3 ms·

The original post is at the Hensilki Times, here: http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/11062-the-future-resident-of-helsinki-will-not-own-a

by cs702 12y ago

The original post is at the Hensilki Times, here: http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/11062-the-future-resident-of-helsinki-will-not-own-a-car.html http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/11... I suspect car ownership will decline over the next decade or two, regardless of what most governments do, because self-driving cars and services like Uber look likely to make on-demand transportation more convenient and economical than owning a vehicle for the vast majority of people.

sokoloff 12y ago
More economical? Almost certainly. That day is already be here for many with services like ZipCar and existing taxi and taxi-esque services. I don't see the current technology making car sharing/ride purchasing more convenient than owning a car anytime soon. It's hard to beat the zero waiting for a given trip, and even if you include the implied waiting time at the end of your prior trip (finding a parking place, etc), people get more annoyed waiting to begin doing something than they do if doing something takes a little longer.
- CaptainZapp 12y ago
  I don't see the current technology making car sharing/ride purchasing more convenient than owning a car anytime soon. I respectfully (albeit strongly) disagree. I used to own a car and after my ex totaled it (she was my ex already when she smashed the car and we're still good friends) I didn't bother to replace it. Instead I bought a share of a car sharing cooperative and for the few times a year, when I need a car their offerings are more than adequate. Granted, there are a few factors that make this arrangement work very well: Public transport is so abundant and flexible where I live that it's super rare that I ever need a car. I have, literally, a dozen cars that I can hire on short notice (peak hours like Saturday, excluded) within a 5 minute walking distance. The models represent the range from a Smart to a Mercedes transporter The vehicles are always well maintained, clean and if necessary outfitted with winter tires in a timely manner When I need a car, I couldn't care less what model I'm driving, except maybe: a Smart is not too ideal to transport bulky goods I don't have to bother with the dirty business of owning a car It's much cheaper than owning. If you need a car during peak times some planning is advisable. The worst case was when I needed to take a tram for a couple stations to get to the nearest available vehicle. So, I think it really depends on how it's organized, availability of vehicles and the quality of public transport. So you don't need a car most of the times to begin with.
  - tegeek 12y ago
    I've been living in Stockholm, Sweden for the past 3 years and I never owned a car until this May. Now I can testify based on my last 3 months usage that owing a car in Stockholm is more expensive/headache than the public transport + membership with some X car service.
  - quinndupont 12y ago
    And some cities provide special parking spots for hired cars (and those that don't surely will in the vision of the future offered here).
  - sokoloff 12y ago
    GGP comment included the text "for the vast majority of people" and that's the context with which I was responding. I agree there are situations today for which it is more convenient. The better the public transport and the worse the parking situation, the more likely it is to be a winner in convenience. Even in Boston (with good [relative to the rest of America] public transport), it's tough to make car sharing feel more convenient. That's largely because of the distances involved. Do you want to take Uber 25 miles up to the beach, and then take Uber back? Or do you want to pray that you can rent a ZipCar for an entire weekend day to make that same beach trip? (I agree that people who do that are STILL saving money; I just don't find that to be as convenient.)
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    I live in the Chicago suburbs with minimal public transportation options. It would not be cheaper to use Uber/Lyft than to own my own car. Your use case exists, and while the majority of people are living in cities now, plenty of people (myself included) are still willing to pay the full sunk costs of owning a vehicle for the flexibility that it provides. Insurance = ~$800/year Fuel = ~$2000/year Maintenance = $1000/year Taxes/Fees = ~$200/year ~$4000/year is pretty inexpensive for the mobility my vehicle provides.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- exDM69 12y ago
  > It's hard to beat the zero waiting for a given trip, and even if you include the implied waiting time at the end of your prior trip (finding a parking place, etc) In Helsinki, the urban architecture is essentially designed for horse driven carriages in the 1800s and the city is surrounded by sea from three sides. Parking is really difficult to find and expensive. Unless you're going to the city center with underground parking spots (which are rather expensive), taking the bus is going to be faster than driving to the city center, searching for a parking spot and finally walking to your destination. Renting a parking spot in Helsinki is more expensive than renting a flat outside the metropolitan area. It would cost me 200€ per month to rent an underground parking spot near my office. Any other parking options would need a 5 to 10 minute walk which would kill any time savings I get from driving a car and not a bus. This coupled with the ridiculously high taxation and cost of ownership for automobiles means that taking the bus is almost always cheaper, faster and easier than driving a car.
  - Gravityloss 12y ago
    Very few people live in the center or South Helsinki. Everywhere else and outside the core peak of the rush hour the car is so much faster that it's like a superpower. Car is king, bicycle comes second and with public traffic you can get to places eventually. It is frustrating to experience slightly broken public transport infrastructure all the time. Whereas if I drive my car, I have spent enough money that it just works. I don't get angry or sad when looking at my car. It is a good car. I do get angry when I sit in a thrashing tram or know to ignore the metro ETA signs. Or have to wait 30 minutes for an urban train. So psychologically, public transport feels like you just being there and having to passively take what is given. And it is not always very good. If they can't be arsed to fix a display that shows minutes to the next metro, do the passengers feel respected and cared about? I blame bad procurement/manufacturers in case of the trams and metro. There have been atrocious design errors by international big companies. Luckily some have been avoided in later procurement. Maybe its the case like with government web sites. A lot of money is spent and results are often meager.
- paletoy 12y ago
  > It's hard to beat the zero waiting for a given trip What if it's 5 minutes and then no need to seek parking - which can take a long time ? And what about being driven and able to surf/rest instead of fighting traffic ? Hell, from reading user reviews of google's bus service it seems that public transportation can easily win the comfort battle. All that's left is winning the total "time to destination battle". And according to simulation results - car sharing can to 1.5X of regular trip maximum and less on average, And that's without "right of way" preference - with can have a big effect on those numbers.

by cs702 12y ago

sokoloff 12y ago

More economical? Almost certainly. That day is already be here for many with services like ZipCar and existing taxi and taxi-esque services. I don't see the current technology making car sharing/ride purchasing more convenient than owning a car anytime soon. It's hard to beat the zero waiting for a given trip, and even if you include the implied waiting time at the end of your prior trip (finding a parking place, etc), people get more annoyed waiting to begin doing something than they do if doing something takes a little longer.

CaptainZapp 12y ago
I don't see the current technology making car sharing/ride purchasing more convenient than owning a car anytime soon. I respectfully (albeit strongly) disagree. I used to own a car and after my ex totaled it (she was my ex already when she smashed the car and we're still good friends) I didn't bother to replace it. Instead I bought a share of a car sharing cooperative and for the few times a year, when I need a car their offerings are more than adequate. Granted, there are a few factors that make this arrangement work very well: Public transport is so abundant and flexible where I live that it's super rare that I ever need a car. I have, literally, a dozen cars that I can hire on short notice (peak hours like Saturday, excluded) within a 5 minute walking distance. The models represent the range from a Smart to a Mercedes transporter The vehicles are always well maintained, clean and if necessary outfitted with winter tires in a timely manner When I need a car, I couldn't care less what model I'm driving, except maybe: a Smart is not too ideal to transport bulky goods I don't have to bother with the dirty business of owning a car It's much cheaper than owning. If you need a car during peak times some planning is advisable. The worst case was when I needed to take a tram for a couple stations to get to the nearest available vehicle. So, I think it really depends on how it's organized, availability of vehicles and the quality of public transport. So you don't need a car most of the times to begin with.
- tegeek 12y ago
  I've been living in Stockholm, Sweden for the past 3 years and I never owned a car until this May. Now I can testify based on my last 3 months usage that owing a car in Stockholm is more expensive/headache than the public transport + membership with some X car service.
- quinndupont 12y ago
  And some cities provide special parking spots for hired cars (and those that don't surely will in the vision of the future offered here).
- sokoloff 12y ago
  GGP comment included the text "for the vast majority of people" and that's the context with which I was responding. I agree there are situations today for which it is more convenient. The better the public transport and the worse the parking situation, the more likely it is to be a winner in convenience. Even in Boston (with good [relative to the rest of America] public transport), it's tough to make car sharing feel more convenient. That's largely because of the distances involved. Do you want to take Uber 25 miles up to the beach, and then take Uber back? Or do you want to pray that you can rent a ZipCar for an entire weekend day to make that same beach trip? (I agree that people who do that are STILL saving money; I just don't find that to be as convenient.)
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  I live in the Chicago suburbs with minimal public transportation options. It would not be cheaper to use Uber/Lyft than to own my own car. Your use case exists, and while the majority of people are living in cities now, plenty of people (myself included) are still willing to pay the full sunk costs of owning a vehicle for the flexibility that it provides. Insurance = ~$800/year Fuel = ~$2000/year Maintenance = $1000/year Taxes/Fees = ~$200/year ~$4000/year is pretty inexpensive for the mobility my vehicle provides.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
exDM69 12y ago
> It's hard to beat the zero waiting for a given trip, and even if you include the implied waiting time at the end of your prior trip (finding a parking place, etc) In Helsinki, the urban architecture is essentially designed for horse driven carriages in the 1800s and the city is surrounded by sea from three sides. Parking is really difficult to find and expensive. Unless you're going to the city center with underground parking spots (which are rather expensive), taking the bus is going to be faster than driving to the city center, searching for a parking spot and finally walking to your destination. Renting a parking spot in Helsinki is more expensive than renting a flat outside the metropolitan area. It would cost me 200€ per month to rent an underground parking spot near my office. Any other parking options would need a 5 to 10 minute walk which would kill any time savings I get from driving a car and not a bus. This coupled with the ridiculously high taxation and cost of ownership for automobiles means that taking the bus is almost always cheaper, faster and easier than driving a car.
- Gravityloss 12y ago
  Very few people live in the center or South Helsinki. Everywhere else and outside the core peak of the rush hour the car is so much faster that it's like a superpower. Car is king, bicycle comes second and with public traffic you can get to places eventually. It is frustrating to experience slightly broken public transport infrastructure all the time. Whereas if I drive my car, I have spent enough money that it just works. I don't get angry or sad when looking at my car. It is a good car. I do get angry when I sit in a thrashing tram or know to ignore the metro ETA signs. Or have to wait 30 minutes for an urban train. So psychologically, public transport feels like you just being there and having to passively take what is given. And it is not always very good. If they can't be arsed to fix a display that shows minutes to the next metro, do the passengers feel respected and cared about? I blame bad procurement/manufacturers in case of the trams and metro. There have been atrocious design errors by international big companies. Luckily some have been avoided in later procurement. Maybe its the case like with government web sites. A lot of money is spent and results are often meager.
paletoy 12y ago
> It's hard to beat the zero waiting for a given trip What if it's 5 minutes and then no need to seek parking - which can take a long time ? And what about being driven and able to surf/rest instead of fighting traffic ? Hell, from reading user reviews of google's bus service it seems that public transportation can easily win the comfort battle. All that's left is winning the total "time to destination battle". And according to simulation results - car sharing can to 1.5X of regular trip maximum and less on average, And that's without "right of way" preference - with can have a big effect on those numbers.