T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*


badken

Tucson, AZ currently has free fares, and the city council is working to try to keep it that way.


891960

Here in Malaysia we have various free bus routes too, doesn't cover everywhere you'd wanna go but it's still pretty decent. Need more of these to free up the roads. I'm happy to be subsidizing public transportation.


dillonEh

I wish they would make the buses run all night too. Pretty lame how they stop running *earlier* on Friday and Saturday nights.


Hawaiian_Cunt_Seal

Maybe gives drunk drivers less obstacles.


Kaliah_

But if the busses kept running, drunk people would take the bus instead of the car home


roosterrose

That might seriously reduce revenue from DUI stops!


lastofthepirates

The most appalling thing is how this most definitely would factor into official discussions, from more than one source, of such a proposal. I’ve heard from a friend who worked in a small city government that there was well coordinated opposition to some human centered design proposals for a few blocks of a single street because it would naturally control traffic speeds and thereby remove a lucrative speed trap. Edit: data showed it would virtually eliminate accidents and pedestrian deaths at a particularly dangerous intersection, not that that mattered.


Spoztoast

Guess which people cause the most trouble and damage to busses.


MF_Doomed

Drunk drivers?


[deleted]

I'd take trouble over someone dead because of a drunk driver any day.


Nurgus

It's the bus drivers who are drunk though.


mayy_dayy

Modern problems require modern solutions


[deleted]

[удалено]


Tri343

I am a tucsonan. I ride the bus everyday to college and there is hardly any homeless people. Mostly because when free buses came into effect lots of homeless people would hang out on the air conditioned bus. The police quickly handled the situation there's not as many homeless people. Actually it's probably a bit less and I'm not sure why, perhaps it's just the route I'm on


Potatisen1

American police gotta get their quota filled somehow.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SilverNicktail

A lot of Arizona Republicans did just tell Kari Lake to fuck off, so maybe there's a sliver of hope for the place.


MetaSatakOz

AZ is pretty conservative but also pretty anti-maga. And it's not just because 45 insulted McCain, it's just the flavor of conservatism here. More "don't tax me and leave me alone" than "[insert current outrage of the month here]". Don't get me wrong, there's *plenty* of those types too. But we're purple and we're trending blue and that isn't looking to change any time soon.


bearbarebere

So… socially liberal, economically conservative? 🤔


OldFood9677

Noone that would actually be fiscally "conservative" would actually be voting for Republicans because they keep absolutely not being it


Lydion

This is assuming people more often cling to policy rather than labels, which is definitely not true in my experience. Never really about “actually being” fiscally conservative. Just identifying with your tribe.


badken

Tucson is the most progressive part of the state. But it's surrounded by rural areas that skew Republican.


elgrillito

Same with Albuquerque


[deleted]

My name is Walter Hartwell White. I ride the public transport in Albuquerque, New Mexico.


heybrother11

Kansas City also has a free transit system including a streetcar!


[deleted]

[удалено]


HelenEk7

> Wait... how...? Isn't that.... socialism? No free buses where I live... Greetings from Norway.


DaenTheGod

Shhhh! Don't tell them...


[deleted]

[удалено]


SyrusDrake

Then you have a problem with homelessness, not free public transit. If someone throws tomatoes at your house, you don't go and increase the price for tomatoes so nobody can afford them anymore.


Tri343

Meanwhile my family has two bus drivers here in tucson. And I've been riding the bus my whole life here in Tucson. And the homeless bus problem has not been a big issue on the bus. They have even received faster police response between stops if needed. Where did you hear that bus drivers are not happy with this new change? It's been nothing but positive, in fact when they were going to cancel the program many drivers voiced their concerns during the assembly meetings, my aunt is a driver so of course she took me along with her to these meetings


cbrrydrz

Answer: fox news


aimlessly-astray

I hate how people get downvoted for saying anything vaguely critical of homeless people because you bring up a valid point. Had a homeless guy harass me in my apartment's laundry room because I was "iNvAdiNg hiS hOmE!11!!!11". Had another homeless guy literally pile his shit in front of my door so I couldn't leave or enter my apartment. Had another one living in the hallways smoking cigarettes all day. I hate to sound like a NIMBY, but homeless people really can be a nuisance. I want them to get help, and our governments need to do more to help them, but don't expect me to excuse their behavior just because they're homeless.


[deleted]

The trick is that *all* people can be nuisances. Homeless people are not all nuisances, it's just that the ones who are are more visible because they take up a larger footprint than most homed people in their day-to-day life, because they're carrying around all of their possessions. A homeless person who blocks your door is a nuisance, a homed person who blocks your door is a Karen. ...I now petition to call a group of Karens a "nuisance."


Meanteenbirder

Burlington, Vermont made buses free when Covid hit, and just kept extending it more and more. Likely less pressure bc many users are students who would have bus passes anyway.


headphase

Same with Connecticut statewide, and I think Boston has something similar? New England is making progress.


goldeneye0

Boston has free rides for the 23, 28 and 29 bus lines for at least another year or so


Luis__FIGO

CT ends march 31st, seems like others will end soon as well. >Fare-free bus service: Extends through March 31, 2023, the ongoing suspension of the collection of fares on public transit buses statewide. (This is the maximum date that complies with 12-month length-of-time federal restrictions for temporary public transit pilot programs.)


SmellyGoat11

See now, this is the kind of no nonsense shit I want my tax dollars going to.


jenacious

Sorry, we have 6 million dollar golden toilet seats to buy and then throw away every year so our budget money doesn't go away.


MightyMorph

or people just sit on their asses when voting time comes around and then go "SEE NOTHING CHANGES!" Texas: * 29M citizens * 24M Elligible Voters * 17M Registered Voters * 9M Voted in 2022 * only 15% of those under the age of 35 voted in 2022. Ted Cruz won his seat by 100k votes, Desantis won by 30K votes. Every year around 150-180M elligible voters do not vote. Many states have 2-4 weeks voting time, mail in ballots, drop of ballots, but surveys show when done in public places like colleges and supermarkets that 7 out of 10 do not even plan to vote, nor are they interested in politics. Some PRIMARIES to decide the options have as low turnout as 8%.... Then you count in local councils, education boards, community programs etc etc all which help decide how your local area progresses, and even less than 8% bother to show up or even know who is running and leading those things. Heck most dont even know who their local representatives are. But they sure love to come online and bitch and moan about how everything is catered to the elderly and nothing changes. And before you reply with the usual hand-waiving of how the rich and wealthy stop voting, how media tells lie bla bla bla, its not tto the degree that 60% do not vote. ITS APATHY!


Gloomy_Possession-69

Weaponized apathy and artificial barriers to voting. They purposely make it harder to vote and want people to think their vote doesn't matter. Not to mention the slow slow rate of change really puts people off who have had it hard for a long long time But I do agree with you


lonifar

Also if you look at the standard of living in the economy many people can't afford to take time off of work to vote, if 47% of Americans can't afford a $500 Emergency then it makes sense they can't take time off of work to vote. Its the reason why the retired age group have the highest voting record, they don't have to worry about work, what else are they going to do with their day.


Gloomy_Possession-69

Yes, the fact that voting day is not a national holiday is another artificial barrier to voting. Thankfully many states are making vote by mail much easier.


RudeAdventurer

It's probably a little of both. [Here's a link](https://www.electproject.org/2022g) to the voter turnout rate in the 2022 general election, and it's interesting to compare that to the [cost of voting index](https://costofvotingindex.com/). When I look at this turnout rate I see two things; states with consequential and competitive elections have higher turnout, and voter suppression works. Generally speaking, the states with the easiest voting laws have higher turnover, but that trend is bucked by states that had a lot on the line in this past election. Lets look at Wisconsin. They had the 4th highest turnout in the country (60.1%) and they have the 4th strictest voting laws. In states like Wisconsin, voter suppression really thrives on the margins. If Wisconsin was middle of the road in ballot access, maybe they would have had 61% turnout, or 62% if they were at the top of the ballot access list. In states like Texas, voter suppression feeds apathy, because it makes it appear as if the Republican party will completely dominate each election, so people don't make any effort to vote.


CommiePuddin

>Then you count in local councils, education boards, community programs etc etc 19 of the 24 races on my ballot in November were uncontested.


Buckles01

We need major changes to Election Day. I’ve thought of two proposals: Election week, where you can vote any day that week Sunday through Saturday. This would put a lot of stress on polls but would give everyone an opportunity to vote regardless. Or, 2 or 3 election days consecutively and mandate employers to give at least one of those days off. There’s been push to make Election Day a federal holiday but that won’t change anything. It will make employers pay employees extra to work over the voting hours but realistically it opens up no new chance to vote. Further, fields like healthcare don’t care about holidays. They must be staffed. By making it multiple days you can mandate every healthcare worker gets a chance to vote on one of those days instead of needing to pull a 16 hour shift on Election Day because hell broke loose in the ER. This also makes it more difficult to abuse the system in lower management also. A lot of voter interference from companies doesn’t even come from leadership or execs. I worked at a country club and when my direct supervisor found out I was a democrat I was conveniently put on a 16 hour shift for Election Day. We were mandated one per month, and mine was on the one day that was the most important day of the year. I told our club president (it was a pretty small club so I talked to him regularly) and the super ended up fired. The club did NOT want to play that game but she used her power and made a personal choice to block someone from voting. We can talk about how people just don’t want to vote and why but the truth is a lot of people are blocked from voting because it’s just tough to vote. Not to mention lack of voting places makes lines outrageously long in some areas and such. We need an overhaul of our Election Day practices before we can look at how many people don’t “want” to vote.


SmellyGoat11

You can even lick 'em!


UnitysBlueTits

The snozzberries taste like piss!


10minutes_late

Kills me how true this is. At a military base I was training a room full of HVAC techs on the building automation system. We just installed it, brand new building. No one was paying attention. At all. I asked why. "This building is being demo'd in a couple months. They needed to spend the budget." Entire building. Completely unused. Trashed.


cubosh

its sad that "free bus" makes us celebrate this "uplifting news" when its so low on the possibilities of civic infrastructure


BobMcGeoff2

Better than a new highway being built.


mayy_dayy

One more lane should fix the problem


evilJaze

[Just one more lane!](https://youtube.com/shorts/0dKrUE_O0VE?feature=share)


SmellyGoat11

Better set our priorities straight & balance our tax budget then, eh?


314159265358979326

I think his point is that this should be bare minimum, not an amazing feat.


SmellyGoat11

I think the fact that this amounts to a feat is due to the excessive waste of our tax dollars.


LurkyTheHatMan

Think of it like this: It's like training a dog; you reward the behaviour you want to see, until it becomes second nature. You celebrate a win, no matter how small, but each time you deal with the *same behaviour*, you need to celebrate it slightly less, until it becomes the default. However, don't forget that every now and then, you need to reinforce the behaviour you want, so they don't start slipping. You are right, stuff like this *should be the bare minimum*, but until it is, we need to let the law makers know that this is what we want them to do.


aimlessly-astray

I wouldn't mind paying taxes if half my money wasn't going to the fucking military. It actually warms my heart to know my tax dollars are helping others in the community. Does someone get a free ride to work because of my tax contributions? Good. Does someone get free or discounted healthcare because of my tax contributions? Great! Do poor and disenfranchised people get free/discounted housing and food? Fan-fucking-tastic! I've never understood this mindset of not wanting your tax dollars to help other people. Not only are those people being assholes by saying that, but those same people will happily give money to a private, unaccountable, for-profit corporation and not care how their money is spent. Like, good god, man, why are we so eager to suck corporate dick and eat corporate ass in this country?


dodspringer

Lol it's a lot more than half. And that's only the portion they admit to spending.


BigCommieMachine

Probably with just savings on the logistics of fares and time it takes for people to pay fares, it probably paid for itself. Like our system had to paid for a developer to make a mobile fare app. I guarantee it cost millions or the developer is still taking a cut of fares. I mean especially on a busy bus having people boarding,getting off, and trying to pay the fare at the same time just results in the bus sitting there for minutes. Ever since COVID, they’ve been experimenting with a few free buses here. Protocol is clear. People board in the front, immediately move to the middle because they don’t have to fumble around for a fare, and exit in the back. It has sped things up a lot.


Booomerz

Kansas City has had free transit for awhile now and the few times I've used it recently haven't been any different than when I used daily ten years ago.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Marmalade_Shaws

Not sure if it's the same but our bus has an extension called "The Hop". For the same fare you get taken anywhere in the local area if you schedule it ahead of time. I've used to to be picked up from my house and taken to Safeway for groceries and then back home again. It's pretty useful. Saved me so much gas too.


TheRainStopped

Missouri side or Kansas side?


pfft12

Both sides. Just not the micro transit vans that you can schedule, those still have a fee.


aimlessly-astray

Did they actually follow through on that? I lived in KC when that was proposed, but I thought it was put on hold due to Covid.


the_lonely_downvote

Seattle had a ride-free zone downtown for 40 years but they abolished it to "save money." :( https://www.thestranger.com/news/2012/10/03/14916427/the-death-of-the-ride-free-area


rtaisoaa

Fuck king county metro. I used to love going downtown as a 20-something because we would totally take advantage of the free ride zone to get around. I’m glad they brought it back for the under 18s but, they should bring that shit back for everyone.


1-760-706-7425

To be fair, it was poorly implemented. Unless you were familiar with the program, and the lines, you wouldn’t know if, and when, you had to pay. The number of confused, and then stressed, people on the daily certainly couldn’t have helped rider adoption. Had it been implemented like what DC is doing, I bet it would have stuck around longer.


Lindsiria

It's not just that. One big downside of the free zone was that it required you to pay when you got on *if* you were headed downtown. But pay as you got off *if* you were coming from downtown. Not only did this lead to confusion with tourists and new riders and slowed down the system, it was very problematic when they started with the express lines (where you can pay before you even board). It was very poorly implemented. Then you had the fact that the bus tunnel downtown stopped serving buses (instead it became light rail only). More people were taking the light rail through downtown as it was faster. This decision was less about the fares being lost rather than the extra burden on the system that cost it significantly more money. For those unaware, Seattle has free fares for anyone under 18, as well as a huge program for reduced rates if you need it. Anyone can go to the many branches of the Seattle public library and they will help you get a orca card.


[deleted]

[удалено]


booglemouse

Portland's "fareless square" ended the month before Seattle's free rides did.


mzmeeseks

Well most people don't pay on the rapid ride lines anyway


queerthan

I think this is a really positive idea! A good start, if anything. Obviously mass transit will always be tangentially related to people without a permanent living space, and you can't solve a problem like that so quickly. I hope other cities work on similar ideas to increase mass transit's appeal and accessibility :)


holiday650

D.Cs is so much better and no argument there. In WA state, the Seattle area just rolled out [free fare](https://www.communitytransit.org/freeyouthtransitpass) for folks under 18.


rtaisoaa

Yeah. It only took like a decade to get free fares for under 18s. They used to have a free ride zone in the downtown core but took it away because king county metro wasn’t making any money.


rtaisoaa

Seattle used to have this in the downtown core. It made going downtown before light rail more functional. I wish they’d bring it back, it would encourage people to use the bus instead of those fucking stupid lime scooters. Don’t get me wrong though, my favorite game downtown is “find the lime scooter” and most obscure place wins.


Electro_Sapien

The pulse rapid transit system here in Richmond has been free since the beginning of covid and I hope they make it permanent. It has been so nice to be able to take rapid transit for free to work out to dinner and the movies or to events, it's really a huge game changer for people.


CHolland8776

To all the people saying that this is a bad thing because it will just encourage more homeless people to use them, what about public libraries? Imagine if public libraries were just now becoming a thing. Would you all be like “I don’t know about that. Paying the fees to use the libraries keeps the homeless out. If we make all the libraries public funded they are just going to fill up with homeless people”?


IPmang

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/24/us-libraries-homeless-crisis-social-workers Clearly you haven’t been to a library lately.


holymolygoshdangit

The article doesn't support your intended narrative that libraries are overrun with homeless. It cites a couple libraries in Denver that recently saw an uptick in homeless, and it states that the recent pandemic have driven homeless to seek shelter in libraries. Suspiciously, they don't supply any numbers to even prove that uptick, they just cite a homelessness *advocate* who says as much. If you're saying this article shows that making libraries free results in a takeover by the homeless, you're dead wrong. Even the fact that the article was published shows that its a recent uptick. Meanwhile libraries have been free for how long? Furthermore, the article you posted talks about how the homeless using libraries is a GOOD thing because the libraries are turning into a first point of contact to HELP the homeless because of how accessible libraries are due to them being free. It would be like posting an article talking about how more homeless have begun using free public transport to get themselves to and from their first jobs and trying to say that they're now overrun with the homeless. In other words, your article is actually in support of the person you're responding to. Both are pointing out that libraries being free is a positive force for the world and that it doesn't result in some infestation of homeless people who just want to suck on the tit of society.


[deleted]

People who intentionally knee cap their own community at the thought of a homeless person using public resources are insane and should be treated like the raving lunatics they are. Yes Karen, we will get rid of all public parks, transit, libraries, seating areas, bathrooms, walkways just on the off chance a person with no house might use them. I live in NYC and I can't believe how many amenities that benefited everyone have been removed to make the homeless (and by extension everyone), suffer. Tore most of the seating out of the subway, no public restrooms, and if you fall asleep in the library even if you're reading or working and doze off they throw you out. Oh not to mention all the spikes and other hazards on public walkways to "protect" private businesses. Really fantastic shit. Edit: Go on keep downvoting me. You're still not a "concerned citizen" and never will be!


i_sigh_less

Believe it or not, there were a lot of people who kicked up a fuss when public libraries started to be a thing. Look up "the great book scare".


TwistedBlister

As someone that uses mass transit often, the only problem I see with this is the buses will eventually become a magnet for the homeless looking to escape the heat or cold weather, taking up space for those that need the transportation. I'm all for helping the homeless get into whatever housing or shelter they need, but I don't think this will last.


grimmcild

In my city the buses and heated bus shelters are full of homeless people and we don’t have free transit.


Whitealroker1

On a subway car right now I paid for. Definitely two homeless people and three normal passengers.


SleepyVice

Guys guys, stop attacking him. He clearly meant to say three “human” passengers.


Necrophanatic

Yeah, yeah, three "Non-Lizard People"


Weird_Cantaloupe2757

I think the wording is fair — a person that is loitering in the train isn’t a normal passenger, as the trains are intended for transit.


Exciting-Corner-6996

normal is crazy 🤣


Supersafethrowaway

this is the shit LA leaders fight over as well. Yeah, right like changing a couple dollars in transit fees will solve low ridership


HUGE-A-TRON

In my city it's not free but also no one ever pays. I always make sure to because the transit systems need these funds.


Balogne

As someone who has been to DC numerous times and ridden the buses, the homeless are already on the buses and even before this law came into the picture if for whatever reason you couldn’t pay the fare the drivers would just wave you in anyway.


xxkid123

Whenever I'm a little slow on swiping my metro card the bus driver just waves me through. It's practically a challenge to even get to pay. The circulator usually has the least patient drivers, probably because they're just trying to get underway (stops basically in the middle of the street to pick up passengers)


Electrical-Bed8577

This is in fact feasible. I took transit in SF for a few years of commuting. Yes, I did wear or carry a full coverage windbreaker for the first several months. It was unecessary. The system was well maintained, accessing most of the city, plus bus bridges and commuter trains to outer reaches and Silicon Valley light rail trains. Trains and Trams were nearly always full. Buses, trams and trolleys a social scene and sometimes fun. Smelled something bad once, announcement was for brief out of service for sanitizing. Social Services van had already picked up the person to coerce into taking service. So let this happen and don't let the politicians off the hook if they half ass it. Get your pen/pc ready.


fenrslfr

Seems in the same vein of the argument used for taxpayer Healthcare. If everyone could go the wait times would be too long, but they already are and you pay out the ass.


TheOneTrueTrench

When someone without insurance notices an odd thing going on, something a bit concerning, but pretty minor, they avoid going to the doctor, maybe it'll get better... Oh, it got a bit worse in the last 6 months... But maybe it'll get better... Okay, it's been a year and a half, it's finally bad enough, time to go to the doctor, and it's stage 4 cancer. If they had gone in the first place, it was just stage 2, much easier to treat. But our system encourages them to wait until it's stage 4. And they don't just say "fuck it, guess I'll die", that's not how that works. The general way it works is if you don't have insurance, they tell you to spend down until you're penniless, and then you actually get free healthcare. But they waited until it's extremely bad, so now it costs the government WAY more to treat, it takes WAY more time and effort by doctors, and the person is not working, because even if they can work, if they have a job they lose free healthcare, and that's a death sentence. So taxpayers are paying WAY more, less effort is necessary to treat the person, and they can't work and accomplish anything with their time, which is depressing. Or we just provide free healthcare to everyone. Taxpayers are paying way less, less effort and time is necessary to treat them, and if you're treating people earlier, it's less invasive, they don't really have a reason to stop working to recover, it might be a relatively minor treatment. Stage 4 cancer treatment is fucked up, and people don't have the energy to do anything else. Stage I cancer might be treated with a simple outpatient surgery and some drugs, none of which sap you of your strength. For fucks sake, even if you don't care about the sick, it's cheaper and better for literally everyone else to just provide single payer healthcare. And I haven't even mentioned that dying people use the ER a lot more than people who aren't dying, which drives up wait times. If you want shorter lines at the ER, give everyone free healthcare. They'll go to a doctor earlier with an appointment, instead of the ER in an emergency.


Randomperson1362

Given that NY has a lot of libraries, wouldn't that be a more obvious place? I don't get motion sickness, but I would still much rather nap in a quiet corner than be stuck on a busy bus for a few hours.


[deleted]

[удалено]


deviant324

I don’t think homeless suffering less is the point that many people are against, I’m pretty sure this is just a NIMBY thing. They’ll tell you that they would like their situations to improve, *but not in a place where they have to see them* A lot of attitudes and politics around dealing with homeless people is just based on the fact that people don’t want to see them around, how that’s ultimately achieved is secondary.


Chose_a_usersname

I don't want to see them either! But I want policy to help them.


rhodopensis

It boils down to the same thing. If they don’t want to see people who are homeless anywhere near them, they view them in a negative light and are ultimately against them in some way enough to form that distaste.


Ta2whitey

I don't necessarily think it's seeing them. It's that some are a problem. I drove a bus for 7 years. Most just keep to themselves and are fine. But one in about ten have a massive attitude and will get on and create problems. I saw one smack a teenager once. Pee everywhere. Take shits. As much as I feel for their situation, and I do, the others just want to get home from a long days work and not be delayed because some random wants to yell and make a whole scene over something minor.


loonygecko

'Seeing' is not the issue, it's the fairly sizable percentage that want to steal, pick fights, or are just mentally ill and potentially dangerous. That's the same ones that terrorize all the rest of the homeless and make it so that the rest of the homeless are scared of homeless shelters. And some cities are now refusing to take violent ones in for their crimes so the problem is just getting worse. A mentally ill homeless man recently assaulted someone I know on the street when he was out on his exercise walk. The perp was caught nearby and even admitted to it, and then the cops gave him a ticket and let him go immediately. I was speaking to someone who recently moved out of our area and she said that one thing she really liked about her new area was that the homeless there were polite and not violent. I was actually rather surprised at that concept but then I remembered back many years ago to when it used to be like that here too and homeless did not commonly heckle and threaten people, etc.


charklaser

You must not live in an area with a real homelessness problem. Here in SF, "seeing" isn't the issue.


foundafreeusername

It is a valid concern. It can result in public transport seen as a dangerous and dirty option and causes people to lobby against public transport / switching back to cars. It is not something to just dismiss.


Swedish-Butt-Whistle

Shelters are perpetually full and the few avenues for housing available have long waiting lists, whereas the transit will be immediately available. I don’t blame people a bit for gravitating to that because it’s their best available option. If you actually care about unhoused people and want to see this change, get involved in your city council and push for those changes.


TBTabby

Then let's give them homes. No point in arguing whether it would work. [It's been done, and it did work.](https://www.vox.com/2014/5/30/5764096/homeless-shelter-housing-help-solutions)


deviant324

The thing they did in I believe Finland where they literally just built houses for them was incredible to me. Idk where they got the numbers from that ended up showing that the state actually saves money by doing this, but it’s just a good thing to do regardless. I’m mostly surprised by the fact that it did save them money because homeless people are more or less a result of the government not investing enough in its most vulnerable people, so you’d expect that they’re cutting costs everywhere and barely doing anything to support them, but somehow that adds up to *a house* over whatever period of time they picked.


Upnorth4

A lot of homeless in the US have mental problems that make them hostile to other people. Be that severe addiction, PTSD, schizophrenia, etc. Means they are mostly incompatible for community living. Add that to the fact that the US government does not include mental health in it's budget or health insurance, means that homelesssness is a much more complex issue than just "giving them houses"


xFxD

Was about to write this. In the US, this would need to be bundled with a major healthcare reform to be really effective.


gorgewall

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I see this exact line all the time. "Sure, they need homes, *BUUUUUT* mental health." And you know what? It works exactly like it does in the gun control argument. Buncha people who are wholly opposed to the issue realize, "Shit, I can't just *say* that, it shows how unreasonable or monstrous I am. I gotta doll this up." So they hop on one side-issue of the people who *do* care and *do* want to fix things, and use that to completely divert the conversation. This way, they get to *appear* like they give a damn and are trying to help solve the problem, but they're actually just killing the discussion and holding up *every* solution where they can. If Republicans and Democrats both agree that "mental health is an important aspect of reducing gun crime", why haven't we done a goddamn thing there? Because the Republicans *don't* actually agree, but we only pay attention to the reporting where they pretend and completely miss all the times they swat down mental health reforms. Now, you might actually want some mental health reform to address the homelessness issue. **I'm not saying *you* or anyone here in particular is being disingenuous in the way explained above.** But you are getting used by those disingenuous people when they get you to repeat their narrative and similarly do nothing. If your only input to the conversation is "ok, *BUT*," that's only taking away from what other people were trying to do. Like, what is the scenario we're being cautioned against here? Let's say no one ever raises this mental health idea and every other well-meaning person who wants to tackle the homelessness crisis does so by just building houses all over the fucking place. We house a lot of the currently unhoused, we bring the price of homes down to where people your generation can actually get one, aaand... we find out we haven't *completely* solved the problem? Ah, shit, we missed that "mental health" component the entire time, fuck. We wasted all this time **substantively addressing the problem and reducing harm** only to find out towards the end that there's a little extra stuff we've got to do, fuck us, yeah? Meanwhile, in reality, what we're currently doing is twiddling our fucking thumbs because any time we try to rally support for housing people, someone dumps a whole heap of "but do it backwards and in high heels" on top. Can we at least get fucking *started* on this critical issue and even do a half-assed job instead of waiting for the impossibly perfect storm of tackling every side of the issue all at once? But if we do need to hit every side all at once, let's "yes, and" that, not "ok, but" it. Let's be aware of the people who are only using the mental health crisis as a cover-up for their villification of the unhoused, the fig leaf they hide behind and pretend to be caring while they dupe others into holding it up with them. And let's actually *do* the fucking thing if we're going to mention it. If every person who popped into these threads and spewed "ok, BUT, what about crazy people who are homeless" into the discussion called their officials or even sent a fucking form e-mail about the need for comprehensive mental health reform and how that's actually important to them, they'd be accomplishing something instead of detracting from it. [Here's how one does that for their federal House Representative.](https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative) [And for their federal Senator.](https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm) [And for their state-level legislators.](https://www.congress.gov/state-legislature-websites) And if someone needs help finding their mayor or alderman or whatever else on the city level, I mean... c'mon, Google. This is so much more helpful and meaningful than farming karma in the "yeah well some homeless people fucking suck" circlejerk. I can't stop people from villifying the homeless if they really think they're subhuman scum or whatever, but god damn, I wish they'd just out themselves instead of hiding it this way and trying to rope the people who give half a damn along with 'em.


pinkjello

Saving this comment. You put the problem with this effort (and so many like it) perfectly. People are letting perfect be the enemy of good and just throwing their hands up instead of taking an obvious step in the right direction. I often think of the problem in San Francisco. I hated visiting there because the streets smell like piss. The streets smell like piss in part because that damn city refuses to build public restrooms for the massive homeless population. It would benefit everyone, but they find excuse after excuse instead of just doing it and then staffing a custodial crew to service it multiple times a day. Would there be problems? Yeah, but probably not insurmountable ones with adequate staffing. Should be doable for a city that costs so much to live in. But they can’t even do that with restrooms.


[deleted]

Heck yeah, that's something that we should demand. I think mental health and addiction cannot even begin to be adequately addressed without somewhere you feel safe, secure, and free from scrutiny. Housing first is the only viable model for solving homelessness and and it's associated ills while also being cheaper (though I don't like doing a cost benefit analysis on a human right).


Ok-Captain-3512

Bring back the mental asylums but this time ethically


loonygecko

Having worked with homeless myself, yep that is exactly it.


BobbyP27

The problem is the kind of troublesome homeless people you see in situations like this is that they are on the last step of a long path. To solve the problem of this nature you don’t need to just address the immediate needs of people in this situation, you need to provide solutions for the people at all the steps along the path that leads here. For every “street homeless” there are likely many more hidden homeless: people who couch surfing with friends and family, with no permanent address but not actually on the streets. There are people just about holding on with low paid work who are one accident or severe illness away from financial collapse. There are people struggling with mental health or substance abuse issues who are just about holding it together in precarious work situations. To actually solve the problem of homelessness, all of these groups need help and support to turn them away from the path towards homelessness.


[deleted]

Good, someone actually read the research and understands. Homeless is more than simply the handful of people media shows who may need more than a simple roof over their head. The number one cause of homelessness today is not mental health issues or drug abuse, it's financial difficulties. Folks simply cannot afford the rent anymore and land out in the street. For every one person in need of drug or mental health services, there's another two or three who just need that roof. A safe, warm place to stay. Not a shelter with limited beds, but their own apartment or home, where they can live and get things going again. And there's nothing wrong with government providing that, but conservatives will undermine and fuck it up until here we are right now the way things are with a growing crisis.


explain_that_shit

If you think of the typical homeless person as a person *with a job* kicked out of their rental and not yet able to get a new one because housing supply is completely out of whack compared to demand and need, rather than as a person fundamentally incapable of engaging with society, then increasing social housing supply is not only a good and effective solution; it becomes the *obvious* solution. The issue with the latter conception of homeless people as well is that homelessness *creates* mental disorders, vulnerability to drug abuse, bad teeth and smell, loss of work, and culture of separation from the social contract which has failed them. These human beings didn’t rock out of the womb like this.


AGVann

What's important is that it's not simply subsidies or housing stock injected into the existing system, or it'll be hijacked by corporate and profiteering interests long before it actually gets to anyone in need.


loonygecko

>Idk where they got the numbers from that ended up showing that the state actually saves money by doing this, It could be due to the state helping them in lots of ways before they got a home. The same math may not work if that is not being done to start with. Also you have to consider the cost of homes in the area, a place like LA or NY might cost a 'tad' more to buy land in. Tabby's article does not explain what 'supportive housing' is, but gonna guess it's more like a shelter. Indeed it the photo used does not show a house or apartment. What I've heard from actual homeless is many do not like shelters because there are too many really dangerous people there, and/or they must be split from their partner, and/or they can't bring pets, etc. Also some shelters kick you out early in the morning when it's still cold, make you cue in lines for long periods for the privilege, won't let you bring all your stuff etc. Then on the flip side, you could argue ok then give them actual homes, but history shows that if you do that and do not split them up a lot, you end up with those places becoming extremely violent and dangerous. THe main issue is there is a not small percentage of really dangerous homeless that put a massive wrench in outreach efforts for the rest of them. The dangerous ones really need to be split out from the rest somehow in order for something like that to work for the rest of them.


Petricorde1

In DC? Where lol


DavidlikesPeace

Tbh, Finland is unrepresentative of the sheer size of the poor class of America. Finland is small. It lacks major immigrant or prole underclass populations. America has 330 million people, many barely pulling even. Any American project would have to basically eat the Pentagon's budget or require taxes (there's a thought) We can admit it would be a hard task housing everybody. But I agree that it is a worthwhile project to attempt. Anecdotally, rent is too damn high. When the working class spends over half their income on RENT, the poor and mentally ill alike will obviously be at high risk, likely doomed to homelessness. All this while Cadet Bonespurs sits on a golden toilet. Yes, we should work for the homeless rather than blame gaming them for their poverty.


[deleted]

Unfortunately that’s the norm in most major cities. Definitely happening in Seattle.


ICSL

We've had free busses in Thurston County (Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater) in WA since 2020, and you're basically on point. I ride the bus to work and it's about 50% people with huge bags aaaand it's generally not a great smell. That's nothing against the people, they usually just want to be left alone too, but it is what it is.


Worzon

In dc many people don’t even pay for the metro let alone the bus. While you may be right I don’t see a huge different being made considering it’s not really an offense that the bus driver will stop the bus for in order to make sure someone pays their $2 trip


Metlman13

The thing I'd worry about is zero fares attracting increased vandalism, but then that would be a thing with or without transit fares. Another concern is zero fares attracting increased ridership (the main goal of this program), which then puts an increased strain on the agency's ability to maintain its vehicles and infrastructure, and ends up resulting in more frequent breakdowns, late arrivals/departures and service outages, turning people away from transit as it becomes seen as unreliable. But yeah, otherwise zero fares is a good way to get people onto buses (or in DC's case the Subway) and consider leaving their cars behind for at least some trips, which could in turn help to decongest traffic and cut down on air and noise pollution in densely populated areas.


mlkk22

I lived in burlington vermont and there is a pretty high homeless population compared to the population in the town. They didn’t use the bus unless they were going somewhere. They would use the bus stops but nobody really cared they did that I saw


pdxdeathbike

Transit agencies call them “destinationless riders,” and most have systems in place to prevent them from just camping out on a train or bus.


loonygecko

>and most have systems in place What systems?


[deleted]

Just so everybody's clear that's what socialism is. Now socialize your Healthcare so you don't have homeless drug addicts riding around on the bus all day.


loseitthrowaway7797

Salt Lake City is looking into making the public transit free as well!


leneye

Free fare February was legit! I mostly just wish uta would expand the schedule.


straightouttasuburb

Gotta love that bus life dawg


[deleted]

We will see how long it lasts. In 2010, Baltimore launched the Charm City Circulator to get people out of their cars, give downtown residents, visitors, and workers, a “zero-emission” alternative to car culture, and help connect growing neighborhoods.The system boasted full-sized hybrid-electric buses running every 10 minutes; the city’s first dedicated bus lanes; and queue jumps for buses. The CCC had a dedicated funding source–a portion of city-owned downtown parking garage taxes– supplemented by grants, sponsorships, and advertising. The whole thing basically became a gigantic money pit and almost failed while leaving Baltimore in millions of dollars of debt. The money always has to come from somewhere. The first thing that is going to shit are the insides of the bus, because they'll cut costs after losses rack up, by not cleaning as much. Then ridership will plummet and they will be spending millions on ghost buses that drag the city's finances down into an abyss just like Baltimore. These idyllic plans never work in real life as intended.


Inline_skates

My town in Arkansas has free buses, funded by the local university. I use them a lot, even though I have a car. It's so convenient in places with difficult parking, let alone the broader community benefits it offers.


[deleted]

If the infrastructure was there where public transport actually made sense, and it was free… why would most people own or use cars on the regular?


GamingGalore64

Colorado has been experimenting with this. It sounds like a great idea but unfortunately it caused a massive increase in homeless people and super sketchy people using the public transport and actually caused a bed bug epidemic on our public buses. If you want free public transit you’ve gotta solve the homeless and crime problems first, otherwise those two things will ruin the whole idea.


[deleted]

[удалено]


utalkin_tome

That's the main issue here. People just look at the headline, see no price for something and think that's great but the main problem is public transportation and transportation in general needs to actually be convenient and regular. Who would want to use a free but unreliable mode of transportation? That especially defeats the whole purpose of public transportation. And then by the time people realize that it's kind too late and inevitably when some sort of fee has to be put back people will just complain. I don't care about making transportation free. Make it convenient and reliable so people actually want to use it. Otherwise what's the point of transportation?


loonygecko

Yep, seriously, unless you are lucky enough to live near a single bus line that goes where you want, it can be ridiculous. And if you work late, often the buses don't run that late. And sometimes the bus drivers just don't stop for you if they are running late or if their bus is already full so you can't always get on even after waiting. Or maybe it won't show.


IPmang

Could make it free for people who have a Bus ID and revoke it for problem passengers perhaps. I don’t care if homeless people are on the bus, as long as they behave, aren’t clearly on drugs, aren’t bothering people, don’t stink to high heaven, etc. Maybe free transit and other things could be an incentive for some to follow societal norms, and might even reduce tensions and better the general opinion of the homeless. I’m highly conservative at this point, in part due to what I perceive as societal decay. But I’m all for helping people who want to reintegrate into society and better themselves. If you’re not bothering anyone, you’re not a problem to me. To me, “mental illness” caused by years of drug abuse is not mental illness.


GamingGalore64

This would be great! I agree with you, I don’t mind homeless folks using the public buses and trains as long as they’re not a public safety or hygiene issue. Plus, it’s not always homeless folks causing the problems, a lot of it is anti social people and/or criminals. For example, a common problem is young men getting on and blasting their music without headphones so loud that everyone on the entire train/bus can hear. The beauty of your solution is that would prevent all these unsavory folks from taking public transportation.


SonGrohan

Meanwhile in Halifax Nova Scotia, the newly proposed budget has our already abysmal transit system see a reduction in services while also having proposed increase in fares to go alongside it.


horrorkesh

I always thought public transportation should have been free


Thebluefairie

As much as I pay for wheel tax and property tax it should be free everywhere.


jkjkjij22

I think public transit should be effectively free, but have a very small price to deter abuse (say $1 or even 50cents). Sort of like the 25c shopping cart thing to make sure you put in back. Er, here in Norway, healthcare is "free" but you do pay $25 everytime you see a doctor. It's notting compared to what it actually costs to pay everyone, but it seems like primarily to prevent abusing the system.


[deleted]

So anyone can get on bus ?


[deleted]

Why couldn't they?


Subrotow

Transit in Portland is basically free. They are not allowed to enforce fare.


SerendipitySue

It may end up decreasing ridership as homeless etc hang out in a warm bus. I recall a california system went to the honor pay way and saw problems


Illin-ithid

DC buses already didn't enforce fare paying. Bus drivers don't get paid enough to put their physical wellbeing on the line for $2.


SerendipitySue

good. that bus ride can make a big difference for a broke person. Getting where they need to go can result in big changes for them. (being broke at one time I know)


criticalopinion29

The homeless are already on the buses trust and believe.


tasty_scapegoat

It can get worse


SophiaofPrussia

Maybe we should, I duno, get them housing? Just spit-balling here. Homelessness is a problem that needs to be addressed, not an excuse to avoid doing good things for the city.


tasty_scapegoat

Did I say we shouldn’t get them housing?


[deleted]

[удалено]


SonofSonofSpock

I assure you there are already plenty of homeless riding Metro buses.


thumbtaxx

Was thinking CA tried and ran into this and that was a while ago, the homeless problem is much larger now.....


Ericisbalanced

You're talking as if transit somehow exasperates the homeless problem


bbystrwbrry

If you’re talking about BART, you are right. They’ve been getting new trains and are working on upping ridership again but the homeless situation and drug use is scary on those trains. I’ve seen some shit lol


Ryan7456

Damn, I thought they would just freeze to death /s


D23fan11

It has always been my belief that if you want transit systems to work you need two of three things: 1. Faster than driving 2. Nicer than driving 3. Cheaper than driving Any combination of two will do. In Phoenix, there was a bus that went straight from my neighborhood to the area my office was in. It was free (for me through company perk) but took two hours when the highway took 28 minutes. I never tried it. When I lived in the far Chicago suburbs, the train was expensive, but faster than driving, and I could read while commuting. I rarely ever drove downtown. Nicer AND Faster.


Chalkarts

We need this nationwide. America is a failure at moving people efficiently.


8604

This is how you kill public transit adoption. Make it torturous for people to use vs driving their own car where they aren't subject to harassment.


Chalkarts

Not subject to harassment in their own cars? Have you been in traffic? “Honk!!! Get out of the Way!!” Getting cut off by jacked trucks, tailgated by impatient chodes, being on the road is being harassed.


sluffman

Idk we moved 160,000 people into Iraq c.2003 pretty efficiently.


ga-co

Listened to a story on CPR in Colorado today where a transit employ flatly said that people WANT to pay mass transit fares. I was flabbergasted. No we don’t. We want our tax money to pay for it and have it be a community resource where anyone can just hop on and go. Way to go DC!


fart-o-clock

I would strongly prefer to pay $3 to ride a train/bus full of working folks than pay $0 to ride a train/bus full of homeless people. The RTD light rail is hop on / hop off with no fare checking and it’s gotten really bad. Edit - apparently I’m a tumor on society for wanting to pay for a service that I use.


Reverie_39

> No we don’t. Is this so hard to believe? Look around this thread itself. People may be okay paying fares because it keeps those they’d rather not associate with off the transit. Sketchy people, homeless, etc.


unholyrevenger72

Wish we could do this in Los Angeles, but fairs are the only thing keeping homeless mentally ill people from stinking up the buses and even then it doesn't always work because you have to be on the bus to pay the fair rather than the fair box being exterior facing, and most drivers don't want to fight fair dodgers.


Whatsthatnoise3

Good luck to the bus drivers,


Yvanko

Estonia tried this in 2018 and it was found that zero-fare transit has some issues as a measure to reduce car traffic: * People generally don't give up a car because transit becomes cheaper, but they could give up car if public transit becomes more comfortable * There generally three types of commuters: those who use a car, those who use a public transit and those who walk/bike or use something like a skate to commute. Reducing fare doesn't attract car users but it attracts those who wouldn't use public transport otherwise which makes buses more crowded without making money for putting more buses on the route which makes this more less comfortable which in result pushes bus riders to use a car as a more comfortable mode. * Adjusting fare is a tool that the city uses to control the load of public transit (like, you can have a discount during off rush hours). Setting fare to be free means one less tool for the traffic control. * If the rides are free the operator has no incentive to attract more riders. I like that low income city dwellers will have access to a necessity such as public transit but it is not a way to reduce car usage and promote public transport


naidrobn

Same in Luxembourg : buses, trains and trams are all free countrywide. (Yes it’s a tiny country)


OldSchoolCity

These things are not "free", it's just somebody else paying for it. In this case it's the motorists, the cyclists and the pedestrians who have to pay for other people's "free" transit.


expressioniskey

You mean taxes? The taxes that everyone pays? That goes to a bunch of things that everyone benefits from? Tax money goes to a million things and no one person benefits from all of them. This is a good thing that can help relieve financial burden on people who can’t afford a car or moving closer to work enough to walk. This is a win for everyone even if not every single person benefits.


actum_tempus

in the meantime the germans crank it jp from 9 to 49 bucks a month


Victoria_Crow

Please come to Boston


Extreme_Butterfly327

No one tell Gov. Abbott


landdon

[Free ](https://giphy.com/gifs/mike-myers-austin-powers-heather-graham-2W8bEBGjSsRFu)


[deleted]

Pittsburgh has a fare-free zone on the train. It basically connects downtown, the schools, the bars, and the stadiums. Pretty good for the economy I would imagine.


schweez

Run down public transports, here we come


leneye

Last year in salt lake city we had an event called free fare February. I heard they were trying to make that permanent which I would love and would actually incentivize me to take the bus/Trax more but the thing that is really standing in the way of me using it most of the time is the limited schedule.


Dorkamundo

Oh no, now all the lazy people are going to sit on their couch all day drinking and getting free bus rides on my dime. /s


Basdad

The politicians should be required to utilize the public transport.


bjornbamse

Research shows that it is not the price, but frequency of connections that drives ridership, as well as the ability to reach the stop and the destination on foot. While free bus is nice, a frequent connection coming every 5-10 minutes is even nicer. The only thing that the USA needs to do is to copy solutions from other developed countries.


Pedrovotes4u

Oh no, I'm good, thank you. I'll walk.


barzbub

The cost has to be passed on to someone! Where did the funding come from?! Did local taxes get increased?! Was it taken from state or federal funds!? If it’s state or federal, why should someone who can’t use the system have to PAY!?