Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Paris Will Make Public Transportation Free for Kids (citylab.com) 168

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
In a plan to help families and reduce car usage, anyone under 11 years old will be able to ride metro and buses for free, as will people with disabilities under 20. From a report: Starting in September, Paris is making all public transit free for people under 11, including non-nationals. Preteens aren't the only ones getting a bonus, either. All people with disabilities will get free public transit until the age of 20, while high school students between the ages of 14 and 18 will be entitled to a 50 percent tariff reduction. To make transit access for this group even easier, any 14- to 18-year-olds who buy a travel pass will also get a free bikeshare account as well.

The plans, which apply across the Greater Paris region and cost an estimated $17 million a year, are part of a staggered plan to make things cheaper for people with mobility challenges. Already last spring, the region introduced a (means-tested) scheme by which adults with disabilities and all people over 65 got a free annual travel pass if they were on a low-to-medium income. This new plan to extend cheap or no fares toward younger people should make the public transit system more widely accessible and prove to be a happy cost-saver for families.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Paris Will Make Public Transportation Free for Kids More

Paris Will Make Public Transportation Free for Kids

Comments Filter:

  • London has done this for years (Score:5, Informative)

    by SD NFN STM ( 759426 ) on Monday January 21, 2019 @05:46AM (#57994828)

    Glad to see other cities catching up, as enabling use of public transit is one of the best ways to reduce traffic, pollution, etc

    https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-... [tfl.gov.uk]

    Under 5 - Free with a paying adult
    5 to 10 - Free with a paying adult, or on their own by using a free Oyster card
    11 to 15 - Free when using a free Oyster card
    16 to 17 - Free when using a free Oyster card... but only if you LIVE in London.

    • Yeah, but public transport is often uncomfortable and smelly.

      • Re:London has done this for years (Score:5, Insightful)

        by shilly ( 142940 ) on Monday January 21, 2019 @06:15AM (#57994902)

        London's a big, busy city. Every mode of transport is uncomfortable from time to time -- driving is a pain, cycling and walking gets you a faceful of fumes, etc. But it's London, and the upsides far outweigh these inconveniences for me and millions of others.

        • Driving gets you the most fumes in your face, more than cycling or walking.

          • You know if you don't tailgate the car in front of you, you don't get fumes in your face, also you have a few more seconds to react to change in driving patterns.
            The guideline is 3 seconds of space between you and the car ahead of you. (6 seconds in inclement weather). So at a slow 30 mph you have 40+ feet between you and the car. Plenty of space for the fumes to dissipate.

            • 3 seconds of space is about zero meters when tone waiting at traffic lights or in a traffic jam.

            • You know if you don't tailgate the car in front of you

              You haven't driven in London. People don't tailgate there. They drive in slow crawling queues.

        • driving is a pain

          You have utterly failed to capture just how horrible driving in London is.

      • That is sometimes true, but in London (and I suspect other big cities with metro systems like New York, Paris, etc.) it's usually the fastest way from A to B. Even the famous Black Cab with their privileged use of Bus Lanes, and intricate knowledge of the streets can't compete with the speed of a Tube Train through the centre of London.

        It's not as bad as you imagine because everyone in London uses the tube, not just those that are downtrodden and smelly. In fact, many of the trains on the network are quit

        • Re:London has done this for years (Score:4, Informative)

          by phayes ( 202222 ) on Monday January 21, 2019 @08:05AM (#57995140) Homepage

          The fastest way from A to B in Paris is not using public transport in Paris but is on two wheels which how I'm usually doing it almost year round: On a bicycle (public shared bikes or my own depending) for shorter trips and on my motorcycle for longer trips like to/from work which is usually on the other side of Paris from where I live. Except for special cases like A & B being on the same Metro line and close to the Metro exits, two wheels will be faster almost all the time (often 1/2 the time) and if A or B are outside Paris & you need to take a bus and or then walk for a while, 1/3 of the time. Now to be able to be so much faster than the Metro, buses or cars you will be lane splitting but that's allowed here and if done prudently & with experience is not dangereous.

          Scooter (Mopeds for people in the US) sales in & around Paris have been skyrocketing for over a decade -- and not just 125cc models people can drive with their car drivers licenses or the 50cc models that you don't need a license for, more people pass the motorcycle license now intending to use a scooter than a motorcycle. Three wheeled scooters (look at Piaggio's main French web page: https://www.piaggio.com/fr_FR/ [piaggio.com]) reassure those who are afraid of being unstable and (other than being more expensive) have pretty much the same advantages as two wheels.

          • Definite thumbs-up for two wheels! When I can take a bike, it's certainly faster than the bus or tube as you say. Being a fair-weather cyclist, I tend not to cycle as much as I'd like... plus the statistics for incidence or crashes and injury to weigh on my mind. Even if you're a careful rider, the actions of another can have catastrophic consequences for the cyclist. Same goes if you're driving a car, but then it's more 50/50 about who bears the consequences... unlike 99/1 when it comes to cycling.

          • Note to future historians who may be reading this discussion: at the current moment, there's still some work to do on personal air drones with robotic control and coordination to fly people around big cities, which is why there is so much hot air about subways and so on.

            As such, as with time capsules, you are probably more interested in the ads in the back of the newspapers we include than the headlines on the front, the stuff we think is important. So here are some contemporary ads. Burger King currentl

        • Public transport only sucks in gods own land (I wonder ho god made it from Palestina to there without public transport).
          And because it sucks they never will have one, or have a decent one.

          Self fulfilling prophecy.

      • Yes, because car exhaust fumes aren't smelly at all.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fred911 ( 83970 )

        You forgot "rude", remember this is in France.

        • I am sure to the French the English and Americans seem insincere. With its false politeness and friendliness to people you don't know.

          As an American who lives in the North East section of the country, I often find people who are in the Southern Regions a bit too friendly to be trustworthy.
          My Culture has taught me, If someone you don't know is too friendly with you, they are probably trying to sell you something, the more friendly they are the more they are going to rip you off.
          That said, as an American, th

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Kjella ( 173770 )

            But these are cultural norms. In other countries and even areas of the United States, may either seem overly friendly and getting too close to a stranger, or to others may make you seem distant, and combative.

            And a lot of this is subconscious, I remember seeing a standing conversation between a Japanese and western (American? Don't remember) couple, in any case they'd constantly nudge a little closer and the other couple back away. Over like a 5-10 minute conversation you sped up you saw them more or less dance throughout the room. I also remember a guy I had a class with from India, he'd lightly touch the people he was talking to. It wasn't in a creepy way or anything, if it was my buddy in a pub I wouldn't thi

        • I dont think the French are rude. We just dont understand the rules. For instance, when you enter a shop you greet the shopkeeper. If you dont, they think you have been rude.

      • Well it isn't going be be like a limo ride. The Smell is mostly in your head, the probably is your car that you commute back an forth too reeks far more then the Public Transport does. But you have gotten use to it, and you would get use to Public Transport as well.
        In terms of comfort. The real question comes down to distance. The Car seat even for small cars are designed for sitting for hours comfortably. but for public transit. a 10-15 minute trip would not be such a painful experience. Public transit

        • That may vary depending on geography. In the U.S., the smell from people living and urinating in buses and trains and stations is quite real. And "seating" exists only in systems that are lightly used, like ours in Cleveland. And not always even here. It certainly doesn't in peak hours anywhere in NYC, the one U.S. city that can be said by some measures to have fairly decent transit. During off-peak hours, especially at night, you get people peeing/puking/etc. just like in more lightly used systems. T

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dbialac ( 320955 )
        Exactly. Let kids know from an early age that it's uncomfortable and smelly and they'll seek high paying jobs so they can afford a car.

        • The topic is about Paris.
          Owning a car in Paris is braindead, same as in London or any other majour european city.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sique ( 173459 )
          Ironically, car ownership is falling constantly in all major cities, even in those where the average income is high. Apparently, the example given tells them something different than you expect.

    • Under 5 - Free with a paying adult

      So what, they have to pay if they rock up alone?

      • Perhaps they don’t want under 5s to rock up alone

      • I guess... yes. If you're independent enough at 4 years old to be swanning around London alone, then you get to pay for your own damn ticket! :-P

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by jellomizer ( 103300 )

        Even not being a Helicopter parent. A child under 4 is still mastering skills such as no going poop in their pants (they may be potty trained, but accidents still happen a lot), being able to walk steadily, and have enough discipline to avoid danger even if there is something shiny in the middle of it.
        That is why Kindergarten normally starts after the age of 4 years (normally at the age of 5). While some kids 3 and 4 may be mature enough to handle being alone, that wouldn't be anywhere near a good rule of

    • Same for Vienna since the 70ies (Score:4, Informative)

      by Confused ( 34234 ) on Monday January 21, 2019 @07:26AM (#57995054) Homepage

      Same for Vienna. There pre-school children are always free and all school-children (up to 15, also later if you still go to school) get al free transportation card.

      This isn't new and a really, really good thing. Good for Paris to catch up.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by amorsen ( 7485 )

      Glad to see other cities catching up, as enabling use of public transit is one of the best ways to reduce traffic, pollution, etc

      Unfortunately not. You can make as much public transport you want in cities, but as soon as you move people to public transport, the roads clear up, and new people start driving. Lessening congestion will also encourage people to move further away from their jobs, bringing you back to more traffic and pollution.

      If you want to reduce traffic and pollution, the only effective ways to do it are increased congestion for cars and massively increased costs of driving. The cost of alternatives to driving is insign

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shilly ( 142940 )

        How this got marked insightful is beyond me. Explain again how increasing congestion reduces pollution levels? Did I blink and suddenly EV market penetration is approaching 100%?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by amorsen ( 7485 )

          Take lanes away from cars. Congestion increases. Pollution drops.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by shilly ( 142940 )

            What? What? This makes zero sense. As congestion increases, so more and more cars are driving slowly or at a standstill, idling. Pollution increases in gridlock, it doesn't decrease. The loss of a lane doesn't change that materially, and in any event, that strategy only makes sense where there is a marginal lane to remove, which doesn't describe the vast majority of London (where most major roads already have dedicated bus lanes).

            Deliberately increasing congestion won't lower pollution. Banning cars works.

            • Think of congestion as a cost, like fuel. If fuel cost goes up, driving goes down. If congestion increases, driving goes down as people modify their behaviour to avoid the time-cost of congestion. They pick the closer store, they take the train (where possible), or they don't take the trip at all and stay at home.

              A car driving along at 60 km/h consumes more fuel per hour than a car at idle. Thus a congested street has less fuel consumed per hour, and people start choosing alternatives, all of which have

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by amorsen ( 7485 )

              London is a great example. It is heavily congested, which keeps most people from driving into the center. Imagine the pollution you would get if you demolished houses to make most roads an extra lane wide.

              As to marginal lanes to remove, there is always a lane to remove. If a road is down to a single lane per direction, make it one lane and force cars to pass in certain areas. If that is not enough, make it a pedestrian street and force the traffic to other roads. You can always make congestion worse.

              Cars fi

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by shilly ( 142940 )

                No no no. You are not thinking about this at all correctly. You are assuming that congestion forces a material number of cars off the road. Instead, what happens is you have the same number of cars, much more closely spaced, driving slowly and taking longer to get to their destination. Each car emits substantially more pollution. Take a look at the LAQN map during the weekday peak when traffic is at its slowest and you will see what I mean.

                London is heavily congested, and most people don't drive, and the st

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by amorsen ( 7485 )

                  Instead, what happens is you have the same number of cars, much more closely spaced, driving slowly and taking longer to get to their destination.

                  You won't have the same number of cars. You'll have more and more cars. London has a low rate of car journeys as a percentage of total journeys, and that would absolutely skyrocket if you gave the cars more room. The low rate of car journeys is there despite the rather sorry state of the London Underground these days. Making cycling viable would reduce the car journeys even more, assuming that you use the freed-up space for bike lanes and not for letting more cars in.

                  In addition, congestion slows buses down (even accounting for bus lanes), and as buses slow down, so usage levels fall, and getting people out of cars and on to buses delivers a significant net reduction in pollution levels.

                  Congestion only slows buses down when yo

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by shilly ( 142940 )

                    Instead, what happens is you have the same number of cars, much more closely spaced, driving slowly and taking longer to get to their destination.

                    You won't have the same number of cars. You'll have more and more cars.

                    You mis-read me. I said if you increase congestion in London, you won't reduce the number of cars; the number of cars will remain broadly the same. As indeed has been the case for the last decade.

                    London has a low rate of car journeys as a percentage of total journeys, and that would absolutely skyrocket if you gave the cars more room. The low rate of car journeys is there despite the rather sorry state of the London Underground these days. Making cycling viable would reduce the car journeys even more, assuming that you use the freed-up space for bike lanes and not for letting more cars in.

                    You complain that I insulted you because I said you were talking with authority about London despite not knowing much about the city, but you keep on making egregious errors of fact. Here are three in just that paragraph:
                    1. You can't "give cars more room" in London in any meaningful way because the built environmen

      • since the advantages of car transport are so large -- people will pay a lot extra to drive.
        In a 1000 or 2000 year old city in Europe: there are no such advantages.
        Every public transport is cheaper and faster than a car. And you can not drive your kids to school while you drive to work same time. How would that be even imaginary possible? Oh, you never have been in Europe?

        The only way faster than public transport is a motorbike and breaking traffic laws.
        Similar fast is a bicycle ... but now we have winter

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by amorsen ( 7485 )

          In a 1000 or 2000 year old city in Europe: there are no such advantages.

          The fact that in some cities the layout has already forced the issue does not change my point. People take public transport because congestion has made car journeys suck. Cost of public transport is practically irrelevant, no one picks it over driving because of cost. They do, however, pick cheap public transport over cycling.

          Oh, you never have been in Europe?

          I was born in Denmark. I have never lived outside Europe.

          • I was born in Denmark. I have never lived outside Europe.
            And you think, people don't pick public transport because it is super convenient?

            My car is parked next street ... did not use it in 7 or 8 months ...

            • My car is parked next street ... did not use it in 7 or 8 months ...

              That's... a terrible idea. Even if you don't want to drive, you can't just let a car sit there unused. You need to keep the battery charged, you need to make sure that oil and other fluids have a chance to circulate instead of drying out in the lines, you need to use up fuel so that condensation does not accumulate, you need to move it periodically so that it's not sitting on the exact same patch of tire. I have a spare car, and I typically take it (rather than my normal car) to work about once every other

              • My car is 20 years old. It has no such battery issues as modern cars have, as it is not using any current when parked.
                The "fluid things" are only internet myths.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by amorsen ( 7485 )

              My car is parked next street ... did not use it in 7 or 8 months ...

              That is the other thing that works apart from increasing congestion. Making parking inconvenient. If you have to walk a significant distance to get to your car and you struggle to find a parking space at your destination, you are likely to use public transport or cycling.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by amorsen ( 7485 )

          People in France don't like that fuel prices increase to tackle pollution. That does not say anything about whether fuel prices are an effective way to fight pollution (they are, but price increases have to be rather serious to work).

          As I said, the policies that work are painful. Voters do not like painful, and for very good reasons. By all means, give voters fluffy things like free public transport for children, if that is what they want. That's democracy. Just don't lie to them and pretend it will improve

    • Yeah this is hardly unique, public transport is free or significantly discounted for children in many places. Not sure why this made it here. In Prague I think under 6 is free and until 16 it's half price. Anyway I used to ride for free as a teenager because what are they gonna do.

      • Hmmmm... they may still choose to prosecute, leaving a stain on your record. These are of older folks, but they were really taking the piss:

        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne... [telegraph.co.uk]

        *Jonathan Burrows*
        Millionaire city executive Jonathan Burrows was labelled the biggest fare dodger in history after agreeing to pay £43,000 to Southeastern trains in an out-of-court settlement.

        He lost his job at asset manager BlackRock and was banned from working in the City for life when the five-year scam came to light, although

        • he tapped-out his Oyster card at London’s Marylebone station, without having tapped-in

          Never had an Oyster card, so please fill me in: how do you get into the station without tapping in? Every variable-fare system I've used requires you to swipe/tap/whatever your card when you get on board. Was he just hoping that the conductor from wherever in Oxfordshire to the Underground transfer station simply would never come around and ask for his ticket?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MeNeXT ( 200840 )

      Not sure where everyone gets reduced pollution from public transit based on buses. Typically they have no, if any, environmental controls. Take up to 4 times longer to reach the destination. Stop and go constantly which is more polluting than just keeping a constant speed. They are typically filled to capacity only 3 to 4 hours a day with the remainder of the time mostly empty. Often sit idling for 15 minutes to 60 minutes while the driver is on a break.
      These should have been the first vehicles to be conver

  • Few years ago School kids pass work only between residential zone to school usually same zone.
    Then School Pass start working unrestricted on weekend ( all zone from 1-7 ) ( for many it was huge because going to Paris from suburbs cost much, same to go to Disneyland which is was zone 5 )
    Then all zone over 5 became zone 5
    Then Zone all merged to only one ( prices increased for user of only zone 1-2 but decreased for everyone else )
    Then this free pass for every kids, even without school pass.

  • 17 millions a year ? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    If this is that cheap why don't they extend it to the whole population ?
    7 * 17 = 120 millions / year.
    10 millions a month. I guess this will be more than compensated by charging 1€/day for each car running through Paris.
    If this reduces the traffic jams then I guess the car owners will 'happily' pay for it.
     

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Confused ( 34234 )

      They might get to the point some day.

      In general, children pay a reduced tariff so it affects the bottom line less. Even more so, when there are already subsidised, so the difference between subsidising all children isn't that big. It also reduces the hassles with distributing reduced price cards.

      Another annoying thing are children under 15 riding alone and getting caught free-riding. You can easily fine adults, but with children things are more complicated. This problem is also gone when they don't need to

      • The marginal cost of an extra passenger on public transport is roughly 0. The cost of public transportation scales with the initial capital cost, total miles driven, and total number of starts/stops. Once you have an established route, the costs are almost constant. Perhaps cabin cleaning scales as number of riders, I dunno. Weight - well generally a fully-loaded bus has only 1/3 of the weight being passengers, so maybe there is a factor there on fuel, but it's small (that is, at most 33% of the fuel cos

      • Also: they do this instead of school buses, which the vast majority of American school districts have. So you don't have to equip a fleet of specially-designated buses to get children from home to school; you just give them a transit pass, and they can work it out themselves. This would never work in America; the hoops I have to jump through to pick my niece up from school - despite the fact that she comes over and gives me a hug when I show up - include being on the "allowed pickups" list (which her mom ca

  • gradual process to move the burden.. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    As nothing is never really free, as it wont change cost of transportation, it will just be one more burden on the part of the population that are taxpayers.

    In France, a low wage employee is really likely to have less cash to live with than unemployeed.

    Then you are surprised workers protest every saturday...

  • 12- and 13-year-olds (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21, 2019 @06:45AM (#57994950)

    11 and under get to ride for free. 14 to 18 get a 50% discount.

    So 12- and 13-year-olds get screwed, seemingly having to pay full fare.

  • If you are in school and a D.C. resident (21 and under) you get a free Metro pass. I'm glad to see European cities finally catching up.

  • NYC in the 1970s (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    As a kid growing up in NYC, I was issued a bus pass by the school. Glad France is catching up with 1970s America in taking care of its most valuable asset.

  • Disabilities (Score:3)

    by Reaper9889 ( 602058 ) on Monday January 21, 2019 @08:42AM (#57995232)

    Honestly, the main problem for people with disabilities in Paris (of the physical kind anyway) is that many of the metro stations have no elevators. Hence, while it may be cheap or free for them, they will have to move further than others to get into and out of the metros (i.e. they have to go to the right metro stations - I have no idea how tricky it must be for some one with a disability that visits Paris to find out which stations they can get in and out of)... It is also annoying when you have to go up those 2-3 floors of stairs with a big suitcase.

    I think they really should fix that, but I guess this is at least them starting to think of such things.

    • Honestly, the main problem for people with disabilities in Paris (of the physical kind anyway) is that many of the metro stations have no elevators. Hence, while it may be cheap or free for them, they will have to move further than others to get into and out of the metros (i.e. they have to go to the right metro stations - I have no idea how tricky it must be for some one with a disability that visits Paris to find out which stations they can get in and out of)...

      Not only that, it's not unusual for an elevator or escalator to be out of order in Parisian metro stations (or shopping malls, or pretty much anywhere else you might find an elevator or escalator). I am intimately familiar with the Paris public transit system for the able-bodied, but have also had to navigate it with somebody who is wheelchair-bound. We made a conscious decision to avoid the metro and use buses exclusively. They work pretty damn well for the physically disabled, and all of the discounts men

  • They will make it taxpayer-funded.

    • No. The money comes from tin air.
      Or perhaps they print it.
      Or they simply figure, on a train with 100 paying customers, 100 free riding kids don't change anything regarding costs or profit.
      Or perhaps you live in the US and have no clue about anything.

  • There was a lot of people complaining about it but when things were all said and done it's a great program that's helpful for kids and their families.

  • In theory, i am pro public transportation. This is probably a good measure.

    But, a common transportation cannot be better than the people riding in it. And you would have to pay me well to make me use the public transport in Paris again. Or go to Paris tout court. I do not blame the RATP. It is just there are too many smelly, rude and uneducated people in them. When i was living in Brussels, i avoided public transport because of that. A girlfriend of mine bought a car because being groped there made her alle

  • France isn't shrinking, so it's unclear why they are discriminating in favor of families with children. Children take up just as much space on public transportation as adults unless they are infants, in which case they either use basically none, or actually more space (carrier/stroller, plus bag of supplies.) Either way, they're making people without children subsidize those with, which is an unusual move unless you are worried about population growth rate.

    Is there some reason the French should be worried a

  • Well obviously they aren't free but all public services should be tax funded with the only exceptions being to close abuse loopholes such as caps on number of rides per day or replacements of documents.

    Charging fees for these things is just a way of disproportionately taxing certain groups and income classes. Taxes aren't charged specifically to the group who uses a given service, that is on purpose, we all use different public services and the costs are pooled.

    If you can't afford the program with tax dolla

  • Toronto's transit system (www.ttc.ca) has allowed children twelve years and younger ride for free for a couple of years now. What this does is encourage families with children to take public transit rather than drive.There are already a number of good reasons for families traveling with children to prefer cars to public transit (e.g. no need to wait for vehicle arrival, easy transportation of items, etc.). Free child fares at least remove "cost savings" from being one of those reasons.

  • I understand the need/desire for separate school buses for special need students and young children, but I have long felt that in urban areas school buses for middle and high school should be eliminated and replaced with general purpose public transit buses, whose routes are boosted to accommodate school start/end times.

    It should decrease costs of running both services in parallel, and increase usage of public transit during those peak hours helping to solve the chicken/egg problem of nobody wanting to use

  • Finally there's a city that's taking action in getting those dangerous youth drivers off of the road with their difficulty to see over the steering wheel and hard time to reach the pedals.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close