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."

Comments

Not a single link

[visionsofmcskill]

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!!

Re:Not a single link

[EvilSurfinCow]

http://www.zdnet.com/death-of-...

Question of Reliability

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:which turns transport into a monopoly...

[ShanghaiBill]

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?

Re:which turns transport into a monopoly...

[Karmashock]

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.

Taixs are leases?

[gurps_npc]

I see two basic ways this ends up being implemented (not working). Also there might be some combination of these methods.

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.

Re:Taixs are leases?

[CRCulver]

Mostly because they don't smell like other people, or what they ate/drank last night.

You should avoid projecting your own, presumably American public transportation situation on to the rest of the world. Public transportation in Finland is not particularly smelly. Leaving Chicago, where the trains inevitably smell like urine, for Helsinki, I was amazed at how clean the buses, trams and metro are. Finns are big public drinkers, and on a Friday or Saturday night the public transportation is full of drunks, but everything remains remarkably orderly and tidy. That's pretty much true for the whole continent. In Romania, where I now live, things might be a bit run-down because we use second-hand vehicles bought from Western Europe, but they don't smell.

If in the US public vehicles tend to quickly succumb to vandalism, bodily fluids and the smell of people who don't bathe, that's less a reason to disparage the concept of public transportation than to wonder WTF is wrong with US society.

Re:which turns transport into a monopoly...

[jdew]

Who doesn't want to own airwolf?

Re:which turns transport into a monopoly...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I really don't see why people pack themselves in that tightly. "

It's the herd instinct. It's strong in most people.

Re:which turns transport into a monopoly...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> 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.

Re:which turns transport into a monopoly...

[Amtrak]

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?!!!!!

Re:which turns transport into a monopoly...

[Karmashock]

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.

Re:which turns transport into a monopoly...

[CRCulver]

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.

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.

Re:which turns transport into a monopoly...

[AcidPenguin9873]

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.

Re:which turns transport into a monopoly...

[unimacs]

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

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Living in the country is an anachronism

[Prien715]

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.

Re:Living in the country is an anachronism

[Karmashock]

You are more social in a small town. You actually know people and they actually know you.

As to distant farms... go to your grosery store and tell me where the fruit in the produce section came from. Bet its farther then 500 miles. If you're in the north east it could be well over two thousand miles. So that's just a silly statement.

As to live music at night, you can get that anywhere. Go to a rural Italian farming village. They have music every night. Its THEIR music made by THEIR people for THEIR people. You act like music didn't exist before this absurd population crush. The ancient city of Athens 2000 years ago had only about 140 thousand people. Of that only about 40 thousand were both male and not slaves. Want to bet they had music, art, plays, etc?

You don't need a big population for any of that. You just need culture.

A modern example would be Santa Fe New Mexico. They have a population of about 70 thousand... and a full Opera company, plays, music festivals, many art galleries, a big artist community, etc etc etc.

As to cities being easier on the environment, you're only saying that as an alternative to an endless suburban sprawl. I would agree that packing people in would be better then an endless Los Angeles with single story houses going on for hundreds of miles.

However that is not what I am talking about. I am instead talking about small scattered towns with lots of empty space between. You can't tell me the small town is hurting the environment more then the mega cities. That's just silly. The concentrated waste that comes out of those cities takes massive facilities to make anything less then horrifically toxic.

As to cities subsidizing the rest of the country, that is a product of our political system not a need of rural communities. Rural communities send their representatives to washington to ask for lower taxes and less regulation. If/when they cannot get that, the representatives ask for what they CAN get instead. Over the years the rural communities have gotten these compromises instead of what they actually wanted which was to be left alone.

Logistically, there is no reason they couldn't provide most of these services themselves. If anything, the cities have made efforts to stop small towns from setting up their own ISPs. We get articles about it on slashdot all the time. read one of them.

As to racists, idiots, etc... those are found everywhere. Literally. Everywhere. You can get concentrations of them in some towns and maybe a town might be run by such people. But that's just a roll of the dice. You get similar things in big cities. I will grant the big cities tend to have very bland consistent ineffectual politicians that don't especially represent or inspire anyone. Yes, they're rarely racists but they're also much more often corrupt products of machine politics. That is, they're not racists because what they really are is opportunists in it for the money.

As to ignorance, I've lived in cities, suburbs, and rural areas. I question whether you've ever stepped outside of your bubble. And that being the likely case, I question your right to call anyone else ignorant on the issue. Your arguments were mostly stereotypes perpetuated by television that drones buy into because they don't know any better.

Re:Living in the country is an anachronism

[nblender]

I live in both. I live in the city on weekdays, and in the country on weekends and holidays.

Guess which I prefer.

In the country, I have to travel 20 minutes to the town that has the grocery store, gas station, hardware store, liquor store, and pizza takeout.
In the city, I have to travel 20 minutes to the grocery store/hardware store, and favourite restaurants. The distance is much shorter but there are more people in the way.
In the country, I can sit on my porch and listen to birds, frogs, wind, and not much else.
In the city, I can sit on my porch and listen to wankers with loud diesel trucks, or loud motorcycles, or loud music.
In the country, the air smells clean.
In the city, the air smells like.... people/exhaust.
In the country, if I need emergency medical care, I can drive to the hospital in 20 minutes, and be seen by a doctor in under an hour.
In the city, if I need emergency medical care, I can drive to the hospital in 30+ minutes and be seen by a doctor occasionally in under 8 hours but usually in under 16 hours.
In the country, my water comes out of the ground and tastes like water.
In the city, my water comes from under my street and tastes like bleach.

Obviously, there are some advantages to living in the city and other advantages to living in the country.

Re:Living in the country is an anachronism

[geekoid]

"A modern example would be Santa Fe New Mexico."

Which is a city, last time I checked. So you argument is: City life isn't all that, look at all this cool stuff you can do in the city.

How much night life is there in Chama, NM? Silver City?

Re:which turns transport into a monopoly...

[CRCulver]

They just get it because their congressman felt he had to get his district something.

Finland doesn't have "congressmen".

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.

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.

As to roads, the interstate system was set up mostly for military reasons after WW2.

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?

Am I responding to a troll?

[aclarke]

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.

Re:which turns transport into a monopoly...

[CRCulver]

the EBT cards

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Re:which turns transport into a monopoly...

[Gavagai80]

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.