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

391–400 of 401 posts

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

#391

Post by yahwrong »

fatnoah wrote: post #359
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 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, whi…

So you gave a kid leftovers? That's kind of like giving with the most least amount of inconvenience.

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

#392

Post by ridethewave »

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

You feel that people in proximity to you owe you attention and money?

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

#393

Post by ridethewave »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #381
ridethewave wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>homelessness will never be solved Interesting. Question: do you think that if all of a sudden a wand was waved and everyone homeless in a given city/geography was magically housed that there would still be (eventually, over time) further homelessness or do you think that homelessness would cease to exist from that point forward? What do you think would happen in say, 5-10-15 years out?

> in a given city/geography When a city is more hospitable to the homeless, it attracts more homeless. The homeless problem in California's major cities is in part due to their their (relatively) accommodating treatment of the homeless. Cities, even states, aren't ever going to be able to fully tackle this problem alone - there needs to be a massive initiative at the federal level.

>there needs to be a massive initiative at the federal level.

What would that look like to you?

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

#394

Post by gnaritas »

AaronFriel wrote: post #380
gnaritas wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're just people who at this time have housing insecurity They're homeless, trying to hide that reality with a non-sense PC euphemism doesn't change that. This attitude isn't helping, it's obfuscating and bad. They're not housing insecure, short people aren't height-challenged, disabled people aren't differently-abled.

Homelessness is an immutable characteristic they can't change? Sounds like you're reinforcing why the change in framing is helpful and emphasizing their personhood first, their living conditions second.

> Homelessness is an immutable characteristic they can't change

Don't be obtuse, I didn't remotely suggest that. This is a dishonest reply.

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

#395

Post by farss »

werber wrote: post #82
farss wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just the free fare - it's the abysmal lack of shelter options and the attempts by cities to criminalize encampments and force people to find somewhere indoors to avoid arrest.

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.

> "(and safe)"

Want to make sure this part of the comment is also highlighted because big homeless shelters can be really difficult, scary, and even dangerous places, even when there are beds available, and so unhoused people have to wrestle with whether it's safer/more desirable to sleep outside rather than deal with all that. And that's not to mention all the cumbersome rules and religious proselytizing they might have to deal with in shelters. Warehousing people is not a good option.

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

#396

Post by huebomont »

rayiner wrote: post #56
huebomont wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is there's no additional investment into the system to make it attractive to riders. The KC transit system is poorly designed and making it free isn't going to make it good. Better to keep charging the fare and use the revenue to improve service, then reevaluate when ridership is growing. Transit investment has a LOT of catching up to do to even get close to the types of subsidizing and handouts we give d…

> Transit investment has a LOT of catching up to do to even get close to the types of subsidizing and handouts we give drivers in every corner of this country. That’s completely untrue. Yes we spend more on vehicles than transit. But way more people drive than use transit. There is not even a comparison. In 2016 federal and state spending on road, transit, and water infrastructure was $416 billion: https://www.bidnet…

Per person? It's not. Cars are.

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

#397

Post by huebomont »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #154
huebomont wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better and more frequent service is the number one ridership driver. Free transit is a nice perk but there's some convincing argument and survey data indicating that most people aren't avoiding transit because of the price, but because of perceived lack of utility or reliability. (And yes, obviously continue to use tax revenue as well, just like we charge tolls for some roads but that doesn't pay for all their upkeep…

The thing about eliminating fares and having more frequent service is that they're complementary. To have more frequent service you need enough riders to justify it; eliminating fares gives you at least some increased ridership. Suppose you have an existing A line with 1500 riders and you're considering building a B line, but you need 1000 riders to justify it and you predict there will only be 900, so you don't buil…

You would never want to build a B line that doesn't have any ridership. The move here would not be to make it free, but to reconsider the project and re-align it with a route that would actually attract riders.

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

#398

Post by stretchwithme »

weberc2 wrote: post #221
shadowgovt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could cease to provide social security as it is structured if one replaced it with an alternative. We already know from US history that it is unwise (in a humanitarian sense) to trust the public to just save enough to retire comfortably (including having the foresight to keep their savings in assets that don't diminish in value before they are needed to offset continued life without labor into the system).

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.

Singapore has a better system. They force you to save, but it's your money. You can use it to buy a home.

So you don't start getting it back when you're old. It can serve you much earlier.

I think the rate of home ownership there is over 90%.

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

#399

Post by fatnoah »

yahwrong wrote: post #391
fatnoah wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, whi…

So you gave a kid leftovers? That's kind of like giving with the most least amount of inconvenience.

It was the breakfast I was planning on eating. It wasn't a grand gesture by any stretch, but it was a lot more than anyone else had done for him that day.

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

#400

Post by yahwrong »

fatnoah wrote: post #399
yahwrong wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you gave a kid leftovers? That's kind of like giving with the most least amount of inconvenience.

It was the breakfast I was planning on eating. It wasn't a grand gesture by any stretch, but it was a lot more than anyone else had done for him that day.

Just 'cause no one less was helping doesn't make you a saint for giving your leftovers. Maybe you can take this as a lesson for next time you're in opportunity to give.
Post reply on HN