Hacker News Reader

Comment by lordCarbonFiber | Hacker News Reader

Discussion around hostile design always seems to miss the forest for the trees to me. To point out a concrete example, is it better to address homeless populations with some combination of state housing and UBI programs or, accept homelessness as an axiom and design public spaces to that end? The latter seems considerably more elitist and fatalist.

View on HN

I read an economist's back of the envelop calculation on what the appropriate BART fare should be. When automobile subsidies and externalizes[1] were included the appropriate fare was negative. Ditto for Muni.

And example, I took HWY80 to work and paid nothing for the pleasure. Why should the AC Transit or BART riders have to pay a fare when the freeway commuters don't?

drivers pay a fairly sizeable gas tax and also the cost of construction and maintenance per mile of freeway is inordinately less than BART

I think that's a great analysis; but then the discussion should be around that issue "why is the public paying for this service" rather than whether it's ethical to make it harder to jump the turnstile.

am pretty sure Bart is operating on a deficit. Highway maintenance comes out of tax payer's pocket, so that's part of the money you spend riding on a freeway

This is the complete idiocy of it. There are absolutely wonderful public transit systems that operate at a profit and are far cheaper than anything in the states. (E.g. MRT)

Looks like you forgot your citation, I'd like to read it if you can update.

https://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/08/so-why-isnt-riding-b...

I'm pretty sure you paid a tax on that gasoline or electricity used to charge a car battery.

> And example, I took HWY80 to work and paid nothing for the pleasure.

Except gas tax.

And registration fees.

And toll if you were crossing any of the Bay area bridges.

And additional fees to use any of the Bay Area express lanes.

Car travel is not free of government charges, even if the externalities aren't fully internalized.

Seems like a false dichotomy?

Allowing people to use public spaces in safety and comfort doesn’t preclude addressing homelessness by other means.

Hostile architectural features actually cost more to install.

The difference is that the building owner can install the hostile architectural feature immediately in order to "solve" the building owner's homeless problem--ie. make them go somewhere else.

Solving homelessness through the political system is DRASTICALLY slower.

The cost to the commons is pretty substantial though. One person sleeping on a bench vs 5 people sitting, a subway car with 50 people vs a subway car with one and the smell of death. These kind of features address practical concerns, concerns that won't go away unless you spend the capital (political and fiscal) to address the core issues.

You don't think there would be homeless people with UBI? UBI might help the homeless-and-trying-not-to-be crowd, but I don't see how it would affect the homeless-because-it-a-choice-or-they're-mentally-disturbed crowd, the latter of which are generally the problem causers in SF.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com