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

311–320 of 401 posts

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

#311

Post by Broken_Hippo »

buzzkillington wrote: post #113
drdeadringer wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I'd argue that this would not be different if he had a home.

We should offer drug treatment to those that want it and mental health care to those that need it. This particular example isn't really a problem with a home except in a sense that weve not provided the person housing they can keep up with.

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

#312

Post by coryrc »

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…

Which routes do you take?

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

#313

Post by parsimo2010 »

reaperducer wrote: post #185
edmundsauto wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you doubting that homeless people tend to have worse hygiene? Or that people don't want to use public transit when it smells bad?

What I doubt is the notion that the number of people who don't use transit because of the homeless is statistically significant. The people who seem to complain about it most are also the sort of people who won't ride transit anyway and just use it as an excuse to stay in their cars.

I don't think that it's strictly the homeless, but rather that public transit is seen as a low class option that "the poors" have to use. Middle class people can afford nicer options and don't have to be associated with a "poor" thing. There are exceptions in a few cities with transit systems that are actually better than driving, where you see bankers in suits using the subway.

Getting rid of homeless/ppor people overnight wouldn't fix the perception issue immediately. It would take a while for word to get out that the buses weren't associated with being poor again.

Strangely, I think that making transit completely free removes some of the "poor" stigma. If two things cost money, then you compare the prices and benefits of both to decide what to pick. If one option is completely free, then that comparison isn't performed the same way because of weird mechanisms in our brains. Most middle class people will pay more to drink name brand Coca-Cola instead of an off-brand cola, but if you made the off-brand cola free, then a lot of middle class people would start drinking the off-brand stuff. It's not really rational, but middle class people love a bargain. And once the middle class people start to realize how much of a bargain they get from free transit, then more will start riding and the proportion of poor people will go down, and then even more middle class people will start using it.

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

#314

Post by creato »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #293
baroffoos wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes he is, and so are you. I just spent 2 minutes and found half a dozen vehicles under $1000 that will likely run well for years.

Public transit really isn't an option for most people in the US, and even if it is, unless a transit pass is subsidized, a car like that is probably more cost effective even including fuel, maintenance, and insurance, not to mention the savings in time and freedom provided by a car (any car).

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

#316

Post by lexs »

cpitman wrote: post #288
IAmEveryone wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in cities and during the day, good public transport is faster than cars at any distance. In London or Paris (and even New York), you'll see hedge fund managers on the subway.

That really depends on the city. In DC, my drive commute is ~10-20 minutes in the morning, and my train commute is ~40+ minutes. Why? Because I have to transfer once, and walk to and from the stations on either side.

he said good public transport

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

#317

Post by sbmthakur »

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…

> But this issue has been returning as it's now common knowledge that Seattle bus drivers are instructed not to collect fares from anyone that declines to pay.

Is this legal? From where I come, you can be booked if you intentionally refuse to pay fare.

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

#318

Post by adrianN »

XMPPwocky wrote: post #300
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…

> ...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.

You conveniently left out the part where your parent commenter wants to build shelters so that people don't have to sleep under bridges, whether rich or poor.

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

#319

Post by [deleted] »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #308
aptwebapps wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you'll hold off on the criminalization until all the shelters are built, maybe, but the former is easier than the latter and not everyone is equally invested in the two endeavors.

And not just shelters. Proper shelters. Shelters without forced religious services. Without forced NA/AA. Shelters that will allow families to stay together. Shelters that don't take away walkers and oxygen tanks due to being "weapons". Shelters that are safe, for everyone, especially if you are trans. Ones that allow folks to actually improve their life instead of waiting hours for food and mandatory classes. Bonus…

[deleted]

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

#320

Post by adrianN »

munificent wrote: post #208
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.

> it is sometimes hard to understand why public transport is treated so differently in US. It is worth remembering that the US is much larger than all of Europe, is considerably less dense, and much of it was not well-developed until after automobiles were in wide use. Public transit doesn't make logistical sense in much of the country. It does make sense in some places, of course, but it's less of a part of the nati…

That argument gets repeated in every conversation about public transit in the US. The truth is that even in large dense cities public transport is abysmal compared to much smaller cities in Europe.
Post reply on HN