7 ms·

It's a good read. Even over 15 years ago, as a newcomer to this country, I found Greyhound rides to be fascinating, while certainly not being well-run by any st

It's a good read. Even over 15 years ago, as a newcomer to this country, I found Greyhound rides to be fascinating, while certainly not being well-run by any stretch of the imagination. And it does expose you to parts of American society that those on the right-hand side of the distribution don't often see. > something I saw repeatedly: the exclusion of those without smartphones or credit cards. The cashless society appears to be winning. > “As of 25 January 2023 – you will need photo ID to buy tickets.” Yet another barrier between those with little money, no fixed address, no car, no passport or credit card and their ability to travel. I'm in favor of retaining (both legally as well as culturally) cash as a medium of exchange, as well as maintaining and restoring a high-trust, cohesive society where most private transactions don't require showing one's papers. Unfortunately, powerful forces are against both. Cash transactors have long been treated with suspicion by authorities, and the coming age of CBDC will further demean what it even means to have money. And the security state continues to impose one checkpoint after another on civil society, which I have no doubt was behind Greyhound's policy on requiring ID. I'd certainly vote for a congressperson that would take action on either of those matters. > Greyhound stations now often close between buses to keep homeless people out – yet another communal space closed to those without the money to access private spaces Greyhound stations shouldn't also need to be homeless shelters, and it seems like smart business to spare paying customers from the antisocial, erratic behavior exhibited by many homeless people. This seems like a strange ding on Greyhound.

azinman2 3y ago
> Greyhound stations shouldn't also need to be homeless shelters, and it seems like smart business to spare paying customers from the antisocial, erratic behavior exhibited by many homeless people. This seems like a strange ding on Greyhound. Except if you're waiting for your bus, it sounds like there's no where to go?
- hattmall 3y ago
  The homeless people are still there, just outside, you can wait with them!
johnny22 3y ago
I'vehad to wait 6 hours between buses during a transfer. I sure hope they aren't stopping that :(
komali2 3y ago
> And the security state continues to impose one checkpoint after another on civil society, which I have no doubt was behind Greyhound's policy on requiring ID. Greyhound and Amtrak are notorious for being randomly boarded by CBP, who go down the aisle bullying people to consent to a search. Something like 90% consent despite absolutely no need to. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/amtrak-reader-letters/393710/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/amtrak-...
- l3mure 3y ago
  DEA too as the article mentions. I've been on a bus that was stopped in the middle of the route to walk a dog through it. Pretty fucked.
pc86 3y ago
The last point is a problem (on both sides) but it seems to have a simple fix - a small area where you can buy tickets, and a larger area where you need a ticket to access. You can trespass homeless out of the smaller public area if you need to (you very likely don't) and if you have a ticket you belong in the ticketed area whether you're homeless or not.
- jdeibele 3y ago
  I needed to get from Portland to Eugene. In Oregon, there's a bus service that's paid with some state funding that goes from train station parking lot to train station parking lot. I wanted to use the restroom at Union Station in Portland and the security guard required me to show him that I had a valid ticket to stay in the building. So it was kind of like what you are suggesting.
13of40 3y ago
Not trying to put on a tinfoil hat here, but there's a clause in the laws about Real ID that says you can only have one form of it. I think they put that in there so they have the option of revoking it and preventing people from traveling inside the US by driving (since it's tied to your license), taking the Greyhound, Amtrak, plane, etc. Interstate travel is supposed to be a constitutional right, but I suppose the argument would be that you're free to hire a chauffer or walk if you need to get to Nebraska.
- paulcole 3y ago
  If that comment isn’t you putting on a tinfoil hat, I’m not sure what would be.
  - 13of40 3y ago
    The thing that made me think of it was that several years ago I went on vacation to a different state and when I got there the rental car company turned me away because my license had expired a couple of days prior. I hopped in a cab, went to the local DMV, and got a new license. When I returned to my home state I renewed my license there, and all was good, until a couple of years later I went to add an endorsement or something and mentioned that I had a backup driver's license from that other state that was still valid. Nope, they said, that's illegal because it means we can't revoke your driving privileges if we need to, and they made me destroy it. So why would they prevent me from having two forms of Real ID, like a driver's license from one state and an ID card from another state? Presumably each one is vetted to the point that there's no question about its authenticity.
    - ethbr0 3y ago
      I'd expect it's more to do with various entities checking Real ID to verify residency for the purpose of state benefits and voting. It looks like it's a DHS regulation (?), but I'd assume states were supportive because it made their lives easier. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/6/37.29 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/6/37.29 You could probably skirt around the rules by applying for and keeping a passport, which isn't tied to a physical address.
midoridensha 3y ago
>I'm in favor of retaining (both legally as well as culturally) cash as a medium of exchange, as well as maintaining and restoring a high-trust, cohesive society where most private transactions don't require showing one's papers. America has *never* been a high-trust, cohesive society, and it never will. Just ask any black person. Maybe decades ago, in some isolated small towns with zero diversity, there was a high-trust situation since everyone knew everyone, but it's never been high-trust nationwide.
- gottorf 3y ago
  It's still relatively high-trust, though you are right not in the same way as other high-trust societies that are also monoethnic. There actually aren't that many places in the world (monoethnic or not) where you can order takeout food online and just show up to the restaurant, claim that you are so-and-so who ordered the food, and take it, without providing any proof (whether it be ID or an order number, what have you). > Just ask any black person. For what it's worth, I live in a Deep South city that is majority black. I used to live in a major coastal metropolis, widely considered to be very "open-minded" on race, with a single-digit percent black population. I think blacks and whites get along better here than they did back there. It's certainly not that case here that black people are treated with suspicion on a day-to-day basis.
  - pauldenton 3y ago
    Next you'll say race relations were better before Obama in the Bush years and after Obama in the Trump years.
    - nebula8804 3y ago
      Maybe the delineation should be before and after the "social media era"
    - gottorf 3y ago
      I wasn't in this country for most of the Bush years, so you'll have to tell me how it was. But if you ask me in general, focusing our attentions on our differences and pitting people against each other on racial boundaries isn't the way to make progress on the issue. Is your point that I must be mistaken about race relations being better in the South than in coastal metropolises? Where I used to live, it was the kind of neighborhood with BLM signs on every other lawn, and approximately zero black people living there. Where I live now, there are approximately zero BLM signs on lawns, but plenty of people of different races living as neighbors, coworkers, friends, and lovers. Actual black people are moving back to the South[0], while champions of diversity are moving to less diverse places[1]. If that wasn't your point, please do tell. [0]: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-new-great-migration-black-americans-return-to-the-south-1965-2000/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-new-great-migration-b... [1]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.13268 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.13268
beej71 3y ago
I'm on a European vacation right now, and I think this will be the first long trip I've made here where I don't have any cash at all. Even the pay kiosk at a remote lake at the end of a dirt road back home takes credit cards. Solar powered, cell.
WeylandYutani 3y ago
That's not really an exclusive American thing. In the Netherlands everyone is legally required to carry a valid ID.
- zaccusl 3y ago
  It's typically considered an anti-American, anti-freedom ideology in the US to require people to carry any sort of documents, including ID. Of course, this idea is slowly being eroded by authoritarian ideas and if you are not white (in the southwest US at least) you better have an ID unless you want to risk being unlawfully detained/arrested by border guards or police. This has been a big deal in some states for quite a while now. But it used to be that in the US, having to show authorities an ID was a horror straight out of the USSR or East Germany.

azinman2 3y ago

> Greyhound stations shouldn't also need to be homeless shelters, and it seems like smart business to spare paying customers from the antisocial, erratic behavior exhibited by many homeless people. This seems like a strange ding on Greyhound. Except if you're waiting for your bus, it sounds like there's no where to go?

hattmall 3y ago
The homeless people are still there, just outside, you can wait with them!

johnny22 3y ago

I'vehad to wait 6 hours between buses during a transfer. I sure hope they aren't stopping that :(

komali2 3y ago

> And the security state continues to impose one checkpoint after another on civil society, which I have no doubt was behind Greyhound's policy on requiring ID. Greyhound and Amtrak are notorious for being randomly boarded by CBP, who go down the aisle bullying people to consent to a search. Something like 90% consent despite absolutely no need to. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/amtrak-reader-letters/393710/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/amtrak-...

l3mure 3y ago
DEA too as the article mentions. I've been on a bus that was stopped in the middle of the route to walk a dog through it. Pretty fucked.

pc86 3y ago

The last point is a problem (on both sides) but it seems to have a simple fix - a small area where you can buy tickets, and a larger area where you need a ticket to access. You can trespass homeless out of the smaller public area if you need to (you very likely don't) and if you have a ticket you belong in the ticketed area whether you're homeless or not.

jdeibele 3y ago
I needed to get from Portland to Eugene. In Oregon, there's a bus service that's paid with some state funding that goes from train station parking lot to train station parking lot. I wanted to use the restroom at Union Station in Portland and the security guard required me to show him that I had a valid ticket to stay in the building. So it was kind of like what you are suggesting.

13of40 3y ago

Not trying to put on a tinfoil hat here, but there's a clause in the laws about Real ID that says you can only have one form of it. I think they put that in there so they have the option of revoking it and preventing people from traveling inside the US by driving (since it's tied to your license), taking the Greyhound, Amtrak, plane, etc. Interstate travel is supposed to be a constitutional right, but I suppose the argument would be that you're free to hire a chauffer or walk if you need to get to Nebraska.

paulcole 3y ago
If that comment isn’t you putting on a tinfoil hat, I’m not sure what would be.
- 13of40 3y ago
  The thing that made me think of it was that several years ago I went on vacation to a different state and when I got there the rental car company turned me away because my license had expired a couple of days prior. I hopped in a cab, went to the local DMV, and got a new license. When I returned to my home state I renewed my license there, and all was good, until a couple of years later I went to add an endorsement or something and mentioned that I had a backup driver's license from that other state that was still valid. Nope, they said, that's illegal because it means we can't revoke your driving privileges if we need to, and they made me destroy it. So why would they prevent me from having two forms of Real ID, like a driver's license from one state and an ID card from another state? Presumably each one is vetted to the point that there's no question about its authenticity.
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    I'd expect it's more to do with various entities checking Real ID to verify residency for the purpose of state benefits and voting. It looks like it's a DHS regulation (?), but I'd assume states were supportive because it made their lives easier. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/6/37.29 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/6/37.29 You could probably skirt around the rules by applying for and keeping a passport, which isn't tied to a physical address.

midoridensha 3y ago

>I'm in favor of retaining (both legally as well as culturally) cash as a medium of exchange, as well as maintaining and restoring a high-trust, cohesive society where most private transactions don't require showing one's papers. America has *never* been a high-trust, cohesive society, and it never will. Just ask any black person. Maybe decades ago, in some isolated small towns with zero diversity, there was a high-trust situation since everyone knew everyone, but it's never been high-trust nationwide.

gottorf 3y ago
It's still relatively high-trust, though you are right not in the same way as other high-trust societies that are also monoethnic. There actually aren't that many places in the world (monoethnic or not) where you can order takeout food online and just show up to the restaurant, claim that you are so-and-so who ordered the food, and take it, without providing any proof (whether it be ID or an order number, what have you). > Just ask any black person. For what it's worth, I live in a Deep South city that is majority black. I used to live in a major coastal metropolis, widely considered to be very "open-minded" on race, with a single-digit percent black population. I think blacks and whites get along better here than they did back there. It's certainly not that case here that black people are treated with suspicion on a day-to-day basis.
- pauldenton 3y ago
  Next you'll say race relations were better before Obama in the Bush years and after Obama in the Trump years.
  - nebula8804 3y ago
    Maybe the delineation should be before and after the "social media era"
  - gottorf 3y ago
    I wasn't in this country for most of the Bush years, so you'll have to tell me how it was. But if you ask me in general, focusing our attentions on our differences and pitting people against each other on racial boundaries isn't the way to make progress on the issue. Is your point that I must be mistaken about race relations being better in the South than in coastal metropolises? Where I used to live, it was the kind of neighborhood with BLM signs on every other lawn, and approximately zero black people living there. Where I live now, there are approximately zero BLM signs on lawns, but plenty of people of different races living as neighbors, coworkers, friends, and lovers. Actual black people are moving back to the South[0], while champions of diversity are moving to less diverse places[1]. If that wasn't your point, please do tell. [0]: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-new-great-migration-black-americans-return-to-the-south-1965-2000/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-new-great-migration-b... [1]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.13268 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.13268

beej71 3y ago

I'm on a European vacation right now, and I think this will be the first long trip I've made here where I don't have any cash at all. Even the pay kiosk at a remote lake at the end of a dirt road back home takes credit cards. Solar powered, cell.

WeylandYutani 3y ago

That's not really an exclusive American thing. In the Netherlands everyone is legally required to carry a valid ID.

zaccusl 3y ago
It's typically considered an anti-American, anti-freedom ideology in the US to require people to carry any sort of documents, including ID. Of course, this idea is slowly being eroded by authoritarian ideas and if you are not white (in the southwest US at least) you better have an ID unless you want to risk being unlawfully detained/arrested by border guards or police. This has been a big deal in some states for quite a while now. But it used to be that in the US, having to show authorities an ID was a horror straight out of the USSR or East Germany.