Nothing is "no-cost." Something must be given up by someone.
Ugh. Won't even bother refuting.
Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
231–240 of 401 posts
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#232Earlier 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…
This sounds like a recitation of hyper-conservative Sinclair Broadcasting's Seattle is Dying program from earlier in 2019.
Here's a response to that: https://www.realchangenews.org/2019/11/06/no-seattle-isnt-dy...
Also: I've lived in Seattle since 2003, and in Capitol Hill since 2005. I've worked in Pioneer Square, in the 'core' downtown area, and on Capitol Hill. Currently, my commute takes me 1.7 miles on foot or bus through Capitol Hill.
I see plenty of homeless people on my daily commute. The housing affordability crisis is worsening, and the city is simply not doing enough to solve it. I occasionally see needles laying on the ground or people shooting up. They don't have anywhere to go to shoot up, so they do it on the street. I'm not sure what their alternatives are when our supposedly progressive city council and mayor restricts options to create safe injection sites.
All that said, the most unsafe I have ever felt in Seattle has been when I've been in the presence of alt-right protestors and counter-protestors openly carrying firearms.
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just a much harder problem to solve than you realize it is. The truth is a lot of the homeless people that aren't in shelters choose not to go to shelters. Why? The biggest reason is because shelters don't allow drugs or alcohol, and if you're an addict that's an immediate pass. There are other reasons too. Sometimes couples want shelter together, but most are separated by gender (and for good reason: to prevent…
You say it's not obvious, but then you ask: > So, what do you do? Allow people to shoot up in a shelter? And the answer is yes, obviously . Safe-injection sites and opiate maintenance programs work. And you also go several steps further by ending drug prohibition entirely. Prohibition has created an environment where the only opioid drugs available are highly concentrated and easy to smuggle, just as alcohol prohibit…
Unfortunately the answer is not obviously yes. A long time ago I volunteered in a shelter. High (and drink) guests can be more violent and argumentive; fights will break out over people stealing drugs. They pass out and make messes with bodily fluids that have to be cleaned up. They leave dirty needles laying around.
Few people, including other guests, want to deal with these and the safety issues and so fewer come (including the volunteers).
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#234"proponents of the plan say that helping marginalized communities move around more easily will translate into deeper benefits."
Well yeah, we kept them marginalized, for some reason ... but right now we really need them. Later on, ...
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#235Earlier 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.
The reasons are: 1. Public transit is very slow relative to cars. This is because the U.S. was mostly built after the invention of the car, which means road capacity is higher, parking is easier, and distances are farther. Even in places with decent public transit, it takes 2-3x as long to get somewhere on public transit as driving a car. 2. The U.S. is a rich country and more people can afford their own car or to ta…
>2. The U.S. is a rich country and more people can afford their own car or to take a taxi/rideshare.
Is this true? It was my understanding that a large % of Americans can't even afford to buy a car and have to take out a loan as well as cutting down on other living expenses to have enough money to drive to work.
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#236Earlier 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…
Its strange how the American version of compassion is to totally ignore homeless people rather than do anything to help them.
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main issue is that historically in the US, transit operational funding is a strictly state and below matter, but the feds are happy to stump much of the bill for highways. And states and cities generally have fewer resources. With such a strong urban-rural political divide these days, and suburban views of transit ranging from apathetic to hostile, federal support for transit operations is unlikely. Personally, I…
The reason for the distinction is that federal highways are interstate. Neither New York nor San Francisco is going to be willing to pay for highways to connect the two cities, but we all benefit from being able to get from one side of the country to the other. But arguing that states and cities have fewer resources is ridiculous. Cities have more resources than anybody -- they're where the highest income people live…
Cities give a lot more in federal taxes than they get, hence the "less available resources." Things like eliminating the state and local tax deduction have also hurt urban areas.
If transportation taxes were devolved to the states or the localities then there would be a lot more public transportation funding.
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
As a Seattle bus rider, I would have to disagree. A few outlier homeless (e.g. those who shit on the bus) can create irrational triggers among the general public which decrease bus use.
Wanting to avoid literal shit on a bus isn’t irrational. If it’s a common enough issue that it’s acknowledged as more than a one-off thing, it’s rational to want to avoid that.
And it’s not only wanting to avoid shit on a bus, but wanting to avoid people who have no concerns with shitting on a bus. They’re unpredictable.
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
As a Seattle bus rider, I would have to disagree. A few outlier homeless (e.g. those who shit on the bus) can create irrational triggers among the general public which decrease bus use.
> shit on the bus --> irrational
Interesting take, to say the least.
Re: Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say it's not obvious, but then you ask: > So, what do you do? Allow people to shoot up in a shelter? And the answer is yes, obviously . Safe-injection sites and opiate maintenance programs work. And you also go several steps further by ending drug prohibition entirely. Prohibition has created an environment where the only opioid drugs available are highly concentrated and easy to smuggle, just as alcohol prohibit…
Unfortunately the answer is not obviously yes. A long time ago I volunteered in a shelter. High (and drink) guests can be more violent and argumentive; fights will break out over people stealing drugs. They pass out and make messes with bodily fluids that have to be cleaned up. They leave dirty needles laying around. Few people, including other guests, want to deal with these and the safety issues and so fewer come (…
Are you saying that you volunteered at a location which expressly served as a safe-injection or maintenance program site? Or a place where addicts clandestinely acquired and used heroin?
This discussion is about the former: is it a good idea to have safe injection or maintenance facilities at or near shelters? The consequences you are describing sound to me like symptoms of the latter, which are not widely described at actual safe injection or maintenance sites.