3 ms·

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.

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.