Almost every way of asking citizens about the outcomes of "15-minute cities" both yields positive results, and is well known to align with positive outcomes in terms of happiness and community benefits.
Unfortunately the pro-car and often sovereign-citizen aligned community, mostly in the US, latched on to this as a sign of reduced freedom, because cars are such a critical part of freedom identity in those groups.
It's a shame to see our politicians giving this any time whatsoever, but it's unsurprising as it's necessary to maintain any semblance of support among a party that have not represented a majority for many years.
They don't care about the policies. If you believe that any of these people are good faith actors or care about the benefits of policies then you haven't been paying attention for the last 13 years.
This is pure politics. They know they're going to get smashed in the next election. They're just trying to get as many of their number to hang in there like barnacles.
In order to do that they have to throw a bucket of chum to their base to get them up on their hind legs to do a little dance.
Most local councils in the UK use "15-minute cities" to restrict cars and little else. That has unfortunately given a bad name to the concept because driving becomes more difficult but none of the places one wants to go to are getting any nearer or convenient to access.
In my experience restricting cars typically means creating pedestrianised areas. These have been shown over the years to have significant benefits for shops, culture, etc in those areas. Sometimes the benefits do take a few years to come through, so when they do they aren't attributed to the lack of cars, which is a shame.
The next general elections are due to take place by the end of January 2025, so probably next year, and he has started campainging.
He knows that "15-minute cities" are not popular so he is using it.
Frankly, a number of local councils have given a bad image to the concept and that's a shame but they have only themselves to blame. I am sure that most people would actually like 15-minute cities but councils are not doing that at all, they are only restricting cars and so many people are not happy.
In any case, it's utopian (or dystopian) to think that people will be able to work within 15 minutes of their home unless we implement a collectivist-style management of employment and housing. But at least there should be investment in moving healthcare, schools, shops within 15 minutes, then they can start discouraging cars...
It only seems utopian if your main experience of cities is car-centric sprawl.
In Amsterdam the average commute is under 25 minutes. But the average for bicyclists and motorcyclists (who make up ~50% of commuters) is ~15 minutes. For pedestrians and tram riders it’s ~25 minutes. Cars, trains and buses have the worst journeys of 40-50 minutes, but they’re travelling much greater distances (because if you live close you have better options).
We’re not going to get everyone’s commute down to 15 minutes, but Dutch cities demonstrate that you can get huge swaths of the urban population using active travel and public transport with intelligent planning.
The Netherlands aren’t even anti-car - they have one of the densest motorway networks in the world. Cars are just deprioritised in the cities.
> It only seems utopian if your main experience of cities is car-centric sprawl.
Not really. There is no way most people can walk or cycle to work within 15 minutes as a rule.
This has nothing to do with being "car-centric" but rather the consequence of life: You live here, you find a job there, your spouse finds a job over there.
By some accounts Gordon Brown helped prevent 2008 into a total global economic meltdown, but many just think he was utterly incompetent.
But this move by Sunak is contemptuous, the unpopular expansion of ULEZ saved a Tory seat, so now he's nakedly making drivers vs the rest another battle in the "culture war", in hopes of saving his party from destruction.
While it won't mean much to most of the people here, I find myself looking back on the John Major administration as a beacon of stability and competency. The John Major years, FFS.
Major's government was pretty unstable, with multiple scandals, rebellions etc. And they competently destroyed some public services. I would say his govt is responsible for the now dismal state of public transport in the UK.
I hated Tony Blair when he was in govt, and I did like John Major. Reevaluating later, Blair's government was more competent, stable and presided over a positive time for the UK. In many ways I liked Major because he seemed so inept.
I'm not from the UK, but from the other side of the english Channel, i both agree with this take, and disagree.
I was working a lot with the EU at the time (european research program/BOOST4.0/H2020, i was basically the new sysadmin/dev that was send into those meetings because i was the new guy and nobody wanted to do it)(that's when my hatred of ATOS started, corrupt little shits).
I managed to understand some stuff (not much) during big informal lunches, dinners and stuff (i was paid poorly, but the benefits were great, i think i never ate this well :) ). From what i've understood from the European Brexit guy (who was also French, forgot his name), May did absolutely nothing for two years. She was absolutely blind to the issues that would arise and was focus on internal affairs. The people who were nominated to take care of foreign policies, as well as some UK assembly members kept delaying a lot of meetings (the one concerning me in particular: not a word on the funding of common research projects, nor on the handling of data. Do we keep london data in the air pollution research? Can you at least put a license on that? No? Yes? Do we scrap it?). I was less there in 2018 and out by 2019, but if i managed to hear properly, she was surprised of the work that still had to be done, then had long meetings with the EU brexit guy, then starting doing shit, added bureaucrats to the subjects. Not sure if anyone was sacked, but everything started moving once she was made aware of the issues, but it was a bit too late.
In the end, she agreed to a deal (that was quite fair) that she did not wrote, but that she did read (i heard a lot of noise about how the UK signed the deal without reading it: that was under Johnson, i'm a 100% sure she read the deal thoroughly, probably missed some caveats because of the time constraints, but that was mostly fair).
So sane: sure. Competent? That's a good question. I'd say yes, mostly, once she noticed something was wrong, she tried to fix it, maybe a bit late, but still. I think the late awareness wasn't totally her fault. Maybe her brexit guy was incompetent, or maybe he wanted to cripple her, either way she choose poor subordinate.
He’s a fuckwit who’s trying to start ‘culture wars’ in the UK as a way of deflecting attention from the current government’s failings and the effect of 13yrs of austerity spending
I don't think he's trying to deflect attention. I think that they've realised now that angry drivers are literally the only cohort left likely to vote tory in the next election and are now fully pandering to them.
Readit News
Unfortunately the pro-car and often sovereign-citizen aligned community, mostly in the US, latched on to this as a sign of reduced freedom, because cars are such a critical part of freedom identity in those groups.
It's a shame to see our politicians giving this any time whatsoever, but it's unsurprising as it's necessary to maintain any semblance of support among a party that have not represented a majority for many years.
This is pure politics. They know they're going to get smashed in the next election. They're just trying to get as many of their number to hang in there like barnacles.
In order to do that they have to throw a bucket of chum to their base to get them up on their hind legs to do a little dance.
He knows that "15-minute cities" are not popular so he is using it.
Frankly, a number of local councils have given a bad image to the concept and that's a shame but they have only themselves to blame. I am sure that most people would actually like 15-minute cities but councils are not doing that at all, they are only restricting cars and so many people are not happy.
In any case, it's utopian (or dystopian) to think that people will be able to work within 15 minutes of their home unless we implement a collectivist-style management of employment and housing. But at least there should be investment in moving healthcare, schools, shops within 15 minutes, then they can start discouraging cars...
In Amsterdam the average commute is under 25 minutes. But the average for bicyclists and motorcyclists (who make up ~50% of commuters) is ~15 minutes. For pedestrians and tram riders it’s ~25 minutes. Cars, trains and buses have the worst journeys of 40-50 minutes, but they’re travelling much greater distances (because if you live close you have better options).
Source: https://www.numbeo.com/traffic/in/Amsterdam
We’re not going to get everyone’s commute down to 15 minutes, but Dutch cities demonstrate that you can get huge swaths of the urban population using active travel and public transport with intelligent planning.
The Netherlands aren’t even anti-car - they have one of the densest motorway networks in the world. Cars are just deprioritised in the cities.
Not really. There is no way most people can walk or cycle to work within 15 minutes as a rule.
This has nothing to do with being "car-centric" but rather the consequence of life: You live here, you find a job there, your spouse finds a job over there.
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
But this move by Sunak is contemptuous, the unpopular expansion of ULEZ saved a Tory seat, so now he's nakedly making drivers vs the rest another battle in the "culture war", in hopes of saving his party from destruction.
I hated Tony Blair when he was in govt, and I did like John Major. Reevaluating later, Blair's government was more competent, stable and presided over a positive time for the UK. In many ways I liked Major because he seemed so inept.
I was working a lot with the EU at the time (european research program/BOOST4.0/H2020, i was basically the new sysadmin/dev that was send into those meetings because i was the new guy and nobody wanted to do it)(that's when my hatred of ATOS started, corrupt little shits).
I managed to understand some stuff (not much) during big informal lunches, dinners and stuff (i was paid poorly, but the benefits were great, i think i never ate this well :) ). From what i've understood from the European Brexit guy (who was also French, forgot his name), May did absolutely nothing for two years. She was absolutely blind to the issues that would arise and was focus on internal affairs. The people who were nominated to take care of foreign policies, as well as some UK assembly members kept delaying a lot of meetings (the one concerning me in particular: not a word on the funding of common research projects, nor on the handling of data. Do we keep london data in the air pollution research? Can you at least put a license on that? No? Yes? Do we scrap it?). I was less there in 2018 and out by 2019, but if i managed to hear properly, she was surprised of the work that still had to be done, then had long meetings with the EU brexit guy, then starting doing shit, added bureaucrats to the subjects. Not sure if anyone was sacked, but everything started moving once she was made aware of the issues, but it was a bit too late.
In the end, she agreed to a deal (that was quite fair) that she did not wrote, but that she did read (i heard a lot of noise about how the UK signed the deal without reading it: that was under Johnson, i'm a 100% sure she read the deal thoroughly, probably missed some caveats because of the time constraints, but that was mostly fair).
So sane: sure. Competent? That's a good question. I'd say yes, mostly, once she noticed something was wrong, she tried to fix it, maybe a bit late, but still. I think the late awareness wasn't totally her fault. Maybe her brexit guy was incompetent, or maybe he wanted to cripple her, either way she choose poor subordinate.