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

331–340 of 401 posts

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

#331

Post by lazyasciiart »

asveikau wrote: post #121
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 moved out the year before it was scrapped, but I am not so sure it was because of homeless people. When I lived in Seattle I had literally 0 bad encounters with homeless people on buses. [Definitely nonzero on the sidewalks] The worst part in my view about the free ride zone was when you would take a bus from downtown to outside the zone. You'd need to pay when you left. Which was hard to enforce, so I think a lot…

It was not because of homeless people. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/warning-seattles-f...

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

#332

Post by lazyasciiart »

fiblye wrote: post #296
Fricken wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

Plenty of people believe in things that don't exist.

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

#333

Post by Broken_Hippo »

steve_taylor wrote: post #324
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't really mean these would be comfortable places - it would still just be shelter. The stuff I listed are just basic things I think we should do for people, regardless of situations. Folks shouldn't suffer due to misfortune.

I don't think society is at a place to do such a thing, but I'd personally like to see everyone getting the option of low-cost to free basic housing. A single person would minimally get a private room and bathroom: More likely a proper studio with a small kitchen. Clean, secure, and functional. Easy-to-clean and easy-to-replace surfaces and appliances. Professional cleaning 2-4 times a year, mandatory.

Of course, I think we should only have shelters for folks that have temporary emergencies and homes for everyone else. People will still need shelter from time to time even in a more perfect world - fires, floods, abuse, money mistakes, and so on happen.

This is all a dream and I don't think we'll get to this point soon enough.

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

#334

Post by lazyasciiart »

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 falls apart when you look at countries like Australia, China, Brazil - plenty of open space but cities have public transport because the nation culture isn't dead against it.

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

#335

Post by chmod775 »

larnmar wrote: post #28
lacker wrote: post #12

Unfortunately, I think this is a step backwards. According to the US Census, about 1% of commuters in Kansas City use public transportation. https://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US28140-kansas-city... It's hardly "public" transportation at all, if it's only useful to 1% of residents. If public transportation is going to make any impact on the lives of Kansas City residents, it first has to be providing a useful s…

If 99% of the Kansas City population are apparently getting by fine without public transport then why have it at all? The problem is people seeing public transport as a virtue in itself rather than as a solution to a problem. I catch public transport every day, but I wish I didn’t have to. If I lived in Kansas City then I could drive to work, but instead I live somewhere that parking is too expensive, so I’m forced t…

No public transport is a problem and so are cities where you can only get around in cars.

Places like that suck for pedestrians and also younger and older people and also people with disabilities who can't get around by car. Basically everyone who is reliant on parents or caretakers to drive them around.

Not to mention that compared to European-style cities, the vast plains of concrete parking lots and streets that don't even have sidewalks!? (why is this allowed to even be a thing) that make up some American cities are about as charming as... well... concrete parking lots.

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

#336

Post by lazyasciiart »

sbmthakur wrote: post #317
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.

Of course it's legal. Basically bus drivers are told not to hold up an entire bus route just to call police to come and arrest someone who won't pay a fare. Even with that in place I have sat on a bus in peak hour traffic while some jackass bus driver yelled at someone who had accidentally got on the wrong door and made them squeeze through a whole crowded bus to swipe their stupid orca card. As if that was worth holding up everyone on the bus, plus the bus behind that couldn't get to the stop, etc.

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

#337

Post by lazyasciiart »

ALittleLight wrote: post #230
bilekas wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly appreciate this; its probably one of the reasons I have a subconscious appreciation for Seattle. As I mentioned, I don't know enough about the area/situation. But I am genuinely pleased that people at least give a shit.

I suspect it's easier to appreciate from afar. Personally, I found it quite distasteful and frustrating to live in a dirty and dangerous city. The city's permissive attitudes are a major reason I left.

No, it's pretty easy to appreciate as a resident of the city. I do, and so do a ton of other people who still live here.

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

#338

Post by crc32 »

jessaustin wrote: post #266
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody needs to consume alcohol or tobacco to survive. Tax it to what the market will bear.

Nobody needs kale or skateboards either. There are other vegetables and personal transportation available. Why not tax them to "what the market will bear"? What does that even mean? If kale consumption drops by 5% is the market "bearing"? 50%? 98%? Why don't we just tax everything except your favorite things to buy?

> Nobody needs kale or skateboards either... Why not tax them to "what the market will bear"?

Because alcohol and tobacco have "negative externalities" to society. These would be mainly health related but I guess the discussion on this post is also around behavioural issues.

By adding a tax to a product, you can make the consumers and manufacturers together share the burden of paying off the externality, (e.g. care for lung cancer patients) and/or the tax will often discourage consumption in the first place. (The second being more applicable in the US where there is limited/no universal healthcare)

The reason you probably wouldn't tax kale, is because it's good for you, and if anything; you could say it has a "positive externality" in that consuming it makes you healthier, and thus benefits society. So it might make sense to actual SUBSIDISE kale production... although this may have very different effects from taxing unhealthy food.

As an example, Scotland has introduced a tax on alcohol called "minimum unit pricing" and there's a study here: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/5/e013497

The UK as a whole also has a "sugar tax" https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/research/research-action/features/uk...

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

#339

Post by lazyasciiart »

haberman wrote: post #157
julienb_sea wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The measure was sold largely as a general flipping of the bird towards King and neighboring counties by the rest of the state. Generally there is opposition from eastern Washington for car tabs going to fund Sound Transit's investments on the western corridor, which doesn't really do anything to benefit those that don't live in the western corridor. And yes, I am aware that King net exports money to the east. I'm not…

I thought the SoundTransit car tabs were only paid inside the SoundTransit area? Are Eastern Washington voters really paying $500 car tabs to build light rail hundreds of miles away? That would be shocking to me if true.

No, they aren't, but they are convinced that they are.

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

#340

Post by fiblye »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #332
fiblye wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

Plenty of people believe in things that don't exist.

Plenty of people also deny problems that do exist.

I’ve encountered people pissing on buses. Shitting isn’t something I’d doubt happens, especially in places like Seattle and San Francisco.

Post reply on HN