Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
1–10 of 401 posts
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#2Great to see. Our tax money subsidizes car ownership (quite massively) already, glad to see some equity here. Everyone kicks and screams about transit systems "paying for themselves" but nobody asks the same of huge highways in the middle of nowhere.
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#3Great to see. Our tax money subsidizes car ownership (quite massively) already, glad to see some equity here. Everyone kicks and screams about transit systems "paying for themselves" but nobody asks the same of huge highways in the middle of nowhere.
The problem is there's no additional investment into the system to make it attractive to riders. The KC transit system is poorly designed and making it free isn't going to make it good. Better to keep charging the fare and use the revenue to improve service, then reevaluate when ridership is growing.
Transit investment has a LOT of catching up to do to even get close to the types of subsidizing and handouts we give drivers in every corner of this country.
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#4> The hope among lawmakers and transportation officials is that the city will recoup that expense, and more
A poor goal that's hard to quantify and often not met (especially for social services at smaller community levels). Just consider it a sunk cost up front and be honest about it. Then the debate can at least be about whether it's a worthy cost socially. Putting a monetary recoup hope unhelpfully moves the debate away from the social obligation side.
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#5Great to see. Our tax money subsidizes car ownership (quite massively) already, glad to see some equity here. Everyone kicks and screams about transit systems "paying for themselves" but nobody asks the same of huge highways in the middle of nowhere.
The problem is there's no additional investment into the system to make it attractive to riders. The KC transit system is poorly designed and making it free isn't going to make it good. Better to keep charging the fare and use the revenue to improve service, then reevaluate when ridership is growing. Transit investment has a LOT of catching up to do to even get close to the types of subsidizing and handouts we give d…
Past experience shows generally that things like tolling or road pricing only become politically palatable if an alternative with existing capacity already exists. But funding such alternatives is hard and usually road pricing is proposed in part for the funding. So it's a very chicken vs egg situation.
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#6On my first visit to Seattle, you could ride the bus anywhere downtown for free. It seemed like a great way to provide mobility to those in need, while still having a paid option for those in the outer areas of the city to get home to their suburbs.
The first conversation I had with someone on the bus there was with someone going to an employment counselling office. Not sure why that struck me, but it always stuck with me.
No I see that the free ride zone has been gone since 2012. Too bad!
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#7Great to see. Our tax money subsidizes car ownership (quite massively) already, glad to see some equity here. Everyone kicks and screams about transit systems "paying for themselves" but nobody asks the same of huge highways in the middle of nowhere.
The problem is there's no additional investment into the system to make it attractive to riders. The KC transit system is poorly designed and making it free isn't going to make it good. Better to keep charging the fare and use the revenue to improve service, then reevaluate when ridership is growing. Transit investment has a LOT of catching up to do to even get close to the types of subsidizing and handouts we give d…
> The problem is there's no additional investment into the system to make it attractive to riders.
It seems to me that public transit probably follows the law of demand fairly strongly, and reducing the price will almost certainly make it more attractive to riders. Of course this won't fix all problems with public transit, and I don't think that's the goal. It sounds like the goal is to increase ridership (and specifically to increase access to people who cannot easily afford the fares).
> Better to keep charging the fare and use the revenue to improve service
Or...use tax revenue to improve the service. That's the point, and is exactly what happens with most public roads.
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#8On my first visit to Seattle, you could ride the bus anywhere downtown for free. It seemed like a great way to provide mobility to those in need, while still having a paid option for those in the outer areas of the city to get home to their suburbs. The first conversation I had with someone on the bus there was with someone going to an employment counselling office. Not sure why that struck me, but it always stuck wi…
I think it was a logistical nightmare, because you had to pay your fare entering before the free ride zone, and exiting leaving the free ride zone. Unless you were transferring. And not all lines ran through it.
I wish we'd gone the other way and just made the whole thing free ride.
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#9In Baltimore, the Charm City Circulator (bus) is free.
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#10This is awesome.
And also in stark contrast with progressive Portland, which recently hired a gaggle of new fare-enforcement workers: https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2019/10/trimet-beefing-...