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
Smells like a big lease program to me. The fine print would be interesting.
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
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.
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?
"I really don't see why people pack themselves in that tightly. "
It's the herd instinct. It's strong in most people.
>> 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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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").
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
"Younger generations in general don't identify themselves with their car like older generations did."
Its nothing to do with identity, its simply because they can't afford to run them.
"get you there while you enjoy the morning news, reading, etc"
yeah yeah blah blah. There's something that already lets you do that - its called public transport.
"For those that really like to have their hands on the wheel and to own CDs"
When you actually learn to drive sonny you might understand the attraction. In the meantime have fun waiting in the rain for the bus.
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.
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.
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
I'm pretty sure I know where I live. ;)
Cities aren't just downtown apartments and high rises.
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.