communities, it does make it difficult to have an efficient transportation system.

If you look at the 2007 report, the T provided 388,325 one-way trips, that doesn't include the paratransit service. And the ridership has consistently gone up. So anyone who believes that no one rides the T is mistaken.

http://www.lawrencetransit.org/news/docs…

All of these reports are public so it wouldn't hurt to do a little reading before deciding that it's a waste of money and no one rides it. How does anyone even know that it's not being ridden? By driving by and glancing in the window? Gimme a break!

none2 (Anonymous) says…

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

“none2 it isn't rocket science and the k-10 is just part of a larger bus system the JOCO has. Something tells me if you are trying to prove you are smart enough for a job at Sprint that figuring out how to use the bus should be a pretty good indicator of your smarts. And why are we talking about the job interview, how about the daily commute to job? And besides many of those “professional” places have showers and whatever else if you really do work up a sweat walking a few blocks. Sounds like just a bunch of excuses to justify not making changes. People fighting in Iraq are doing their part can't you do anything?”

=========================

Time to come out of your fortress and try to learn…

1) It is obvious that the K-10 is just part of a larger bus system. If you go back to my post there is a URL (Uniformed Resource Locator). It is the text that starts with “http:”. You need to find your mouse and use the LEFT button to click on the text. That will cause it to take you to another location on the world wide web. That other location will display a map of ALL the JO routes that one might want to know about. If you see all the pretty colors, note that each color represents a different bus route.

2) Secondly many places do NOT have showers. Furthermore, many that do have such showers require membership. Remember this is the REAL world outside of fortress Lawrence. You aren't necessarily going to be able find a free recreation center and use their showers. If you want a job at a record store, you can keep the piercings and grunge look, but in the real world outside they need you to be clean and well groomed and on time.

3) I fail to see what this has to do with the soldiers in Iraq. Have we gotten one barrel of oil from Iraq? I think you have forgotten that the majority of oil bound for the USA comes from places such as Canada, Mexico, Venezuela. Perhaps you are suggesting that we direct our military to now invade Canada & Mexico and eventually Venezuela to save the em-T?

Godot (Anonymous) says…

2.8 million divided by 388,325: that is $7.21 per one way. Raise the cost of a ride to $7.00. Still cheaper than owning a car.

cool (Anonymous) says…

electrify the T !

bunnyhawk (Anonymous) says…

With current energy concerns, how can we not be scrambling to fund public transportation????? Cuz we're all whores to the oil companies and the auto manufacturers! Wake up!!!!!

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

Snowgurl0 (Anonymous) says… “If you look at the 2007 report, the T provided 388,325 one-way trips, that doesn't include the paratransit service. And the ridership has consistently gone up. So anyone who believes that no one rides the T is mistaken.”

388,325 riders per year divided by 365 days is 1064 riders a day, 1064 riders per day divided by 7 routes (7 and 8 are split routes) and that is 151 riders per route per day, 151 riders per route per day divided by 21 scheduled buses per route per day and we get a whopping 7.25 riders per day per route per scheduled bus. I call that virtually “empTy” and a waste of 2.5 million dollars every year in corporate welfare for MV Transportation. Let s not even begin to talk about the polution and the waste of fossil fuels.

As godot points out each ride costs taxpayers $7.00 and the rider less than a dollar. It is obvious, even at a bargain prices of less than a dollar for something that costs $8.00 to provide that virtually nobody values the bus as a transportation option in Lawrence, KS. We could be paying the first $5.00 of a cab fare for each of them and it would give them better service and cost us $700,000 less per year. Not to mention being easier on the environment.

classclown (Anonymous) says…

Tie the bus system in with the SLT 32nd street route.

“Impose “x” amount of sales tax to fund the city bus system and the building of the SLT along the 32nd street route”

Yea

Nay

All or nothing. Could prove interesting.

BigPrune (Anonymous) says…

Smart Growth City Files Bankruptcy

http://www.nbc11.com/politics/16185467/d…

cool (Anonymous) says…

read the article about the T in the current Lawrencian.

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

classclown (Anonymous) says… “Tie the bus system in with the SLT 32nd street route. Impose “x” amount of sales tax to fund the city bus system and the building of the SLT along the 32nd street route”

Spoken like a person who knows the “empTy” could never stand alone and that the SLT is very popular.

BTW, nobody is or should be talking about getting rid of the paratransit service that the city receives federal funds for and ends up wasting on the “empTy.”

toe (Anonymous) says…

Does anyone use pogo sticks any more?

hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says…

Why should we vote to fund something we did not vote to create?

The T needs a new director with guts. Shake up the route alignments. Raise the fare. The city needs to stop giving money(our money)to the Open Shelter to purchase bus passes for the T. How dumb can that be? Maybe the city would like to give each taxpayer some money to pay their taxes to the city. I cannot believe how stupid this commission. and dumb is dumber than dumb.

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…

Just don't build 2 roundabouts. Problem solved.

Those things cost a half million a pop.
––––-
I expected to see an article about a proposed roundabout at Gateway and 6th by now.
____________________________
toe (Anonymous) says…

Does anyone use pogo sticks any more?
–––
Yes, They Do!
Watch Unbeatable Banzuke on channel 122 (G4).
Pogo sticks on a nearly impossible course are one of the challenges. Unicycles, stilts, husbands carrying wives in wheelbarrows, walking on hands, etc.

Also saw Ninja Warrior for the first time. It too is a challenge course competition.
Amazing feats by people who like to appear happy and working towards personal perfection.
And the camera doesn't gloat on injury, like American TV does, stretching each contestant's run out. These shows have new contestants coming on immediately after the end of a run. On an American show, there might be 4-5 contestants. In the same amount of time, these shows have close to 20 sometimes.
And the contestants aren't all jocks/body builders. They have old men, previous title holders, 12 yr olds, and housewives all together!

usesomesense (Anonymous) says…

The 'MT' as we have always called it had some poor decisions made early on.

When the 'T' was first started it was all small buses - probably less than half the size of the giant 'Metropolitan Transit' style buses we have now. Those buses were on order and the small ones were just 'temporary'.

These smaller buses would have likely been far more than adequate as well as far more fuel efficient.

Secondly, it was decided that the 'T' would not have any paid advertisements on them. Now, I'm not a big fan of billboards, but we have to be practical here. If we have 20 buses with 3 signs apiece on them for say $300 a month each that comes out to $216,000 a year.

If bus services were coordinated with KU - and KU eliminated most on campus parking except for staff and service personnel and used the bus system as campus shuttles those costs could be shared and campus could have far better traffic control (pedestrian traffic included).

The reality is that public transportation is a great thing - but it has to be practical for everyone. Rising fuel costs should effect 'T' riders - and fees should reflect that. It doesn't make the 'T' any less of a bargain (except compared to walking or riding your bike).
Routes have to be evaluated - I work in the Northwest part of town and the 'MT' stops there several times a day and nobody gets on or off except the driver to take a pee.

There is no reason to maintain the 'T' at it's current level of service. We need fewer, smaller buses, higher fees for riders and advertising to offset operating costs.