I took a trip to Atlanta this past fall and rode the MARTA pretty much everywhere.  For the first few days of my trip, it was typical Atlanta weather for September, but on the last day the temperature dipped down in the 40's.  When that happened, the MARTA got gross.  The trains became packed with sleeping homeless people who seemed to just ride all day in the nice, warm cars.  The cars ended up smelling like the elephant cage at the zoo, and I couldn't wait to jump off at the end of my rides.

 

My question for all of those public transit experts out there is...how do transit agencies keep this from becoming a problem?  Obviously MARTA didn't have a very good system, but do any other cities have a solution?  I can see this becoming an issue for the proposed streetcar lines in Cincy and Columbus.  There's no better way to scare a suburbanite than a sleeping homeless person.

When I rode the subway in NYC, there was someone on every car that was trying to get donations for a "worthy cause." I was surprised they could actually move through the crowd.  Aparently it works, because they were all over.  I don't remember seeing any homeless on the subway in NYC, but it was summer.

^a streetcar line would make a full circut in about 30 mins to 1hr depending on the length of the track.  Simply have a rule that states you have to get off at the end of every full circut regardless of the social status of the rider.  Also a streetcar isn't as long as marta, it is essentially one car or two cars with an articulated connection, the driver should have a line of sight for about the whole passenger area.  If they want to keep riding, they have to pay the fare for each circut.  If cincinnati, much like portland has a fareless downtown (i doubt it but it is possible), kick them off as far away from this area as possible.

^ Doesn't a "full circuit" depend on where a passenger gets on?

 

I think you're right though...It probably just takes diligence on the part of the driver to keep an eye out.

the temperature dipped down in the 40's.  When that happened, the MARTA got gross.  The trains became packed with sleeping homeless people who seemed to just ride all day in the nice, warm cars.  The cars ended up smelling like the elephant cage at the zoo, and I couldn't wait to jump off at the end of my rides.

 

Same problem and same smell in my psych lecture hall during bad weather... Although it wouldn't have been so obvious if the dude didn't raise his hand and ask the professor what time and year it was...

^ Doesn't a "full circuit" depend on where a passenger gets on?

 

I think you're right though...It probably just takes diligence on the part of the driver to keep an eye out.

 

it does, but lets just imagine the route started at gov't square and went up main, made the turn at liberty and went down walnut.  Every time the car would get to gov't square, everyone gets off. period.  if you want to board a northbound train, you board after gov't square.  Don't let people board at sixth and walnut unless they want to only go a block.  with parrallel tracks, they can walk over a block before the streetcar makes the turn anyways.

Why don't we consider Dennis Kucinich's solution for Cleveland RTA -- make buses and trains fare-free? That'll make things so much easier for RTA workers to keep the homeless from setting up temporary residence on board...NOT! So many other negative issues with that proposal that I wonder if Kucinich engages his brain before opening his pie hole. But I digress...

 

Want to get the homeless people off transit? Give them medical, psychological, educational, productive financial help and job-placement assistance they need so they're not homeless anymore.

Want to get the homeless people off transit? Give them medical, psychological, educational, productive financial help and job-placement assistance they need so they're not homeless anymore.

 

That sums it up pretty well I think.

Some people aren't fit for work no matter what, but we should do what we can to get as many of them off the street as possible. I'm sure plenty of people would sneer at your proposal, but we spend billions on plenty of idiotic things that produce no results, so why not spend some on something that will make a tangible, positive difference.

My question is: Where is security? When I ride the St. Louis Metrolink system,there is always a security person on board to make sure there are no problems and also to check to see if there are any fare-jumpers.

 

If these systems had roving security people, they could come thru the cars periodically and force transients to move along, denying them uninterrupted rest. They'd get the idea sooner or later that they aren't to be there, except to ride from one place to another.

 

Transit operators have to get their arms around this problem. It'll drive customers away very quickly otherwise.

Kucinich has proposed making RTA fare-free?  That would require giving RTA a lot more money.  Better to use that money to improve and expand transit-- like Lorain-Cleveland commuter rail, increasing the frequency of community circulators and other routes, etc. 

Give 'em cars.

Kucinich has proposed making RTA fare-free? That would require giving RTA a lot more money. Better to use that money to improve and expand transit-- like Lorain-Cleveland commuter rail, increasing the frequency of community circulators and other routes, etc.

 

Yep. Yep. And yep.

 

Give 'em cars.

 

I suspect that was tongue in cheek. Now for my own: consider that most low-income and some middle-class residents in car-dependent cities spend more for transportation than housing (which keeps them from building up equity) because they're forced to drive to reach places where jobs are available. So, yes, if they lived in their cars, that would kill two birds with one stone, now wouldn't it? :-P

Give 'em cars.

 

Good idea! Non-running cars from the impound lot, maybe. Just park them around out-of-the-way areas, unlocked, with a special tag so that they don't get towed. ( :weird: )

 

Seriously, I think there are many problems with security on some systems. One night 'way too late to be out, especially when not sober, I was on a CTA train in Chicago. I had made it a point to get a car with a conductor, but still there was a little group of three thugs migrating around the sparsely-populated car hassling people for change, transfers, etc.

 

The conductor paid no attention to them. Maybe he was on commission?

He was probably scared, or simply got tired over the years of trying to rid the train of such trash.

Want to get the homeless people off transit? Give them medical, psychological, educational, productive financial help and job-placement assistance they need so they're not homeless anymore.

 

That sums it up pretty well I think.

 

Then they'll buy and SUV and move to the suburbs!!!

 

OK...Sorry that was too easy ;)

KJP summed it up the best.

 

Metro's way around this problem is two-fold:

 

First, build the rail sections to the richer neighboorhoods/suburbs first. Then, when finally forced to build to the poorer sections of town...have Metro police/adiministrators harrass and make rules that makes it very difficult for homeless to ride it. Some of the homeless used to at least stay at the top of platforms to stay warm...now they're being kicked out of there as well.

 

There's also a third plan being implimented. It's called the SmartTrip card. It costs $5 to buy...and if you lose it or it gets scratched...you get to pay $5 again! You can get it replaced by going on to the Metro's website...but again...DC or it's burbs don't want homeless in the libraries (where these folks can get Internet access). And good luck with that home address!

 

I understand Metro's logic though, if I'm a rich white person taking the Red Line to NW, I don't need to be reminded that there are poor/homeless people in the city. I mean, c'mon, this is one of the "creative centers" of the world. Shouldn't the homeless/poor move to Baltimore or Philly?

 

That's why one of the many reasons I have little love for this area.

Why don't you direct that energy towards trying to lobby for better shelters and programs for the homeless instead of insinuate that they should be allowed to use our transit systems for that purpose?

Because I hate entitlement programs.

Because I hate entitlement programs.

 

Huh?  I was responding to amrapinva.

Apparently, AmrapinVA rides a completely different Metro system than I do.  His suburban disenchantment jades him. 

 

The Metro Transit Police are pretty vigilant with sweeping the stations.  Aside from that, it's more-or-less self-policing.  Rarely do you get hit up for money on a train, and unlike New York and Chicago, passengers don't even attempt to walk between cars.  I wish I could explain it. 

 

Why don't you direct that energy towards trying to lobby for better shelters and programs for the homeless instead of insinuate that they should be allowed to use our transit systems for that purpose?

 

Where AmrapinVA lives, they don't worry about things like the homeless.  They make sure that to get anywhere, you have to drive a car, and that the public transportation that does exist isn't very practical.  They let us city folk contend with annoyances like the regional homeless problem, and then look down on the city for not being smart enough to deliberately exclude them as the suburban folk do.

 

 

Because I hate entitlement programs.

 

Huh?  I was responding to amrapinva.

 

Sorry.  I thought you were insinuating that this whole premise of this thread was crap because I was trying to figure out some engineering controls to keep the homeless out.  Proceed.

I'm all about entitlement programs. For example, as a taxpayer, I feel that I am enititled to transit options other than highways and mandatory car ownership. (Sorry COTA, deficient bus service does not count).

 

Back on topic, transit cops, whilst not murdering graffiti artists, ought to be up to the task of moving the homeless along. If there aren't enough officers on the beat, I suggest we start deputizing the homeless, just so long as they punch out at the end of their shift.

Why don't you direct that energy towards trying to lobby for better shelters and programs for the homeless instead of insinuate that they should be allowed to use our transit systems for that purpose?

 

You think I don't. You think I haven't worked at homeless shelters in DC? You think I haven't had countless conversations with all sorts of people on how to solve this problem? The problem you pose is discussed everyday, in every US city.

 

In finding a quick fix there are two big problems:

 

The first is location. In every city in the US, we need 10-20X the homeless shelters/programs we have today. Where do you put a new homeless shelter? Areas that are up and coming or are already nice places to live don't want 'em. Most of these neighboorhods have NIMBY's that bring up all these "noble" reasons as to why theres should be one there, but in the end it has to do with property values. So now we have to put the shelters in "bad" areas. Now homeless people are people...and most of them aren't stupid people. They know to stay out of the crappy neighborhoods unless they need something from those places. They are 10-20X times more likely than you or me to get harrassed and possibly killed in there. They are very reluctant to visit these places. So they bounce from place to place with limited amouts of beds in mostly church basements...and hope that tommorrow will be better than today. This isn't some game...these people are getting f'ed around every day.

 

The second reason is money. Most cities don't give a crap. Sure they'll help the homeless, but not on the scale of say redoing an art museum...or even dropping cash on red-light cameras. There's no short term revenue gain in setting up a homeless shelter. In fact, if people move away because of it, it drains the tax base of the city. Now, mind you, getting these people houses and jobs in the long-term will do nothing but help a city. But most city governments don't care...because a politican probably won't be in office when this happens, and that credit may go to someone else. And God forbid he or she does something out of kindness instead of how this pol will look in six months down the road.

 

Seriously, what really has me wound up is that this thread is like some smoking thread. Instead of "Ewww, the smoke stinks in a bar"...it's "Ewww, the homeless people smell on the subway."  Well unlike smokers, alot of these folks have no choice in the matter.  And like it or not, they are residents of your city, even if they don't have a permanent address.

 

BTW, you paid the fare. You get to ride. They paid the fare. They get to ride. Welcome to the city.

 

If I'm the minority in having this view, so be it.

I like kingfish's proposal better...just as long as there's some sort of requirement that their uniform doesn't smell like urine.

Apparently, AmrapinVA rides a completely different Metro system than I do.  His suburban disenchantment jades him. 

 

The Metro Transit Police are pretty vigilant with sweeping the stations.  Aside from that, it's more-or-less self-policing.  Rarely do you get hit up for money on a train, and unlike New York and Chicago, passengers don't even attempt to walk between cars.  I wish I could explain it. 

 

Why don't you direct that energy towards trying to lobby for better shelters and programs for the homeless instead of insinuate that they should be allowed to use our transit systems for that purpose?

 

Where AmrapinVA lives, they don't worry about things like the homeless.  They make sure that to get anywhere, you have to drive a car, and that the public transportation that does exist isn't very practical.  They let us city folk contend with annoyances like the regional homeless problem, and then look down on the city for not being smart enough to deliberately exclude them as the suburban folk do.

 

 

 

Right Dan, My wife and I work with a pantry/shelter downtown and I live in Falls Church. You live in Capitol Hill and do what? This has nothing to do with "suburbs" and "city". This has to do with the fact that ALL people should be treated with some sort of respect. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings on this one. I have no patience for this stuff.

^Well put, Amrap.  But why do the majority of homeless shelters have to be in DC?  Why do our taxpayers have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden, especially when Fairfax County is one of the wealthiest in the nation? 

 

The one thing I really resent is that we bear the brunt of the homeless problem.  Why?  Because at some point or another, those who are scared of the homeless moved way out to the suburbs.  Now, we're expected to sweep the homeless under the rug to maintain an appearance for the very same people who abandoned the city.  I'm not saying this is your attitude, Amrap (you made your position very clear), but I'm afraid it is the attitude of many.  In Detroit, for example, the city spends tax dollars on extra police to keep the homeless away from the casinos, lest the homeless "scare away" suburbanites and tourists.  During the week of Super Bowl XL, the city rounded up all the homeless, and shuttled them to an out-of-the-way location away from downtown, lest the visitors and media see that *egads* there are homeless people in the city.

^Well put, Amrap.  But why do the majority of homeless shelters have to be in DC?  Why do our taxpayers have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden, especially when Fairfax County is one of the wealthiest in the nation? 

 

The one thing I really resent is that we bear the brunt of the homeless problem.  Why?  Because at some point or another, those who are scared of the homeless moved way out to the suburbs.  Now, we're expected to sweep the homeless under the rug to maintain an appearance for the very same people who abandoned the city.  I'm not saying this is your attitude, Amrap (you made your position very clear), but I'm afraid it is the attitude of many.  In Detroit, for example, the city spends tax dollars on extra police to keep the homeless away from the casinos, lest the homeless "scare away" suburbanites and tourists.  During the week of Super Bowl XL, the city rounded up all the homeless, and shuttled them to an out-of-the-way location away from downtown, lest the visitors and media see that *egads* there are homeless people in the city.

 

Dan I agree with you 1000%. I've actually tried to talk to local folks here about putting something in Tysons or Arlington or 'God forbid' Great Falls. There argument is always the same....we don't have enough in this area to start a new one. What a load of crap. I think I could build the Giza Pyramid by myself before these bozos will help.

There argument is always the same....we don't have enough in this area to start a new one. What a load of crap.

 

I'm sure the District will be more than happy to accept cash donations.

There argument is always the same....we don't have enough in this area to start a new one. What a load of crap.

 

I'm sure the District will be more than happy to accept cash donations.

 

I've tried that angle too. They're quick to point out that this is VA. As I was told once....pols would be more willing to transfer homeless folks from Richmond or Norfolk that from DC. Nice regional attitude on that one. :)

^^^Now you understand why urbanites are so resentful of suburbanites?

^^^Now you understand why urbanites are so resentful of suburbanites?

 

As long as urbanites understand that some "urban" policies (or lack thereof) make people look elsewhere.

 

Anyway, I don't want this thread to be DC centric.

 

I just hope people understand that we can't "box" away homeless like we can smokers. These people need help...not "zones" where they can reside.

I like kingfish's proposal better...just as long as there's some sort of requirement that their uniform doesn't smell like urine.

 

That's actually the ONLY requirement.