Cottonwood clients fear loss of paratransit service
Leaders at Cottonwood Industries hope next month's election won't put the brakes on a growing employment program. Enlarge video
JobLink and transportation
Peggy Wallert, director of community relations and development for Cottonwood Inc., discusses her hopes for the upcoming sales-tax vote Nov. 4. Enlarge video
Transit use, cost
Number of passengers, total expenses and cost per passenger in 2007 for the Lawrence Transit System's two components: fixed-route buses and door-to-door paratransit service for riders who qualify as elderly or people with disabilities:
¢ Fixed-route: 388,325 passengers, $2.01 million in expenses, $5.38 per passenger.
¢ Paratransit: 57,497 passengers, $1.2 million in expenses, $20.97 per passenger.
Those light-blue signs sprouting in yards in Lawrence - Vote YES Transit! 2 & 3 - feature a drawing of a full-sized bus to get their point across, but folks from Cottonwood Industries are focusing their attention on the T system's smaller, airport shuttle-sized vehicles as the Nov. 4 election approaches.
That's because more than 40 percent of the 200 people who participate in Cottonwood's JobLink program - a program that places people with disabilities and others with barriers to employment in jobs throughout Lawrence - get to and from work each day using the T's paratransit service.
Without a fundamental sales tax winning approval from voters, the T's overall days would be numbered. The bus system would cease operations Jan. 1, and the paratransit system of door-to-door van service also would be destined to shut down or face sharply curtailed offerings.
"Loss of paratransit would be devastating for the people we serve," said Phil Bentzinger, director of JobLink at Cottonwood. "They depend on it in many ways, not just for employment. :
"I understanding people saying, 'Uh, these buses are empty.' That is a concern, and maybe we need to be looking at smaller (fixed-route) buses. But right now we're faced with an all-or-nothing vote."
When it comes to providing service, the system's large buses - the ones that run on fixed routes, and are the most visible on Lawrence streets - are considered the most economical, on a cost-per-ride basis. Rides on the buses end up costing the system $5.38 per passenger; fares range from $1 per ride to as little as nothing, depending on a rider's age or physical or economic status.
The paratransit service, known as the T Lift, accommodates people who qualify for door-to-door rides, which are scheduled in advance. Paratransit rides cost the system nearly $21 per passenger; fares are $2 for each trip or $68 for a monthly pass.
The city has $580,000 in its reserve fund for transit, City Manager David Corliss said last week. That money could be used to finance the paratransit system's operations for 2009 - but only with two or three of the system's vehicles to be operational, instead of the current 11 to 13.
Bentzinger looks at it another way: Applying the reserve funds to current ridership levels and expenses, the city could keep the existing system running for 100 days.
Such abbreviated service, he said, would cause problems for the 82 Cottonwood clients who use the T Lift to get to 91 different jobs in Lawrence.
"It's more than $750,000 in annual taxable income that these people represent, and that's gone," Bentzinger said, of the expected repercussions from losing paratransit. "These are people who don't drive, and their income levels are such that $10 cab rides would be difficult."
Hans Eric Summers, who works at Cottonwood, knows the story all too well. He's been working on contracts at Cottonwood for about five years now and uses the T Lift to get to and from Cottonwood's center at 2801 W. 31st St.
He hasn't voted in previous elections, but is considering doing so this time around, with so much at stake.
Ask Summers how he'd get to work if the T Lift were gone, and his answer falls into the undecided category.
"I don't know," he said simply, echoing the thought of others who gain employment through Cottonwood.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
LogicMan (anonymous) says…
"The city has $580,000 in its reserve fund for transit, City Manager David Corliss said last week."That's enough to keep most all of the Para-T service going for a few months while the T is redesigned and then voted upon in a special election.Vote NO on 2 and 3 to force the redesign of the T to be faster, better used, more logical, and much more cost-effective than the current welfare-for-drivers program.
Informed (anonymous) says…
Vote 'NO'Vote early.Vote often.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
Voting NO.
autie (anonymous) says…
In regard to the people referred to in this article, one must also understand that most probably rely on Supplemental Security Income, a form of a social security monthly payment. All the money they earn reduces the amount of this payment, thus reducing the amount paid out by Social Security..thus saving the taxpayer more dollars..Would you discourage people to not work cause they can't get there..and stay on government payments..or get them where they need to go to earn their own way as much as possible and be a part of the community? To me that is a no brainer..vote YES.
gr (anonymous) says…
"Rides on the buses end up costing the system $5.38 per passenger; fares range from $1 per ride""Paratransit rides cost the system nearly $21 per passenger; fares are $2 for each trip"User fees!Seriously, how much would it cost to transport 100 people a day?100 * $21 = $2100 per day?! I would think someone could figure out how to do it cheaper."$10 cab rides would be difficult."Now there's a thought. $10 is less than $21.I bet someone would even do it for less."But right now we're faced with an all-or-nothing vote."Why? That's too bad. Shall we be blind, then?Naaaa.
autie (anonymous) says…
Article says 82 clients use the T. Hypothetically, if those folks are all recieveing SSI payments, if they are earning an average of $500/month, that saves Social Security approximately $886,912 per year. Does that help any perspectives?
lawrenceguy40 (anonymous) says…
LJWorld - Every day we get another pro-empT story. If it is so important to you and your readers, I propose a special newspaper tax to pay for it. I think about $10 per copy should pay for it.Still like the empT if you have to pay for it? Or would we soon see stories about how inefficient it is, how it enables people to remain in the poverty trap and how truly un-green the whole system is?Vote NO!
d_prowess (anonymous) says…
I have serious doubts that voting "No" will cause the city to do a quick redesign and arrange a special election to then vote on funding this newly designed T service all before the $580,000 runs out in about 3 months (this was suggested above). So I guess I question the optimism of those that support/want public transportation in Lawrence and feel that a No vote will result in the redesign and eventual continuation of public transportation. Obviously if you don't think Lawrence needs public transportion, you definately should vote no. But if you think we should have it, I think people should vote yes and then push for the redesign everyone seems to agree should and will happen.
chzypoof1 (anonymous) says…
Andrew, you are one of the few on here that don't understand why people are voting NO to the empT. It is poorly run, and poorly managed. We are voting NO until the city steps up and corrects the issues with the current system. We are not going to vote to give millions of our tax money to a broken system.I am all for public transportation. It is an important part of a growing city. But it needs to be properly implemented before we move forward with a "bailout" of the current system.poof
chzypoof1 (anonymous) says…
Ditto for you Prowess. nothing will get fixed if you throw money at the problem. They will continue to waste our tax dollars on round abouts and speed humps. How many roundabouts does it take to run the empT for a year?poof
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"nothing will get fixed if you throw money at the problem."Then, by all means, let's cancel all taxes and defund every program of government, because money is irrelevant.
none2 (anonymous) says…
Andrew Stahmer (Andrew Stahmer) says:"They have good reason to be concerned. There have been an aboundance* of comments (complaints) right here that demonstrate that not only is there very little to no sympahty or empathy for anyone who depends on public transportation (i.e. the elderly and disabled) but there is also a distinct distain and disgust directed at them."---------------------------------Typical of the pro-T side, you are being very disingenuous. Countless times by those of us not on your pro-T side, it has been stated that we do not lump the para transit for the elderly and disabled in the same boat as the Emp-T. Still you and your kind want to bring up emotional responses of the elderly and disabled being put down by anybody who won't buy into your entitlement pet project. Either you need to start being honest, or perhaps you need to put a warning label on your comments: "Half-truths told here to get your sympathy and your tax money".
none2 (anonymous) says…
lawrenceguy40 (Anonymous) says:LJWorld - Every day we get another pro-empT story. If it is so important to you and your readers, I propose a special newspaper tax to pay for it. I think about $10 per copy should pay for it.Still like the empT if you have to pay for it? Or would we soon see stories about how inefficient it is, how it enables people to remain in the poverty trap and how truly un-green the whole system is?Vote NO!--------------------------------------------------------------------I'm not a fan of Fox news. I get my news from listening to NPR radio. (If I were a left winger, I suppose I'd probably want to listen to Pacifica radio.) For the most part, I tend to think that most media is unbiased. Perhaps that is naive, but that is what I normally think...However, you are 100% correct about the LJWorld. Except for one reporters story about the time delays when he used the T, we have been bombarded daily in the LJWorld with multiple pleas from pro-T side. The paper is definitely is not balanced on this topic.
TheEleventhStephanie (anonymous) says…
Well Hans better vote then...
d_prowess (anonymous) says…
I disagree that nothing about the T will get fixed unless we take away their funding and essentially start all over. Everything I have ever read or heard has indicated that plans are already in the works to merge with the KU system and that there will be a redesign of the whole system to make it more efficient. So to Vote No would mean to scratch all of those plans (even if they are admittedly in the development stages) as well as the whole public transportation system. That then leaves us still needing designing an effective system, but adding to that the costs of the start up again. And again, I feel this argument is only important if you feel Lawrence needs Public Transportation.
chzypoof1 (anonymous) says…
As usual, Bozo, you redirected my comments to your political agenda. Just because taxes work for some programs, doesn't mean you fix them all with $$$. The system is broken and will not be fixed with even more money. The current "bailout" should show you that money can't fix everything. As usual, your comment did not apply to my argument. Have a great day!poof
meggers (anonymous) says…
Larry, I don't think the article is talking about the people who work at Cottonwood itself. The people that get help from Cottonwood actually work at places all over town. In addition to the obvious energy, environmental, and traffic congestion benefits, public transportation is a valuable component of any society's infrastructure, as it provides all citizens access to the community at large, regardless of income or disability.I think a small tax increase is worth it to keep the 'T', however the city should definitely keep the door open for a more modern transit system.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"The current "bailout" should show you that money can't fix everything."Are you honestly comparing the relatively minor amount of public funds going to public transit, which has both direct and indirect benefits for everyone in this city, with a major corporate raid on the US treasury which will cost everyone in this country thousands of dollars, and primarily benefit those who created the mess? Weak, poof, very weak.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
We all get taxed for things we don't personally want or need, mooch, and I'm sure I pay for you to drink champagne when I think beer would be perfectly adequate for you.
radicool12 (anonymous) says…
i would like to say to all you people saying no to the issue think about this fact if you were disabled and needed to go to the store and had nobody to give you a ride and only had a few dollars in cash to get there who would you call you cant call a cab dont have enough so you would call the bus,also alot of students ride the bus so think about it before you say no what if you needed it so vote yes on the issueremeber dont think only of yourself think of the others who depend on this bus
Informed (anonymous) says…
"When I have a problem with my personal budget, I have to cut entertainment then [sic]subsistance. Is it wrong to think our civic leaders should be required to do the same?"Amen to that, Moocher!!!
d_prowess (anonymous) says…
I completely support those that want the T to just go away. Be it that they feel the cost outweighs the benefit, or that the system is not environmentaly friendly given the low use. However, I still don't understand how those that want public transportation in Lawrence feel it is a better idea to scrap what we have and start all over than vote yes and fix the system. It will cost a lot more to start completely over (new funding, new government grants, new hiring, new buses maybe?, etc.) than to vote yes and pressure the city for the change you want (and the change that they said they are ready to make)!
radicool12 (anonymous) says…
i agree with you bebachter maybe moocher needs some help
gr (anonymous) says…
"We all get taxed for things we don't personally want or need, mooch, and I'm sure I pay for you to drink champagne when I think beer would be perfectly adequate for you."So bozo, I would take that to mean you are against the SLT road being a toll road.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
I'm against the SLT, period.
none2 (anonymous) says…
d_prowess (Anonymous) says:"...vote yes and pressure the city for the change you want (and the change that they said they are ready to make)!---------------------------------------------------------------I probably paraphrased you a bit too much. Sorry, I was trying to save space...In a perfect world pressure should be enough to fix a broken system. However, the T has been this way for EIGHT years. Why would pressure other than a "NO" vote make any difference. Granted for most of those years we had people in power who thought nothing of spending money right and left as though they had their own money printing machine. However, I'm sure this commission realizes that those kind of people were not re-elected.
none2 (anonymous) says…
gr (Anonymous) says:""We all get taxed for things we don't personally want or need, mooch, and I'm sure I pay for you to drink champagne when I think beer would be perfectly adequate for you."So bozo, I would take that to mean you are against the SLT road being a toll road."--------------------------------------------------GR, everybody has different takes on things -- even bozo.Personally, I would be for public transportation IF it was self-sustaining or at LEAST I would be very warm and fuzzy about it IF it made a contribution to the betterment of a much larger portion of the population for the price it costs. To have a large, expensive system that only is used by 1% is an insult to all the tax payers footing the bill (both local as well as state and federal) who have paid to keep this pork on the road for EIGHT years. If it's purpose is only to help the elderly and disabled. So be it. Very few want to hurt the truly needy. However, the rest should pay their way.As for the SLT, I'm against it too. It is silly that we need it. We just need to fix 31st Street and also make a route taking advantage of the existing roads such as the one near Well's Overlook. This would allow for traffic that doesn't need to come to Lawrence at all. To say this new 32nd street is a must is as silly as saying the T is a must. Even if the powers that be force the city and county to make it 32nd street, there won't be any time at all before they need one down by Well's Overlook. 32nd street for the SLT is short sighted and stupid -- whether they are building over a swamp as pro-SLT people see it or over a sacred Native American wetland. If they want a toll, so be it, but put the toll where the road should be built, not where short sighted people want it. Plus keep in mind that very few tolls alone pay for the entire expense of the road. Normally, there are still taxes diverted to pay for a road.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"In a perfect world pressure should be enough to fix a broken system. However, the T has been this way for EIGHT years. Why would pressure other than a "NO" vote make any difference."The reason it has never been fixed is that requires spending more money on it, and merging with the KU system. Pass the sales tax issues, and most likely both those criteria will be met.
none2 (anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:"The reason it has never been fixed is that requires spending more money on it, and merging with the KU system." -----------------------------------------------------------------When does it stop? When would the T have enough money? Does it need to become 5%, 10% or more of our spending? There are people in other parts of this state who live many miles from basic services such as hospitals, doctor clinics, grocery stores, etc. They don't get squat, yet Lawrence somehow is entitled to not have to walk or bike. Lawrence is claiming they need the feds, the state, and its local residents to put money in the coffer. What makes Lawrence so special amongst other Kansas towns to deserve this more than other more remote communities who transportation needs are much greater?
autie (anonymous) says…
Apparently no one cared about the information I posted this morning..if those folks can get to work, average of $500/month in earnings, reduces the SS payments by almost a million dollars..No T, they can't get there. period. You naysayers are heartless, uncaring demogogues that would cut off your nose to spite your face. Without the T, it will cost you all more money in the long run..
sjschlag (anonymous) says…
"When does it stop? When would the T have enough money? Does it need to become 5%, 10% or more of our spending?"I hate to say it, but as with other city service, funding will always be an issue. We will never have enough money to offer door-to-door service for everyone in Lawrence (which is the idea scheme for public transit, am I right?) We can get service to a level at which more of the community is satisfied than the current scheme, in which nobody is happy. The student fees at KU keep going up to fund the bus system, but hopefully we are done with fee increases. We have a fare free system in place, routes which satisfy most of the demands of the student body and a program to replace our buses as they age. This sales tax should allow for design changes to the system to make it more efficient, as well as vehicle replacement to keep our wheels rolling."There are people in other parts of this state who live many miles from basic services such as hospitals, doctor clinics, grocery stores, etc. They don't get squat, yet Lawrence somehow is entitled to not have to walk or bike."That's because we elected officials who wanted to offer those services to residents, employers, etc. Those people live in those parts of the state because they choose to. If you don't like being taxed to support the services that Lawrence has to offer, you could move away to another part of the state. You could move to a place with no buses, no fire department, no doctors, no hospital, no police, and no grocery stores and not have to pay any taxes for any of those services. "What makes Lawrence so special amongst other Kansas towns to deserve this more than other more remote communities who transportation needs are much greater?"I would counter this by saying that many other Kansas towns- towns like Salina, Hutchinson, Garden City, Manhattan; have just started up fixed route public transit services, or are currently designing public transportation for their community. So, Lawrence really isn't that much more special anymore.
toe (anonymous) says…
You may need a tissue to dry your eye when you vote no, but vote no you must.
tonythetiger (anonymous) says…
That is unfortunate. Maybe you can watch a message from a friend of mine.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKBWC5oozOE
none2 (anonymous) says…
sjschlag (Anonymous) says:""When does it stop? When would the T have enough money? Does it need to become 5%, 10% or more of our spending?"I hate to say it, but as with other city service, funding will always be an issue. We will never have enough money to offer door-to-door service for everyone in Lawrence (which is the idea scheme for public transit, am I right?)"------------------------------------------I don't think anybody is expecting door to door service except for the elderly and disabled who need the paratransit.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------""There are people in other parts of this state who live many miles from basic services such as hospitals, doctor clinics, grocery stores, etc. They don't get squat, yet Lawrence somehow is entitled to not have to walk or bike.""That's because we elected officials who wanted to offer those services to residents, employers, etc. Those people live in those parts of the state because they choose to. If you don't like being taxed to support the services that Lawrence has to offer, you could move away to another part of the state. You could move to a place with no buses, no fire department, no doctors, no hospital, no police, and no grocery stores and not have to pay any taxes for any of those services."-------------------------------------------------Does this mean that if the sales tax doesn't pass, and we do get rid of the T, that people from the pro-T side will move out of Lawrence? Keep in mind that Lawrence didn't have a city based bus system for roughly THIRTY years. Thus unless the pro-T crowd all moved her after 16-Dec-2000 or prior to 1971 (prior to 1966 in North & east Lawrence), they weren't here for a cheap bus ride.As to people in other parts of the state, they like most people have MANY reasons for why they are living where they live. I seriously doubt many moved out rural because they didn't want taxes spent on public transportation. As for services, many were there before, but over time contractions in the rural economy over time, those services were further and further apart. I don't buy into that mentality if you don't like it leave/move. Living in a free country means that if you don't agree with something, work to change it. In this case, there are plenty of non-pro-T people who will continue to work to get taxes lowered, and the benevolent government off our feet in the case of transportation. Even if #2 and #3 pass, be assured that the debate won't end. Also keep in mind that wherever you live, part of your state and federal tax bill goes to pork projects such as the T. Moving out of Lawrence doesn't change that any more than if you leave, but own land in Lawrence.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(continued)
none2 (anonymous) says…
(continued)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"What makes Lawrence so special amongst other Kansas towns to deserve this more than other more remote communities who transportation needs are much greater?"I would counter this by saying that many other Kansas towns- towns like Salina, Hutchinson, Garden City, Manhattan; have just started up fixed route public transit services, or are currently designing public transportation for their community. So, Lawrence really isn't that much more special anymore.------------------------------------------------------------------There are still plenty of other towns in this state that have absolutely nothing. If they also put their hand in the public coffers to have public transportation, then perhaps society would realize that it is time the government get out of the driving business.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Corliss is confusing the issue, as usual. If he and his predecessor, Wildgen, had not used the Federal money that was earmarked for the paratransit as seed money to expand paratransit into a city-wide bus system, otherwise known as the abysmal failure that is the T, the paratransit would not be in jeaopardy; and, if Cottonwood had not sold off their busses and fired their drivers because of the T, the clients of Cottonwood would not be in jeopardy of losing their transportation.This whole T debacle is a complete failure of leadership in Lawrence.
Godot (anonymous) says…
It is time for citizens to call out our so-called leaders when they abuse the system, lie and cheat and steal. No more silence. When you see abuse and ignorance and out and out corruption, speak up!!!The T is the local mascot for the several trillion dollar bailout/coverup by Congress for their Wallstreet sugar daddies.No T. No Way.
Godot (anonymous) says…
No link. Live here for 20 years. Talk to a local. Get a life.
jafs (anonymous) says…
Ok, I know a little bit about this - my wife works at Cottonwood.According to her, they did transport their clients to jobs, etc. before the buses existed. However, they had approximately 1/3 the number of clients they currently have.Cottonwood is a very good organization, and exists through a combination of public and private funding. The federal/state government has recently decided to cut their funding while increasing paperwork requirements. This puts more stress on employees and cuts into their ability to serve their clients as well as they'd like.It is sort of mind-boggling to me that there is so much micro-management of this service while we have no oversight whatsoever of major sectors of the financial world.I completely agree that city leadership is to blame for the problems with the bus system, but that certainly isn't Cottonwood's fault, or the fault of the clients they serve.Developmentally disabled folks don't have the same options as most of us - ie. they can't drive, etc.If you are lucky enough, as I am, to have been born with all faculties intact, and are able to transport yourself without assistance, that's great. But it's not some sort of moral superiority, it's simply luck.