Helsinki Full Report 18may12

Examining the prospects for Equity-Based Transportation
A Public Enquiry lead by the City of Helsinki
Phase 1. Report, First Findings, Recommendations P h a s e 2 . P e e r R e v ie w , C o m m e n t a r y & F i n a l i z a t i o n
Eric Britton, New Mobility Partnerships Edition: 18/05/12
New Mobility Partnerships Association EcoPlan international

9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles CA 90210 USA 9, rue Gabillot, Sainte Anne. Lyon 69003 France
Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment
NOT A POLICY DOCUMENT

The following is work in progress, a step in an on-going collaborative brainstorming exercise ion cooperatoin with the City of Helsinki. It is a working copy for peer review and comment. and not in this form intended to serve as a how-to guide for decision makers or practitioners. To facilitate comments, corrections and additions a review draft has been prepared with line numbers on each page for reference. The version that follows ihas been laid out for easier reading, but if you wish to make comments we invite you to get in touch for the review version.
Reading the latest version

This report is being updated on a regular basis as new materials and ideas flow in. So if you are sitting down to read it for the first time, we invite you to work with the latest version. Updates will be posted regularly on our EBT Library which you can freely access at http://goo.gl/G4UpC. In principle you will find the latest version at the top of the listing.
Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on
Page 1
Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
A word of introduction
Nothing is more attractive to me than a muddled discussion awaiting its first theory.
- E. O. Wilson, Biophilia, Harvard University Press, 1984 And if ever there were a "muddled discussion" in the domain of public policy, just about everything we have heard and seen over the last decades under the heading of "sustainable development" and "sustainable transportation" has to be placed firmly in this category. Hopes, rhetoric and promises have run higher than high, while concrete achievements and realities have been tragically few and far between. We are grievously losing the war of sustainability on just about every front you can imagine. Something has to be very wrong, something fundamental, something structural and something which apparently is not getting the attention it requires. Against this background the goal of this project is to see if we can make progress toward some kind of unified approach or theory of sustainability on the basis of one concept which has not gotten much play in the past and which just might help us to cut through all of the confusion, all the muddle, and give us something firmer to build on. To this end we set out on a wide-open brainstorming expedition of the challenges of creating a better and more sustainable transport system in the city of Helsinki , working specifically through the lens of equity. (Note: The idea of equity stresses fairness and equal opportunities, not be confused with the concept of equality. But more on all that shortly.) The draft that follows and the open collaborative process behind it were commissioned by the Department of City Planning/Transportation of the City of Helsinki. However the information, views and recommendations you will find here are the responsibility of the author alone. That is not to say that these are my original ideas: to the contrary my role in this project is more that of co-organizer and keen listener than author and certainly not authority. That said, I have to say here up front that anything you find that is foolish or wrong, almost certainly comes from your author. And anything that you find engaging and worth more thought, almost surely comes from someone else. Here and there you may get the impression that I am not sufficiently aware of all the good ideas, projects and progress advanced in your beautiful city up to now. I am afraid that is inevitable for a non-Finnish speaking visitor on his third trip here. But what I can say in my behalf is that I have come here not to be right and certainly not wise, but to see if I can do my bit to get a discussion going on a new approach that I truly believe can serve Helsinki and other cities very well indeed. And yes, the accomplishments of Helsinki in the mobility sector until now have been at a high level. With the goal being to do better yet. Which is where this report and process may come in handy. To comment on report: This is work in progress and more specifically what we call a "thinking exercise". My hope is that in the month ahead it will benefit from many and vigorous comments, criticisms, and corrections from you and others. You are therefore cordially invited to share your thoughts on any aspect of this report. You can reach me directly at: eric.britton@ecoplan.org | T. 336 5088 0787 or in the US +1 213 985 3501| Skype: newmobility Eric Britton, Lyon. 17 May 2012
Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew
Page 2
Contents
A w o r d o f i n t r o d u c t i o n ...........................................................................................................2 E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y ..................................................................................................................5 1. S t a r t .....................................................................................................................................6 1 . 1 " M r . B r i t t o n . W e h a v e n o t r a f f i c p r o b l e m s i n H e l s i n k i " ................................9 1 . 2 W h a t w e n t w r o n g w i t h t r a n s p o r t i n c i t i e s : 1 9 5 0 - t o d a y ? .......................... 10 1 . 3 H e l s i n k i 2 0 1 2 m o b i l i t y s c o r e c a r d .......................................................................... 11 2. 2 0 1 2 : T i m e f o r a p a r a d i g m c h a n g e ? ........................................................................ 12 2 . 1 We need a policy that is comprehensive, coherent, consistent .......................................... 13 2 . 2 E q u i t y , e f f i c i e n c y a n d t h e i n v i s i b l e m a j o r i t y ................................................... 14 2 . 3 W h a t i s a n e q u i t y - b a s e d t r a n s p o r t s y s t e m ? .................................................... 15 2 . 4 P e o p l e , p l a c e s a n d p o l i c e s ...................................................................................... 16 2 . 5 F u t u r e o f t h e a u t o m o b i l e i n t h e c i t y .................................................................. 17 2 . 6 A " b e t t e r t h a n c a r " m o b i l i t y s y s t e m ................................................................... 18 3. E q u i t y - b a s e d t r a n s p o r t f o r H e l s i n k i ? R o u n d 1 c o n c l u s i o n s .......................... 19 3 . 1 N e w f i n a n c i a l r e a l i t i e s a n d c o n s t r a i n t s .............................................................. 20 3 . 2 M e a s u r i n g a n d M a n a g e m e n t .................................................................................... 21 3 . 3 F l a t ( o p e n a n d e f f i c i e n t ) s y s t e m s .......................................................................... 22 3 . 4 W h a t a b o u t l a b o r - s a v i n g / j o b c r e a t i o n ? ............................................................ 23 4 . S o m e f i r s t p r o j e c t s t o t e s t a n d r e f i n e t h e p r i n c i p l e s ........................................ 24 1. Advancing the concept of an Equity Audit ................................................................................ 24 2. Sound clues for visually impaired on public transport ............................................................... 25 3. Creating an equitable public bicycle project for Helsinki ............................................................ 26 4. Carsharing for all ...................................................................................................................... 26 5. Looking into equity refinements for Metropol DRT demonstration project ............................... 27 6. Exploring the potential of open government and the "social brain" .......................................... 27 5 . N e x t S t e p s .............................................................................................................................. 29 A c l o s i n g w o r d o f t h a n k s ....................................................................................................... 30
Page 3

A n n e x e s ........................................................................................................................................ 31 A n n e x A : T h e H e l s i n k i p r o j e c t i n b r i e f ............................................................................ 32 A n n e x B : W o r l d S t r e e t s E d i t o r i a l : O n t h e p l a n e t o H e l s i n k i .................................. 34 A n n e x C : L a t e N i g h t T h o u g h t s o n E q u i t y f r o m H e l s i n k i ........................................... 36 A n n e x D : E v a l u a t i n g e q u i t y i m p a c t s o f t r a n s p o r t i n v e s t m e n t s ............................ 39 A n n e x E : T h r e e T r a n s p o r t P a r a d i g m s : H e l s i n k i 1 9 5 0 - 2 0 1 2 .................................. 41 A n n e x F : L i s t o f p e o p l e a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n s c o n s u l t e d ............................................... 42 A n n e x G : L i s t o f m e e t i n g s , p r e s e n t a t i o n s , d i a l o g u e s ............................................... 45 A n n e x H : B r a i n s t o r m i n g d i s c u s s i o n p o i n t s .................................................................... 49 A n n e x I : H e l s i n k i E q u i t y / T r a n s p o r t M a s t e r C l a s s S e m i n a r s ................................... 50 Annex J: Collective memo by Dodo: Basics of Environmental Activism (Course) ................... 53 A n n e x K : O n L i v e : S e l e c t e d c o m m e n t s r e c e i v e d t h u s f a r o n p r o j e c t . ................ 55 A n n e x L : A d d i t i o n a l b a c k g r o u n d o n p r o j e c t ................................................................ 66 A n n e x M : T o p a r t i c i p a t e i n r e v i e w / c o m m e n t p r o c e s s c l i c k h e r e ....................... 66 E n d n o t e s ...................................................................................................................................... 67
Page 4
Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment Executive Summary

Objective: An independent project lead by Eric Britton under the sponsorship of the Department of City Planning/Transportation of the City of Helsinki, the goal of this first phase was to initiate a broad-based public inquiry and open discussion of the concept of equity as a possible keystone for a new paradigm for transport policy and investment in Helsinki and beyond -- and to determine if there is support for taking the first round of findings at least one step further. The Process : This first stage took place from February - May 2012 and centered on a first round of consultations and exchanges with something like two hundred people from a wide variety of institutions and points of view from across the Helsinki region. At the core of the program was a two-week mission during which meetings and events were scheduled to explain and test the concept: some 20 workshops, three collaboratively organized Master Classes and a final presentation and public discussion were the core of the project. In addition a number of international colleagues pitched in by following the project and exchanging views, criticism and suggestions as it developed. Finding: It is this author's view that the project has succeeded in its first stage objectives as set by the organizers. Let me see if I can summarize in one sentence the position that we heard from the great majority of all of those with whom we discussed the concept in all those meetings and events: "The equity concept sounds interesting and possibly promising as a new base for transportation policy -and although we are not at this point quite sure we understand in detail how it is going to work in practical terms, we nonetheless agree that the concept is worth further attention".1 Starting Point: We had a significant advantage. This emphasis on equity a concept not so widely discussed in the context of public policy in most parts of the world -- is something that is well known and widely accepted by people, political parties, and interest groups across Finland. In part this is a matter of culture (no small thing in itself). But no less important we had the good fortune to be able to draw on a solid base of world level achievement in the Finnish education sector, in which the equity principle has served as the North Star of the country's educational reform and management over last decades. This equity-based approach had achieved world-level results placing Finland consistently at the top of the international list of student performance and preparation for life. Peer review : This report summarizes the process and the principal findings of this first stage investigation. However, rather than submitting it as a definitive final report with detailed recommendations at this point, we decided first to put it to work as a base for a collaborative "thinking exercise", sharing the present draft with as many as people and groups as possible in Helsinki, Finland and abroad for critical comments, suggestions and opinions. Dates - May/June: The report will be open for review and comment over this period subsequent to which the project team will meet to collect and analyze the results and prepare a definitive report, recommendations and program statement detailing eventual next steps. Please note, we are not seeking a comfortable consensus: at this point we are looking for critical ideas and content. Once we have received and dealt with these as best we can, it may then be time to think about getting comfortable.
1
I am comfortable in making this statement since the present draft will be reviewed by a number of those who participated in the various events and so there will be every opportunity to correct that wording.
Page 5
1 . Sta r t
The goal of this open collaborative project and learning exercise, which spans the period from January to mid June 2012, is to organize, hold and report on a series of public conversations in the city of Helsinki, meeting with seeking the views of a broad cross-section of people, groups and interests who agreed to brainstorm with us on the concept of equity as a potential base for a new transportation paradigm and strategy for the city, possibly to get underway in the immediate future. Why Helsinki? We were extremely fortunate to have Helsinki as the first sponsor to step forward to test this idea in this wide open format for a lot of reasons. Chief among them is the fact that the concept of equity is one which has been carefully and systematically developed in Finland over the last decades as the base of their world level accomplishments in the field of education. Thus the concept of equity and public policy is not new for them, however the application to transport in cities is -- and that is what we are trying to look at with them here. The equity tradition is important but it is not the whole story. Helsinki was also a great choice as a starting place for several other reasons as well. First because the city is among the world leaders in terms of the quality of its transportation and mobility arrangements. They are a competitive player in the international arena. Second, because the city provides a very good "template" which upon study demonstrates both the strengths and potential weaknesses of the overall planning approach and strategy (paradigm) in place just about all the cities at this time. This gives even more added value to the project, since many of these ideas and findings can be applied to other cities across Europe and around the world. And finally, because a number of people and groups within the city have shown themselves to be open and willing to participate in this ambitious team undertaking. Over the years, I have learned that when it comes to looking at new ideas, there tend to be two kinds of cities were willing to give it a try. First, those who are already doing very well and who wish to do better. In a phrase, cities with a culture of excellence and competence are much more open to new ideas than those who are less competitive. At the other end of the performance spectrum I have occasion run across other cities who are willing to break pattern and look at new ideas -- precisely because it is so patently clear that their present arrangements are not working and need not just to be fixed but to be reinvented. Working at both ends of the performance spectrum is gratifying. Happily for those who live there, Helsinki is in the first category. Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew Page 6
The Process: The author was invited to work with the support of a small team of professionals under the direction of the City Planning Department /Transportation in order to organize, carry out, and as appropriate follow up on these open public conversations. We spent close to two months laying the base for the public discussion stage of the project. During the two weeks in Helsinki we met with almost 200 people representing a broad cross-section of interests and points of view, organized and participated in on the order of twenty interviews and brainstorming dialogues, three half-day master class sessions, and on 27 April a final plenary presentation organized to present and invite first feedback and recommendations on this intensive process. The final presentation was followed by a session of questions from the audience and general discussion, with a brief closing summary of observations and findings made by the Deputy Mayor of Helsinki Pekka Sauri, in charge of Public Works and Environmental Affairs for the city. From the beginning of this process we were careful not to be seen as trying to "sell" the equity concept per se. Rather we set out to see what we all might learn as a result of these open public discussions looking at this original equity/transport concept from a number of different vantages. We were able to get the views of not only the public authorities, operators, planners, managers, high representatives of local government, student groups, representatives of different political parties, transport user representatives, researchers and academics -- already a huge cross-section of the population -- but also to hear from representatives of associations defending the rights of the elderly and handicapped, taxi operators, several people with deep knowledge of the countries equity-based educational reforms, pedestrian and cycling groups, hactivists, transportation tool builder, and others. (Impressive as this might be, I also wish we had been able to meet with representatives of women's groups, the homeless (of whom there are few in Helsinki, but still there is always a great deal to learn from them), schools, local business groups, police and the world of health and sport. We came to Helsinki not to provide answers or even expert counsel, but in the hope of widening the debate about this important and until now largely explored concept. The goal was to open up these critical discussions at a time when many have already concluded that new ideas and approaches are needed if the city is to become a true world leader in sustainable transport policy and practice -building on their remarkable achievements over the past years in the field of equity-based education. The hope of the author is thus to make a contribution by opening up what I view to be a powerful and timely topic for discussion, and in the process drawing the attention of a broad array of thought leaders, activists, administrators and political parties -- and with any luck at all introducing the equity/transport virus in Helsinki and hopefully in due course in cities across Finland and beyond. Finally, the point needs to be made that there are already a number of innovative pattern-breaking projects going on which already embrace or potentially come close to the equity concept. As can be expected those running these projects have their hands full with the challenges of managing their project,. Our hope is that when they find the time, they will take a look at some of the ideas that are set out here and possibly even somehow make use of them within their own challenges. That would be most gratifying. Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on Page 7
The report: This draft report is supported by a number of Annexes to which I would also draw your attention as useful background. I do not in these pages attempt to provide extensive background on the details of Helsinki equity/transport project beyond the summary you will find in the closing annex, other than to draw your attention to the ample materials and references available on the World Streets website that we are developing in support of the long-range project which you can find at http://equitytransport.wordpress.com/, For readers who have not yet had time to make their way through the full website, by way of quick introduction you may find it useful to have a look at the following five selected references: 1. Helsinki 2012: Program overview - http://wp.me/p2abHZ-2zz 2. Equity-based Educational Reform in Finland - http://wp.me/p2abHZ-2vt 3. Pasi Sahlberg on Equity and Education in Finland - http://wp.me/p2abHZ-2yJ 4. Editorial: On the plane to Helsinki - http://wp.me/p2abHZ-2zc 5. Late Night Thoughts on Equity from Helsinki - http://wp.me/p2abHZ-2zf You will also find useful background on the following supporting dedicated social media sites: Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/EquityTransport Twitter - https://twitter.com/#!/EquityT YouTube library - http://tinyurl.com/et-videos Program documentation - http://tinyurl.com/EBT-library
World Streets Equity -Based Tran sport p rogram The Helsinki project is seen as a critical first step in a process initiated by World Streets in the closing months of 2011. We see the overall equity/transport program as a long-term, open, collaborative effort which is intended to spin out over at least several years and which will in time, we hope, develop and spread to other cities, countries and sponsors around the world, all with a view to presenting, testing and hopefully in successive iterations steadily improving the fundamental arguments behind this program, namely the concept of developing a new paradigm for transport in cities based on the concept of equity. Now, let us have a look at what we heard and learned over these last months in Helsinki.
Page 8
Helsinki is today still for most people an automobile city.
1 .1 "M r . B r it to n . W e ha ve n o tr a f fi c pr o b le ms i n H e ls in k i "
The most striking thing I heard during my two weeks came from one of my very first interviews on Day 1 with a mature professional with strong political affiliations and strong ideas who announced to me, kindly: "Eric, I really do not understand why you are here. Helsinki has no traffic problems". I could hardly imagine a more interesting comment on both the present situation and what has to be a largely shared local perception of it. If that person was talking about the ability of the city authorities over the last decades to provide extensive infrastructure to facilitate car movements to and around the city, it would be hard to argue with them. And if a transition is already in its earliest stages, the fact is that over the last half-century the city by and large has been structured so as to ease the flow of vehicles over the urban landscape2, like it or not -- and taking into consideration the many billions of Euros spent to provide public transport infrastructure, vehicles and support, Helsinki is today still for most people an automobile city. But at the same time, my excellent sources and independent observations made it clear that while the present system is doing very well by cars, there are quite a substantial number of people living in and around the city who deserve to have more efficient, more user-friendly and more affordable transportation choices available to them, starting when they take their first step out their front door every day of the week. So the challenge is not one of providing for more and faster cars, but rather one of finding out about the needs of people that are at present not being met at the level that is both possible and that they deserve in their day to day lives. In particular with reference to the travel needs of non-drivers, the poorer and more fragile members of society, but beyond that in fact the entire population of the city. The challenges thus not to "fix" this or that part of the system, a long time strategy in most parts of the world, but to take those necessary steps back to take a fresh look and with this in mind effectively lay the groundwork to start to reinvent transportation for the city of Helsinki. Happily, this is something that is entirely within the scope of reality in Helsinki -- though not sadly in most cities around the world -- making this a most interesting, hopeful and important project.
2
This brings to mind the old saying that most of the transport related problems we face today are the result of someone's old solutions. Knowing this we can try to be careful not to repeat the pattern.
Page 9
1 .2 W ha t w en t wr ong w it h tr a n sp or t i n ci ti es : 1 9 50 - t oda y?
To get some perspective on this, let's compare it with something else we all can observe and verify. The above shows a photo of the UNIVAC 1, the first full-scale commercial computer on the market in March 1951 (Notice the woman doing all of the heavy lifting). The monster occupied vast real estate, required an army of attendants, weighed more than 13 metric tons, and offered many orders of magnitude less computing horsepower than the cheapest mobile phone on the market today. And if we compare it to, say , the latest iPad or Galaxy Note, we will see than the improvements in terms of power, speed, weight and reach are on the order of trillions. If we had tried to tell that story to the public or the computer experts of the time, they would simply not have believed us. But if we look at the transport arrangements of most of our cities half a century later, we find them entirely recognizable, at least in the visible basics. Why have we not been able to do with our cities what we have done with those smart libraries, universities, and wide open and cheap bits of metal and plastic that close to six billion people in all corners of their world have in their pockets and will be putting to work for an unimaginable array of uses before the end of the day? The short answer is that we are too heavily encumbered by the past. We need a paradigm change. i New York City traffic in 1950s
New York City traffic today
Page 10
Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment 1 .3 H el s i nk i 2 01 2 m o bi li t y sc or e c a r d

Accomplishments - Helsinki has invested considerable effort and money in building not only an extensive infrastructure support system for cars, but also over the last decades, like many other ambitious cities in Europe and the OECD region, has invested heavily in creating a world level public transportation system offering competitive coverage of substantial parts of the city and the surrounding region by high-cost high-quality metros, substantially less costly but well matched tramways, water transport and an extensive network of bus services. That's the good news. Limitations - Some readers may not like this, but all that is not enough. Even with these extensive investments in public transport, considerably taxpayer money was still being poured into the construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, tunnels and all of the electronic and other infrastructure which supports above all people driving to and around the city with an average of 1.2 persons per vehicle. And who still at the end of the trip needing something like 12 m of public space. Put it all together and you have to conclude that a new fundamental paradigm is needed. The old one is not working. Really! Think of the present situation as one of "waiting for paradigm". Innovations - Happily that is not the end of the story. Over the last decade the first signs of a new pattern better adapted to the needs of citizens in a modern democra5ic city has started to emerge -with growing wave of studies, pilot s, demonstration projects and services of a new kind stretching for new innovative approaches for all to safe, agreeable and fair mobility, including new systems and infrastructure investments to support safer streets, more agreeable circumstances for pedestrians and cyclists, as well as a promising collection of "in-between" or "third way" mobility services such as carsharing, ridesharing, good taxi-based services for the elderly and handicapped, park-and-ride, strategic improvements and reductions in on-street parking, and the long list goes on. Score - On the basis of my entirely unscientific observations, and at the same time drawing on extensive experience in working on these issues with cities in all parts of the world, I would put Helsinki's present quality performance of mobility for all well definitely up the list of, say, the top 200 cities in the world. But if I were to rank it on a scale of 10 among these top cities, I would have to give the region as a whole a 6 or 7 (bearing in mind that until now there are no 10s). ii Objections - I expect there will be objections to this. So much the better, that is what this process is all about -- not being right but encouraging enquiry and perhaps knowledge. Thy key here is not to fix on all that we can see. Yes there is real progress in freeing some streets, more disciplined and costlier parking and all those fine metros, trams and buses that are so visible to the eye. But the thing we need to learn to do better with, is serving all those use unmet needs are invisible. The key to more equitable transport is finding them first, and then working with them to find the solutions they need. Ambition - The best news of all is this: there is no good reason why Helsinki could not in a quite short period, say the two to four years directly ahead, emerge as a world leader and example for the rest. To accomplish this you will have to stand back and break the dominant and still largely unquestioned pattern of policy and investment that has brought you to this state -- but you are well equipped to do it and make it work. Not only that, you have already started as we have seen above. Challenge - This is the challenge which I very much hope we will now chose to take on -- and in the process showing the world a new model, a new approach to transport and land use planning in a new and very different century. The world will beat a path to your doorstep.
Page 11
2.
2 0 1 2: T i me for a pa r a d ig m c h a ng e ?
It is my carefully considered opinion that the only way in which Helsinki will be able to move toward the top of the world cities sustainable transport performance list will be if you make the explicit decision to move ahead to examine critically all of the constraints imposed by your present transport policy/paradigm and come up with a new fundamental strategy for mobility and the city, building on the considerable accomplishments of the past, while also doing what is needed to move far beyond the limitations of the present vision and associated arrangements. There is an old American song which goes: "Everything is up to date in Kansas City, they have gone just about as far as they can go". And that, with no disrespect intended, is where it appears to me transportation and related policies in Helsinki stand today. Based on the fundamental principles underlying your public policy in the sector, "you have gone just about as far as you can go". Meaning that if you wish to make major breakthroughs, you are going to have to dig down to the foundations and come up with a new set of basic principles to guide policy and investment decisions in the future. In short, a new paradigm. And what might that paradigm be? Well, if the immediate post-World War II period, which lasted roughly from 1950 through 1970 in Helsinki, was aimed in large part at building up a new infrastructure to support cars (Everyman's dream in those days ), the second period --which starts in the early 70s and in many ways takes us right through today -- was the attempt to meet the large part of the city's unfulfilled mobility needs through large investments in both (a) car infrastructure and (b) to extend and improve traditional public transportation (i.e. fixed route, schedule services). The principal thrust of these old policies was to do what is needed (a) to speed traffic and in the process (b) permit (oblige?) people to travel ever longer distances and all this (c) in combination with land-use practices that for the most part worked to favor continuing sprawl, while at the same time working against mixed-use and healthy and lively neighborhood developments. In addition to being largely centered on speed and distance (i.e., sprawl), the old paradigm that we would now hope to replace was characterized by (a) healthy doses of needlessly extravagant expenditures in combination with (b) what really boils down to indifference to all those who are not well served by the limited capacities of the second-generation car plus public transport paradigm. The new paradigm, the one that we might note is already in the process of developing in Helsinki, if as yet discreetly so, will with any luck be based on a very different set of values, hopefully, including equity, efficiency and economy.3 Because if you get it right equity, efficiency and economy go together. If that is true, which I believe it is, it should be worth a closer look.
Some additional background on the paradigm process is available in Helsinki in Annex C below.
Page 12
2 .1 We need a policy that is comprehensive, coherent, consistent

The present policy frame for decision-making and investment in the sector is too unquestioned, too ad hoc, too narrow, too closed to citizen input, and too subject to persistent sub-optimization, internal contradictions and inconsistencies, all of which together act to keep the overall system performance considerably below what it could easily become. 4 To put this into context, this is an all but universal problem of cities around the world . That said, this is no reason that the City of Helsinki should continue in this unfortunate dominant tradition of passivity and indifference to excellence.) The City of Helsinki, like just about all the rest, is tied to what is after all a 20th century approach in the face of a very different 21st century setting, marked by new priorities, new needs and, happily too, new thinking, new tools and new approaches to providing high quality mobility services for all. And new resources (to which little attention has been given in the past). It is not that there are not already quite a number of new ideas and initiatives being studied and occasionally launched from an expanding web of expertise and actors, that's not the issue here. Rather the problem is that the overall framework continues to be too bureaucratic, too patchwork and, while we're at it, far too costly, both for individual citizens and for the public sector as a whole. A new unifying strategic framework is needed and must of course take into consideration not only needs, investments and improvements in the transportation and land-use sector but also in all those other areas of society, economy and the environment which provide the overall context for a well working, fair mobility system. Helsinki is lucky in this. The vast majority of cities around the world are plagued by stop-and-start policies and projects which result from political changes, with the new winning party coming in after the latest election shutting down many on-going projects, in most cases without balanced appraisal, and replacing them with its own transportation agenda, favorites and priorities for public money. Helsinki is fortunate having demonstrated for many years the ability to move ahead with consistent cross-party support for its transportation and other public policy initiatives. There is a strong tendency for broadcasted social consensus. This is a considerable accomplishment of which other cities will do well to study and learn from, and a major factor in the city's favor as we look to a challenging but entirely obtainable New Mobility Agenda.
Just to be sure that I am clear on this, while I am talking here about the situation such as I have been able to observe it in Helsinki, the fact is that the limitations of the present paradigm are today close to universal and are presently holding back the quality of mobility in people's lives in close to all cities on this planet. Indeed one of the reasons why this project is so important, is that if Helsinki can demonstrate the advantages of moving toward a more equity-based mobility system that is also more efficient and affordable, these lessons will be universally useful.
Page 13
2 .2 Eq ui t y, e ff i ci en c y a nd t he i n vi si bl e ma j or i t y
The old transport paradigm, the one we are still living with today, is far too narrow in terms of the range and quality of people targeted and services offered, and in the process fails to serve what is -in fact -- the transpiration majority. The transportation majority is not what most people think, transportation planners and policy makers among them. The transportation majority are all those of us who increasingly are poorly served by the mainline service arrangements that eat up most of our taxpayer money and fail to offer them acceptable and efficient choices that mesh with their special needs and circumstances. And each year as our populations age this majority grows in numbers. Here is a generic short-list of the people who make up this till-now all too silent, substantially underserved majority: 1. Everyone in the city or region who does not own or have handy access to a car 2. Everyone who suffers from some form of physical or other impairment that makes driving or even access to traditional public transit difficult or impossible 3. Everyone who cannot drive 4. Everyone who should not drive, ever (for reasons of a variety of impediments such as limitations associated with age, psychological state , eye site, reactions times, , , ,) 5. Everyone who cannot responsibly take the wheel at any given time (fatigue, distraction, nervousness, some form of intoxication. . . ) 6. All those who cannot afford to own and operate a car. 7. Everyone who lives in a large city and for reasons of density, public health and quality of city life needs to have access to a decent non-car mobility system 8. All of those a fast growing group who would in fact, given the choice, prefer to get around by walking, cycling or some form of active or shared transport who cannot safely or readily do so today because the money is being spent on the vehicle system which is fundamentally, and financially, incompatible with these softer and more healthy ways of getting around 9. All those who are today isolated and unable to participate fully in the life of our communities because they simply do not have a decent way to get around. 10. And so dont lose sight of this! in a few years, you! Do the numbers and you will see that this is a very sizable group, a majority in fact if you do the numbers, and we can know several important things about them in the policy context. The first is that high quality public transport is one important lifeline for them But the second is that they represent a highly diverse collection of individuals: they are not a "mass" and their needs are personal and disparate. Beyond that, it also needs to be taken into consideration that many of their needs cannot be entirely served at appropriate levels of convenience and cost by mainline public transport alone. But the killer is that these people, their unmet needs, are for the most part invisible. Since they are not able to get around they simply fall off the radar screen of planners and policy makers and are left, abandoned and unserved. This is neither equitable nor worthy of a democratic society.
Page 14
2 .3 W ha t i s a n eq ui t y - ba se d tr a n s por t sy st e m ?
We need to be able to answer this question, and the first step in this process has to be to come to a common understanding of the fact that in most cities in the world -- probably all of them to be perfectly frank -- our transportation arrangements are far from equitable. There are winners and losers from the present mobility services, worse here, perhaps a bit better there. In all places, better or worse served, there is a common pattern. Thus, women are by and large less well served than men. Non-drivers less well than drivers. The elderly and frail less than the active and healthy. Children less well than adults, The poor less well than the rich. The unemployed less well than those with jobs. People in low-density areas less well than those living in the urban core. And all of those of us who cannot really afford to own and operate cars, as opposed to those few who can. And if you care to think about it a bit, you can surely complete this list as well as I. In a word, in most cities on this planet for the great majority the present transportation arrangements today are inequitable. The basically (a) all-car (b) basically no-choice (or let us say rather, not good enough choices) mobility arrangements of the 20thcentury are not doing the job for the majority. They are, to be brutally frank, unfair, inefficient and uneconomic. So what if we were to turn the situation around and take as a starting point for public policy and investments not so much the old twentieth century values of speed and distance (and indifference) -but instead 21st-century values of equity , social justice, participation and deep democracy? One of the key pillars behind this program is a belief that, properly engaged, the move to equitybased transport can lead to greater efficiency and economy both for the specific groups and individuals targeted, but also for the city and its region as a whole. That it is to say that the move to EBT is going to be a step up, and not a step down. At the end of the day, once you understand and accept the basic principle of equity, a huge number of other good things follow directly. And you have only to look in one place to see if you have it and that is on the streets of your city. If once you get your program launched and in gear, the mayor, all public servants, and the top economic 20% of your community travel by the same means as the other 80%, you have an equitable system. If not, not! It is that simple. And why do they do it? Quite simply because it is the best way to get around. Easy enough to say, hard to do -- but still do-able. That's our target.
Page 15
2 .4 P e op l e , pla c es a n d po l ic es
People: If we look back on the 20th century from a balanced, that is to say human, perspective, one of the things that has to strike the eye was the extent to which our ever-growing fascination with technology and its fast expanding toolsets lead us toward an ever-expanding impersonalization of society and the decisions we took together and their impacts on people in their day-to-day lives.. Probably as good a symbol of any of this dehumanization of daily life can be seen in the exaggerated applications of the work and theories of Frederick Winslow Taylor, the father of "scientific management" and industrial efficiency. Under Taylor's basic theory, which certainly has had its uses but also its abuses, the latter unfortunately probably greater outweighing the former, people and their activities were reduced to abstract quantities and numbers. A faceless policy. And so it was throughout the entire century that the actual people, the human beings their faces, their names, their lives, each of them very different -- were somehow abstracted from our thoughts and decision-making and replaced by mere numbers. We also know that last year something like 300 people were killed in traffic accidents in Finland and 34,000 in United States. Both of these figures declined in recent years, which of course is great news. But the less great news is that by thinking about the issues and trade-offs in terms of mere numbers we are led to a degree of abstraction which moves us away from the sense of personalization and immediacy which also must have its place in public policy. Places: Likewise the 20th century obsession with space, which in the playbook of transport planners was reduced to the distance between origins and destinations, with the job of their systems being primarily that of reducing the inconveniences of the space separating O and D by the magic of speed. As a result of this fascination with speed and the associated basic indifference to place, one of the most unpardonable oversights of transport policy over the last generations has been the utter inattention to the links between land use and mobility. This certainly is one key to the challenge. Policy: One of the potentially more interesting characteristics of an equity-based approach to mobility planning and policy is that by its very nature the concept obliges us to give far more careful attention to the individual characteristics of the people and places involved. And without wishing to tumble into the trap of the technology fascination which has so often proved detrimental to society in the past, the fact is that the emerging technologies and available tools, along with more complex and complete attitudes to individuals and public participation, provide us with indispensable help in the move toward more people-aware and place-based transport/land-use policies and practices.
Page 16
Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment 2 .5 F ut ur e of t he a u to m ob il e i n t he c it y

If you for some reason do not like cars, you are going to be disappointed by this: There are going to be plenty of cars in our cities in the future, but steadily fewer of them owned by individuals and households, while at the same time used in different ways. This is a fundamental paradigm shift and a powerful combination for the future and -- if we chose to make the effort to master it. The environment for cars in cities is changing fast -- with even more rapid and extensive changes on the horizon. There is a clear pattern at work in leading cities, most of which thus far in Europe., And one which we can already see in an early phase in Helsinki. The most important thing about this different future as far as cars are concerned is not the technology nor the tricks, but the ways in which they are owned and used. Basically what we are seeing is a fundamental attitudinal change on the part of a growing number of people to cars. This strategic shift is going to lead to important new opportunities for government, industry and the volunteer sector. And of course for people. But this is a process which is not as yet well understood. The century-old pattern of people owning cars and driving them around themselves, more often than not alone, is already in the process of breaking up. As good an example as any is carsharing, in which ownership is by one means or another collective, with vehicles being driven flexibly and by individuals at times of their own preference. This is of course a fundamental structural change, since the new pattern is not only one that people move to on a voluntary basis, above all for reasons of convenience and cost, but also one that encourages more intensive use of the vehicles themselves. Fewer vehicles, more intensively used, that is part of the pattern. The second pattern is one of more intensive use of the vehicles on the streets, which takes place through the various different systems by which more numerous people end up sharing a ride (ridesharing, carpooling, slugging, etc.) More people in each vehicle can lead to considerable spacesavings and positive environmental impacts, as well as the economic advantages that accrue to those who voluntarily participate in such schemes. The third vector is the manner in which the vehicles are more efficiently used. Thanks to ICT and new organizational processes, drivers are able to navigate more directly and efficiently to their end destination. The same technologies will be important for new collective uses including more effective use of taxis, more shared uses, and the DRT systems which are to be an important part of the future of the automobile in the city. To conclude for now: This Is an ongoing process and we need to master this change-environment if we are to be able to create effective public policies at the level of the city -- and as part of this the role of government is first to understand and then to provide clear signals to both the public and the private sector so that both can better anticipate and participate in the process. Helsinki, like just about every other city in the world, will do well to give attention to improving understanding of these new patterns which present significant opportunities and advantages. This is quite a challenge but one which really needs to be aggressively and strategically approached. Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on Page 17
2 .6 A " be tt er tha n ca r " m ob il it y sy st e m

The idea here is to combine policy, technology and entrepreneurial skills in such a way to create and make available to all a combined multi-level mobility system which for just about everybody should be more efficient than owning and driving a car in or into town. Let us start with this as our goal and then see what is the work that must be done in order to turn it into a reality. This is a strategy, well known in many leading cities by now including Helsinki of course, which has two principal legs: The first is to create a structure of pricing, available street and parking space, and conditions of transit which together impose on car owner-drivers the full cost of their use of scarce and valuable public space in the city. Thus, because cars are notoriously space-inefficient, which becomes problematic when their numbers pass a certain threshold, the time comes when they have to pay their way. Now this is not a matter of being anti-car, but rather one is being pro-cities and pro-people. And for strategic reasons it is critically important to emphasize this positive aspect. The other leg of the new policy paradigm includes of course more traditional forms of state-of-theart public transport -- but also greatly enhances the level of service offered by creating a bouquet of multiple, alternative mobility choices bringing together a multiplicity of new systems, each of which does a part of the job and which gained their full strength when combined with the other necessary supporting ingredients. (We often refer to these as 1% solutions, giving indication of the number and variety of mobility options which need to be combined to make the overall approach work.) As we start to fashion these various support system we do well to remember that the main reasons that people choose one form of transport over another is the relative advantages offered in terms of convenience, cost and conviviality. Safety and reliability are also right there at the top of the list. We often speak of a "bouquet" of mobility services, by which is meant that the "better than car" transport system is not a single mover, not even a multibillion-dollar Metro, but rather a strategic combination of multiple and varied mobility options which link and overlap to provide high-quality and affordable transportation service for all. Traditional public transit is a critical part of this integrated mobility package, as are bicycles, public and private, and agreeable and efficient walking. But so too are the growing array of alternatives which include, among others, carsharing, ridesharing, taxi sharing, small bus services, demand responsive transit, affordable taxi-based transport for the elderly, handicapped and other fragile groups, and the long list gets longer every day. It will come as no surprise in Finland that one of the key ways of tying all of these services together is through the abundance of information technology resources which are available to most, but not all, Finnish citizens, including Internet in all its variations but above all the communication system which the vast majority of people living in Helsinki have in their pocket, their mobile phone. The second step to bridge all of this multitude of services is through a unified fare/payment policy which combines to make all of these individual modes part of what is seen and used as a single unified seamless system. Or in other words, our "better than car" 21st century mobility alternative. By now is a pretty well known strategy. The real trick will be to create a unified policy framework to combine all the multiple components and choices needed to create our s1st century better-than-car system, with the concept of equity at its base. That will keep us plenty busy. Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew Page 18
3.
Eq ui t y - ba se d tr a n s por t for H e ls ink i ? R ou n d 1 co n cl us io n s
Of the two hundred people with whom we met and listened to in Helsinki over the last month, a substantial majority indicated that the concept of equity is one that is worthy of more attention as an eventual policy pillar for the transport sector. That "recommendation" needs be tempered in at least two ways. First, whether in Finnish or English, the concept of equity as a policy tool is not altogether self-evident in the transport context. It is worth the time to examine the concept carefully to make sure that we are on a common ground. Fortunately, the country's decades of successful experience with creating a world- leading education system based on the concept of equity meant that there is a high level of familiarity with the concept, albeit in another sector, making it that much easier to understand and embrace. The other objection or qualification came from a certain number of people who, while they did not reject the equity concept per se, indicated that it was not clear to them how what at first glance appears to be a largely philosophical concept -- no matter how attractive it may seem to be could be fashioned into a solid basis for practical policy and investment decisions in the sector. For my part, I can only agree with them at this point and believe that this will be the challenge that needs to be faced in the next major work stage of the program. There is still a lot of preparatory work to be done to move beyond the concept stage and into something which is more strategic and better suited for serious discussion and testing. One of the more practical and relatively low-cost way of advancing our understanding of both the mechanisms and potential of equity-based systems will be through organizing a series of "learning and doing projects" which can be expanded to also bring in a carefully defined equity brief. You will find some for suggestions about this a bit further on in this working report. So let us move ahead on this base.
Page 19
3 .1 Ne w f ina nc ia l r ea l it ie s a n d co ns tr a i nt s
This is very interesting and actually extremely positive in this context. It is all about money, or in this case the absence thereof. The new economic context of transport in cities. This is an important point that you either grasp or you don't. And if you are someone who is thinking is locked into the old policies and practices in the sector, there are good odds that you are going to have difficulty with accepting the reality of the economic situation in front of us today. All of the public policy agents concerned with these issues must learn to become far more costeffective in the way in which they decide about and invest scarce taxpayer monies. Levels of expenditure on both private car support and high cost public transport expansion over the last decades of the last century are simply not sustainable in the face of the tough financial realities of this new and very different century. It is the prudent thing to assume that this new and highly constraining financial climate is going to prevail over most of the decade ahead, which means we are going to have to examine and change many of our old ways, and not only in Helsinki This is a brave new world, and it would be quite mad not to understand that this new series of constraints and realities reshuffles the deck. Everything that was taken a priori as a "good and necessary project" in the past needs to be looked at again, and through new criteria. So what might once have been considered a perfectly reasonable way to spend millions or billions of hard-earned tax-payer money, in 2012 most definitely needs a new and close look. In fact, every single new large infrastructure or other project planned or about to get underway needs now to be subjected to close scrutiny, and examined by independent multi-disciplinary evaluators representing a board range of public interests and points of view. And be prepared to be surprised by the results. Fortunately, there are a considerable number of approaches and improvements which can be brought online, which do not require multi-billion Euro levels of investment. Or take decades to get the job done, as has all too often been the case in the past. Transportation policy and investment in Helsinki over the rest of this decade should be a combination of frugal and effective, and of course equitable. This is a very different financial climate from the one that we have all become accustomed to working with in the past, and one that is going to take the public authorities, some effort to come to grips with.
Page 20

If you can't measure it, you can't manage it.
3 .2 M ea s ur i ng a nd M a na g e m en t
There were good discussions in several of the meetings as to how one might actually qualify and measure equity -- on the perfectly reasonable grounds that if you cannot measure a policy in at least some credible way, you cannot manage it. This is an open and important question which we need to give close attention to as we move ahead on this program, not least because nobody else has ever shown the way on this. So we have to do it ourselves All too often in the transport sector those in authority have historically had the tendency to cite inputs as an indicator of a project's importance and contribution. That is the easy way but not necessarily the best. Among the metrics most commonly cited include the amounts of public money being spent in support of this or that project, kilometers of infrastructure being laid, numbers of public transport vehicles being purchased and put on the road, etc. But by now it is clear that this input-oriented approach is not only suspect but actually entirely worthless. What is needed is an index, or if necessary indices, of performance. Which in the complex reality of something as sprawling as the transport sector of an entire large city and a hugely varied population , is no easy thing to come up with. But we need at least to try. Measuring the value of a program's contribution in terms of output is also a tricky business and can easily lead to confusion. It is all very well that some large infrastructure project may increase the throughput of vehicles in some significant way. But what happens if those vehicles are substantially under-occupied? And too there is the question of quality of service, and of course equity. Are these considerable investments actually getting people from where they want to start a trip to where they want to end up in a time efficient way, and at the same time providing the convenience, quality and fairness service that it would seem reasonable to expect in a successful postindustrial democracy? This led to a certain number of ad hoc discussions about possible measures or metrics. A number of ideas were floated. Any reliable metric putting a number on the change in terms of reduced use of private cars and more of everything else would seem to be a candidate. If serious accidents are reduced, this has to be related to the equity argument. Increased mobility on the part of the poor and other disadvantaged groups also seems like a candidate. Increased provision for safe cycling. Higher parking fees, reduced numbers of parked cars on the street. And again the long list goes on. And while it cannot hurt to have a web of areas in which improvements are being targeted and implemented, from an overall management perspective we need to seek a more unified approach to evaluating and measuring the impacts of our new program. This is a tough topic and one to which we will have to give careful attention in the next follow-up stages of this project. One idea that was discussed and which is probably worth closer study was that of developing a more refined, detailed and perhaps as close to real time as possible version of the full modal split, with fine-grained reporting and public feedback on not only cars and public transport but also walking, cycling, car sharing, ridesharing, taxis, including "social taxis", parking, park+ride, and all those other important elements that together constitute the new mobility agenda. Bottom line: more thought and work needed here. (And the test projects should help a lot.) iii Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on Page 21
3 .3 F l a t ( o p en a n d ef f ic i en t) s ys t em s
When it comes to transport in cities, based on the less than outstanding results the present arrangements are getting, it is fair to say that there is every sign that we are not using our brains as well as we should. Let me put it this way: under our present arrangements and giving the magnitude of the challenges before us, we have a serious brain deficit. Fair enough, but if we need brains, where can we turn to find them? Someone mentioned that it is 2012 and that Helsinki is located in a country called Finland, and further suggested that whatever we do or propose should fully reflect and build on the realities and special competences of this time and place. When you have a population of more than 5 million people combined with one of the world's leading educational systems, it is reasonable to assume that there is a lot of knowledge and competence spread out all over the country that would ideally be incorporated into the process of understanding and eventually creating new and better systems, projects and innovations. The old sharply steepled hierarchical organizational and decision systems of the past, which assume that all knowledge and competence (and with it decision-making power) is narrowly held within traditional government organizations, would not seem to be very well meshed with the realities of a place like Finland in the second decade of the 21st century. In addition to the high level of education and increasing civic interest and activism, we also will do well to take into account the information and communications technologies at our disposal and note that can permit a massive and most creative reinvention of the innovation, planning and decision process from top to bottom -- or better yet, from bottom to top. If we are looking for a good analogy for 21st century governance, it might be that of learning from the playbook of post iPhone Apple and others who have decided that, instead of trying to invent everything themselves, to open up their system and create a framework for independent entrepreneurs to come in and develop and task-specific applications that then can be economically and efficiently made available to all. Let us note that this could be a potentially important trend in 21st century governance, and in the process note that there are already numerous successful examples in the transport sector of citizen activism mediated by technology to be looked at and learned from in Helsinki and well beyond. Over the course of the various discussions several examples of citizen "hacktivist" projects and other forms of collaborative citizen interaction with projects and programs for the various levels of government and public/private agencies were presented,. And to this observer virtually all of them serve as food for thought as we prepare to take the equity program eventually into its next stage.
Page 22
3 .4 W ha t a bo ut la bor - sa vi ng / j ob cr ea ti on ?
A significant part of the new paradigm will necessarily have to do with job creation: new forms of production and employment, and linking all of them to the concept of continuing education, skill improvement and lifelong learning. Why is this important? Over the last three generations one of the most striking contributions of technology in the transport field, at least from the vantage of transport operators and infrastructure, but others as well who employ significant amounts of labor, has been primarily oriented to that nice phrase "laborsaving". That is not to say that technology has not offered increased functionality and quality of service in many ways, but that the overall trend has been to systematically taking later out of the system. From the perspective of those who wish to reduce their costs and the transport sector has traditionally been an area with a high labor content this has been a sensationally effective policy. But laborsaving is in fact another word for job destruction. We have gotten accustomed under a sort of automatic pilot to using state-of-the-art technology where we can to reduce labor inputs. Fair enough you might say, but the social costs in many cases have been considerably higher than one might anticipate. This matter of job creation instead of job destruction is a problem and it is one that is not about to go away in the 21st-century unless we take the decision to do something about it. So here is the first cut of a proposal concerning which I would like to invite further comment and discussion: Every public investment made in the field should be carefully examined for its job creation potential. And by this I do not mean the storied "pick and shovel" jobs that are often cited by entrepreneurs and politicians as reasons for making very large public infrastructure investments, no that is not good enough. Rather we should be looking for jobs and career paths that corresponds to the needs of an efficient and equitable 21st-century democracy. At this point it is not at all clear to me how this can be accomplished. But the idea of incorporating some kind of job creation audit into every publicly funded project seems like one that is at the very least worth considering. Because there cannot be an equitable society unless all citizens have an opportunity for good jobs with a future.
Page 23
4 . S o me f ir s t pr o j e ct s to t es t a nd r e fi ne t h e pr i nc ip l e s
Now we start to get into the most important practical aspect of this idea testing exercise: specific projects and initiatives both for what they can offer in themselves and as a coordinated learning experiences. Let us take this in steps. In this next (review) phase we propose to invite all those who took part in the first stage interviews, work sessions and presentations to look over and review the following draft concept statements which are set out here in order to give the reader a first feel for the kinds of cooperative projects that may be useful to help us all better understand what can happen when you put the equity principle to work in a specific transport policy context. Note that with the exception of the proposed equity these are ongoing projects with the lives of their own. These are impressive projects with impressive teams behind them, and I can only hope that our contributions will make life if not easier at least more effective than, hopefully, more fun. Once you have had your look at what follows, it would be great if you would consider stepping forward with one or two proposals of your own for collaborative projects in your area of interest, city or neighborhood, which take as their point of departure the equity concept which we can then look at and study together for eventual trial application. Working from this base it is our hope that with the feedback coming out of this peer review stage, we can start to better understand how this abstract concept of an equity-based transport policy can actually be put to work to play a useful role on the streets of the city and in the lives of the people who live there. It is my guess that once we have run these and similar exercises a dozen or so times would make good progress on the overall strategic issues and options.
1. Advancing the concept of an Equity Audit

It is already time to start thinking about the concept of an Equity Audit -- an analytic framework which, though surely very rough and incomplete at first, can eventually be developed into a useful technique for project and investment analysis a tool that will not only clarify and report on key equity issues, potential accomplishments and shortcomings, but will also, one might hope, provide concrete leads for corrective action and adjustments. This is an building block for the program because we need to be able to move beyond individual projects and ad hoc adjustments, if the equity concept is ever to become a strong central pillar of public policy. It is worth noting that this is a project that will be of interest well beyond Helsinki and Finland, so there is good potential in bringing in international collaborators to share their ideas and critical remarks as we move ahead on the audit project. Executing partner: City of Helsinki, Dept. of City Planning/Transport
Page 24
2. Sound clues for visually impaired on public transport
The idea for this project came up in the course of our discussions with representatives of the Finnish Federation of the Visually Impaired (FFVI). They opened the meeting with a more general introduction about the special problems incurred by the visually impaired as they try to get around the city in their day-to-day lives. As they went through the various aspects of these difficulties, the point came up repeatedly about the importance of sound clues to help them get their orientation and make decisions about what to do next. To make this more specific, they noted that while station announcements are made on the Metro, this is not the case yet in either the tramway or buses. This is a significant handicap for them as they try to get around the city on their own. While I would imagine that this matter has been the object of public attention on a number of cases in the past, it nonetheless seems that it might be an excellent test project and learning exercise for the equity-based transfer program, starting specifically with a series of openly reported contacts and discussions with the necessary public authorities. The representatives of the FFVI indicated that they were prepared to take this initiative. If this project could be carried out with a special line of attention to the equity implications and lessons of this initiative, this could be very valuable not only in the specific case but also more generally appropriate. What is interesting about this approach is that it opens up additional topics and opportunities for improving the equity aspects of the city's transportation system for this important and often seriously under-served class of the population, which includes not only those who are legally blind but also those with impaired vision, of whom the majority are the elderly. And this in a society and at a time in which we are aging rapidly. It is further worth bearing in mind that a good system of station announcements on buses and trams would also be serving an even larger population, including not only the city's many tourists but also others who will benefit from this convenient information. (This is what we call knock-on effects, which is what happens when a specific action or policy aimed at a specific group turns out to be useful for many others as well. This, it strikes me, should be a major target for initiatives and actions in this broad area.) Executing partner: Finnish Federation of the Visually Impaired (FFVI).
Page 25

3. Creating an equitable public bicycle project for Helsinki
The new public bicycle project presently in the planning stage could and probably should be one instance in which we could test some of these principles and see how they might apply to an essentially make some differences in the planning and the realization of a specific new project. Here is one point I can offer on this topic based on my visits to and work with something like twenty or so public bike projects of widely different sizes, types and organization in different parts of the world. If you take the time to have a good look at how these projects actually work on the street you will see that they are by and large use by people who are not at the bottom of the economic/social matter in that place. In the simplest and most often repeated of cases, public bikes are more used by men by women. By younger people rather than older people. By people in good physical health, as opposed to those who are more fragile. By those living in the center supposed to defend outlying areas. By longtime residents, rather than new immigrants. If you talk to a fair cross-section of the those using them, as I have in numerous places, you will quickly understand that these are people who are for the most part not culturally, socially, psychologically and certainly not economically disadvantaged or isolated. Yet our cities are filled with just such people in these latter categories, so if we really want to create a truly "public" bike system, would it not make sense that our plan be sensitive to these asymmetries and seek ways to deal with them in a way which is both equitable and democratic? Executing partner: City of Helsinki, Dept. of City Planning/Transport
4. Carsharing for all

While the concept carsharing has advanced only slowly in Helsinki last decade, the mere fact that it is still alive and even growing is a testimonial to the staying power of a good idea. Within the last several years it has become very clear that carsharing is going to become a very important support tool for new mobility reform and quality of service in cities, as people and households are increasingly substituting the concept of a shared car for full-time private ownership. When individuals or families shift from car ownership to carsharing, they do this on the grounds about all of affordability and convenience. The Achilles' Heel of Carsharing in virtually every city in the world is that it is a new mobility mode which is primarily made available to and used by people in higher income and education brackets. It is notably absent when it comes to the economically disadvantaged portions of the population as well as by people living in low-density outlying areas. There is no reason that it has to be like this. And thus every reason to have an equity look at carsharing practices and structures to see how they can be adapted to provide better, more affordable and more convenient services for lower income groups and others who may find themselves in the position of occasionally needing access to a car but who cannot afford fulltime ownership. Executing partners: City of Helsinki and City Car Club
Page 26

5. Looking into equity refinements for Metropol DRT demonstration project
The Metropol DRT demonstration project is a joint project between HSL, Finnish Transport Agency, Aalto University and Ajelo Oy which can also provide useful test bench for an equity audits and eventual modification to take into consideration what has been learned in that process. The target of the Metropol project is to implement in stages a new demand responsive public transport service that offers individually tailored trips (completely variable argument destination in combination with immediate or near-immediate service) with the help of a smart real-time booking system and communications interface. At the present time the pilot is targeting to provide vital on-demand services for all comers. This strikes us as an excellent opportunity for those involved to work directly with specific target groups which suffer from a variety of limitations or handicaps, and to tailor services to provide affordable, convenient and reliable service for the targeted under-served groups and areas. Again, this aspect of the program could take the form of an "equity audit" which could be followed conveniently by all of those people and organizations who are concerned also more generally with the concept of equity-based protection. Executing partners: HSL, Finnish Transport Agency, Aalto University and Ajelo Oy
6. Exploring the potential of open government and the "social brain"

When you have a country of 5 1/2 million people with a strong shared identity and just about the best educational system in the world, it would seem like a great pity to not make use of all that brainpower and energy when it comes to virtually all of the work that is needed to establish wise and effective public policy in all areas of government and daily life. 2012 is a good time to think about this and play around with some ideas to see what we might be able to do with it. If we look around in Finland and elsewhere today we can see many signs of the fact that we are, with the help of 21st century technology, fully in an ongoing process of very rapidly reorganizing our information and processes of interaction and exchange, though for the most part of this is taking place on an ad hoc and initiative by initiative basis. But what if we step back and think about putting this to work? For the most part in Finland and elsewhere in the processes of government continue to be contained within more traditional hierarchical structures in which just about all decisions are in effect made by the brainpower and information available within and to those working inside those structures. With really small number of exceptions, government seems to be having difficulty in figuring out how to do it is best possible job in this new and very different environment. In a phrase, how to use the social brain. Today we are in a position to do considerably better. Until we have a better phrase for it, let us think of the job that needs to be done as one of advancing a concept of advancing open government.
Page 27

Over the course of the two week core stage in our discussions with all of those contacts, we kept hearing from many parts about better ways of linking citizens to the planning and decision process. This was most marked in the sessions and presentations led by Demos, Dodo, and the lively hactivist contingent. Time after time we found ourselves talking about ways in which the links between governments and citizens, important decisions and be social brain, need to be rethought and reorganized massively. Several examples of creative interaction were cited where independent info-entrepreneurs were finding useful ways to interface with public systems. The example of numerous independent but highly useful travel planners was cited among others, bringing up the idea of recasting the role of government at least in part to creating various kinds of platforms to which citizens can add, innovate and variously improve. The discussions went on to talk over the desirability of using today's information communication technologies to open up the planning process for all government projects in the sector at the earliest possible stages so that interested citizens could not only follow but also, as their confidence permitted, start to take an active role in the definition of the project in all its parts. This is heady stuff and though it might at first seem perhaps overly ambitious and even radical, there can be no doubt that this is a direction in which good governance has to learn to move. The equity project would be a great place to start to initiate such collaboration. Initial partners: City of Helsinki, Demos, Dodo and other citizen groups, hactivists, etc.
### Again, the above is intended at this point quite simply as a first introduction and a call for ideas for collaborative projects and equity audits. I hope that by the end of the peer review process we will have at least 10 or 20 first-class project ideas on the shelf available for sharing comment. We await your comments and suggestions with real interest.
Page 28
5 . Nex t S te ps
1. Peer review Over the six week period running from May to mid-June, this draft report will be widely circulated in its present form in Helsinki and other parts of Finland for peer review, information and comments. Portions of the draft will also be posted to World Streets and broadly shared with cooperating programs and sites for international readers, once again inviting comments and suggestions for finalization and follow-up. It is proposed that the various comments and other remarks and suggestions should be addressed directly to the author by email - eric.britton@eoplan.org -- with copies to Taneli Nissinen at taneli.nissinen@hel.fi. The author also invites telephone comments via +336 5088 0787 or Skype via newmobility. 2. Report finalization and publication This final adaptation, rewriting and editing process should take about one week of full time team work, hopefully in the second half of June and it would probably be most efficient if it were organized in Helsinki to benefit from team and other comments. The revised final will then be fully ready for definitive publication and national and international distribution in both English and French editions. 3. Follow-up To be specified and explored subsequent to peer review and report finalization.
Closing commentary on follow-up options and next steps: Option 1. Do nothing and forget about it. (We call that putting it into the drawer and throwing away the key". We have seen that happen.) Option 2. Do nothing but wait and see what if anything happens - and then get behind it. (Often though in the real world this is the same thing as (a)) Option 3. Define a follow-up strategy, and give ourselves a very near specific date to make a decision as to what we do next, with whom, where, under what sponsorships, etc. Option 4. Turn over the next stage to another group, institution or partnership who are ready and able to move with this. Why do we need to think about this and make our best decisions to position ourselves strategically for next steps? Cause if we dont, nothing will happen. I promise.
Page 29

A closing word of thanks
Dear Helsinki Friends and Colleagues, I am very glad to be able to express my sincere appreciation here to all those who have been so helpful over these last months in educating me on our topic -- and more generally for guiding and supporting this first stage this. first-time ever equity/transport city project. We have come a long way with this admittedly unfamiliar, not so easy to understand concept in a comparatively short period of time. And to the extent that we have made progress is a direct result of the solid teamwork and openness of spirit that greeted this project over these last few months. This project has been initiated and led from beginning by Mrs. Leena Silfverberg, who took the risk of helping to organize a closer look at the equity/transport arguments set out here. Leena Is Head of Regional Planning Unit in the City Planning Department/Transportation of the city of Helsinki, and in this capacity assigned a team of bright and hard-working professionals from her department who helped me in many ways during my time there and over the last weeks of work in preparing this report. In all my time there I was closely guided and supported by two persistent, and committed patient young people with backgrounds in, of all things in this context, traffic engineering, Taneli Nissinen and Sanna Ranki. And as the project moved ahead we were "adopted" by a handful of energetic and intellectually curious people working in a variety of areas both within and outside of the city administration, helping us to test and develop some of the concepts set out in these pages. The Helsinki Equity exploratory project has been actively supported by Ville Lehmuskoski, Director of the Department of City Planning and Transportation, and by Deputy Mayors Pekka Sauri (Public Works and Environmental Affairs) and Hannu Penttil (City planning and real estate). The support I received from so many during the course of my stay with you was exceptional and heart-warming, and the level of critical thinking and wide open discussion and idea questioning and mongering was nothing short of splendid. I would also like to acknowledge the stunning level of English language competence which I found in every single one of the two hundred or so people with whom I spoke during those weeks. If we needed one more testimonial to point out that the equitybased educational system is doing its job, you have one more to be added to the long list. A great deal of work lies ahead. If the great majority of those participating in this project have indicated that the concept of equity is one that is really worth looking at more closely and eventually integrating as a central pillar of the transportation system, this is a good start but the question remain: what do we need to do next in order to bring this into the necessary high profile for decisionmaking and action. All of which should give you the first feel for the fact that the concept of equity is doing its job in Finland as the background for not just fairness, but also excellence. This very close link between equity and excellence is one critical point that we will do well to keep in mind as we move ahead. Thank you. Eric Britton EcoPlan. International, Lyon. E.. eric.britton@ecoplan.org | T. +336 5088 0787 | S. newmobility Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew Page 30

Annexes
Page 31

Annex A: The Hels inki project in brief
The Helsinki project is seen as a critical first step in a process initiated by World Streets in the closing months of 2011. We see the overall equity/transport program as an open, long-term collaborative project which is intended to spin out over at least several years and which will in time, we hope, develop and spread to other cities, countries and sponsors around the world, all with a view to presenting, testing and hopefully in successive iterations steadily improving the fundamental arguments behind this program, namely the concept of developing a new paradigm for transport in cities based on the concept of equity. We were extremely fortunate to have Helsinki as the first sponsor to step forward to test this idea in this open format for a lot of reasons, chief among them the fact that the concept of equity is one which has been carefully and systematically developed in Finland over the last decades in the countries were level performances in the field of education. Thus the concept of equity and public policy is not new for them, however the application to transport in cities is -- and that is what we are trying to look at with them here. The project keys on a series of brainstorming sessions organized over the month of March 2012, with a small core team working under the aegis of the Helsinki Department of City Planning/Transportation, meeting and exchanging ideas and proposals with a cross-section of individuals and groups, government, private sector and volunteer organizations, to examine together what the transportation system of the city and its surrounding areas might look like, if, instead of distance and speed, public sector investments and actions were required to look first and above all to the concept of equity. The concept of equity -- which is not to be confused with equality matter how important the latter might be -- rather has to do with concepts such as fairness, social inclusion, compassion, decency and perhaps above all equality of opportunity and access.. When Abraham Lincoln ended the Gettysburg Address during the darkest days of the American Civil War with the words "government of the people, by the people, for the people", he was in fact talking about democracy and equity. One reason for choosing a Finnish city for this first peer investigation is directly related to their great accomplishments over the last years in building one of the most highly respected educational systems in the world (see the OECD PISA program results over the last decade) based specifically on the concept of equity. Our project will also examine the strategic base of their success in the education sector, to see if there are lessons which can be applied to transportation systems reform. We are well aware that in many parts of the world the transportation arrangements are grossly unfair to the very large proportion of the population. Some cities, some projects do better than others but the broad central trend is there, and it is not good. The systems and services offered are often outstandingly and visibly unfair to the elderly and to the frail, to those who cannot drive and do not have access to cars, those who cannot afford to own and operate a car, including those who may work and own and use a car but who really are not sufficiently well-off to be able to afford the high costs associated with car ownership and use, those who are penalized in their daily and family lives as a result of having to travel long distances in often inconvenient or even absent public transportation, to those who would like to walk or bicycle in safety, to children in many aspects of
Page 32

their day to day lives, to women who by and large are not fairly treated by the existing transportation arrangements, and the long list goes on. In a word, in most cities on this planet for the great majority of all people the present transportation arrangements are inequitable. The all-car no-choice transportation arrangements of the 20th century are not doing the job for the transportation majority. They are unfair, inefficient and uneconomic. So what if we were to turn the situation around and take as a starting point for public policy and investments in the sector not so much the twentieth century values of speed and distance but 21stcentury values of equity , social justice and deep democracy. One of the key pillars behind this program is a belief that, properly engaged, the move to equitybased transportation can lead to greater efficiency and economy both for specific groups and individuals, and also for the city and its region as a whole. That it is to say that it is going to be a step up, and not a step down. Project Highlights 1. 15 January to 29 February. Laying the foundation. Development of program plan, team organization, initial contact, events, schedules, and basic supporting documentation and organizational/logistical support for Stakeholder Dialogues, Master Classes and media. 2. 1 to 14 March. In-place preparations and testing. Initial outreach program and finalization of Finnish documentation. Development and communication of basic documentation and interview and meeting arrangements with a broad cross-section of individuals, groups and programs working in sector. (Click here to get an idea of organizations to be contacted for the project.) 3. 15 to 27 March. Stakeholder Workshops/Dialogues. Presentations, discussions, interviews, site visits and conversations with key groups and interests in greater Helsinki area. Media presentations, interviews, continuing contacts with even wider range of key interest groups, as well as review sessions with teams responsible for organizing the ongoing programs generating the Helsinki Master Plan, Metropolitan Area Transport System Plan and the Program for Promoting Cycling in Helsinki. 4. 21 to 23 March. Invitational Master Classes. Held in the auditorium of the Department of City Planning and Transportation, with formal presentations and public discussions running from 09:00 to 11:30 each day, followed by private discussions and exchanges with the team over the remainder of those days. Session 1: People: Equity and Transport. Session 2. Systems: Delivering equitable transport. 3. Strategies: at project and overall systemic levels. 5. 27 March, 10:00. Public presentation and discussion to organized in auditorium of Department of City Planning, both to report on mission findings, and seek further information and views to be included in the final report and recommendations. 6. 29 March to end- April. Report drafting, internal review with limited distribution for comment to external reviewers. 7. May/June 2012. Continuing process of review and periodic revisions of report sections and associated materials. A final revised version to be available in late June.
Page 33

Annex B: World Streets Editor ial: On the plane to Helsinki
Editorial by the author posted to World Streets on 15 March 2012 | 5 Comments: Click here to read I have always thought of myself not as a consultant that is, someone with specific expertise to whom you ask directed questions and who gives you what you think/hope are the right answers but rather as an advisor, i.e. someone whose role it is to sit next to you for a certain period of time and draw your attention to a certain number of things to which you might wish to give a closer look. (NB. My experience shows that it is usually a lot more comfortable to work with consultants.) So here I am just about to get on the plane for Helsinki where I shall be working and meeting over the next two weeks with a couple of hundred people, almost all Finns, in individual meetings and group and plenary sessions as you can find spelled out elsewhere on this site and through all of that to talk together about equity and transport, private actions and public policy. Over the last two months of preparatory work with my Finnish colleagues on this, while at the same time working in parallel with our international networks to test these ideas and extend the knowledge base, I have come up with a list of questions which I am about to stuff into my pocket and when I land in the Nordic capital doing my best to ask and then listen to what they have to say. At the end of all this, some time in mid-April, I shall try to fashion what I have heard and learned into a relatively short strategic report with observations, reflections, findings and perhaps eventually some recommendations. Here is the short list of the questions I am bringing to Helsinki: 1. What is equity (and what is not-equity)? 2. How does this concept work in the Finnish language? Are there significant differences of which we should be aware? (I am hopeful that my Finnish colleagues will write this up so that we can add it to the site.) 3. Is mobility/access a basic need, a human right of citizens in an active democracy. 4. Does the extraordinary Finnish equity-based education system give us a leg-up when it comes to the proposed push to equity-based transport? 5. What is not-Equity in transport? Examples from Helsinki? 6. What is Equity-Based Transport? Examples from Helsinki? 7. Is there a non-car majority in Helsinki? Who are they, what are their needs and how can we serve them best? Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew Page 34

8. Is Public Transport (i.e. for the most part scheduled fixed-route services) the answer for Helsinkis 21st century patterns and needs? 9. What is the future of the automobile in Helsinki, and Finland more generally? 10. What does a better than car mobility package look like? 11. What about the role of the ITC interface? Is this going to be critical? Or an option? 12. Should equity/transport strategies have an eye to job creation and lifetime learning? 13. Do Social Media tools make a difference? How? 14. Are the forces for change/improvement working together in Helsinki? Or are they mainly working on their separate specific agendas and coming up with priorities and demands of their own? 15. A discussions of civil society and the social brain as an untapped resource (lighting the synapses) 16. What would an Equity-Based Transport system for Helsinki look like? and what would be the best way to get there? Will it cost a lot? Will it be disruptive and divisive? Will it take a lot of time to start to get there? PS. Are we talking about a major paradigm change? And if so, what is wrong with the one we already have? Hidden agenda
As I look at all this on my way to the airport this morning, what strikes me is that this is one of those instances in which the questions are perhaps more important than the answers. And indeed I figure that it is my role here, not to come up with cocky answers to each of these, so much as to encourage the asking and subsequent discussions of all that touches on equity and transport for the city and beyond. Eric Britton Paris, 14 March 2012
Page 35

Annex C: Late Night Thoughts on Equity from Helsinki
Posted by the author to World Streets on 17 March 2012 Equity? Hmm. This, it turns out on inspection, is not quite so easy a concept to get across. In English, and after two days of discussions with a wide variety of groups and people here in Helsinki, its already tough enough. And I have learned, its even more challenging in Finnish. Here are some late night thoughts on this word that I share with you here in the hope that it may inspire comments and clarification. So here you have my notes, more or less in the order that they came to mind late in the night. 1. Certainly not the same thing (quite) as equality. And it is important to keep this distinction in mind. 2. In a nutshell something like: equal life chances regardless of identity 3. Equity is based on the idea of moral equality 4. A shared understanding of the social commitment to provide all citizens with a basic and fair minimum of income/goods/services 5. Equity deals with accommodating and meeting the specific needs of specific individuals 6. Intergenerational equity, equality and fairness in relationships between people in different generations 7. In another common usage of the word (financial) equity is also the value of an ownership interest in property. ( This aspect needs to be further explored in our context., because indeed it is important to ensure that citizens own, have a significant share in their city or country. Thus helping to sure that they see themselves as active parts of the solution.) 8. Here are some synonyms that come to mind: Fairness, social justice, decency, morality , nobility ??, Integrity , honesty, disinterestedness, neutrality, rectitude , impartiality , compensatory . . . 9. When it comes to economic aspects, equity looks at the distribution of capital, goods and access to services throughout an economy and is often measured using tools such as the Gini index. (It is commonly used as a measure of inequality of income or wealth. A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality where all values are the same i.e., where everyone has an exactly equal income. At the other end of the equity spectrum, a Gini coefficient of one indicates maximal inequality among values, i.e., where only one person takes all the income. )
Page 36

10. Income differentials are growing in almost every country in the world today, Scandinavia and Finland included. This is a fact and a trend, and if we point to it here the goal is imply to be sure that we are identifying the landscape within which this project intends to work its way out. 11. Low levels of equity are associated with life chances based on inherited wealth, social exclusion and the resulting poor access to basic services and intergenerational poverty resulting in a negative effect on growth, financial instability, crime and increasing political instability 12. High levels of inequity when combined with awareness of the differentials itself a function of some combination of physical proximity of all parties, and/ or hotter communication between those who are aggrieved by the present arrangements can lead on one side to anger, on the other to guilt. 13. This can lead to conflict, both open and more or less subterranean. More or less violent. More or less revolutionary . 14. All humans have a need to be respected and to have self-esteem and self-respect. ( Yes, no, I dont know) 15. In a society of equity all of the basic needs of everyone are ensured at a level of what is seen there are decency and justice. 16. A traditional list of immediate basic needs is food (including water), shelter, and clothing. This list is also often expanded to include sanitation, education, and healthcare. 17. What about the right to work i.e., to have access to sufficient income to provide for these basic needs, plus, and this is almost as important, an identity as an active part of equity and the economy. 18. Does transportation, access, belong on this list? And finally (for now) . . . 19. And if so what are the characteristics of equitable transportation? This is an interesting and I believe useful way for me to close out these late night thoughts on equity and our project. Namely that there will never e be hard and fast universal rules that define this concept and way of organizing ourselves in society. For that we have to turn to culture and identity. Now on to equity-based transportation in Helsinki and Finland. Eric Britton Helsinki. 17 March 2012 ###
Page 37

A few disturbing thoughts before we turn out the lights: With the worlds population now well past the seven billion mark, this means that if life were truly fair, equitable if you will, my and your fair share of the worlds resources will be on the order of 1.4285714285714285714285714285714 e-10. Now thats a very very small number. And one which represents a challenge that is far beyond the potential of my brain at least to come to grips with it in our present context. Lets see now, at something like 5.5 million people. Finlands population is well less than one tenth of one percent of the world total. And Helsinkis population of course an even smaller fraction of this planet crushing total. Under these circumstances, what could we possibly expect of this small out of the way Nordic city of modest, hard working, well educated people whose sole resource at the end of the day is their energy, moral strength and brainpower. Thats the bad news. And the good news is that they, like any country or city, just might be able to provide a viable example though their actions and achievements showing that equity is in fact a winning strategy that just might serve to encourage others to do the same. Thus the success of their top of the class equity-based education system reform is bringing hundreds of delegations from countries and institutions around the world to Finland study their example and in many cases to try to adopt and adapt what they see in one part of the world in which equity is leading not to mediocrity but to excellence. At the end of the day all any of us can do is to try to give a good example. We certainly cannot afford to sit around in the hope that world government will somehow one day figure out how to mandate it. So lets see what happens if people in Finland decide to create an equity-based transport system. Stay tuned to Helsinki.
Page 38

Annex D: Evaluating equity impacts of transport inv estm ents
Putting concrete comparable numbers to equity in transport is quite a challenge, but it is one that has to, and can be, faced. Here by way of quick background are some selected extracts on equity discussions of investments in the transport sectoring the United States taken from the Preface of a special report 30 of the US Transportation Research Board of the National Academies on the topic of "Equity of Evolving Transportation Finance Mechanisms". Since the report is the product of mainly academics, researchers and bureaucrats, it is not surprising that they call for lots more research. That said, they nonetheless have a point: we need to get a lot better at this. (Reference. Special report 303, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf.) There is a big difference between the kinds of measures and projects that are going to be appropriate in our new frugal transport investment context are quite local and on a far smaller scale than the kinds of projects that the TRB group was looking at, the research component is likely to be far more straight forward and to the point. Nonetheless it has to be mastered. Excerpts:
As with all transportation policies, these strategies raise questions about equity. Will certain groups bear a disproportionate share of the burden of paying for transportation services? Will members of some groups be adversely affected by a particular finance strategy? Will revenues collected in one geographic area be spent elsewhere? Road pricing in particular has often raised equity concerns because of the fear that low-income drivers may be priced off the road, but there are other equity concerns as well. . . . Broad generalizations about the fairness of high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, cordon tolls,1 and other evolving mechanisms oversimplify the reality and are misleading. Equity can be assessed in many ways (e.g., in terms of income or geography and across generations). Furthermore, the specifics of policy instrument design, revenue usage, and service delivery can change equity outcomes as judged by any equity criteria. Thus, the fairness of a given type of finance mechanism depends on how it is structured, what transportation alternatives are offered to users, and which aspects of equity are deemed most important. It is impossible to draw reliable conclusions about the equity of a particular type of finance mechanism without delving into the details. . . . Existing finance mechanisms have not prompted equity debates to the same extent as road pricing proposals. This observation is explained in part by the general bias in favor of the status quo and in part by the lack of explicit comparisons of the equity implications of existing and evolving mechanisms. Existing mechanisms are not, however, inherently equitable. General sales taxes, for example, though often politically expedient, usually result in poorer households paying a larger share of their income than wealthier households. These taxes also disconnect those who benefit from the transportation system from those who pay for it, and therefore are less equitable than the gas tax or road pricing according to several equity criteria, including the well-established user pay principle. . . .
Page 39

Public policymakers who wish to promote equity should engage their constituents and other stakeholders early and often when considering the use of new or unfamiliar transportation finance mechanisms. As part of this process, they should develop outreach programs and educational activities to help diverse audiences understand and participate in discussion of proposed projects and programs, associated finance mechanisms, and equity implications. Scientifically rigorous public opinion research can help policy makers gauge the publics understanding of and responses to a new finance proposal as well as their reactions to a new mechanism following its implementation, when the benefits and costs are often better understood. . . . In making informed decisions about what constitutes an equitable transportation finance policy, policymakers need to recognize that there are multiple dimensions of equity, some of which may be contradictory. Under these circumstances, policy makers need to consider a variety of factors in making choices about what is equitable in a given situation. Good data and analytical tools, knowledge gained through research, carefully crafted situation-specific analyses, and meaningful interactions with all stakeholders can help policymakers compare the equity of alternative mechanisms and craft policies that enhance equity.
The full report is available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf
Page 40
Annex E: Three Transport Paradigm s: Helsinki 1950 - 2012

One of the most intriguing and useful surprises of my visit, thanks to my hosts, was a growing awareness on my part of the way in which transportation policy and practice in the city over the last 60 years that followed a basic pattern, which I resume as follows: 1. The Wilbur Smith Era: 1950 - 1970 This was a classic policy model of those years: namely, to project and build infrastructure to accommodate the rapidly growing -- "naturally growing", it was implicitly assumed by all -- car population throughout the country. This period lasted from the immediate postwar period up to the early seventies. Over that period Helsinki was following the, let's call it, Wilbur Smith Project and Build Model -- like just about every other city and country in the world, at a time when the future was bright, the distances great, incomes steadily rising, the car population exploding, and during all that time almost nobody found that there was anything possibly wrong with that. (That's a paradigm, right?) 2. The "UITP Era": 1970 - present Starting in the late sixties and warming up in the a number of leading cities in various parts of the world but above all in Europe, started to invest heavily in public transport as a response to the ever more obvious limitations with an all-car solution in our cities. This was spoken of as a "balanced transportation policy". The emblematic leader of this wave of transport and investment policy was the UTIP under the successive leadership of their secretary generals Andr Jacobs (1958- 1985) and Pierre Laconte (1985-1998) . (That's a paradigm too, right?, and, if my observations are correct, pretty much where the main lines of policy and investment stand in Helsinki today) 2A. The beginning of Third Way approaches: mid-nineties - present Starting in the mid-late nineties we begin the first stages of a push to delivery systems that were neither all-car nor more traditional public transport approaches. There was in fact a lot more happening on paper and in report as opposed to large scale changes on the streets of cities, but that said if we look carefully we can note a steady growth of new innovational approaches that reach beyond both all-cars and all-PT. (And while this is not yet a paradigm per se, it is certainly a precursor, an important element of the new paradigm that we now have an opportunity to define) And what is interesting about where things stand in Helsinki in particular in 2012, is that the city is now in a strong position to plan and deploy a major new Transport Policy Paradigm (which brings us to Equity, but more on that in a moment). The point here is that your new paradigm can provide a consistent framework for all of the various kinds of new policies and projects that are already getting underway To name a few: parking control, reserved lanes, your important DRT pilot, carsharing, bikes, public bikes, ridesharing, Park +Ride, walking and cycling to schools, new uses of taxis, neighborhood development projects, elderly and handicapped transport . . . And the long list goes on. The point is that all these initiatives need a broader, recognizable, comprehensive policy frame so that we are no longer obliged to continue with all these necessary projects on a purely ad hoc or case-by-case basis. We need a frame that we can communicate to policy makers, to all the key players, and to the general public. We need a clear new policy, and that is what we can help to move into the public debate in the weeks and months ahead..
Page 41

Annex F: List of people and organizations consulted
This listing is close to complete but will be added to and filled out in the weeks ahead. Above all this contribution is to show the extent to which the net was cast widely during the course of this project and that many people from many different organizations and areas of interest were kind enough to take part. Name Aleksi Neuvonen Angi Mauranen Anna Nervola Anna Ptynen Annukka Lindroos Arja Luostarinen Artturi Lhdetie Auli Forsberg Carlos Lamuela Douglas Gordon Eeva Luhtakallio Eeva Rinta Eini Hirvenoja Elina Mattero Erja Bruun Hanna Hannus Hanna Strmmer Hannu Heiskanen Hannu Penttil Hannu Seppl Harri Oksanen Heikki Hlv Heikki Leppnen Heikki Palomki Heikki Salko Heikki Salmikivi Ilkka Tiainen Inga Valjakka Irene Lilleberg Janne Peltola Janne Salovaara Jari Tikkanen Jenni Lautso Jesse Aavameri Jessica Karhu Johanna Iivonen Johanna Vilkuna Jonna Kangasoja Jonne Virtanen Jorma Palovaara Jouni Korhonen Organization Demos Helsinki Friends of Earth KSV KSV KSV KSV Helsinki City Transport The Finnish Transport Agency Aalto University KSV (Master Plan Team) University of Helsinki HSL Uudenmaan ELY-keskus University of Helsinki Aalto University University of Helsinki KSV Liukuesteet City Planning and Real Estate KSV YLE KSV KSV KSV KSV CityCarClub KSV KSV City Hactivists Demos Helsinki KSV WSP KSV The Greens KSV HSL Aalto University HSL Helsingin Sanomat KSV
Page 42

Juha Hietanen Juha Seppl Jussi Jsk Kaisa Hara Kaisa Spilling Kalle Toiskallio Kari Rissanen Kari Tenkanen Katariina Myllrniemi Katriina Rosengren Kimmo Kiuru Kimmo Raineva Lauri Kangas Leena Kalalahti Leena Saransaari Leena Silfverberg Liisamaria Kinnunen Lillli Mkel Lotta Suominen Maarit Savolainen Maija Krankka Maija Mattila Maija Rekola Maija Seppo Maija Stenvall Marek Salermo Mari Holopainen Mari Lybeck Marjut Ollitervo Marko Menp Markku Mttnen Markus Ahtiainen Matti Hirvonen Matti Kyr Matti Pyhtil Mette Granberg Miika Koivisto Mika Hytylinen Mika Kaalikoski Mika Vlipirtti Mikko Lehtonen Mikko Srel Mikko Uro Minna Raatikka Niko Palo Nina Frsn Noora Salonen Okariina Rauta Olga Bernitz Olli Hakanen Olli Haveri Olli Orkoneva KSV Finnish Federation of Visually Impaired KSV Liikenneturva Forum Virium Helsinki Lectus Ky HSL KSV Ministry of Transport WSP LIV KSV KSV KSV KSV KKI Public Works Department KSV Sito Oy KSV KSV Uudenmaan liitto KSV The Greens KSV Helsingin polkupyrilijt KSV Federation of Visually Impaired KSV Cyckling OPH The Greens HSL Sito Oy Demos Helsinki KSV Pyrkeskus KSV Aalto University / City Hactivist KSV WSP KSV HSL Sito Oy Motiva KSV WSP Board member of Liikenneturva Page 43

Otso Kiveks Outi Kuittinen Outi Silfverberg Outi Vkev Pasi Sahlberg Paula Tuovinen Pauli Siponen Pekka Hk Pekka Koponen Pekka Sauri Pekka Tukiainen Pekka Virtasaari Petteri Huuska Petteri Kantokari Pihla Melander Pirjo Koivunen Pirjo Tulikukka Raija Laaksonen Raisa Tickln Reetta Putkonen Roope Mokka Sakari Saarinen Sanna Ranki Sannika Michelsson Sara Lukkarinen Satu Heikkinen Sonja Sahlsten Susanna Blomqvist Susanna Ollila Suvi Tyynil Taneli Nissinen Tanja Sippola-Alho Teemu Sihvola Tero Santaoja Tiina Antila-Lehtonen Timo Heikkinen Timo Piepponen Tuija Hellman Tuomas Eskola Varpu Tavastsjerna Veera Laine Vesa Forsberg Ville Komsi Ville Lehmuskoski Viveca Hedengren City Hactivists Demos Helsinki The Greens Environment Centre CIMO KSV KSV Police Forum Virium Helsinki City of Helsinki KSV Taxi Helsinki Environment Centre HSL KSV KSV Helka ry KSV Federation of Visually Impaired WSP Demos Helsinki HALKE KSV Yleisradio Motiva OKM YY-Optima/Aalto Reflector company Forum Virium Helsinki KSV KSV HALKE Ajelo KSV Youth Department Aalto University KSV KSV KSV Liikenneturva HSL KSV HKL (vihr.) KSV
Page 44
Annex G: List of meetings, presentations, dialogues

As with all of these annexes, we go into detail here not only to give the reader a better idea of the extensive participation and contributions from many people and perspectives informing this project and report, but also thinking of it as a possible first guide for other cities and institutions that may be considering building on this experience. As you will surely note, this is something that requires serious preparation and wide support in the host city.
Wednesday 14.3.2012
18:0019:00 CIMO, Pasi Sahlberg
Thursday 15.3.2012
8:30-9:30 Students: Hanna Hannus, Elina Mattero, 10:00-12:00 Architect, Douglas Gordon, 13:00-15:00 Project Manager, Tero Santaoja,
Friday 16.3.2012
12:00-14:30 Deputy Mayor, Pekka Sauri, Head of Traffic Planning Department, Ville Lehmuskoski, 15:00-16:00 Environment Centre, Outi Vkev, Environment Centre, Petteri Huuska, City Planning Department, Marek Salermo, City Planning Department, Mikko Lehtonen, Citizen, Olli Hakanen,
Monday 19.3.2012
Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on Page 45

9:00-10:00 Finnish Federation of the Visually Impaired (FFVI), Raisa Tickln, Finnish Federation of the Visually Impaired (FFVI), Markku Mttnen, Finnish Federation of the Visually Impaired (FFVI), Juha Seppl, 10:15-11:30 Helsinki Region Transport, Mette Granberg Helsinki Region Transport, Johanna Vilkuna, City Planning Department, Lauri Kangas 12:00-14:30 Deputy Mayor, Hannu Penttil, 15:00-16:00 Taxi Helsinki, Pekka Virtasaari City Car Club, Ilkka Tiainen 16:30-17:30 Tenants: HELKA (Helsinki Neighbourhoods Association), Pirjo Tulikukka, Lilli Mkel, Heikki Leppnen, Olli Hakanen,
Tuesday 20.3.2012
9:0010:00 Demos Finland Roope Mokka, Aleksi Neuvonen, Janne Salovaara, Mika Hytylinen, Outi Kuittinen, 11:0012:00 Seniors 12:3013:30 City Hacktivists, Teemu Pyyluoma, City Hacktivists,Otso Kiveks, City Hacktivists,Janne Peltola, City Hacktivists,Mikko Srel, Friends of the Earth, Angi Mauranen,
Page 46

14:00-15:00 Helsinki Region Transport, Nina Frsn, Puclic Works Department, Lotta Suominen, Helsinki City Transport, Artturi Lhdetie, 15:3016:30 Liikenneturva, Varpu Tavastsjerna, Liikenne- ja viestintministeri, Katariina Myllrniemi, katariina.myllarniemi@mintc.fi Poliisilaitos, Pekka Hk Liikenneturva, Kaisa Hara, YLE, Harri Oksanen Olli Orkoneva (Liikenneturvan hallitus) Hyvink, Kimmo Kiuru, Susanna Blomqvist, heijastinvalmistajat Hannu Heiskanen, liukuesteet Pyrilykuntien verkosto, Matti Hirvonen 18:00-19:30 Dodo
Wednesday 21.3.2012
9:00-11:30 Master Class I, People 13:00-14:00 Finnish National Board of Education, Matti Kyr, 14:30-15:30 Coalition party, Sirpa Asko-Seljavaara,
Thursday 22.3.2012
9:00-11:30 Master Class II, Service suppliers and variants 13:00-14:00 The Greens of Finland, Matti Pyhtil, The Greens of Finland, Otso Kiveks, The Greens of Finland, Mari Holopainen, The Greens of Finland, Jessica Karhu, 14:30-15:30 Forum Virium, Pekka Koponen, Forum Virium, Kaisa Spilling, Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on Page 47
Friday 23.3.2012
9:00-11:30 Master Class III, Open democracy and Hacking the System 14:00-15:00 RIL, Helena Soimakallio RIL, Anu Karvonen RIL, Kaisa Venlinen Helsingin matkailu- ja kongressitoimisto, Johanna Grnberg, Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeri, Satu Heikkinen Matti Hirvonen, Pyrilykuntien verkosto Petteri Sipil, Pyrilykuntien verkosto Liikuntavirasto, Kimmo Raineva
Monday 26.3.2012
10:00-11:00 Matti Kivel, Head of Transport System Office, 13:00-14:30 YTK Land Use Planning and Urban Studies Group
Tuesday 27.3.2012
9:00-11:30 Master Class IV, final presentation 13:00-15:00 Metropol-DRT
Page 48

Annex H: Brainstorming discussion points
In each of the brainstorming dialogues we attempted to get discussions going first of all with a short presentation of the Helsinki project and our objectives. This was followed by brief presentations by each of the invited participants, with background information on their specific mandate area, interests and working methods. The following questions and sugggested topics were distributed to the participants as an attempt on our part to solicit their reactions and suggestions for the future of the project. 1. What is equity (and what is not-equity)? 2. Equity and/vs. equality? 3. How does this conversation work in the Finnish language? Are there significant differences of which we should be aware? 4. Is mobility/access a "basic need', a human right of citizens in an active democracy? 5. Does the extraordinary Finnish equity-based education system give us a head start of some kind for transport? 6. What is not-Equity in transport? Examples from Helsinki? 7. What is Equity-Based Transport? Examples from Helsinki? 8. Who are the non-car majority in Helsinki and how do we serve them best? 9. Is Public Transport(scheduled fixed route buses, rail) the answer? 10. What is the future of the automobile in Helsinki? And in Finland more generally? 11. What would a "better than car" mobility system look like? 12. What about the role of the IT interface? 13. Do Social Media tools make a difference? How? 14. Is there a new and important role for open systems and/or bottom up information and expertise ("hactivists"), with lessons to be learned from recent I industry experience with independent app developers? 15. Are the forces for change/improvement working together in Helsinki? Or are they mainly working on separate specific agendas and coming up with priorities and demands of their own? 16. A discussions of civil society and the social brain as an untapped resource 17. What would an Equity-Based Transport system for Helsinki look like? And what would be the best way to get there?
Page 49
Annex I: Helsinki Equity/Tran sport M aster Class Sem inars 21-27 March 2011
Auditorium, Helsinki Department of City Planning and Transportation Kansakoulukatu 1 A FI-00099 City of Helsinki
Master Class Seminar I: 09:00 - 11:30, Wednesday 21.3.2012
People First: User Groups (Facts, inequities, toward equity)

Examples of target groups:

Car owners/drivers (+/-) Public transport users Marooned users: Poorly served areas, penalizing economics, unfair travel times, housebound Elderly and handicapped (in a graying society) Cyclists, pedestrians, hawkers, talkers and gawkers (i.e., transport and other uses) Young people, unemployed, working poor, women
Session President: Leena Silfverberg Head of Discussion: Eric Britton Rapporteurs: Taneli Nissinen & Sanna Ranki Speakers: Hanna Hannus, University of Helsinki's Student's Union Equity based transportation a students perspective Raisa Tickln, Finnish Federation of the Visually Impaired (FFVI) Equity based transportation thoughts from visually impaired Outi Vkev, City of Helsinki, Environment Centre Equity-based transport from an environmental point of view Pirjo Tulikukka, Helsinki Neighbourhoods Association Citizen's possibilities to impact in city planning
Page 50
Master Class II: 09:00 - 11:30, Thursday 22.3.2012
Service suppliers Examples and potentials

Cars, streets and parking (The good, the bad and the ugly) Public transport innovations for greater equity Share/Transport: Taxis , carsharing, ridesharing, paratransit, Third Way transit Safe streets and social space strategies Movement reduction: Planning and electronic
Session President: Leena Silfverberg Head of Discussion: Eric Britton Rapporteurs: Taneli Nissinen & Sanna Ranki Speakers: Mette Granberg, Helsinki Region Transport Equity in the Helsinki Region Transport System Plan Pekka Virtasaari, Taxi Helsinki Taxis in Helsinki Ilkka Tiainen, City Car Club Car Sharing Douglas Gordon, City Planning Department Equity in Spatial and Traffic / Transport Planning Marek Salermo, City Planning Department Function, Form & Use
Have you ever wondered why the overall transportation systems in our cities look more like a 1950 Univac then a 2002 iPad? If not, do you think that maybe you should?
Page 51
Master Class III: 09:00 - 11:30, Friday, 23.3.2012
Open Democracy and Hacking the System:

Mayor, city council, local government and agencies Political parties (all) Public interest groups (such as Demos, Dodo) Schools and universities Creating a culture of equity Media (old and new, including blogging, social media, etc.) Hactivists How to spread the equity virus in Finland and beyond
Session President: Leena Silfverberg Head of Discussion: Eric Britton Rapporteurs: Taneli Nissinen & Sanna Ranki Otso Kiveks You have been hacked! Mikko Srel Walkability Aleksi Neuvonen, Demos Helsinki Lost generation of pedaling Angi Mauranen, Friends of Earth Role and possibilities of active citizens Outi Kuittinen, Demos Helsinki User Experiences in traffic
Master Class IV: 10:00 - 11:30, Tuesday 27.3.2012
Final presentation, challenges and discussions : Eric Britton

Session president: Leena Silfverberg Rapporteurs: Taneli Nissinen & Sanna Ranki Speaker: Eric Britton Commentary Speaker: Pekka Sauri, Deputy Mayor, Helsinki Closure and thanks: Leena Silfverberg
Page 52
Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment Annex J: Collective memo by Dodo: Basics of Environmental Activism (Course) 5
Eric Britton, a renowned environmentalist, shared some of his ideas and insights with us on Tuesday 20.3. He's in Helsinki to work on a project on an equity-based transportation system. The notes made by listeners highlighted the importance of a "social brain". In this context the concept of a social brain can facilitate the inclusion of citizens in the different stages of decision-making process. Kaupunkifillari, a Helsinki-based bicycle blog that asked its readers for comments on an at the time incomplete plan on public bikes in Helsinki, was brought up as an example of such an approach. Here are some comments from our notes:
5
Social brain rules! Change through positive thinking. On the other hand, at times it is necessary to highlight the risks in order to make people understand how serious issues they are dealing with. As an environmentalist you have to be cool, considerate and dangerous. The recipe how to make a difference: You have to be mentally strong, brave, dangerous, focused, cool, surveillant and a bit of a dickhead too. KISS - keep it simple, stupid! Focusing on small things. Crowd-sourcing. Equity leads to excellence. Find out each time what's the simplest, quickest and most efficient thing we can do? Simple traffic engineers could use some help from a social brain. It's City Planning
Dodo is an environmental organisation for urban folk which relies on the power of knowledge and
argument. Dodo is about talking and doing. It organises public events, discussion groups, projects and more. Dodo brings together people from different backgrounds to exchange expertise, experiences and ideas. We work out ideas and then we work on some of them to carry out experiments that might improve things. Dodo has a flexible and open ethos which makes it easy for talk to lead to action. Many of its important projects started out as ideas or visions developed in small discussion groups. The offspring of Dodo include the wind power company Lumituuli Ltd, Manombo Rain Forest Conservation Project and Dodona Combo Discussion Forum Project. The dodo, our namesake, disappeared long ago, one of the first species known to have become extinct as the result of human activity. But where theres hope, theres life. Come and join Dodo and help make the future a living future. For contact details scroll down a bit further - we're flexible about language as well, so if your Finnish isn't brilliant, don't let it put you off.
Page 53

Departments job to make it possible and after that wait for the success. Successful environmentalism many times starts from small actions. The successful small actions encourage people to be ready to start with bigger ones. Environmentalism is about small things. We got to have more fantasy, inventing new ways to move and do. We got to be open minded! You have to wake up happy every morning! Although local projects are important, global processes too have their value in offering a platform for environmental debate at political and academic levels. The Equity-Based Transport project in Helsinki is extremely interesting! An efficient way to have an influence on environmental issues is doing it discretely without forcing anyone to do the "right thing" -- but instead making it possible to live in an environment-friendly manner. The best ideas can come unexpectedly and from surprising sources. KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid), happy excellence & information equity to social brain. Using cars could be reduced by improving other means of transport. Creative sustainability! A seamless transport system with a lot of alternatives for commuting. Small things are behind everything. Working ideas start from equity and listening to small things.
Another idea mentioned more than once was the importance of small things and actions. Britton criticized the UN programs for focusing too much effort and resources on grandiose global scale processes (such as the Kyoto Protocol) and ignoring smaller-scale initiatives and projects. The equitybased transportation project taking place in Helsinki should be seen as an example of a local project that can have a global influence if it is capable of being replicated in other metropolises. The project currently underway in Helsinki aims to create an equity-based transportation concept. The idea of equity stresses fairness and equal opportunities, and should therefore not be confused with the concept of equality. The projects seeks to find creative solutions and combine different means of transport. Key is the concept of equity: the system should be fair, efficient and safe. The current "many cars few alternatives"-situation should be replaced by a "some cars - multiple alternatives"-one. I'm sure we're all looking forward to the outcomes of the project.
Page 54

Annex K: On Live: Selected comments received thus far on project.
What you see here is not really a report in the usual sense of the word, it is actually a process, an interactive process which is still underway. To point this up here are a selection of the comments which have kindly been sent our way in support of the process. Also as part of your search for ideas, and visions other than those presented by the author here, you will find it useful to scan the presentations at the Master Classes, some of which are available by links from here. ____________________________________________________________________ Lhettj: Eric Britton Aihe: Re: additional comments + some PhD papers Pivmr: 27. maaliskuuta 2012 21.48.45 UTC+3.00 Vastaanottaja: Kalle Toiskallio <kalle.toiskallio.lectus@gmail.com>
It was a pleasure to discuss with you at YTK this afternoon. You asked us to email to you some additional notes. Two things. First, again, the bicycle revolution, so to speak, that is going on at the moment in many Finnish urban areas. It is, of course, a positive phenomenon in general and it interesting to see how rapidly it goes through transport authorities and city planning. However, since in several development cases In Southern Finland somebody always gets the idea of "bicycle high-ways" enabling cyclists to keep not just high travel speed but also wide vistas, especially in intersections, for safety reasons... Doesn't this sound like HCM! So, what would you suggest for Finns? Should we promote bicycling as much as possible, or should we calm speeds of bicycles, also. Before the general amount of cyclists is big enough and thus calms cycle crowds inherently, I am afraid this kind of questions should be considered. A bit different but related thing is the following. I hope Helsinki won't never be full of similar aversive notes on urban walls and first floor doors against bicycle parking as can be seen in Copenhagen. Second, the shared space. It has been tried, says KSV, in some cases in Helsinki, but it never worked!! More precise declaration is that even if all traffic lights were removed or were never built for a certain strip, there were still traffic accidents or people did not like it in general So, the term is rather well-known among transport professionals but the broader knowledge of the concept is rather vague. It is understood as a tool kit enabling planners to pick up the best technical trick (removing zebra crossings or traffic lights from certain street, or, improving the surface material of an intersection etc.) All the multi-scientific background work dealing with, say, current culture and history and its actors of a certain place or intersection are not taken care of at all. I think it is not question of money but a simple narrow-mindedness. Using the concept of shared space effectively would destroy the clear planning project because the final result - and the resources needed, may be unclear in the beginning. I am sure you have heard this before and elsewhere. However, I suppose your audience is still willing to hear more about the larger meaning of the concept. By the way, though related to lines above, transport planners are usually civil engineers having transport or road technic as their major. Finnish education giving the diploma of civil engineer is usually very narrow and technically oriented. Diploma work is more like clarification of certain readily Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on Page 55

restricted branch than a critical research that would discuss with other studies etc. It is a sad fact that Finnish transport research is mostly based on these diploma works. I shall try to come to listen to you on Tuesday morning P.S. See attachments files to see the papers in English in my dissertation (2002). Especially the routenegotiation paper deals with the eye contact among people in urban traffic I mentioned within our discussion at YTK today. Valtiot. tri (sosiologia) Kalle Toiskallio p. 040 550 5533 kalle.toiskallio@lectus.fi (varalla: kalle.toiskallio.lectus@gmail.com) Lectus Ky Menlaskijantie 2A 00810 Helsinki www.lectus.fi Y-tunnus: 2243522-4 PS/FYI, some examples of the faint Finnish traffic sociology. Route negotiation paper (still unpublished, btw) might be interesting from eye contact's point of view that we shortly discussed at YTK. ____________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message----From: bruun@seas.upenn.edu [mailto:bruun@seas.upenn.edu] Sent: Friday, 20 April, 2012 11:44 Subject: Re: Review draft of Helsinki Equity/Transport Stage I report I think you need to distinguish between the suburbs and Helsinki proper. I would give the suburbs 6 or 7 out of 10 and the city proper 8 out of 10. Even the suburbs have good facilities for walking. I can assure you that small children can't walk to school alone in most of the world like they can in Helsinki suburbs. "Safe Routes to School" is still a controversial idea in the US Congress. If you give Helsinki a 7, then most US suburbs have to be a 3. Indonesian cities would have to have negative numbers. It is not correct to say that the auto is the dominant mode. If you look at Kenworthy and Newman's data, as well as from other officials sources, public transport plus non motorized modes constitute between 60 and 70 percent of all trips. Cars have been chased out of the center to a large extent already and I think that going any further would backfire as people would drive to suburban shopping centers instead. I also think that Helsinki is very innovative in features that promote equity like RFID tags to extend crossing times for children and elderly. The car really doesn't seem to be the king that you portray it. But then again, I am used to Philadelphia where bus lanes aren't enforced, where drivers honk at people in crosswalks, drive through lights that are already red, etc.
Page 56

There are other role model features you might have missed. For example, the tax system is equitable. If a community in the metro region chooses not to pay into HSL, then residents of that community must pay a higher price for their monthly pass. This is not only equitable, it teaches people that they get something for their taxes. I also think you give the impression that the focus is still on new infrastructure to accommodate cars, rather than to improve the use of existing infrastructure. I disagree. Most changes have favored public transport over cars on existing infrastructure. There have been some minor projects to improve conditions for cars, but they generally also make the conditions better for the surrounding community. Matti Kivel can give you photos of more compact intersections between major roads. Finally, I think that the computer analogy isn't a good one. Computer performance doesn't involve a spatial component. Computers are thrown away regularly while buildings and roads stay for decades if not centuries. There are a few major infrastructure projects coming up, like the new loop tunnel for the railway, but that is because the regional railway has been so extremely successful that the central station is at capacity. And the Espoo metro extension is going to be a role model for other prosperous suburbs that show how car use can be reduced. If done correctly, it will promote communities with more non-motorized trips. Eric Bruun Adjunct Faculty Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering University of Pennsylvania 276 Towne Building, room 276 Philadelphia, PA 19143 1-215-898-3966 bruun@seas.upenn.edu
____________________________________________________________________ From: Salko Heikki [mailto:Heikki.Salko@hel.fi] Sent: Tuesday, 27 March, 2012 11:58 Subject: Thoughts about equity in Helsinki I know well that in some respects Finland isn't entirely equitable. I'm a 19-year-old youth currently working here at KSV for siviilipalvelus (alternative for military service, which is compulsory for all males) and while I managed to get a job in my personal field of interest for it, the idea in general is almost as inequitable as can be. Anyway some thoughts to consider for your report, as you requested from the audience of your presentation this morning: I think the common sentiment towards your being here is not as much "we don't need Britton here" as "we don't need Britton here as much as some other places would". You might want to mention some arguments for why this isn't the case, or doesn't matter if it is. Finns in general prefer directness and concrete examples, rather than philosophical rhetoric. This applies even more so as your report's primary audience will be engineers with a lot of experience in the field. Equity as a concept is very abstract so I'd advise you to think hard about this if you want to be taken seriously (and not just as that silly American philosopher with the nice tie). Your introductory text was all but ridiculed by some, I believe largely due to its style. Page 57

When you really do need to explain more abstract ideas such as measuring equitability, be sure to elaborate even further what we'll actually want to do about it. Readers, especially skeptical ones, need plenty of source material for critical thinking or they'll quickly dismiss the entire idea as humbug -- and not necessarily be entirely wrong in doing so.
There might be more things, but these came to my mind first. I tried my best not to sound like a doomsday prophet about them; I just think you have some ideas worth thinking about which risk being ignored by the audience as it is. On another note, I'm willing to get involved in translating the final report into Finnish. I believe my English is quite strong (primarily because I picked it up as a three-year-old living abroad) and I'm not entirely swamped with work assignments being a temporary, unqualified (and mostly unpaid) employee. Of course, if you've already sorted it all out, I'm not trying to push myself either. Best regards, Heikki Salko ____________________________________________________________________ From: Kangas Lauri [mailto:lauri.kangas@hel.fi] Sent: Monday, 26 March, 2012 17:23 Subject: VS: Next Steps I'm unusually low on ideas today, but Taneli makes up for this by making great suggestions. Opening up discussion in all directions is really needed. Nobody seems to be able to say how, where and who made the fundamental decisions underpinning our current planning policies. We need to discuss the basis of future policies both internally and with the widest possible audience to really work out what our goals are and how we could work towards them. For the shorter term we should assess all our new plans and projects against the goals we already have. Even this may need some discussion because some of our current goals are probably conflicting at least when viewed from a narrow perspective. Does each plan help us increase the share of cycling? Does each plan prioritize sustainable modes as instructed by the city council? Does each plan help us create a more liveable city or whatever kind of city we say we want? We already look at traffic safety, but this can't be viewed in isolation. As far as I can tell our traffic safety expert would agree. As part of the longer term discussions we also need to look at each our current planning policies and seriously ask whether they support our high level goals for the city. These city goals are partially being reviewed in the master planning work just now. For instance: Will increasing noise and pollution buffer zones for streets really solve problems or create even worse problems by increasing the total amount of traffic? Lauri Kangas Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto Liikennesuunnitteluosasto Kansakoulukatu 1 A, 5. krs PL 2100, 00099 HELSINGIN KAUPUNKI ____________________________________________________________________
Page 58

From: Heikkinen Jenni [mailto:jenni.heikkinen@aalto.fi] Sent: Monday, 26 March, 2012 15:21 To: eric.britton@worldstreets.org Subject: Reflection on the discussion at YTK on Monday Dear Mr. Britton, I enjoyed the conversation at YTK very much. As I mentioned, I have a degree in Environmental Economics and I would call myself an Environmental Scientist/Ecological Economist or something of the sort. Transportation issues are very interesting from the environmental perspective and equity points to the same direction, as I understand. The most interesting thing for me was the three speed limits suggestion. As Kalle Toiskallio mentioned, there is much discussion in Helsinki about separating the bicycles from the pedestrians. I have not liked the idea, mostly because I think there is room for slow cyclists as well. And also, it would create pressure to perhaps widen the streets, and separate three mobility means very strictly from each other thus creating a culture where everybody would just see to their own rights. The idea of having a street where bicyclists could ride safely with the cars and pedestrians could cross the road where they want to, is superiors. The rules would be simple, you could see them from the speed limit. Also the different forms of taxis: small buses and in between taxis and buses is a very favourable idea which could increase the user profile of public transportation. I was wondering about one thing that was not in discussion at least today. I don't know if it has been in discussion during your stay. The attractiveness of public transportation and free public transportation. In Tallinn free public transportation is under discussion at the moment. I myself am not totally in favour of the idea, because I think there is a risk of the level of public transportation decreasing and people being put off by it in consequence. Lowering the prices and building up the amount of customers would be my suggestion. Thank you for the discussion and hope the rest of your stay in Helsinki is pleasant!
Jenni Heikkinen Projektitutkija - Project researcher YTK Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutusryhm - YTK Land Use Planning and Urban Studies Group Maankytttieteiden laitos, Insinritieteiden korkeakoulu - Department of Surveying and Planning Aalto-yliopisto - Aalto University PL 12200, 00076 Aalto kyntiosoite: Rakentajanaukio 2 C Otaniemi Tel +35850 564 4599 jenni.heikkinen@aalto.fi ____________________________________________________________________
Page 59
From: Nissinen Taneli [mailto:taneli.nissinen@hel.fi] Sent: Monday, 26 March, 2012 15:43 Subject: VS: Next Steps Moi, Here's my two cents: Among the most interesting groups of people we have meet and we should talk more with in my opinion are: o Forum Virium (They proposed to start a co-operation) o YTK o City hacktivists o Demos City Planning Departments planners should have an open forum for a broad conversation. This forum could be a combination of green drinks style face-to-face meetings and some internet-based forum. Through these conversations we either strengthen the concept of equity as a base or forget it. If the concept strengthens and deepens, we should select the right media's for spreading the virus. Should the conversation be open for broader audience right from the beginning? I mean for example some of the peer-study groups? I would like to see City Planning Department opening up even more our planning processes to citizens. We should study the possibilities to use the social brain. For this purpose I could invite Nina Frsen from HSL to talk to our interaction people.
I have to go now, more will follow, perhaps. ................................................ Taneli Nissinen Liikenneinsinri Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto Liikennesuunnitteluosasto Kansakoulukatu 1 A, 5. krs PL 2100, 00099 HELSINGIN KAUPUNKI puh. (09) 310 37447, 040 334 6364 taneli.nissinen@hel.fi ____________________________________________________________________
Page 60
From: Eric Britton [mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org] Sent: Sunday, 25 March, 2012 20:25 Subject: Next Steps I would like to propose a meeting tomorrow at your convenience to discuss specifically what if any follow up or next steps that we should already be anticipating. This meeting would be important because it might provide us with materials or guidelines that could be a key part of my final presentation on Tuesday and definitely part of the final printed report. We are getting to the end of this stage and I feel that we are well on the way to doing a good job with our cooperative assignment. And for all this I am very grateful for your ideas, support and patience with my work style which can be a bit of a challenge. But now its time to look ahead, and to see if we can start to organize our thoughts on what happens the day AFTER I submit the final stage report to you. Where this first stage has been given over to getting people at a number of levels to think with us about whole new ways of attacking the citys transportation and investment issues our so-called paradigm change. We have over these last weeks listened to a lot of people, sewn many ideas, made a bit of headway with the new ideas with something like one hundredplus well placed smart people. But if we can honestly conclude that this approach, the idea of a coherent, consistent powerful policy strategy based on the concept of equity could be an important one for Helsinki and beyond, well then there is more work to do. In fact, we are only starting now. Here are a couple of possibilities that we might wish at least to consider to get started on this: Option 5. Do nothing and forget about it. (We call that putting it into the drawer and throwing away the key".) Option 6. Do nothing but wait and see what if anything happens - and then get behind it. (Often though in the real world this is the same thing as (a)) Option 7. Start to define a priority strategy, and give ourselves a very near specific date to make a decision as to what we do next, with whom, where, under what sponsorships, etc. Option 8. Turnover the next stage to another group, institution or partnership who are ready and able to move with this. Why do we need to think about this and make our best decisions to position ourselves strategically for next steps? Cause if we dont , nothing will happen. I promise. ____________________________________________________________________
Page 61
From: Frsen Nina [mailto:Nina.Frosen@hsl.fi] Sent: Thursday, 22 March, 2012 07:42 Subject: VS: Equity-Based Transportation / An interactive PT planning model Understanding the needs of the public is a key factor in building up a public transport system that is both efficient and attractive to use. When the real needs of the public are profoundly understood, the PT system can be designed to meet those needs well (all services run at the right time and in the right places) and the system also becomes efficient as no seat go empty. Understanding the needs of the public is also an important tool in increasing the market share of PT and in the change towards less car dependency. It is said that if people are really to be convinced to move around sustainably, they have to be offered a wide range of comfortable and easily available mobility options that fit with their own lifestyle values and still give them a chance to move around freely. Even so, to be able to build up such a system, the planner must be well up-to-date with the changes in urban mobility. For example, the share of leisure trips keeps on growing from year to year, and this creates new requirements for the PT system that have to be met at a short notice. This is where interactive planning and the use of user-generated information content are needed. A new model of interactive public transport planning has been implemented in two recent planning processes by Helsinki Region Transport (HSL), together with new social media applications. This has been a great success. These two examples and their results will be presented along with the new interactive planning model. In a conventional planning process, the quality of a public transport system is usually measured by how well the system serves the basic needs of the planning area (for example access to education, jobs, healthcare etc.) Nevertheless, in real life mobility is a much more complex issue and mobility needs usually go way further than just travelling from home to work and back. Therefore, when shifting from conventional planning to interactive planning, the first step is to understand the value and take advantage of the user-generated information content. This content includes not only the conversations held during the planning project but also the comments submitted by the public gathered in the previous planning projects in the same area. This soft information content can then be combined with the hard facts (for example demographic information, such as population density, and travel-related information, such as number of boardings per bus stop) to expand the planners understanding of the complete range of mobility needs in the area under planning. User-generated information content becomes priceless when studying what the public wants, needs and expects from the plans that are in the making. To gather user-generated information content when it is most needed in a planning project, an interactive channel must be established at the very beginning of the project. It is important that the channel covers the entire project from the beginning to the finishing point so that residents can rely on the information given via the channel and on its continuity. The channel must always be up-todate. It can be updated during the planning phase with regular postings on what is going on at the moment. In the ideal case postings of this type are published once a week during the whole process. In an interactive planning process it is very important to be as open as possible about everything that is done. There are three levels of openness that can be applied. The first level is to tell what is going on at the moment in the process.
Page 62

The second level is to tell why things are done the way they are what kind of background information and planning principles were used while making decisions concerning the process. The third level, the one to strive for, is to make everything public: all demographic information, boarding statistics, planning principles etc. Openness is crucial especially when working with public funds, but also when working under selffinancing basis because it allows the public to give their opinion at the right time and on the right things. It is also important to emphasize the impact of interaction on planning to get the public excited about the idea of participation. Nina Frsn, Helsinki Region Transport:
____________________________________________________________________ From: Nissinen Taneli [mailto:taneli.nissinen@hel.fi] Sent: Wednesday, 21 March, 2012 16:51 Subject: Critic from traffic planners Hi Eric, Here's something out of my memory, that was said during our coffee break: "Lot of 'good for all' thoughts, but without a deeper analysis and somewhat not related to reality" "It was a lot about giving different things to everybody, without thinking how these will be arranged and how they perhaps are in conflict against each other" "I got the message that making videos is a good thing, but not much else" "It's lacking substance"
I can't remember if all that is correct, but the basic reasn behind the critic was that some people came for to get ready answers and suggestions on how to develop the traffic system. Some people misunderstood the nature of the happening and couldn't appreciate the dialogue. In my opinion the happening worked well and lot of different people got a chance to open their mouth. I can still understand the critic if I keep in mind that these people came today for ready answers. ................................................ Taneli Nissinen Liikenneinsinri Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto Liikennesuunnitteluosasto Kansakoulukatu 1 A, 5. krs PL 2100, 00099 HELSINGIN KAUPUNKI puh. (09) 310 37447, 040 334 6364 taneli.nissinen@hel.fi ____________________________________________________________________
Page 63

From: Nuno Quental [mailto:n.quental@mail.ertico.com] Sent: Tuesday, 13 March, 2012 17:13 Subject: RE: Emailing: Elementos para o transporte seguro e sustentavel.pdf I would say that transport is an essential policy to achieve higher equity between people. By linking people with other people, jobs and services, transports create opportunities for businesses and for people. In the USA, for example, such issues are usually dealt by the environmental justice movement, as poor people are often concentrated in the centre with poor transport connections, far from potential jobs and effectively out of the market because of the lack of transport. Transport is in this sense a means to achieve higher equity. I can see it however as a measure as equity as well. If I take Portugal, for example, public transport is still used primarily by poor or middle-class people. The situation is changing in some areas, and depends a lot on the characteristics (eg good connections are already used by more affluent people). Here in Belgium, and in Germany, I can clearly see that public transports are used by everyone. So, the transport can be seen as an indicator of the society we're living. There's another point that I really appreciate with transport. You may call me romantic of communist (I might be a bit romantic, but I'm more social democrat than communist...). What I like in transport is that, very much like when we vote for elections, in public transport we are all equal citizens sharing the same ride. Ok, some might have better clothes than others, but still, there's a sense of society there, of community. This dimension is extremely important, because unlike in a park, in a bus or train it's not uncommon that unknown people start chatting with each other, again reinforcing societal ties. Hope this can be of help! I'm curious to read what others have provided! Nuno Quental Project Support Manager ERTICO ITS Europe Avenue Louise 326 B-1050 Brussels Belgium www.ertico.com Tel: +32 (0)2 400 07 34 (direct) ____________________________________________________________________
From: Annie Matan [mailto:Anne.Matan@curtin.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, 14 March, 2012 07:56 Subject: 'New Social Equity Agenda for Sustainable Transportation' Hi Eric, I just came across this report and thought it might be of interest to you (in case you have not seen it). "New Social Equity Agenda for Sustainable Transportation" (http://www.vtpi.org/equityagenda.pdf), Todd Litman and Marc Brenman This report discusses the importance of incorporating social equity and environmental justice objectives into transport policy and planning analysis. It recommends a more systematic and comprehensive analysis framework that considers how planning decisions affect transport system diversity and therefore the transport options available to non-drivers, plus various external costs that Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew Page 64

harm disadvantaged people. More comprehensive analysis can help identify more integrated, winwin solutions, which achieve a variety of social, economic and environmental objectives. Annie Matan is a researcher and lecturer Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute Freeport Australia (Interested in creating sustainable, vibrant and people focused urban places, her research focus is on walkability, pedestrian planning, urban design and transportation planning. Her training included Urban Geography with a focus on transport planning ____________________________________________________________________
From: elizabeth deakin [mailto:edeakin@berkeley.edu] Sent: Tuesday, 13 March, 2012 12:20 There is always the question of intergenerational equity vs. equity for the people out there today and how to serve both interests. Cars are making the lives of some better, but they are making the lives of many others worse. Discussions of internalizing externalities seem to get very little traction. What can we do to make full cost pricing a way to move forward? Or if this is Quixotic, what other options are more likely to succeed? Would free bikes for everyone be a step forward? (can you ride a bike in a burkha?) Where are the children in this discussion? Where are the many adults who have mobility limitations, physical or economic? (where am I in 20 35 years = I plan to stay active til I drop, but what if that is increasingly difficult? Do I have to sit by the window and knit or tat or something equally implausible?) Could we reclaim most streets for people and make the cars stay in their place, on separate guideways that do not intrude on places for people? How do we manage freight and urban goods delivery in a less obnoxious way? (You will note that I either cannot count to five as you have asked or I am disobedient - and also that I cheat by creating "compound questions". But this is so important I just cannot be compiiant!. I am glad you are on it.) PS. Keep up the good work, Eric. Tell me how you do it one of these days!
Elizabeth Deakin Professor of City and Regional Planning College of Environmental Design University of California, Berkeley 230 Wurster Hall #1820 Berkeley, CA 94720-1820 ____________________________________________________________________
Page 65

Annex L: Additional background on project
For readers who have not yet had time to make their way through the full website, by way of quick introduction you may find it useful to have a look at the following five selected references: Helsinki 2012: Program overview - http://wp.me/p2abHZ-2zz Equity-based Educational Reform in Finland - http://wp.me/p2abHZ-2vt Pasi Sahlberg on Equity and Education in Finland - http://wp.me/p2abHZ-2yJ Editorial: On the plane to Helsinki - http://wp.me/p2abHZ-2zc Late Night Thoughts on Equity from Helsinki - http://wp.me/p2abHZ-2zf
You will also find useful background on the following supporting dedicated social media sites: Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/EquityTransport Twitter - https://twitter.com/#!/EquityT YouTube library - http://tinyurl.com/et-videos Program documentation - http://tinyurl.com/EBT-library
Annex M: To participate in r eview/comment process click h ere
If you would like to get involved in some way in this process here is how it is working: Over the six week period running from May to mid-June, the draft report is being widely circulated in its present form in Helsinki and other parts of Finland for peer review, information and comments. Click here to let us know if you would like to receive a copy. Portions of the draft will also be posted to World Streets and broadly shared with cooperating programs and sites for international readers, once again inviting comments and suggestions for finalization and follow-up. That too is an open process, and there is provision for comments on the various articles that are going to be posted in support of this project. You will see how it works at http://equitytransport.wordpress.com/ It is proposed that the various comments and other remarks and suggestions should be addressed directly to the author by email - eric.britton@eoplan.org -- with copies to Taneli Nissinen at taneli.nissinen@hel.fi. The author also invites telephone comments via +336 5088 0787 or Skype via newmobility.
Page 66
Endnotes
i
Professor Eric Brun who attended one of the Master Classes and reviewed an earlier edition of this draft report, does not agree with this point or analogy. It's flawed he says because: "Finally, I think that the computer analogy isn't a good one. Computer performance doesn't involve a spatial component. Computers are thrown away regularly while buildings and roads stay for decades if not centuries." That's an interesting point, but I do not think that it entirely cancels out the usefulness of the analogy. But as you can see he differs. ii Professor Brun again does not agree. He writes: " I think you need to distinguish between the suburbs and Helsinki proper. I would give the suburbs 6 or 7 out of 10 and the city proper 8 out of 10. Even the suburbs have good facilities for walking. I can assure you that small children can't walk to school alone in most of the world like they can in Helsinki suburbs. "Safe Routes to School" is still a controversial idea in the US Congress. If you give Helsinki a 7, then most US suburbs have to be a 3. Indonesian cities would have to have negative numbers. It is not correct to say that the auto is the dominant mode. If you look at Kenworthy and Newman's data, as well as from other officials sources, public transport plus non motorized modes constitute between 60 and 70 percent of all trips. Cars have been chased out of the center to a large extent already and I think that going any further would backfire as people would drive to suburban shopping centers instead. I also think that Helsinki is very innovative in features that promote equity like RFID tags to extend crossing times for children and elderly. The car really doesn't seem to be the king that you portray it. But then again, I am used to Philadelphia where bus lanes aren't enforced, where drivers honk at people in crosswalks, drive through lights that are already red, etc. There are other role model features you might have missed. For example, the tax system is equitable. If a community in the metro region chooses not to pay into HSL, then residents of that community must pay a higher price for their monthly pass. This is not only equitable, it teaches people that they get something for their taxes. I also think you give the impression that the focus is still on new infrastructure to accommodate cars, rather than to improve the use of existing infrastructure. I disagree. Most changes have favored public transport over cars on existing infrastructure. There have been some minor projects to improve conditions for cars, but they generally also make the conditions better for the surrounding community. Matti Kivel can give you photos of more compact intersections between major roads."
iii
Eric. I think that it will be difficult to determine whether the project has been a success without the measurement bit as indeed you point out. Somewhere in there should be an exploration (and unfortunately I think it has to be survey, which is tedious, but I dont see how else to achieve it) of whether transport provision facilitates people doing the things they want to do. But at the outset, people will need to be encouraged to dream what it is they want to do, as many of those who are socially excluded will have self-limited travel horizons. Some way into the project, a good measure will be whether at least some of those dreams have become reality. Dr Alice Maynard C Dir, Director, Future Inclusion, Mailing address: PO Box 5672, Milton Keynes MK15 9WZ
Page 67

Phase 1. Report, First Findings, Recommendations P h a s e 2 . P e e r R e v ie w , C o m m e n t a r y & F i n a l i z a t i o n
Eric Britton, New Mobility Partnerships, 18 May 2012
New Mobility Partnerships Association EcoPlan international

9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles CA 90210 USA 9, rue Gabillot, Sainte Anne. Lyon 69003 France
Page 68

Helsinki Full Report 18may12

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Helsinki Full Report 18may12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examining the prospects for Equity-Based Transportation

A Public Enquiry lead by the City of Helsinki

Phase 1. Report, First Findings, Recommendations P h a s e 2 . P e e r R e v ie w , C o m m e n t a r y & F i n a l i z a t i o n

Eric Britton, New Mobility Partnerships Edition: 18/05/12

New Mobility Partnerships Association EcoPlan international

Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment

NOT A POLICY DOCUMENT

Reading the latest version

Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki

Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment

Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki

Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment Executive Summary

Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki

Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki

Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment

Helsinki is today still for most people an automobile city.

Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki

New York City traffic today

Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment 1 .3 H el s i nk i 2 01 2 m o bi li t y sc or e c a r d

Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki

Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment

2 .1 We need a policy that is comprehensive, coherent, consistent

Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki

Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment

Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki

Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment 2 .5 F ut ur e of t he a u to m ob il e i n t he c it y

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki

2 .6 A " be tt er tha n ca r " m ob il it y sy st e m

Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment

Eq ui t y - ba se d tr a n s por t for H e ls ink i ? R ou n d 1 co n cl us io n s

Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki

Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki

Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment

Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki

1. Advancing the concept of an Equity Audit

Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment

2. Sound clues for visually impaired on public transport

Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki

4. Carsharing for all

Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment

6. Exploring the potential of open government and the "social brain"

Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki

Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment

Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki

Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment

Examining the prospects for Equity-Based Transportation

Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki

Peer Review: Working Draft for Comment