1

Examining the prospects for Equity-Based Transportation
A Public Enquiry lead by the City of Helsinki

P ha s e 1 . A n n e x V o l u m e

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

2

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki

N e w M o bi l i t y P a r t n e r s h ips Association EcoPlan international
9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles CA 90210 USA 9, rue Gabillot, Sainte Anne. Lyon 69003 France

3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 2

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

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 how-to guide for decision makers or practitioners. To facilitate comments, corrections and additions the review draft has line numbers on each page for

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

3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

Page 3

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1 2 3 4 Nothing is more attractive to me than a muddled discussion awaiting its first theory.

Annex volume contents

5Annex A: The Helsinki project in brief......................................................................5 6Annex B: World Streets Editorial: On the plane to Helsinki......................................8 7Annex C: Late Night Thoughts on Equity from Helsinki..........................................10 8Annex D: Evaluating equity impacts of transport investments...............................13 9Annex E: Three Transport Paradigms: Helsinki 1950 - 2012...................................15 10Annex F: List of people and organizations consulted ............................................17 11Annex G: List of meetings, presentations, dialogues ............................................19 12Annex H: Brainstorming discussion points.............................................................24 13Annex I: Helsinki Equity/Transport Master Class Seminars ....................................26 14
......................................................................................................................... 28

15Annex J: Collective memo by Dodo: Basics of Environmental Activism (Course) . 29 16Annex K: On Live: Selected comments received thus far on project......................32 17Annex L: Additional background on project .........................................................44 18Annex M: To participate in review/comment process click here............................44 19 20 21

22 3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 4

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

2A 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

1

4The Helsinki project is seen as a critical first step in a process initiated by World 5Streets in the closing months of 2011. We see the overall equity/transport 6program as an open, long-term collaborative project which is intended to spin out 7over at least several years and which will in time, we hope, develop and spread to 8other cities, countries and sponsors around the world, all with a view to presenting, 9testing and hopefully in successive iterations steadily improving the fundamental 10arguments behind this program, namely the concept of developing a new paradigm 11for transport in cities based on the concept of equity. 12We were extremely fortunate to have Helsinki as the first sponsor to step forward 13to test this idea in this open format for a lot of reasons, chief among them the fact 14that the concept of equity is one which has been carefully and systematically 15developed in Finland over the last decades in the countries were level 16performances in the field of education. Thus the concept of equity and public 17policy is not new for them, however the application to transport in cities is -- and 18that is what we are trying to look at with them here. 19The project keys on a series of brainstorming sessions organized over the month of 20March 2012, with a small core team working under the aegis of the Helsinki 21Department of City Planning/Transportation, meeting and exchanging ideas and 22proposals with a cross-section of individuals and groups, government, private 23sector and volunteer organizations, to examine together what the transportation 24system of the city and its surrounding areas might look like, if, instead of distance 25and speed, public sector investments and actions were required to look first and 26above all to the concept of equity. 27The concept of equity -- which is not to be confused with equality matter how 28important the latter might be -- rather has to do with concepts such as fairness, 29social inclusion, compassion, decency and perhaps above all equality of 30opportunity and access.. When Abraham Lincoln ended the Gettysburg Address 31during the darkest days of the American Civil War with the words "government of 32the people, by the people, for the people", he was in fact talking about democracy 33and equity. 34One reason for choosing a Finnish city for this first peer investigation is directly 35related to their great accomplishments over the last years in building one of the 36most highly respected educational systems in the world (see the OECD PISA 37program results over the last decade) based specifically on the concept of equity. 38Our project will also examine the strategic base of their success in the education 39sector, to see if there are lessons which can be applied to transportation systems 40reform. 41We are well aware that in many parts of the world the transportation arrangements 42are grossly unfair to the very large proportion of the population. Some cities, some 43projects do better than others but the broad central trend is there, and it is not 44good. The systems and services offered are often outstandingly and visibly unfair 3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n
Page 5

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1to the elderly and to the frail, to those who cannot drive and do not have access to 2cars, those who cannot afford to own and operate a car, including those who may 3work and own and use a car but who really are not sufficiently well-off to be able to 4afford the high costs associated with car ownership and use, those who are 5penalized in their daily and family lives as a result of having to travel long 6distances in often inconvenient or even absent public transportation, to those who 7would like to walk or bicycle in safety, to children in many aspects of their day to 8day lives, to women who by and large are not fairly treated by the existing 9transportation arrangements, and the long list goes on. 10In a word, in most cities on this planet for the great majority of all people the 11present transportation arrangements are inequitable. The all-car no-choice 12transportation arrangements of the 20th century are not doing the job for the 13transportation majority. They are unfair, inefficient and uneconomic. 14So what if we were to turn the situation around and take as a starting point for 15public policy and investments in the sector not so much the twentieth century 16values of speed and distance but 21st-century values of equity , social justice and 17deep democracy. 18One of the key pillars behind this program is a belief that, properly engaged, the 19move to equity-based transportation can lead to greater efficiency and economy 20both for specific groups and individuals, and also for the city and its region as a 21whole. That it is to say that it is going to be a step up, and not a step down. 22Project Highlights 23 24 1. 15 January to 29 February. Laying the foundation. Development of 25 program plan, team organization, initial contact, events, schedules, and 26 basic supporting documentation and organizational/logistical support for 27 Stakeholder Dialogues, Master Classes and media. 28 2. 1 to 14 March. In-place preparations and testing. Initial outreach 29 program and finalization of Finnish documentation. Development and 30 communication of basic documentation and interview and meeting 31 arrangements with a broad cross-section of individuals, groups and 32 programs working in sector. (Click here to get an idea of organizations to be 33 contacted for the project.) 34 3. 15 to 27 March. Stakeholder Workshops/Dialogues. Presentations, 35 discussions, interviews, site visits and conversations with key groups and 36 interests in greater Helsinki area. Media presentations, interviews, 37 continuing contacts with even wider range of key interest groups, as well as 38 review sessions with teams responsible for organizing the ongoing programs 39 generating the Helsinki Master Plan, Metropolitan Area Transport System 40 Plan and the Program for Promoting Cycling in Helsinki. 41 4. 21 to 23 March. Invitational Master Classes. Held in the auditorium of 42 the Department of City Planning and Transportation, with formal 43 presentations and public discussions running from 09:00 to 11:30 each day, 44 followed by private discussions and exchanges with the team over the 45 remainder of those days. Session 1: People: Equity and Transport. Session 2. 3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 6

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

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.

3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

Page 7

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1A n n e x B : W or 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 2 to Helsinki 3 4 Editorial by the author posted to World Streets on 15 March 2012 | 5 5 Comments: Click here to read 6 7I have always thought of myself not as a consultant – that is, 8someone with specific expertise to whom you ask directed 9questions and who gives you what you think/hope are the 10right answers – but rather as an “advisor”, i.e. someone 11whose role it is to sit next to you for a certain period of time 12and draw your attention to a certain number of things to 13which you might wish to give a closer look. (NB. My 14experience shows that it is usually a lot more comfortable to 15work with consultants.) 16 17So here I am just about to get on the plane for Helsinki where I shall be working 18and meeting over the next two weeks with a couple of hundred people, almost all 19Finns, in individual meetings and group and plenary sessions as you can find 20spelled out elsewhere on this site – and through all of that to talk together about 21equity and transport, private actions and public policy. 22Over the last two months of preparatory work with my Finnish colleagues on this, 23while at the same time working in parallel with our international networks to test 24these ideas and extend the knowledge base, I have come up with a list of 25questions which I am about to stuff into my pocket — and when I land in the Nordic 26capital doing my best to ask and then listen to what they have to say. At the end of 27all this, some time in mid-April, I shall try to fashion what I have heard and learned 28into a relatively short strategic report with observations, reflections, findings and 29perhaps eventually some recommendations. 30Here is the short list of the questions I am bringing to Helsinki: 311. What is equity (and what is not-equity)? 322. How does this concept work in the Finnish language? Are there significant 33differences of which we should be aware? (I am hopeful that my Finnish colleagues 34will write this up so that we can add it to the site.) 353. Is mobility/access a “basic need’, a human right of citizens in an active 36democracy. 374. Does the extraordinary Finnish equity-based education system give us a leg-up 38when it comes to the proposed push to equity-based transport? 395. What is not-Equity in transport? Examples from Helsinki? 3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 8

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

16. What is Equity-Based Transport? Examples from Helsinki? 27. Is there a non-car majority in Helsinki? Who are they, what are their needs and 3how can we serve them best? 48. Is “Public Transport” (i.e. for the most part scheduled fixed-route services) the 5answer for Helsinki’s 21st century patterns and needs? 69. What is the future of the automobile in Helsinki, and Finland more generally? 710. What does a ”better than car” mobility package look like? 811. What about the role of the ITC interface? Is this going to be critical? Or an 9option? 1012. Should equity/transport strategies have an eye to job creation and lifetime 11learning? 1213. Do Social Media tools make a difference? How? 1314. Are the forces for change/improvement working together in Helsinki? Or are 14they mainly working on their separate specific agendas and coming up with 15priorities and demands of their own? 1615. A discussions of civil society and the “social brain” as an untapped resource 17(lighting the synapses) 1816. What would an Equity-Based Transport system for Helsinki look like? – and 19what would be the best way to get there? Will it cost a lot? Will it be disruptive 20and divisive? Will it take a lot of time to start to get there? 21PS. Are we talking about a major paradigm change? And if so, what is wrong with 22the one we already have? 23Hidden agenda 24 25As I look at all this on my way to the airport this morning, what strikes me is that 26this is one of those instances in which the questions are perhaps more important 27than the answers. And indeed I figure that it is my role here, not to come up with 28cocky answers to each of these, so much as to encourage the asking and 29subsequent discussions of all that touches on equity and transport for the city and 30beyond. 31Eric Britton 32Paris, 14 March 2012

3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

Page 9

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1A 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
2

3

Posted by the author to World Streets on 17 March 2012

4Equity? Hmm. This, it turns out on inspection, 5 is not quite so easy a concept to get across. 6In English, and after two days of discussions 7with a wide variety of groups and people here 8in Helsinki, it’s already tough enough. And I 9have learned, it’s even more challenging in 10Finnish. Here are some late night thoughts on 11this word that I share with you here in the 12hope that it may inspire comments and clarification. So here you have my notes, 13more or less in the order that they came to mind late in the night. 141. Certainly not the same thing (quite) as equality. And it is important to keep this 15distinction in mind. 162. In a nutshell something like: equal life chances regardless of identity 173. Equity is based on the idea of moral equality 184. A shared understanding of the social commitment to provide all citizens with a 19basic and fair minimum of income/goods/services 205. Equity deals with accommodating and meeting the specific needs of specific 21individuals 226. Intergenerational equity, equality and fairness in relationships between people in 23different generations 247. In another common usage of the word (financial) equity is also the value of an 25ownership interest in property. ( This aspect needs to be further explored in our 26context., because indeed it is important to ensure that citizens own, have a 27significant share in their city or country. Thus helping to sure that they see 28themselves as active parts of the solution.) 298. Here are some synonyms that come to mind: Fairness, social justice, decency, 30morality , nobility ??, Integrity , honesty, disinterestedness, neutrality, rectitude , 31impartiality , compensatory . . . 329. When it comes to economic aspects, equity looks at the distribution of capital, 33goods and access to services throughout an economy and is often measured using 34tools such as the Gini index. (It is commonly used as a measure of inequality of 35income or wealth. A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality where all 3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 10

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

1values are the same i.e., where everyone has an exactly equal income. At the 2other end of the equity spectrum, a Gini coefficient of one indicates maximal 3inequality among values, i.e., where only one person takes all the income. ) 410. Income differentials are growing in almost every country in the world today, 5Scandinavia and Finland included. This is a fact and a trend, and if we point to it 6here the goal is imply to be sure that we are identifying the landscape within which 7this project intends to work its way out. 811. Low levels of equity are associated with life chances based on inherited wealth, 9social exclusion and the resulting poor access to basic services and 10intergenerational poverty resulting in a negative effect on growth, financial 11instability, crime and increasing political instability 1212. High levels of inequity – when combined with awareness of the differentials – 13itself a function of some combination of physical proximity of all parties, and/ or 14hotter communication between those who are aggrieved by the present 15arrangements – can lead on one side to anger, on the other to guilt. 1613. This can lead to conflict, both open and more or less subterranean. More or less 17violent. More or less revolutionary . 1814. All humans have a need to be respected and to have self-esteem and self19respect. ( Yes, no, I don’t know) 2015. In a society of equity all of the basic needs of everyone are ensured at a level 21of what is seen there are decency and justice. 2216. A traditional list of immediate “basic needs” is food (including water), shelter, 23and clothing. This list is also often expanded to include sanitation, education, and 24healthcare. 2517. What about the right to work — i.e., to have access to sufficient income to 26provide for these basic needs, plus, and this is almost as important, an identity as 27an active part of equity and the economy. 2818. Does transportation, access, belong on this list? 29And finally (for now) . . . 3019. And if so what are the characteristics of equitable transportation? 31This is an interesting and I believe useful way for me to close out these late night 32thoughts on equity and our project. Namely that there will never e be hard and fast 33universal rules that define this concept and way of organizing ourselves in society. 34For that we have to turn to culture and identity. 3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n
Page 11

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1Now on to equity-based transportation in Helsinki and Finland. 2Eric Britton 3Helsinki. 17 March 2012 4# # # 5A few disturbing thoughts before we turn out the lights: 6With the world’s population now well past the seven billion mark, this means that if 7life were truly fair, equitable if you will, my and your fair share of the world’s 8resources will be on the order of 1.4285714285714285714285714285714 e-10. 9 Now that’s a very very small number. And one which represents a challenge that 10is far beyond the potential of my brain at least to come to grips with it in our 11present context. 12Let’s see now, at something like 5.5 million people. Finland’s population is well less 13than one tenth of one percent of the world total. And Helsinki’s population of 14course an even smaller fraction of this planet crushing total. 15Under these circumstances, what could we possibly expect of this small out of the 16way Nordic city of modest, hard working, well educated people whose sole 17resource at the end of the day is their energy, moral strength and brainpower. 18That’s the bad news. And the good news is that they, like any country or city, just 19might be able to provide a viable example though their actions and achievements 20showing that equity is in fact a winning strategy that just might serve to 21encourage others to do the same. 22Thus the success of their top of the class equity-based education system reform is 23bringing hundreds of delegations from countries and institutions around the world 24to Finland study their example and in many cases to try to adopt and adapt what 25they see in one part of the world in which equity is leading not to mediocrity but to 26excellence. 27At the end of the day all any of us can do is to try to give a good example. We 28certainly cannot afford to sit around in the hope that “world government” will 29somehow one day figure out how to mandate it. So let’s see what happens if 30people in Finland decide to create an equity-based transport system. 31Stay tuned to Helsinki.

3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 12

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

1A 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 2 investments 3 4Putting concrete comparable numbers to equity in transport is quite a challenge, 5but it is one that has to, and can be, faced. Here by way of quick background are 6some selected extracts on equity discussions of investments in the transport 7sectoring the United States taken from the Preface of a special report 30 of the 8US Transportation Research Board of the National Academies on the topic of 9"Equity of Evolving Transportation Finance Mechanisms". Since the report is the 10product of mainly academics, researchers and bureaucrats, it is not surprising that 11they call for lots more research. That said, they nonetheless have a point: we need 12to get a lot better at this. (Reference. Special report 303, 13http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf.) 14 15There is a big difference between the kinds of measures and projects that are 16going to be appropriate in our new frugal transport investment context are quite 17local and on a far smaller scale than the kinds of projects that the TRB group was 18looking at, the research component is likely to be far more straight forward and to 19the point. Nonetheless it has to be mastered. 20 21Excerpts: 22 23 24 As with all transportation policies, these strategies raise questions about 25 equity. Will certain groups bear a disproportionate share of the burden of 26 paying for transportation services? Will members of some groups be 27 adversely affected by a particular finance strategy? Will revenues collected 28 in one geographic area be spent elsewhere? Road pricing in particular has 29 often raised equity concerns because of the fear that low-income drivers 30 may be priced off the road, but there are other equity concerns as well. . . . 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
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 Page 13

3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 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 28The full report is available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf
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. . . . 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.

3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 14

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

1 2A 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 50 3 2012 4 5One of the most intriguing and useful surprises of my visit, thanks to my hosts, was 6a growing awareness on my part of the way in which transportation policy and 7practice in the city over the last 60 years that followed a basic pattern, which I 8resume as follows: 91. The Wilbur Smith Era: 1950 - 1970 10This was a classic policy model of those years: namely, to project and build 11infrastructure to accommodate the rapidly growing -- "naturally growing", it was 12implicitly assumed by all -- car population throughout the country. This period 13lasted from the immediate postwar period up to the early seventies. Over that 14period Helsinki was following the, let's call it, Wilbur Smith Project and Build Model 15-- like just about every other city and country in the world, at a time when the 16future was bright, the distances great, incomes steadily rising, the car population 17exploding, and during all that time almost nobody found that there was anything 18possibly wrong with that. (That's a paradigm, right?) 192. The "UITP Era": 1970 - present 20Starting in the late sixties and warming up in the a number of leading cities in 21various parts of the world but above all in Europe, started to invest heavily in 22public transport as a response to the ever more obvious limitations with an all-car 23solution in our cities. This was spoken of as a "balanced transportation policy". 24The emblematic leader of this wave of transport and investment policy was the 25UTIP under the successive leadership of their secretary generals André Jacobs 26(1958- 1985) and Pierre Laconte (1985-1998) . (That's a paradigm too, right?, and, 27if my observations are correct, pretty much where the main lines of policy and 28investment stand in Helsinki today) 292A. The beginning of Third Way approaches: mid-nineties - present 30Starting in the mid-late nineties we begin the first stages of a push to delivery 31systems that were neither all-car nor more traditional public transport approaches. 32There was in fact a lot more happening on paper and in report as opposed to large 33scale changes on the streets of cities, but that said if we look carefully we can note 34a steady growth of new innovational approaches that reach beyond both all-cars 35and all-PT. (And while this is not yet a paradigm per se, it is certainly a precursor, 36an important element of the new paradigm that we now have an opportunity to 37define) 38And what is interesting about where things stand in Helsinki in particular in 2012, is 39that the city is now in a strong position to plan and deploy a major new Transport 40Policy Paradigm (which brings us to Equity, but more on that in a moment). The 41point here is that your new paradigm can provide a consistent framework for all of 42the various kinds of new policies and projects that are already getting underway To 43name a few: parking control, reserved lanes, your important DRT pilot, carsharing, 44bikes, public bikes, ridesharing, Park +Ride, walking and cycling to schools, new 45uses of taxis, neighborhood development projects, elderly and handicapped 46transport . . . And the long list goes on.

3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

Page 15

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1The point is that all these initiatives need a broader, recognizable, comprehensive 2policy frame so that we are no longer obliged to continue with all these necessary 3projects on a purely ad hoc or case-by-case basis. We need a frame that we can 4communicate to policy makers, to all the key players, and to the general public. 5We need a clear new policy, and that is what we can help to move into the public 6debate in the weeks and months ahead..

3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 16

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

1A 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 2 3This listing is close to complete but will be added to and filled out in the weeks 4ahead. Above all this contribution is to show the extent to which the net was cast 5widely during the course of this project and that many people from many different 6organizations and areas of interest were kind enough to take part. 7 Name 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
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 Juha Hietanen Juha Seppälä 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 KSV Finnish Federation of Visually Impaired

3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

Page 17

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 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 53 54
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 Otso Kivekäs Outi Kuittinen Outi Silfverberg Outi Väkevä 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 City Hactivists Demos Helsinki The Greens Environment Centre

3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 18

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

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

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

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

46A 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 47 48As with all of these annexes, we go into detail here not only to give the reader a 49better idea of the extensive participation and contributions from many people and 3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n
Page 19

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1perspectives informing this project and report, but also thinking of it as a possible 2first guide for other cities and institutions that may be considering building on this 3experience. As you will surely note, this is something that requires serious 4preparation and wide support in the host city. 5 6Wednesday 14.3.2012 718:00–19:00 8CIMO, Pasi Sahlberg 9 10Thursday 15.3.2012 118:30-9:30 12Students: 13Hanna Hannus, 14Elina Mattero, 1510:00-12:00 16Architect, Douglas Gordon, 1713:00-15:00 18Project Manager, Tero Santaoja, 19 20Friday 16.3.2012 2112:00-14:30 22Deputy Mayor, Pekka Sauri, 23Head of Traffic Planning Department, Ville Lehmuskoski, 2415:00-16:00 25Environment Centre, Outi Väkevä, 26Environment Centre, Petteri Huuska, 27City Planning Department, Marek Salermo, 28City Planning Department, Mikko Lehtonen, 29Citizen, Olli Hakanen, 30 32Monday 19.3.2012 339:00-10:00 34Finnish Federation of the Visually Impaired (FFVI), Raisa Ticklén, 35Finnish Federation of the Visually Impaired (FFVI), Markku Möttönen, 36Finnish Federation of the Visually Impaired (FFVI), Juha Seppälä, 3710:15-11:30 38Helsinki Region Transport, Mette Granberg 3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 20

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

1Helsinki Region Transport, Johanna Vilkuna, 2City Planning Department, Lauri Kangas 312:00-14:30 4Deputy Mayor, Hannu Penttilä, 515:00-16:00 6Taxi Helsinki, Pekka Virtasaari 7City Car Club, Ilkka Tiainen 816:30-17:30 9Tenants: 10HELKA (Helsinki Neighbourhoods Association), 11Pirjo Tulikukka, 12Lilli Mäkelä, 13Heikki Leppänen, 14Olli Hakanen, 15 16Tuesday 20.3.2012 179:00–10:00 18Demos Finland 19Roope Mokka, 20Aleksi Neuvonen, 21Janne Salovaara, 22Mika Hyötyläinen, 23Outi Kuittinen, 2411:00–12:00 25Seniors 2612:30–13:30 27City Hacktivists, Teemu Pyyluoma, 28City Hacktivists,Otso Kivekäs, 29City Hacktivists,Janne Peltola, 30City Hacktivists,Mikko Särelä, 31Friends of the Earth, Angi Mauranen, 3214:00-15:00 33Helsinki Region Transport, Nina Frösén, 34Puclic Works Department, Lotta Suominen, 35Helsinki City Transport, Artturi Lähdetie, 3615:30–16:30 37Liikenneturva, Varpu Tavastsjerna, 38Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö, Katariina Myllärniemi, 39katariina.myllarniemi@mintc.fi

3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

Page 21

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1Poliisilaitos, Pekka Höök 2Liikenneturva, Kaisa Hara, 3YLE, Harri Oksanen 4Olli Orkoneva (Liikenneturvan hallitus) 5Hyvinkää, Kimmo Kiuru, 6Susanna Blomqvist, heijastinvalmistajat 7Hannu Heiskanen, liukuesteet 8Pyöräilykuntien verkosto, Matti Hirvonen 918:00-19:30 10Dodo 11 12Wednesday 21.3.2012 139:00-11:30 14Master Class I, People 1513:00-14:00 16Finnish National Board of Education, Matti Kyrö, 1714:30-15:30 18Coalition party, Sirpa Asko-Seljavaara, 19 20Thursday 22.3.2012 219:00-11:30 22Master Class II, Service suppliers and variants 2313:00-14:00 24The Greens of Finland, Matti Pyhtilä, 25 The Greens of Finland, Otso Kivekäs, 26The Greens of Finland, Mari Holopainen, 27The Greens of Finland, Jessica Karhu, 2814:30-15:30 29Forum Virium, Pekka Koponen, 30Forum Virium, Kaisa Spilling, 31 32Friday 23.3.2012 339:00-11:30 34Master Class III, Open democracy and Hacking the System

3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 22

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

114:00-15:00 2RIL, Helena Soimakallio 3RIL, Anu Karvonen 4RIL, Kaisa Venäläinen 5Helsingin matkailu- ja kongressitoimisto, Johanna Grönberg, 6Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö, Satu Heikkinen 7Matti Hirvonen, Pyöräilykuntien verkosto 8Petteri Sipilä, Pyöräilykuntien verkosto 9Liikuntavirasto, Kimmo Raineva 10 11 12Monday 26.3.2012 1310:00-11:00 14Matti Kivelä, Head of Transport System Office, 1513:00-14:30 16YTK Land Use Planning and Urban Studies Group 17 18Tuesday 27.3.2012 199:00-11:30 20Master Class IV, final presentation 2113:00-15:00 22Metropol-DRT

3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

Page 23

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1A n n e x H : B r a i n s t or m i n g d i s c u s s i o n p o i n t s
2

3In each of the brainstorming dialogues we attempted to get discussions going first 4of all with a short presentation of the Helsinki project and our objectives. This was 5followed by brief presentations by each of the invited participants, with background 6information on their specific mandate area, interests and working methods. The 7following questions and sugggested topics were distributed to the participants as 8an attempt on our part to solicit their reactions and suggestions for the future of 9the project. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
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

3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 24

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

1 2

17.What would an Equity-Based Transport system for Helsinki look like? – And what would be the best way to get there?

3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

Page 25

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1 2A 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 3 Seminars 4 21-27 March 2011 5 6 7 8 9Master Class Seminar I: 10 11 09:00 - 11:30, Wednesday 21.3.2012

Auditorium, Helsinki Department of City Planning and Transportation Kansakoulukatu 1 A FI-00099 City of Helsinki

People First: User Groups (Facts, inequities, toward equity)

12Examples of target groups: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
 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

21Session President: Leena Silfverberg 22Head of Discussion: Eric Britton 23Rapporteurs: Taneli Nissinen & Sanna Ranki 24Speakers: 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
• • • • 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

3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 26

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

1 2 3 4 5Master Class II: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 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

13Session President: Leena Silfverberg 14Head of Discussion: Eric Britton 15Rapporteurs: Taneli Nissinen & Sanna Ranki 16Speakers: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
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? • • • • • 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

3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

Page 27

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1 2Master Class III: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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

11Session President: Leena Silfverberg 12Head of Discussion: Eric Britton 13Rapporteurs: Taneli Nissinen & Sanna Ranki 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Master Class IV: 10:00 - 11:30, Tuesday 27.3.2012 26 27
• • • • • 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

Final presentation, challenges and discussions : Eric Britton

28Session president: Leena Silfverberg 29Rapporteurs: Taneli Nissinen & Sanna Ranki 30 31 32 33 34 3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 28
• • • Speaker: Eric Britton Commentary Speaker: Pekka Sauri, Deputy Mayor, Helsinki Closure and thanks: Leena Silfverberg

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

1Annex J: Collective memo by Dodo: Basics of Environmental 2 Activism (Course) 1 3 4Eric Britton, a renowned environmentalist, shared some of his ideas and insights 5with us on Tuesday 20.3. He's in Helsinki to work on a project on an equity-based 6transportation system. The notes made by listeners highlighted the importance of 7a "social brain". In this context the concept of a social brain can facilitate the 8inclusion of citizens in the different stages of decision-making process. 9Kaupunkifillari, a Helsinki-based bicycle blog that asked its readers for comments 10on an at the time incomplete plan on public bikes in Helsinki, was brought up as an 11example of such an approach. 12 13Here are some comments from our notes: 14 15 • Social brain rules! 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
• 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

• • • • • • •

31 Dodo is an environmental organisation for urban folk which relies on the power of knowledge and 4argument. Dodo is about talking and doing. It organises public events, discussion groups, projects and 5more. Dodo brings together people from different backgrounds to exchange expertise, experiences and 6ideas. We work out ideas and then we work on some of them to carry out experiments that might 7improve things. 8Dodo has a flexible and open ethos which makes it easy for talk to lead to action. Many of its important 9projects started out as ideas or visions developed in small discussion groups. The offspring of Dodo 10include the wind power company Lumituuli Ltd, Manombo Rain Forest Conservation Project and Dodona 11Combo Discussion Forum Project. 12The dodo, our namesake, disappeared long ago, one of the first species known to have become extinct 13as the result of human activity. But where there’s hope, there’s life. Come and join Dodo and help make 14the future a living future. For contact details scroll down a bit further - we're flexible about language as 15well, so if your Finnish isn't brilliant, don't let it put you off.
16

17P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

Page 29

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 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
• can do? Simple traffic engineers could use some help from a social brain. It's City Planning 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.

• • •

• •

• • • • • • •

26 27Another idea mentioned more than once was the importance of small things and 28actions. Britton criticized the UN programs for focusing too much effort and 29resources on grandiose global scale processes (such as the Kyoto Protocol) and 30ignoring smaller-scale initiatives and projects. The equity-based transportation 31project taking place in Helsinki should be seen as an example of a local project that 32can have a global influence if it is capable of being replicated in other 33metropolises. 34 35The project currently underway in Helsinki aims to create an equity-based 36transportation concept. The idea of equity stresses fairness and equal 37opportunities, and should therefore not be confused with the concept of equality. 38The projects seeks to find creative solutions and combine different means of 39transport. 40 41Key is the concept of equity: the system should be fair, efficient and safe. The 3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 30

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

1current "many cars - few alternatives"-situation should be replaced by a "some 2cars - multiple alternatives"-one. 3 4 I'm sure we're all looking forward to the outcomes of the project. 5

3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

Page 31

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1A 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 2 on project. 3 4What you see here is not really a report in the usual sense of the word, it is actually 5a process, an interactive process which is still underway. To point this up here are 6a selection of the comments which have kindly been sent our way in support of the 7process. Also as part of your search for ideas, and visions other than those 8presented by the author here, you will find it useful to scan the presentations at 9the Master Classes, some of which are available by links from here. 10 11____________________________________________________________________ 12 13Lähettäjä: Eric Britton 14Aihe: Re: additional comments + some PhD papers 15Päivämäärä: 27. maaliskuuta 2012 21.48.45 UTC+3.00 16Vastaanottaja: Kalle Toiskallio <kalle.toiskallio.lectus@gmail.com> 17 18 19It was a pleasure to discuss with you at YTK this afternoon. You asked us to email 20to you some additional notes. 21 22Two things. First, again, the bicycle revolution, so to speak, that is going on at the 23moment in many Finnish urban areas. It is, of course, a positive phenomenon in 24general and it interesting to see how rapidly it goes through transport authorities 25and city planning. However, since in several development cases In Southern 26Finland somebody always gets the idea of "bicycle high-ways" enabling cyclists to 27keep not just high travel speed but also wide vistas, especially in intersections, for 28safety reasons... Doesn't this sound like HCM! 29 30So, what would you suggest for Finns? Should we promote bicycling as much as 31possible, or should we calm speeds of bicycles, also. Before the general amount of 32cyclists is big enough and thus calms cycle crowds inherently, I am afraid this kind 33of questions should be considered. A bit different but related thing is the following. 34 I hope Helsinki won't never be full of similar aversive notes on urban walls and first 35floor doors against bicycle parking as can be seen in Copenhagen. 36 37Second, the shared space. It has been tried, says KSV, in some cases in Helsinki, 38but it never worked!! More precise declaration is that even if all traffic lights were 39removed or were never built for a certain strip, there were still traffic accidents or 40people did not like it in general… 41 42So, the term is rather well-known among transport professionals but the broader 43knowledge of the concept is rather vague. It is understood as a tool kit enabling 44planners to pick up the best technical trick (removing zebra crossings or traffic 45lights from certain street, or, improving the surface material of an intersection etc.) 46All the multi-scientific background work dealing with, say, current culture and 47history and its actors of a certain place or intersection are not taken care of at all. I 48think it is not question of money but a simple narrow-mindedness. 49 50Using the concept of shared space effectively would destroy the clear planning 51project because the final result - and the resources needed, may be unclear in the 52beginning. I am sure you have heard this before and elsewhere. However, I 3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 32

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

1suppose your audience is still willing to hear more about the larger meaning of the 2concept. 3 4By the way, though related to lines above, transport planners are usually civil 5engineers having transport or road technic as their major. Finnish education giving 6the diploma of civil engineer is usually very narrow and technically oriented. 7Diploma work is more like clarification of certain readily restricted branch than a 8critical research that would discuss with other studies etc. It is a sad fact that 9Finnish transport research is mostly based on these diploma works. 10 11I shall try to come to listen to you on Tuesday morning 12 13P.S. See attachments files to see the papers in English in my dissertation (2002). 14Especially the route-negotiation paper deals with the eye contact among people in 15urban traffic I mentioned within our discussion at YTK today. 16 17Valtiot. tri (sosiologia) Kalle Toiskallio 18p. 040 550 5533 19kalle.toiskallio@lectus.fi 20(varalla: kalle.toiskallio.lectus@gmail.com) 21 22Lectus Ky 23Mäenlaskijantie 2A 2400810 Helsinki 25www.lectus.fi 26Y-tunnus: 2243522-4 27 28PS/FYI, some examples of the faint Finnish traffic sociology. Route negotiation 29paper (still unpublished, btw) might be interesting from eye contact's point of view 30that we shortly discussed at YTK. 31 32____________________________________________________________________ 33 34 35 36-----Original Message----37From: bruun@seas.upenn.edu [mailto:bruun@seas.upenn.edu] 38Sent: Friday, 20 April, 2012 11:44 39Subject: Re: Review draft of Helsinki Equity/Transport Stage I report 40 41I think you need to distinguish between the suburbs and Helsinki proper. I would 42give the suburbs 436 or 7 out of 10 and the city proper 8 out of 10. Even the suburbs have good 44facilities for walking. I can assure you that small children can't walk to school alone 45in most of the world like they can in Helsinki suburbs. "Safe Routes to School" is 46still a controversial idea in the US Congress. If you give Helsinki a 7, then most US 47suburbs have to be a 3. Indonesian cities would have to have negative numbers. 48 49It is not correct to say that the auto is the dominant mode. If you look at Kenworthy 50and Newman's data, as well as from other officials sources, public transport plus 51non motorized modes constitute between 5260 and 70 percent of all trips. Cars have been chased out of the center to a large 53extent already and I think that going any further would backfire as people would 54drive to suburban shopping centers instead.

3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

Page 33

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1 2I also think that Helsinki is very innovative in features that promote equity like RFID 3tags to extend crossing times for children and elderly. The car really doesn't seem 4to be the king that you portray it. But then again, I am used to Philadelphia where 5bus lanes aren't enforced, where drivers honk at people in crosswalks, drive 6through lights that are already red, etc. 7 8There are other role model features you might have missed. For example, the tax 9system is equitable. If a community in the metro region chooses not to pay into 10HSL, then residents of that community must pay a higher price for their monthly 11pass. This is not only equitable, it teaches people that they get something for their 12taxes. 13 14I also think you give the impression that the focus is still on new infrastructure to 15accommodate cars, rather than to improve the use of existing infrastructure. I 16disagree. Most changes have favored public transport over cars on existing 17infrastructure. There have been some minor projects to improve conditions for 18cars, but they generally also make the conditions better for the surrounding 19community. Matti Kivelä can give you photos of more compact intersections 20between major roads. 21 22Finally, I think that the computer analogy isn't a good one. Computer performance 23doesn't involve a spatial component. Computers are thrown away regularly while 24buildings and roads stay for decades if not centuries. 25 26There are a few major infrastructure projects coming up, like the new loop tunnel 27for the railway, but that is because the regional railway has been so extremely 28successful that the central station is at capacity. And the Espoo metro extension is 29going to be a role model for other prosperous suburbs that show how car use can 30be reduced. If done correctly, it will promote communities with more non31motorized trips. 32 33Eric Bruun 34Adjunct Faculty 35Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering 36University of Pennsylvania 37276 Towne Building, room 276 38Philadelphia, PA 19143 391-215-898-3966 40bruun@seas.upenn.edu 41 42 43____________________________________________________________________ 44 45From: Salko Heikki [mailto:Heikki.Salko@hel.fi] 46Sent: Tuesday, 27 March, 2012 11:58 47Subject: Thoughts about equity in Helsinki 48 49I know well that in some respects Finland isn't entirely equitable. I'm a 19-year-old 50youth currently working here at KSV for siviilipalvelus (alternative for military 51service, which is compulsory for all males) and while I managed to get a job in my 52personal field of interest for it, the idea in general is almost as inequitable as can 53be. Anyway… some thoughts to consider for your report, as you requested from 54the audience of your presentation this morning: 3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 34

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

1 2 • I think the common sentiment towards your being here is not as much "we 3 don't need Britton here" as "we don't need Britton here as much as some 4 other places would". You might want to mention some arguments for why 5 this isn't the case, or doesn't matter if it is. 6 • Finns in general prefer directness and concrete examples, rather than 7 philosophical rhetoric. This applies even more so as your report's primary 8 audience will be engineers with a lot of experience in the field. Equity as a 9 concept is very abstract so I'd advise you to think hard about this if you 10 want to be taken seriously (and not just as that silly American philosopher 11 with the nice tie). Your introductory text was all but ridiculed by some, I 12 believe largely due to its style. 13 • When you really do need to explain more abstract ideas such as measuring 14 equitability, be sure to elaborate even further what we'll actually want to do 15 about it. Readers, especially skeptical ones, need plenty of source material 16 for critical thinking or they'll quickly dismiss the entire idea as humbug -17 and not necessarily be entirely wrong in doing so. 18 19There might be more things, but these came to my mind first. I tried my best not to 20sound like a doomsday prophet about them; I just think you have some ideas worth 21thinking about which risk being ignored by the audience as it is. 22 23On another note, I'm willing to get involved in translating the final report into 24Finnish. I believe my English is quite strong (primarily because I picked it up as a 25three-year-old living abroad) and I'm not entirely swamped with work assignments 26being a temporary, unqualified (and mostly unpaid) employee. Of course, if you've 27already sorted it all out, I'm not trying to push myself either. 28 29Best regards, 30Heikki Salko 31 32____________________________________________________________________ 33 34From: Kangas Lauri [mailto:lauri.kangas@hel.fi] 35Sent: Monday, 26 March, 2012 17:23 36Subject: VS: Next Steps 37 38I'm unusually low on ideas today, but Taneli makes up for this by making great 39suggestions. 40 41Opening up discussion in all directions is really needed. Nobody seems to be able 42to say how, where and who made the fundamental decisions underpinning our 43current planning policies. We need to discuss the basis of future policies both 44internally and with the widest possible audience to really work out what our goals 45are and how we could work towards them. 46 47For the shorter term we should assess all our new plans and projects against the 48goals we already have. Even this may need some discussion because some of our 49current goals are probably conflicting at least when viewed from a narrow 50perspective. Does each plan help us increase the share of cycling? Does each plan 51prioritize sustainable modes as instructed by the city council? Does each plan help 52us create a more liveable city or whatever kind of city we say we want? We already 53look at traffic safety, but this can't be viewed in isolation. As far as I can tell our 54traffic safety expert would agree. 3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n
Page 35

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1 2As part of the longer term discussions we also need to look at each our current 3planning policies and seriously ask whether they support our high level goals for 4the city. These city goals are partially being reviewed in the master planning work 5just now. For instance: Will increasing noise and pollution buffer zones for streets 6really solve problems or create even worse problems by increasing the total 7amount of traffic? 8 9Lauri Kangas 10Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto 11Liikennesuunnitteluosasto 12Kansakoulukatu 1 A, 5. krs 13PL 2100, 00099 HELSINGIN KAUPUNKI 14 15____________________________________________________________________ 16 17From: Heikkinen Jenni [mailto:jenni.heikkinen@aalto.fi] 18Sent: Monday, 26 March, 2012 15:21 19To: eric.britton@worldstreets.org 20Subject: Reflection on the discussion at YTK on Monday 21 22Dear Mr. Britton, 23 24I enjoyed the conversation at YTK very much. As I mentioned, I have a degree in 25Environmental Economics and I would call myself an Environmental 26Scientist/Ecological Economist or something of the sort. Transportation issues are 27very interesting from the environmental perspective and equity points to the same 28direction, as I understand. 29 30The most interesting thing for me was the three speed limits suggestion. As Kalle 31Toiskallio mentioned, there is much discussion in Helsinki about separating the 32bicycles from the pedestrians. I have not liked the idea, mostly because I think 33there is room for slow cyclists as well. And also, it would create pressure to 34perhaps widen the streets, and separate three mobility means very strictly from 35each other thus creating a culture where everybody would just see to their own 36rights. The idea of having a street where bicyclists could ride safely with the cars 37and pedestrians could cross the road where they want to, is superiors. The rules 38would be simple, you could see them from the speed limit. 39 40Also the different forms of taxis: small buses and in between taxis and buses is a 41very favourable idea which could increase the user profile of public transportation. 42 43I was wondering about one thing that was not in discussion at least today. I don't 44know if it has been in discussion during your stay. The attractiveness of public 45transportation and free public transportation. In Tallinn free public transportation is 46under discussion at the moment. I myself am not totally in favour of the idea, 47because I think there is a risk of the level of public transportation decreasing and 48people being put off by it in consequence. Lowering the prices and building up the 49amount of customers would be my suggestion. 50 51Thank you for the discussion and hope the rest of your stay in Helsinki is pleasant! 52 53 54Jenni Heikkinen 3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 36

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

1Projektitutkija - Project researcher 2YTK Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutusryhmä - YTK Land Use Planning 3and Urban Studies Group Maankäyttötieteiden laitos, Insinööritieteiden 4korkeakoulu - Department of Surveying and Planning Aalto-yliopisto - Aalto 5University PL 12200, 00076 Aalto 6käyntiosoite: Rakentajanaukio 2 C Otaniemi 7Tel +35850 564 4599 jenni.heikkinen@aalto.fi 8 9____________________________________________________________________ 10

3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

Page 37

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1 2From: Nissinen Taneli [mailto:taneli.nissinen@hel.fi] 3Sent: Monday, 26 March, 2012 15:43 4Subject: VS: Next Steps 5 6Moi, 7 8Here's my two cents: 9 10 - Among the most interesting groups of people we have meet and we should 11 talk more with in my opinion are: 12 o Forum Virium (They proposed to start a co-operation) 13 o YTK 14 o City hacktivists 15 o Demos 17 18 19 21 22 23 25 26
City Planning Departments planners should have an open forum for a broad conversation. This forum could be a combination of green drinks style faceto-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?

-

-

28 - I would like to see City Planning Department opening up even more our 29 planning processes to citizens. We should study the possibilities to use the 30 social brain. For this purpose I could invite Nina Frösen from HSL to talk to 31 our interaction people. 32 33 I have to go now, more will follow, perhaps. 34................................................ 35 36Taneli Nissinen 37Liikenneinsinööri 38Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto 39Liikennesuunnitteluosasto 40Kansakoulukatu 1 A, 5. krs 41PL 2100, 00099 HELSINGIN KAUPUNKI 42puh. (09) 310 37447, 040 334 6364 43taneli.nissinen@hel.fi 44 45____________________________________________________________________ 46 47

3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 38

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

1 2 3From: Eric Britton [mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org] 4Sent: Sunday, 25 March, 2012 20:25 5Subject: Next Steps 6 7I would like to propose a meeting tomorrow at your convenience to discuss 8specifically what if any follow up or next steps that we should already be 9anticipating. This meeting would be important because it might provide us with 10materials or guidelines that could be a key part of my final presentation on 11Tuesday – and definitely part of the final printed report. 12 13We are getting to the end of this stage and I feel that we are well on the way to 14doing a good job with our cooperative assignment. And for all this I am very 15grateful for your ideas, support and patience with my work style which can be a bit 16of a challenge. 17 18But now it’s time to look ahead, and to see if we can start to organize our thoughts 19on what happens the day AFTER I submit the final stage report to you. 20 21Where this first stage has been given over to getting people at a number of levels 22to think with us about whole new ways of attacking the city’s transportation and 23investment issues – our so-called paradigm change. We have over these last 24weeks listened to a lot of people, sewn many ideas, made a bit of headway with 25the new ideas with something like one hundred–plus well placed smart people. But 26if we can honestly conclude that this approach, the idea of a coherent, consistent 27powerful policy strategy based on the concept of equity could be an important one 28for Helsinki and beyond, well then there is more work to do. In fact, we are only 29starting now. 30 31Here are a couple of possibilities that we might wish at least to consider to get 32started on this: 33 34Option 1. Do nothing and forget about it. (We call that “putting it into the 35 drawer and throwing away the key".) 36Option 2. Do nothing but wait and see what if anything happens - and then get 37 behind it. (Often though in the real world this is the same thing as (a)) 38Option 3. Start to define a priority strategy, and give ourselves a very near 39 specific date to make a decision as to what we do next, with whom, where, 40 under what sponsorships, etc. 41Option 4. Turnover the next stage to another group, institution or partnership 42 who are ready and able to move with this. 43 44Why do we need to think about this and make our best decisions to position 45ourselves strategically for next steps? Cause if we don’t , nothing will happen. I 46promise. 47 48____________________________________________________________________ 49

3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

Page 39

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1 2From: Frösen Nina [mailto:Nina.Frosen@hsl.fi] 3Sent: Thursday, 22 March, 2012 07:42 4Subject: VS: Equity-Based Transportation / An interactive PT planning model 5 6Understanding the needs of the public is a key factor in building up a public 7transport system that is both efficient and attractive to use. When the real needs of 8the public are profoundly understood, the PT system can be designed to meet 9those needs well (all services run at the right time and in the right places) and the 10system also becomes efficient as no seat go empty. 11 12Understanding the needs of the public is also an important tool in increasing the 13market share of PT and in the change towards less car dependency. It is said that if 14people are really to be convinced to move around sustainably, they have to be 15offered a wide range of comfortable and easily available mobility options that fit 16with their own lifestyle values and still give them a chance to move around freely. 17Even so, to be able to build up such a system, the planner must be well up-to-date 18with the changes in urban mobility. For example, the share of leisure trips keeps on 19growing from year to year, and this creates new requirements for the PT system 20that have to be met at a short notice. This is where interactive planning and the 21use of user-generated information content are needed. 22 23A new model of interactive public transport planning has been implemented in two 24recent planning processes by Helsinki Region Transport (HSL), together with new 25social media applications. This has been a great success. These two examples and 26their results will be presented along with the new interactive planning model. 27 28In a conventional planning process, the quality of a public transport system is 29usually measured by how well the system serves the “basic needs” of the planning 30area (for example access to education, jobs, healthcare etc.) Nevertheless, in real 31life mobility is a much more complex issue and mobility needs usually go way 32further than just travelling from home to work and back. 33 34Therefore, when shifting from conventional planning to interactive planning, the 35first step is to understand the value and take advantage of the user-generated 36information content. This content includes not only the conversations held during 37the planning project but also the comments submitted by the public gathered in 38the previous planning projects in the same area. 39 40This “soft” information content can then be combined with the “hard” facts (for 41example demographic information, such as population density, and travel-related 42information, such as number of boardings per bus stop) to expand the planner’s 43understanding of the complete range of mobility needs in the area under planning. 44User-generated information content becomes priceless when studying what the 45public wants, needs and expects from the plans that are in the making. 46 47To gather user-generated information content when it is most needed in a planning 48project, an interactive channel must be established at the very beginning of the 49project. It is important that the channel covers the entire project from the 50beginning to the finishing point so that residents can rely on the information given 51via the channel and on its continuity. The channel must always be up-to-date. It 52can be updated during the planning phase with regular postings on what is going 53on at the moment. In the ideal case postings of this type are published once a 54week during the whole process. 3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 40

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

1 2In an interactive planning process it is very important to be as open as possible 3about everything that is done. There are three levels of openness that can be 4applied. 5 The first level is to tell what is going on at the moment in the process. 6 The second level is to tell why things are done the way they are – what kind 7 of background information and planning principles were used while making 8 decisions concerning the process. 9 The third level, the one to strive for, is to make everything public: all 10 demographic information, boarding statistics, planning principles etc. 11 12Openness is crucial especially when working with public funds, but also when 13working under self-financing basis because it allows the public to give their opinion 14at the right time and on the right things. It is also important to emphasize the 15impact of interaction on planning to get the public excited about the idea of 16participation. 17 18Nina Frösén, Helsinki Region Transport: 19 20 21____________________________________________________________________ 22 23From: Nissinen Taneli [mailto:taneli.nissinen@hel.fi] 24Sent: Wednesday, 21 March, 2012 16:51 25Subject: Critic from traffic planners 26 27Hi Eric, 28 29Here's something out of my memory, that was said during our coffee break: 30 31 - "Lot of 'good for all' thoughts, but without a deeper analysis and somewhat 32 not related to reality" 33 - "It was a lot about giving different things to everybody, without thinking how 34 these will be arranged and how they perhaps are in conflict against each 35 other" 36 - "I got the message that making videos is a good thing, but not much else" 37 - "It's lacking substance" 38 39I can't remember if all that is correct, but the basic reasón behind the critic was 40that some people came for to get ready answers and suggestions on how to 41develop the traffic system. Some people misunderstood the nature of the 42happening and couldn't appreciate the dialogue. In my opinion the happening 43worked well and lot of different people got a chance to open their mouth. I can still 44understand the critic if I keep in mind that these people came today for ready 45answers. 46 47................................................ 48 49Taneli Nissinen 50Liikenneinsinööri 51Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto 52Liikennesuunnitteluosasto 53Kansakoulukatu 1 A, 5. krs 54PL 2100, 00099 HELSINGIN KAUPUNKI

3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

Page 41

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1puh. (09) 310 37447, 040 334 6364 2taneli.nissinen@hel.fi 3____________________________________________________________________ 4 5 6From: Nuno Quental [mailto:n.quental@mail.ertico.com] 7Sent: Tuesday, 13 March, 2012 17:13 8Subject: RE: Emailing: Elementos para o transporte seguro e sustentavel.pdf 9 10I would say that transport is an essential policy to achieve higher equity between 11people. By linking people with other people, jobs and services, transports create 12opportunities for businesses and for people. In the USA, for example, such issues 13are usually dealt by the environmental justice movement, as poor people are often 14concentrated in the centre with poor transport connections, far from potential jobs 15and effectively out of the market because of the lack of transport. 16 17Transport is in this sense a means to achieve higher equity. I can see it however as 18a measure as equity as well. If I take Portugal, for example, public transport is still 19used primarily by poor or middle-class people. The situation is changing in some 20areas, and depends a lot on the characteristics (eg good connections are already 21used by more affluent people). Here in Belgium, and in Germany, I can clearly see 22that public transports are used by everyone. So, the transport can be seen as an 23indicator of the society we're living. 24 25There's another point that I really appreciate with transport. You may call me 26romantic of communist (I might be a bit romantic, but I'm more social democrat 27than communist...). What I like in transport is that, very much like when we vote 28for elections, in public transport we are all equal citizens sharing the same ride. Ok, 29some might have better clothes than others, but still, there's a sense of society 30there, of community. This dimension is extremely important, because unlike in a 31park, in a bus or train it's not uncommon that unknown people start chatting with 32each other, again reinforcing societal ties. 33 34Hope this can be of help! I'm curious to read what others have provided! 35 36Nuno Quental 37Project Support Manager 38ERTICO – ITS Europe 39Avenue Louise 326 40B-1050 Brussels Belgium 41www.ertico.com 42Tel: +32 (0)2 400 07 34 (direct) 43 44____________________________________________________________________ 45 46 47From: Annie Matan [mailto:Anne.Matan@curtin.edu.au] 48Sent: Wednesday, 14 March, 2012 07:56 49Subject: 'New Social Equity Agenda for Sustainable Transportation' 50 51Hi Eric, 52

3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 42

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

1I just came across this report and thought it might be of interest to you (in case 2you have not seen it). "New Social Equity Agenda for Sustainable Transportation" 3(http://www.vtpi.org/equityagenda.pdf), Todd Litman and Marc Brenman 4 5This report discusses the importance of incorporating social equity and 6environmental justice objectives into transport policy and planning analysis. It 7recommends a more systematic and comprehensive analysis framework that 8considers how planning decisions affect transport system diversity and therefore 9the transport options available to non-drivers, plus various external costs that 10harm disadvantaged people. More comprehensive analysis can help identify more 11integrated, win-win solutions, which achieve a variety of social, economic and 12environmental objectives. 13 14Annie Matan is a researcher and lecturer 15Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute 16Freeport Australia 17(Interested in creating sustainable, vibrant and people focused urban places, her 18research focus is on walkability, pedestrian planning, urban design and 19transportation planning. Her training included Urban Geography with a focus on 20transport planning 21 22____________________________________________________________________ 23 24 25From: elizabeth deakin [mailto:edeakin@berkeley.edu] 26Sent: Tuesday, 13 March, 2012 12:20 28There is always the question of intergenerational equity vs. equity for the people 29out there today and how to serve both interests. 30 31Cars are making the lives of some better, but they are making the lives of many 32others worse. Discussions of internalizing externalities seem to get very little 33traction. What can we do to make full cost pricing a way to move forward? Or if this 34is Quixotic, what other options are more likely to succeed? 35 36Would free bikes for everyone be a step forward? (can you ride a bike in a 37burkha?) 38 39Where are the children in this discussion? Where are the many adults who have 40mobility limitations, physical or economic? (where am I in 20 35 years = I plan to 41stay active til I drop, but what if that is increasingly difficult? Do I have to sit by the 42window and knit or tat or something equally implausible?) 43 44Could we reclaim most streets for people and make the cars stay in their place, on 45separate guideways that do not intrude on places for people? 46 47How do we manage freight and urban goods delivery in a less obnoxious way? 48 49 (You will note that I either cannot count to five as you have asked or I am 50disobedient - and also that I cheat by creating "compound questions". But this is so 51important I just cannot be compiiant!. I am glad you are on it.) 52 53PS. Keep up the good work, Eric. Tell me how you do it one of these days! 54 3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n
Page 43

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki
1 2Elizabeth Deakin 3Professor of City and Regional Planning 4College of Environmental Design 5University of California, Berkeley 6230 Wurster Hall #1820 7Berkeley, CA 94720-1820 8 9____________________________________________________________________ 10A n n e x L : 11 Additional background on project

12For readers who have not yet had time to make their way through the full website, 13by way of quick introduction you may find it useful to have a look at the following 14five selected references: 15 16 17 18 19
• • • • • 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

20You will also find useful background on the following supporting dedicated social 21media sites: 22 23 24 25
26

• • • •

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

27A 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 28 click here 29 30If you would like to get involved in some way in this process here is how it is 31working: 32Over the six week period running from May to mid-June, the draft report is being 33widely circulated in its present form in Helsinki and other parts of Finland for peer 34review, information and comments. Click here to let us know if you would like to 35receive a copy. 36Portions of the draft will also be posted to World Streets and broadly shared with 37cooperating programs and sites for international readers, once again inviting 38comments and suggestions for finalization and follow-up. That too is an open 39process, and there is provision for comments on the various articles that are going 40to be posted in support of this project. You will see how it works at 41http://equitytransport.wordpress.com/ 3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 44

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

1It is proposed that the various comments and other remarks and suggestions 2should be addressed directly to the author by email - eric.britton@eoplan.org -3with copies to Taneli Nissinen at taneli.nissinen@hel.fi. 4The author also invites telephone comments via +336 5088 0787 or Skype via 5newmobility. 6 7 8

3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

Page 45

E1 a m i n i n g th e P ro s p e c t s f o r E q u i t y - B a s e d T r a n s p o r t x 2 in Helsinki

Examining the prospects for Equity-Based Transportation
A Public Enquiry lead by the City of Helsinki

Phase 1. Report, First Findings, Recommendations Phase 2. Peer Review, Commentary & Finalization

Eric Britton, New Mobility Partnerships,17 May 2012

N e w M o bi l i t y P a r t n e r s h ips
3P h a s e I . O u t r e a c h , f i r s t f i n d i n g s & d r a f t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r 4r e v i e w Page 46

1 Annex Volume : Working Draft for Peer Review
2

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

3P h a s e I I . P e e r r e v i e w , b r a i n s t o r m a n d f i n a l i z a t i o n

Page 47

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful