Slashdot Mirror
Helsinki Aims To Obviate Private Cars
New submitter NBSCALIDBA writes: Eeva Haaramo reports on Helsinki's ambitious plan to transform city transportation. From on-demand buses to city bikes to Kutsuplus mini-transport vans, the Finnish capital is trying to change the whole concept of getting around in a city. "Under the plan, all these services will be accessed through a single online platform. People will be able to buy their transport in service packages that work like mobile phone tariffs: either as a complete monthly deal or pay as you go options based on individual usage. Any number of companies can use the platform to offer transport packages, and if users find their travel needs change, they'll be able to switch packages or moved to a rival with a better deal."
No links, Really? in many years of reading his site daily i'm not sure i recall when a story was posted without a single f*cking link to the source material or supporting info.
Perhaps this thing is entirely made up... i think ill start submitting stories now - or is this a Beta story?
Come on guys!!
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
Thrilling, but can we get literally any information from a source? I know, I know, no one reads the article, but still. This isn't an Ask Slashdot nor is it an interview, so some sort of article would be nice.
Cynical Idealist
the roads are a monopoly too. come on, move already !
Smells like a big lease program to me. The fine print would be interesting.
Yeah links are missing, perhaps because the source is finnish only?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Expect all sorts of (spurious) legal challenges from the motor industry ... they won't want their business badly dented.
I found it:
http://www.zdnet.com/death-of-the-car-the-tech-behind-helsinkis-ambitious-plan-to-kill-off-private-vehicles-7000032735/
Did you even read the summary? What they are trying to create is an online platform through which companies (and yes government sponsored city bikes and buses) can offer their services.
Go live under your rock and find something better to be afraid of.
In order to transition an economy or government to true socialism, the first step is to remove the concept of private ownership over anything especially the things that allow you to carry out your daily activities and sustain yourself.
To me the plan sounds like you end up with every car you use giving you the reliability of a rental, with the "oops no cars are available now" factor of services like ZipCar...
But perhaps in a more isolated culture where people do not abuse things they do not own, the cars will be treated well and availability will work out well.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Companies offering transportation packages will start behaving like telco's. ie offering bundles with stuff in it you don't need. New packages with new names and new "features" every 6 months, you can not extend your existing deal. An unlimited plan will turn out to be not so unlimited. And when they fuck up and can not deliver you are entitled to $0.02 per day in compensation, if any.
count me out... this sort of stuff just makes me want to live on a remote tropical island and spend my days fishing.
Do you also insist on owning your own elevator? If socialized vertical transportation is acceptable, then why is horizontal transportation so different?
Sure, but not the cars, taxis, buses, etc.
I'll never live anywhere that won't let me have a car or where for whatever reason cars are uneconomical. I just refuse to live like that. Some people like living in cities where only mass transit is practical. I really don't see why people pack themselves in that tightly. What is the point of doing that in the 21st century. In the pre-digital pre-airplane world I could see the point. But today? Why...
It makes no sense. Spread out, people. Its a big world. Doesn't anyone want to listen to music without having to worry about whether the neighbors will object? Doesn't anyone want a dog or a garden or just some space that is theirs?
I think the big cities are anachronisms at this point. I don't see why we bother with them. With the right communications we could run the same economy with employees distributed across the country pretty much where ever they wanted to live.
This is not an attack on cities... if you really like living cheek by jowl with people then by all means... pack yourself in. It just seems there are increasing problems with the idea.
Security/crime issues, education issues, political issues, transport issues, economic issues... just lots of stuff. I'm sure it has good qualities but I don't see how the pros outweigh the cons for any but the enthusiast.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
In all big cities I've been to (not Helsinki), private cars are already pretty obvious.
This kind of system usually isn't good if you are visiting a sequence of places, picking up some stuff and/or dropping off other stuff at each place. This also doesn't allow you to customize your car interior to your preferences. What is really needed is a system that embraces private ownership of the cars, so that people who want to can own their car and use it in the system. People who don't have those needs can use the public cars.
1) You have people pick you up and take you places. This will work reasonably well for pre-planned activities - such as your commute, but be very crappy for spontaneous needs. Just like normal taxis.
2) You don't "own" the car, but it can and will stay at your home/office with no one watching it for hours before/after you use it. Some other people may use it during the hours you don't - such as while you are at work or late at night. Effectively you are the renting from a place that delivers and picks up.
Neither of these ideas seem workable to me. Both are not significantly different than existing one time use services, we are simply adding in a long term contract for the Taxis or car rental places (with delivery).
People like owning cars for many good reasons.
That said, once we have driverless cars, such a plan COULD actually work, in large part because suddenly your don't need to arrange for people to drop off your car/pick it up, it does it automatically.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Who doesn't want to own airwolf?
from TFS
Any number of companies can use the platform to offer transport packages
This will be similar to taxis it seems, government set rates, private companies doing it.
"I really don't see why people pack themselves in that tightly. "
It's the herd instinct. It's strong in most people.
Here's a link to the article, since the editor didn't see fit to provide one.
At least until that self driving car shows up with a dead person in the trunk or a giant pile of shit in the back seat from the drunk who used it before you. Sometimes they may even show up with your favorite opportunistic mugger.
Younger generations in general don't identify themselves with their car like older generations did. This, plus autonomous vehicles is just the way the future will be. You can own, for a high cost, or for a more reasonable cost, you can let a rentable autonomous vehicle get you there while you enjoy the morning news, reading, etc. For those that really like to have their hands on the wheel and to own CDs, maybe you can opt out... Until the cost of private ownership skyrockets due to dwindling demand.
count me out... this sort of stuff just makes me want to live on a remote tropical island and spend my days fishing.
Do you also insist on owning your own elevator? If socialized vertical transportation is acceptable, then why is horizontal transportation so different?
Do you live someplace where it is illegal to own your own helicopter?
As with everything it depends on the service level and cost. If you live outside major cities your service level would be like Amtrak in those cities - terrible. This is proposed for a major city where it makes the most sense and I expect will lock the inhabitants (or at least the non-wealthy ones) into those cities by denying transport outside them and preventing them from traveling to less spoiled areas.
>> it's like your elevator, only horizontal
Except it's not, because of scale. If your elevator sucks, you can just move to the next building over. If your city's transportation monopoly sucks (or if its workers just want to shut down the system to complain about whatever), you might have to move to a different city for relief.
There are times where a personal elevator might be nice to have. Like if I had a really tall house. But I think you are thinking to small. Elevators are the trains of vertical transportation. The helicopter is the car. I would love to own a helicopter if they were practical/affordable/not noise polling gas guzzling monsters. WHERE IS MY FLYING CAR?!!!!!
I question whether that is a real thing. If you consider our history, we didn't live in anything like this density. What is more, instinctually we have no bond with practically anyone in the city. They're just faces. They mean nothing to you. You don't know who they are and they have no lasting impact on your life. Any one of those faces could die tomorrow and you wouldn't even notice.
So tell me again about this herding instinct because it frankly sounds like bullshit.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Quality of life in Helsink is very high. It's often rated one of the most livable cities globally. Few would call it "spoiled".
Sometimes Finns want to get out into the peace of the country, but they have summer homes for that which they visit on a temporary basis. Society-wide, it's clear that most people don't want to move their main residence from the country to the city, they want to abandon the countryside for the city. The north of Finland is being depopulated at an alarming rate, with only the elderly remaining in many places, with all the young people heading towards Helsinki (or other cities) because that's where the jobs/nightlife/culture are.
And note that because summer-home ownership is high, there are plenty of public transportation options into the countryside, and many people still own cars to get out there (it is driving within the city that is less popular and more of a hassle). So no one is being stuck anywhere.
Complexity. the "vertical" transport system only goes to given floors in a given building. The roads go everywhere. I can drive from NYC to Los Angeles... and anywhere in between.
This whole congestion issue is a product of poor urban planning. We already have to heavily subsidize and incentivize city dwelling to keep the density this high. And these transport projects are just doubling down on the concept to pack people tighter and tighter for no apparent reason.
Just go live in the suburbs or some other place. Why do you need to live in that city? How tiny of an apartment are you willing to live in just for that privilege?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If you live outside major cities your service level would be like Amtrak in those cities - terrible.
You should read the article ... on wait, there isn't one ... here is a description of their plan. It involves a range of services, including on-demand self driving cars and vans, easy access to rental cars, etc. They envision that most of these services will be provided by competing private businesses. It is also non-coercive: they aren't banning private cars, just trying to make them unnecessary for most people.
This kind of government mediated market(that you call a monopoly) has a remarkable history of functional success in specific areas of economies in Western(and Scandinavian) Europe.
The main concern against monopolies is the trivial formation of a trust, wherein market actors collude to set prices that maximize total sector profit, rather than total sector productivity. This particular arrangement doesn't appear to fit that criteria, for the moment, though I'll remember your allegation if it turns out I'm wrong.
Sorry, that should have read "most people don't want to move their main residence from the city to the country..."
Here's a link to a recent post on Bloomberg.com about this same topic: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-15/millennials-want-apps-not-cars
Smells like a big lease program to me. The fine print would be interesting.
Interesting would imply you have influence over the fine print or EULA. That's laughable.
Yeah!
It is also non-coercive: they aren't banning private cars, just trying to make them unnecessary for most people.
"Pushing for bans" and "being coercive" are not mutually exclusive.
Personally, I don't own a car, and I know a few other people who don't own them as well. Between walking, bikes, public transit, taxis, delivery services, and rental cars, all my(and their) transportation needs are met, at a much lower TCO than owning a private car.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
We already have to heavily subsidize and incentivize city dwelling to keep the density this high ... Just go live in the suburbs or some other place
This is completely backwards. It is the suburbs that are subsidized, and zoning laws and economic disincentives discourage dense urban cores. Where I live (SF Bay Area), 95% of building permits in San Francisco were rejected last year, while there is plenty of new construction in the urban sprawl extending out east of Livermore and south of San Jose.
Many times, the economics of "fun" things that people enjoy only work out if there are enough people in a small geographic area. You can't have a football team without enough people to fill a stadium every week, and you don't get that many people without them living in a large-ish city where that football team plays. Any one person going to a football game certainly knows almost none of the other people going, but they're necessary to make the game happen at all. Same for music. Bands aren't going to play a show out in the sticks where they can't fill a medium-size venue. These cultural things are what draw people to live in a city instead of in the sticks, even if their job could be done from anywhere. Ditto for art galleries, parks, recreational sports leagues. Even though one of those faces could die tomorrow and you wouldn't notice, if most of them died, you certainly would because you wouldn't have enough people to do those things.
Have you ever lived in a city?
I do. I have a yard and two dogs. Once in awhile we plant a garden. I can even play music. Plus I can walk to local bakeries, breweries, restaurants, hardware stores, beaches, parks, etc.
A lot of the time, between biking and walking your legs are the only transit you need. If not, there are buses, trains, taxis, and services like Car2go and ZipCar.
I understand that kind of lifestyle is not for everybody, but the worst thing we can do is spread out more. That has lead to all kinds of problems.
Exactly that reason, you don't know them and you don't care, they are meat shields. If 1 or 10 or 100 random people stuff it one day it won't affect you since you likely won't know them, now the same thing happening in a small community of closely knit families? Major tragedy.
Yes... someone makes a critical argument about a dumb idea and they're automatically luddites. You're unworthy of an opinion.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Communists have been trying to kill private transport since the Communist Manifesto was published. People who can travel without permission are much more dangerous to the State than those who can be forced to walk at any time.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Doesn't anyone want to listen to music without having to worry about whether the neighbors will object? Doesn't anyone want a dog or a garden or just some space that is theirs?
While I own my own home for precisely these reasons (and more), a friend of mine told me that he never wants to own a place because he prefers to have someone else take care of the maintenance that comes with home ownership. And while I have no problems dealing with clogged drain pipes, central air systems and hot water tanks that have reached the end of their life span, keeping the landscape in check, and many more issues, I can certainly see how some people would value not having to deal with any of that.
Who is "we"? Your statement is not true for Finland. The Finnish state has to redirect an enormous amount of money from the cities to the less-populated areas, because the countryside does not have a tax base large enough for infrastructure that Finns consider essential, whether physical (rail services and paved roads that keep the country connected even in winter) or cultural (a local chamber orchestra, decent libraries). The depopulation of northern Finland as virtually all the young people head south to the cities has also led to the establishment of state subsidies to encourage people to stay out in Junttila ("Redneckland").
If the mediated market sets prices and sets terms then they could control who participates.
More to the point, you're making it hard for me to just have a car which limits my independence.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As I've pointed out elsewhere here, no one is stopping you from having a car. Lots of Finns will continue to own cars so that they can get out to their second homes in the country on holidays. What is being discouraged here is driving from one's home in the direction of the city center, not in the opposite direction.
My town has a thriving downtown - also has services like Car2Go. That's how I know they can at times be scarce or distant. We also have a city bike rental program that works pretty well.
Since there are no links with real info I have to assume the Helsinki plan is like ZipCar/Car2Go, where you just can collect a car somewhere and use it for some period of time to go wherever - but instead of just the one kind of car, it would include bikes and larger trucks too. I just figure if you do go for that and lean on such a program instead of leasing or owning a car, the vehicles (like all rental cars) may not be treated well.
Being in Helsinki though, it's not as likely as if you tried such a thing in NYC. Even where I live the rental bikes take quite a beating and some of them show it (not hard to find at least one flat tire in a rack of bikes).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What the hell do you need libraries in rural areas for. From what i understand Finland has one of the best fiber infrastructures of all the first world countries.
Back before the days of public sewage, I would understand living the country. Before laws against air pollution, city air was shit. I don't understand why people would ever want to be so distant from one another -- we've a social species. We don't need distant farms at this point.
I love that there's music at night, made live by humans -- and sometimes I even get to dance with the people making it! How in the world are you supposed to find an orchestra to play with in BFE (I play clarinet -- not exactly a great solo instrument)? If you like gardening, there's community gardens all over that I don't need to tend every single day.
Cities are also easier on the environment. By centralizing transportation, waste management, and education, you achieve savings just from the economies of scale. Cities subsidize the rest of the country as it's literally not efficient to have roads/phonelines/internet/etc to nowhere -- destroying the environment in the process. As far as crime, I like having a decent police force so I don't have to own a shotgun.
Issues with racists, idiots, homophobes, and the chain score hellscape that litters small town America -- I have no idea why anyone could ever love such a thing except out of ignorance.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
What a coincidence, I have a plane ticket right here on Oceanic Airlines (flight 815), and I'm willing to sell it for only 4815162342 Dogecoins.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Rent control.
Project housing.
EBT cards.
etc...
I really have no patience for these cherry picked statistical games.
Yes, the cities also generate a lot of revenue but most of that revenue comes the top 10 percent of the earning population in those cities. While a large portion of the city's population is heavily subsidized one way or the other.
The difference between rich and poor is a good deal flatter outside the cities. And the rate and nature of subsidization is very different.
Most subsidization of rural communities you would point to would be things like rural airports, roads, and telephone service. However, in most of these communities they don't actually need it. They just get it because their congressman felt he had to get his district something. People in those regions generally only want one thing... low taxes and being left alone. That's pretty much the only thing they ask from their politicians. And when that isn't going to happen because the political winds have blown otherwise, their politicians instead try to get their rural constituents SOMETHING for their money.
Over time his builds up to the subsidies you're talking about. But these are consequences of our political system... not logistical needs.
Airports are not expensive to set up and maintain... especially small airfields. A dirt runway is perfectly servicable if the airport doesn't see much traffic. And a simple asphalt runway is no big deal either. You see these on Pacific islands. Nothing wrong with them and they're not expensive. You can't land big planes on them but rural communities don't need big planes.
As to roads, the interstate system was set up mostly for military reasons after WW2. It is therefore a national expense and not anything specific to rural communities. The roads not part of the interstate do not need to be subsidized. Some of the might turn into dirt roads if you did that but without exception any road with so little traffic that that was an issue would naturally not be badly effected by the change.
As to telephone lines, this is something of a self fulfilling prophesy at this point. If you offer them something they will use it. If you shut down the copper line phone system in some of the really remote areas people would just start using radio repeaters. That is assuming the FCC doesn't block the move which is fairly typical of them.
TLDR? Rural areas could adapt very easily and change very little if the subsidies got cut off. if you did the same in the cities the whole pathetic mess would collapse in on itself.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Because plenty of people like paper books, CDs and DVDs, because rural areas have a predominantly elderly population that are not always comfortable with newfangled technology, and because these libraries tend to double as cultural centres where you've already got to pay staff and keep the lights on even if you transitioned the library holdings to ebooks.
Many years ago cities made sense. Factories to make steel, shoes, ketchup, shirts and other goods scaled well to gigantic sizes. Having the workers' living quarters hived up in close proximity to their employment was natural as there was no viable alternative. No one was yet doing more than dreaming of pervasive automation. Cities allowed stunningly great libraries and concert halls and baseball parks to be provided.
Yo, things have changed. It is not necessary any longer to clump gigantic numbers of people into tiny areas in which it is impossible to efficiently support personal transportation. It is not technically and logistically necessary for us to live in a milieu in which it is necessary to call some agency to take us somewhere. The internet could be extended in non-commercialized ways to fully provide all the resources of libraries and a great deal more.
I can see a place for a certain supply of centralized areas for those who cannot adjust to living any other way than like cattle. Feel free to phrase it differently. A richness of cultural and service facilities can be provided in built-up areas. But by and large the concept of the city, un-navigable by private conveyance, fighting for innovative ways to move people about efficiently.
What if these built-up areas concentrated on what they are uniquely suited for? What if people traveled to them (and a few lived there) for the culture? Optimize them for that, and make them pay their way doing that.
It needn't be whole-hog Asimov Spacers level sprawl, but living with elbow room and not with jammed-up crowds constantly getting in your way.
Just a thought.
" As far as crime, I like having a decent police force so I don't have to own a shotgun." like the one in America, i.e. Ferguson ? ;)
It looks nice, this "single platform", but it easily becomes a single point of failure.
Also, I'd likely have to register, make myself known, end up completely trackable, over all modes of transport, conveniently gathered in a single place for law enforcement, private eyes, and perhaps even "oops, sorry!" for any vaguely clever onlooker at all.
There's so many issues I'd sooner say "wtf mate".
I don't watch sports, but if I did it would probably be streamed anyway. If I want do to anything related to sports, I'd rather to it myself than simply watch it anyway.
For music, my favorite authors are in Japan and I buy their music from the Internet. I also prefer to limit how many decibels enter my ears. It seems like everyone going to live music shows are deaf or something. And I wasn't anywhere close to the speakers either. I went once, never again.
Art can be displayed on my devices. With IPS and HiDPI becoming more common technologies, I can't say I would miss going somewhere just to see something in more details, because you usually can't go near the artwork anyway.
Parks are better in small cities because there's less air pollution, less light pollution, less noise pollution. You can usually drive for less than 30 minutes and you're right in the middle of nature too if you want to.
What could work is splitting our urbanisation into circles. Farming area on the outer ring, living area on the middle ring, commercial area in the middle ring.
In the US, professional football is actually sustained by television... not stadium attendance. What is more, you have many teams in small cities or even towns that do quite well.
The Green Bay Packers for example are based in Green Bay Wisconsin... which has a population of about 100,000.
So there you go... football team... at 100,000... now explain why you need to have 15 million people in the same place?
As to bands and other entertainment venues, you can't be telling me you live in the city to go to music concerts and football games.
For one thing, you could commute for that sort of thing. Consider the motorcycle conventions. People ride them from hundreds if not thousands of miles away just to all show up in the same place and have a convention. They could do it anywhere. One of the bigger ones "Sturgis" happens in Sturgis south Dakota every year and draws about half a MILLION people every year. Guess what the population of Sturgis is normally? About six thousand.
So I call bunk on your whole notion. It makes no sense. I know a lot of people that live in New York and they never go to plays, theater, shows, concerts, or anything. They just live there. And what portion of that city's population do you think actually does any of that stuff? A small fraction of the population does a lot of it. That and tourists. But most of the people that actually live there? Not so much.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Finland has about 3 million passenger cars in use by a population of 5.46 million.
Finland, Vehicle stock grew in 2012
Helsinki has some 390 cars per 1000 inhabitants. This is less than in cities of similar density, such as Brussels' 483 per 1000, Stockholm's 401, and Oslo's 413.
Today, Helsinki is the only city in Finland to have trams and metro trains. There used to be two other cities in Finland with trams: Turku and Viipuri (Vyborg, now in Russia), but both have since abandoned trams. The Helsinki Metro, opened in 1982, is the only rapid transit system in Finland.
Helsinki
Finland doesn't have "congressmen".
Finland has severe winters and de-icing of runways is a major task. A "dirt runway" here would be useless for half of the year.
What does the US interstate system being set up after World War II have to do with Finland?
Have you been holding this rant on your demographics in the US bottled up inside for so long that you have to bring it into this discussion of a whole other country?
Right now society (jobs, business interactions, legal obligations, etc) are generally structured around the common denominator of automobile transit. Your boss expects you to get to work around the basic parameters of what you can do in a car.
It's great to eliminate the car at some municipal level, now make "the bus didn't show up" or "there were no Uber/Zipcar/Car2Gos available" as some kind of universally accepted, legally unchangeable excuse for missing work, a court appearance, daycare pickup, etc.
One of the problems with the "yay, no cars!" world is that the rest of the world goes on making assumptions about people moving about that are based on the ability to get from point A to point B in a car.
Sure, in some places like NYC, a subway glitch will usually be accepted (in fact, I think they have a process for issuing excuse notes) and when I worked in a downtown office where there were a lot of bus riders, weather problems with the bus were generally not questioned or a cause for action.
But generally speaking society as a whole just assumes you're at fault.
I understand that for people who live in places that are warm year round, bicycles are a viable method of transportation. Where I live, there is ice and snow on the road for at least 8 months a year. Its not like 'oh just give it a light whisk with the broom, there, now its gone..' NO! When I mean snow, I mean a *lot* of it, and if you said dynamite, then yes, its removable. A 30 ton construction grader has a blade that is made of 3/4 inch (19mm) hardened steel. It skates over ice like ducks on a frozen pond. The coefficient of friction for ice is far less than it is for asphalt or concrete. There is no traction for a bicycle wheel, not just the back wheel but the front wheel too. Want to turn? Watch the handle bars move but you keep gong in the same direction. Now where I live, there are (idiots/morons) who come from these warm-all-year places, and tell us that we should all use bicycles all year long. They always come in the summer, never in winter. I've seen pictures of these places when they actually get a bit of winter because it always makes the nightly news: the city shuts down. But it doesn't stop them from trying. "Oh, you should ride a bike, get rid of that old car..." My plan: when its -28C, invite them to come and ride their bike for a few miles. "Oh, its too cold you can't go now, you have to wait till its warmer..." Only 4-5 months, no prob.
Once again, the fascists display their true colors.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Please name one city in your country where cars are economical without subsidies, such as sales taxes to finance freeways, and without preferential treatment, such as minimum parking requirements to force business owners to build more than the economically optimal amount of parking.
In my country (the USA), I don't think any such city exists.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
What exactly are you fucking talking about?
Sex and the city.
We should have a new law (like Godwin) to see how long it takes for the anti-humanists to show up with their Cultural Marxist bullshit.
Are you sure you lived in a city and not a suburb? Cause it sounds like a dense suburb.
How is it good that you as a social creature are completely alienated from everyone else?
You're calling this natural but its not.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Do not ignore the most important basic service that we're trying to reorganize for efficiencies of scale, healthcare... it is remarkable how long it can take to get an ambulance in Lapland.
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
Wow, so much spewed opinion you seem to think is fact.
First, air in cities is generally worse than outside cities. You'll be able to find counter-examples, say outside a rural factory, but generally, no matter where you go in the world, city air is worse than rural air.
You're right that we are mostly a social species. However, this means different things to different people. Maybe you are more social than most. Personally, I have a family I enjoy seeing, and other than that I'm quite happy interacting with just a few other people every week. I neither want nor need more. The difference between the two of us seems to be that I'm willing to let you lead your lifestyle whereas you're unwilling to let me lead mine.
You're right that cities are easier on the environment on a per capita basis. Of course, there are also plenty of ways that people could be more distributed in a more environmentally advantageous fashion. If you have any interest in the subject and a certain level of intelligence it wouldn't be hard for you to come up with some ideas. Travelling around in other first world countries in Europe would also give you plenty of other viewpoints.
Additionally, while it's true that cities do in some ways subsidize rural areas, where do you think your food comes from? Other cities? Around here, stickers reminding us that "farmers feed cities" are quite common. Thank you for reminding me that there are people out there like you who need reminding. Finally, it's very rare for roads/phoneline/internet/etc to lead "nowhere". They lead somewhere, just apparently to areas you don't think are necessary.
Since you're the one painting "small town America" with one wide brush that includes racists, idiots, homophobes and chain store hellscapes, I'll throw that one back to you and state you're the one with the perception problems. The world outside your city is much bigger, and more important, than you seem to make it out to be. There are plenty racists, idiots, homophobes and chain stores in urban environments, and plenty of intelligent, tolerant, and educated people working in small business in small towns and rural communities all across your country.
For the record, I've spent close to a decade living in the US. I've lived in some of the world's largest cities, and worked in and travelled to many more. I feel very fortunate and privileged to now live on a farm in the country. Overall, my quality of life here is better than anywhere else I've lived.
www.clarke.ca
I too, live in a city. In fact, one of two fastest growing cities in the US. Where I live, I have to have a dog under a certain size, and if this gets violated, the dog can get seized and goes to the pound. Music? Sure, if I use cans, but otherwise at any reasonable volume, I get the popo or HOA coming by, especially after 7-8 at night.
Buses? If I work banker's hours and don't mind walking a mile to one of the relatively sparse stops, sure, but after 6:00, they stop running. Bike it? The college students tend to rub the drivers' nerves raw, so people tend to have no quarter... which causes you to end up dodging mirrors if lucky, a victim of a hit and run if not, and a ghost bike attached to the intersection by people if you are very unlucky. (I've done more than my share of white painted bikes as memorials.) Cars? Sure. The only significant improvement in the city I live in is adding tolls to major parts of one of the two only ways to get north/south... tolls that go up by the number of cars in the lanes. Of course, I get to then pay $50 for the luxury of parking in a garage.
Car2go? Give me a break. I then have the same problems as I do with driving... except I get to pay good cash to find a parking spot for someone else's Smart car, which will be gone unless I want to pay 80 bones, the daily rate.
Lets not forget the crime and the fact that you are not a citizen, you are a statistic. It gets old getting accosted (or even assaulted) by bums every block.
Or how about the morning wakeup calls, from the import cars with the exhaust pipes that could be used as subway tunnels, or the rat-rod motorcycles with no muffler whose rider loves hitting the clutch and throttle twisting in the morning. Or the privilege at night of being able to watch a TV show outside your window. Any TV show, actually... as long as it is "COPS". To boot, this isin a "good" neighborhood, on the "good" side of town.
Of course, there is the time where one settles down and wants to have a family. Do people want to raise kids just feet away from the local winos, with no playgrounds, parks owned by the local gangs or 24 hour curfews on your kids? You learn that city life starts to suck when your kids cannot see much other than four walls.
You can keep your city life. Yes, there are nightclubs, but there comes a time when you get tired of the fact that you need -one- skill to thrive in the city... the ability to lie successfully, and you realize it is time to leave the hives.
I tell people to go and buy rural land and get out when you can. It is far safer, healthier, and you generally get treated with far more respect than as just another faceless schmuck in a city to be spat on.
From the linked story:
The Finnish capital has announced plans to transform its existing public transport network into a comprehensive, point-to-point "mobility on demand" system by 2025 – one that, in theory, would be so good nobody would have any reason to own a car.
Lots of people drive their cars because it is enjoyable to drive. But I guess that isn't a reason to drive.
Rent control
Rent control is a DISincentive to invest in urban housing.
Project housing
Housing projects are no longer being constructed, and many have been torn down.
EBT cards
There is nothing particularly "urban" about EBT cards. The poorest places in America are rural.
Culture, efficiency, knowledge sharing.
Yes, knowledge sharing happen in cities in ways that could never happen on the internet, and visa versa.
"It makes no sense."
It makes a lot of sense, actually.
"Doesn't anyone want to listen to music without having to worry about whether the neighbors will object? Doesn't anyone want a dog or a garden or just some space that is theirs?"
All of which is possible in a city
A city is safer. There have been many studies on this.
What economic issues? saving money? making more money?
What transportation issue? everything is within walking distance.
"just lots of stuff."
The only issue is you have a perception bias and you haven't actually bothered to do even basic research to back your opinion.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
As to being afraid of dying of exposure in the wild. Very few people actually die from that. Worst case, you stay by the road and someone will help you out. You might need to pay to get your car towed but you won't die.
As to being disgusted by the need to drive to get groceries, the local restaurants you frequent drive to get groceries... or things are delivered by truck. What does it matter if you do some big shopping runs at weekly or even monthly intervals that keep you supplied? I have an aunt that uses a specialty butcher that has deals with local cattle ranches. She gets the best beef you could imagine. She also gets fresh eggs, fresh produce, and locally made cheese.
I'm sorry... but you can't compete with that food in the city unless you're paying an arm and a leg. Most people that live in the city eat cheap food. In the country cheap food can also be GREAT food. Another of my relatives lives near an apple orchard. They can get all the apples they want for basically nothing.
As to it being cheaper for the very poor... only because they're subsidized. You take away the rent control, the EBT cards, and other crap and they could not afford to live in the city. And without that, many of the economic systems that rely on their labor would collapse... and that would mean much of what keeps the modern city viable would fall apart. Those same people would probably be a lot happier in small towns where they could at least feel like they are a part of a community rather then just a number in a machine.
As to crime being lower in cities... you must be joking:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?t...
I'm sorry, but that is 180 degrees off correct. Rural communities have the lowest crime anywhere. Suburban areas have slightly more crime and the cities have the most crime. Typically the crime rate goes up with population. Think about it... more victims and more anonymity. If someone starts doing that in a small town... very quickly everyone will simply know who you are and what you do. It doesn't work. The sort of criminal you get in small towns tends to be drifters... traveling criminals. But they're not very common.
As to why one would prefer to live in the rural area... well... you're entitled to your own opinions... but not your own facts. Your information is wrong. By all means, have any opinion about ACTUAL facts but you don't get to just make things up.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You wanting to reserve space for the big numbers of the large, personal things called cars, both in terms of parking space and having to cover half of the city in asphalt, with the subsequent growth in distances between points (because of lower density), makes the city less accessible by anything other than a car and deprives others of their ability to just walk or bike their way around, is less aesthetic and causes air pollution... and besides, you couldn't just rebuild the central Helsinki area (which is quite fine as it is) for cars for everyone (in particular building the underground parking caves is hideously expensive).
Outside of the city, you can go driving all you want, there's a lot of road in the woods in Finland. Personally I live in one of Helsinki's exurb towns which is your typical place of single-family houses with big yards... I guess you'd like it here. I have the pleasure of driving to work every morning and I'm not all that certain it's such a great sign of my freedom -- I just get to operate the controls in a certain fixed sequence twice a day. The place also has this distinct sleepy sense of nothing ever happening, so I find myself heading to the city whenever I want to actually get some action.
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
You know what should be illegal? Forcing others to live the way you expect.
"we didn't live in anything like this density."
false.
" instinctually we have no bond with practically anyone in the city."
sounds like you have issues.
I don't live in a city, but walk across one everyday. I know many people by name. I know my neighbors by name.
My only problem with cities is noise.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I can commute farther in the state of California than the entire nation of Finland. Solutions that are workable and even desirable in certain locations are not logistically feasible in others.
I was very impressed with the public transportation options in GB, but the distances there lend themselves to such.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Well why not? The commu...err I mean 'humanists' have already shown up with theirs. People who call themselves 'humanists' usually mean 'marxist humanism', and they support culturally marxist views.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
That public transportation works as it does now. It evolved to be like this, the chance you can suddenly invent a better is slim.
As to congressman... you have a parliament... in the context of this discussion is there a relevant distinction?
As to runways, finland might be similar to Alaska in the US. They deal with that situation with sea planes and ski planes. For small communities of a few thousand people that should be enough.
As to the interstate system, I was talking to some other people that were expanding the discussion to something about cities and rural areas in general and not just finland. What is more, the point remains apt for finland.
Lets say everyone left the rural areas entirely and lived only in the cities. Would you then not need roads in the rural areas? Obviously you would need them still so you could get out there efficiently. Thus the road maintenance is a zero sum game. Which was my point about rural areas and roads. Whether people live out there or not you will need the roads. Possibly slightly less of them and possibly you won't have to maintain them as much. But you can then only bill the rural areas for that difference.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You're right about the stadium, but his point is still valid. There are things that are far easier to do with group in Cities.
" I know a lot of people that live in New York and they never go to plays, theater, shows, concerts, or anything. "
Yes, the 12 people you know in New York city don't do any of the stuff.
There are hundreds of museums in New York. Many of them are very busy most of the time.
"For one thing, you could commute for that sort of thing"
that raises the bar and make it less likely to go there.
" you can't be telling me you live in the city to go to music concerts and football games."
err.. why not? I did.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sex and the city = perfect example of what results when cultural toxins like feminism run amok.
How do you know he is from Italy?
You don't want to let him get all single family homes made illegal? YOU FASCIST.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
People pay $1000/ft and up, plus about 6% city income tax, to live in New York. They pay $50/ft to live in a typical suburb. If you don't think markets make any sense whatsoever, then you have a point. Otherwise, it looks as if people don't live in the city because they can't afford to, and get the space as a fringe benefit.
count me out... this sort of stuff just makes me want to live on a remote tropical island and spend my days fishing.
Do you also insist on owning your own elevator?
I insist on living and working in locations where I don't need an elevator... a remote tropical island would work well for this.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It is not just "fun" things. Cities are more productive than rural areas. Bigger cities are more productive than smaller cities.
It is not because the more productive people move to larger cities – that variable has been controlled. Bigger cities offer economies of scale, allows deeper areas of expertise to developed, and networking effects. And if one wants to argue that in theory the internet can overcome the need for physical proximity, hard data argues otherwise. In the past 30 years, productivity and income has risen faster in larger cities than mid-tier cities.
Once again, the fascists display their true colors.
I gave a reason why single family homes should be illegal. Either address that, or STFU.
Entirely. Political horsetrading works quite differently in Finland than in your depiction of the US. People living in the country do not just want lower taxes and nothing else. There is wide support for state funding of physical and cultural infrastructure even among rural people; they want a lot of the same things you can find in cities, and building these things with state subsidies has proven to a help against depopulation of rural areas (though it may not be enough to stop all the young people from leaving). There simply isn't the same "red state"/libertarian versus "blue state"/redistributionist divide here that you suggest is true of American society.
The north of Finland gets enough visitors seasonly that there has been a push to build better airports, not least from the local people whose income is heavily boosted by these tourists.
You know what should be illegal? Forcing others to live the way you expect.
So we are in agreement then. Because allowing you do fuck-all to the environment is forcing me to live a certain way.
I'll make it real simple for you. I gave a reason why single-family homes should be illegal. Try arguing against that instead of changing the subject.
The only currently know cultural toxin is conservatism.
Do you also insist on owning your own elevator? If socialized vertical transportation is acceptable, then why is horizontal transportation so different
Are you serious ?
An elevator exists to serve the very limited transport market within a building.
A car, truck, or motorcycle exists to carry people _anywhere_ they want to go.
Try taking public transportation to the southern end of Baja Mexico, with stops for
surfing on the way. That's just one of many examples, but public transportation
does not serve everyone's needs and it never will.
* ShanghaiBill, you are one stupid motherfucker.
I've lived in cities and in the country, much further out than you or nearly everyone else that has ever even heard of slashdot. Your idea of everyone spreading out just will never, ever work, ever. There are TONs of places that are just not pleasant to live in or near, thus you get people moving into areas that are more desirable to live and more and more people continue to move to those same locations and BAM you have a city. Sorry buddy, but the world really isn't that big of a place. If you slimmed down the global population to something akin to the 1600s, sure that might be viable, just so long as there are heavy, very heavy restrictions on reproduction, along with production of most of your "goods" and you're willing to just live a simple life essentially farming 100% of the time just to feed yourself.
Let alone that humans, by nature, need community and support. Without cities, where do places like Home Depot plant down for people to get their goods? Oh, then no Home Depot to get your goods, well then, I guess you're back to pioneer days of cutting down your own trees, creating planks and building your own house too... Same for food...
We as humans have been banding together into communities and groups for well our entire existence, this will never change. Sure there are those few oddballs that like to live out by themselves, secluded and away from everyone, but for the most part that is not the case for the human population.
"such as sales taxes to finance freeways"
All of them. In fact I can't find a single city that uses sales tax for roads.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You should educate yourself on the economics of American Football. All the teams make money together and the profits are split, it's socialism at its best. Green Bay Packers only exist in Green Bay today because the Cowboys pull in enough money to keep them and a few other teams afloat.
If a team really isn't pulling it's weight it gets sold/moved/etc. Not because that local owner decided to sell, but because the league forced the change.
That's not exclusively a city thing. Rural poverty in the US is extremely high. Much of my extended family back in the middle of nowhere Alabama has been on food stamps. Your welcome to go up to one of said relatives and tell them that thanks to being country-dwellers, they can eat the best steak around, I'm sure they'd love to hear about their supposed wealth of options when they can hardly buy enough food (crap food, the same as any metropolitan area in the US) to feed their families.
Besides the aforementioned backwater that marks the southernmost extent of Appalachia, I have extensively travelled in rural areas across Europe, Africa and Asia. Crime is a concern in many places -- you might not get mugged, but you can get burgled, or your telephone might stop working because someone cut down the copper lines so they could sell the copper inside. And it often can't be blamed on a drifter, but instead it's a member of the community that everyone knows. Many travellers can tell you of having e.g. a camera or notebook stolen in a village, and when the theft is reported, a group of the villagers simply walks you by the houses of the usual suspects to get your stuff back, because they know these people regularly steal.
You would be surprised how far meth addiction has spread in rural areas globally, from the Caucasus to Madagascar, and alcoholism has often been prevalent in some countries, and all that leads to much of the same crime anywhere.
As I've mentioned elsewhere here, it's important to look at the motivations of the population in question and not be so presumptuous as to speak for them. In the Finnish context, young people overwhelmingly want to move to the cities. You can talk all you want about citydwellers being just "a number in a machine", but they won't have any of it. I daresay the same applies for many places in the US. Everyone is not you.
Rent control. Doesn't exist only in cities.
Project housing - Doesn't only exist in cities
EBT cards. - Doesn't only happen in cities. There are More SNAP/EBT per capita in suburbs and rural communities. Of courts,e I'm sure you know nothing of the actual numbers and go off misconceptions.
you are just as dependent on the system as anyone.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
His rants are often off topic, and factually incorrect, so I WISH he would keep them bottled up! :)
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Finland has one of the higher rates of motor vehicle ownership per capita in the world. So despite all the talk, they don't seem to be getting out of their cars.
Sounds like you live in a broken city. No buses after 6 PM? Even my rural town of 10,000 people runs buses later than that.
This space intentionally left blank
Are you changing my mind or exercising your fingers?
We're talking Finland here. Of course nobody wants to live out in the wilderness in the winter when it's freezing and they have to shovel snow and figure out how to get to the nearest store when their street isn't plowed.
This space intentionally left blank
Phoenix uses the Proposition 400 sales tax to finance freeways, San Francisco has Proposition K, Los Angeles has Measure R, and San Diego has TransNet. Texas found that "no road [in the state] pays for itself in gas taxes and [user] fees."
Are there any cities in the USA where cars are economical without road subsidies or preferential treatment such as minimum parking requirements?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
One rural area I'm looking to buy land at, the worst crime in the past decade was a DWI who drove into a tree. That is a big difference from living in a city and having a meth lab shut down less than a block away.
Yes, it is cheaper to live in a big city, but the trade-off is that you live like a rat, with layers of people, from the HOA on up telling what you can do, what you can't, etc. If making a new house or building, they have to have windows larger than a certain size so the local SWAT team has a clean shot into as much of the edifice as possible. Do I want to live in an area where even buildings are designed to make it easy for occupants to get shot? Not really.
I go through remote areas of those states all the time. It is easy to be prepared. Take water, a SPOT device, and maybe even a tent. In a city, there is nothing you can do. Trust the PD? Good luck. In the US, most cities have grossly underfunded police departments, so expect a case ID and little else.
As for distances, my bank is 20 minutes away. One place, that is about 15 miles. Another place, that is 3-5 miles, but due to traffic, it takes that long just to get to the building (and no bus routes available.)
Living in a rural area is a lot more healthy. You have privacy, more security, separation from the masses should a pandemic come the way, distance if riots break out...
Don't forget that most cities are 36 hours away from Donner Party-style anarchy and riots if food trucks stop coming. It doesn't take much to touch off riots, as we can well see, so being well away from that is just prudent.
Tell you what: You stay in the hives, I'll stay in the rural areas. I'm closer in time to a hospital than you are, most likely. I can take steps for protection (like a couple dogs, which BSL prohibits where I live), my Net access may be limited, but it is there. Plus, the food tends to be fresher (as in not GMO) at the farmer's markets. I don't have to have anyone on my property or inside my house without my permission.
Hey, and I'm just spitballin' here, but we could name the system, uh ... UBER!
I'm pretty sure I know where I live. ;)
Cities aren't just downtown apartments and high rises.
But I only need to go between points A and B, and don't much care about hypothetical point C (since I can always rent transport there, if needs be).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Some people simply like to visit not the only Disco in town on weekends, but go to different Discos on Friday and Saturday and even leave one at 1:00 at night and move to the next till 4:00 and then chill out the final hour in yet another one. ... I don't like to use a car sunday morning at 5:00 when I left the Club ... because I like to drink something. And I also don't like to trust another driver who certainly drunk something till 1:00.
In a town below lets say 50k that is difficult. Living on a farm or in a super small village means you have to travel to the town and back
There are hundreds of more examples why people like to live in cities. One of the most important: everything that got not destroyed in WWII in Europe (unlike most of Germany e.g.) is unbelievable beautiful. ... and WTF, if you visit France or Spain visit the towns that are not really known, only mentioned in specialized travel guides. You simply don't have that in the USA.
Paris, Amsterdam, Rome, Bilbao, Barcelona, Granada, even Athens
Vist Carcassonne or MontluÃon or simply travel with a motor bike through Italy ... one super village after the other intermixed with superb cities and small towns.
Security/crime issues, education issues, political issues, transport issues, you usually don't have those issues in european cities ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Scandinavians are amazing. They've gone in just a few centuries from being fierce Viking warriors who went almost everywhere in Eurasia to heavily socialized nations so wimpy they meekly agree to ride a bus because a city tells them that's what they must do.
I guess that proves that in the nature versus nature debate, nature doesn't count for much. Alas, genetic tests say I am about 15% Viking.
What will it take to get your 'platform' listed in their app?
Where are you from that you consider 100,000 people a small town? I question your scale.
In my country (the USA), I don't think any such city exists.
Oh, nonesense. There is ample revenue raised from taxes on cars, and the general fund has not been raided multiple times to bail out the highway fund. Indeed, the gas tax is indexed to inflation, so retains its purchasing power, and certainly has not been left to slide to some low level over the years. There are no pork road projects, "bridges to nowhere" or planned highway expansions in cities such as Detroit, as the demands of the highway lobby are balanced against other concerns of the citizens by the leadership. Road maintenace is well in hand, and there has not been a growing backlog of structurally unsafe bridges, or roads being reverted to gravel. Indeed, engineering groups give American roads very high marks.
Lots and lots of people cycle to where they need to go in the winter, and -28 is a pretty common winter temperature
I would like to see a real breakdown by age, sex, martial status, income, injuries and deaths in traffic, and reports of medical emergencies like hypothermia, heart attacks and so on,
You in Provo?
I admire how this crystalizes the contrary position. If a building's elevators stop working, telling families they can move out whenever they want is preferable to The State (evil music here) ensuring elevators are in working order.
The terminal libertarian solution to every problem: move. Your city too congested? Move to the suburbs. Too far from work? Get another job. Isolated from friends, family and culture? We have Internet now, and Internet (praise be upon it) replaces all forms of community interaction.
And just remember, you might not like living in the exurbs, 20 miles from a movie theater, making ends meet with freelance coding and Uber shifts, but the alternative was putting up kiosks where you could order a rideshare, you monster.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
You think people only choose to live in cities because they haven't noticed the internet or television?
People attach different values to different things. People who love living in cities (I'm one of them) place a lot of value on "walking culture", "proximity to varied attractions", "interacting with a potpourri of people", "having a smaller environmental footprint", etc.--and less value on having a large home or a big car. I can totally understand someone else valuing those things differently and reaching a different conclusion. It's a big world and there are a lot of different ways to live.
> "cannot adjust to living any other way than like cattle"
What is it with suburbanites that they feel personally attacked (to the point of lashing out with childish hyperbole) by anybody anywhere choosing a different lifestyle than themselves?
Seriously dude, hop in your car and drive 35 minutes to your 'neighborhood' Applebee's, order some jalapeno poppers and relax.
I question whether that is a real thing. If you consider our history, we didn't live in anything like this density.
Define "this density".
In ancient Rome they had eight story "apartment" blocks, and Florence had six-level units in 1250:
http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2003/09/26/imperial_romes_h.php
We know the area of ancient Rome fairly well, but estimating population is more difficult. If it reached one million people (1e6) like some people say, then the density would be close to parts of modern day Hong Kong (~17,000 ppl/sq km). Even if we cut the population by 25% to 750_000, then we're still in the range of the density of Boston, MA.
You can't imagine why anyone would want to live in a big city, but apparently you think small cities are okay. Somebody else in this thread can't imagine why anyone would want to live anywhere other than suburbs. I'm sure somebody else is going to pipe up saying we should all live on farms, or on boats. Do you see the trend?
Part of me would love to counter your smug condescending critique of big cities by telling you all the ways that NYC is superior to whatever strip mall shit hole you live in; but the problem is I don't really believe that NYC is superior. Instead, I think that different people value things differently.
It's a big world, there are lots of different ways to live.
Have gnu, will travel.
fyi, "Cultural Marxist" is white supremacist jargon. You're not speaking the same language, no point in arguing semantics.
" If you consider our history, we didn't live in anything like this density" You can say that about any time in history, and it's true. "I question whether that is a real thing." Lets see, we've gone from roaming bands of hunter gathers,. to NYC, LA & Tokyo, the proof is in the pudding
Please name one city in your country where cars are economical without subsidies, such as sales taxes to finance freeways, and without preferential treatment, such as minimum parking requirements to force business owners to build more than the economically optimal amount of parking.
In my country (the USA), I don't think any such city exists.
I'd hate to break it to you, but it's the same for public transport. The fare you pay doesn't cover half of the ride you're taking, let alone the empty buses they have to keep running. Not to mention that public transport and taxis use the same infrastructure you're complaining about. So name me one city where public transport is economical without subsidies like sales and income taxes. At least roads in Oz are primarily paid for by petrol taxes and car registration (user pays is a fairer system).
And then there's the time cost. Some people are willing to pay $20 a year for parking near work because taking public transport is longer and more painful than sitting in traffic. Yes, its more comfortable sitting in my 12 yr old Nissan sports car with its suspension on Viagra than trying to pack myself onto an overloaded train, strange that.
I've never been spat on in my own car and there's always plenty of room. Oh and no public transport strikes/outages/failures.
But whilst we're on the subject of freeloaders, the worst transport freeloaders are cyclists who pay zero usage taxes yet use the roads and have their own special lanes/paths built for them.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
In cities, they are extremely expensive, if you include the opportunity cost of capital. In other words, how much could you earn in a year by investing $(the monetary value of the land occupied by an airport) in the market? That is how much the land alone costs the city every year.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If your elevator sucks, you can just move to the next building over.
How? Does your city have bridges between the buildings? Pretty sure jumping is not a good option. Do you mean actually moving your stuff to the next building over? This metaphor is not good.
Those aren't really for bicyclists. They're for motorists, to get bicyclists out of their way, because motorists don't want to have to share the road with bicyclists.
But you're correct that bicyclists don't pay any user fees for the roads. I propose a mileage fee to cover the road damage caused by the vehicle which is proportional to the 4th power of the weight of the vehicle. If a 2-ton vehicle owner pays $200 per year for the roads, then a 200-pound bicyclist going the same distance would pay 1/8th of a cent per year. Plus maybe an administrative fee of $10 per vehicle. That's fair, isn't it?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
It depends on the person's preferences. Some people say nothing is quite like living in New York. And that may very well be true, but on that same token, other people really seem to hate New York.
The only time I complain about people living in those conditions are the ones who believe that they somehow have a god-given right to live there without having to pay to live there. It's a simple supply and demand situation - lots of people want to live there, and there's only so many places to live there, so naturally the price goes up. That said, if you insist upon living in New York, but can't afford to live in New York...well then tough shit, go live somewhere else.
This is why I hate the Occupy Wall Street movement. They seem to believe that a high paying salary is an inalienable right so that they can pay the rent without having to live paycheck to paycheck, no matter how much it costs to live where they live. Here's a newsflash for them though: Most places aren't anywhere near as expensive to live as New York, but they seem to assume that to be the case anyways, and then invent this stupid concept of social justice to get what they "deserve" just for being a human being.
Interestingly, as many cities pursue high-density growth policies and their local governments rant against the manifest evils of suburbs, it's going to turn out that suburban rooftops are the largest and most readily usable area for solar PV power generation (which does after all go well with the idea of electric cars, which make no sense now, but will someday...)
Cities are just too dense to make anywhere near enough power from the clean solar sources all the people say they want.
Distributed renewables generation has problems (max benefit at 15%, and negative value by 30% - See Eleanor Denny's great recent PhD dissertation on the Irish grid), but one thing's for sure - you sure can't distribute generation without someplace to distribute it *to*, and high density development doesn't give you anyplace to do that...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Like a LOT of people, I will NEVER live anywhere that requires an elevator. No claustro- or acrophobia, I just can't imagine anything more soul-crushing than having to get in a smelly sardine tin to ride to my house. And yes, that includes penthouses in highrises. Great place for a party (maybe), but you damn sure couldn't get me to live in one, even if you gave it to me...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
You gotta be kidding! While I did not live in Helsinki, I had to stay there many times (while I still lived in Finland). It is like trying to pack everyone as close to each other as possible -> like living in a big box. The traffic is a mess, it takes forever to get around using public transportation, especially the downtown area is infested with bums & all kinds of weirdos, housing is unbearably expensive (and that combined with extremely high taxes is a very bad combination).
This story has been circulating around the internet, mostly on the treehugging sites, for several months already. Funny that I live in Helsinki and never once heard of this nonsense from any local media. They've also been working on a train from the city center to the airport - for over 15 years. No signs of that track yet. They've also been working on the Länsimetro (west Helsinki metro) for over 15 years. No signs of that yet, either. They've also been trying to ban smoking in Finland, as in entirely, but it's only served to increase smoking (despite what the numbers say, I see it). Bottom line: Finnish government will not give up their car tax revenues and Helsinki residents will not give up their cars.
It's the exact opposite. Urbanisation is massive, Sweden is already up to 85% of people living in cities, Finland is at 70%, but estimates are that we will be hitting Swedish numbers within a decade. The trend is ongoing since the sixties and remains unchanged.
If you want to live in the middle of nowhere, Finland is a great place to be. Huge surface area, very few people. But don't ask for good services, and most people like living in tighter groups with many services available.
There is a difference. Not that anyone has actually noticed.
> there are plenty of public transportation options into the countryside
You might have good options on getting out of the city to a certain point in country side and vice versa. But once you get to the countryside, other than private car, there are no options moving around the countryside. Neither I would call it a good option where to get from one village to another, you have 1 or 2 daily buses operating the route (if you are lucky). Or you need to take a bus to the city and then another bus from the city to your destination village, time spent couple of hours while by car it would be less than 20 minutes direct drive.
Uhhhh, stop posting AC, then, dude. Seriously...my single-family home is water neutral and within a few years I'm hoping energy neutral. With all the *#$%%*@( trees it may well be a carbon sink, too.
Do you also insist on owning your own elevator? If socialized vertical transportation is acceptable, then why is horizontal transportation so different?
What you are describing is called a train, El, or subway. And, those are perfectly acceptable.
What is being talked about here is not equivalent. The factors that affect reliability do not seem to be adequately addressed.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Another rejected nurd I see. You don't watch sports because you hate sports, and you hate sports because you were never good at it, and hated the popular, athletic kids who were admired by everybody. So you turned to "intellectual pursuits" like failing at chess, writing substandard software that nobody was interested in and assorted crap. Planning a killing spree yet?
This is proposed for a major city where it makes the most sense and I expect will lock the inhabitants (or at least the non-wealthy ones) into those cities by denying transport outside them and preventing them from traveling to less spoiled areas.
I'm a Finn and while I don't live in Helsinki, I live near enough that people who live in other parts of Finland classify me as a Helsinkian (15 km away from the center of Helsinki but in Espoo).
For starters, this whole thing isn't any official plan. This is a proposal by one politician of one party, that has some support from other politicians from other parties. But I'm digressing.
Right now the public transportation in the area is good enough that you can survive without a car. I know that well, since I've never bothered to buy one. I have an area ticket that allows me to travel anywhere inside the areas of Helsinki, Espoo, and Vantaa with any mode of transportation (bus, train, tram, underground, and some (but not all) boats) any number of trips. That ticket costs a little over 1000 euros a year. This is much cheaper than it would be to own any car here, and even adding train tickets and car rental costs for the occasional trip to other parts of Finland will keep total costs lower.
I will buy a car if one day I find out that the public transportation is no longer sufficient for me, but for now I can reach the places that I usually travel to in 10-45 minutes (depending on destination, of course, and the time of day), and rarer destinations within 1.5 hours.
I realize that this is not possible for everyone. Some of my friends who live close to me have commutes that would be very inconvenient by bus and those who have little children find it much easier to manage day-to-day life with a car.
Most of the people who are pushing for a city without cars are young, live near the center, and don't have kids. Some of their initiatives are sensible and useful, others bloody stupid. Right now they are campaigning about adding bike lines to a major street that carries a lot of car traffic. While I fully support creating safe bike routes, that particular one is blockheaded as there is already a safe route nearby and narrowing that street will cause severe congestion. (And just yesterday I walked along another place where bike lanes had been added to a street. I saw one cyclist use the lines, all the rest used the sidewalk, a practice that has been illegal for longer than I've been alive).
In my country, I less than 20% of all motor vehicle related taxes (fuel tax, road tax, new vehicle tax and parking permit fees) are being spent on road infrastructure. A part is reserved for subsidising public transport and most goes to the general government budget. Parking space for all new urban developments (if any) is kept at the bare minimum, because the local governments do not want to hurt their vast cashflow from streetstide parking and public multistorey car parks.
They'd get a licence to the name Uber. They'd call their franchise Deutschland Uber. They'd put this in a holding company called: Deutschland Uber Alles. /runs - stop shooting!
100,000 in the 21st century isn't really a city. Its not even a million people.
I gave other examples of cities with populations lower then that with full opera companies. The point is that you can have big city entertainment in a small city or large town without much trouble.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Without the subsidies that allow those people to live in those cities, the cities themselves would likely collapse.
Imagine if the cost of labor went up to compensate for everyone that lives there actually paying the full price for rent?
That would squeeze the middle class which would force them to increase their cost of labor on the companies that operate in NYC.
That would drive those companies out of the city in a search for more economical labor. Which would mean the middle class wouldn't be able to find jobs. Which would mean they would leave. Which would mean you'd lose low income population to the same process until the density dropped low enough that that the cost of rent/lease/ownership dropped low enough that someone on a low income wage would actually afford to live there without subsidy.
Care to guess how low NYC's population would have to drop for that to happen? We can only guess. But the point is that you couldn't maintain those cities without the subsidies.
The country side doesn't need subsidies to exist. Those little towns are so close to the ground in most cases that some of them might even be able to self support if they were willing to accept doing away with some modern conveniences. The cities are utterly dependent on importing all sorts of things and people literally die if that doesn't happen. In the small towns and rural communities... they're often on well water and could if needed provide their own food in many cases.
I'm just pointing out that the cities are utterly reliant on trade to literally survive. Where as the rural communities LIKE the trade and economically need it. But if they were in a disaster situation they could probably survive.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Just pick up a knife and come at me... I'm tired of all the little games from you people. You want to fight? Come on... and when one of us is dead, the other can decide how things will be... till then... I reserve the right to ignore, undermine, and mock you.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
To each his own. I'd give up the car in a heartbeat if I could. Maintaining and fueling it is just a bother, and driving tired is dangerous.
Some people want space, some want fast Internet, some want services and shopping to be within walking distance, most want both. There's a tradition in Finland of having a second, primitive home in the countryside you visit on weekends. That way you get the best of both worlds without having to commit to either.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Dunno about Mussolini, but didn't Hitler have this weird fetish for getting SS to live in small farming houses on the countryside? Something about it being the traditional German way of life...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Fortunately they don't have a monopoly in Helsinki, or almost anywhere that has really good public transport. It's pretty much a requirement of the system not sucking.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So basically, you're saying they're harmless?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
You must live outside some shit cities. The ones I've lived in have been great - there's always something going on that's worth spending your time on. You have a number of friends who live a similar distance as you from $thing, so you can arrange that a few of them meet you there to do whatever it is you want to do.
Additionally, there are (usually) more job opportunities, and generally higher paying jobs in the (good) cities, with the really good cities having suitably affordable housing - although you don't need to spend too much time there, so don't need the garden and clear views in all directions (there are parks just up the road for that sort of thing, which get maintained without you needing to use up your valuable time on the task).
Having said all that, I now live in a village. It's nice to have actual knowledge of your neighbours, and even the people that work in the local stores. We'll be moving somewhere bigger soon though - there just aren't any opportunities for the kids here.
They see me trollin'
Why exactly would a program like this deny transport to anyone outside? Why wouldn't they be able to travel to "less spoiled" areas? The whole idea seems to just be even wider acceptance rate for some universal travelcard. Those are already in use in many cities. The same card works with all the buses, trains, tram, metros, etc. If they can make it work wit hcar rentals etc. that's only a great thing. How it would keep someone from going places I don't see. They can just as easily hop to intercity buss or tran as before, or take the taxi to the to countryside. Or drive there with their own car.
Taxis are redily available _everywhere_ in Finland. (ok, I'm not quite sure about the northernmost parts, but if you go there you are already prepared to move around in wilderness) Might not be exactly cheap, but you can get anywhere you want without a private car.
This is partly influenced by the local climate. Finland is COLD, usually between 70-80 during the summer, and it gets unbearably cold during the winter. Colder environments favor centralized populations. Northern Finland is also a marshy mess of lakes that can't evaporate due to the climate, covered in mosquitos, similar to Canada which also has very desolate northern areas.
Some of us can't do it.
I grew up in paradise. Lush forest, great climate, good people (if a little uneducated), clean food and air. and pretty much zero jobs. I could get up in the morning, ride a horse to a waterfall and eat lunch, then ride down to my neighbors place a few kilometers away we'd play golf on his home made 9 hole course.
But all the work I could get as an adult there was mind numbing. A daily drudge in just plain fucking stupidity.My coworkers (farmers, laborers, etc) were only interested in getting enough dough to buy a box of beer on friday night. And at some point, I realized I was so out of place and alone.
So I grew enough weed to go to college and now I live in the biggest, dirtiest, most densely populated cities in the world. And I love it. I can get a job that challenges me in way other than how many fence posts I can carry. I meet people daily who are engaging and interesting, and care for more than their friday night's drinking session. I learn more about the world around me than I ever did when I was working it with my hands.
Along the way I lived in both rich and poor suburbia, and it's all of the bordem with none of the scenery. But the big mean city - hell yeh.
Sure, I miss seeing the milkyway at night, or just chilling out to the sound of the wind in the trees and birds singing. By now I have enough cash to build the big mansion on the mountain, among the lush forest and tranquility, retire, sit back and play computers.
But every time I go back home, it only takes about 3 days before I need to get away from there, simply because I don't fit in with the people. Even though they're at heart, great people.
"Why does anyone need to live near a city? Why can't everyone just work at one of the copious professional jobs that allow you to telecommute from rural West Virginia?"
I had more to say, but I think I'm done here.
Interesting. I see living in rural places as roughly equivalent to living in hell -- bad schools, rednecks (sorry, but its true), social and physical isolation, poor services, few jobs, mind numbingly slow pace of life (hell is actually suburbia, which I immediately concede combines the worst aspects of both urban and rural life). I like the fact that I can walk out my door and do something. No driving required. Its all there within a 15 minute walk. I wouldn't live in a rural area if you paid me double what I make in the city. Maybe its different where you live but not where I grew up. The countryside is for visiting, not for living
As to bad schools, the education statistics say the opposite. But if facts are hard for you then I can understand why you'd have a hard time with that.
As to rednecks, that depends entirely on where you've set down roots. There are different places with very different sorts of people. Its not like the area outside the cities is homogenious. Some of those areas will have rednecks. And lots of others will not.
A lot of them are just a little old fashioned. Think of your grand parents. But then you have some that are as up to date as anyone. You wouldn't know the difference at all in some places.
As to social isolation, you're less isolated because potentially everyone you meet will be someone you know. Where as in the city you know practically no one. They're not part of your social circle. So pretending they are is silly. How many people in a city do you actually know? Less then a thousand probably. Okay... so why do you need the other 10 million people? Any of them could die and you wouldn't even know or really care.
As to physical isolation, depends, you can live in the town at which point you will see people all the time. You can walk to the coffee shop, order food at the restaurant, etc. You have fewer choices but at the same time you will know these people so if you want something else just tell them. They'll figure out what that costs in time and ingredients and probably give you a good deal on it. They might even name a menu item after you because why not. Try to get that in a big city.
As to not wanting to drive, you can avoid driving in a small town if you want. Just live in the small town itself and its no big deal. You'll walk less there then in most big cities and you won't even need to deal with mass transit. A town of 70 thousand can be walked from one end to the other in about 5 to 10 minutes depending on how much of a hurry you're in.
As to poor services, again it depends on what you mean by that? Generally anything a city provides you can be found in small towns without any trouble at all. What do you mean by this?
As to few jobs, that is a valid point however, I think with the internet there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to telecommute to any job anywhere in the world that simply requires us to do mental labor. If you need my physical hands to do something then sure I can't telecommute. But I doubt those are the jobs you're saying you can't get unless you live in the city.
lets say you want to be an investment banker or a programmer or any of the more typical jobs you'll find in a city. Why can't you do that anywhere on earth with decent internet?
As to going out your door and doing something, you're going to have to define that. They have that in small towns as well so I don't think you're aware of the options. Many small towns make a great effort to provide social activities, concerts, some have full opera companies, plays, etc. So I don't know what you're talking about here. Night clubs? They have night clubs in small towns as well... you just won't see too many new people in them.
As to it being different in different places. I've lived in a lot of places. You just have know what to look for... you can find a place for everyone.
What I find galling is that the cities exert political control over the countryside while at the same time only being able to do that because of the subsidies that allow for that population density.
Make areas more autonomous or cut the subsidies off and I'm happy.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Before the interstate system you could see the USA in your Chevrolet. Now you can see the freeway in your Chevy.
Maintenance is not the only cost associated with roads.
Spread out? If anything, technology is permitting us to live closer through improvment of artificial environments for agriculture and novel ways of growing crops. Not only are cities are far more energy effecient per capita, but even with the internet, isolated communities are on a whole less diverse and conditioned to be less comfortable. End the sprawl, consolidate the resources we use and the land we alter. I might get some people who reply with some anecdote on how they live in a thriving, diverse, blah blah rural community. That's fine, but it doesn't reflect the broader picture.
In what way are they more energy efficient?
Every statistic I've seen along those lines laughably compares rural households to apartments... ignoring office buildings, shopping malls, the energy cost of all the public buildings, the energy cost of basically everything but the apartments.
For the stat to mean anything you'd want the total gross energy consumption of the city divided by the population vs the total gross energy consumption of some other area divided by its population.
I've never seen anyone cite that stat so I'm a little dubious that anyone has it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Back in 1900, people had only two kinds of habitats - dense cities, like Boston, NY and San Francisco, and rural areas with lots of elbow room. Freeways allowed for urban sprawl - moving people and manufacturing out into what was farmland or open spaces. California now has a lot of people spread out with medium to low housing density, San Francisco being the exception with very high density. The freeways that once allowed speedy travel from Sacramento to San Jose are now a traffic nightmare, as all these people travel from their low density housing areas to either other low density employment areas or urban cores. Instead of living like cattle in a city, they live like cattle in their car, commuting. But what about those lower density states, like Montana and Kansas, with fewer total people? When you have smaller communities with lots of elbow room, the per-capita cost of improvements is higher. Freeways, Postal Routes, water, gas lines, power lines, and even high speed data lines are relatively more expensive because there are fewer people to spread the cost over.
I didn't change the subject. Allowing the government to force me to live your lifestyle destroys my quality of life. You're still welcome to pack a dozen people into a single family home if you like, but I don't want to live that way.