Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
But are those commercial properties in the right location now, or were they built when being on a main road was seen as a positive, as the traffic got worse and parking no longer allowed on those roads people don't stop in that area and its probably not a great place to walk either. Now I think being within a suburban estate so within 15 minutes walk would be better for many traders and services.
Plenty of vacant units in the suburban 1960s estate I used to live jn. Urban planners dream, green and leafy , medium density and shopping center in the middle away from the congested main road.
It wasn't until a few years ago we had a proper supermarket that wasn't a 30 minute bus away, but then Lidl came (it it self built on the plot of a pub)
The spirit of the 15 minute city was very alive in 1960s urban planning but was never hugely successful. We do have 3 fried chicken shops and 2 kebab stores though
If you can cycle 2-3 miles in 15mins, and presumably most amenities are in a town/city centre, then I guess most UK towns/small cities are already more-or-less 15-minute cities. I don't imagine there are many <400k cities that are much more than 3mile radius from city centre, other than if there is a geographical corridor or where a smaller town/village has been absorbed, which probably has its own amenities. Which is probably why the 'cities' part of the name is there, it's only really applicable to large cities, and is encouraging poly-centric development.
Although it makes me wonder if by that definition places like Stoke and the Birmingham-Wolverhampton West-midlands conurbation are good examples?
Population density definitely has an impact on vaibility of a lot of stuff, I'd imagine it's much easier for eg Lidl to justify opening a shop in the middle of 10,000 person/sq km victorian terraced HMO/flats area than a 2,000 person/sq km suburb, unless its on a busy road with traffic which is passing by anyway.
The problem with that is you end up with an underclass of very poorly paid people, who end up living in grinding poverty.
I'm not sure that's a particularly healthy situation to deliberately perpetuate.
I'm not sure an in-person retail shopping experience out of the 1950 and 1960s is a particularly "essential" service.
That world is gone, and it can't be brought back without a whole bunch of externalities.
Yes. That behaviour is unnecessary car journeys that can be reasonably replaced by other methods.
Nothing about trying to prevent car journeys that can't be reasonably replaced by other methods (either due to poor public transport provision, or length of journey, or needing to carry things or due to accessibility needs etc). Nobody is saying some car journeys won't continue to be necessary and fine to make.
If anyone still can't understand why there is real resistance to the idea of 15 minute cities, or indeed other green initiatives, they only need to look for one word. "Unnecessary". It is repeatedly used whenever green issues are discussed, why are people making "unnecessary" journeys, "unnecessary" purchases, "unnecessary" activities. But who is actually deciding what is "unnecessary"?
How exactly do you discourage "unnecessary" journeys if you don't define them, and how do you define them without someone deciding what is "unnecessary". In other words, what many people see is the road to restrictions, being told what and when they can and cannot do. And frankly I can't blame them for being worried, because there are these very undertones running in this debate.
The idea of 15 minute cities where many or most amenities are that close by foot is quaint, and maybe in some nicer parts of the country where cost isn't an issue it might well be possible. But anyone that has had to rely on a supermarket's "Express", "Metro", "Local" or other offerings for any length of time will tell you local isn't always cheaper. In fact it is often the very opposite, and for reasons of scale talked about up thread. And that assumes that suitable accommodation can even be found.
Having effective public transport would of course negate some of these issues. But we don't in many places, perhaps that is a problem that requires more attention than some Middle England fantasy?
How exactly do you discourage "unnecessary" journeys if you don't define them, and how do you define them without someone deciding what is "unnecessary". In other words, what many people see is the road to restrictions, being told what and when they can and cannot do. And frankly I can't blame them for being worried, because there are these very undertones running in this debate.
Some are quite easy to define, in most cases the school run is unnecessary, many primary schools are already a fifteen minute walk but many parents insist on driving. There are plenty of other similar trips where people could opt not to use the car.
But there are in fact multiple conspiracy theories surrounding 15 minute cities usually perpetuated by right-wing figures such as Katy Hopkins, and right-wing news outlets such as GB news, and even the current Conservative Party themselves have jumped on board the bandwagon such as Nick Fletcher MP suggesting they are international socialists concepts that will cost people their personal freedom, and Mark Harper MP suggesting that it is a sinister method for the local councils to decide how often someone can go the shops and who they can ration the roads to and when.
How did conspiracy theories about 15-minute cities go mainstream?
www.bbc.co.uk
You can argue that there are more sensible right-wing figures who don't buy into this "war on motorist" nonsense (though I would challenge you to name a few), but the fact is these conspiracy theories are mostly perpetuated by those of a specific political leaning, and sometimes these people may have interests in higher car ownership or oil and gas companies such as PragerU (who created a video a few years ago called "The War on Cars" which sounds similar to the "War on Motorists" narrative we're seeing in this country). So where might these sorts of figures perpetuating those conspiracy theories be on the political spectrum? I'll give you a clue, it's not on the left.
Yep, i heard an interview with the originator of the 15 minute plan on Radio 4 a few weeks ago. He was horrified what the alt truth mob have been posting - they're nothing like the actual concept
It's already been mentioned but people are taking 15 minutes far too literally. To be honest there's discussion and disagreement in planning about whether or not 15 minutes is even the correct value.
15 minute neighbourhoods are mainly just a concept to increase in housing density and make it easier to travel by walking and cycling through infrastructure improvements. The concept of a 15 minute neighbourhood shifts and changes depending on location/context. For example, where I live is a pretty dense area with a number of supermarkets and leisure facilities within a 10/15 minute walk. It pretty much acts as a 15 minute neighbourhood already. All it needs is some improvements to the walking infrastructure to really make it function well. In some suburbs though, services might be a 15 minute cycle ride away in which case it would make sense to concentrate on cycle investments.
While I don't think its being seriously considered, some places might need subsidised shops or services to reduce travel. Its something that should be considered in my opinion. Some places might simply not be able to support the services within 15 minutes, in which case planners can focus their attention on improving PT to some of those key services; maybe even investing in better digital connectivity to make online shopping easier.
Nobody is stopping anybody travelling; a few modal filters here and there to improve infrastructure for walking and cycling isn't going to cause large extensions to car journey times. Finally, the people considering these concepts aren't stupid. Things like the quality of services and the cost differences between convenience stores and supermarkets are considered.
The problem with that is you end up with an underclass of very poorly paid people, who end up living in grinding poverty.
I'm not sure that's a particularly healthy situation to deliberately perpetuate.
I'm not sure an in-person retail shopping experience out of the 1950 and 1960s is a particularly "essential" service.
That world is gone, and it can't be brought back without a whole bunch of externalities.
Nobody will be forcing anybody to buy their trainers at a in person retail store of their local authorities choice. Come on. I can't believe what I'm reading, it's just completely bonkers.
Local authorities have pretty much 2 jobs, outsourcing bin collections and maintaining their roads. They can't enforce JD Sports to open a shop near you.
The country doesn't even know who it has in it. Just yesterday the home office admitted they have lost 17,000 Asylum seekers. And people think a part councillor earning 9k a year is going to stop them taking a job at Microsoft because it's not in their constituency. Bonkers.
It seems the true gripe against these is that people are seeing it as against driving. But that's nothing new is it? There's been a 'war on motorists' as long as I can remember.
If anyone still can't understand why there is real resistance to the idea of 15 minute cities, or indeed other green initiatives, they only need to look for one word. "Unnecessary". It is repeatedly used whenever green issues are discussed, why are people making "unnecessary" journeys, "unnecessary" purchases, "unnecessary" activities. But who is actually deciding what is "unnecessary"?
How exactly do you discourage "unnecessary" journeys if you don't define them, and how do you define them without someone deciding what is "unnecessary". In other words, what many people see is the road to restrictions, being told what and when they can and cannot do. And frankly I can't blame them for being worried, because there are these very undertones running in this debate.
The idea of 15 minute cities where many or most amenities are that close by foot is quaint, and maybe in some nicer parts of the country where cost isn't an issue it might well be possible. But anyone that has had to rely on a supermarket's "Express", "Metro", "Local" or other offerings for any length of time will tell you local isn't always cheaper. In fact it is often the very opposite, and for reasons of scale talked about up thread. And that assumes that suitable accommodation can even be found.
Having effective public transport would of course negate some of these issues. But we don't in many places, perhaps that is a problem that requires more attention than some Middle England fantasy?
If anyone still can't understand why there is real resistance to the idea of 15 minute cities, or indeed other green initiatives, they only need to look for one word. "Unnecessary". It is repeatedly used whenever green issues are discussed, why are people making "unnecessary" journeys, "unnecessary" purchases, "unnecessary" activities. But who is actually deciding what is "unnecessary"?
How exactly do you discourage "unnecessary" journeys if you don't define them, and how do you define them without someone deciding what is "unnecessary". In other words, what many people see is the road to restrictions, being told what and when they can and cannot do. And frankly I can't blame them for being worried, because there are these very undertones running in this debate.
The idea of 15 minute cities where many or most amenities are that close by foot is quaint, and maybe in some nicer parts of the country where cost isn't an issue it might well be possible. But anyone that has had to rely on a supermarket's "Express", "Metro", "Local" or other offerings for any length of time will tell you local isn't always cheaper. In fact it is often the very opposite, and for reasons of scale talked about up thread. And that assumes that suitable accommodation can even be found.
Having effective public transport would of course negate some of these issues. But we don't in many places, perhaps that is a problem that requires more attention than some Middle England fantasy?
Policymakers are already deciding what is and isn't necessary all the time, have loaded incentives and disincentives against behaviour, and have done since time immemorial. I don't really see what is so bad about 15 minute cities and the first question I have when a new amenity comes to my town is "Oh! I hope it's near to me".
How exactly do you discourage "unnecessary" journeys if you don't define them, and how do you define them without someone deciding what is "unnecessary". In other words, what many people see is the road to restrictions, being told what and when they can and cannot do. And frankly I can't blame them for being worried, because there are these very undertones running in this debate.
The answer to the complaint about "being told what and when they can and cannot do" can be summed up by the term externalised costs/consequences and attempting to minimise those costs by discouraging activities which impart much of those costs and encouraging alternative methods which have less such costs. Unfortunately in the individualistic country the UK has become, externalised costs are ignored in decision making because they don't feature on the balance sheet, hence why raising taxes on activities which are deemed to have significant externalised costs are sometimes suggested.
The other long term issue is sustainability. Current systems that we rely on are not sustainable, and by definition an unsustainable system has to change. We can either change voluntarily or be forced to when bad consequences start to happen, and once they start to happen it is too late to do much about it which is why we need to start now. History shows societies that chose the latter didn't fare well.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The "war on motorists" is almost entirely fiction. Motorists have been pandered to for decades, which is why UK cities are frequently hostile environments for pedestrians and cyclists as the mantra has been to speed up traffic whist dumping the consequences onto vulnerable road users, and is why driving is cheap compared to the alternatives despite having the highest externalised costs. Combine that with any excuse to minimise punishment for motorists who engage in careless driving and you have a country that has turned into a clone of the U.S. where driving is the default and anyone going against that is deemed to belong to an outgroup. It is like the spoiled brat syndrome of the more you have the more entitled you get and the more you want.
The answer to the complaint about "being told what and when they can and cannot do" can be summed up by the term externalised costs/consequences and attempting to minimise those costs by discouraging activities which impart much of those costs and encouraging alternative methods which have less such costs. Unfortunately in the individualistic country the UK has become, externalised costs are ignored in decision making because they don't feature on the balance sheet, hence why raising taxes on activities which are deemed to have significant externalised costs are sometimes suggested.
The other long term issue is sustainability. Current systems that we rely on are not sustainable, and by definition an unsustainable system has to change. We can either change voluntarily or be forced to when bad consequences start to happen, and once they start to happen it is too late to do much about it which is why we need to start now. History shows societies that chose the latter didn't fare well.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The "war on motorists" is almost entirely fiction. Motorists have been pandered to for decades, which is why UK cities are frequently hostile environments for pedestrians and cyclists as the mantra has been to speed up traffic whist dumping the consequences onto vulnerable road users, and is why driving is cheap compared to the alternatives despite having the highest externalised costs. Combine that with any excuse to minimise punishment for motorists who engage in careless driving and you have a country that has turned into a clone of the U.S. where driving is the default and anyone going against that is deemed to belong to an outgroup. It is like the spoiled brat syndrome of the more you have the more entitled you get and the more you want.
Indeed, and as you allude to we need only look back to 2020 for examples of "unnecessary" activities being defined and even restricted. People here are saying "nobody is asking you to stay within 15 minutes of home", but its not that far a transition through "asked to", "advised to" and thence "required to". That's what a lot of people are worried about.
Policymakers are already deciding what is and isn't necessary all the time, have loaded incentives and disincentives against behaviour, and have done since time immemorial. I don't really see what is so bad about 15 minute cities and the first question I have when a new amenity comes to my town is "Oh! I hope it's near to me".
I mean its a no-brainer to want for better amenities to be close by. But wanting these isn't what is the cause for concern for some people, its the notion that some people see this as a chance to impose travel rules on other people. The concept of the 15 minute city wasn't born out of this desire, but its starting to become obvious that certain people see this as a chance to do just that. It will probably not be long before "carbon credits" come into the debate, followed by some additional from of taxation ideas as disincentives on people from making "unnecessary" journeys....
I imagine a 15 minute city would be too much population density for me. I like quiet streets. I'm not even sure if it's healthier because I work around the Richmond area currently, it is the opposite of convenience when it comes to public transport with only two buses serving the area and an hours walk to Richmond Station. I know the area is wealthier than most parts of London but everything is far apart. I notice more people probably cycle and walk because of this but also the River Thames pathways.
The concept would include having a local GP or doctor available within a 15 minute walking distance, and possibly a hospital. If the journey does require you to leave the area, you will be able to do so, and with more convenience if you have actual public transport to compliment the new urban design, or if driving, will have more space on the roads because not as many people will be driving since there will be less reason to.
On the contrary many turn out to be absolute nonsense, and I'll be honest, if the Covid restrictions didn't become permanent even despite public support for them initially, I doubt 15 minute cities will become a pathway to tyranny.
Indeed, and as you allude to we need only look back to 2020 for examples of "unnecessary" activities being defined and even restricted. People here are saying "nobody is asking you to stay within 15 minutes of home", but its not that far a transition through "asked to", "advised to" and thence "required to". That's what a lot of people are worried about.
The difference is that the back in 2020 the definitions of necessary and unnecessary activities were actually being made for the purpose of restricting people and you were genuinely being asked not to do those things if deemed to be unnecessary. With 15 minute cities the simple concept is that all your basic everyday necessities are within a 15 minute walk and therefore you have no real need to go further. There are no plans with any 15 minute city schemes to actually restrict people to their local areas.
I mean its a no-brainer to want for better amenities to be close by. But wanting these isn't what is the cause for concern for some people, its the notion that some people see this as a chance to impose travel rules on other people. The concept of the 15 minute city wasn't born out of this desire, but its starting to become obvious that certain people see this as a chance to do just that
Nobody has to define what is necessary. If there are some amenities within walking distance then many people will use them, if there isn't then they can't. No one is stopping or planning to stop anyone from using anything further away. If people don't use local amenities, then they won't survive.
For many years there have been government restrictions on chemists, the intention being that chemists are not clustered in city centres, but are spread around. It seems obvious to me that given the chance if someone needs a chemist it makes sense to have them spread so that there is a better chance of having a local one for urgent matters and prescriptions, even if a lot of people will still go to Boots futher away for the greater range. Is the government doing this the big brother that some are claiming, or a sensible policy as governments have decided?
I still don't see what some people have against choice. I also don't see why they think that doctors, schools, shops, etc. should always be at least a drive away. Give people a choice and we will all benefit. If insufficent people take up that choice, then we haven't lost anything.
I live within 15 minutes walk of a city centre with larger shops, including several supermarkets, at least two of which are open until 10pm, but there are still at least four local supermarkets closer by. They are a lot smaller and more expensive, but they survive and are clearly fulfilling a need.
This is a highly relevant element many people seem to be missing, and is arguably the most challenging for planners given (as was said on the Wisbech-March consultation thread) "people tend to want gardens and not live next to industrial estates". In order to get a viable primary school, say, there needs to be a lot of homes suitable for families within a 15 minute walk. That probably means a re-think of housing design and consideration of the factors that prevent most British households (particularly families) from wanting to live in higher density accommodation - things like number of bedrooms and general space for 'stuff', sound insulation, having to use lifts, somewhere to hang out washing, somewhere for kids to play outside safely as well as leasehold complications. This can be done well and doesn't necessarily mean tower blocks, but needs a bit of imagination
ie it is a two-way issue - adding in infrastructure and facilities to make it easier for the existing population to do things without needing to drive to do them, but also increasing the catchment of the existing facilities through adding in more population within walking distance of them.
The concept of the 15 minute city wasn't born out of this desire, but its starting to become obvious that certain people see this as a chance to do just that.
Indeed, and as you allude to we need only look back to 2020 for examples of "unnecessary" activities being defined and even restricted. People here are saying "nobody is asking you to stay within 15 minutes of home", but its not that far a transition through "asked to", "advised to" and thence "required to". That's what a lot of people are worried about.
I think trying to suggest that sensible restrictions to limit the spread of a pandemic and, checks notes, a vague plan to try and get more amenities close to homes and people walking short distances is a bit outlandish.
not everything is linked - not everything is a conspiracy.
I think trying to suggest that sensible restrictions to limit the spread of a pandemic and, checks notes, a vague plan to try and get more amenities close to homes and people walking short distances is a bit outlandish.
not everything is linked - not everything is a conspiracy.
I don't believe I mentioned conspiracy, although this is always a useful cover for when people question ideas like this. But do you remember during the height of restrictions when some people seemed to enjoy them, and thought it would be nice to keep them going forward? Like I said earlier, I don't think for a minute that the concept was aimed at causing restrictions, it was just some Middle England fluff. But even just on here the debate is starting to lean towards how to make people travel less. And as we saw in 2020 once the idea embeds into politicians it can gain traction quickly.
As an aside, I'm not too far from a place that would be a model of the 15 minute city, that being Stockton Heath in Cheshire. All the desirable amenities in one area, a reasonable level of public transport, and well within 15 minutes walk for most of it's area. Well in theory it is 15 minutes, but as is demonstrated every time I go there or pass through it the car parks are rammed, and the pavements on the roads empty. Even with the concept on their doorstep, most of Stockton Heath's finest still drive there! So yeah, that works.
but that isn't true is it? The suggestion seems to be that it might be sensible NOT to drive round the corner to pick up your Daily Paper when you could easily walk to the local shop to get it.
You don't need to mention conspiracy when you regurgitate conspiracy as fact. Your views seems very similar to those ideas pushed by the kind of people who thrive on conspiracy.
Again, do you have an example for this ? I seem to recall many people in authority (reluctantly - VERY reluctantly in some cases!) thinking restrictions were a necessary evil to deal with a particular situation.
I don't recall any serious proposals from serious people to make you stay in your own home for ever more! I know it felt like that and I know it was hard ( especially if you were alone) and I know cranks had a field day pumping out nonsense but it was a time bound series of restrictions required to deal with an emergency not a plan for future living - you surely see that?
And what I am trying to read into this do you think? I did earlier say I was saying why some people (note plural) might be concerned about how things might pan out.
but that isn't true is it? The suggestion seems to be that it might be sensible NOT to drive round the corner to pick up your Daily Paper when you could easily walk to the local shop to get it.
does your apparent "killer" example not simply prove the point? We drive to much when we should be walking!
The fact that an area where 15 minute walking is perfectly do-able and yet absolutely doesn't happen does kind of show the flaw in the fluff. So either it has to be accepted that people simply won't, or other ways have to be found so that people do. Right?
You don't need to mention conspiracy when you regurgitate conspiracy as fact. Your views seems very similar to those ideas pushed by the kind of people who thrive on conspiracy.
Do I? OK, yeah, sure, whatever... Best get my tin hat made then. I must be one of those right wing, brain dead morons right? That's how debates are done these days isn't it, if they don't agree they must be conspiracists...
Again, do you have an example for this ? I seem to recall many people in authority (reluctantly - VERY reluctantly in some cases!) thinking restrictions were a necessary evil to deal with a particular situation.
I don't recall any serious proposals from serious people to make you stay in your own home for ever more! I know it felt like that and I know it was hard ( especially if you were alone) and I know cranks had a field day pumping out nonsense but it was a time bound series of restrictions required to deal with an emergency not a plan for future living - you surely see that?
Unfortunately it isn't always serious people that get into the chain of command in Whitehall / Westminster / Downing Street. And it doesn't take many to start to influence policy if they are loud enough. I mean surely you agree on this point, or are you really happy with the way the government has been run in recent years? The way UK politics has played out this decade should demonstrate that pretty much anything can happen from here on in.
The fact that an area where 15 minute walking is perfectly do-able and yet absolutely doesn't happen does kind of show the flaw in the fluff. So either it has to be accepted that people simply won't, or other ways have to be found so that people do. Right?
But when other methods are suggested, such as blocking some streets to make more cul-de-sacs people on here are moaning its the stick being used not the carrot. But when there is no logical reason to use the car, the destination is a short walk, the person fit and healthy and heavy goods are not being purchased, yet they still insist on driving for two minutes, its no surprise "stick" methods have to be used.
But when other methods are suggested, such as blocking some streets to make more cul-de-sacs people on here are moaning its the stick being used not the carrot. But when there is no logical reason to use the car, the destination is a short walk, the person fit and healthy and heavy goods are not being purchased, yet they still insist on driving for two minutes, its no surprise "stick" methods have to be used.
They could, but they don't - for various reasons. These range from laziness, indolence and habit, to preferring comfort instead of discomfort (with a lot more between). So when they refuse to alter their habits even when it is very easy for them to do so, what's left?
Yes it does. Where I live there is a town centre and railway station and, two miles away (up a fairly steep hill) there is an outlying area with only a few shops and no railway connection. The road also provides the only route to further outlying areas in each direction and is a main thoroughfare. The two are connected by two frequent, reliable bus services. The connecting road, whilst only single carriageway, was quite free flowing with almost all the bus stops sited in laybys. Two years ago the LA decided it would be a good idea to usurp part of the width of each footway and part of the width of the road to provide a cycle lane in each direction for the full two miles. As part of this, the laybys serving the bus stops - including those outside the railway station - were removed and given over to the cycle paths, thus forcing buses to stop in the single carriageway and compelling traffic to queue behind them until their passengers had alighted and embarked. The cost of this scheme was put at £2.3m and the work caused about four months of chaos along a very busy road. The end result was that a journey between the two points which previously took perhaps five or six minutes in a car and maybe ten minutes on a bus, now took at least twenty minutes and often longer at peak times. The buses, of course, saw their journey times similarly lengthened. The cycle lanes were scarcely used (I think I saw perhaps two or three cyclists in them during their entire existence). The bus operators complained that they could not run a reliable service and were having to turn a number of buses short to maintain decent frequencies. The scheme is now in the process of being reversed at a stated cost (which is probably an underestimate) of £1.7m. During the enquiries into this fiasco it was revealed that the designing contractors had paid only two site visits to the area.
Anecdotal, I know. But I don't doubt that other similar schemes have been introduced elsewhere when, so long as cycle lanes are provided, scant regard is given to anything else.
But when there is no logical reason to use the car, the destination is a short walk, the person fit and healthy and heavy goods are not being purchased, yet they still insist on driving for two minutes, its no surprise "stick" methods have to be used.
So what "sticks" do you suggest are used? How long will it be when all the soft sticks have been used to no avail, before drivers have to justify their journeys as "necessary" and either have to pay a premium rate to drive their cars, or obtain some sort of exemption? Or don't you see that happening? Because the plain fact is that soft sticks will not work. Many people make "unnecessary" car journeys. The problem is, as explained earlier, the definition of "necessary" is not easy to tie down.
Again, even if the stick approach is used it is not stopping someone doing that two minute drive, it may just turn into a five minute drive. As you say if they feel they have to drive they still can. But that might be enough for others to convince them its worth the 5-10 minute walk instead. If that also reduces the number of people choosing to drive, so some who might have driven now switch to walking, then those who truly have to drive (due to disability, ill-health or similar) should get quicker journey times with fewer cars on the roads.
No need to measure anything or find out the reason for the journey. People are still free to choose how to travel. But by making walking look the easier/quicker/cheaper option than driving it helps to improve everyones health and well-being, as well as freeing up the roads for those who have no choice and for those making longer journeys.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So what "sticks" do you suggest are used? How long will it be when all the soft sticks have been used to no avail, before drivers have to justify their journeys as "necessary" and either have to pay a premium rate to drive their cars, or obtain some sort of exemption? Or don't you see that happening? Because the plain fact is that soft sticks will not work. Many people make "unnecessary" car journeys. The problem is, as explained earlier, the definition of "necessary" is not easy to tie down.
So the carrot is the basis of this discussion, providing most services within a 15 minute walk and improving access to public transport. The first stick is then using schemes such as low traffic systems so that some journeys are no longer as quick as they used to be and therefore walking becomes the easier option. If the local shop is a 5-10 minute walk, but a two minute drive, then one end of a road is blocked to make it a cul-de-sac so its now a five minute drive, then the walk is now a better looking option than the drive. But equally those who really need to drive are still able to do so. Doesn't matter about the definition of necessary, thats up to the individual to define whether they think it is worthwhile and needed to get into the car, or if it might be easier to walk.
However low traffic schemes are not what this thread is discussing, so your conversation is probably better on another thread.
The fact that an area where 15 minute walking is perfectly do-able and yet absolutely doesn't happen does kind of show the flaw in the fluff. So either it has to be accepted that people simply won't, or other ways have to be found so that people do. Right?
It has been pointed out to you on several occasions that such areas already exist, and people have given examples. You simply shrugged it off and suggested that it's only a few "pockets" here and there. It absolutely does happen. You suggested in a previous post that those who came up with such schemes should get out more; may I suggest that you do the same, and you'll see what we're talking about?
The idea is 15 minute neighbourhoods for the suburbs too. A town where the new housing on the edge can’t reach the centre that easily, will require new town centres in the new developments. I’ve seen this work successfully. It’s not new, this idea isn’t policy yet but the same vague idea is in law. The home builders need a stick to do anything but land bank and dribble out a few homes at high profit margins. Once they’ve built the commercial buildings it’s still up to the private companies to choose to rent.
It has been pointed out to you on several occasions that such areas already exist, and people have given examples. You simply shrugged it off and suggested that it's only a few "pockets" here and there. It absolutely does happen. You suggested in a previous post that those who came up with such schemes should get out more; may I suggest that you do the same, and you'll see what we're talking about?
So its a widespread system then? I mean despite what you think I do get out and about, quite a lot actually having clocked in excess of 130 grounds following my football team alone. And I'm going to be honest, I don't see them all that often, so may they really are just in pockets where the infrastructure and transport already exists. But as I've also pointed out, there are places where it doesn't work like the example that I cited (and know well).
For me this concept is just political fluff, and I don't care who I annoy by saying that. If we are really, really serious about getting people out of their cars more, then viable & affordable alternatives are needed. Can anyone here honestly say that aside from a few area in a few cities that public transport is up to this job? Because even in areas where there is a reasonable network, its often nowhere near enough to instigate modal shift, especially outside of traditional 9-5 working hours. For that to happen the government is going to have to invest heavily in further subsidising public transport not only to offer more capacity and prices that might make people actually consider changing, but have to swallow the fact that for a while that capacity might run have to run a lot loss for a while until it is given a good enough chance to be taken up.
Sort that lot out first and it may achieve way more than chucking this concept around.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
