Examining the prospects for Equity-Based Transportation

A Public Enquiry lead by the City of Helsinki

Phase 1. Annex Volume

Eric Britton, New Mobility Partnerships Ver: 17/5/12

New Mobility Partnerships Association EcoPlan international
9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles CA 90210 USA 9, rue Gabillot, Sainte Anne. Lyon 69003 France

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review

NOT A POLICY DOCUMENT
The following is work in progress, a step in an on-going collaborative brainstorming exercise, and not in this form intended to serve as a howto guide for decision makers or practitioners. To facilitate comments, corrections and additions the review draft has line numbers on each page for reference. We invite you to work with the latest version.

1

Reading the latest version
Yes, what you have here is not a finality but an evolving process. True to this spirit 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://www.scribd.com/collections/3494669/EquityBased-Transportation. In principle you will find the latest version at the top of the listing. To facilitate your comments, corrections and additions the review draft has line numbers on each page for easy reference.

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

Page 1

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Nothing is more attractive to me than a muddled discussion awaiting its first theory.

Annex volume contents
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 ..............................................................................3 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 ....................................5 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 .............................................7 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 ............................ 10 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 .................................. 12 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 ............................................... 13 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 ............................................... 16 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 .................................................................... 20 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 ................................... 21 Annex J: Collective memo by Dodo: Basics of Environmental Activism (Course) ................... 24 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 . ................ 26 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 ................................................................ 37 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 ....................... 37 E n d n o t e s / C o m m e n t s : ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

21

Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew

Page 2

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

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 Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on Page 3

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 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.

Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew

Page 4

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

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 II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on Page 5

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8. Is “Public Transport” (i.e. for the most part scheduled fixed-route services) the answer for Helsinki’s 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

26

Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew

Page 6

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

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, it’s already tough enough. And I have learned, it’s 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. )

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

Page 7

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 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 don’t 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 ###

Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew

Page 8

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A few disturbing thoughts before we turn out the lights: With the world’s 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 world’s resources will be on the order of 1.4285714285714285714285714285714 e-10. Now that’s 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. Let’s see now, at something like 5.5 million people. Finland’s population is well less than one tenth of one percent of the world total. And Helsinki’s 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. That’s 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 let’s see what happens if people in Finland decide to create an equity-based transport system. Stay tuned to Helsinki.

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

Page 9

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

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. . . .

Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew

Page 10

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 The full report is available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf 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 public’s 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.

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

Page 11

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew Page 12

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 André 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..

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

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 Pätynen Annukka Lindroos Arja Luostarinen Artturi Lähdetie Auli Forsberg Carlos Lamuela Douglas Gordon Eeva Luhtakallio Eeva Rinta Eini Hirvenoja Elina Mattero Erja Bruun Hanna Hannus Hanna Strömmer Hannu Heiskanen Hannu Penttilä Hannu Seppälä Harri Oksanen Heikki Hälvä Heikki Leppänen Heikki Palomäki 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

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

Page 13

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Juha Hietanen Juha Seppälä Jussi Jääskä Kaisa Hara Kaisa Spilling Kalle Toiskallio Kari Rissanen Kari Tenkanen Katariina Myllärniemi Katriina Rosengren Kimmo Kiuru Kimmo Raineva Lauri Kangas Leena Kalalahti Leena Saransaari Leena Silfverberg Liisamaria Kinnunen Lillli Mäkelä Lotta Suominen Maarit Savolainen Maija Krankka Maija Mattila Maija Rekola Maija Seppo Maija Stenvall Marek Salermo Mari Holopainen Mari Lybeck Marjut Ollitervo Marko Mäenpää Markku Möttönen Markus Ahtiainen Matti Hirvonen Matti Kyrö Matti Pyhtilä Mette Granberg Miika Koivisto Mika Hyötyläinen Mika Kaalikoski Mika Välipirtti Mikko Lehtonen Mikko Särelä Mikko Uro Minna Raatikka Niko Palo Nina Frösén 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 polkupyöräilijät KSV Federation of Visually Impaired KSV Cyckling OPH The Greens HSL Sito Oy Demos Helsinki KSV Pyöräkeskus KSV Aalto University / City Hactivist KSV WSP KSV HSL Sito Oy Motiva KSV WSP Board member of Liikenneturva Page 14

Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Otso Kivekäs Outi Kuittinen Outi Silfverberg Outi Väkevä Pasi Sahlberg Paula Tuovinen Pauli Siponen Pekka Höök Pekka Koponen Pekka Sauri Pekka Tukiainen Pekka Virtasaari Petteri Huuska Petteri Kantokari Pihla Melander Pirjo Koivunen Pirjo Tulikukka Raija Laaksonen Raisa Ticklén Reetta Putkonen Roope Mokka Sakari Saarinen Sanna Ranki Sannika Michelsson Sara Lukkarinen Satu Heikkinen Sonja Sahlsten Susanna Blomqvist Susanna Ollila Suvi Tyynilä 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

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

Page 15

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

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
18:00–19:00 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 Väkevä, Environment Centre, Petteri Huuska, City Planning Department, Marek Salermo, City Planning Department, Mikko Lehtonen, Citizen, Olli Hakanen,

Monday 19.3.2012
Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew Page 16

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 9:00-10:00 Finnish Federation of the Visually Impaired (FFVI), Raisa Ticklén, Finnish Federation of the Visually Impaired (FFVI), Markku Möttönen, Finnish Federation of the Visually Impaired (FFVI), Juha Seppälä, 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 Penttilä, 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 Mäkelä, Heikki Leppänen, Olli Hakanen,

Tuesday 20.3.2012
9:00–10:00 Demos Finland Roope Mokka, Aleksi Neuvonen, Janne Salovaara, Mika Hyötyläinen, Outi Kuittinen, 11:00–12:00 Seniors 12:30–13:30 City Hacktivists, Teemu Pyyluoma, City Hacktivists,Otso Kivekäs, City Hacktivists,Janne Peltola, City Hacktivists,Mikko Särelä, Friends of the Earth, Angi Mauranen,

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

Page 17

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 14:00-15:00 Helsinki Region Transport, Nina Frösén, Puclic Works Department, Lotta Suominen, Helsinki City Transport, Artturi Lähdetie, 15:30–16:30 Liikenneturva, Varpu Tavastsjerna, Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö, Katariina Myllärniemi, katariina.myllarniemi@mintc.fi Poliisilaitos, Pekka Höök Liikenneturva, Kaisa Hara, YLE, Harri Oksanen Olli Orkoneva (Liikenneturvan hallitus) Hyvinkää, Kimmo Kiuru, Susanna Blomqvist, heijastinvalmistajat Hannu Heiskanen, liukuesteet Pyöräilykuntien 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 Kyrö, 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 Pyhtilä, The Greens of Finland, Otso Kivekäs, 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 I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew Page 18

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

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 Venäläinen Helsingin matkailu- ja kongressitoimisto, Johanna Grönberg, Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö, Satu Heikkinen Matti Hirvonen, Pyöräilykuntien verkosto Petteri Sipilä, Pyöräilykuntien verkosto Liikuntavirasto, Kimmo Raineva

Monday 26.3.2012
10:00-11:00 Matti Kivelä, 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

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

Page 19

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

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?

Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew

Page 20

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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 Ticklén, Finnish Federation of the Visually Impaired (FFVI) Equity based transportation – thoughts from visually impaired Outi Väkevä, 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

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

Page 21

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 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?
    

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

Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew

Page 22

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on Page 23
      

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 Kivekäs You have been hacked! Mikko Särelä 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

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
1

Annex J: Collective memo by Dodo: Basics of Environmental Activism (Course) 1
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:           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 there’s hope, there’s 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.

Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew

Page 24

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37       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.

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

Page 25

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

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. ____________________________________________________________________ Lähettäjä: Eric Britton Aihe: Re: additional comments + some PhD papers Päivämäärä: 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 I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew Page 26

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 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 Mäenlaskijantie 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.

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

Page 27

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 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 Kivelä 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 28

Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  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 ____________________________________________________________________

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

Page 29

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 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 koulutusryhmä - YTK Land Use Planning and Urban Studies Group Maankäyttötieteiden laitos, Insinööritieteiden korkeakoulu - Department of Surveying and Planning Aalto-yliopisto - Aalto University PL 12200, 00076 Aalto käyntiosoite: Rakentajanaukio 2 C Otaniemi Tel +35850 564 4599 jenni.heikkinen@aalto.fi ____________________________________________________________________

Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew

Page 30

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 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 Frösen from HSL to talk to our interaction people.

-

-

-

-

I have to go now, more will follow, perhaps. ................................................ Taneli Nissinen Liikenneinsinööri Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto Liikennesuunnitteluosasto Kansakoulukatu 1 A, 5. krs PL 2100, 00099 HELSINGIN KAUPUNKI puh. (09) 310 37447, 040 334 6364 taneli.nissinen@hel.fi ____________________________________________________________________

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

Page 31

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

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 it’s 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 city’s 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 hundred–plus 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 1. Do nothing and forget about it. (We call that “putting it into the drawer and throwing away the key".) 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. 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 4. 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 don’t , nothing will happen. I promise. ____________________________________________________________________

Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew

Page 32

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 From: Frösen 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 planner’s 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.

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

Page 33

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 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 Frösén, 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 reasón 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 Liikenneinsinööri Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto Liikennesuunnitteluosasto Kansakoulukatu 1 A, 5. krs PL 2100, 00099 HELSINGIN KAUPUNKI puh. (09) 310 37447, 040 334 6364 taneli.nissinen@hel.fi ____________________________________________________________________

Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew

Page 34

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 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 II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on Page 35

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 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 ____________________________________________________________________

Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew

Page 36

Annex Volume: Working Draft for Peer Review
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

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.

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

Page 37

Examining the Prospects for Equity -Based Transport in Helsinki

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,17 May 2012

New Mobility Partnerships Association EcoPlan international
9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles CA 90210 USA 9, rue Gabillot, Sainte Anne. Lyon 69003 France

Phase I. Outreach, fi rst findi ng s & draft recommendati ons for revi ew

Page 38

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful