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

211–220 of 401 posts

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

#211

Post by weberc2 »

milkytron wrote: post #26
mrep wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone kicks and screams about transit systems "paying for themselves" If you mean paying for themselves with fares, then no, as most public transportation does not cover the costs with just fares [0]. For example, I'm in Seattle currently and the fares only cover 20-40% of costs [1]. Not that I am complaining as I take the bus to work everyday, but it's not a slam dunk case of invest more because it has a positi…

I think what the original commenter meant was that people get upset because they don't want to subsidize transit systems, and would rather have them break even or turn a profit. What a lot of those same people don't understand, is that taxes pay for the road systems. The people that understand public transit realize that it's hard to recover the costs without assistance (taxes).

I have a really hard time believing public transit could reasonably compete with the highway system with respect to return on investment. Consider how much food and consumer goods would cost without highway infrastructure never mind the secondary effects. Consider also that you would be making road travel prohibitively expensive for the lower classes.

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

#212

Post by crispyambulance »

pkaye wrote: post #146
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.

For me its infrequent and unpredictable bus timings, limited bus stops, long travel times. If I took buses to work it would take 1-1.5 hours to reach my work. When I drive, it takes 30-45min. And the bus is available only once an hour during peak hours.

The unpredictable timing and long travel times occur as a unintended result of consolidating public transport options.

It starts when transportation planners get the "bright idea" to cancel lines that don't have some threshold of number of riders. On paper that looks good because it culls the lines that aren't as profitable, allowing the operating budget to shrink. In reality, it makes transit slightly less attractive, less flexible to riders, and it means that some places aren't reachable directly, conveniently or at all.

Decades of this kind of behavior coupled with increasing distaste for public expenditures and you're left with a transit system that only serves patrons whose time is worth almost nothing, who are desperate enough to burn 1-2 hours of travel to get to places that are reachable in 20 minutes by private vehicles.

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

#213

Post by sitkack »

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…

The rolling homeless shelter meme is a way to virtue signal against the existence of the homeless. I have been a consistent bus rider in Seattle since the mid 90s, and the bus is not a destination for homeless, much less so than the library. Many homeless people have bus passes legitimately, and are more respectful than the average rider.

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

#214

Post by randyrand »

matchbok wrote: post #2

Great 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.

Another example SFO adds an additional ~$5 fee to leave or enter on BART, but drivers can arrive and drop off for free.

Cars are massively subsidized.

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

#216

Post by weberc2 »

kasey_junk wrote: post #69
rayiner wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That’s completely untrue. Yes we spend more on vehicles than transit. But way more people drive than use transit. There is not even a comparison. In 2016 federal and state spending on road, transit, and water infrastructure was $416 billion: https://www.bidnet…

I’m not disagreeing with your broader point but none of those studies account for space utilization issues. Transit uses space better due to lack of parking and more density per track. No idea how that impacts the actual dollar numbers but it’s worth noting.

The cost per passenger per mile is two orders of magnitude lower for roads than for public transit; I can’t imagine parking space accounting for that.

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

#217

Post by kasey_junk »

weberc2 wrote: post #216
kasey_junk wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not disagreeing with your broader point but none of those studies account for space utilization issues. Transit uses space better due to lack of parking and more density per track. No idea how that impacts the actual dollar numbers but it’s worth noting.

The cost per passenger per mile is two orders of magnitude lower for roads than for public transit; I can’t imagine parking space accounting for that.

Parking space and the tracks/roads/right of ways themselves?

I don’t expect it brings them to parity but I expect it’s non-trivial.

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

#218

Post by SalmonCannon »

ALittleLight wrote: post #179
bilekas wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to be rude, but don't you guys have security to just take them off ? It's a public disorder no ? I do feel for the homeless, and of course its a refuge etc, but its a public service and so can be removed from the tram/service. Its not a difficult solution to have to just grab a free ticket which could take you to the end of the line. In which case, no ticket (even free) no pass. I have a high opinion of Seattle i…

Enforcing laws against the homeless is not the done thing in Seattle. The problem is not thinking of ways to detect their law breaking, but rather that the city chooses compassion over order and consequently ignores their lawlessness instead of enforcing the law. If you do come to Seattle, you'll find the streets teeming with the homeless who are completely undisturbed by the police. Just walking around the city, and…

First visit to Seattle: dinner date at a restaurant downtown, step outside and within minutes a homeless guy crosses the street and tries to jump-kick me, then he falls down and just lays there unresponsive. One of the most bizarre/confusing things to ever happen to me.

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

#219

Post by jcims »

runarberg wrote: post #204
dmode wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities increasingly are calling for safe injection sites, but it is against Federal law

Federal legislation doesn’t stop Seattle from allowing the sale of marijuana, so that is a pretty lame excuse.

Depends on what leverage the federal government has over shelters vs dispensaries.

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

#220

Post by lizardking »

robsinatra wrote: post #184

Kansas was running on fumes for a long time by not taxing. Now, this? One group of idealists were replaced with another with no more sensibility than their counterparts.

Tax laws for the state of Kansas have nothing to do with public transportation policy in Kansas City, Missouri.
Post reply on HN