Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 401 posts

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#81

Post by brewdad »

baddox wrote: post #7
huebomont wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 specif…

If the transit system sucks compared to the alternatives, free fares are meaningless. When I lived in Phoenix, I could drive to work in 20-30 minutes. The same trip by bus took 90 minutes if I made a successful connection midway. If I missed that connection, which I did once, it became a 2 hour trip home.

I only made the trip by bus two days, when the city was literally out of gas in 2003. The city could have paid me to take the bus and I still would have driven. I have to think the same would be true for pretty much everyone there who wasn't already stuck taking the bus.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#82

Post by werber »

farss wrote: post #67
nostromo wrote: post #23

Seattle used to have this for an area of the city. It was called the "Free Ride Zone" - and it had some unexpected consequences. The primary problem is that homeless people would get on the bus because it's warm, and would fall asleep. The busses became rolling homeless shelters. This caused other people to take the bus less, because of public safety concerns, as well as simple quality-of-life issues like unpleasant…

It's not just the free fare - it's the abysmal lack of shelter options and the attempts by cities to criminalize encampments and force people to find somewhere indoors to avoid arrest.

100% this, I’ve been homeless and slept on the bus or subway to stay warm (and safe) and not once did someone try to help me. And now I’m years out of being in that situation and I am part of the same problem, I almost never take public transportation and use Lyft or my car to get around.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#83

Post by smileysteve »

acchow wrote: post #42
noobermin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is essentially treating the symptoms, not the cause.

Right. So of course we're supposed to solve homelessness. Know how this can be accomplished in Seattle?

The most glaring one in response to this symptom is to offer at least some public bath options.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#84

Post by crooked-v »

nostromo wrote: post #65
CuriousSkeptic wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need to solve all of homelessness, just providing something competitive with a bus could be a start one would think.

Seattle has tried that. People with chemical addictions will not go to shelters because shelters don't allow you to be drunk or high. So shelter beds go unused, and people shoot up and drink in parks, on sidewalks, and on busses.

> So shelter beds go unused

Shelter bed usage in Seattle runs at 90% as of last year, with low reported use rate before that being an artifact of bad reporting rather than reflecting actual conditions [1].

[1]: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/qa-with-p...

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#85

Post by werber »

jeromegv wrote: post #78
papreclip wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, I personally would much sooner use public transportation that charged $10 (with no exceptions) than free public transportation. Sharing close quarters with aggressive, smelly, intoxicated, unstable people is stressful and unpleasant

Wow. Have you ever wondered that may be inequality should be a problem worth solving instead of finding yet another way of isolating yourself from the problem?

What can be done outside of good free healthcare that views mental health including drug use as a public health issue? I live in Detroit and we have abysmal services for people in those Circumstances

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#86

Post by mbreedlove »

jeromegv wrote: post #78
papreclip wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, I personally would much sooner use public transportation that charged $10 (with no exceptions) than free public transportation. Sharing close quarters with aggressive, smelly, intoxicated, unstable people is stressful and unpleasant

Wow. Have you ever wondered that may be inequality should be a problem worth solving instead of finding yet another way of isolating yourself from the problem?

It's a lot easier to isolate myself than it is to solve homelessness.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#87

Post by npo9 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #13

Doesn't literal "no cost" public transportation lead to issues with folks abusing the service as a place to hang out? Also, does the service never get congested in other ways? I'd argue that public transportation should be paid for when congested, so that users are incented to shift their use to other times.

Points against charging extra for public transit during congested times.

1. It’s much better for someone traveling during congestion to use public transport than to use a private vehicle.

2. Traveling during congestion almost always is accompanied by increased travel times —- a natural incentive to adjust travel times.

3. Keeping fare prices consistent and simple makes the system easier for everyone to understand and less confusing to new users.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#88

Post by briffle »

nostromo wrote: post #63
jcranmer wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the distaste for public transit in the US is ultimately motivated by a "fuck poor people" mentality, especially in regards to bus transit (rail systems tend to attract a somewhat wealthier clientele).

Ridiculous. Americans are practical like anyone else. Transit in the US tends to be (much) slower than driving, so people drive. In the few places where transit actually works, like New York, Americans use it.

My last town, the bus at busy times would literally stop on every major corner to let on or off one person. Plus, there was no actual place for the bus to pull out of traffic, so every block, it would stop in the right lane.

So the bus took at least 4 times longer to get to downtown, and caused TONS of frustration with other drivers, who were always frantic to get to the left lane to get around the bus. Tends to not leave a great impression on people. Now, if there was something like a BRT, with limited stops, out of traffic, with much faster loading, then that would probably really change its image in my town.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#89

Post by sjs382 »

In Pittsburgh, travel within Downtown and the North Shore is free 24/7 on the "T" (light rail).

Buses still aren't free and the "T" doesn't cover a ton of Downtown Pittsburgh, though. The "T" has been like this for 20+ years and is an awesome resource.

Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation

#90

Post by esoterica »

exabrial wrote: post #70

> “I believe that people have a right to move about this city,” KC Resident here. Of course you have a right to move about the city! You don't have a right for someone else to pay for it though. Interesting choice of words.

And yet you believe you’re entitled to drive on the roads for free?
Post reply on HN