photo by: Lawrence Transit

Two electric buses in the Lawrence Transit fleet feature designs from local Indigenous artist Iris Cliff.

I think Lawrence might be the most compassionate community in Kansas.

Think about it: Local government created its own mental health center to provide the compassion the state’s understaffed mental healthcare system hasn’t provided. Lawrence has not one, but two, tiny home projects underway to provide the homeless with a more dignified residence than a typical shelter.

A third — and older — project to add to the list is public transit. You can argue the No. 1 service the city’s bus system provides is compassion for people who can’t afford their own personal transportation. The community more than 26 years ago made a choice to spend its money to help people navigate the community so that they could have more productive lives.

If being the most compassionate community in Kansas is the big idea that unites Lawrence residents, great. Lean into it, but not with eyes closed. I think the idea that a compassionate community should operate a public transit system has perhaps caused Lawrence’s bus system to not get the amount of scrutiny from the public that a multimillion dollar project ($105 million in the last 10 years, with $44 million coming directly from local taxpayers) deserves.

Here’s one example: Lawrence residents in this current election are being asked to not only renew a sales tax to fund public transit services for the next 10 years but to increase the size of that sales tax too. All of that is for a system that is providing service to far fewer people than it once did. That’s not getting a lot of discussion.

That dichotomy doesn’t mean you should vote against the current sales tax proposal, but a broader, more engaging conversation about what’s working and not working with the city’s public transit system might be in order.

I spent about a day diving into the numbers of the system, primarily through the National Transit Database that provides statistics about transit systems across the country. I also asked city officials to provide some additional context. Here are a few questions and observations:

• Why is Lawrence ridership going against the national trend? The fact that the Lawrence transit system is serving fewer people than it once did shouldn’t be a surprise. Transit systems took a big hit during the pandemic, with stay-at-home orders and social distancing. Most transit systems haven’t yet seen ridership numbers reach pre-pandemic totals. But nationally, ridership has grown each year from 2021 to 2025. That’s only partially true in Lawrence. Ridership in Lawrence grew in 2021 through 2023, but it has declined in 2024 and 2025.

Lawrence transit director Felice Lavergne told me the ridership declines probably are related to re-designed routes. The city thinks the routes are more efficient and provide better service but “it takes time for riders to learn and adjust to a new system,” Lavergne said.

— How small is too small? Lawrence has never been a big transit system. Lawrence is a relatively small community with most places — other than the main KU campus — easily navigable by car. The idea that the transit system is going to dramatically reduce the demand for cars in Lawrence has always been far-fetched, in my opinion. So, Lawrence’s ridership numbers are going to be different than what you see in larger communities. But, it is worth noting that Lawrence’s recent peak in ridership was all the way back in 2017 at 1.25 million trips. In 2025, ridership had fallen to about 895,000. I get that the pandemic did a number on transit systems far and wide. Yet, I still think it is fair to note ridership was falling before the pandemic, and to ask what should our ridership goal be?

— What’s causing the financial strain on the Lawrence system? City Hall communications on the sales tax ballot question — which would increase the sales tax rate from O.2% to 0.3% — have highlighted rising operating costs. That’s accurate. In 2016, operating costs for the transit system were $5.8 million. By 2025 they had grown to $11.1 million. In short, operating costs have been growing at more than twice the rate of inflation.

Yes, it is tempting to say things are more expensive today, no matter what you do. But a good portion of the higher costs are the result of decisions the city has made about the service. In 2016, the city doubled the frequency of many of its main routes. Has that been worth it? Ridership initially increased after the change, but by 2018 had started to fall again.

More recently, the story has been a surge in capital spending. The city has been upgrading buses, but also built a new transit station southwest of Bob Billings Parkway and Iowa Street. Capital projects for transit totaled $20.8 million from 2022 to 2025. During the other six years of the decade, capital spending totaled $2.9 million. That’s the nature of capital spending — peaks and valleys — but it is important to recognize the system is in a peak. It is particularly important to watch whether the spending pays off.

There are other, narrower questions that could be asked too. Has the environment around bus stops become too uninviting to attract new riders? There are stops on 23rd Street where loitering, drinking and other activities would give a new rider a lot of pause. Should the city start charging fares to ride the bus again? Fares often would generate between $250,000 to $300,000 per year before the city went fare free in 2023.

As I mentioned earlier, though, these questions don’t have to add up to a no vote in the current election. Transit elections do very well in Lawrence. When the tax was last up for renewal in 2017, it won with about 70% of the vote. The same was true in 2008 when the sales tax was up for renewal. There aren’t any real signs that the outcome will be different this year.

If you are thinking of the big picture, why would it be? Why would Lawrence want to be less compassionate? The answer is it doesn’t. But it doesn’t want to spend more than it has to either. Long term that surely will lead to less compassion, not more.