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

111–120 of 401 posts

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

#111

Post by buzzkillington »

sutterbomb wrote: post #97
Dumblydorr wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So fuck the middle class because the rich don't want to pay taxes?

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

#112

Post by [deleted] »

jcranmer wrote: post #61
ksec wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arh, is this why why people in US hate public transport and prefer to drive themselves or go by taxi? For those of us living in the "outside" world where public transport are the norm, it is sometimes hard to understand why public transport is treated so differently in US.

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).

[deleted]

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

#113

Post by buzzkillington »

drdeadringer wrote: post #108
tbrownaw wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

"Out of sight, out of mind" is real and not uncommon.

Not being assaulted is privilege now?

I live down town. There's a homeless man on drugs who screams at the top of his lungs at random people every so often until the police come and pick him up.

If you would rather he not be out of sight and out of mind please send me your address, I will buy him a one way ticket so he can camp out in your back yard.

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

#114

Post by hanniabu »

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.

Yup, just earlier this post showed up in my thread with people trying to criminalize sleeping in public areas so homeless can be arrested.

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/16/788435163/supreme-court-wont-...

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

#115

Post by zozbot234 »

npo9 wrote: post #87
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…

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

Sure, but charging a nominal price for public transit wouldn't meaningfully affect the incentive to avoid traffic congestion outside of it. i.e. by and large, the users aren't going to move back to private vehicles, because shifting the time of use is often easier.

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

#116

Post by hanniabu »

edmundsauto wrote: post #36
reaperducer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If public transportation is going to make any impact on the lives of Kansas City residents, it first has to be providing a useful service to them. Why does that have to be "first?" Why not make it free, and also make it useful? If the goal is to increase ridership, making the rides free lowers the barrier for people in transit-served areas. Then you can subsequently or simultaneously expand it. It makes no sense to k…

What if making it free makes it less useful to most people? There's another comment talking about how they became rolling homeless shelters when they went to free, and use dropped because of hygiene issues.

Yeah, how are we supposed to turn a blind eye and ignore the homeless if those pesky people keep coming into sight

/s

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

#117

Post by nwvg_7257 »

Not really a major city, but Chapel Hill has done this for a long time. Bus service is frequent and reliable, and is used by people from all walks of life. High income professors and scientists will be on the same bus as the poor.

It seems paradoxical that making the service free would lead the rich to use it, but it's good quality and receives substantial funding from the area's high property taxes. There's no stigma to the bus in Chapel Hill since everyone uses it.

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

#118

Post by patcon »

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

This comment makes me feel sad. No judgement of the speaker intended in that, just saying so.

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

#119

Post by astrodust »

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?

That's because your transit system is taking up the slack in other parts of your municipal system that are failing, not because public transit is bad.

It's because "fuck poor people" is happening across a broad spectrum.

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

#120

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

anon73044 wrote: post #92
zucked wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nobody needs to consume alcohol or tobacco to survive. Tax it to what the market will bear.
Post reply on HN