15 minute cities coming to your area soon

If it means they have to build a swimming pool nearer me I'm all for it. Everything else I already have within 15 mins. As for cars- don't have one. It would help if they made public transport cheaper and more efficient first.

I don't know if that is the solution but something has to change. The traffic in cities is slow moving and the pollution from vehicles sitting in traffic is heavy.

I think service vehicles and public transport should be the only traffic allowed in cities.

I've read about this. I think it's more an idea for planners than a serious attempt to restrict people's freedom of movement.

Now I don't go out to work, I already live in a "15 minute town" for most of the time. I would have to travel outside my "zone" to see my partner and a few friends/family and to go to hospital appointments, but that's less than 100 times a year.

Just about everything I need is within walking distance or (if I'm lazy) a short car ride.

I think it's aspirational and a good thing. Next time the council wants to shut a library or build over a park, it should take into account whether its actions would restrict facilities based on a 15 minute rule.

Good posts Siope. Thank you for your contributions.

I'll stay where I am thank you.
It sounds restrictive to me.

Doodledog has some interesting points. The rich will carry on as usual. The poorer members of society must change their ways. Not everyone is in a position to work flexibly or from home or use public transport for many reasons.

And good point Growstuff. So many councils close down the leisure facilities such as libraries, swimming pools etc. and then cut bus services making car use essential in some areas.

I avoid driving into our local city because of the traffic restrictions, I have to drive there for work but for leisure I now avoid going in, this means shopping is done online or in a retail park, there are consequences that might not be welcome by many.

Siope

I see, from this thread, that the right-wing interpretations of what is an interesting planning process, which has been around since the 1920s (although re-named and to an extent re-invigorated by Carlos Moreno in 2016), are gaining traction.

To quote Professor Moreno, describing some of the claims of critics of the idea:

“Their lies are enormous. ‘You will be locked in your neighbourhood; cameras will signal who can go out; if your mother lives in another neighbourhood, you will have to ask for permission to see her, and so on’.”

Hard to argue with him, when the Tory MP Nick Fletcher called it an ‘international socialist concept’; a GBNews presenter said ‘Creepy local authority bureaucrats would like to see your entire existence boiled down to the duration of a quarter of an hour,”said it was ‘dystopian plan’ and would create ‘a surveillance culture that would make Pyongyang envious’; the idiot Farage described the concept as ‘climate change lockdown’; and online media has reported the nonsense about roadblocks, and only being able to drive 100 days a year, which I see reported here as fact.

It’s not fact. The proposal in Oxford is for a road filtering system - not roadblocks - on just 6 routes. The filters will only operate between 7am and 7pm. There will be cameras, and those who break some rules will be fined). Cyclists, pedestrians, public transport, taxis and disabled drivers are exempt. 100 trip permits will be available for others, but if that isn’t enough, the answer is simple: even if you don’t have a permit, you will still be able to drive everywhere. You might just need to use a different route or drive around some of the ring road to avoid the traffic filters.

The Oxford scheme, to my eyes, seems to have been badged as ‘15 minute city’ when it really isn’t - although traffic filtering could be part of a 15 minute city planning process, it would not be the whole of it.

Re the Athens scheme: it was bonkers (I lived there when it was first introduced). Athens has four rush hours a day (because siesta) and immense pollution. The scheme was somehow meant to tackle this by allowing drivers to bring their cars into the city centre in alternate days, defined by your number plate. All that happened was that an awful lot of Athenians bought second, cheaper, older and more polluting cars, and registered them for their alternate days.

I think it is an excellent idea, reducing the need to rely on the car, and as NorthFace said, it seems to me more of a managed return to life in the past, before the over-dependence on the car became so high. Of course it will have to be planned very carefully, to avoid some of the possible problems mentioned, but surely it is something to aspire to, rather than the conspiracy theorists' Big Brother scenario.

choughdancer

Siope

I see, from this thread, that the right-wing interpretations of what is an interesting planning process, which has been around since the 1920s (although re-named and to an extent re-invigorated by Carlos Moreno in 2016), are gaining traction.

To quote Professor Moreno, describing some of the claims of critics of the idea:

“Their lies are enormous. ‘You will be locked in your neighbourhood; cameras will signal who can go out; if your mother lives in another neighbourhood, you will have to ask for permission to see her, and so on’.”

Hard to argue with him, when the Tory MP Nick Fletcher called it an ‘international socialist concept’; a GBNews presenter said ‘Creepy local authority bureaucrats would like to see your entire existence boiled down to the duration of a quarter of an hour,”said it was ‘dystopian plan’ and would create ‘a surveillance culture that would make Pyongyang envious’; the idiot Farage described the concept as ‘climate change lockdown’; and online media has reported the nonsense about roadblocks, and only being able to drive 100 days a year, which I see reported here as fact.

It’s not fact. The proposal in Oxford is for a road filtering system - not roadblocks - on just 6 routes. The filters will only operate between 7am and 7pm. There will be cameras, and those who break some rules will be fined). Cyclists, pedestrians, public transport, taxis and disabled drivers are exempt. 100 trip permits will be available for others, but if that isn’t enough, the answer is simple: even if you don’t have a permit, you will still be able to drive everywhere. You might just need to use a different route or drive around some of the ring road to avoid the traffic filters.

The Oxford scheme, to my eyes, seems to have been badged as ‘15 minute city’ when it really isn’t - although traffic filtering could be part of a 15 minute city planning process, it would not be the whole of it.

Re the Athens scheme: it was bonkers (I lived there when it was first introduced). Athens has four rush hours a day (because siesta) and immense pollution. The scheme was somehow meant to tackle this by allowing drivers to bring their cars into the city centre in alternate days, defined by your number plate. All that happened was that an awful lot of Athenians bought second, cheaper, older and more polluting cars, and registered them for their alternate days.

I think it is an excellent idea, reducing the need to rely on the car, and as NorthFace said, it seems to me more of a managed return to life in the past, before the over-dependence on the car became so high. Of course it will have to be planned very carefully, to avoid some of the possible problems mentioned, but surely it is something to aspire to, rather than the conspiracy theorists' Big Brother scenario.

First step is to improve public transport but everywhere seems to be going backwards as far as the bus systems are concerned.

People feel marooned, children unable to get to school, all because bus services have been cut.

This scheme is all very for those who live in or on the edge of cities but it would penalise those who live in country areas.

I agree Callististamon- it does sound more like it used to be. Now I've read more about the 15 minute idea (all main services and needs ( health, shops, schools, parks) locally within 15 minutes walk/ cycle to reduce car use) its a good idea to work and plan (back) towards. Not every one can work from or near home.

100 times a year for leaving your zone is a good allowance. That's twice a day for heaven's sake! And the key phrase "with exemption for certain vehicles" would surely cover most of the objections.

The truth is, we have become too accustomed to relying on cars for everything. I read about the 15-minute neighbourhoods and I think, that's just like the town where I spent my adolescence. My school, on the edge of town, and the town centre where there were proper shops in the 1960s were easily walkable or cyclable. Both my parents worked locally – it was a Home Counties New Town designed to incorporate industry as well as housing, shopping and services although since I lived there that has pretty much collapsed and it's mostly commuter country these days.

Anyway, I thought this article in the dear old Grauniad was very good and enlightening.

100 times a year for leaving your zone is a good allowance. That's twice a day for heaven's sake!

No, it's nearly twice a week.

Galaxy

I avoid driving into our local city because of the traffic restrictions, I have to drive there for work but for leisure I now avoid going in, this means shopping is done online or in a retail park, there are consequences that might not be welcome by many.

I was wondering about that, too. Would it just mean shifting pollution from cities to the out of town shopping complexes?

Or would there be better public transport to service them.

Like others, I think it would need a massive improvement in public transport to be effective. And better facilities for people waiting for buses and trams. We might have been spartan about waiting in the rain, wind or snow for buses 40 years ago, but I don't think that we, or younger people, would be quite so stoical after years of jumping into the car and minimal exposure to the elements.

On the whole, though, I think it's a good idea; it just needs careful planning.

Theexwife

I don't know if that is the solution but something has to change. The traffic in cities is slow moving and the pollution from vehicles sitting in traffic is heavy.

I think service vehicles and public transport should be the only traffic allowed in cities.

That would also penalise those like my disabled partner.

He cannot - with the best will in the world - manage public transport for his hospital visits. Apart from the fact that there's no direct route so it would require a change. He can barely walk a metre and that takes him a long time.

There would have to be exceptions.

VB000

BlueBelle

Big brother is watching you sounds very restrictive !

No I ve never heard of it and don’t like the sound if it what if you need to travel by car to a hospital or similar weekly what if you use your allowance up and a loved one becomes ill and you’re fined for visiting or something I can just see so many downfalls
I remember years ago because of pollution in their cities Greece had a scheme where people could only use their cars on alternative days I ve never heard how that went ?

The system in Athens was based on a even/odd number on registration plates, so you could use your car only on alternate days.

Those who could, just bought an extra car (opposite of what they already had).

Athens still has really high air pollution.

Thanks VB000 that worked well then 😂😂😂

Ladyhonoria got your weeks and days a bit muddiedtyere

Callistemon21

^100 times a year for leaving your zone is a good allowance. That's twice a day for heaven's sake!^

No, it's nearly twice a week.

Sorry, senior moment. As you were on that one.

But if you are living, shopping and working within 15 minutes walk, even twice a week seems generous. I'm sure those necessary exemptions would include those with mobility problems. I really don't think the idea is to stop essential journeys by car, it's to discourage the non-essential ones. I can't see what's not to like about a scheme which takes away much of the need for cars.

Some would say the idea is reminiscent of that golden age (which probably never was) when we all lived in tight-knit communities where everybody looked after each other.

100 times a year is a good allowance for leaving your zone. That’s twice a day for heaven’s sake.

When I went to school there were 365 days in a year, so if you left your zone twice a day every day, that would be 730 visits outside your zone.
100 visits leaving your zone twice a day would cover 50 days of the year.

Just saying.

Just spotted the above post.

I don't think it's anywhere near being a "scheme". It's just something to consider when development takes place.

maddyone

^100 times a year is a good allowance for leaving your zone. That’s twice a day for heaven’s sake.^

When I went to school there were 365 days in a year, so if you left your zone twice a day every day, that would be 730 visits outside your zone.
100 visits leaving your zone twice a day would cover 50 days of the year.

Just saying.

But nobody is talking about punishing people for leaving their "zone" (apart from the conspiracy-theorists). It's about having the facilities people need for everyday living being within 15 minutes and planners taking that into account.

The Oxford scheme allows the disabled and others with a need to use a car to continue to do so.

The problem with the Oxford plan is that cars coming into the city from outside Oxford will need to use the park and rides and bus in, so far no problem, except that the park and rides are inadequate to deal with the traffic and, as Oxford is such an expensive place to live, most of those whon work in the city, in service jobs, whether in shops or eating places, or hotels travel in from surrounding areas.

I usually go to Oxford by train, but do on occasion need to go by car, and I have had to abort my journey because I simply could not find a parking place in the park and ride.

The result is, that despite moving to our current house because of its proximity to Oxford, we now rarely if ever go there, we have found other towns that are easier to access.

We mainly go to Oxford in the evening to go to concerts and theatres etc, and between the cost of parking in the town and the hassle if you use any other form of transport. Late evening services, whether trains, or buses are less frequent and can leave you with long waits at bus stops or railway stations in the cold and the dark and often the wet. Not fun when age is not on your side.

Dickens Nobody would be "penalised". What it might mean is that planners might consider the needs of disabled people and possibly (yeah well, I can dream) and build local healthcare facilities and make sure there is good public transport to hospitals.

I can't remember the last time I drove into Cambridge, my nearest city.

If I go shopping or the cinema/theatre, I use the park and ride. When I was attending hospital appointments several times a week, I used the "guided bus", which is a special route just for the bus, which is excellent.

A big bonus of course is that I can use my bus pass.