Advertisement

Previous poll Next poll

Would you support spending more money for the T, Lawrence’s public transportation system, in 2009?

Response Percent Votes
No.
 
56% 229
Yes.
 
39% 160
I don’t know.
 
4% 19
Total 408

Comments

Pilgrim 6 years ago

BTW, Richard, you so love to link to past LJW polls, are you going to do the same this time? Hmmmmmmm?

0

Pilgrim 6 years ago

Pogo (Anonymous) says:

Parking "parks" need to be on the outskirts of town and then people can connect, at little or no cost, to the main transit system.


If I have to park on the outskirts, I'm going to shop on the outskirts. Downtown Lawrence has nothing but inconvenient, high-priced shops with nothing I want, anyway.

0

Pilgrim 6 years ago

Pogo (Anonymous) says:

The core innner city of Lawrence as well as the University of Kansas should be pedestrian and bicycle based. The creation of "car parks" on the fringes of the city need to be established with free transport to the transportation hubs.


Sure, if you want downtown Lawrence to wind up looking like downtown Topeka.

0

Pilgrim 6 years ago

merrill (Anonymous) says:

Face it folks it likely cost $6-$9 per vehicle trip(2-3 gallons of gas) Inner city travel really sucks the gas.


I'll guaran-damn-tee you, Richard, I can drive clear across town on less than a gallon of gas, and I'm not in a Civic with two squirrels on steroids. Six to nine dollars per trip, BS. But the empTy is, according to the empTy's own figures, $5-7 per rider per one-way trip. It's a black hole for taxes.

0

cool 6 years ago

MARVIN HALL / SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE 1:30pm

A presentation by the students in KU Professor Barry Newton's 2nd year graduate studio, "OTHER OREADS".

Come and see the alternate design schemes, which adhere exactly to the program of the proposal for the Oread Inn, but ook at different ways it could be formed in relation to its site. Lawrence Preservation Alliance, as is consistent with its mission, supported the Lawrence Historic Resources Commission in its concerns & rejection of various aspects of the proposals for the Oread Inn, by attending related city meetings, offering testimony and written statements. Even though the Inn's plans have been accepted, we thought you might find the ideas of Newton's students interesting and informative.

LPA announcement.

parking on Jayhawk Blvd., Memorial Drive, or behind Carruth O'Leary.

0

cool 6 years ago

won't the Oread Hotel with its TDD pay part of this ?

www.oreadinn.com

0

sjschlag 6 years ago

If only our city government and the University had a closer relationship, like in other big 12 cities. The Merging of the KU on Wheels and T bus systems would save the city and the university countless dollars, and also improve service for all riders. The routes on the T need to be shortened to denser neighborhoods, and the buses need to be more frequent on these shorter routes. Do this, see ridership go up and costs go down. Then we can expand the service. Also, entice developers to build housing and commercial areas close to these routes. Lawrence has all of the tools and people it needs to make this happen.

0

Pogo 6 years ago

Increase the price of parking "downtown" and we'll all see an increase in "T" rider rate.

We must embrace rapid and public transit in this hillbilly town; particularly to eliminate the number of college kids trolling around at night, drunk, and up to no good.

Public transport is a given in any real community. All these cars and the space being used to "park" them is just dumb.

Parking "parks" need to be on the outskirts of town and then people can connect, at little or no cost, to the main transit system.

Granted, the routes are flawed at present, but they're geared towards the low-income. The Lexus drivers either need to pay a hefty price to park "downtown"....or use public transport.....

0

Bill Lee 6 years ago

The city's stock answer is to cut back T service. I think its hours and routes need to be expanded. No one working a third shift job, for example, is served by the T. For others the routes don't serve enough areas. Cutting back will not increase ridership...quite the opposite!

0

notajayhawk 6 years ago

I'd like to point out that most (if not all) the arguments posted here in favor of the T are only valid if people ride the darned things.

And the fact that the LJW felt they couldn't ask a question about the T without telling us what the T is in the headline does not speak well of ridership.

0

le 6 years ago

"ditchweed"...wow you would make a darn tootin good lawyer! never have i witnessed such a detailed presentation of the facts ! do you do pro-bono ?

0

Pogo 6 years ago

Embracement of public transport is critical to the future success of Lawrence; particularly as the price of gasoline and dieself fuel increases.

The core innner city of Lawrence as well as the University of Kansas should be pedestrian and bicycle based. The creation of "car parks" on the fringes of the city need to be established with free transport to the transportation hubs.

0

dipweed 6 years ago

Ride a bike or walk...end of argument.

0

Bladerunner 6 years ago

I think Merrill and Marion should just IM each other.

0

le 6 years ago

B.T.W. i see tis comes up time to time...being a newby to the world of "texting" it took me a few times to figure out what it meant! to me b.t.w. means "Brothers of the Third Wheel" a 3 wheeled triker club that originated with 8 original local members ! now the club is world wide with thousands of members...just a little f.y.i. for those of you interested in saving fuel but can`t get the hang of a two wheeled motor bike , then maybe b.t.w. is an option to consider! wind in your face..roar of the engine, bugs in yer teeth...great gas mileage...and wheelies ! woo-hoo!!!

0

lawrencejna 6 years ago

Most of the bus riders that I know aren't riding it in an attempt to save the planet, but as a much needed means to get to employment. Many of these people may not be able to get to their jobs otherwise. Think about all of the money we, as a city, are very likely saving on social services by providing adequate transportation to work.

0

aginglady 6 years ago

jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says:

no no no no no no no:.no


I keep seeing this comment. It' so catching I may have to make a sign for my front porch. I have fishing paraphenalia about. People look at me funny. Yeah, I'm funny. Those wide repetitive mouths saying, no no no no. They just don't seem to be saying, Put me back, put me back! Do I have catfish guilt? NO. But those pictures in many places in the Ozarks during my childhood of 300-500 lb catfish are deeply ingrained in the fear sector of my brain. LOL. NOT! Jaws made my deep swimming turn into cold water vague fear. Effective.

0

Bill Lee 6 years ago

The city's recent survey on the T went out with utility bills. This means that most renters did not get a chance to reply, and they are one of the main sources of potential T riders. If we can't provide public transportation in Lawrence for those who can't drive or prefer not to every time they go out, then let's not fix the potholes in the streets either. That just encourages more driving and more carbon emissions in the air from more vehicles on the streets. We could also save money for ourselves and the city if Lawrence becomes an all-pedestrian city. Let's replace the streets with more, better sidewalks.

0

Drew_Carey 6 years ago

Only if the expansion includes downtown to door services for the drinking establishments downtown after 9 pm. I guarantee 98% of those people walking out of the bar and getting into their cars to drive home are above the limit. Just watch them trying to walk to the parking lots. Officers do the bar checks, see the drinkers downing shot after shot, but I see few arrests.

0

Richard Heckler 6 years ago

Funding public transportation for 45 years make more dollars and sense than building more neighborhoods. Building more neighborhoods in Lawrence,Kansas supports massive corruption and cost waaaaay more tax dollars.

Not only that public bus service gets taxpayers to work,schools,medical clinics and shopping.

Public Transportation is necessary and open to all taxpayers everyday use. New neighborhoods are not. Taxpayers cannot walk into any house, sit down and make themselves at home or just stop by to use the bathroom. Yet taxpayers contribute millions upon millions upon millions to new neighborhoods:. far more than it would cost to keep the T running.

0

b3 6 years ago

Tennismatch, go hug a tree and leave the decisions that require some sort of thought process to those who have a functioning brain.

0

tennismatch 6 years ago

Lawn care? Could you be MORE off point. Also, why would anyone NOT want to adequately fund public transportation? Merrill is right. It is a great deal AND it helps the planet. So what if it takes you an hour to get to work! I think the earth is worth saving. Furthermore, as a citizen of Chicago, I am surprised at all these really bad arguments against public transportation. What next? Are you guys going to vote against school busses for kids?

0

quapawndn 6 years ago

I might consider riding the T if it would get me anywhere I needed to go in a decent amount of time. The way the routes are it would take me 1 hour to get to work and I would be late. Saving the money of gas and preserving the enviroment is rather voided out if one gets fired.

0

gl0ck0wnr 6 years ago

Richard: so in addition to not using the T yourself, you use gas powered mowers? Given your attitude toward the environment, I am shocked that you do not use unpowered or solar powered mowers.

0

jumpin_catfish 6 years ago

Again no no no no no no no....no

0

Richard Heckler 6 years ago

Keep in mind I do not use pesticides nor chemical fertilizers. I do quietly pull weeds and my equipment meets the California environmental codes. Keep my equipment in tune.

I can do 3- 5 yards per 60 minutes.

BTW were you not bragging about your 10 mpg old beat up Rolls Royce yesterday?

What do your posts have to do with my comment?

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

Here is more cut-and-paste for you Merrill!

"Environmental Impacts of Intensive Lawn Maintenance

I. Application of Commercial Fertilizers Some 3,000,000 tons of the fertilizers produced go into maintaining greener than normal or necessary American Lawns, thereby squandering resources, an appreciable fraction of which are non-renewable and needed by the peoples of the world in food production. It has been estimated that 60 % of the Nitrogen applied to lawns eventually ends up in ground water. Besides contamination of the ground water fertilizers have the hidden contribution to air pollution, due to the large amounts of fossil fuels burned in their production and distribution*.

II. Power Mowing Equipment Power mowers, especially riding types, are fossil fuel demanding devices. They also require more energy in initial construction, and maintenance than do hand-operated mowers. In California alone it has been estimated that the annual emissions from lawn care equipment is equivalent to the emissions produced by 3.5 million 1991 automobiles driven 16,000 miles each**.

III. Expenditure of Fossil Fuel 580 million gallons of gas are used annually for power mowers alone**, taken along with the inefficiency of power mowers this is an extreme waste of limited resources. Often manually operated mowers could do the job adequately."

http://arboretum.conncoll.edu/salt/impacts.html

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

Merrill, when you stop depending on very dirty little internal combustion engines for your living, you might just be taken serioiusly.

I wonder how rising fuel prices are going to affect the cost of lawn care?

$250 to cut your lawn? $50 to run the gas powered leaf blower? $75 to trim the hedge? $180 to bring the above equipment to your home?

Wanna see some real cut-and-paste Merrill?

The truth about the devasting effects of "lawn care" in this country!:

"Consider these statistics cited by the Safer Pest Control Project:

* 78 million households in the U.S. use home and garden pesticides.
* $700 million are spent annually on pesticides for U.S. lawns.
* 67 million pounds of synthetic pesticides are used on U.S. lawns each year.
* Three times as much pesticide is used on lawn per acre than on agricultural crops.

According to a post by By Jason Phillip, March 5th, 2008 at ecolocalizer.com:

The Costs Run Even Deeper

These numbers would be arresting enough without the knowledge that spreading these toxins does a tremendous amount of ecological damage in the bargain. Our lawn and garden pesticides inevitably make their way into the water table and cause harm to many, many more species than the ones we intend to kill. Some of the unintended consequences include these frightening little tidbits:

    * 100 percent of fish in urban areas contain one or more pesticide.
    * Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 16 are toxic to birds, 24 are toxic to fish and aquatic organisms, and 11 are deadly to bees.
    * Approximately 7 million birds a year die from exposure to lawn care pesticides.

Pesticides

    * 100% of all surface water and 33% to 50% of aquifers are contaminated with one or more pesticides.

Water Use

    * 30% to 60% of urban water is used for watering lawns.
    * 10,000 gallons of water are used per summer on the average 1,000 square foot lawn.

Fuel Use and Pollution

    * Over 58 million of gallons of gasoline are used for lawnmowers each year.
    * A single lawnmower pollutes as much in one hour as a car driven for 20 miles.
    * Leaf blowers spew out about 26 times the amount of carbon monoxide as a new light-duty vehicle and 49 times more particulate matter.

Climate Change

    * A lawn can act as a carbon sink (take carbon out of the atmosphere) if it is left relatively undisturbed, and watered properly and fertilized minimally. An organic lawn is a much more effective carbon sink than a chemically treated one."
0

Richard Heckler 6 years ago

Face it folks it likely cost $6-$9 per vehicle trip(2-3 gallons of gas) Inner city travel really sucks the gas. Optimum city mileage is attained by strict disciplined driving soooo forget what the manufacturer said on the window sticker. It ain't happening. Not even with a Toyota Prius(although still the best).

Public Transportation is necessary and open to all taxpayers everyday use. New neighborhoods are not. Taxpayers cannot walk into any house, sit down and make themselves at home or just stop by to use the bathroom. Yet taxpayers contribute millions upon millions upon millions to new neighborhoods:. far more than it would cost to keep the T running.

The North Lawrence for profit light industrial project is looking at: $477,000 tax dollars for a bridge on E 1600 rd $326,000 tax dollars for a culvert @ 24/40 $16.2 million tax dollars in reconstruction projects $24.8 million tax dollars for flood control $ 8 million tax dollars for water and sewer lines - $50 million tax dollars( corporate welfare) Keep in mind there are THREE industrial sites on the table as we speak none of which have tenants waiting and may never pay back. 31st street expansion project - many millions $200 million bypass still on the table All of which will demand more : water and sewer lines streets and repairs houses public schools fire stations law enforcement manpower sidewalks snow removal bike trails and cross walks Traffic signals Traffic calming developers requesting more tax dollar assistance(new infrastructure) for their retail projects THEN 75 years maintenance costs for all of the above = millions

Considering the above the T or our public transportation system could be funded for approximately 45 years. Public transportation is the better bang for the buck. If funded properly service would DEFINITELY improve.

0

Pilgrim 6 years ago

The empTy already costs taxpayers $5-7 per rider per one-way trip. Three million dollars per year to serve less than one percent of the population is a cost-benefit ratio that is indefensible.

0

jonas 6 years ago

I would really, Really, like to see them make some badly needed route changes or scale downs in their operation before we considered upping their budget. The system could be made much more efficient and ordered than it is now. If course, it couldn't be much worse, currently, in terms of efficiency and convenience to riders, and that's coming from someone who's been both a rider and a driver within the past few years.

0

jumpin_catfish 6 years ago

no no no no no no no....no

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.