12 ms·
Seattle used to have an area of downtown where you could ride the bus for free. (You could ride within the area free, but paid if you rode out of the area or s
by nostromo 13y ago
Seattle used to have an area of downtown where you could ride the bus for free. (You could ride within the area free, but paid if you rode out of the area or started your ride outside of the area.)
Busses became makeshift homeless shelters, which probably ended up driving away actual commuters.
Seattle also bought fancy self-cleaning toilets many years ago in order to give tourists a place to go and to reduce public urination by the homeless.
They ended up selling those toilets on eBay a few years later because the toilets had become a place for addicts to shoot up and for prostitutes to take their customers.
Free is probably a bad idea...
- Skalman 13y agoI agree. The solution is a token fee.
- king_jester 13y agoThe problem wasn't that those things were free, but that homelessness and poverty are systemic issues that aren't actually meaningfully tackled. Even in places with token free transit systems, the homeless still occupy those spaces and will continue to do so.
- scarmig 13y agoHomelessness and poverty are different issues: although some people might not want to ride with simply poor people, that's a miniscule group compared with those who don't want to be in a confined space with a homeless person who is likely unhygienic, drugged up, or (non-exclusive) mentally unstable. Saying "free would work much better if there weren't homeless people" is probably true, but that is a pretty big supposition in lots of cities. Those cities without a homeless problem should feel free to experiment with free transit.
- king_jester 13y ago> Homelessness and poverty are different issues: although some people might not want to ride with simply poor people, that's a miniscule group compared with those who don't want to be in a confined space with a homeless person who is likely unhygienic, drugged up, or (non-exclusive) mentally unstable. Homelessness and poverty are related, but you are right in that stigma against the homeless and/or the poor makes a barrier in people's perception of taking mass transit. Some places with robust mass transit have better outcomes than others, so this is something that has to have available options to combat that in culture. > Saying "free would work much better if there weren't homeless people" is probably true, but that is a pretty big supposition in lots of cities. Those cities without a homeless problem should feel free to experiment with free transit. I'm not saying its a either or proposition, but making free mass transit needs to be coupled with other actions and policies that also help to deal with homeless by providing more stable shelter, facilities, economic opportunity, etc. Of course, there is no city in the US that does not have a homeless population, so that is always going to be a factor.
- jlgreco 13y agoThose are two separate issues. Few people other than caricature billionaires from 80s movies would care about impoverished people riding the buses. Homeless people camping out on them is another matter entirely.
- sharkweek 13y agoFor anyone in Seattle here -- I'm assuming you're all familiar with the infamous 358; godbless the Aurora corridor between Lynnwood and Downtown But seriously -- I think the visibility of homelessness on mass transit is a great reminder personally that there is a massive need for policy shifts that continually aim to decrease homelessness, which is otherwise just a statistic to many.
- king_jester 13y agoAvailable public and semi public spaces are very directly related to homelessness and mass transit is such a space. I've lived in a variety of places and people still continue to use mass transit even if occupied by someone who is homeless. The issue is that doing something for members of society by undertaking free transit has to be coupled with tactics that address the inequalities that allow homelessness to be pervasive or to consume resources that aren't really meant to deal with homelessness.
- jlgreco 13y agoI'm having some trouble parsing your last sentence, but I think I agree. We need to have programs that tackle homelessness, but asking programs that have other mission statements to bear this burden is asking too much. Tackling homelessness itself is not the job of a transit department; their job is providing clean, safe, and effective transportation.
- king_jester 13y agoTotally agree. I just like to point out that transit systems do have a relationship with homelessness, but of course they are not suited to completely handle that social problem and there needs to be a more comprehensive approach to address social inequality.
- jsmcgd 13y agoThere's a half way house here. Passenger's could pay a nominal fee for the right to ride the bus. They are issued with a card. If people abuse the bus service the card can be revoked. This way many more people could afford to use the bus but there is still some control on who can use it.
- nullc 13y agoDoesn't eliminate the non-trivial cost of enforcing access control, which is a major part of the point.
- scotty79 13y agoBut still lower congestion in the city and improves workers mobility wich is the main benefit of free public transportation.
- cpeterso 13y agoI doubt that bus fares are a contributing factor for why some people commute by car instead of bus. Driving a car probably costs more when you count gas and parking costs.
- IanCal 13y agoAs a different data point, in Manchester (UK) there are 3 free bus routes around the city. They are used quite heavily and work extremely well. There seems to be no problem with homeless people using them as shelters. I would love to see them expanded. One stark contrast between these busses and the ones that charge is the time it takes to get people onto the bus. After getting used to the free version, getting on a paid bus feels glacial when it's busy. Seeing queues of busses feels wrong. I can't help but wonder how much better the transport system would be if you took out the time it takes to take payment and give tickets to people and just let them on.
- benjiweber 13y agoYou don't really have the speed problem in London where you can pay by contactless oyster or contactless credit/debit card though.
- robk 13y agoIt's still way too slow to tap in as people fumble for cards and the general latency between the tap and acceptance.
- alan_cx 13y agoMight be that there are a lot less homeless in Manchester, or the UK generally. I wonder what the numbers are.
- Andaith 13y agoSignificantly higher if perusing this wikipedia article is anything to go by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness#Statistics_for_developed_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness#Statistics_for_de... UK: about 10K USA: about 650k USA has about 6 times UK population, so if their populations were equal the UK would have about 60K, or one tenth of the problem. Note: This is just guesswork just perusing that article and taking guesses at populations(60mil and 330mil). Also, it looks like countries define homelessness slightly differently, but I don't have time to read through that part of it now, so I'm bookmarking it for later.
- hazzen 13y agoThe free ride area also had major consequences for outbound buses during peak hours. If a bus started in downtown and went elsewhere, riders had to pay as they left the bus. Seattle still doesn't allow you to pay at any door on a bus, only at the front with the driver. A crowded bus meant people could not easily get to the front; either the bus sat while people squeezed down the length of the bus, or they simply got off at the rear and didn't pay. An alternative solution, of course, is to incentivize use of RFID bus passes (already in heavy use), install RFID readers at all doors, and speed up boarding all-around.
- specialist 13y agoPublic spaces, aka the commons, is where all of society's problems manifest. Homeless people sleeping on buses is caused by, wait for it, homelessness. Not free buses. Sex workers turning tricks in public bathrooms is caused by, wait for it, prostitution being illegal. Crazy stinky people accosting people in public are caused by, wait for it, kicking mentally ill people to curb to fend for themselves. Freeride zones and public toilets are currently impractical. Because they're being sabotaged by larger issues. But they're still good ideas, both empirically and morally.
- jlgreco 13y agoThe reason homeless people sleep on buses instead of in hotels is that hotels cost money, while buses are cheap. There are far fewer homeless people clogging the buses now that they cost money again. You can wax on about how what we really need to solve is homelessness itself, but I am not hearing any solutions to that. We need solutions, not platitudes. Dissolving the free-zone was a solution.
- scotty79 13y agoEasy fix. Leave some busses standing around for homeless people to inhabit. Way cheaper because they don't need gas and maintenance beyond cleaning.
- jlgreco 13y agoThat would basically just be a relocatable homeless shelter. Homeless people apparently don't like homeless shelters because even they don't like being around lots of other homeless people.
- abraininavat 13y agoDo you have any support for that claim? My experience in Chicago and Baltimore is that homeless shelters are packed. People do the daily 4:30 line-up to get a bunk, and those who don't get in find a place in the alley to try again tomorrow. None of them seem particularly bothered by the smell of their neighbors, they're more interested in the smell of soup.
- nodata 13y agoSo free buses are a bad idea because the driver didn't enforce the use of the bus for travelling. Why are only self-cleaning toilets a bad idea? Again, policing would have solved that. Or a door timer. Or blue lighting.
- snogglethorpe 13y agoBlue lighting?
- rs232 13y agoUV fluorescents make it harder to find a vein.
- Roedou 13y agoCertain lighting (most often used in public bathrooms) makes it very hard to see your veins & shoot up.
- mpyne 13y agoIt might be the type of lighting that makes it much harder to find a vein to inject, making it much less useful for taking drugs.
- DanBC 13y agoHere's a page with images and some description (http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2006/10/28/a-vein-attempt/ http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2006/10/28/a-vein-atte...)
- etfb 13y agoThe Dalek Ovens (as I call them) in Canberra, Australia, have a regular hourly cleaning cycle. You get plenty of warning to get out, and then they turn on the hoses. I presume it reduces their utility as a form of cheap housing.
- rst 13y agoThe homeless didn't seem to be an issue in the "Fareless Square" in Portland, Oregon, at least the times I visited. (It existed from 1975 to 2012, and was discontinued because the local transit authority was short on cash.)
- sauravc 13y agoLive in downtown Seattle here. Although I enjoyed not paying for bus rides while it was free, I'm much happier with the service now that payment is required. As a side note, the wait time for paying was reduced drastically once the Orca Card system (rfid based bus pass) went into use. From my experience, with the Orca Card the wait times for paying aren't that much longer compared to the free bus method. It's only when a group of tourists get on the bus and pay with coins is it noticeable.
- notahacker 13y agoYeah, I'm not sure why the Economist built their argument around a problem with payment times that is basically solved on every bus service I've ever used on a regular basis (even the one without RFID had a "no change given" policy and most users had bus passes). There are arguments for subsidising public transport but "inconvenience of paying" isn't one of the more credible ones.
- rm999 13y ago>Busses became makeshift homeless shelters In the context of NYC: as it is there is little stopping a homeless person from jumping a turnstile and spending all day or night on the 24 hour subway system. But it's fairly rare to see this (I believe it used to be much more common). I imagine on a bus, where there is always a city employee monitoring things, it would be even more rare.
- egypturnash 13y agoMost of Seattle's busses are double-length, so there's a heck of a long way between the driver and whatever shenanigans may be going on in the back.
- potatolicious 13y agoSeattle bus drivers (like bus drivers in many places I imagine) do not have enforcement teeth. When I lived there there was an infamous case where several teenagers viciously beat a bus driver. Plexiglass dividers were installed soon afterward to protect drivers from their own passengers. The homeless aren't scared of a bus driver. Nor are passengers - on some routes in the evenings people would jump on via the back doors and refuse to pay fare. The bus driver would refuse to move the bus until they came forward and paid the fare. The bus driver always lost. The reason why these problems aren't endemic in NYC is because NYC has actual enforcement via the NYPD. The police is widespread and available enough that no one tries to fuck around with the system too hard. In Seattle the SPD never show up to these things unless violence erupts. The NYPD also has, for better or worse, a traditionally less soft stance on vagrancy and fare jumping.
- mattmanser 13y agoIsn't that because they famously implemented the broken windows theory? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#New_York_City http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#New_Yor...
- potatolicious 13y agoYeah, it's hard to argue against the results. The broken windows theory, by reasonable accounts, has contributed greatly to making NYC a much better place to live than it was before - even when accounting for the general nation-wide crime reduction that occurred in the same era. As someone who grew up in a very liberal part of the west coast, it's hard to admit, but authoritarianism and ubiquitous police presence has done wonders for this city. It certainly unseats some assumptions. The trouble with the success of broken windows in NYC though, is that it has created a culture where increasingly authoritarian policies are tolerated, and results proving their efficacy often not provided.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- scotty79 13y agoProof of payment systems also attract homeless. They don't have tickets but they also don't have money to pay fine so they don't give damn. They are not a huge problem. Group of normal commuters can stink almost as bad as homeless person. Security is not an issue since all busses have security cameras.
- jami 13y agoWe had a fareless area in downtown Portland for many years. It was no sketchier than the routes going to the 'burbs, and it wouldn't have made sense as a "makeshift homeless shelter", since the free part was only a few miles. My understanding of why they started charging is that our country suddenly ran itself out of money paying for simultaneous stupid wars and giant tax cuts for wealthy people, and our city couldn't pick up the slack any other way. You say "homeless people", I say "George Bush", I guess.
- snogglethorpe 13y agoFor whatever reason, Seattle seems to have a particularly huge homeless population. They're far more noticeable (and more aggressive) there than they are in other cities I've lived in. Or maybe they're more concentrated or something, I dunno. Anyway, although other cities have homeless problems, in Seattle it often seemed like public places would be swamped with virtual armies of them, and dealing with that is a real issue. [Disclaimer: I haven't actually lived in Seattle for 20 years, and have only visited since.]
- zanny 13y agoIf you have a homeless population that sizable and aggressive, you have bigger problems to worry about than people stinking up free buses.
- monokrome 13y agoDowntown Salt Lake City, Utah still is a free ride zone, also. :)
- seanmcdirmid 13y agoI worked at 3rd and Pine McDonalds in downtown Seattle for about a year while at UW, and I went to grad school at the U of U in SLC. Downtown SLC is quite different in size from Seattle; you could walk the ride-free area in SLC in about 30 minutes, the ride free area in Seattle is much larger, more like 1.5 hours. Also, SLC didn't have many homeless people, while Seattle attracted most of the homeless people from the PNW, including lots from the nearby reservations and even Alaska (Alaska exports their homeless problems to us and LA).
- clauretano 13y agoYou can walk the length of the Seattle free ride zone (Jackson to Bell) in less than 30 minutes (1.3 miles). 15 minutes from the waterfront to the convention center. That McDonalds though --how did you survive?
- seanmcdirmid 13y agoTry walking Bell Town to the International District station. It was longer north/south than east/west. I worked there in '94 when it was more rundown than it was today. The smell (malt liquor, unwashed clothes, urine) was difficult to handle at first but I got used to it, my coworkers were also pretty cool (mostly filipino/a immigrants) so it wasn't so bad.
- sethrin 13y agoCan you give some citations on this Alaska thing? I don't know whether I can consider that bizarre or a good idea. Having people freeze to death on the streets of Anchorage is pretty awful though.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
- saraid216 13y agoIf people aren't aware, the free ride zone went away because Metro got strapped for cash, not because of the homeless shelter issue.
- alan_cx 13y agoEr, help the homeless get somewhere to live? If they are that much of a problem several useful services are affected, tells me there is a terrible homeless issue that needs dealing with. They are homeless "people" right?
- guelo 13y agoYea, providing free services to well-off people is always complicated by poor people trying to take advantage of them.
- samstave 13y agoI have always felt that 1) public transportation should have basic hygiene requirements for all users. 2) one of the most important things that municipalities should provide are hygienic services; showers and scrubs / scrub-like free clothing to homeless. Providing basic hygiene would go a long way to helping homeless and poor. Finally, if you're going to provide these amenities, you need to staff for them appropriately - and have them maintained and supported with rules of use enforced. Given the massive amount of financial waste we have, I don't accept "that's too expensive to do something like this". If it costs money, for things we need, take the money from the damn defense budget.
- zacharycohn 13y ago"Busses became makeshift homeless shelters, which probably ended up driving away actual commuters." As someone who used the free ride busses in Seattle almost every day.... that's really not true. Yes, sometimes homeless people were on them. But you know, sometimes there are homeless people in the subway in NYC - that doesn't really stop people from using it. And the 358 is a great example of a bus that isn't free, but has lots of homeless/druggies on it. It definitely did not drive away commuters from using the bus.
- vijayboyapati 13y agoThe problem is when the public "owns" a space, this is the equivalent of no one owning it. This is why public bathrooms are among the most disgusting places you can visit. I remember visiting France where they charge to use the toilets, and they're waaaaay more pleasant to use. Ownership=>care
- DanBC 13y agoYou give the tourists nice toilets. You then put sharps bins in some other toilets in less nice areas of the city.
- tbomb 13y agoHere in Miami we have a free trolley (school bus size) system that extends along the greater downtown areas and some of the northern and southern suburbs. They are extremely clean and I VERY rarely see homeless on it (we have a rather large population too), I've been picked up at stops where homeless, also waiting (or trying to sleep), people didn't even attempt to get on board. In contrast, our free light rail system is full of homeless. they just ride all day 'cause its air conditioned and unmanned with few security patrols (they mainly utilize cameras on board and at stations). Perhaps this case maybe the solution is for a harsh rule system and driver enforcement, if they're too dirty/smelly don't let them on, and/or kick them off after X number of stops. I'm not sure what the policies are here, I base my assumptions on the way I've seen driver yell at patrons to pick up their trash etc. it seems like they actually care about the trolley.
- elithrar 13y ago> Seattle used to have an area of downtown where you could ride the bus for free. (You could ride within the area free, but paid if you rode out of the area or started your ride outside of the area.) We have this in Perth, Western Australia—we call them "CAT" (Central Area Transit) buses. Any bus within the CBD is also free though ("Free Transit Zone"; FTZ), which is great if you're heading to a client's office and want to take the bus down the Terrace. Our CAT buses and FTZ have existed for years and have not become makeshift homeless shelters. My evidence is only anecdotal (across ~10 years), but I've never seen any homeless people setting up shop on a bus. There are obviously other factors at play here (transport police, better welfare system, 1.9m vs 3.9m people) that are likely making it different from Seattle, however (and these also reinforce your argument).
- unwind 13y agoAah, CBD means "central business district" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_business_district http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_business_district), I had to look that one up despite your diligence in explaining your TLAs. :)
- hawkharris 13y agoThat's an interesting point. The problem doesn't stem from things being free as much as from people's perception of free things. My former professor, who specialized in developing public relations campaigns for social causes, used to say that it's best to avoid words like "public" and "free" because it makes people think of lower-quality things — public rest rooms, for instance. It's better for campaigns to use language that doesn't conjure these associations — or, in some cases, charge a nominal fee. For example, a nonprofit whose mission was to give away condoms in Africa ended up charging a small price for each condom; message testing showed that the audience didn't trust free contraception, so, ironically, charging for the product made it more accessible.
- re_todd 13y agoI heard that a similar thing happened in another city, I think it was Sacramento. Maybe they should charge a quarter instead of making things free. This would make things close-to-free, but keep it from attracting lots of homeless.
- robotcookies 13y agoA nominal fee like a quarter might be a good idea. I lived in Santa Monica when their buses were 25 cents and don't recall many issues with homeless or other people abusing it.
- rdouble 13y agoIt depends on the location. In my neighborhood in SF there was a guy who dressed up like a giant viking warlock with a leather pouch of coins that he would hand out to any homeless person who needed fare for the N-Judah.
- zanny 13y agoThe point of the whole free argument isn't making it easier to ride, it is to remove the overhead of having to gate access. If the bus just let people on and off and never had to do an exchange over riding it they would be more efficient.
- clauretano 13y agoFor what it's worth, there is still a free shuttle "bus" that runs in a loop encompassing Pioneer Square, Downtown and Belltown. It is designed to provide transportation from homeless shelters to drug rehabs, needle exchanges, etc.
- Kudzu_Bob 13y agoThe best way to increase ridership is to make buses significantly more expensive than they are, not less. That way the crazy, drug-addicted scum won't be able to afford a ticket, and then decent people can use them without being hassled by dudes who have steel plates in their heads and smell like pee.
- oh_sigh 13y agoFor buses, the solution is simple: Make everyone get off at the end of each route. For crosstown buses in Manhattan, that would mean you get approximately 25 minutes on the bus before you are kicked off. Most homeless would probably prefer to sleep on the streets than move that frequently.
- jjore 13y agoThe Seattle transit system has been running out of money. They cut free rides to get a bit of change back. We're just not taxing enough to support it.
- timr 13y agoI lived in Seattle during the time that you're describing, and you're massively overstating the case. Even the dirtiest line in the free-ride zone was cleaner than your average SF MUNI line. Maybe that's not a fair comparison, but it's fairer than suggesting that free buses are bad simply because someone might abuse them. Also, a $2 fare isn't a huge impediment to someone who wants to turn the bus into a shelter. In fact, the worst buses in Seattle for that sort of thing tended to be the airport lines, because you could hop on one of those, and sleep for an hour or two for only a few bucks. By comparison, the free-ride lines were always packed, and made for poor places to sleep. Cost isn't the only consideration.
- etfb 13y agoOdd. My immediate conclusion from your story was that Seattle was a bad idea.
- Amygaz 13y agoI think it is more an implementation problem. Boston has a couple area with "free" buses, in the senses that Colleges, Hospitals and Businesses in a particular are sponsor those buses and their members ride for "free". In theory you should show your ID card, but they pick everybody. I have not seen homeless or stinky people. Maybe targeting the workforce, and workers could sponsor their family member, which will have for effect to extend the "free" ride to everyone leaving in a house with at least one person paying taxes. I don't know, part of this sound discriminating, but it ould be a start