Professional Documents
Culture Documents
P h r a s e 1 r e p o r t : A n n e x vo l u m e
Helsinki Department of City Planning and Transportation Kansakoulukatu 1 A FI-00099 City of Helsinki
Nothing is more attractive to me than a muddled discussion awaiting its first theory.
- E. O. Wilson, Biophilia, Harvard University Press, 1984
Annex Contents
C o n t e n t s o f f u l l r e p o r t : ...........................................................................................................2 A n n e x A : T h e H e l s i n k i p r o j e c t i n b r i e f ..............................................................................3 A n n e x B : W o r l d S t r e e t s E d i t o r i a l : O n t h e p l a n e t o H e l s i n k i ....................................5 A n n e x C : L a t e N i g h t T h o u g h t s o n E q u i t y f r o m H e l s i n k i .............................................7 A n n e x D : E v a l u a t i n g e q u i t y i m p a c t s o f t r a n s p o r t i n v e s t m e n t s ............................ 10 A n n e x E : T h r e e T r a n s p o r t P a r a d i g m s : H e l s i n k i 1 9 5 0 - 2 0 1 2 .................................. 12 A n n e x F : L i s t o f p e o p l e a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n s c o n s u l t e d ............................................... 13 A n n e x G : L i s t o f m e e t i n g s , p r e s e n t a t i o n s , d i a l o g u e s ............................................... 16 A n n e x H : B r a i n s t o r m i n g d i s c u s s i o n p o i n t s .................................................................... 20 A n n e x I : H e l s i n k i E q u i t y / T r a n s p o r t M a s t e r C l a s s S e m i n a r s ................................... 21 A n n e x I : O n L i v e : S e l e c t e d c o m m e n t s r e c e i v e d t h u s f a r o n p r o j e c t . ................. 24 A n n e x J : A d d i t i o n a l b a c k g r o u n d o n p r o j e c t .................................................................. 37
Page 1
As of 7 May 2012
Page 2
Page 4
Page 5
As I look at all this on my way to the airport this morning, what strikes me is that this is one of those instances in which the questions are perhaps more important than the answers. And indeed I figure that it is my role here, not to come up with cocky answers to each of these, so much as to encourage the asking and subsequent discussions of all that touches on equity and transport for the city and beyond. Eric Britton Paris, 14 March 2012
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
As with all transportation policies, these strategies raise questions about equity. Will certain groups bear a disproportionate share of the burden of paying for transportation services? Will members of some groups be adversely affected by a particular finance strategy? Will revenues collected in one geographic area be spent elsewhere? Road pricing in particular has often raised equity concerns because of the fear that low-income drivers may be priced off the road, but there are other equity concerns as well. . . . Broad generalizations about the fairness of high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, cordon tolls,1 and other evolving mechanisms oversimplify the reality and are misleading. Equity can be assessed in many ways (e.g., in terms of income or geography and across generations). Furthermore, the specifics of policy instrument design, revenue usage, and service delivery can change equity outcomes as judged by any equity criteria. Thus, the fairness of a given type of finance mechanism depends on how it is structured, what transportation alternatives are offered to users, and which aspects of equity are deemed most important. It is impossible to draw reliable conclusions about the equity of a particular type of finance mechanism without delving into the details. . . . Existing finance mechanisms have not prompted equity debates to the same extent as road pricing proposals. This observation is explained in part by the general bias in favor of the status quo and in part by the lack of explicit comparisons of the equity implications of existing and evolving mechanisms. Existing mechanisms are not, however, inherently equitable. General sales taxes, for example, though often politically expedient, usually result in poorer households paying a larger share of their income than wealthier households. These taxes also disconnect those who benefit from the transportation system from those who pay for it, and therefore are less equitable than the gas tax or road pricing according to several equity criteria, including the well-established user pay principle. . . .
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
This listing is close to complete but will be added to and filled out in the weeks ahead. Above all this contribution is to show the extent to which the net was cast widely during the course of this project and that many people from many different organizations and areas of interest were kind enough to take part. Name Aleksi Neuvonen Angi Mauranen Anna Nervola Anna Ptynen Annukka Lindroos Arja Luostarinen Artturi Lhdetie Auli Forsberg Carlos Lamuela Douglas Gordon Eeva Luhtakallio Eeva Rinta Eini Hirvenoja Elina Mattero Erja Bruun Hanna Hannus Hanna Strmmer Hannu Heiskanen Hannu Penttil Hannu Seppl Harri Oksanen Heikki Hlv Heikki Leppnen Heikki Palomki Heikki Salko Heikki Salmikivi Ilkka Tiainen Inga Valjakka Irene Lilleberg Janne Peltola Janne Salovaara Jari Tikkanen Jenni Lautso Jesse Aavameri Jessica Karhu Johanna Iivonen Johanna Vilkuna Jonna Kangasoja Jonne Virtanen Jorma Palovaara Jouni Korhonen Organization Demos Helsinki Friends of Earth KSV KSV KSV KSV Helsinki City Transport The Finnish Transport Agency Aalto University KSV (Master Plan Team) University of Helsinki HSL Uudenmaan ELY-keskus University of Helsinki Aalto University University of Helsinki KSV Liukuesteet City Planning and Real Estate KSV YLE KSV KSV KSV KSV CityCarClub KSV KSV City Hactivists Demos Helsinki KSV WSP KSV The Greens KSV HSL Aalto University HSL Helsingin Sanomat KSV
Page 13
Page 15
Wednesday 14.3.2012
18:0019:00 CIMO, Pasi Sahlberg
Thursday 15.3.2012
8:30-9:30 Students: Hanna Hannus, Elina Mattero, 10:00-12:00 Architect, Douglas Gordon, 13:00-15:00 Project Manager, Tero Santaoja,
Friday 16.3.2012
12:00-14:30 Deputy Mayor, Pekka Sauri, Head of Traffic Planning Department, Ville Lehmuskoski, 15:00-16:00 Environment Centre, Outi Vkev, Environment Centre, Petteri Huuska, City Planning Department, Marek Salermo, City Planning Department, Mikko Lehtonen, Citizen, Olli Hakanen,
Monday 19.3.2012
Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on Page 16
Tuesday 20.3.2012
9:0010:00 Demos Finland Roope Mokka, Aleksi Neuvonen, Janne Salovaara, Mika Hytylinen, Outi Kuittinen, 11:0012:00 Seniors 12:3013:30 City Hacktivists, Teemu Pyyluoma, City Hacktivists,Otso Kiveks, City Hacktivists,Janne Peltola, City Hacktivists,Mikko Srel, Friends of the Earth, Angi Mauranen,
Page 17
Wednesday 21.3.2012
9:00-11:30 Master Class I, People 13:00-14:00 Finnish National Board of Education, Matti Kyr, 14:30-15:30 Coalition party, Sirpa Asko-Seljavaara,
Thursday 22.3.2012
9:00-11:30 Master Class II, Service suppliers and variants 13:00-14:00 The Greens of Finland, Matti Pyhtil, The Greens of Finland, Otso Kiveks, The Greens of Finland, Mari Holopainen, The Greens of Finland, Jessica Karhu, 14:30-15:30 Forum Virium, Pekka Koponen, Forum Virium, Kaisa Spilling, Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on Page 18
Friday 23.3.2012
9:00-11:30 Master Class III, Open democracy and Hacking the System 14:00-15:00 RIL, Helena Soimakallio RIL, Anu Karvonen RIL, Kaisa Venlinen Helsingin matkailu- ja kongressitoimisto, Johanna Grnberg, Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeri, Satu Heikkinen Matti Hirvonen, Pyrilykuntien verkosto Petteri Sipil, Pyrilykuntien verkosto Liikuntavirasto, Kimmo Raineva
Monday 26.3.2012
10:00-11:00 Matti Kivel, Head of Transport System Office, 13:00-14:30 YTK Land Use Planning and Urban Studies Group
Tuesday 27.3.2012
9:00-11:30 Master Class IV, final presentation 13:00-15:00 Metropol-DRT
Page 19
Page 20
Annex I: Helsinki Equity/Tran sport M aster Class Sem inars 21-27 March 2011
Auditorium, Helsinki Department of City Planning and Transportation Kansakoulukatu 1 A FI-00099 City of Helsinki
Car owners/drivers (+/-) Public transport users Marooned users: Poorly served areas, penalizing economics, unfair travel times, housebound Elderly and handicapped (in a graying society) Cyclists, pedestrians, hawkers, talkers and gawkers (i.e., transport and other uses) Young people, unemployed, working poor, women
Session President: Leena Silfverberg Head of Discussion: Eric Britton Rapporteurs: Taneli Nissinen & Sanna Ranki Speakers: Hanna Hannus, University of Helsinki's Student's Union Equity based transportation a students perspective Raisa Tickln, Finnish Federation of the Visually Impaired (FFVI) Equity based transportation thoughts from visually impaired Outi Vkev, City of Helsinki, Environment Centre Equity-based transport from an environmental point of view Pirjo Tulikukka, Helsinki Neighbourhoods Association Citizen's possibilities to impact in city planning
Page 21
Cars, streets and parking (The good, the bad and the ugly) Public transport innovations for greater equity Share/Transport: Taxis , carsharing, ridesharing, paratransit, Third Way transit Safe streets and social space strategies Movement reduction: Planning and electronic
Session President: Leena Silfverberg Head of Discussion: Eric Britton Rapporteurs: Taneli Nissinen & Sanna Ranki Speakers: Mette Granberg, Helsinki Region Transport Equity in the Helsinki Region Transport System Plan Pekka Virtasaari, Taxi Helsinki Taxis in Helsinki Ilkka Tiainen, City Car Club Car Sharing Douglas Gordon, City Planning Department Equity in Spatial and Traffic / Transport Planning Marek Salermo, City Planning Department Function, Form & Use
Have you ever wondered why the overall transportation systems in our cities look more like a 1950 Univac then a 2002 iPad? If not, do you think that maybe you should?
Page 22
Mayor, city council, local government and agencies Political parties (all) Public interest groups (such as Demos, Dodo) Schools and universities Creating a culture of equity Media (old and new, including blogging, social media, etc.) Hactivists How to spread the equity virus in Finland and beyond
Session President: Leena Silfverberg Head of Discussion: Eric Britton Rapporteurs: Taneli Nissinen & Sanna Ranki Otso Kiveks You have been hacked! Mikko Srel Walkability Aleksi Neuvonen, Demos Helsinki Lost generation of pedaling Angi Mauranen, Friends of Earth Role and possibilities of active citizens Outi Kuittinen, Demos Helsinki User Experiences in traffic
Page 23
It was a pleasure to discuss with you at YTK this afternoon. You asked us to email to you some additional notes. Two things. First, again, the bicycle revolution, so to speak, that is going on at the moment in many Finnish urban areas. It is, of course, a positive phenomenon in general and it interesting to see how rapidly it goes through transport authorities and city planning. However, since in several development cases In Southern Finland somebody always gets the idea of "bicycle high-ways" enabling cyclists to keep not just high travel speed but also wide vistas, especially in intersections, for safety reasons... Doesn't this sound like HCM! So, what would you suggest for Finns? Should we promote bicycling as much as possible, or should we calm speeds of bicycles, also. Before the general amount of cyclists is big enough and thus calms cycle crowds inherently, I am afraid this kind of questions should be considered. A bit different but related thing is the following. I hope Helsinki won't never be full of similar aversive notes on urban walls and first floor doors against bicycle parking as can be seen in Copenhagen. Second, the shared space. It has been tried, says KSV, in some cases in Helsinki, but it never worked!! More precise declaration is that even if all traffic lights were removed or were never built for a certain strip, there were still traffic accidents or people did not like it in general So, the term is rather well-known among transport professionals but the broader knowledge of the concept is rather vague. It is understood as a tool kit enabling planners to pick up the best technical trick (removing zebra crossings or traffic lights from certain street, or, improving the surface material of an intersection etc.) All the multi-scientific background work dealing with, say, current culture and history and its actors of a certain place or intersection are not taken care of at all. I think it is not question of money but a simple narrow-mindedness. Using the concept of shared space effectively would destroy the clear planning project because the final result - and the resources needed, may be unclear in the beginning. I am sure you have heard this before and elsewhere. However, I suppose your audience is still willing to hear more about the larger meaning of the concept.
Page 24
-----Original Message----From: bruun@seas.upenn.edu [mailto:bruun@seas.upenn.edu] Sent: Friday, 20 April, 2012 11:44 Subject: Re: Review draft of Helsinki Equity/Transport Stage I report I think you need to distinguish between the suburbs and Helsinki proper. I would give the suburbs 6 or 7 out of 10 and the city proper 8 out of 10. Even the suburbs have good facilities for walking. I can assure you that small children can't walk to school alone in most of the world like they can in Helsinki suburbs. "Safe Routes to School" is still a controversial idea in the US Congress. If you give Helsinki a 7, then most US suburbs have to be a 3. Indonesian cities would have to have negative numbers. It is not correct to say that the auto is the dominant mode. If you look at Kenworthy and Newman's data, as well as from other officials sources, public transport plus non motorized modes constitute between 60 and 70 percent of all trips. Cars have been chased out of the center to a large extent already and I think that going any further would backfire as people would drive to suburban shopping centers instead. I also think that Helsinki is very innovative in features that promote equity like RFID tags to extend crossing times for children and elderly. The car really doesn't seem to be the king that you portray it. Phase I report: Annexes Page 25
____________________________________________________________________ From: Salko Heikki [mailto:Heikki.Salko@hel.fi] Sent: Tuesday, 27 March, 2012 11:58 Subject: Thoughts about equity in Helsinki I know well that in some respects Finland isn't entirely equitable. I'm a 19-year-old youth currently working here at KSV for siviilipalvelus (alternative for military service, which is compulsory for all males) and while I managed to get a job in my personal field of interest for it, the idea in general is almost as inequitable as can be. Anyway some thoughts to consider for your report, as you requested from the audience of your presentation this morning: I think the common sentiment towards your being here is not as much "we don't need Britton here" as "we don't need Britton here as much as some other places would". You might want to mention some arguments for why this isn't the case, or doesn't matter if it is. Finns in general prefer directness and concrete examples, rather than philosophical rhetoric. This applies even more so as your report's primary audience will be engineers with a lot of experience in the field. Equity as a concept is very abstract so I'd advise you to think hard Page 26
There might be more things, but these came to my mind first. I tried my best not to sound like a doomsday prophet about them; I just think you have some ideas worth thinking about which risk being ignored by the audience as it is. On another note, I'm willing to get involved in translating the final report into Finnish. I believe my English is quite strong (primarily because I picked it up as a three-year-old living abroad) and I'm not entirely swamped with work assignments being a temporary, unqualified (and mostly unpaid) employee. Of course, if you've already sorted it all out, I'm not trying to push myself either. Best regards, Heikki Salko ____________________________________________________________________
From: Kangas Lauri [mailto:lauri.kangas@hel.fi] Sent: Monday, 26 March, 2012 17:23 Subject: VS: Next Steps I'm unusually low on ideas today, but Taneli makes up for this by making great suggestions. Opening up discussion in all directions is really needed. Nobody seems to be able to say how, where and who made the fundamental decisions underpinning our current planning policies. We need to discuss the basis of future policies both internally and with the widest possible audience to really work out what our goals are and how we could work towards them. For the shorter term we should assess all our new plans and projects against the goals we already have. Even this may need some discussion because some of our current goals are probably conflicting at least when viewed from a narrow perspective. Does each plan help us increase the share of cycling? Does each plan prioritize sustainable modes as instructed by the city council? Does each plan help us create a more liveable city or whatever kind of city we say we want? We already look at traffic safety, but this can't be viewed in isolation. As far as I can tell our traffic safety expert would agree. As part of the longer term discussions we also need to look at each our current planning policies and seriously ask whether they support our high level goals for the city. These city goals are partially being reviewed in the master planning work just now. For instance: Will increasing noise and pollution buffer zones for streets really solve problems or create even worse problems by increasing the total amount of traffic? Lauri Kangas Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto Liikennesuunnitteluosasto Kansakoulukatu 1 A, 5. krs Phase I report: Annexes Page 27
Jenni Heikkinen Projektitutkija - Project researcher YTK Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutusryhm - YTK Land Use Planning and Urban Studies Group Maankytttieteiden laitos, Insinritieteiden korkeakoulu - Department of Surveying and Planning Aalto-yliopisto - Aalto University PL 12200, 00076 Aalto kyntiosoite: Rakentajanaukio 2 C Otaniemi Tel +35850 564 4599 jenni.heikkinen@aalto.fi ____________________________________________________________________
From: Nissinen Taneli [mailto:taneli.nissinen@hel.fi] Sent: Monday, 26 March, 2012 15:43 Subject: VS: Next Steps Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on Page 28
Moi, Here's my two cents: Among the most interesting groups of people we have meet and we should talk more with in my opinion are: o Forum Virium (They proposed to start a co-operation) o YTK o City hacktivists o Demos City Planning Departments planners should have an open forum for a broad conversation. This forum could be a combination of green drinks style face-to-face meetings and some internet-based forum. Through these conversations we either strengthen the concept of equity as a base or forget it. If the concept strengthens and deepens, we should select the right media's for spreading the virus. Should the conversation be open for broader audience right from the beginning? I mean for example some of the peer-study groups? I would like to see City Planning Department opening up even more our planning processes to citizens. We should study the possibilities to use the social brain. For this purpose I could invite Nina Frsen from HSL to talk to our interaction people.
I have to go now, more will follow, perhaps. ................................................ Taneli Nissinen Liikenneinsinri Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto Liikennesuunnitteluosasto Kansakoulukatu 1 A, 5. krs PL 2100, 00099 HELSINGIN KAUPUNKI puh. (09) 310 37447, 040 334 6364 taneli.nissinen@hel.fi ____________________________________________________________________
From: Eric Britton [mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org] Sent: Sunday, 25 March, 2012 20:25 Subject: Next Steps I would like to propose a meeting tomorrow at your convenience to discuss specifically what if any follow up or next steps that we should already be anticipating. This meeting would be important because it might provide us with materials or guidelines that could be a key part of my final presentation on Tuesday and definitely part of the final printed report.
Page 29
From: Frsen Nina [mailto:Nina.Frosen@hsl.fi] Sent: Thursday, 22 March, 2012 07:42 Subject: VS: Equity-Based Transportation / An interactive PT planning model Understanding the needs of the public is a key factor in building up a public transport system that is both efficient and attractive to use. When the real needs of the public are profoundly understood, the PT system can be designed to meet those needs well (all services run at the right time and in the right places) and the system also becomes efficient as no seat go empty. Understanding the needs of the public is also an important tool in increasing the market share of PT and in the change towards less car dependency. It is said that if people are really to be convinced to move around sustainably, they have to be offered a wide range of comfortable and easily available mobility options that fit with their own lifestyle values and still give them a chance to move around freely. Even so, to be able to build up such a system, the planner must be well up-to-date with the changes in urban mobility. For example, the share of leisure trips keeps on growing from year to year, and this creates new requirements for the PT system that have to be met at a short notice. This is where interactive planning and the use of user-generated information content are needed.
Page 30
____________________________________________________________________ From: Nissinen Taneli [mailto:taneli.nissinen@hel.fi] Sent: Wednesday, 21 March, 2012 16:51 Subject: Critic from traffic planners Hi Eric, Here's something out of my memory, that was said during our coffee break:
Page 31
I can't remember if all that is correct, but the basic reasn behind the critic was that some people came for to get ready answers and suggestions on how to develop the traffic system. Some people misunderstood the nature of the happening and couldn't appreciate the dialogue. In my opinion the happening worked well and lot of different people got a chance to open their mouth. I can still understand the critic if I keep in mind that these people came today for ready answers. ................................................ Taneli Nissinen Liikenneinsinri Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto Liikennesuunnitteluosasto Kansakoulukatu 1 A, 5. krs PL 2100, 00099 HELSINGIN KAUPUNKI puh. (09) 310 37447, 040 334 6364 taneli.nissinen@hel.fi ____________________________________________________________________
From: Nuno Quental [mailto:n.quental@mail.ertico.com] Sent: Tuesday, 13 March, 2012 17:13 Subject: RE: Emailing: Elementos para o transporte seguro e sustentavel.pdf I would say that transport is an essential policy to achieve higher equity between people. By linking people with other people, jobs and services, transports create opportunities for businesses and for people. In the USA, for example, such issues are usually dealt by the environmental justice movement, as poor people are often concentrated in the centre with poor transport connections, far from potential jobs and effectively out of the market because of the lack of transport. Transport is in this sense a means to achieve higher equity. I can see it however as a measure as equity as well. If I take Portugal, for example, public transport is still used primarily by poor or middle-class people. The situation is changing in some areas, and depends a lot on the characteristics (eg good connections are already used by more affluent people). Here in Belgium, and in Germany, I can clearly see that public transports are used by everyone. So, the transport can be seen as an indicator of the society we're living. There's another point that I really appreciate with transport. You may call me romantic of communist (I might be a bit romantic, but I'm more social democrat than communist...). What I like in transport is that, very much like when we vote for elections, in public transport we are all equal citizens sharing the same ride. Ok, some might have better clothes than others, but still, there's a sense of society there, of community. This dimension is extremely important, because unlike in a park, in a bus or train it's not uncommon that unknown people start chatting with each other, again reinforcing societal ties. Hope this can be of help! I'm curious to read what others have provided! Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on Page 32
Nuno Quental Project Support Manager ERTICO ITS Europe Avenue Louise 326 B-1050 Brussels Belgium www.ertico.com Tel: +32 (0)2 400 07 34 (direct) ____________________________________________________________________
From: Annie Matan [mailto:Anne.Matan@curtin.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, 14 March, 2012 07:56 Subject: 'New Social Equity Agenda for Sustainable Transportation' Hi Eric, I just came across this report and thought it might be of interest to you (in case you have not seen it). "New Social Equity Agenda for Sustainable Transportation" (http://www.vtpi.org/equityagenda.pdf), Todd Litman and Marc Brenman This report discusses the importance of incorporating social equity and environmental justice objectives into transport policy and planning analysis. It recommends a more systematic and comprehensive analysis framework that considers how planning decisions affect transport system diversity and therefore the transport options available to non-drivers, plus various external costs that harm disadvantaged people. More comprehensive analysis can help identify more integrated, winwin solutions, which achieve a variety of social, economic and environmental objectives. Annie Matan is a researcher and lecturer Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute Freeport Australia (Interested in creating sustainable, vibrant and people focused urban places, her research focus is on walkability, pedestrian planning, urban design and transportation planning. Her training included Urban Geography with a focus on transport planning ____________________________________________________________________
From: elizabeth deakin [mailto:edeakin@berkeley.edu] Sent: Tuesday, 13 March, 2012 12:20 Hi, Eric, There is always the question of intergenerational equity vs. equity for the people out there today and how to serve both interests. Cars are making the lives of some better, but they are making the lives of many others worse. Discussions of internalizing externalities seem to get very little traction. What can we do to make full cost pricing a way to move forward? Or if this is Quixotic, what other options are more likely to succeed?
Page 33
Elizabeth Deakin Professor of City and Regional Planning College of Environmental Design University of California, Berkeley 230 Wurster Hall #1820 Berkeley, CA 94720-1820 ____________________________________________________________________ ] On Behalf Of Simon Norton Sent: Sunday, 04 March, 2012 19:24 Suppose we define a "special transportation need" as a need not possessed by the majority of the population. This is a significant concept, because if a transport system is to be viable and to have the potential to relieve traffic congestion then it must cater for the majority. That is why when most of the London Underground was built, it catered for the majority but not for wheelchair users. Nowadays we rightly want our transport system to cater for significant minorities as well. But there's no point in designing a transport system for them if it makes the route unable to fulfil its function for the majority. I once travelled on a rural bus route where the driver told me that his company had had to buy a new vehicle (with higher fuel consumption) to fulfil inclusivity requirements, and he also showed me where money had been spent to enable level boarding at a village bus stop -- a facility that had never been needed. Several years later the service was axed. What good was that to anyone ? I think it is generally accepted that 1 wheelchair space in a bus is equivalent to 5 spaces for people belonging to the majority. I presume this refers to standing space, but even a seat takes less space than a wheelchair because people don't need so much room to manoeuvre into it. I mention this in order to make the point that the need for seats by the majority is by no means equivalent Phase II. Peer revi ew, brai nstorm and finalizati on Page 34
Page 36
For readers who have not yet had time to make their way through the full website, by way of quick introduction you may find it useful to have a look at the following five selected references: 1. Helsinki 2012: Program overview - http://wp.me/p2abHZ-2zz 2. Equity-based Educational Reform in Finland - http://wp.me/p2abHZ-2vt 3. Pasi Sahlberg on Equity and Education in Finland - http://wp.me/p2abHZ-2yJ 4. Editorial: On the plane to Helsinki - http://wp.me/p2abHZ-2zc 5. Late Night Thoughts on Equity from Helsinki - http://wp.me/p2abHZ-2zf
You will also find useful background on the following supporting dedicated social media sites: Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/EquityTransport Twitter - https://twitter.com/#!/EquityT YouTube library - http://tinyurl.com/et-videos
Finalization process:
Over the six week period running from May to mid-June, the draft report will be widely circulated in its present form in Helsinki and other parts of Finland for peer review, information and comments. Portions of the draft will also be posted to World Streets and broadly shared with cooperating programs and sites for international readers, once again inviting comments and suggestions for finalization and follow-up. It is proposed that the various comments and other remarks and suggestions should be addressed directly to the author by email - eric.britton@eoplan.org -- with copies to Taneli Nissinen at taneli.nissinen@hel.fi. The author also invites telephone comments via +336 5088 0787 or Skype via newmobility.
Page 37