5 ms·

> Public transportation and city bike rental systems should be free to ride. This would depend on first fixing the poverty and homelessness that make theft, va

> Public transportation and city bike rental systems should be free to ride. This would depend on first fixing the poverty and homelessness that make theft, vandalism and antisocial behaviour so common. These things cost money to protect them from the impact desperate people otherwise have on them. Now, I’d be thrilled to help pay for that to all happen, but the order should be respected; making trains and buses free isn’t as simple as it sounds.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"making trains and buses free isn’t as simple as it sounds." It might be expebsive, but it's definately as simple as it sounds. I do not see how vandalism will be any different than it is today
- amluto 5y ago
  Simpler, really. There’s a whole bunch of complexity and crime related to public transit billing systems, fare gates, and fare gate accessibility. On busses, people who pay slowly add to the per-stop time.
- johnwalkr 5y ago
  Most cities make roads and abundant parking free, there’s no technical reason why other forms or transportation can’t be favored instead.
jeffbee 5y ago
> This would depend on first fixing poverty and homelessness How convenient for the car lobby that their luxuriously subsidized travel mode already excludes the poor, making them immune from this line of reasoning!
hellbannedguy 5y ago
Ok, how about just busses, and trains? Most bike thiefs are not homeless, especially high end bikes. Not to many homeless have a bolt cutter in their worn packs, nor do they have a way to sell, or part out. In my liberal wealthy enclave, it's middle class guys doing the stealing, or gangs. (This whole blaming the homeless needs to stop. Most don't have the savy to steal a locked bike. Plus--riding a nice bike is a cop calling card. I know homeless guys who are afraid to carry their own prescriptions in their pack because they frisked so frequently.)
grayfaced 5y ago
For some reason people accept cars as the natural order. Challenge that assumption. There are lots of deficient drivers too, why do we so heavily subsidize the road system? Because it's an investment that pays back in increased economic activity. The same argument applies to public transit. In many cases it costs more to collect the fare then they ever make in fare.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  There are lots of deficient drivers too, why do we so heavily subsidize the road system? Because it's an investment that pays back in increased economic activity. Also because when you are in separate cars, you can't get sick from, or harassed by, or groped by, other drivers. If another driver is bothering you, you can usually just speed up or slow down to increase distance. To get true mass adoption of public transit in the US, as the parent comment said, you need to fix "the poverty and homelessness that make theft, vandalism and antisocial behaviour so common," or at least work around it. Maybe trains with a hundred doors leading to a hundred isolated seating areas would convince people.
  - bpye 5y ago
    Except deficient drivers can and do result in serious injury or death of other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. I’m still not too sure I understand your argument… Why should we so heavily subsidise car drivers?

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"making trains and buses free isn’t as simple as it sounds." It might be expebsive, but it's definately as simple as it sounds. I do not see how vandalism will be any different than it is today

amluto 5y ago
Simpler, really. There’s a whole bunch of complexity and crime related to public transit billing systems, fare gates, and fare gate accessibility. On busses, people who pay slowly add to the per-stop time.
johnwalkr 5y ago
Most cities make roads and abundant parking free, there’s no technical reason why other forms or transportation can’t be favored instead.

jeffbee 5y ago

> This would depend on first fixing poverty and homelessness How convenient for the car lobby that their luxuriously subsidized travel mode already excludes the poor, making them immune from this line of reasoning!

hellbannedguy 5y ago

Ok, how about just busses, and trains? Most bike thiefs are not homeless, especially high end bikes. Not to many homeless have a bolt cutter in their worn packs, nor do they have a way to sell, or part out. In my liberal wealthy enclave, it's middle class guys doing the stealing, or gangs. (This whole blaming the homeless needs to stop. Most don't have the savy to steal a locked bike. Plus--riding a nice bike is a cop calling card. I know homeless guys who are afraid to carry their own prescriptions in their pack because they frisked so frequently.)

grayfaced 5y ago

For some reason people accept cars as the natural order. Challenge that assumption. There are lots of deficient drivers too, why do we so heavily subsidize the road system? Because it's an investment that pays back in increased economic activity. The same argument applies to public transit. In many cases it costs more to collect the fare then they ever make in fare.

nitrogen 5y ago
There are lots of deficient drivers too, why do we so heavily subsidize the road system? Because it's an investment that pays back in increased economic activity. Also because when you are in separate cars, you can't get sick from, or harassed by, or groped by, other drivers. If another driver is bothering you, you can usually just speed up or slow down to increase distance. To get true mass adoption of public transit in the US, as the parent comment said, you need to fix "the poverty and homelessness that make theft, vandalism and antisocial behaviour so common," or at least work around it. Maybe trains with a hundred doors leading to a hundred isolated seating areas would convince people.
- bpye 5y ago
  Except deficient drivers can and do result in serious injury or death of other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. I’m still not too sure I understand your argument… Why should we so heavily subsidise car drivers?