3 ms·

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 f

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.
    - parsimo2010 7y ago
      I don't think that it's strictly the homeless, but rather that public transit is seen as a low class option that "the poors" have to use. Middle class people can afford nicer options and don't have to be associated with a "poor" thing. There are exceptions in a few cities with transit systems that are actually better than driving, where you see bankers in suits using the subway. Getting rid of homeless/ppor people overnight wouldn't fix the perception issue immediately. It would take a while for word to get out that the buses weren't associated with being poor again. Strangely, I think that making transit completely free removes some of the "poor" stigma. If two things cost money, then you compare the prices and benefits of both to decide what to pick. If one option is completely free, then that comparison isn't performed the same way because of weird mechanisms in our brains. Most middle class people will pay more to drink name brand Coca-Cola instead of an off-brand cola, but if you made the off-brand cola free, then a lot of middle class people would start drinking the off-brand stuff. It's not really rational, but middle class people love a bargain. And once the middle class people start to realize how much of a bargain they get from free transit, then more will start riding and the proportion of poor people will go down, and then even more middle class people will start using it.
hanniabu 7y ago
Yeah, how are we supposed to turn a blind eye and ignore the homeless if those pesky people keep coming into sight /s
- edmundsauto 7y ago
  People are less interested in using public transit when it smells. That doesn't imply anything other than people don't like to use things that smell bad. I'm not implying anything about homeless people other than IME they don't have the hygiene of a housed person. And if you read the scope of my comment, I was specifically addressing their strategy suggestion of increasing usage.
jessaustin 7y ago
People in California could overestimate the "homeless problem" in Kansas City. It gets really cold there. Missouri and Kansas are both brutal to poor people. (I've lived in Missouri most of my life so I'm allowed to admit that.) The homeless in KC are likely to avoid situations in which they provoke response from fellow citizens or police. Buses do need to be cleaned regularly. When that doesn't happen, the homeless might be blamed, but a more fair target might be poor administration.
tigeba 7y ago
There have been no fares on our streetcars in KC since they debuted a few years ago. Currently they require EVERYONE to exit the streetcar when it terminates at either end of the route and this seems to work. Not sure what they will do with the bus lines yet.

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.
  - parsimo2010 7y ago
    I don't think that it's strictly the homeless, but rather that public transit is seen as a low class option that "the poors" have to use. Middle class people can afford nicer options and don't have to be associated with a "poor" thing. There are exceptions in a few cities with transit systems that are actually better than driving, where you see bankers in suits using the subway. Getting rid of homeless/ppor people overnight wouldn't fix the perception issue immediately. It would take a while for word to get out that the buses weren't associated with being poor again. Strangely, I think that making transit completely free removes some of the "poor" stigma. If two things cost money, then you compare the prices and benefits of both to decide what to pick. If one option is completely free, then that comparison isn't performed the same way because of weird mechanisms in our brains. Most middle class people will pay more to drink name brand Coca-Cola instead of an off-brand cola, but if you made the off-brand cola free, then a lot of middle class people would start drinking the off-brand stuff. It's not really rational, but middle class people love a bargain. And once the middle class people start to realize how much of a bargain they get from free transit, then more will start riding and the proportion of poor people will go down, and then even more middle class people will start using it.

hanniabu 7y ago

Yeah, how are we supposed to turn a blind eye and ignore the homeless if those pesky people keep coming into sight /s

edmundsauto 7y ago
People are less interested in using public transit when it smells. That doesn't imply anything other than people don't like to use things that smell bad. I'm not implying anything about homeless people other than IME they don't have the hygiene of a housed person. And if you read the scope of my comment, I was specifically addressing their strategy suggestion of increasing usage.

jessaustin 7y ago

People in California could overestimate the "homeless problem" in Kansas City. It gets really cold there. Missouri and Kansas are both brutal to poor people. (I've lived in Missouri most of my life so I'm allowed to admit that.) The homeless in KC are likely to avoid situations in which they provoke response from fellow citizens or police. Buses do need to be cleaned regularly. When that doesn't happen, the homeless might be blamed, but a more fair target might be poor administration.

tigeba 7y ago

There have been no fares on our streetcars in KC since they debuted a few years ago. Currently they require EVERYONE to exit the streetcar when it terminates at either end of the route and this seems to work. Not sure what they will do with the bus lines yet.