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

91–100 of 401 posts

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

#91

Post by selman89 »

Dumblydorr wrote: post #66
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).

I'm sorry, I have to push back here. Is it a "fuck poor people" mentality, as you state, to not want to be near people who smell of urine, excrement, BO, stale drug smells? This is simply the modern nose being accustomed to sanitary smells, can you really say it's a "fuck poor people mentality" if it's down to literally never smelling those smells except on public transport?

The effect of this is “fuck poor people”. It’s political, not avoidable. Refusing to actively take account of such systemic matters has an outcome. Most people in the world seem to understand this, but not Americans. Americans only think of themselves.

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

#92

Post by anon73044 »

zucked wrote: post #38
stretchwithme wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather see nothing being subsidized. If you want to help the poor afford public transit, lower their taxes. Maybe not taking a substantial their working capital and giving it back to them when their old isn't such a bright idea either.

Lower... what taxes, exactly? Income? Property?

Regressive sales and vice taxes.

j/k Seriously though, this year is the first I've ever made over median income and I'm happy to pay taxes if they can actually improve QOL rather than be used to subsidize and oil company or two

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

#93

Post by brewdad »

tomohawk wrote: post #57

Baltimore essentially has no-fare public transit. Anyone can get on the light rail without a ticket, and inspection is spotty at best. If you're caught, you just wait for the next train.

In Portland, you will be cited for non-payment and repeat offenders are "excluded", typically for 30 days. Meaning if you try to board a bus or train you can be arrested for trespass. Does Baltimore not do this?

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

#94

Post by thaumasiotes »

freeone3000 wrote: post #34
stretchwithme wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather see nothing being subsidized. If you want to help the poor afford public transit, lower their taxes. Maybe not taking a substantial their working capital and giving it back to them when their old isn't such a bright idea either.

More than half of Americans end up not paying taxes, because their income is too low. If you're saying make it negative, sure, I'm all for that, but I think you are underestimating the poverty situation in America.

I'm pretty sure it's not true that more than half of Americans avoid paying FICA because their income is too low. It would have to be $0.

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

#95

Post by shantly »

papreclip wrote: post #68
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…

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

The Kansas City Zoo has to let people in certain counties visit for free every so often, as part of the agreement by which it receives funding from those counties. This used to be implemented as periodic "free" days, but those became so notorious for outbreaks of violence that they switched to sending vouchers for different days to every household in those counties so the free-day visitors are spread out rather than all there at once.

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

#96

Post by jtmcmc »

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?

yes we're supposed to fucking solve homelessness.

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

#97

Post by sutterbomb »

Dumblydorr wrote: post #66
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).

I'm sorry, I have to push back here. Is it a "fuck poor people" mentality, as you state, to not want to be near people who smell of urine, excrement, BO, stale drug smells? This is simply the modern nose being accustomed to sanitary smells, can you really say it's a "fuck poor people mentality" if it's down to literally never smelling those smells except on public transport?

These undesirable aspects are at least partially a result of the same fuck the poor mentality. In countries that actually care for their populations, homeless and otherwise, this problem is far less severe.

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

#98

Post by proc0 »

nimbius wrote: post #75
proc0 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so infuriating to see big cities completely incapable of dealing with homeless people as if they are delicate creatures that can't be touched, and then have the majority of people ignore them even though they are assholes that make a scene every single time. Most of these people act that way because no one has taught them any better and therefore they have no incentive to act otherwise.

>Most of these people act that way because no one has taught them any better Have you seen homeless people? they are elderly invalids and the mentally ill who were brought upon us by Reagans neoliberal policy of deinstitutionalization. They are destitute former criminals barred from any future gainful employment by the checkbox on the job application. They are addicts who since Nixon have been stacked like cordwood a…

It actually sounds like you haven't met homeless people. I have lived in SF and LA for most of my life, and I can assure you, I know MANY homeless people PERSONALLY. What you are describing is how it used to be prior to 2010.

Right now there's rising population of relatively young, relatively healthy people who are choosing to make sacrifices. Sure it can be tough but you can't complain if you actually have options and your choice is to sacrifice some shelter for extra money. The problem is these places with homelessness crisis actually have law enforcement crisis and this increases the incentive for people to live on the sidewalk instead of moving to a cheaper city. There are hundreds of options of cheaper places to live. If you can work why choose to stay in a super expencive city that demands high skill labor?

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

#99

Post by tbrownaw »

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?

I'm not entirely clear on how avoiding unpleasant situations precludes also working to fix those same situations.

(I'm also not clear on why this is an "inequality" problem rather than a "destitution" problem.)

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

#100

Post by shantly »

brewdad wrote: post #81
baddox wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Kansas City buses are like that. Outside parts of a handful of routes they're only tempting if you have way more time than money. Making them free does help the people already using them but I can't imagine it'll do much to increase use of it for actually getting from place to place (increasing its use as a place for the homeless to get out of the heat/cold, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, might happen, and isn't exactly a bad thing, though I agree that if it becomes common it might actually reduce total ridership)
Post reply on HN