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

#321

Post by ssivark » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 9:35 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…

> 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 spaces.

A little empathy would clarify that if there were any (holistically) better option, then homeless people would be preferring that to sleeping on the streets.

Firstly there needs to be "enough" available shelter, which accommodates the richly varied life situations of people. Secondly, it's no use having these shelters in the middle of nowhere such that their tenants are disconnected from a thriving economy and the rest of society.

The commons are, after all, for common use, and it is coercive to punish the homeless (often considered "riff raff") for "ruining the commons" if one's delicate (bourgeois) sensibilities are affected.

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

#322

Post by nojvek » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 9:38 AM UTC

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…

I don’t know about not collecting fares. I’ve been kicked out of bus because my orca card ran out of money and didn’t work. Some drivers are pretty up-stick about it.

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

#323

Post by nojvek » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 9:39 AM UTC

awb wrote: post #302

werber wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% this, I’ve been homeless and slept on the bus or subway to stay warm (and safe) and not once did someone try to help me. And now I’m years out of being in that situation and I am part of the same problem, I almost never take public transportation and use Lyft or my car to get around.

> I’ve been homeless and slept on the bus or subway to stay warm (and safe) and not once did someone try to help me. Curious how someone could have most helped you at that time in your life if you don't mind sharing.

I’m guilty. I’d like to help but I’m not so sure how.

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

#324

Post by steve_taylor » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 10:05 AM UTC

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…

If such shelters existed in my city, I’d seriously consider becoming homeless for a while to save for a deposit on a home loan faster than I otherwise would while paying rent.

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

#325

Post by 121789 » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 10:07 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #320

munificent wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't think you're really disagreeing with him. We all agree that transit stinks even in big metro areas (NY/Chicago are decent but still not to European level). The issue is that in those dense areas it's now extremely expensive to build, and in other areas, there isn't enough population to support large build outs (like in the southeast where I grew up). Compounding that is the fact that rail would have to compete with fairly cheap flights.

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

#326

Post by adrianN » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 10:11 AM UTC

121789 wrote: post #325

adrianN wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think you're really disagreeing with him. We all agree that transit stinks even in big metro areas (NY/Chicago are decent but still not to European level). The issue is that in those dense areas it's now extremely expensive to build, and in other areas, there isn't enough population to support large build outs (like in the southeast where I grew up). Compounding that is the fact that rail would have to compet…

It's not that expensive if you're not afraid of taking away space from cars. Bus lanes and trams are relatively cheap to build.

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

#327

Post by lazyasciiart » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 10:18 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #318

XMPPwocky wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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.

And they conveniently left out that that is exactly what the law has been ruled to say - if there are available suitable shelters then you can criminalize sleeping in public areas.

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

#328

Post by lazyasciiart » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 10:25 AM UTC

deeg wrote: post #259

jMyles wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I volunteered at a shelter in a Boston suburb and the problems were fairly small compared to big cities. This was a while ago so heroin wasn't much of a problem; by far the drug of choice was alcohol with crack a distant second. You cannot allow alcohol in a shelter, it is a recipe for disaster. The problem with simple solutions is that many people don't want to do what you think they should do. They don't want safe…

Yes, you can have alcohol in shelters, it is cheaper, safer, and in all ways except performing a puritan morality play, better. It's called low barrier shelters, or housing first. Seattle's DESC housing has been successfully providing it for decades. Plenty of successful programs have implemented it in multiple countries. It is not a new idea or an untested idea. You can't have it in a shitty "shelter" that just lays out sleeping mats by the dozens in a big empty room and then turns out the lights, no. So what?

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

#329

Post by lazyasciiart » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 10:27 AM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #161

buzzkillington wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Generally, people who make that argument are completely wrong and somehow fail to recognize how nonsensical it is to argue that social workers etc just don't interact with homeless people enough to see them with contempt.

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

#330

Post by lazyasciiart » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 10:34 AM UTC

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…

That's not actually true. The ride free zone ended because King County has a ton of suburban communities who resent their delusion that they support Seattle through taxes. When the county wanted to pass new car tabs, some of the suburban reps refused to approve it unless the ride free zone was scrapped in return. Luckily for them, they were able to take advantage of the existing biases of people like you to spin their bullshit as "we were making busses better" instead of the actual reason, "fuck off Seattle and busses". https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/warning-seattles-f...