4 ms·

Unfortunately, I think this is a step backwards. According to the US Census, about 1% of commuters in Kansas City use public transportation. https://censusrepo

by lacker 7y ago

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-mo-ks-metro-area/ 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 service to them. That probably means expanding its reach, and putting more vehicles on existing lines. Making it free means that any expansion has become more expensive, and is now less likely to happen.

kick 7y ago
"Free" is an incentive to use it: cities outside of the US have had great results by making public transit free. Also, you misread the statistic. That's commute to work, and only people who are 16 and up. Work is not the only thing public transportation is useful for.
- asdff 7y ago
  Some people struggle paying for the monthly pass that they need. Other people have no idea how to pay for transit at all, and don't take it out of ignorance. Free helps both of these groups.
reaperducer 7y ago
If public transportation is going to make any impact on the lives of Kansas City residents, it first has to be providing a useful service to them. Why does that have to be "first?" Why not make it free, and also make it useful? If the goal is to increase ridership, making the rides free lowers the barrier for people in transit-served areas. Then you can subsequently or simultaneously expand it. It makes no sense to keep charging during the expansion to some mythical point in the future where it will suddenly become free because it's reached a certain number of users.
- edmundsauto 7y ago
  What if making it free makes it less useful to most people? There's another comment talking about how they became rolling homeless shelters when they went to free, and use dropped because of hygiene issues.
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    I've seen people speculate about homeless use of transit as a deterrent to ridership, but I've never seen any actual numbers on that, and I think it's mostly overblown. Either way, homeless people making homes on transit isn't a transportation issue, it's a law enforcement/social services issue.
    - julienb_sea 7y ago
      When people abuse the transportation system, its definitely a transportation issue. Introducing and enforcing fares does mean people will think twice before abusing the system. Reduced or free-fare cards can easily be issued to people who seek them out, expanding availability while maintaining enforceable usage guidelines.
    - edmundsauto 7y ago
      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?
      - reaperducer 7y ago
        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.
        edmundsauto 7y ago
        Possibly. I prefer a car over public transit generally, although there are times when transit is more convenient. In those circumstances, I would use public transit more often if it weren't such an awful experience. Directionally, I think it's reasonable to assume that bad smells negatively impact ridership. It seems all we disagree about is the magnitude. Given how few people ride transit now, even a small number of folks who avoid transit due to smell seems likely to be a decent sized percentage of overall ridership. I'd bet that ridership would go up 10+% if you could magically remove any hygiene and perceived threat issues. Although now we're well into the territory where we are each just projecting our own opinions, because AFAICT neither of us have data to back our assertions.
larnmar 7y ago
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 to catch a train that goes from somewhere I’m not to somewhere that isn’t where I want to be at a time that isn’t exactly when I want to go, and in the company of people that I didn’t choose to be with.
- chmod775 7y ago
  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.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
1% of commuters is not the same thing 1% of trips. For a less dense city like KC you can't really expect many commuters to use buses unless the city is carpet bombed with bus lines since the low density makes car ownership not suck (there's probably free parking at your job) and buses suck more (the bus is less likely to go where you need it). Bus lines do however generally do a good job going to places like schools, grocery stores, senior centers, etc, etc, and all sorts of places demographics other than "commuters" want to go.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Making it free means that any expansion has become more expensive, and is now less likely to happen. Making it free means more people will use it, which grows the interest group who will lobby to have it expanded. If you think taxpayer groups advocating fiscal restraint have the edge over interest groups who want more spending, you'll need to explain why government budgets continually expand, even after adjusting for population growth and inflation.
tigeba 7y ago
You have to be somewhat careful with statistics like these when dealing with cities like KC. Population information is frequently reported as 'Metro Area' as in the source you provided. The actual population of KCMO is < 500,000 and I'd wager access to public transit is useful to far greater than 1% of the population of KCMO proper. FWIW, I live in the metro area and the buses are not super useful for me, but I used the streetcar frequently when I was working downtown. The streetcar is 'free' and is funded by a special tax along the streetcar line, that was voted for by the people that live along the line. It has been very popular and the city recently voted to expand it for several more miles. The latest announcement is expanding the 'free' to buses. I don't know if there is really a plan to pay for that yet.

by lacker 7y ago

kick 7y ago

"Free" is an incentive to use it: cities outside of the US have had great results by making public transit free. Also, you misread the statistic. That's commute to work, and only people who are 16 and up. Work is not the only thing public transportation is useful for.

asdff 7y ago
Some people struggle paying for the monthly pass that they need. Other people have no idea how to pay for transit at all, and don't take it out of ignorance. Free helps both of these groups.

reaperducer 7y ago

If public transportation is going to make any impact on the lives of Kansas City residents, it first has to be providing a useful service to them. Why does that have to be "first?" Why not make it free, and also make it useful? If the goal is to increase ridership, making the rides free lowers the barrier for people in transit-served areas. Then you can subsequently or simultaneously expand it. It makes no sense to keep charging during the expansion to some mythical point in the future where it will suddenly become free because it's reached a certain number of users.

edmundsauto 7y ago
What if making it free makes it less useful to most people? There's another comment talking about how they became rolling homeless shelters when they went to free, and use dropped because of hygiene issues.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  I've seen people speculate about homeless use of transit as a deterrent to ridership, but I've never seen any actual numbers on that, and I think it's mostly overblown. Either way, homeless people making homes on transit isn't a transportation issue, it's a law enforcement/social services issue.
  - julienb_sea 7y ago
    When people abuse the transportation system, its definitely a transportation issue. Introducing and enforcing fares does mean people will think twice before abusing the system. Reduced or free-fare cards can easily be issued to people who seek them out, expanding availability while maintaining enforceable usage guidelines.
  - edmundsauto 7y ago
    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?
    - reaperducer 7y ago
      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.
      - edmundsauto 7y ago
        Possibly. I prefer a car over public transit generally, although there are times when transit is more convenient. In those circumstances, I would use public transit more often if it weren't such an awful experience. Directionally, I think it's reasonable to assume that bad smells negatively impact ridership. It seems all we disagree about is the magnitude. Given how few people ride transit now, even a small number of folks who avoid transit due to smell seems likely to be a decent sized percentage of overall ridership. I'd bet that ridership would go up 10+% if you could magically remove any hygiene and perceived threat issues. Although now we're well into the territory where we are each just projecting our own opinions, because AFAICT neither of us have data to back our assertions.

larnmar 7y ago

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 to catch a train that goes from somewhere I’m not to somewhere that isn’t where I want to be at a time that isn’t exactly when I want to go, and in the company of people that I didn’t choose to be with.

chmod775 7y ago
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.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

1% of commuters is not the same thing 1% of trips. For a less dense city like KC you can't really expect many commuters to use buses unless the city is carpet bombed with bus lines since the low density makes car ownership not suck (there's probably free parking at your job) and buses suck more (the bus is less likely to go where you need it). Bus lines do however generally do a good job going to places like schools, grocery stores, senior centers, etc, etc, and all sorts of places demographics other than "commuters" want to go.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> Making it free means that any expansion has become more expensive, and is now less likely to happen. Making it free means more people will use it, which grows the interest group who will lobby to have it expanded. If you think taxpayer groups advocating fiscal restraint have the edge over interest groups who want more spending, you'll need to explain why government budgets continually expand, even after adjusting for population growth and inflation.

tigeba 7y ago

You have to be somewhat careful with statistics like these when dealing with cities like KC. Population information is frequently reported as 'Metro Area' as in the source you provided. The actual population of KCMO is < 500,000 and I'd wager access to public transit is useful to far greater than 1% of the population of KCMO proper. FWIW, I live in the metro area and the buses are not super useful for me, but I used the streetcar frequently when I was working downtown. The streetcar is 'free' and is funded by a special tax along the streetcar line, that was voted for by the people that live along the line. It has been very popular and the city recently voted to expand it for several more miles. The latest announcement is expanding the 'free' to buses. I don't know if there is really a plan to pay for that yet.