Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Inefficient T

October 2, 2008

Advertisement

To the editor:

The people who support tax increases to fund the T are trying to shape the issue as a vote either for or against public transportation, which is far from the real issue. The issue is should voters increase taxes to fund the current system. The way this system is organized and managed should be the focus of voters, especially given the current state of our economy.

The Journal-World headlined an increase in ridership over the past month, yet failed to point out that over the past eight months ridership has actually decreased by 8 percent, while the cost of gasoline has significantly increased. You don't need a statistic, merely the ability to see, to know what is wrong with the T. The buses are too big, too pollutive (other cities' buses run on natural gas), they dangerously clog traffic flow, and, most importantly, very few people are choosing to ride.

I recently rode my bike to the aquatic center and passed the T; nobody was riding it. I went another block to the aquatic center; there was another bus in front of it - one person got on and it took off. This is not an isolated incident in my experience. A women who works in my office building tried to ride the T to work. To be at work by 8 a.m. she had to get on the T by 6 a.m. Lawrence may need an effective and efficient public transportation system; however, the current system is not it.

Timothy G. Riling,
Lawrence

Comments

none2 5 years, 6 months ago

(continued)just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:""Nevertheless, you have nothing to worry about. When the election comes around in November, you can rest assured that your tax increases will ALL pass. With all the students being able to ride the T for free, you have nothing to worry about. They will come out in droves to support the T. Would you turn down the T if it were free for you? ""This is a complete distortion of reality. Sure, students, for now, can ride the "T" with their student pass. But riders of the city system can also ride the University buses- it's just the first step towards combining the systems, which is a necessity if we are to have an improved city-wide system- something you appear to be demanding. Please make up your mind."""Thus, be happy: you'll have the additional taxes that you wish for in just over a month."I'm not happy about the tax increase. That is the demand of the city commission. Please direct your complaint appropriately."---------------------------------Distortion? How so? Route 8 goes through campus for all those people who need to get to campus. So why would a rider of the T need a free ride on KU on wheels? Are they unable to walk at all from where route 8 drops them off?Please don't tell me how you aren't happy with the tax increase. You want the T, and it needs more money just to continue in its present form given the higher price of fuel and costs in general. Where else do you want the money to come from? Can we beg the federal or state government for more money? Somehow I think given the economic crisis we have right now, the T isn't on their radar screen. That boils down to local support. Are you saying it is ok just to increase the mill levy and slip in the additional T expenses that way? I hope you realize that property tax IS a tax. Anybody who owns property as well as the indirect increase in rental costs pay for an increased mill levy. So unless you have some other way of paying for the T, it is a tax increase that the pro-T side wants. A tax is a tax is a tax...(fini)

0

none2 5 years, 6 months ago

(continued)just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:""Once the ridership is TRULY up and the costs are down, then come to the city asking for more money from the tax payers:"Costs are not going to come down. It's a public service that requires public financing. That's just a fact of public transit. If that fact offends you, then vote your ideology. Just don't pretend that it has anything to do with the effectiveness of the transit system."-------------------------------It has nothing to do with ideology, and has everything to do with common sense. Public transportation is only "essential" in the minds of the pro-T crowd. Roads have been around since ancient times -- not buses. Fire and police protection have been around forever also. You want a bus system, fine. Just make sure you come up with some funding mechanism besides asking everybody else to pay for it forever. We have to breath, drink, eat, be clothed, have shelter, and other such necessities. Should the government take over the restaurant/grocery, clothing, and housing industries? These things are more basic necessities than transportation. My personal feeling is that if they cannot make public transportation self suficient, it isn't because it is impossible, but because the public transportation proponents cannot think outside the box. So they lean on the government just to tax everybody and keep it going. If taxi companies can survive even after we got the T, then surely there is some way to make the T self supporting.--------------------------------------------------------------(continued)

0

none2 5 years, 6 months ago

(continued)If you still cannot understand how relevant routes like the K-10 connector are, let me make an analogy. Imagine if the progressives when they were in power, in their infinite wisdom decided that the citizens of Lawrence needed the public service of free, small, jock straps for all of its citizens. (NOTE: Size is ONLY about WAIST size.) It is a public service, so obviously as you state, we cannot expect it to pay for itself. Imagine this continues for eight years. All along there have been rumblings of discontent from large waisted men and all the women who ask WHY is Lawrence doing this. The Pro-JS (jock strap) crowd states that it is necessary to support this for the poor, elderly, and all the disinfranchised. When the other side states that either this practice should be abolished or else expanded to include larger waisted men and perhaps support bras for the women, the pro-JS crowd says: Sure we will get JS for larger waisted men when we get MORE money. As for the support bras, "DON'T DRAG IN COMPLETE IRRELEVANCIES."The moral of the analogy is that just like you cannot ignore the uselessness of free jock straps for women, you cannot ignore the uselessness of a public transportation system that ignors the 20% of Lawrence residences who commute elsewhere. Either exempt commuters for paying for a useless service, or start from scratch and create a regional transportation system as opposed to one for "fortress Lawrence".Also I can already anticipate the typical pro-T response of police, fire, roads... We have heard it all before infinitum. Just remember to check your insurance rates (homeowner and/or renters) if we get rid of our fire department or police protection. As to roads, just remember that your precious T's large buses won't do well on unpaved muddy paths or potholes. Perhaps the pro-T side would like the T to expand and become a light rail system? I'm sure that would be inexpensive. --------------------------------------------------------------(continued)

0

none2 5 years, 6 months ago

(continued)just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:""3) They would have pushed to see that the city also help funds the JO's K-10 connector to help the poor people get to better paying jobs in JO and the rest of the metro area. To keep the poor in poverty so that the argument can be maintained that so many need the T to get to work is very self serving. Give them the tools to get out of their poverty."I don't see what this has to do with the "T." Sure, the K-10 connector has been a success, and should probably get city support to expand it, but it doesn't substitute for bus service within the city. If you don't like the "T," fine, but don't drag in complete irrelevancies."-------------------------------You really just DON'T GET IT. Lawrence is not an island. In fact it is probably just the opposite given how much it depends on money from the outside like state and federal funding for KU and Haskill and how few good paying non-government related jobs are here. One of the BIGGEST blunders of the whole creation of the T was that is was designed in an island without any thought to the 20% who commute to outside Douglas county to work. (I have no idea on the percentage of people who cannot afford to live in Lawrence and thus live in surrounding communities and thus commute to Lawrence for work. They too should have been taken into consideration.) Lawrence should have strived for a REGIONAL transportation solution instead of a big bus, small-sighted solution. The largest need for public transportation (KU) was already taken care of, so all the T was for was for that part of Lawrence that excludes KU and excludes commuters. Those are TWO major slices of the pie for Lawrence that were left out. KU should have been part of the equation from the beginning -- not 8 years later. Likewise, something to connect us to Topeka & the KC metro should also have been planned.You expect the commuters to pay for your precious T, even though commuters get very little benefit from it. Do you expect the commuters to get home at 6pm, and hop on the T until 8pm when it stops? (Of course I suppose commuters are expected to use the T all day Saturday.) You better be thankful that you have the commuters, because imagine the cost of the T, if commuters simply moved to the KC metro or Topeka areas. Lawrence would still have the same area size, and a much less population to take money from to pay for this pet project. (continued)

0

none2 5 years, 6 months ago

(continued) Anonymous userjust_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:""1) Get the word out to voluntary use of the public transportation as opposed to trying to shame people into wanting to ride it as some do on these forums."The word is fully out- the problem is an inadequate system that doesn't encourage anyone to use it who has the option of their own car."-----------------------------------------------------------By your own statement, you are condemning the T. There is no way it could ever be adequate enough to compete against a car. What do you want the city to do? Force all businesses and individuals to pay a tax for parking in ANY parking lot within the city limits -- not just downtown? Do you want like some have proposed to make it mandatory for city workers to use the T just to get the numbers up? Perhaps you also want to raise personal property tax, gasoline tax, etc to make use more like New York City or Europe to which so many delusional pro-T people compare Lawrence? The fact of the matter is the pro-T crowd wants to penalize people who don't use the T because that is the ONLY way the the T will experience any significant increase in ridership. You could ask for a 200 mill levy or a 10 cent sales tax increase, and still the majority of people would have no interest in riding the T.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------""2) They would require the city to put advertisement on the buses to help pay the bills and thus try to do something to lower the cost."What do you suggest? Should T-supporters secretly sell advertisements, and then plaster them on the buses in the middle of the night?"-------------------------------------------------------------No, but if the pro-T crowd had been as vocal towards alternatives to paying for the T as they have been for keeping the mill levy up to pay for the T, the city commission would have listened. After all, it was the CITY that has kept funding the T for the last 8 years. Think of all the years the "progressives" were in power. Wouldn't they have listened?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(continued)

0

none2 5 years, 6 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:""I simply remember the posts of several of the people who are from the pro-T crowd. As to any perceived slight, there were none aimed personally at me. I'm sorry that you feel otherwise."I was commenting on your writings, not my feelings."----------------------------------------------I never said you were commenting on YOUR feelings, but you WERE commenting on mine. Again I quote:"...You paint with such a broad brush, and make so many connections between your imagined "T-supporters" and every perceived slight against yourself that there's nowhere to even start to have a discussion."You used the phrase "perceived slight against yourself. There has been NO "perceived slight against yourself [me]", and thus that is an invalid comment.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------""The pro-T crowd simply doesn't care about the tax payers in this area. If they did, they would work to make the public transportation as it exists TODAY more palatable to the entire community before asking for more money from everybody. That means things like the following:"The city commission is the one who doesn't care about taxpayers, and have given voters the choice of creating a new tax, or killing it altogether. You should really address your complaints in the right direction."-------------------------------------------------------------Just what do you expect them to do? Buy a printing press and try to print extra dollars? Or are you saying you support increased property taxes for all of us -- a sneaked in increase hidden among the "general funds" that you have to hunt for the costs and that we would have no say in? Have you ever hear of taxation without representation? At least with a sales tax some of it is payed by those in Lawrence that have nothing to do with property taxes. I am SO thankful that the city commission had the COURAGE to let the PEOPLE vote on this issue. Had it just been a mill levy increase, it would simply be another tax crammed down our throats without even the slightest chance to voice our disdain for the existing T. Again thank GOODNESS for the CHOICE to vote on this that our city commission has done. That is true democracy at the local level where it matters most.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(continued)

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

cont"3) They would have pushed to see that the city also help funds the JO's K-10 connector to help the poor people get to better paying jobs in JO and the rest of the metro area. To keep the poor in poverty so that the argument can be maintained that so many need the T to get to work is very self serving. Give them the tools to get out of their poverty."I don't see what this has to do with the "T." Sure, the K-10 connector has been a success, and should probably get city support to expand it, but it doesn't substitute for bus service within the city. If you don't like the "T," fine, but don't drag in complete irrelevancies."Once the ridership is TRULY up and the costs are down, then come to the city asking for more money from the tax payers:"Costs are not going to come down. It's a public service that requires public financing. That's just a fact of public transit. If that fact offends you, then vote your ideology. Just don't pretend that it has anything to do with the effectiveness of the transit system."Nevertheless, you have nothing to worry about. When the election comes around in November, you can rest assured that your tax increases will ALL pass. With all the students being able to ride the T for free, you have nothing to worry about. They will come out in droves to support the T. Would you turn down the T if it were free for you? "This is a complete distortion of reality. Sure, students, for now, can ride the "T" with their student pass. But riders of the city system can also ride the University buses-- it's just the first step towards combining the systems, which is a necessity if we are to have an improved city-wide system-- something you appear to be demanding. Please make up your mind."Thus, be happy: you'll have the additional taxes that you wish for in just over a month."I'm not happy about the tax increase. That is the demand of the city commission. Please direct your complaint appropriately.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

"I simply remember the posts of several of the people who are from the pro-T crowd. As to any perceived slight, there were none aimed personally at me. I'm sorry that you feel otherwise."I was commenting on your writings, not my feelings."The pro-T crowd simply doesn't care about the tax payers in this area. If they did, they would work to make the public transportation as it exists TODAY more palatable to the entire community before asking for more money from everybody. That means things like the following:"The city commission is the one who doesn't care about taxpayers, and have given voters the choice of creating a new tax, or killing it altogether. You should really address your complaints in the right direction."1) Get the word out to voluntary use of the public transportation as opposed to trying to shame people into wanting to ride it as some do on these forums."The word is fully out-- the problem is an inadequate system that doesn't encourage anyone to use it who has the option of their own car."2) They would require the city to put advertisement on the buses to help pay the bills and thus try to do something to lower the cost."What do you suggest? Should T-supporters secretly sell advertisements, and then plaster them on the buses in the middle of the night?cont.

0

consumer1 5 years, 6 months ago

none2Nice post. You set the bar for taking the high road. Often times I just use these post to vent. But you have nicely illustrated that expressing an opinion can be done in such a way as to maintain integrity and prove your point. Again nice job. Oh, When I see a post from bozo the clown, I never, never,never read them. What ever he/she has to say, I could care less. He/She is completely invalid. Some will say the same about me and that is okay. As I said I often post to vent. Other times I post to try and agitate. But, when I read a good, well written post, I like to say so.

0

consumer1 5 years, 6 months ago

none2Nice post. You set the bar for taking the high road. Often times I just use these post to vent. But you have nicely illustrated that expressing an opinion can be done in such a way as to maintain integrity and prove you point. Again nice job. Oh, When I see a post from bozo the clown, I never, never,never read them. What ever he/she has to say, I could care less. He/She is completely invalid. Some will say the same about me and that is okay. As I said I often post to vent. Other times I post to try and agitate. But, when I read a good, well written post, I like to say so.

0

Larry_The_Moocher 5 years, 6 months ago

Looking at the time stamp of Bozo's posts today... This must be one of his 7 days off a week.Get a job and pay your own bills... freeloader!

0

none2 5 years, 6 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:You brought out a whole army of strawmen for that post, none2. You paint with such a broad brush, and make so many connections between your imagined "T-supporters" and every perceived slight against yourself that there's nowhere to even start to have a discussion.-----------------------------------------------------------------Sorry, the only strawman I know is from the Wizard of Oz. I simply remember the posts of several of the people who are from the pro-T crowd. As to any perceived slight, there were none aimed personally at me. I'm sorry that you feel otherwise.The pro-T crowd simply doesn't care about the tax payers in this area. If they did, they would work to make the public transportation as it exists TODAY more palatable to the entire community before asking for more money from everybody. That means things like the following:1) Get the word out to VOLUNTARY USE of the public transportation as opposed to trying to shame people into wanting to ride it as some do on these forums. 2) They would REQUIRE the city to put advertisement on the buses to help pay the bills and thus try to do something to lower the cost.3) They would have pushed to see that the city also help funds the JO's K-10 connector to help the poor people get to better paying jobs in JO and the rest of the metro area. To keep the poor in poverty so that the argument can be maintained that so many need the T to get to work is very self serving. Give them the tools to get out of their poverty.Once the ridership is TRULY up and the costs are down, then come to the city asking for more money from the tax payers...Nevertheless, you have nothing to worry about. When the election comes around in November, you can rest assured that your tax increases will ALL pass. With all the students being able to ride the T for free, you have nothing to worry about. They will come out in droves to support the T. Would you turn down the T if it were free for you? Thus, be happy: you'll have the additional taxes that you wish for in just over a month.

0

Pilgrim 5 years, 6 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:Fares have been raised recently, to $1.50. I think that's about right, given that kids, seniors, the working poor and the disabled are among its most common users.********Successful public transit sytems cover about 50% of their operating costs through fare collections. Since a one-way trip on the empTy costs $8.50 per rider, the empTy needs to get its fare up to about $4.25 before we even have something to discuss. Until then, we're spending $3+ million in tax dollars (soon to be $4+ million) to convenience less than one percent of the population, with fares covering only about 12% of operating costs. The cost-benefit ratio is indefensible.And to those who say we have to pump more tax money into this failed system in order to fix it, apparently you have never heard the time-proved advice, "When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging." The empTy is in a $3+ million hole. Let's quit digging.Vote NO! twice!

0

Pilgrim 5 years, 6 months ago

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says:Just because you don't see riders doesn't mean there aren't any. *****According to the empTy's own annual report, average ridership per revenue mile is .5 people, not including the driver. Half a person per mile. Yes, mom, that is empTy.Vote NO! twice!

0

notajayhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

jafs (Anonymous) says: "What are the chances that the system will be redesigned?"Please remember who you're talking to. boohoozo's argument on building a bus system has never consisted of anything beyond 'if we build it they will come.' I asked the clown on another thread to show us anything - anything - to support his claim that passing the tax would lead to a redesign. Gee, got no response. Go figure.I find it amusing - and not just a little bit humorous - that boohoozo is advocating for a course of action that consists of blindly giving money to the government and trusting them to do the right thing with it.****matchbox81 (Anonymous) says: "Dial-a-ride is 3-4 times more expensive per ride than a fixed route, and the federal government allows a 30 minute window for the bus to come and pick people up (" you want to be picked up at 1? We'll be there sometime between 12:45 and 1:15"). It's not condusive to people going to work or keeping appointments."As opposed to the current bus schedule, you mean?****just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: "There have been countless posts on nearly a daily basis about the very large number of people who use the "T" every day, to very good purpose."Yes, there's no shortage of hysterical dishonesty in Larryville. There have also been countless posts, boohoozo, that reflect the actual numbers, which are a little closer to the 'paltry' end of the scale than 'the very large number' end. But then, facts have never exactly been boohoozo's strong point."It's a strawman argument to assert that someone who supports the "T" must automatically oppose increased employment opportunities."Like the strawman argument that not wanting to flush millions more in taxes down the drain on a poorly planned, poorly executed, and poorly managed system must hate poor and disabled people, boohoozo?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

You brought out a whole army of strawmen for that post, none2. You paint with such a broad brush, and make so many connections between your imagined "T-supporters" and every perceived slight against yourself that there's nowhere to even start to have a discussion.

0

none2 5 years, 6 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:none2- It's a strawman argument to assert that someone who supports the "T" must automatically oppose increased employment opportunities.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------There is no automatic to it, it is just the trends of what is stated on the LJWorld by such people. Take in point the hostility that pro-T supporters have against commuters. We are type casted as all driving SUV's and living in west Lawrence and of course adding to the city tax burden by living in new housing. Last time I looked, North Lawrence wasn't in the western part of town, the house wasn't new, and my vehicle is not an SUV. Secondly, most of the pro-T crowd was opposed to the SLT for reasons such as it was solely for commuters. I am against it also, but because we already have 31st and we have the Wells Overlook road. Those two roads would work just fine. Still the hostility towards the commuters is a well known fact in this town. It isn't just on the ljworld forums. I've even heard such callers on the Walt Bodene show on KCUR whenever they invite some professor of Urban Planning from KU. Third, the one public transportation route that showed the most promise was the K-10 connector. The city has decided not to contribute to its success, so only the JO supports it. This is the one route that could help the "poor" people who supposedly need public transportation, get to better paying jobs -- an actual possibility of ending the cycle of poverty. Where was the outrage from the pro-T side not to support this route? If there was any protest, it sure didn't make the paper. Pro-T people also have been against any improvements in North Lawrence such as the drainage issue or even the consideration of the industrial expansion up by the air port. Merrill, the self appointed Pro-T spokes person, has argued that if the 8 year old T isn't continued, than neither should the airport in North Lawrence. So again, please tell me where the pro-T crowd has taken any initiative to truly improve the economic conditions in Lawrence other than perhaps the jobs created for the T workers themselves. They claim about all these people who now can get to work as though we had this whole class of unemployed people. If so, where is the data that shows the difference before and after the T first started? Pro-T people want everybody to pay for this pet project of theirs. Well they should either pay for the T themselves, or offer something for the good of the entire community and not just 1% who refuse want to walk, run, bike, car pool, drive, or even ask a friend for assistance. There is no dignity or pride in mooching off of others just because you don't know each and every one of the individual tax payers personally.

0

Donnuts 5 years, 6 months ago

Sometimes you feel like a nut; sometimes you don't.

0

Windlass 5 years, 6 months ago

Our Constitution is amendable. We should amend it.

0

Windlass 5 years, 6 months ago

Safety? Didn't help in the attack, from a second direction, in one episode?____Um, nupe. Only the Battle Bridge goes to the fight. It's really very cool to see the Saucer Separation.

0

Windlass 5 years, 6 months ago

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty & perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction, of all ages, sexes and conditions.In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.- FINIS -

0

Windlass 5 years, 6 months ago

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:For abolishing the Free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. >

0

LogicMan 5 years, 6 months ago

"would fly to safety."Safety? Didn't help in the attack, from a second direction, in one episode?

0

LogicMan 5 years, 6 months ago

""The buses may sit off the road for a few months, but that's better than having them continue in this wasteful way."""Um:no. They'll have to be sold because they were bought with federal funding."Extremely unlikely. Even if an old contract requires such a sale, a call explaining the situation would yield a waiver or a delay of the requirement.

0

Windlass 5 years, 6 months ago

  1. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.8. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.9. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. 10. He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.11. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our Legislatures.12. He has affected to render the Military independent of, and superior to the Civil power.13. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:>>
0

Windlass 5 years, 6 months ago

The Reasons:1. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.2. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.3. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.4. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.5. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.6. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.>

0

Windlass 5 years, 6 months ago

Pausing....What about a saucer separation?? Any Trekkies? On Star Trek, whenever the crew went into battle, the Enterprise (ship) had this ability where the Battle Bridge and the Saucer Section would separate. The Battle Bridge would fly into the battle zone while the saucer section, with all of the passengers on board (women, children, medics, cooks, etc.), would fly to safety. I'd been thinking how this sort of thing could work for our country like when the state's are diametrically opposed to the Federal gov, separate .

0

Windlass 5 years, 6 months ago

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, envinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.>

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

none2-- It's a strawman argument to assert that someone who supports the "T" must automatically oppose increased employment opportunities.

0

Windlass 5 years, 6 months ago

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. >

0

none2 5 years, 6 months ago

Windlass (Anonymous) says:I'm curious about something. The folks who hate taxes to begin with:.IF you had a choice, what would you rather pay taxes for to make a town more to your liking? It has to be something; can't be nothing.------------------------------------That is simple. The city should spend more of its money towards doing those things that enhance the attractiveness of this town for prospective employers -- including sales pitches to prospective employers. Pro-T supporters have claimed the T is one of those things, but I have yet to hear of any rush of employers to Lawrence because we have the T. The more good job opportunities are found in Lawrence; the more people spend in Lawrence. Thus the more prosperous the community becomes.As I have stated before Lawrence has this split personality. These Pro-T people want all the amenities of a LARGE city such as public transportation, round-a-bouts, zoning regulations, etc, yet these same people don't want the jobs, better retail, nor even the commuters that help subsidize all their pet projects. You cannot talk out of both sides of your mouth. If you really want to have public transportation like a bigger city, then support all the other things that come with big city life.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

"Even boozo is not foolish enough to believe that the "bus bigots" base their negative feelings towards an empty, polluting, fuel guzzling, unused perkmobile on anything resembling ideology. That is the catch phrase of the socialists who hate cars, capitalism, guns and religion."Yea, right, monkeyhawk, no ideology in there at all (sarcasm.)

0

Windlass 5 years, 6 months ago

so you probably didn't want my opinion anyways. :-)...but I did, and I'm glad. Thank you!

0

Windlass 5 years, 6 months ago

Meanwhile, where was I.....The Declaration of Independence. In Congress, July 4, 1776....When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.>

0

Deja Coffin 5 years, 6 months ago

Windlass, I've always said that I'm a supporter of taxes that benefit public safety employees. But I don't live in Lawrence and don't get to vote on the matter so you probably didn't want my opinion anyways. :-)

0

Windlass 5 years, 6 months ago

I'm curious about something. The folks who hate taxes to begin with....IF you had a choice, what would you rather pay taxes for to make a town more to your liking? It has to be something; can't be nothing.

0

monkeyhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

Talk about an "ideological axe to grind". Even boozo is not foolish enough to believe that the "bus bigots" base their negative feelings towards an empty, polluting, fuel guzzling, unused perkmobile on anything resembling ideology. That is the catch phrase of the socialists who hate cars, capitalism, guns and religion.Most opposed to breathing nasty air (except, of course the cigarette haters), or wasting precious resources, resent the fact that we are milked daily to support the failed Utopian dream of Lawrence's very own "Empty City in Motion." On top of that, we are faced with having to bail out deadbeats and con men who never seem have to take responsibility for their own actions. (Which reminds me of the former mayor who was instrumental in imposing this disaster on the taxpayers in the first place.)Remember that saying, "timing is everything?" Too bad those of us who already feel that we bear an unfair tax burden, who are already mad as hell, are going to be very inclined to say NO, NO, & NO.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

"It is time the city got its act together and realize that they cannot spend money right or left without a valid reason."There have been countless posts on nearly a daily basis about the very large number of people who use the "T" every day, to very good purpose. You prefer to hypothesize that such people don't exist, and that it's only pure laziness that creates any demand for public transit.I'm just hoping that voter turnout is relatively high this election so that those with an ideological axe to grind can't kill public transit in this town.

0

none2 5 years, 6 months ago

foodboy (Anonymous) says:"jafs and others ask "how did folks manage before the buses?"Why not also ask how people got along before any publicly provided service. eg. trash pick up(I'm old enought to remember paying a trash man to come by), should we go back to a volunteer fire department?, our community owned hospital etc. Just think of any government service that we take for granted because it improved the lives of the community."-------------------------------------------------If you want to question trash, fire services, and the hospital. Feel free to do so at some city meeting. However, this topic is soley about the T. The T has only existed since 16-Dec-2000 (much more recent than our hospital, fire department, and trash system). Thus, It is a valid point to ask why it is so needed these last 8 years that wasn't needed since the 70's (or whenever the last non-KU public transportation system existed). If you want to talk about the size of Lawrence, keep in mind that most people on the fringes of the city aren't riding the T anyway. Likewise, a big part of the city's growth was in the 80's and the 90's. Right now we are in a slow down... I remember in the 80's when there was a discount theater way south of town -- probably about where Walmart is today. The Kmart was down there where we now have all those shops like Bed & Bath. So the town has is as far south today as it was then. Most of the city's growth has been residential growth on the west & somewhat the southeast. Are these neighborhoods clamoring for the T? I don't hear an overwhelming chorus of people in these expanded areas demanding the T. Thus If the T is so vital, where are the stats showing how having it lowered the unemployment rate once it went operational? If there are elderly &/or disabled who need assistance, no one has questioned that at some level those communities need the para-transit. As to the rest that just want someone else to food their transportation bill, they should buy a bike. I don't know WHY it is such a disgrace to so many people to walk, run, or ride a bike. Especially for the young people, we need to encourage them to exercise as obesity is at a all time high. It is time the city got its act together and realize that they cannot spend money right or left without a valid reason. The city should spend more time and energy attracting better paying job opportunities, and quit trying to breast feed all the residents who think they are entitled to cheap milk. Perhaps with a better job, some of these diehard T supporters wouldn't be so needy.

0

matchbox81 5 years, 6 months ago

Having a space big enough for all of the buses from all of the routes to park at the same time would make transferring easier wait only a few minutes instead of 20 minutes. Dial-a-ride is 3-4 times more expensive per ride than a fixed route, and the federal government allows a 30 minute window for the bus to come and pick people up (" you want to be picked up at 1? We'll be there sometime between 12:45 and 1:15"). It's not condusive to people going to work or keeping appointments. Plus, most systems that offer just a dial-a-ride or taxi-vouchers end up exhausting their budget early in the year because demand exceeds supply. That's why cities like Garden City, Hutchinson, and Salina have switched over to offering fixed routes can offer more rides for cheaper.

0

hawkperchedatriverfront 5 years, 6 months ago

matchbox, fewer people will be able to walk to the bus, come on, get real. If Bus 8 would just go down Iowa instead of meandering across the campus, you mean to tell me that no one is capable of walking from 19th and Iowa to 19th and Ousdahl or like wise from 23rd and Iowa to 23rd or Ousdahl. OR from 15th and Iowa to the dorms. Get real. Dial A Ride is one of the biggest components to make the system work. It is done in other cities the same size, the same populationHave Dial A Ride and a few fixed routes. Lawrence's para transit is exclusive. It is nothing more than an elaborate taxi system and excludes the general population.Vote NO and send this mess back to the city commission who created it. maybe not all of them, but this commission is responsible for leadership and correcting the bad decisions of the past commissions.And what's with this about downtown not having enough spaces for buses to park> Starting to sound like KU saying that all buses need to go to GSP and Corbin to turn around.Anyone ever hear of TRANSFER? Do all of the planes in the US go to KCI to turn around.This town is getting dumber and dumber.Vote NO, Vote NO and Vote NO on sales tax for infrastructure as well. Let Steve Glass donate back some of the profits he has made from paving over the decades. Hey, there is an idea. A new tax on asphalt companies to help finance the T.

0

Richard Heckler 5 years, 6 months ago

Question #20.2 percent for public transportationA special sales tax for public transit operations and capital investmentLawrence TransitPublic transportation in Lawrence travels throughout the community to businesses, educational institutions and employment areas. With a dedicated funding source, the City will have the resources to merge the transit system with the University of Kansas transit system ensuring substantial continuing resources to serve both community and student needs in an integrated system.Question #30.05 percent for public transportation, expandedA special sales tax for public transit system enhancementsAdditional dedicated resources for the transit system will provide for route enhancements and vehicle and facility improvements. Examples include increased bus service frequency on busy routes and alternative fuel buses.The 0.05 percent sales tax is only effective if the 0.2 percent sales tax for transit also becomes effective. Voters can not approve only a 0.05 percent sales tax for transit purposes.

0

matchbox81 5 years, 6 months ago

And by the way, even in New York and L.A., private cab companies coexist with public transit. Have money and need to get somewhere fast, take a cab. Need to go to your $6/hr job to support your family and stay off of welfare, take the bus.

0

matchbox81 5 years, 6 months ago

All this talk about how ineffecient the transit system is...Unlike in bigger, congested cities, or even the KUOW route, the purpose of Lawrence Transit System is not to be as convienient as a car, rather it's to provide an alternative for people that can't drive or afford a car - really, an extension of a social service. Of course the system won't get you somewhere faster than a car, but it will get you there. The transit dept was given a set amount of money and told, "cover as much of lawrence as possible, oh and have the hub be downtown because we want to support our downtown", even though downtown doesn't have a place big enough for more than a couple of buses to park. Look at the bus map and that's exactly what happened. You can get to/from most places in Lawrence using the bus, it just takes time. You could have the system out of the Merc parking lot, and the city will probably be looking at that. The alternative is to drastically shrink/limit the routes and have buses coming more often on the smaller routes. The flip side is that fewer people will be able to walk to the bus.

0

hawkperchedatriverfront 5 years, 6 months ago

The T has been an experiment from the beginning. It never was thought out. It suffers the same lack of leadership that Watkins museum suffers from. The zoning around town is an obamanation, all because the city allows the neighborhood groups and vested interests, aka KU and a few so called developers to call the shots, a result of lack of leadership and forethought. The T is the mobile image of the lack of leadership in Lawrence.Vote NO on all three tax issues. The commission created the T without a vote from the public,now the commission can figure out how to fund the T without a vote from the public. My vote is NO. Send this back to the commission where it rightfully belongs.Vote NO on all three issues.We have 2 lawyers campainging for the T sales tax and now a new lawyer talking about the operation.I hope this Mr. Riling will sit down with the legal beages in favor of the T , sit down on the bus and ride around and see where the money is going around in circles.Vote NO 3 times!When you see the T on the streets of Lawrence, it should remind you of the city commission meetings each Tuesday. Going Around in Circles and Getting Nowhere.GACGN = TGACGN = City CommissionGACGN = Watkins MuseumGACGN = Neighborhood GroupsGACGN = ZoningGACGN = Chamber of CommerceGACGN = Lawrence, Kansas

0

Andrew Stahmer 5 years, 6 months ago

Vote NO and one-thousand times NO!!These handicapped beggars are getting a little too uppity with their big words like 'independence' and 'dignity'!! They ought to be on their knees thanking us for tolerating them at all!! In the good 'ol days they'd round 'em up and throw them in an asylum...outta sight, outta mind. It was were they belonged (still do incidentally...not on some overpiced fancy bus.) But no, now they want 'rights'. Now they think they're so important; they want to go out and 'work for a living' they want to 'contribute'. It'd be kinda cute and funny if they weren't all so pathetic. You know, my kid thinks he's superman too...but a dillusion isn't real. Go back to where you belong handicapped of Lawrence--begging on a street corner. Your 'independence' and 'dignity' is just something we can't, and will refuse to afford. Good thing you can't vote! They can't right? We haven't made that mistake of letting those people vote have we!?

0

Windlass 5 years, 6 months ago

Get rid of it then. Get rid of everything. Oust Dennis Moore, too. Just oust them all. ________The American people have only gone in a circle, that is, we are back to the original issues that sparked the first Revolution. Now, we are at the Second, but the reasons have not changed much at all. I will post those reasons later this afternoon.

0

sjschlag 5 years, 6 months ago

I agree with earlier comments about the lack of a plan. I am currently voting for something of which I have no idea where the money will go. I think this would indeed have a better chance of passing with a re-designed system of routes and a merger plan with KU on Wheels on the table. Trouble is, Lawrence transit tried re-designing routes in the past, and it failed. The public didn't like it. It takes time to figure out the service hours and go through all of the bureaucracy to change a route and schedule so that it fits the needs of the population better- that's why we still have the same system. The KUOW plan hasn't gone through because nobody wants to make any plans or decisions until funding comes through. There will be a huge rush to make that happen, and my guess is that what we'll end up with is a system that doesn't work, designed by too many people who have no idea how a bus system works, but are looking at the dollar signs and figuring out a way to lower costs. Sounds reasonable, but will it work for both parties involved. Using bus riders would be a good place to start with re-designing the system.

0

somebodynew 5 years, 6 months ago

Tim - great letter.Personally, having dealt with the city for a number or years, I disagree with the people who say we need to vote for this so it can change. Nothing will change in this city administration unless it is FORCED. There should be separate votes for the T and the para-transit, but that isn't available. I think if the T loses, it will come back, redesigned and better, but not if we don't force the change.I agree with another poster:Vote NOVote earlyVote oftenDo NOT trust the City to change anything unless forced to do so.

0

lawrenceguy40 5 years, 6 months ago

Dejacrew - Lawrence does have several cab companies, but you have to pay the usual commercial rates for their services. They do not give free rides! The empT supporters don't care about public transport - they just want to enable idleness and dependency to salve their conscience!

0

Deja Coffin 5 years, 6 months ago

Jut curious, does Lawrence have a taxi service or other transportation service available to elderly and disabled people?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

"There definitely was another option. The commission could have eliminated any funding for the T."No, it wasn't an option. They wanted to maintain the fiction that they support public transit, and by making it a sales tax issue, they bought some cover for "infrastructure" tax, which is what they really want to see pass."Instead, the voting public will be invited to make the decision :. much to your dismay, I'm sure."Actually, I'm only dismayed that a tax increase has been required to save it. I believe that at least the quarter-cent tax will pass, and perhaps both measures. I think a majority of Lawrence residents see that the potential value, if not the current value, of public transit as worth the relatively small cost.

0

monkeyhawk 5 years, 6 months ago

"If other options aren't currently available, then neither should a sales tax increase be an option. A tax increase should be looked at as a last resort. In this case, it seems to have been looked at as the only option.""I agree, and supporters of the bus system who were at the city commission meetings said the same thing. The tax increase was solely the idea of the city commission."There definitely was another option. The commission could have eliminated any funding for the T. Instead, the voting public will be invited to make the decision .... much to your dismay, I'm sure.

0

Phil Minkin 5 years, 6 months ago

jafs and others ask "how did folks manage before the buses?"Why not also ask how people got along before any publicly provided service. eg. trash pick up(I'm old enought to remember paying a trash man to come by), should we go back to a volunteer fire department?, our community owned hospital etc. Just think of any government service that we take for granted because it improved the lives of the community. I have attended several Save the T meetings and there is 100% agreement that the system must be improved, but killing it because of a 25 cent/$100 tax would be extemely short sighted. Any new proposal would have huge start up costs that redesigning the current system would not.

0

PapaB 5 years, 6 months ago

Speaking as someone who lived in Europe for a couple years and rode the bus all the time, I made a few observations the T could learn from:People had to work their schedule around the bus schedule, but the bus schedule became less frequent if less-used.You paid by the destination. They had a system where you state where you're going, the driver punched a code in, you slid a pre-purchased card through the reader and it printed how much was deducted and your balance remaining on the card.People had to walk and wait. Period. You get what you pay for and the alternative is a car.

0

lawrenceguy40 5 years, 6 months ago

If we continue to fund the empT, what is next? Free, city funded healthcare for those who don't want to pay for it? Help with rent for the work-shy?Vote NO and stop this nonsense.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

I would add that the convenience of driving has been possible because of the massive subsidies that it receives, including the subsidy of cheap oil-- subsidies that are rapidly subsiding.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

Taking the bus will never be as convenient as driving, but the system can certainly be made much more convenient than it currently is. But inconvenient is much better than not being able to get where you need to at all."Also, how did folks manage before the buses?"Very poorly.

0

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

If it's really a "social service" then it should be structured differently.A public transportation system should be designed so that much of the public can use it if they want.Also, how did folks manage before the buses?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

"If other options aren't currently available, then neither should a sales tax increase be an option. A tax increase should be looked at as a last resort. In this case, it seems to have been looked at as the only option."I agree, and supporters of the bus system who were at the city commission meetings said the same thing. The tax increase was solely the idea of the city commission.

0

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

Also, it's fairly easy to look at a bus and see if it looks full or not.I imagine that the "get to work" and "get home" buses are more heavily populated, but there seem to be quite a few during the day that are not.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

"That's 6 months of the current inefficient system, and there's no guarantee that voters will elect better commissioners in April, or that they will in fact redesign the system."It's better than no system, particularly for the hundreds who depend on it daily, and the thousands who need it occasionally."After all, the previous commission didn't see the need to design a more efficient usable system during their tenure."I think the previous commission was just glad that any system at all was in place (it took a major citizen campaign to make it happen, much to the chagrin of the chambocrats who want that money for corporate welfare) so they concerned themselves with other issues. Now is the time to take it to a new level, but that won't happen without citizen involvement. We probably owe a debt of gratitude to the current commission's attempt to kill it just because it's getting people involved again, as they were in getting the system established to begin with.

0

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

JK,It's not one person.My wife and I have tried to use the bus system from 4-5 different locations in town.Each time it would have been about a 45-minute trip, when driving directly would have been a 10-15 minute one.Also, it would have involved going away from our destination to downtown, and waiting 20 minutes to transfer to another bus, and then driving (not directly) to our destination.That's incredibly inefficient, both time/resource wise.

0

JKBagby 5 years, 6 months ago

I do not think we should base voting to cripple our public trans system on whether one person has to wake up a bit earlier to catch the bus in order to get to work. Nor should we pretend to know how many people are on a passing bus and worry that there are too few riders. We need public trans in Lawrence, we need a better system in KC, and Topeka as well. I firmly agree that we can only make improvements and re-shape if the system is continuously funded and in use. Fewer old cars will be re-sold in the future, a trend all of America is experiencing right now. A new generation of autos and a weakening economy with fewer jobs available means that more and more people will have to depend on public trans for their daily lives. Keep the T alive and improvements will come.

0

Norma Jeane Baker 5 years, 6 months ago

"Yes, there are alternatives to this sales tax, but they aren't currently available."If other options aren't currently available, then neither should a sales tax increase be an option. A tax increase should be looked at as a last resort. In this case, it seems to have been looked at as the only option.While I don't personally use it, I don't want to see public transit eliminated; that's never been my goal. I want the city to have to live the way the rest of us must: within a budget. I don't think that's a particularly unreasonable expectation.

0

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

After all, the previous commission didn't see the need to design a more efficient usable system during their tenure.

0

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

So, we're supposed to vote yes now, then wait and see until April?That's 6 months of the current inefficient system, and there's no guarantee that voters will elect better commissioners in April, or that they will in fact redesign the system.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

"What are the chances that the system will be redesigned?"Depends on who gets elected next April."And, why not simply raise fares so that those who use the sytem can pay a greater percentage of the costs, as in other public transportation systems?"Fares have been raised recently, to $1.50. I think that's about right, given that kids, seniors, the working poor and the disabled are among its most common users."Also, the city could certainly be proposing alternative methods of funding right now - why aren't they?"I think the current commission couldn't care less whether it survives or not. This divisive vote on these sales taxes is all the effort they're willing to put into it.

0

macon47 5 years, 6 months ago

The city council members know All 3 tax increases will pay.Why?Because historically Lawrence hasOne of the lowest turnouts of registeredVoters in the state.We all cry and moan on line, butThe only ones that get off their buttsAnd go to the polls are the grass rootLiberals who are laying around with Nothing to do .They are smart enough to stuffThe ballot boxes for their pet Projects because they haveProven the working class never vote

0

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

Bozo,What are the chances that the system will be redesigned?And, why not simply raise fares so that those who use the sytem can pay a greater percentage of the costs, as in other public transportation systems?Also, the city could certainly be proposing alternative methods of funding right now - why aren't they?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

"one plausible option: raise the price of parking tickets downtown. $2 is a laughable amount. That's why so many people don't even bother to pay those fines."Yes, there are alternatives to this sales tax, but they aren't currently available. Future commission can devise alternate methods of financing public transit, and the sales tax can be eliminated. But for now, the sales tax is the only option available, unless your real goal is to kill public transit, including paratransit."How can I look at the teenagers and others who use the bus if I can't see them ON the bus???"Perhaps because you never ride the bus?"OK, mattress and bozo, what exactly has the city administration done to earn the benefit of the doubt?"Nothing. That's why in addition to approving the tax, without which the system will be dismantled, new commissioners need to be elected come next April. They can then address the funding mechanism.

0

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

And, as an environmentalist, I am not happy with the buses either.Given the extremely low mpg - about 6 - and the inefficient routes, ridership would have to be much higher for the sytem to be environmentally sound.

0

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

If the administration had a clear plan to redesign the system to be more efficient and usable, and a clear plan for the merge with KU, this would be much easier.Unfortunately, they are not offering that, just asking us to trust them on the matter.I, for one, don't trust them.And, by the way, I have called Mr. Corliss' office several times to express these thoughts and urge them to come up with a plan before the vote so that we know what we are voting for.The real problem is that voting no will remove the para-transit service as well, and that without the federal and state funds, we will have a very stripped down version of that.For those who don't know, the para-transit service serves those who really can't get around on their own. If it were separated out, I suspect most would vote yes for it on it's own. It uses more efficient vehicles, operates on a call for ride basis, and is essential for the people who use it.

0

consumer1 5 years, 6 months ago

Momof 3 says "the bus that goes East on 23rd goes by the high school at 3:10, when school lets out, so they have to wait another 40 minutes. No biggy," Maybe it is "no biggy" to you, how would you like having strange or unknown teenagers hanging around your front lawn waiting almost an hour for a bus? Do you think they are just waiting quietly with their hands folded? And maybe you should be more concerned about the safety of your kids who are "hanging around" waiting. What do they do during that time? Do you know what your kids are doing or do you just depend on the rest of Lawrence to look after your kids?

0

Eric Neuteboom 5 years, 6 months ago

"A vote against is not a vote to redesign the system, it's a vote to end the system. Redesigning the system can only realistically occur with Yes votes."OK, mattress and bozo, what exactly has the city administration done to earn the benefit of the doubt? I agree it's a sadly placed vote, as I think most people would vote yes if 1) we knew the details of the proposed merger with KU on Wheels or 2) if we knew they were giving serious credence to the redesigning the route though. But I think that with the overall lack of trust in the leadership behind this vote, it's doomed to fail as a cynical public has heard enough of "trust us, we'll fix it, vote yes and then we'll get back to you"

0

Norma Jeane Baker 5 years, 6 months ago

I am not worried about raising taxes because I can't afford it, mom. The additional tax money itself is fairly inconsequential. My concern is that the city does not adequately look at its budget and make appropriate cuts when it needs more money. Instead, they simply pile on another tax. For most of us, acquiring additional money doesn't happen like that.There was an LTE in yesterday's paper that offered what seemed to be one plausible option: raise the price of parking tickets downtown. $2 is a laughable amount. That's why so many people don't even bother to pay those fines. If the fine for parking violations and the cost of parking downtown were raised, and the extra revenue budgeted toward the T, I suspect we wouldn't even be having this discussion.In the meantime, perhaps your college student child should make sure her bike is in good working order. She can use that to get to the K-10 connector.And when you said this: "Look at the teenagers and others that use the bus. Just because you don't see riders doesn't mean there aren't any." My only response can be, "Huh???" How can I look at the teenagers and others who use the bus if I can't see them ON the bus???

0

Eaglepass 5 years, 6 months ago

I disagree "just another-------"There are too many roads in Lawrence for the curent funds to keep up. There are a lot more citizens, workers and vistors that spend time and money in Lawrence and use the streets to get around, then the few and I mean few that ride the empT. How is approving 2 and 3 going to force reform of a poorly organized, polluting dumpy JOKE of a system. Passing 2 amd 3 will only fund the same joke of a system, until the next bailout request.

0

mom_of_three 5 years, 6 months ago

You are worried about raising taxes because you can't afford it, but look at some of the lower income citizens who use the T because they can't afford a private vehicle. It's their transportation, and their taxes will go up to. Look at the teenagers and others that use the bus. Just because you don't see riders doesn't mean there aren't any. And the schedule of the T's has always been an issue, since the routes are 30-40 minutes long. But my kids got used to it, don't know why adults are complaining about it. My college student uses it to get to the k-10 connector, her job, and downtown to the library. No the times aren't convenient, but we work with what we got. High school kids use it to get home, but the bus that goes East on 23rd goes by the high school at 3:10, when school lets out, so they have to wait another 40 minutes. No biggy, but the times aren't convenient. Better than the alternative, which is nothing. As pointed out before, vote yes will promise a re-design. A no will scrap it completely, and it's needed in this town, like it or not.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 6 months ago

Voting "no" will be the end of public transit for the foreseeable future. Voting "no" will not lead to a redesign of the system-- it will be the end of the system. If you want to support public transit, don't fall for all the cliche anecdotes, misinformation and mischaracterizations parroted by Mr. Riling. It's too bad that this city commission has chosen to make this such a divisive issue rather than doing their jobs, but if you want this system redesigned, the only option available is to vote "yes" on both issues "2" and "3".If you're concerned about your taxes going up for no real purpose at all, vote against issue number "1," which looks to me to be a dedicated fund for developer welfare, even though the current list of projects has a few for east and north Lawrence just to sweeten the pot.

0

Eaglepass 5 years, 6 months ago

H*ll No the empT Must GO!!!What did folks do befor the T??? What ever they did they still got around , had jobs, bought things and cost the citizens and tax payers of Lawrence a great deal less!!!Say No to #2 #3

0

Norma Jeane Baker 5 years, 6 months ago

Mr. Riling, you have written a well thought out, clearly stated letter. Thank you.As I've said so often, and now others are posting it as well:Vote 'NO'Vote early.Vote often.

0

blue73harley 5 years, 6 months ago

Muddling along with our current system will occur with a yes vote.Send a clear message...NO!

0

matchbox81 5 years, 6 months ago

LogicMan (Anonymous) says: "The buses may sit off the road for a few months, but that's better than having them continue in this wasteful way."Um...no. They'll have to be sold because they were bought with federal funding. A vote against is not a vote to redesign the system, it's a vote to end the system. Redesigning the system can only realistically occur with Yes votes.

0

blue73harley 5 years, 6 months ago

I agree. We need a complete redesign.in the meantime, vote no.vote early vote often.

0

Chris Ogle 5 years, 6 months ago

Lawrence doed need public transportation, but not the fixed routes like the "T". A demand response system could get folks to work within a reasonable time frame, and cost less than fixed-routes. Much less!! My vote is NO to fixed routes

0

Bowhunter99 5 years, 6 months ago

Vote NO and force a complete redesign.

0

LogicMan 5 years, 6 months ago

"Lawrence may need an effective and efficient public transportation system"Vote NO on questions 2 and 3 to force a total redesign.The buses may sit off the road for a few months, but that's better than having them continue in this wasteful way.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.