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

351–360 of 401 posts

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

#351

Post by lazyasciiart »

GhettoMaestro wrote: post #348
lazyasciiart wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thei…

Ah there it is - the guy that gets pissed when he can’t spend other people’s money on pet projects.

Weird takeaway, but you do seem to be in a bad mood. This isn't reddit - maybe you need to log off.

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

#352

Post by xzcat »

mcv wrote: post #342
awb wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 think the city should just provide enough shelters for the homeless. That seems cheaper than running public transport that's not getting used the way it's intended. It's hard to fix every cause of homelessness, but providing shelters is pretty easy.

The rationale for why "just add more shelters" is hard has been explained to me as:

* nobody wants a shelter built near them * even if it does get built, it's often women/children only

and the second bullet point isn't (afaik...) just sexism or anything, it's just picking risk categories. Consider all the following like you were an insurance company trying to appraise how costly it is to do business with a group of people: Apparently homeless men are, collectively, more expensive to shelter than women/children because they're plagued by more expensive issues - more violence, more drug issues, etc. So homeless shelters frequently can't afford to operate if they try to shelter men. So it becomes an issue of "women/children only" or "it's literally too expensive to safely run the (both-genders) shelter to be feasible".

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

#353

Post by mcv »

xzcat wrote: post #352
mcv wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the city should just provide enough shelters for the homeless. That seems cheaper than running public transport that's not getting used the way it's intended. It's hard to fix every cause of homelessness, but providing shelters is pretty easy.

The rationale for why "just add more shelters" is hard has been explained to me as: * nobody wants a shelter built near them * even if it does get built, it's often women/children only and the second bullet point isn't (afaik...) just sexism or anything, it's just picking risk categories. Consider all the following like you were an insurance company trying to appraise how costly it is to do business with a group of p…

But leaving those men on the street in also expensive for society. I understand this is how it works for any individual shelter, but for the city as a whole, they're going to be paying for this one way or another, whether they provide shelters, let them sleep on the bus (a great place for people with violence/drug issues) or just abandon them to the streets to let them figure it out on their own. I think providing shelters, and maybe guidance with their problems, is still going to be the best option for the city. As long as they can look at the entire context, and not just a single shelter.

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

#354

Post by selman89 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #149
selman89 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effect of this is “fuck poor people”. It’s political, not avoidable. Refusing to actively take account of such systemic matters has an outcome. Most people in the world seem to understand this, but not Americans. Americans only think of themselves.

I'm reminded of the slums currently surrounding Paris which are almost as bad as LA's skid row, but less visible simply because they're further from the people in power. Or what about Britain's history of horrific poverty that formed the basis for nearly all of Dickens' work. Germany's far more recent history, especially for those on the East side of the wall. Russia's treatment of its poor during and after Communism…

I did not say only Americans do this. Nonetheless, I am not convinced the homeless issue in France competes with that of LA, Dickens wrote in the 19th century, and this is the 21st.

Which nation has military bases in every populated corner of the Earth? Soothing platitudes such as yours have always underwritten imperialism.

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

#355

Post by weberc2 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #245
weberc2 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought postwar America was known for investing in real estate to great wealth-building effect? I’m not sure how worthwhile other time periods are for comparison as our economy is so much different.

Approximately 65% of Americans own their home.

I’m not sure what point you’re making, if any. Care to elaborate?

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

#356

Post by [deleted] »

greglindahl wrote: post #227
weberc2 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost per passenger per mile is two orders of magnitude lower for roads than for public transit; I can’t imagine parking space accounting for that.

What is the cost on the road when the road is full and can’t be expanded? Lots of urban areas in the US have this problem.

[deleted]

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

#357

Post by PopeDotNinja »

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #341
PopeDotNinja wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Couldn’t you use your car? 24 hour fitness for showers? I see many people do that. They don’t bother anybody. They’re actually trying to work very hard, it’s just the property values are so costly, that they end up homeless in their car. The homeless that are on the street are typically very hostile and going through drug withdrawal. It can become a public safety issue then.

A car isn't an option for everyone. I personally don't have a car. And 10 years ago when I was homeless, I couldn't afford to keep the car I had; it got towed because I couldn't afford to pay for the registration. On a more practical note, I was too big to sleep in my car anyway.

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

#358

Post by werber »

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.

A friendly hello and a few bucks

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

#359

Post by fatnoah »

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 live in Boston and arrived at my usual subway stop with a half-eaten breakfast sandwich and an iced coffee in hand. There was a "kid" (probably late teens, early twenties) sleeping on the bench and he looked like someone who was newly arrived in a tough place. I thought of my own pre-teen son and thought of what I'd want someone to do if they encountered him in this state.

When I approached He asked for change, which I didn't have, so I asked if he wanted the remaining half of my sandwich and iced coffee instead. The sheer joy of his reaction as he took the sandwich and coffee is something I'll always remember.

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

#360

Post by cambaceres »

werber wrote: post #358
awb wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

A friendly hello and a few bucks

No one ever gave you cash? Did you ask for it?
Post reply on HN