
French city of Dunkirk tests out free transport - UglyToad
https://www.france24.com/en/20190831-france-dunkirk-free-transportation-bus-success-climate-cities
======
rixed
Although in this and other cases the free bus plan is chiefly motivated by the
need to fight poverty (remember that the yellow vest movement started over a
fuel price raise), its larger long term benefit might rather be to overthrow
cars reign in cities.

From this angle, there is an important detail that I haven't seen mentioned in
the article or the comments: to be really useful in a post-car environment and
allow residents to reach any A from any B without a personal 1-ton-of-steel
individual vehicle, public transports must be designed to transport not only
pedestrians but their bikes too.

In Amsterdam for instance, most trains/trams/busses would have a dedicated
place where to put bikes (coaches would have special bike holder at the front
for instance, while most trains/trams would have a dedicated large lobby in
some wagons). There, most large trips would naturally be completed by a
combination of bike + public transport + bike, making it not only possible but
normal to go anywhere without a car. There, it is not cost free though (and in
some cases, such as trains, you'd have to pay a little extra for your bike);
still, being able to bring your bike might help to reduce overall price (and
time) as it may avoids to have to transfer to a non-free public transport for
some leg of the trip.

~~~
hnarn
> public transports must be designed to transport not only pedestrians but
> their bikes too.

If we are talking about metro transportation, and not intercity trains and
such, I strongly disagree. A bike takes up the space of multiple standing
people, is dirty and hard and is not easily moved during an emergency where a
stampede is a very real risk. Bicycles belong in bike parking, which there
should be plenty of, but you can take public transportation between parkings.
Bringing everybody's bikes on a tram or metro train during rush hour in a city
of any meaningful size is a bad idea.

~~~
jspash
Devil's advocate: The same could be said for a baby buggy. Filthy things,
taking up all that space. Noisy too! And those inconsiderate people with their
luggage trying to get the airport. And don't get me started on old people with
their zimmer frames.

Me speaking: So where do you draw the line? On your personal preferences or
where the outcome achieves the goal? ie. getting more people to stop using
their cars. Bicycles are already allowed on most suburban London trains, but
are sometimes limited during rush hour. It's a win-win for everyone without
having an outright ban.

(I apologise for weird response, but couldn't find a better way to get my
point across.)

~~~
hnarn
> Devil's advocate: The same could be said for a baby buggy.

I don't disagree with you, but I can be more sympathetic to the _need_ for a
baby buggy over that of a bike, because there aren't baby buggy parkings, and
it's a lot harder to move your baby back and forth than it is to park a bike.
The same goes for your semi-absurd comparison with zimmer frames -- obviously
senior citizens have a place in public transportation and they need to be
catered to. It's not the same thing as the convenience of not having to park
your bike and walking.

> Bicycles are already allowed on most suburban London trains, but are
> sometimes limited during rush hour. It's a win-win for everyone without
> having an outright ban.

I already explicitly said "If we are talking about metro transportation, and
not intercity trains and such" \-- meaning I also recognize the need to
transport bikes on "suburban trains", but for inter-city transportation with
sufficient bike parking I don't see the need to cater for bikes on trains
seeing the negative downsides they bring.

Also, baby buggies are already prohibited in many metro systems, and I have
never advocated them to be anything else. There are better ways to transport
your baby around, such as an on-body baby carrier.

------
lancefisher
In Missoula our bus system has been free for the last 4 years. I love it. It’s
a simple way to help those that need it most, and it makes mass transit easier
and faster for everyone. A combination of government and local businesses fund
it. [https://missoulian.com/news/local/mountain-line-bus-rides-
to...](https://missoulian.com/news/local/mountain-line-bus-rides-to-remain-
zero-fare-through-at/article_cd7521e3-9d86-5667-9792-530461209751.html)

------
anigbrowl
If you want this where you live and people are telling you it costs too much
ask them to itemize the cost of the fare gathering machinery, all the
accounting and cash handling/data processing, the cost of enforcement etc.,
and then subtract all that from the budget.

Don't listen to any other arguments until they come back with numbers.
Oftentimes when you ask a difficult question people try to move onto an easier
one, but don't let them. It'll help you grind down the opposition much faster.

~~~
geomark
To be fair you must balance it against the costs to administer paying for the
"free" service, i.e. cost of collections via taxes or whatever, allocation of
resources via some contingent of petty bureaucrats, disbursement via whatever
system of adminstrators that are required to keep the books, and enforcement
to guard against cronyism, cooking the books and other sorts of corruption.

~~~
snovv_crash
But you already have all of that, since public transport is usually subsidized
to some degree.

~~~
lostlogin
‘Private’ vehicles are subsidised too. You get a a road paved to where you’re
going. You get maintenance, bridges, tunnels, intersections, signs, policing,
courts, ambulances, fire trucks, lighting, parking (when free).

Cars are a massive transfer of public land to private usage. The cost of this
needs to be factored in too.

~~~
snovv_crash
I believe we are in violent agreement.

------
dgzl
My college town's (~60k people) bus system was free for everyone to use, paid
for by an extra charge on the water bill. The biggest benefit of course is not
having to pay, but a close second was the time savings from not having to
fiddle with money. The system ran a lot smoother because of this.

I would say this extra tax is a good thing, and I'm not at all a fan of taxes.

~~~
xwolfi
Why ? Taxes are great when they are fair, well spent, and seriously monitored,
both for corruption abuse and undue/unbearable increase.

Paying the bus or a tax is the same thing for you if it's well done, but then
as you said: it's more convenient, when you're in trouble one month you'll
still be able to use the transport, tourists benefit from it, and last but not
least, crazy poor people can have a chance to move around freely...

~~~
jstanley
> Why ?

Because you don't get to decide whether you think it's worth it or not.

If the bus is too expensive, you can walk, or cycle, or use a car, or just not
go on the journey. If the tax is too expensive, you have no recourse, you have
to pay it anyway.

And "if the tax is too expensive then write to your local politician" is not
an answer. Even if I'm the only person in the world who thinks the bus is too
expensive, I still have the option not to use the bus. But if I'm the only
person in the world who thinks the tax is too expensive, too bad, I just have
to pay it.

~~~
gwd
> Even if I'm the only person in the world who thinks the bus is too
> expensive, I still have the option not to use the bus. But if I'm the only
> person in the world who thinks the tax is too expensive, too bad, I just
> have to pay it.

And the reason is that you accrue benefits of a free bus system even if you
never ride the bus. For instance, if you choose to drive, you'll have a lot
less traffic and more parking available, and probably for a cheaper price,
because the other people will be riding the bus. Better bus systems means more
mobility for poorer workers, which means better quality employees in the shops
you see downtown. By making it easier for poor people to get jobs, it makes it
less likely for people to fall off the edge and become homeless, meaning fewer
homeless people in your downtown area; which in turn means lower cost for
police, health, and social services, which means lower crime / better service
for you.

Now, maybe you don't care about those benefits, or maybe you don't think your
taxes will achieve all those benefits. But if _most_ of the people in your
city do think that, then it's fair for them to expect you to pay your share.

------
toyg
What was old is new again. Plenty of European towns and cities tried schemes
like this in the late '60s/early '70s. Most of them eventually floundered
under financial pressures. In my UK area, a selected few bus routes are
currently free; they are the first item on the chopping block at every
spending review, and it takes effort to defend them. Schoolbuses here have
just been downsized to save some money.

This is not meant to discount the effort - better public transport helps
everyone, even people who don't use it (by reducing congestion). I'm just
skeptical that it will last, without a serious acceptance that something else
will have to give in the local budget, or taxes will have to go up.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Note, those financial pressures were entirely imposed. If the UK hadn't been
forced to become so centralised - both politically and financially, perhaps
some UK cities and towns could be trying these things.

The ridiculous thing in the UK case is the Tory reforms permitted London
transport to keep their subsidy, but elsewhere must survive without. The one
place not needing subsidy should be London. Even with the return of trams, the
regional public transport networks are a fraction of what they once were, and
nearly all routes are markedly more than London prices. Yet the need is very
clearly there.

~~~
toyg
I was actually looking at Italy, but I agree with you that the UK situation
outside London is particularly shocking.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Ah, having mentioned UK in part, I thought the whole was UK related. A similar
attitude has infected many places since the 80s, it's just the UK and US have
repeatedly led that charge.

------
Slimbo
I really dislike cars and they way they dominate our lives and environments.

I've talked to local government reps about schemes like this, and the
challenge that's always thrown back at me is without pricing, how do you
regulate demand?

Currently, you normally pay a scaled fee based on distance of journey for
public transort. The minimum is quite high, and that prevents you from taking
a short trip. With free, how do you stop people using a bus for very short
trips meaning you need more vehicles that are then empty for long trips?

~~~
Plyphon_
This isn't an exact reply to your question but ---

In London we have a 'fare hopper' system for the busses. £1.50 and you can
take as many trips as you like within an hour. Or you could stay on the bus
for the entire day (if you really wanted too) and just go round and round and
it would only cost you the initial £1.50.

So the cost doesn't scale with your journey time/length, and if you're popping
to the shops or somewhere nearish you can often make the return trip within
the hour and you only get charged the first £1.50.

Very rarely is the distance travelled short enough that £1.50 feels like an
over charge or lack of value.

I guess my point is, £1.50 isn't quite free - but it is low enough that it
encourages use of busses. Once the initial fee is paid, within an hour any
extra trips are free. It works brilliantly.

The issue of 'how do you discourage short trips' is a non-issue based on my
experience of how the busses work in London, imo. It would be an interesting
case study to put infront of those who think regulating demand is the blocker
here.

~~~
Slimbo
£1.50 is about what it costs me here (the grim north) to go around 3 miles. If
you only wanted to go one stop, you wouldn't pay £1.50, but if it was free you
might take the bus. This is the response from the bus people when I've
discussed it with them, how do you prevent that kind of activity? They can't
service one stop riders.

I suggested making the stops further apart!

------
dawhizkid
I was surprised to find that Miami Beach has free trolleys and Hollywood (CA)
has a free nighttime (weekend?) shuttle as well here in the US.

~~~
reaperducer
Seattle used to have free transit downtown. I'm not sure how much of it was
about moving people around, and how much was just to move people around faster
by not requiring them to go through the payment process. The free rides are
over now. Literally.

When I lived in Seattle, and outside Seattle, I was always impressed that
Sound Transit lived up to its mandate as a transit agency, and not a revenue
source. Its mission was to move people around. To that end, if you didn't have
any money (forgot your wallet, too drunk to remember where you left your Orca
card, too poor to pay, etc...) the bus drivers would give you zero hassle and
let you board.

In contrast, I can't count the number of times I've seen clearly poor people
kicked off of the buses in Chicago because they couldn't afford to pay. That
just seems wrong. There should be some sort of income line below which you are
entitled to free public transit.

~~~
xyzzyz
_The free rides are over now. Literally._

Yes, Seattle discontinued its mobile homeless shelter program.

~~~
journalctl
And now their homelessness problem is over?

~~~
xyzzyz
No, but now you can actually take a bus to downtown and not inhale piss
vapors.

------
foota
I would gladly pay a large high-income tax to get an amazing transit system.
Something like a 5% tax on income between 100 and 200k would probably do it.

~~~
enz
For Dunkirk, I believe the shops, restaurants,... now pay more tax to sustain
the free transports. It’s better than taxing individuals because everybody
wins: residents have more money to spend, shops pay more taxes but they now
have more customers who are now richer.

~~~
Mirioron
But that also means higher prices in the shops and restaurants. This makes
markets outside of the city more competitive. Eg order from Amazon instead of
buying from a local store.

~~~
ProZsolt
Not necessary. If you can sell more stuff, then you can make the same profit
with lower profit margin per item.

------
zczc
Tallinn (bigger city than Dunkirk) has free public transport since 2013, and
since 2018 it expanded to the whole Estonia
[https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/estonia-is-making-
pub...](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/estonia-is-making-public-
transport-free/)

~~~
annahall87
Pardon me, the site you linked timed out. Is it only free for residents or
also for people who're visiting?

~~~
zczc
It's free for registered residents only

~~~
annahall87
Thanks!

Everything else would have surprised me.

------
kerouanton
Luxembourg will make public transportation free for everyone in the whole
country next summer. That's a great step forward.

~~~
dullgiulio
Also, I'll add the obligatory reference to Tallinn and its free transport for
all registered residents.

------
alfiedotwtf
Melbourne’s CBD (downtown) has been free for a few years. Damn it’s so
convenient to travel around now without checking ticket credit

~~~
toomanybeersies
The free tram zone isn't that large though, it's maybe a 15-20 minute walk
from one end to the other.

What annoys me with Melbourne's public transport is that people taking short
trips essentially subsidise those taking longer trips. It costs me almost $5
to go one stop on the train from Richmond to Flinders St, a 5 minute trip.
It's also the same price for me to take a train all the way to Sandringham,
which is 45 minutes.

~~~
yitchelle
Maybe I have been away from Melbourne for too long, but isn't the free tram
ride just a circle line around the perimeter of the CBD? I remembered it as a
way of improving the tourism in city.

~~~
alfiedotwtf
It used to be just the brown tram doing a circle. Now it’s all trams within
the CBD and extends the 86 down the end of Docklands

------
xiaodai
It's a free ferry to get the British tourist back home.

------
pzmarzly
I live in a city that has free bus transport since 2014. The buses come to my
nearest stop only once a hour or so, so there still are many commercial
carriers, and I pay more times than I don't. But the change has definitely
made me consider going by bus much more often. I'd say that free transport,
parks and free (usually outdoor) gyms are one of the largest QoL (quality of
life) improvements that cities can do.

------
scotty79
If you have car insurance and driving licence you should have free public
transport. I'm guessing everybody will benefit from you taking the bus instead
of the car more that they have to pay to sponsor your bus ride.

And if you don't have a car then you should have free public transport just
because it's a just thing to do when you are paying for the free public
transport for rich car owners.

------
xtiansimon
I’ve been thinking about this for a while. I ride NICE bus here on LI, NY (a
dumpster fire of a bus service/management, but that’s another story). We have
two lines that terminate in my town, and within 5 blocks of the start is a big
hill. Not feeling like paying 2.75 for the ride up the hill, I imagined how
great the PR would be if NICE could make rides within the city free.

(No clue how you would manage that situation—get on for in-town, but stay for
extra miles. But it’s my imagination, so whatevers).

When I lived in SF, once in a while I’d hop on the Cable Cars for a free ride.

My town has a $2/free-senior citizen bus, too. But it runs only a few trips a
day, and it’s a one-way circuit.

Free in-town public transport is a big idea I wish was realistic for more
places.

------
southerntofu
I'm surprised nobody mentioned the racist reasons the french government
refuses to implement free transports nationwide. It would save them a lot of
money, but the police would loose its main source of catching undocumented
people.

In big cities, the police uses ticket control as an excuse to arrest migrants.
The process goes like: 1. stop all black people (only those) at the exit of
the metro 2. ask for ticket 3. if they don't have a ticket, ask for ID 4. if
they don't have ID, take them away for ID check / deportation.

So why check for transport tickets, you may ask? Because stopping all black
people on the streets would be obvious illegal discrimination. The ticket is
the legal justification for the ID check.

Here's a press article from over a decade ago about those police raids (french
language):

[https://www.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-nos-vies-
connectees/20...](https://www.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-nos-vies-
connectees/20071221.RUE2631/sans-papiers-un-collectif-contre-les-rafles-du-
metro.html)

------
swarnie_
Are they offering British people a free ferry ride across the channel with a
return journey in 3 years?

------
jayalpha
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/05/luxembourg-
to-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/05/luxembourg-to-become-
first-country-to-make-all-public-transport-free)

------
mvillar
I live in a city that is about the same size as Dunkirk and would like this to
be implemented (even though I walk to most places). I see this freeing parking
places in the centre and that really would help with the dying local commerce
in the zone.

------
AstralStorm
I wonder if it works better when tram or subway is free. Those are faster and
cheaper, though not suitable for "spoke" connections.

------
Aaronstotle
This is great, looking forward to seeing what will happen in the next year and
how it affects residents/businesses.

------
louhike
They're not the first in France to do so even if it might be the biggest city
to do it.

~~~
glandium
Compiègne, since 1975. Not sure it's the first, but it's the oldest I know of.

------
readhn
What if NYC made all public transport free for NYC residents?

Would the only cars left on the road be Ubers/Lyfts and tourist taxis?

As it is price to own a car in NYC is very expensive: $150ish insurance,
$500ish parking, and lets say for a $300/lease thats almost ~$1K/month. Free
good public transport system would drive many to car-free life.

~~~
rco8786
I’m not against free public transit. But you’re vastly mistaken about NYC.
People who own cars in the city do so because public transit doesn’t serve
their needs. Not because it’s too expensive.

~~~
readhn
would 1000$ a month be a good enough incentive to drop car use to minimum
then?

~~~
rco8786
I feel like you’re still missing the point. People pay $1000/month or more
because the public transit system doesn’t go where they need to go OR they’re
wealthy enough that it doesn’t matter.

I’m not seeing where the $1000/mo incentive you’re describing is coming from?
An unlimited MTA card is $127. Nobody is paying for a car if the subway serves
their needs.

~~~
bureaucrat
Or would rather spend $1000 to not rub and be rubbed against strangers.

~~~
rco8786
NYC is not the place for you if you don't want to be in close proximity to
other people, as a general rule.

------
maelito
It would cost 3 billion euros per year to make all public transport free in
France.

------
timwaagh
why would i ride my bike in Duinkerken when the bus is free. how does this
help the environment? i get that cars arent great, but i very much doubt this
is an optimal solution.

~~~
simonsarris
Most people ride bikes because they do not have to wait for a bus, and they go
places that the busses do not go. I do not think much of the calculus there is
about cost.

For this reason you see people put their bikes on the bus rack and use both.

------
HNLurker2
My city has already free transport for students.

------
draugadrotten
If transport can be "free", surely other important things like food, education
and healthcare can also be "free".

I for one welcome our new communist overlords.

~~~
bbddg
Healthcare and education are free in most of the developed world.

------
randomerr
For tourist location it work. Government gets the money back in sales and
other taxes. But in other cities it will be money pit with no possible way to
recoup the cost. It can never work in rural areas because there isn't a dense
enough population.

~~~
mikeash
They can’t recoup the cost of roads but that doesn’t stop them from building
and maintaining a ton of them. Public services don’t have to pay for
themselves directly.

~~~
agumonkey
It may even attract more people to live there.

