It's important not to actually try to address this nonsense. The idea here not to honestly engage. It's to oppose all change on principal, and pretend it's for some reason (the theory) when it's really just a matter of (bad) personal choices.
It's the equivalent of the Chewbacca defence but for public discourse: no one can make any progress if someone just screams nonsense constantly and that suits the person screaming...
And what if governments are always spouting nonsense and implementing it because they have nothing better to do?
I don't know these as 15 minute cities, I know these as anti-urban sprawl, pro-environment, anti-car neighborhoods. And the push has been on for over a decade to make this happen.
Now that it's here, it's worse than thought. It's not just planning these things and letting people live and work close to home or not. It's more of a forcing function where the entire system is built as a turn-key totalitarian physical prison.
Only a fool would buy into this. And yet the places where these decisions are made (city council), nobody cares about and big money will pour in.
It only takes 6 figures in a 5 figure race to buy a couple seats and implement radical environmental anti-human policy.
Well I don't think anyone is buying politicians for PRO environmental legislation but...
I have to give you credit: at least you are just up front about not wanting this. That's fine. You're a citizen with a right to a view etc. I only object when people start pretending it's all part of some shadow government, new world order, lizard people plot...
And yet it is. But not the way you think. It's all about elite groupthink. They have drinks and talk stuff over and turn their noses up at each other until they are on the same page as to what is desirable and then judge each other based on these elitist social goals and who can achieve them and cement their names immortal.
And anyone that gets in the way.... Fired, defunded, shunned, labeled conspiracy theorist etc.
And just you wait. The money isn't flowing yet, but it will. For a city of a million people, maybe buying 8-10 councillors for $100,000 each will accomplish any goal. And noone cares enough about city politics to stop that kind of thing.
In the most-detailed example of such initiatives described in the article, the steps taken in Oxford include ALPR-camera-triggered automated fines for driving on certain roadways at certain times of certain days to those "without a permit" (who is eligible for the special permits, how eligibility is determined, etc. is not discussed) and actual blocking of other streets using bollards (and heavy planters and other obstacles).
Pointing out that the authorities implementing such schemes are attempting to reduce individual freedom of movement and action is factual, not a conspiracy theory.
It's not really. There is no conspiracy about closing roads to make them into pedestrian areas. No one claims fining someone for driving through a park would be a "conspiracy"...
Driving through a park is already prohibited. The initiative is describing paved roadways.
In Oxford, the ability to drive on particular existing streets (streets, not parkland) is to be turned into a privilege, allegedly at certain times on certain days, and those who use those existing roadways without having new, specific permits will be automatically fined.
From the article:
Officials in Oxford approved a plan last year to install “traffic filters,”
which would limit access on six roads in the city during certain times of day.
The filters are cameras, not physical barriers, that take photos of vehicles’
license plates. Fines are then issued to those without a permit.
You're still not actually describing a conspiracy though are you?
And it is standard for roads to stop being roads, to become limited or no access to vehicles etc.
Suddenly we're meant to think the illuminate are behind the fact only the park staff can drive through the park or only local residents can park in some places. But it's not true.
Just say "I like driving and want to drive a lot". There is no need to pretend that the UN and GoldmanSachs are plotting against you!?
>There is no need to pretend that the UN and GoldmanSachs are plotting against you!?
Plotting against me? Nonsense. At best I'm just a number to them. In reality I'm probably not even that, I'm part of a statistic. They don't give two shits about me, about what god I worship, about what drugs I do, about how I spend my day, about any of it, so long as the dollars flow.
I am far, far more concerned about some jerk in some high class neighborhood who lives 15mi from me who has delusions of thinking they know what's best for the world and the money to take a good crack at implementing their fantasy to the detriment of everyone outside their bubble.
(The above is in general and is not specific to urban planning or any other social or economic issue)
This is not that different from neighborhoods that ban through through truck traffic, or only allow residents to park curbside.
There is a fundamental trade-off between favoring people transiting through an area and residents. As someone traveling through you want wide straight roads with high speed limits. As a resident through traffic burdens you with pedestrian danger, air pollution, noise, and more crashes. So you lobby your council member to lower speed limits, add stop signs, and add traffic calming.
That's not a very difficult technology. Thankfully, depending on your jurisdiction, that's seen as a violation of civil rights, and is illegal (unless manually operated by a police officer, in the case of Nevada, for instance).
This is the real answer, but we're too used to the game of wealth redistribution, where we're all secretly hoping someone else will pay for what we want. It's very antisocial, it externalizes the costs of your actions onto everyone else.
Trucking causes 99% of damage to roads, but pays only 30% of the bill.
I didn't get the controversy in the article until I saw the camera-based enforcement, restricted access, etc. I lived in a "15 minute city" in downtown Boston, MA (USA) for quite some time and it worked very well, even without restriction.
There is such camera based enforcement in many countries on highways in Europe. Conceptually, it isn’t different than toll gates, just stopping isn’t needed. There are also speed cameras everywhere in Europe.
The only conspiracy theory is that there would be anybody who cannot leave from somewhere no matter what, but that’s just a very stupid assumption.
The massive headache for anyone trying to engage with this is the difference between what the actual proposals are and what has been "read into" them by people with paranoid worldviews who are drunk on culture war.
> ALPR-camera-triggered automated fines for driving on certain roadways at certain times of certain days to those "without a permit"
> and actual blocking of other streets using bollards
Yes, this is a standard anti-"rat run" technique to prevent through traffic in residential areas to improve safety.
Yes, there are people against driving! No, it's not a globalist conspiracy, it's people who want to be able to cycle or walk safely or take their kids to school.
A road increases freedom of movement for people in cars and decreases freedom of movement for people on foot. A busy enough road is an impassable barrier.
> include ALPR-camera-triggered automated fines for driving on certain roadways at certain times of certain days to those "without a permit" (who is eligible for the special permits, how eligibility is determined, etc. is not discussed)
The issue with these scheme, is that they are pushed and implemented by bureaucrats rather than innovators. What a bureaucrat knows how to do (and what's beneficial to him) is to create new regulations, bureaucratic processes and levy taxes, fines, fees and so on. Where the money's actually going? Some opaque budget where it's redistributed to fund, among other things, salaries and generous pensions for the bureaucrats that have to be hired to manage this extra regulation!
The real solution to incentivize using the ring roads is to make them more efficient and a faster, better alternative to going through the center of the city. That requires understanding why people are still driving through.
The other issue is that anti-car activists are often idealists rather than pragmatic. Their approach to selling the 15 minute city should be to make it so that it's cheaper than driving everywhere, faster and more convenient, while leaving the option for people to still own a car and use it. Naturally, if not taking the car is the better option, people will leave them in a parking garage most of the time.
Urban sprawl was official US Government policy from the end of WW2 until only fairly recently. It's not the natural order of things. Toll free interstate highways, government underwritten mortgages. Suburbs are attractive with those interventions. At the local level strict zoning still chokes off housing construction and mandated minimum parking results in the majority of urban land sitting idle ready for peak parking demand one day a year instead of actual use as a destination.
The role of large cities has typically been to act as an economic and cultural hub to their surrounding area. Cities that restrict access for outsiders to their economic and cultural areas will probably thrive in the short-term, but over the long term I suspect they will be replaced in their role as a regional hub by cities that don't.
Automobile dependent zoning regulations favor making driving easy to the detriment to everything else. Entire neighborhoods were bulldozed to make room for highways. Preserving unlimited free parking comes at the expense of rent zooming up due to the new supply of real estate being blocked.
There are other ways for people to get downtown. Parking can be pushed to the periphery of the business & entertainment districts. Walk, take a shuttle, or taxi in from there. Parking in a parking garage and walking two blocks is reasonable. Pedestrianized main drags are more lively as people don't feel the pressure of cars bearing down on them as they cross the street.
Cars are great tools. We've just gone overboard and don't even throw pedestrians (and dismounted motorists) a bone in the form of sidewalks, safe ways to cross the street, reasonably useful mass transit, and ways to cross over highways without walking an extra mile.
The root cause is the hubris to think we can "centrally plan but not really" utopia with these sorts of broad brush regulatory and carrot/stick policy changes.
Suburban sprawl (though they had different words for it) was very much the "15-minute city" urban planning buzzword of its day.
As an aside sidewalks are SOP these days in all but the most rural of road projects so progress is being made.
There's some good reforms that decrease government intervention. Legalizing apartments, duplexes, additional dwelling units, by loosening zoning. Ending mandated minimum parking requirements to let the market set the supply of parking instead of having city planning officials go off dogma or old laws. The mortgage interest tax deduction has been reduced thanks to the standard deduction exceeding itemizing in all but the most expensive states.
This isn't really a new thing. Back when I was a planning masters student ~2009 I remember hearing about how we were part of the U.N.'s "Agenda 21" conspiracy to round up humanity into survivability zones or some such. Most of us were just nerds for public transportation or bicycling, and the idea of riding around in black helicopters sounded very high carbon footprint.
Still, it was kind of wild to be implicated in a conspiracy. Except for the few scary times where I encountered people who were true believers, it was maybe even a little fun. After all, the first thing you learn as a planning student / planner in the US, is that you have absolutely no power to do anything.
I think the problem is that 9/10 people involved are nerds who genuinely want good things and then 1/10 is a jackbooted jerk who doesn't care about your things except as a means to implementing their jackboot fantasies and the little details they champion poison the whole effort.
Like for example having a traffic restricted at certain times road is fine and all. But implementing it with surveillance cameras knowing full well that "gotcha" tickets will be issued to out-of-towners, the system will be laden with all the perverse incentives that red light cameras are known for and that there's some yet to be defined permitting process (i.e. avenue for graft, preferential treatment of various types of uses, etc).
Just put a fucking gate on it during the times you want it closed and call it good. Why do they always have to go 1984 like this?
Like imagine they did this with a park or some other taxpayer funded resource that's equally open for public use. People wouldn't stand for it.
Look what's happening to car manufacturers. They're becoming "mobility" companies.
They aren't switching to EV because they want to, it makes no sense for them as businesses, in multiple ways. An EV is a commodity vehicle - that's why Apple can build a car without a hundred year history of auto building.
The car makers are being forced to do this by policy regulators. The government is essentially managing the auto industry now to force their outcome.
> The government is essentially managing the auto industry now to force their outcome.
Yes, there's a long history of safety and environmental regulation, and the migration away from fossil fuels is just an extension of that, regulating the impact of cars.
Part of the confusion comes from partisan thinking. WEF supports 15 minute cities (aka walkable neighborhoods) because it's a better use of resources, there are benefits for 99%ers and 1%ers alike, urbanists and ruralites. The trouble is that our polarized system means if you think the WEF is evil, then it's impossible for any of their goals to be beneficial to you. Compare: Many people today believe that Hitler was evil, but will accept that projects like the autobahn or innovations in rocketry were mostly beneficial.
Dismissing all opposing views as "hateful misinformation" like the WEF and governments do isn't useful either. It convinces those who were suspicious of your motivations that they were right about you. The WEF videos never really explain any of the potential for good, they just exclaim with glee that this is a great opportunity to change the world the way they want. Completely tone deaf, I'd say some of these causes would receive less resistance without WEF "helping".
When it comes to the walkable neighborhood issue, the real conspiracy is that automakers "convinced" governments to create infrastructure that's miserable to nagivate without a car. If you've never been to cities outside of north america then you probably don't even know what you're missing. Those who think freedom and privacy are important (I certainly do) might want to consider that a car results in licensing, insurance, license plate tracking and gives cops an excuse to detain you arbitrarily.
The last but probably most important issue that gets left unsaid is that the current system won't continue to work. North American cities are broke from (re)building roads to subsidize trucking companies and mcmansion developers, they can't afford to continue doing so without raising taxes 300%. Even bigger: we'll run out of oil in 50 years. We won't run out of energy, just the cheap and easily transportable form that we've become accustomed to. The options are build railways, or quit bothering with silly things like "trade", "travel" and "manufacturing".
50 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 48.5 ms ] threadIt's the equivalent of the Chewbacca defence but for public discourse: no one can make any progress if someone just screams nonsense constantly and that suits the person screaming...
I don't know these as 15 minute cities, I know these as anti-urban sprawl, pro-environment, anti-car neighborhoods. And the push has been on for over a decade to make this happen.
Now that it's here, it's worse than thought. It's not just planning these things and letting people live and work close to home or not. It's more of a forcing function where the entire system is built as a turn-key totalitarian physical prison.
Only a fool would buy into this. And yet the places where these decisions are made (city council), nobody cares about and big money will pour in.
It only takes 6 figures in a 5 figure race to buy a couple seats and implement radical environmental anti-human policy.
I have to give you credit: at least you are just up front about not wanting this. That's fine. You're a citizen with a right to a view etc. I only object when people start pretending it's all part of some shadow government, new world order, lizard people plot...
And anyone that gets in the way.... Fired, defunded, shunned, labeled conspiracy theorist etc.
And just you wait. The money isn't flowing yet, but it will. For a city of a million people, maybe buying 8-10 councillors for $100,000 each will accomplish any goal. And noone cares enough about city politics to stop that kind of thing.
Pointing out that the authorities implementing such schemes are attempting to reduce individual freedom of movement and action is factual, not a conspiracy theory.
In Oxford, the ability to drive on particular existing streets (streets, not parkland) is to be turned into a privilege, allegedly at certain times on certain days, and those who use those existing roadways without having new, specific permits will be automatically fined.
From the article:
Officials in Oxford approved a plan last year to install “traffic filters,” which would limit access on six roads in the city during certain times of day. The filters are cameras, not physical barriers, that take photos of vehicles’ license plates. Fines are then issued to those without a permit.
And it is standard for roads to stop being roads, to become limited or no access to vehicles etc.
Suddenly we're meant to think the illuminate are behind the fact only the park staff can drive through the park or only local residents can park in some places. But it's not true.
Just say "I like driving and want to drive a lot". There is no need to pretend that the UN and GoldmanSachs are plotting against you!?
Plotting against me? Nonsense. At best I'm just a number to them. In reality I'm probably not even that, I'm part of a statistic. They don't give two shits about me, about what god I worship, about what drugs I do, about how I spend my day, about any of it, so long as the dollars flow.
I am far, far more concerned about some jerk in some high class neighborhood who lives 15mi from me who has delusions of thinking they know what's best for the world and the money to take a good crack at implementing their fantasy to the detriment of everyone outside their bubble.
(The above is in general and is not specific to urban planning or any other social or economic issue)
There is a fundamental trade-off between favoring people transiting through an area and residents. As someone traveling through you want wide straight roads with high speed limits. As a resident through traffic burdens you with pedestrian danger, air pollution, noise, and more crashes. So you lobby your council member to lower speed limits, add stop signs, and add traffic calming.
(Invented by Maurice Gatsonides many years ago as a rally training tool, of all things)
This is where the culture war comes in: there's no reason why people in Nevada should care about traffic planning in Oxford!
The bulk of the commentary on this website consists of people who are not directly affected by a thing opining about that thing.
Why the double standard? What makes your interest legitimate while others is illegitimate?
Trucking causes 99% of damage to roads, but pays only 30% of the bill.
The only conspiracy theory is that there would be anybody who cannot leave from somewhere no matter what, but that’s just a very stupid assumption.
> ALPR-camera-triggered automated fines for driving on certain roadways at certain times of certain days to those "without a permit"
This is basically the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge system which has been in operation for twenty years.
> and actual blocking of other streets using bollards
Yes, this is a standard anti-"rat run" technique to prevent through traffic in residential areas to improve safety.
Yes, there are people against driving! No, it's not a globalist conspiracy, it's people who want to be able to cycle or walk safely or take their kids to school.
A road increases freedom of movement for people in cars and decreases freedom of movement for people on foot. A busy enough road is an impassable barrier.
The issue with these scheme, is that they are pushed and implemented by bureaucrats rather than innovators. What a bureaucrat knows how to do (and what's beneficial to him) is to create new regulations, bureaucratic processes and levy taxes, fines, fees and so on. Where the money's actually going? Some opaque budget where it's redistributed to fund, among other things, salaries and generous pensions for the bureaucrats that have to be hired to manage this extra regulation!
The real solution to incentivize using the ring roads is to make them more efficient and a faster, better alternative to going through the center of the city. That requires understanding why people are still driving through.
The other issue is that anti-car activists are often idealists rather than pragmatic. Their approach to selling the 15 minute city should be to make it so that it's cheaper than driving everywhere, faster and more convenient, while leaving the option for people to still own a car and use it. Naturally, if not taking the car is the better option, people will leave them in a parking garage most of the time.
There are other ways for people to get downtown. Parking can be pushed to the periphery of the business & entertainment districts. Walk, take a shuttle, or taxi in from there. Parking in a parking garage and walking two blocks is reasonable. Pedestrianized main drags are more lively as people don't feel the pressure of cars bearing down on them as they cross the street.
Cars are great tools. We've just gone overboard and don't even throw pedestrians (and dismounted motorists) a bone in the form of sidewalks, safe ways to cross the street, reasonably useful mass transit, and ways to cross over highways without walking an extra mile.
Suburban sprawl (though they had different words for it) was very much the "15-minute city" urban planning buzzword of its day.
As an aside sidewalks are SOP these days in all but the most rural of road projects so progress is being made.
It was a lie. They only want to ban half of them, and it wasn't even the President, it's an agency -https://www.eenews.net/articles/doe-rule-may-block-50-of-new...
Still, it was kind of wild to be implicated in a conspiracy. Except for the few scary times where I encountered people who were true believers, it was maybe even a little fun. After all, the first thing you learn as a planning student / planner in the US, is that you have absolutely no power to do anything.
Like for example having a traffic restricted at certain times road is fine and all. But implementing it with surveillance cameras knowing full well that "gotcha" tickets will be issued to out-of-towners, the system will be laden with all the perverse incentives that red light cameras are known for and that there's some yet to be defined permitting process (i.e. avenue for graft, preferential treatment of various types of uses, etc).
Just put a fucking gate on it during the times you want it closed and call it good. Why do they always have to go 1984 like this?
Like imagine they did this with a park or some other taxpayer funded resource that's equally open for public use. People wouldn't stand for it.
They aren't switching to EV because they want to, it makes no sense for them as businesses, in multiple ways. An EV is a commodity vehicle - that's why Apple can build a car without a hundred year history of auto building.
The car makers are being forced to do this by policy regulators. The government is essentially managing the auto industry now to force their outcome.
Yes, there's a long history of safety and environmental regulation, and the migration away from fossil fuels is just an extension of that, regulating the impact of cars.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_con...
Dismissing all opposing views as "hateful misinformation" like the WEF and governments do isn't useful either. It convinces those who were suspicious of your motivations that they were right about you. The WEF videos never really explain any of the potential for good, they just exclaim with glee that this is a great opportunity to change the world the way they want. Completely tone deaf, I'd say some of these causes would receive less resistance without WEF "helping".
When it comes to the walkable neighborhood issue, the real conspiracy is that automakers "convinced" governments to create infrastructure that's miserable to nagivate without a car. If you've never been to cities outside of north america then you probably don't even know what you're missing. Those who think freedom and privacy are important (I certainly do) might want to consider that a car results in licensing, insurance, license plate tracking and gives cops an excuse to detain you arbitrarily.
The last but probably most important issue that gets left unsaid is that the current system won't continue to work. North American cities are broke from (re)building roads to subsidize trucking companies and mcmansion developers, they can't afford to continue doing so without raising taxes 300%. Even bigger: we'll run out of oil in 50 years. We won't run out of energy, just the cheap and easily transportable form that we've become accustomed to. The options are build railways, or quit bothering with silly things like "trade", "travel" and "manufacturing".