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

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

#291

Post by baroffoos » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:29 AM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #253

baroffoos wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

The US is 4th for cars per capita. Behind San Marino, Monaco, and New Zealand. Regardless of whether it’s “affordable” to own a car, people do it anyway. Financing for vehicles in the US is very accessible. There are dealerships who advertise on the radio in my city that they cater to people with “multiple bankruptcies”, and “no drivers license”, with little to no money down. As a more extreme anecdote: I had a bad r…

You comment just confirmed my thoughts that people in the US often can't afford a car and are forced to go through any insane measures possible to use one since it is a requirement for life in the US.

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

#292

Post by m0zg » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:34 AM UTC

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?

But it can't really be _fully_ solved. In any case there will be people who simply refuse the responsibility of being a proper adult and _choose_ to live under a bridge. In a city of a 700K+ people (Seattle) there will be hundreds of such folks. What do you do with them in a free country?

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

#293

Post by Gibbon1 » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:34 AM UTC

baroffoos wrote: post #291

kube-system wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is 4th for cars per capita. Behind San Marino, Monaco, and New Zealand. Regardless of whether it’s “affordable” to own a car, people do it anyway. Financing for vehicles in the US is very accessible. There are dealerships who advertise on the radio in my city that they cater to people with “multiple bankruptcies”, and “no drivers license”, with little to no money down. As a more extreme anecdote: I had a bad r…

You comment just confirmed my thoughts that people in the US often can't afford a car and are forced to go through any insane measures possible to use one since it is a requirement for life in the US.

You aren't mistaken.

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

#294

Post by winrid » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:41 AM UTC

toomanybeersies wrote: post #130

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

That's a bit elitist, isn't it? We could also ban vagrants from being inside the city limits at night. Out of sight, out of mind. More seriously though, take an Uber (or UberPool) if you want clean, sober public transport.

Sorry that's just not an acceptable answer. Telling everyone to add to traffic in the city just to be in a clean environment is stupid.

I spent two weeks in Beijing. They actually kicked the homeless out of the city and there are constant reminders to keep the subways clean. It was really nice.

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

#295

Post by yowlingcat » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:59 AM UTC

mason55 wrote: post #279

markdown wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well they should, shouldn't they. Nobody should be able to monopolize and ruin the commons, whether or not they have a home. The problem isn't the criminalizing of sleeping in public spaces, it's the lack of publicly funded shelters and publicly funded (incl. mental) healthcare for the homeless. We should pay to give them a place to sleep, and punish them just like anyone else if they choose to set up camps in public…

Which I believe is what the SCOTUS essentially ruled today. If the city doesn’t have adequate shelter you can’t just arrest people for existing.

Well, semantics...SCOTUS refused to hear. But by refusing, it was an implicit support -- but I wouldn't call it a ruling. A ruling would be more along the lines of indelible -- this was more a filibuster.

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

#296

Post by fiblye » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:09 AM UTC

Fricken wrote: post #249

fiblye wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've never seen shit on a bus. What's the likelihood that you'll see shit on a bus? I've on many occasions seen shit in public restrooms. What's the rational thing to do about shit on public restrooms? Is seeing shit on a bus worse than seeing shit in a public restroom? I guess we're used to seeing shit in restrooms, so it doesn't carry the same stigma. Maybe if there was more shit lying around in general it would he…

The person I replied to mentioned it as something existing.

And shit in a restroom is an unpleasant thing to see, but it’s a facility set aside for the explicit purpose of shitting. The explicit purpose of a bus includes transport without shitting. I find it hard to imagine that you can’t conceive of the idea of people being exposed to shit and the types of people who have no issues shitting while on a bus. They’re not mentally stable people and they’re quite possibly dangerous.

And no, we should absolutely not destigmatize shitting on buses or in places other than toilets. It’s not only disgusting to look at, but that’s how you spread deadly diseases. It’s a problem the Romans knew how to handle—let’s not set ourselves back in time 2000 years because some mentally unstable person might be offended.

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

#297

Post by kube-system » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:13 AM UTC

baroffoos wrote: post #291

kube-system wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is 4th for cars per capita. Behind San Marino, Monaco, and New Zealand. Regardless of whether it’s “affordable” to own a car, people do it anyway. Financing for vehicles in the US is very accessible. There are dealerships who advertise on the radio in my city that they cater to people with “multiple bankruptcies”, and “no drivers license”, with little to no money down. As a more extreme anecdote: I had a bad r…

You comment just confirmed my thoughts that people in the US often can't afford a car and are forced to go through any insane measures possible to use one since it is a requirement for life in the US.

Of course, I am giving examples of extremes.

But in general, I’m just saying that cars have low barriers to obtain here, for whatever the situation may be. That situation is sometimes necessity, but not always. This is not a phenomenon that only exists in places without public transit.

I also wanted to convey is that the concept of “affordable” isn’t exactly comparable across cultures, classes, and backgrounds.

As you may know, cars are a status symbol in the US. My roommate in the example above absolutely considered himself able to afford a car. Even though we lived in a place with a viable bus route that would have taken him everywhere he needed to go, his car was an essential enough part of his identity, lifestyle, and status that he decided to prioritize it as he did.

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

#298

Post by Thriptic » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:23 AM UTC

istjohn wrote: post #242

gamblor956 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally, most people who are "pro-homeless" or talk about treating them with respect don't actually live near or otherwise interact with the homeless on a regular or even occasional basis, which lets them feel superior and cast moral judgments on those of us who do live near the homeless and try to do something to contain the problem.

I have been substantially inconvenienced by people who are homeless. I live down the street from a soup kitchen, and I got scabies after someone apparently spent the night in my unlocked car. But obviously any inconvenience I experience pales in comparison to their suffering on the streets. It's natural to be frustrated and annoyed by homelessness at times, but surely it's easy to also feel compassion for these peopl…

It depends on the situation. I certainly feel compassion for people who are down on their luck; who want to be part of society and have just gotten unlucky; and who are scraping to get by and trying to fix things. I absolutely want to extend them help and see them get back into a healthy, happy, and productive state (and have done so in the past).

That being said, I don't have much compassion for people who harass me incessantly for money and scream obscenities at me when I won't give them any; who pull weapons on my friends and mug them at knife point in broad daylight; who urinate and shit in public without even making an attempt to seek privacy; who are violently disruptive just to do it; who shoot up drugs on the street and make no attempt to seek treatment or be part of society; who get on public transport and start screaming about their schizophrenia-induced religious nonsense; etc.

These individuals certainly show no respect or compassion towards me or to people I know who have been assaulted by them. Why is it my responsibility to deal with them as a private citizen when many don't seem to even want to be helped and when the government who I pay taxes to in part to ensure my public safety doesn't seem to care either?

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

#299

Post by PopeDotNinja » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:24 AM UTC

markdown wrote: post #260

hanniabu wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Well they should, shouldn't they. Nobody should be able to monopolize and ruin the commons, whether or not they have a home. The problem isn't the criminalizing of sleeping in public spaces, it's the lack of publicly funded shelters and publicly funded (incl. mental) healthcare for the homeless. We should pay to give them a place to sleep, and punish them just like anyone else if they choose to set up camps in public…

You'll change your mind as soon as you don't have a place to stay. Getting arrested because you were involuntarily evicted for your home is bullshit and tried to sleep somewhere is bullshit.

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

#300

Post by XMPPwocky » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:27 AM UTC

markdown wrote: post #260

hanniabu wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Well they should, shouldn't they. Nobody should be able to monopolize and ruin the commons, whether or not they have a home. The problem isn't the criminalizing of sleeping in public spaces, it's the lack of publicly funded shelters and publicly funded (incl. mental) healthcare for the homeless. We should pay to give them a place to sleep, and punish them just like anyone else if they choose to set up camps in public…

> ...and punish them just like anyone else if they choose to set up camps in public spaces.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Often applicable, but rarely quite so literally.