Letters to the Editor

Positive action

May 20, 2008


To the editor:

I read with great concern the debates over maintaining mass transportation in Lawrence. In my opinion, eliminating the T would be a grave mistake and ultimately harm our great city and our aging population.

All great large and small cities need good, clean, safe mass transportation. Its growth and vitality is maintained and strengthened by efficient movement of large numbers of people. Our downtown would suffer declining numbers of shoppers from outlying areas. The rising cost of fuel will deter individual shopping downtown.

Industrial growth will be slowed because industrialists looking to relocate evaluate the total city value, and transportation is part of that value. The executives of these new potential businesses may be looking for future retirement areas or a place for their parents or grandparents. Public transportation is a vital part of their consideration.

Finally, the city leaders should look at this positively and provide solutions that add to the cleanliness of the environment and work with the Kansas University chemistry and engineering departments to develop alternate fuel and clean emissions people-movers. A hydrogen-fueled community would be one possibility, and this problem offers great opportunity for the two entities - city and university - to provide the solution.

The development of Midwestern, clean-fueled busing, as is happening in Los Angeles, would draw great attention to our fair city and continue to attract great teaching minds and students from afar - by showing how our dilemma made us react and act in a super-positive way. What an opportunity!

Dr. Bill Campbell,



cato_the_elder 9 years, 9 months ago

Multi, I respect your sentiments and could possibly have felt the same way. The problem, however, as we have all observed since the "T" was instituted, is that your young man was probably the only rider on the bus.

cato_the_elder 9 years, 9 months ago

Bozo, I can state with absolute certainty that having observed our "T" buses operating on more occasions than I can count since the system was instituted, I have never seen more than two riders in any bus at any given time, and on the vast majority of occasions the buses were entirely empty. I have no doubt that there may have been a few times when a "T" bus in Lawrence has carried more than two riders, but I have yet to have seen it, and I certainly haven't seen anything close to the 5-passenger load which Bowhunter describes. There are times when anecdotal information is useful, and this is one of them - the emperor hasn't been wearing any clothes since the "T" was begun, everyone knows it, and no one in charge has had the courage and common sense to put a stop to it or at least downsize it dramatically.

KsTwister 9 years, 9 months ago

Bowhunter is right on with this one. Restructure or break the bank its the city managers/commissioners who need to take a hard look at this money pit.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years, 9 months ago

" is that your young man was probably the only rider on the bus."It's more likely that this is an exaggeration.But no one can say that ridership is as high as it should be, and a very major reason for that is the inadequate system, and as gas prices continue to spiral rapidly upwards, that will become the major reason for relatively low ridership.

Confrontation 9 years, 9 months ago

It amazes me how many posters are obsessed with staring at and counting bus passengers.

grimpeur 9 years, 9 months ago

bozo said, "But no one can say that ridership is as high as it should be, and a very major reason for that is the inadequate system..."The other reason is that nobody has the vision to start DIScouraging wasteful and costly auto use in order to encourage the use of alternatives, including those which involve mere behavioral changes.bow said, "Bottom line: the mT needs to be seriously redesigned and resized to its currents needs."Real bottom line: we need to give recreational motorists a choice, and the alternative to the private auto must be attractive enough AND driving must be inconvenient enough to encourage use of public transit, feet, or bikes. Sadly, however, the self-inflicted woes of congestion and expense are apparently not yet sufficient to trigger any serious consideration of changing our habits, let alone building and operating public transit on the scale that is truly needed for our city and region. Here's an idea: let's wait, and wait, and wait until even the conception of a basic, convenient, and efficient transit system becomes so expensive that we never build it. Meanwhile, instead of moving people, we can continue to waste time, money and energy on moving cars around and storing them, empty, 9 hours a day.So far, so good.recreational motorists - include, but are not limited to, motorists who drive to or from work or school alone but within 0.5 miles of a coworker's house or neighbor's workplace (e.g. 1055, 458, K-10, I-70, US59 corridors), or who drive less than 1.5 miles to/from work/school.

cds 9 years, 9 months ago

My best friend had some serious problems with his car breaking down. If it wasn't for the T, I doubt he'd still have his job driving school bus's and getting your kids to school.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.