Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday August 07 2014, @01:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the 95-percent-idle-is-really-wasteful dept.

The Center for American Progress reports

Helsinki, the capital of Finland, has a plan that might make car ownership a thing of the past.

Which is not to say it would eliminate the need for riding in cars. Rather, Helsinki's plan is to provide its residents with a smartphone app that can knit together all the different transportation options in the city subways, buses, taxis, ferries, car sharing services, bike sharing services, etc into one complete trip from Point A to Point B. Users would input an origin and a destination, and the app would plot out their trip, along with which modes of transportation they'd use, according to their preferences, their available time, the weather, and other variables. Payments could be structured in different ways by the kilometer, by the trip, or as a monthly fee, for instance but in every instance the user would be making one single payment via the app rather than paying for each mode of transport individually.

Essentially, it would be a one-stop-shop marketplace for transportation The idea is called "mobility on demand" planning out transportation across public, private, and shared systems, all as a service delivered to customers. And because the primary value of owning a car is the convenience of immediately available transportation 95 percent of the average car's life is spent sitting idle proponents think Helsinki's system, if sufficiently successful and effective, could more or less eliminate the need for car ownership among the city's residents.

In 2012, Helsinki debuted a program that could serve as a prelude for mobility on demand, called "Kutsuplus." (Finnish for "call plus.") It's a system of minibuses, coordinated by computer, that can be called up by a smartphone app. Users can designate a start point, end point, and whether they'd like to ride by themselves or not. The cost is a $4.75 user fee plus 60 cents per kilometer more than a standard Helsinki bus fare, but less than a taxi ride. The system actually wasn't meant to end car use but to make it easier to get to public transportation, and was serving 4,500 people as of September 2013.

Kutsuplus was also cited by Sonja Heikkila, a 24-year-old Helsinki transportation engineer whose master's thesis laid the blueprint for mobility on demand. And while Helsinki's current plan appears to be rolling out mobility on demand as a public utility, Heikkila ultimately envisions the service is an actual marketplace: multiple apps created by different private companies, all competing for who can do the best job of packaging and planning transportation for customers. To that end, her master's thesis recommends that the city government not only provide the service itself, but also compile and make public the data that other firms could use to create their own version of the app. Legislation and regulation would also need to be altered to facilitate the new service, and frameworks set up to encourage cooperation among stakeholders.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:11PM (#78409)

    There's one problem with the idea of significantly reducing the number of cars that way: Rush hour. If you have to drive now it doesn't help you that the car your neighbour currently drives will be available in an hour.

    It's like observing that most beds are empty about 2/3 of the time. So we should be able to reduce the number of beds significantly by bed sharing, right? (And with bed sharing I don't mean to lie in the same bed at the same time, that of course would reduce the number of beds needed — at least short-term ;-))

    • (Score: 2) by jcross on Thursday August 07 2014, @03:56PM

      by jcross (4009) on Thursday August 07 2014, @03:56PM (#78480)

      It works great in rush hour if you and your neighbor are both going home; it's only if you want to go in the opposite direction from everyone else on the home-work axis that you have a problem. Of course, that can be a problem even if you have your own car and are not somewhere like Helsinki just because you have to deal with the rush-hour traffic. Not so bad on the highway where you have a whole side to yourself, but in town there can be grid lock and so on. Now, with enough ride sharing, maybe your neighbor is riding home with your other neighbor, so you can use her car AND the traffic is lighter.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by emg on Thursday August 07 2014, @04:56PM

        by emg (3464) on Thursday August 07 2014, @04:56PM (#78503)

        "It works great in rush hour if you and your neighbor are both going home"

        Only, duh, if you both work in the same place, and leave at the same time.

        All this does is inconvenience people and waste time, and avoiding that is precisely the reason I have a car in the first place. Driving to and from work takes 10-15 minutes (or 30 minutes in the worst winter weather), the bus takes 45 minutes to 3 hours, and a taxi takes 10-15 minutes plus 10-20 minutes waiting for it to turn up (and costs $20 each way).

        Nothing is ever going to be faster and more convenient than leaving where I am, when I want to go, and going direct to where I want to be.

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:03PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:03PM (#78544) Journal

          Nothing is ever going to be faster and more convenient than leaving where I am, when I want to go, and going direct to where I want to be.

           
          If convenience is only measured in speed then true. How convienient are thousands of extra dollars in your pocket though? Presumably you won't need a car anymore...

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by khedoros on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:45PM

            by khedoros (2921) on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:45PM (#78555)

            How convienient are thousands of extra dollars in your pocket though?

            I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case: Having the money would be far less convenient than having the car, maintenance, gas costs, etc. My biggest concern is time. I can drive to work in 15 minutes, so my commute is currently a half-hour per day. I'm in biking distance, if I choose to share the road with motor traffic, but the commute takes me roughly 45 minutes to an hour each way (3-4x as long), plus my inexperience riding in traffic means that I'm taking an extra chance of serious injury. Taking a cab would cost more than the car does, both in time and money. Taking the bus would be 20 minutes of walking, 30 minutes or more of wait time, and 30 minutes of riding (in each direction). I'd expect similar costs in time and money for grocery and shopping trips, errands, etc, and larger costs for weekly out-of-town travel to friends, family, and nearby larger cities.

            It'd be doable if my family wasn't spread out among 2 counties, my friends among another 2, and if there was a massive improvement in my area's public transportation. Before that time, private car ownership is the only choice, where I live.

          • (Score: 4, Interesting) by emg on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:59PM

            by emg (3464) on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:59PM (#78558)

            "If convenience is only measured in speed then true. How convienient are thousands of extra dollars in your pocket though?"

            If I worked the extra hour a day that I would otherwise spend on the bus, I could buy a new car every four years, trash the old one, and still be ahead.

  • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:18PM

    by rts008 (3001) on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:18PM (#78412)

    I find this really interesting, and on the surface, this sounds like it has potential.

    I noticed back in the 1980's when I would work in New York City that taliking to the locals, most were amazed that everyone in my communtiy owned a vehicle.
    Most of the people there never strayed farther than 8-10 blocks from home, so only one out of five families owned a car, and everyone mostly used some form of mass transit.
    I was amazed at that, having grown up on a farm, and spending most of my life outside of cities.

    • (Score: 2) by NCommander on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:26PM

      by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <michael@casadevall.pro> on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:26PM (#78414) Homepage Journal

      New York City is unusual that its one of the lowest rates of vehicle ownership in the country since its essentially possible to get *anywhere* in the city by combination bus/subway, and most of the outlying areas by Metro-North and/or the LIRR. In Anchorage, the city has a large bus system called the PeopleMover which makes (at least in spring/summer) it quite viable to live without a car; I may break down and have to return to the world of vehicle ownership when the ice and snow starts coming down, but thats not for awhile.

      The fact is, it is possible to live w/o a car in most places, even in the United States but most people don't like adding a little inconvenience to their lives to do so; the only reason I forsee buying a car at all is I wish to drive the entirity of the Pan-American Highway, from Prudhoe Bay, AK, all the way to Tierra Del Fuego, in Argentina; once I"m done w/ that drive, my car will vanish into the void.

      --
      Still always moving
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by rts008 on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:55PM

        by rts008 (3001) on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:55PM (#78434)

        Yeah, since then I have been exposed to more cities, and grown more 'cosmopolitan' in my world view. :-)

        I think that you may be overstaing the 'live w/o a car most places' thing, but I guess if you categorize it by population instead of geography, your probably correct.

        As an anecdote/example, I live in Stillwater, OK, and even with OK State University here, mass transit options are extremely slim. The university operates a bus/shuttle service, but the coverage and operating hours don't make it a viable option for a large majority of the city. That leaves one privately owned SMALL (two or three taxis) to fill in the gaps, and most can't afford the rates the taxi charges, and you have to call the taxi company with a request for service in and hope the taxi can get there in less than 30-40 minutes[typically])

        The big problem is the car culture was so firmly entrenched after WW2, suburbia growing like weeds, and now everything is so sprawled out for anyone not living in a big progressive city.
        That mindset will be a big hurdle to cross in the USA-breaking that model and mindset. I hope we can do it, because I feel we MUST do so to have any worthwhile future.

        Good luck in Anchorage.
        My brother was stationed at the USAF base there, and loved everything about it except the moose invasion of his garden and the wife's flowerbeds! I always have regretted not taking the time for a visit while they were there when he invited me.

        • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:36PM

          by morgauxo (2082) on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:36PM (#78552)

          "That mindset will be a big hurdle to cross in the USA-breaking that model and mindset. I hope we can do it, because I feel we MUST do so to have any worthwhile future."

          Why?

          For the environment? Power plants and factories put out WAY more CO2 than all the cars combined. Cars exhaust output is almost negligible in comparison.

          Or is there another reason?

          • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:51PM

            by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:51PM (#78557) Homepage

            One good magical compromise would be to develop a train-like system, but with more branches to the residential level and smaller family-size cars available; with options to pay extra for cars of arbitrary size to accommodate larger groups and/or "hotel cars" for longer trans-continental trips.

            With an intelligent enough system, problems like traffic jams and gridlock would be solved and the few accidents or malfunctions which do occur could easily be routed around. After all the bugs are worked out it would be much safer and more efficient than having everybody angrily and aggressively race each other on the open freeways like they do now, and would eliminate drunken driving. Since the system is a compromise there would be more walking and waiting than with an own vehicle, but those who live paycheck to paycheck would appreciate not having to depend on paying exorbitant expenses to keep that beater of theirs in good enough shape to make it to work and back.

            This model would work best for cities like San Diego, which feature intense suburban sprawl, where all the good tech jobs are 30-60 miles away from all of the affordable places to live.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by emg on Thursday August 07 2014, @07:38PM

              by emg (3464) on Thursday August 07 2014, @07:38PM (#78568)

              You do realize that the affordable places to live will always be a long way from the good jobs, and that improving transport will merely make them move further away, right?

              The more easily people can get to good jobs from a location, the more people with good jobs will move there, and the less affordable it will become.

              • (Score: 1) by morpheus on Thursday August 07 2014, @09:01PM

                by morpheus (1989) on Thursday August 07 2014, @09:01PM (#78601)

                Assuming that the nature of jobs and the reasons for affordability stay unchanged, you are right. However, even now, there is really no discernible reason for any corporate headquarters to be in California, say, with its high taxes, crowded roads, earthquakes, and what not but there are a lot of companies there simply because some people like to live in CA and the perception is that it is a great place to live. If you can take a self diving car to work and actually work during the drive it would not matter quite as much where the office is. I am not claiming that this is a solution to all the transportation problems but the idea that a light train is somehow a better option is ridiculous: trains are heavy, and, because of that, are rather inefficient as people carriers. Buses ... mainly suffer from the same problem. I simply do not understand this push to just `get rid of all the cars'. Lets make cars better, greener (cheaper is what is really important) but do not tell me I have to get on a bus with hundreds of people every morning simply because it is `the right thing to do'. I have done it for nearly thirty years and, no, thanks, if I can help it.

            • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Friday August 08 2014, @05:18PM

              by morgauxo (2082) on Friday August 08 2014, @05:18PM (#78989)

              I don't know about your part of the country but I have thought that a more built up train system would be a HUGE boon to traffic in my area. However, it's not for the commuters that I want to see more trains. It's for shipping! I don't understand the point of shipping goods for 100s of miles by semi-truck. It can't be as efficient as bundling the goods of many trucks all onto the same train.

                I would love to see all or most goods transported between regional distribution centers and only use the trucks for the "last mile". Most of the express ways around me are pretty much dominated by large trucks bearing out of state or even out of country license plates. I think more fuel is wasted wasted by car drivers speeding up and then slowing back down to truck speed because the trucks are switching into the left lane in order to pass one another at what seems like about 1/8 of a mile per hour speed difference.

                  I suppose this might require building some more track. I'm not sure about that though, there is a lot of track around already, it just isn't used very heavily. The real invetment might be building more over/under passes so that trains don't have to slow down for cars and vice-versa.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 07 2014, @03:40PM

        by Vanderhoth (61) on Thursday August 07 2014, @03:40PM (#78470)

        I have to respectfully dis agree, it's a lot more than a "little inconvenience" for some of us.

        I use to take the bus to work in my city, and of course I'm sure this is just a result of very poor transit planning in my city, but it use to be a two hour one way trip through hell in either direction for me to get to work. My wife and I use to pay over $300 a month for transit passes and bus trips out of town. I've chased after buses running more than 15 minutes early for several blocks because the driver thought it was funny to slam the door in my face, drive to the next stop and wait for me, then slam the door in my face again, I only got on because after the fourth stop someone was kind enough to hold the back door open for me which keeps the bus from moving. I've been kept waiting for buses that were more than 30 minutes late, which caused me to miss all other connecting buses along the route. I've had bus drivers make me poor my morning coffee out of my travel thermos. We had a driver leave us standing at a stop once with a bunch of bags of groceries because it's policy not to allow food on a bus. Often buses don't run on time and don't meet connecting buses. The routes are really obscure and only really seem to go to *major* destinations with WAAAAAY too many stops in between, which can leave you walking quite a distance for the "last mile" of the trip if you're not located near a main route. The system is basically engineered so that taking transit is *just* slightly faster than walking across the city. I actually did that once when I missed a bus and made it home just 5 minutes after a friend of mine who texted me from the stop I was suppose to get on at. That's a lot more than a "little inconvenience".

        I finally broke down and bought a car when a bus dragged me for nearly a block and all most killed me. With a car my wife and I car pool to and from work, it's a 15 minute drive for me and an extra 10 minutes for her. So about an hour a day commuting for her now opposed to the five hours it use to take her and 30 minutes a day for me opposed to the four hours it use to take me by bus. We go where we want, when we want and we take what we want with us. We pay around $150/month for gas which includes our out-of-town trips. With other stuff, maintenance, registration and insurance it's just slightly more than what we were paying for buses.

        The only downsides to owning a car is we have to watch out for crazy unskilled drivers who should actually be forced to use transit, and occasionally we get stuck behind a bus spewing black smoke that stops every thirty seconds. Buses are actually a huge cause of traffic congestion here because our roads are so narrow, the city is over 250 years old, you can't get around them so when you travel on the major roads in the city you're constantly stuck in stop and go traffic with a bus at the head of the line and blocks of empty street in front of them. When you're not on a major road there's a stop sign on every corner so you really can't get ahead either way.

        I totally understand that in cities with an actual transit system you could get away without a car, but I really think the only cities that that's possible are, perhaps ironically, the exceptionally large cities. Maybe New York is actually an exception, I'd like to hear what transits like in LA, or Toronto. I've heard people from cities roughly the size of mine complain of the same issues I have with transit so maybe New York is just the exception.

        --
        "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
        • (Score: 2) by NCommander on Thursday August 07 2014, @05:07PM

          by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <michael@casadevall.pro> on Thursday August 07 2014, @05:07PM (#78514) Homepage Journal

          I have no idea where this happened, but this sounds like something a letter to the board of transit, or bus company was in order; for being dragged, that's something you should have involved the police. */2 cents*

          I admit that quite a few cities in the United States suck for transit of any kind (I'm looking at you LAX), or have bus systems that run once every four hours. What bothers me is Anchorage (where I currently live) has a population of 710k, and has a bus system better than most places in the country; there's very little you can't get to within the city without a bus, and regular connectors to Wasilla and Eagle River. That being said, without a decent system of some kind, in those communities, I fully admit that car ownership is a necessity.

          --
          Still always moving
          • (Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:34PM

            by Vanderhoth (61) on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:34PM (#78551)

            We have a city wide complaint system, but it's useless. You call in, they assign you a ticket number, you complain, then you never hear from them again. I did call the police, but it was deemed to be my fault for letting the door close on my bag. Transit here is never at fault, it's indiscriminately protected. I have an uncle who had a bus back up over the front of his car while it was in his driveway and it was apparently his fault for parking too close to the street, there isn't even a bus route on his street. Buses also have special rules, little white "transit" lights that give them permission to run red lights and stickers that give them permission to whip out into traffic from a stop even if there's someone trying to pass them, in the few places you can actually do that here.

            I don't doubt transit is better in other places, it couldn't possibly be any worse than it is here, but I think it's more of an exception to have a good transit system than it is a rule.

            --
            "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
            • (Score: 2) by Leebert on Thursday August 07 2014, @11:08PM

              by Leebert (3511) on Thursday August 07 2014, @11:08PM (#78635)

              So please don't keep us in the dark, where exactly is this transit hellhole?

              • (Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Friday August 08 2014, @12:00AM

                by Vanderhoth (61) on Friday August 08 2014, @12:00AM (#78662)

                Halifax, NS

                --
                "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday August 07 2014, @03:45PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Thursday August 07 2014, @03:45PM (#78476)

        New York City is unusual that its one of the lowest rates of vehicle ownership in the country since its essentially possible to get *anywhere* in the city by combination bus/subway, and most of the outlying areas by Metro-North and/or the LIRR.

        Also, it's damn near impossible to get *anywhere* in the city by driving. The same trip that is 20-30 minutes by subway (counting wait time) is often 1 hour by car.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday August 07 2014, @04:53PM

          by frojack (1554) on Thursday August 07 2014, @04:53PM (#78501) Journal

          My Niece was the queen of mass transit in NYC for many years, and never owned a car.
          She claimed to be able to get anywhere with just a transit pass (forget the name) that worked an almost any service.

          But when visiting her we would drive all over town, and her only plan of action was to hop on the freeways or very busy arterials and stay on theim till she found the neighborhood before taking regular streets. We, not knowing much about NYC, simply plugged the route into the GPS, told it to avoid traffic and take the most direct route, and drove.

          We took lots of routes through pleasant (as well as not so pleasant) neighborhoods on feeder streets, and even with the crazy stop signs we got places very quickly that the subway/bus/trains would take all day.

          Other places we went did in fact take all day, but would have been very little different on trains or buses due to inconvenient headway (interval between trains/buses. (Headway is the one thine NYC has figured out that lots of smaller cities never get right. One bus every hour is virtually never useful in the real world).

          My point being, too often, people who don't drive or only know one route view transportation is if it were a subway map (one of the most obtuse inventions ever), and are oblivious to actual time and distance and alternative routes, as well as the regimentation imposed by mass transit.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @10:30PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @10:30PM (#78627)

          Tokyo is the same. Even when you can get somewhere by car there, parking is ridiculously expensive when you can get it.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by FlatPepsi on Thursday August 07 2014, @04:35PM

        by FlatPepsi (3546) on Thursday August 07 2014, @04:35PM (#78492)

        Cars are a necessity anywhere outside of a major city. Doubly so if you have kids.

        There are many times when I'm at work and my wife has the kids & goes grocery shopping. (or vice-versa) How the heck do you get 1 adult, 3 small kids, and a week or two's worth of groceries home on a bus? The best answer I've heard is that people in a big city have to shop every couple of days - carrying home only what they carry while walking. That sounds like a lot more traveling, and hence more travel costs & fuel. What's the goal of this exercise again?

        Thanks, but I'll "save the planet" by driving my own car.

        And back to the original topic - this plan sounds like a strategy to encourage buying cars. When I'm not using my car, it will make money for me! If I buy two, I'll make twice as much. Sweet!

        • (Score: 2) by NCommander on Thursday August 07 2014, @05:01PM

          by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <michael@casadevall.pro> on Thursday August 07 2014, @05:01PM (#78510) Homepage Journal

          Not really, since you just carry it. The food store is 1-2 blocks away from the store, and when I lived in the city, I just use to stop as I came back from the subway station. I've lived in both rural communities and cities, and I understand in the boonies, you do need a car but for a lot of cities, car ownership is unnecessary.

          --
          Still always moving
      • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:31PM

        by morgauxo (2082) on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:31PM (#78550)

        "I may break down and have to return to the world of vehicle ownership when the ice and snow starts coming down"

        Is that anything like buying a boat in the spring and then selling it in the fall to avoid winter storage costs? If so then it sounds good but doesn't really work because everyone else is doing the same. Therefore you are always buying when the demand and therefore price is highest, selling when it's lowest.

      • (Score: 1) by morpheus on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:46PM

        by morpheus (1989) on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:46PM (#78593)

        I am not sure about the `People Mover' making it possible `to do without a car'. Every summer I come to Anchorage and there is no viable option to go from the ANC airport terminal to our company's office at the end of runway 7L. The taxis refuse to make a short (~2mi) trip and there are no `people movers' around. Normally this is a short hike but not with a lot of luggage. So, yeah, I have to use a company car whenever there are other pilots around to bring it to the terminal or make several trips leaving my luggage in storage.

        As to your second point, sure it is possible to survive without a car but most of American Southeast is very uncomfortable without a vehicle. Even if public transportation were available I would still like to have a vehicle available `on demand'. Heck, I would like to have a personal airplane and a helicopter if I could afford them! I think the solution to the transportation problem will be self-driving vehicles that would allow true sharing of resources, not the public transportation of today.

        Finally, your Prudhoe Bay (or Deadhorse as it is lovingly known) to Argentina trip sounds really ambitious, and every summer I bump into people who try to do the same in a line for breakfast at one of the `camps'. Some of them ... succeed, others get stuck on the `Haul Road' and get to experience just how expensive a tow service can be on the North Slope. So, good luck to you (I am not being sarcastic), just be safe.

        • (Score: 2) by NCommander on Friday August 08 2014, @02:12AM

          by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <michael@casadevall.pro> on Friday August 08 2014, @02:12AM (#78690) Homepage Journal

          I already did the haul road two years ago (got some amazing photos out of it, and got a kick of watching Ice Road Truckers in Coldfoot) in a 2007 Hyundai Tucson (something that was never meant to leave the pavement) :-). The rest is easy (at least until Panama, then you enter the wonderful work of vehicle shipping). Thinking about building a Wrangler, or a Ford F-150. Really want something with a manual transmission, but those really have gone the way of the dodo in this country :-/

          --
          Still always moving
  • (Score: 2) by Jaruzel on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:28PM

    by Jaruzel (812) on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:28PM (#78417) Homepage Journal

    A lot of urban areas already have this ability, via their own local public transit websites[1] and/or Google maps (which has a public transport option) - therefore we should have seen a large drop in private vehicle use in these cities, which we haven't.

    Hugging trees and wearing hemp doesn't reduce CO² emmissions, nor do shiny phone apps.

    -Jar
    [1] In London it's http://journeyplanner.tfl.gov.uk/ [tfl.gov.uk]

    --
    This is my opinion, there are many others, but this one is mine.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Blackmoore on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:54PM

      by Blackmoore (57) on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:54PM (#78432) Journal

      well, the culture in Europe around cars is really different than in the US/Canada - and it has a lot to do with how our cities grew.

      Cities in North America were never the walled fortress - they expanded as needed; and exploded into suburbs as the population grew wealthier, most notably after WWII. the areas outside of the city proper are still expanding without much regulation; and since it covers so mush area a proper bus/rail transit system to include those areas is mostly impractical. (large auto companies who bought and shut down rail and bus systems in the 40's also added to this mess)

      Inside the cities - there you have a host of factors; ranging from the Good service you can find in NYC, and along the northeast corridor (DC up through Boston) to miserable (Rust belt cities who do not have the funding and have retired the rail or bus systems) Good old economics at work - where people want the services they exists, and where there is a lack of people to use it it has gone away.

      And when you have a combination of a lack of options; and a long commute - you get stuck owning and driving cars.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday August 07 2014, @03:57PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Thursday August 07 2014, @03:57PM (#78481)

        large auto companies who bought and shut down rail and bus systems in the 40's also added to this mess

        This needs to be emphasized more: Compare the the Los Angeles rail system from before [wikipedia.org] to now [metro.net]. Or you can look at Chicago before [chicagoinmaps.com] and now [transitchicago.com].

        Some of those routes got replaced with buses, but in general, we had great public transit systems in the US, and intentionally got rid of them so more people would feel it was necessary to buy cars.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:12PM

          by frojack (1554) on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:12PM (#78546) Journal

          Every time this comes up, everyone points to Los Angeles.
          Its a myth. An Urban Legend. [blogging.la]
          Further your maps are bogus as well. The proper map of rail and bus [metro.net] for LA basin is vastly more expansive.

          And your Chicago maps are equally deceiving. (intentionally so I suggest).
          Look here http://www.transitchicago.com/travel_information/maps/htsystemmap.aspx [transitchicago.com]
          Click the view areas to see the detailed bus routes in any of those areas. Its enormous.

          Look, A simple switch from embedded rail and HORSE DRAWN street cars to bus does not constitute a conspiracy.
          And repeating urban legends a hundred times doesn't make it any more true.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Thursday August 07 2014, @07:05PM

            by Blackmoore (57) on Thursday August 07 2014, @07:05PM (#78560) Journal

            Well, I dont have maps (due to the fact that i have never scanned in the old map i have) for buffalo ny, but they had an electric train that went from downtown all the way north to Olcott beach - a route that takes over two hours to drive. Routes went out to the RURAL areas to the north, south, and west - in addition to the Erie Canal (which did go through the city and out to lake erie. The city was growing and vibrant.

            and that rail company? same as what you are trying to disprove. sure some of it was mismanagement, some of it was greed and the growth of car ownership. then a sale to new owners who cut routes "for profitability" before finally going belly up. and then they ripped out all the rail lines, and only bothered to start bus service in the 1970's. well past the cities prime; and during a budget crisis.

      • (Score: 2) by cykros on Thursday August 07 2014, @04:02PM

        by cykros (989) on Thursday August 07 2014, @04:02PM (#78483)

        I'm not sure I'd go praising Boston's transit system too far. It's definitely not in as rough shape as the rust belt, but our low rate of vehicle ownership here has just as much to do with the fact that from April through October the roads are littered with craters, cones, workmen, steamrollers, etc. Once you get through our other three seasons (Almost Winter, Winter, and Still Winter), it's our fourth season of Road Construction right on through the rest of the year. If you're not able to get where you need to go via our public transportation, you're best off finding a lunar rover to handle the landscape. Couple that with there even still being pitifully few parking spaces to meet demand, and it boils down to those who can avoid owning cars going out of their way to do so, even when it means longer commute times.

        All that said, I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of this institutionalized car sharing. Sure, we have rental car services, but those are significantly more expensive than most would want a sharing service to be to be competitive for the task. My concern is: what state can you honestly expect these cars to be in when you send for one? Between the big macs and big gulps and cell phone calls and kids, I don't see these things being particularly pleasant to climb into after very long. Subways and buses are kept clean (in some places anyway) because of how little effort it takes to clean on a per passenger basis. Can we do the same for individual cars? And how about liability?

        I'm glad they're trying this in Finland, and hope they can find some solutions to some of these problems. I just think a lot of people have been looking at the possibility of this kind of car sharing through some rose colored glasses, and figure we could use a little dose of reality working through the day to day issues that arise.

        • (Score: 2) by carguy on Thursday August 07 2014, @04:59PM

          by carguy (568) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 07 2014, @04:59PM (#78507)

          I'm not sure I'd go praising Boston's transit system too far.

          When I lived in Boston, I usually commuted several miles to Cambridge by bicycle, subway was a distant second choice for bad weather days. That was before cell phones and the car drivers were only somewhat rude. Maybe it's worse for cyclists now, with the car drivers all yakking?

          • (Score: 2) by cykros on Thursday August 07 2014, @05:21PM

            by cykros (989) on Thursday August 07 2014, @05:21PM (#78525)

            Cycling generally is still a viable option, though I do hear from some in the bike courier business that it's gotten a little more nuts on the roads in recent years (particularly as more and more students have been coming in without cars since the recession hit). Massachusetts Avenue is still pretty reasonable either way, but the same can't be said of every road around. I also suspect that at a certain critical mass (not to be confused with Critical Mass [wikipedia.org]) the relative chaos of bikes on the road would be more problematic than existing traffic for anyone to get around (separating bicycle riding from anarchic disregard for traffic laws, at least around here, seems at best an uphill battle, and one that if anything is being lost more and more as time progresses).

            I'm not sure how far we can really expect bikes to carry us away from fossil fuel reliance, anyway. It'd take a LOT of changes in corporate culture, as well as a lot of showers being installed, as most companies aren't so keen on their employees showing up for work drenched in sweat and occasionally splattered from mud puddles that cars have splashed up. It's a great option for people whose lifestyles it fits in, and ecology or not, the $$$ savings are quite real (even compared to riding the subway/bus).

            Part of me just can't shake the idea that we're tackling this problem all wrong, and that we'd make quite a bit more progress with handling transportation scaling issues by reorganizing the cities and towns we live in, rather than kludging everything together with band-aids, gobbling up more and more fuel along the way. But between the massive expenditure to initially bring about the shift, as well as the throngs of people who remind me "but think about the historical significance!" (of those old buildings that keep exploding due to gas leaks and are otherwise falling apart from disrepair as well as obsolete building methods, never mind the energy inefficiency in the winter...). It just seems to me that part of limiting our reliance on fossil fuels for transportation would be limiting our reliance on transportation in the first place where we can trim things back.

        • (Score: 2) by NCommander on Thursday August 07 2014, @05:13PM

          by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <michael@casadevall.pro> on Thursday August 07 2014, @05:13PM (#78520) Homepage Journal

          Having recently spent considerable time in Boston dealing with incorporating SN, I can echo that the T is still not very good. It gets the job done, but its very slow, and the MBTA likes to screw people (CharileTicket vs. CharileCard pricing for one). DC's MetroRail system is better, but there are parts of the outlying areas that are near impossible to get to by public transit (i.e. if you want to see the SpaceShuttle, hope you have 4 hours, or a car).

          With the exception of a few places in the US, this will be more successful in Europe. That being said, I still feel in quite a few cities, car ownership isn't necessary for a good chunk of the population. At the very least, I can say Portland, OR, New York City, and Boston (kinda) are pretty livable w/o having to be dependent on a vehicle from personal experience (and excluding most of the international locales I've spent a lot of time on).

          --
          Still always moving
          • (Score: 2) by Leebert on Thursday August 07 2014, @11:39PM

            by Leebert (3511) on Thursday August 07 2014, @11:39PM (#78651)

            (i.e. if you want to see the SpaceShuttle, hope you have 4 hours, or a car).

            The upside is that this particular problem is well on its way to being solved; the first half of the Dulles extension (Silver Line) opened last weekend, and the next half should open by 2018...ish.

          • (Score: 2) by cykros on Friday August 08 2014, @10:28PM

            by cykros (989) on Friday August 08 2014, @10:28PM (#79134)

            I still wouldn't go as far as to say anyone NEEDS a car in Boston. It's just a luxury that is very enticing if you can afford it, and definitely helps shave a lot of travel time. As far as I'm concerned though, NOT needing to own a car is a pretty sweet luxury as well. Going out the the bar in driving-only places just doesn't come close :-).

    • (Score: 2) by cykros on Thursday August 07 2014, @04:56PM

      by cykros (989) on Thursday August 07 2014, @04:56PM (#78504)

      CO² emissions brings up a good point. If your car is sitting idle in your driveway when you're not driving it, it emits no CO². So yes, it's sitting unused...but it has a longer overall lifespan, and presumably, a comparable lifespan if we look at it in terms of miles traveled (perhaps better, because it's your car, and you have a financial interest in driving it sanely, rather than alternating between flooring it and slamming on the brakes).

      Now, over to shared vehicles: When they're not being used to get from point A to B, they're presumably being ferried about, either by a human driver (as in the case of taxi cabs), or their onboard computer system (in the case of driverless cars). In either of these cases, CO² emissions occur. And even if we assume that the cars stay in place for people to pick them up and drop them off as needed, there will undoubtedly be more distance traveled as people take a different route than they would to and from their own home. Even if SOMEHOW this wasn't the case, there's still the matter of the motivation to avoid putting more wear and tear on the vehicle than is necessary.

      At best, the environmental gain here would be perhaps less need for as many parking spaces, and more efficient use of space for that reason. What this measure actually seems good for, rather than the environment, is bringing transportation costs down for the sake of serving lower income populations (hey, surprise surprise, the same groups of people who ride buses in disproportionate numbers under our current mass transit strategies).

      Not to say that that's not a worthwhile goal, if indeed it's an issue in Helsinki. Lack of transportation has a way of keeping lower classes in place, as generally speaking there aren't all that many office buildings situated directly near low income residential neighborhoods, and without already being financially secure, securing transportation so as to become financially secure remains out of reach. It just might be best to dispense with the fantasy of this being some major ecological fix so as to better weigh the pros and cons.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by morgauxo on Thursday August 07 2014, @03:04PM

    by morgauxo (2082) on Thursday August 07 2014, @03:04PM (#78445)

    In some parts of the world people can and do live their lives within a small area. I'm not knocking that or trying to put anyone down. When I was in college I worked on campus, attended school there (obviously), my friends were there and I lived within walking distance. I loved it!

    But... in other places that just isn't practical. In some places living spaces (at least where nobody is going to knife you) and jobs (that pay a wage you can survive on) just don't occur in the same neighborhood. Neither do grocery stores unless you want to eat (and get diabeties from) super high priced junk food at a convenience mart.

    So.. if you live in a place where you never have to drive. Please.. stay there! Driving is a skill that takes much practice to get right. A childhood riding with parents who drive helps. If you can't keep up with traffic safely then please don't go where you have to drive!

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday August 07 2014, @04:49PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday August 07 2014, @04:49PM (#78498)

    When ridesharing starts to spill into the private car space, you have the blurring of distinction between taxi drivers and private cars for hire. Death cab for cutie isn't just the name of a band, there are many reasons why taxi drivers are regulated - they're already scarier than clowns, in my opinion.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 2) by emg on Thursday August 07 2014, @05:06PM

    by emg (3464) on Thursday August 07 2014, @05:06PM (#78513)

    I missed this the first time I read through:

    "The cost is a $4.75 user fee plus 60 cents per kilometer"

    So, replacing my daily commute with this new, super-improved, less convenient system would cost me about $8,000 a year. Sign me up!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @09:32AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @09:32AM (#78769)

      Please keep in mind that you can't simply compare it like that.

      The Scandinavian countries + Finland are very expensive for Americans, but the local income is sorta scaled up as well.

      For example, the bare bones cheapest new Volkswagen Beetle that you can buy in Norway starts from 41 000 USD (24 in Finland) whereas in the US it starts at 20 295 USD.

  • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:42PM

    by morgauxo (2082) on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:42PM (#78554)

    My problem with my public transportation isn't that my city is lacking. As far as I know our city is served well. There are certainly many busses on the road to get in the way. I've never tried them myself. Even though there is a bus stop right outside my house! My problem is that my city's buses take you to places in my city! There is nowhere in my city I want to go! Show me reasonable bus routes to other cities and I might get interested.

    No, don't ask why I live there. Ask my wife!

    • (Score: 2) by emg on Thursday August 07 2014, @07:06PM

      by emg (3464) on Thursday August 07 2014, @07:06PM (#78561)

      That's my problem, too. There's a bus stop across the road from my house, but it doesn't go anywhere near where I want to go. There's a bus stop that goes directly to where I work, but it's a ten minute walk from the house. Worse than that, the bus from that stop goes through the centre of town, and often stops at the depot there rather than going on to where I work. There'll be a connecting bus which does the other half of that route from the depot to where I work, but, if my bus is late, I miss the connecting bus and spend half an hour waiting for the next one.

      The buses here are good compared to those I used in the UK. But they still suck. They go from where I don't want to be, to where I do want to be, via where I don't want to be, at times I don't want to go.

      • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Friday August 08 2014, @01:36PM

        by morgauxo (2082) on Friday August 08 2014, @01:36PM (#78847)

        It sounds like maybe your city isn't served very well by the bus system. You didn't say that there aren't local places you want to be, just that the buses don't go there. Are there places you do want to go that are local but have no bus stops?

        My point was meant to those who think we should all rely on public transportation and own fewer cars. For that to work everyone has to live in a location that has good housing, employment, shopping and entertainment. If you think the whole world needs to drive less you probably live in a place like that. But... in reality many locations just suck! No, we can't all just move to the good places. There would be too many of us, it would ruin them. Instead we pick a house we like and drive from there to everywhere else.