Trafiken
- Spårtrafikens andel av alla resor över 200 km har ökat märkbart.
- Tallintunneln, som ägs gemensamt av Finland och Estland, är under arbete.
- Vi säljer inte mera nya personbilar som enbart går på fossila vätskebaserade bränslen.
- Trafikens utsläpp har minskat med 50% sedan 2019
- 40% av alla resor under 5 km görs med andra fordon än personbilar.
- Av det vätskebaserade bränslet i personbilstrafiken är högst 50% fossilt.
Having had a look at the number of people in the Helsinki and the Tallinn area and also having listened to Peter Västerbacka when he was presenting the project, I think that the Tallinn tunnel project should be dropped altogether. Because: Västerbacka’s idea is that Helsinki airport is THE jumping off point to the Far East and that people who want to fly to the Far East will use the tunnel to get to the airport (and pay for it). But if one assumes that in some not so far future we could get a Kokoomus government which will insist on joining NATO, the Russian counter move could well be that Russia forbids to Finnair the use of the Russian air space, while at the same time building one of St. Petersburg’s airports up into a new jumping off point to the Far East. Which will mean that air passengers will take the train from both Tallinn (via Narva) and Helsinki to St. Petersburg without having to use the Tallinn tunnel. Considering that also the existing ferry lines between Helsinki and Tallinn will try to stay in business, the tunnel company will soon be bankrupt (as was the Channel tunnel company in its time – although the Channel tunnel was shorter, through softer stone, and was connecting countries with VASTLY more inhabitants). One might easily end up with having buried 15,000 mio for not much use. – Instead of a tunnel I rather should suggest to begin with a line of airships between Tallinn and Helsinki airport (because airships do not need runways, and further technical details I shall gladly contribute), which could later perhaps be replaced by a suspended monorail (which could be rather easily developed from the aerobus system, preferably with a stiffened rail – also here I could contribute ideas), while the airships could move on to connect, say, Mariehamn and Turku and/or Umeå and Vasa. And airships as well as a suspended monorail, once they had shown their uses, could well be profitably exported later on.
Är det viktigt för dej att Tallintunneln ägs gemensamt av Finland och Estland? Ser du nån nackdel/fara med Peter Vesterbackas initiativ, som skulle ge oss en tunnel redan 2024?
Är lite fundersam kring en tunnel ägd av kinesiskt kapital.
One possible problem with a Tallinn tunnel which has swallowed 15 billion of Chinese money for rather little use could be that he Chinese might feel cheated and try to retaliate in some way. This possibility is only based on an impression which I got when listening to Peter Vesterbacka, and it goes like this: If one tells a Chinese that the tunnel is meant to connect the capital of Finland with the capital of Estonia, it might trigger in a Chinese head some associations to what a Chinese might imagine a capital to be. And he might NOT realize that ALL of Finland would fit 4 times into Beijing and something like 4½ to 5 times into Shanghai, i.e. fail to realize how ridiculously few people there are to be connected by that tunnel. With a resulting feeling of having been cheated once those 15 billion have been used up and the company is bankrupt (same way as also the Channel company went bankrupt).
Fundersam är jag också. Men nån tunnel blir det inte tror jag om den byggs i städernas regi. Och skattepengar ska vi inte använda tycker jag.
Så här säger Vesterbacka i Maaseudun tulevaisuus https://www.maaseuduntulevaisuus.fi/talous/artikkeli-1.774519: ”On tärkeää, että enemmistöomistus ja kontrolli säilyvät täällä”, hän painottaa.
Tunnelihankkeen päärahoittajaa, kiinalaisomisteista Touchstone Capital Partners -rahastoa ollaan listaamassa Hongkongiin ja mahdollisesti muihin pörsseihin.
”Pörssin kautta saadaan täysi läpinäkyvyys omistukseen ja kaikkiin pelureihin.”
Så kanske vi bör vara neutrala tills vi vet hur ägandet blir.
Är det nödvändigt/realism att godkänna fossila gasbaserade (=naturgasbaseradede) bränslen?