Economy
The 15-Minute City: An extraordinarily bad idea
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5aeac/5aeacd420e17d60bd377b8b7f076959b15829cf6" alt=""
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
” the average resident of the New York urban area—the closest thing to a 15-minute city in the U.S. or Canada—can reach at least 21 times as many jobs in a 20-minute auto drive as in a 20-minute walk. The same will be true of other economic opportunities. “
The latest urban planning fad to sweep across Canada is the 15-minute city, which proposes to redesign cities so that all urban residents live within an easy, 15-minute walk of schools, retailers, restaurants, entertainment, and other essentials of modern life. This is supposed to simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions while it increases our quality of life.
Some think it is a conspiracy. Others insist it is not. Conspiracy or not, the only way to have true 15-minute cities would be to drastically change Canadian lifestyles.
Fifteen-minute cities mean a lot more people living in multifamily housing and fewer in single-family housing. It means most food shopping would be done in high-priced, limited-selection grocery stores. There is no way that Costcos or even large supermarkets can fit into 15-minute cities; to survive, these stores need a lot more customers than could live within a 15-minute walk from their front doors.
Most of the benefits claimed for 15-minute cities are wrong. Proponents claim they would be more affordable, but high-density, multi-story housing costs two to five times as much, per square foot, as single-family homes. Packing people into four- and five-story apartment buildings would require cutting average dwelling sizes at least in half to make them anywhere close to affordable.
Proponents also claim 15-minute cities would save energy and reduce greenhouse gases and other pollutants. But let’s be honest: people aren’t going to give up their cars or stop going to Costco.
Admittedly, the U.S. Department of Energy says that people living in high-density cities do drive a little less than people in low-density areas. But it also says that there is a lot more congestion in high-density cities. Since cars use more energy in slower traffic, high-density cities use more energy (and therefore emit more greenhouse gases) per capita than low-density areas.
Proponents also claim that 15-minute cities will be more equitable. Yet, before about 1890, most Canadian cities were 15-minute cities. Most people in these cities lived in crushing poverty and there were huge disparities between the rich and the poor, with only a small middle-class in between.
What changed these cities was the mass-produced automobile. The Model T Ford democratized mobility, allowing more people to escape the dense cities to find better housing, better jobs, access to lower-cost consumer goods, and a wider range of social and recreation opportunities.
The University of Minnesota Accessibility Observatory calculates that the average resident of the New York urban area—the closest thing to a 15-minute city in the U.S. or Canada—can reach at least 21 times as many jobs in a 20-minute auto drive as in a 20-minute walk. The same will be true of other economic opportunities. Eliminating the automobile, which is the goal of the 15-minute city, would eliminate those economic benefits.
We had this same debate 50-some years ago when urban skies were polluted with carbon monoxide, smog, and other toxic automobile emissions. Some people advocated policies that would force people to drive less. Others advocated new technologies that would reduce the air pollution coming from autos and trucks.
Today, total automotive air pollution has been reduced by about 90 percent. All this improvement came from cleaner cars: new cars today pollute only about 1 percent as much as cars made in 1970. None of this improvement came from anti-automobile policies, as Canadians drive far more miles today than they did 50 years ago.
If anything, policies aimed at reducing driving made pollution worse as one of those policies was to increase traffic congestion to get people out of their cars. Yet, as noted above, cars actually pollute more in congested traffic.
Anti-automobile policies today, including 15-minute cities, spending billions on rail transit lines that carry only a small percentage of urban travel, and converting general street lanes into exclusive bike lanes, are going to have the same effect.
People who care about the planet should demand policies that actually work and not ones that are based on urban planning fantasies and fads. Instead of attempting to drastically change Canadian lifestyles, that means making cars that are cleaner and more fuel-efficient so that the driving we do has a lower environmental impact. The 15-minute city may not be a conspiracy, but it is still an extraordinarily bad idea.
Randal O’Toole is a transportation policy analyst and author of Building 21 st Century Transit Systems for Canadian Cities, an upcoming report published by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Watch Randal on Leaders on the Frontier here.
Economy
Ottawa must end disastrous energy policies to keep pace with U.S.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9a36c/9a36c476537f60c1ddc408525c04702169809e8b" alt=""
From the Fraser Institute
By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari
This negative perception of Canada’s regulatory environment is hardly a surprise, given Ottawa’s policies over the last decade.
During last night’s Liberal leadership debate, there was a lot of talk about Donald Trump. But whatever your views on President Trump, one thing is certain—he’s revitalized his country’s energy sector. Through a set of executive orders, Trump instructed agency heads to identify “actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy source” and “exercise any lawful emergency authorities available” to facilitate energy production and transportation. In other words, let’s become an energy superpower.
Clearly, to avoid falling further behind, Canada must swiftly end policies that unduly restrict oil and gas production and discourage investment. Change can’t come soon enough.
Before Trump’s inauguration, red tape was already hindering Canada’s oil and gas sector, which was less attractive for investment compared to the United States. According to a survey conducted in 2023, , 68 per cent of oil and gas investors said uncertainty about environmental regulations deterred investment in Canada’s oil and gas sector compared to 41 per cent in the U.S. Similarly, 54 per cent said Canada’s regulatory duplication and inconsistencies deterred investment compared to only 34 per cent for the U.S. And 55 per cent of respondents said that uncertainty regarding the enforcement of existing regulations in Canada deterred investment compared to only 37 per cent of respondents for the U.S.
This negative perception of Canada’s regulatory environment is hardly a surprise, given Ottawa’s policies over the last decade. For example, one year after taking office, in 2016 the Trudeau government cancelled the previously approved $7.9 billion Northern Gateway pipeline, which was designed to transport crude oil from Alberta to British Columbia’s coast, expanding Canada’s access to Asian markets.
In 2017, Prime Minister Trudeau undermined the long-term confidence in the sector by vowing to “phase out” fossil fuels in Canada.
In 2019, the Trudeau government passed Bill C-69, introducing subjective criteria including the “gender implications” of energy investment into the evaluation process of major energy projects, causing massive uncertainty around the development of new projects.
Also that year, the government enacted Bill C-48, which bans large oil tankers from B.C.’s northern coast, limiting Canadian exports to Asia.
In 2023, the Trudeau government announced plans to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the oil and gas sector at 35 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030—an arbitrary measure considering GHG emissions from other sectors in the economy were left untouched. According to a recent report, to comply with the cap, Canadian firms must severely curtail oil and gas production. As one might expect, these policies come at a cost. Over the last decade, investment in Canada’s oil and gas sector has collapsed by 56 per cent, from $84.0 billion in 2014 to $37.2 billion in 2023 (inflation adjusted). Less investment means less funding for new energy projects, technologies and infrastructure, and fewer job opportunities and economic opportunities for Canadians nationwide.
The energy gap between the U.S. and Canada is set to grow wider during President Trump’s second term. While Trump wants to attract investment to the American oil and gas industry by streamlining processes and cutting costs, Canada is driving investment away with costly and often arbitrary measures. If Ottawa continues on its current path, Canada’s leading industry—and its largest source of exports—will lose more ground to the U.S. When Parliament reconvenes, policymakers must move quickly to eliminate harmful policies hindering our energy sector.
Business
Trump: Tariffs on Canada, Mexico to take effect next week
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f01da/f01dae62e211b2fd0aee2cbad3821bfde6d1f53c" alt=""
MxM News
Quick Hit:
President Donald Trump confirmed that a 25 percent tariff on all goods from Canada and Mexico will take effect next week. The move is intended to pressure the neighboring countries to take stronger measures against undocumented migration and fentanyl trafficking into the U.S. Despite discussions with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, Trump stated the tariffs will proceed as scheduled.
Key Details:
- The tariffs were initially set for February 4 but were delayed by 30 days following conversations with Trudeau and Sheinbaum.
- Trump emphasized the need for “reciprocal” tariffs, stating the U.S. has been “mistreated very badly” by many countries.
- Canada and Mexico have threatened to retaliate if the tariffs are implemented, which could impact over $900 billion in U.S. imports.
Diving Deeper:
President Donald Trump announced on Monday that his administration will move forward with imposing a 25 percent tariff on all Canadian and Mexican goods, effective next week. The decision aims to pressure the two countries into taking stronger actions to curb undocumented migration and fentanyl trafficking into the United States.
Speaking at a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, Trump stated, “The tariffs are going forward on time, on schedule.” This declaration comes as the new deadline approaches on March 4, after an initial delay of 30 days from February 4, following phone conversations with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum.
During the press conference, Trump emphasized the broader issue of tariff reciprocity, claiming, “We’ve been mistreated very badly by many countries, not just Canada and Mexico.” He stressed the need for fairness in international trade, stating, “All we want is reciprocal. We want reciprocity. We want the same.”
Although Trump did not explicitly mention fentanyl or migration in his remarks, his statements apply additional pressure on Canada and Mexico to address his administration’s concerns. According to the White House, Trudeau informed Trump on Saturday that Canada has achieved a 90 percent reduction in fentanyl crossing the U.S. Northern Border and that Canada’s Border Czar will visit the U.S. next week for further discussions.
Together, Canada and Mexico account for more than $900 billion in U.S. imports, including vehicles, auto parts, and agricultural products. Both countries have indicated that they will retaliate if the tariffs are imposed. In a concession to inflation concerns, Trump noted that energy imports from Canada would face a lower tariff rate of 10 percent.
The move underscores Trump’s continued focus on securing U.S. borders and achieving trade reciprocity, while also setting the stage for potential trade conflicts with America’s closest trading partners.
-
International2 days ago
Vatican reports ‘slight improvement’ in Pope Francis’ condition
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
Wayne’s World Has Moved South. Canadians Are Appalled. Again.
-
Business2 days ago
Biden’s $20B grant to climate groups involved “self-dealing”
-
Energy2 days ago
There is no better time for the Atlantic to follow the Pacific as the next stage of Canadian energy development
-
conflict2 days ago
Trump meets Macron at White House, says Ukraine war ending soon
-
Bjorn Lomborg24 hours ago
We need to get smart about climate
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Migrants Won’t Be Putting Their Feet Up At One NYC Hotel Much Longer
-
Business1 day ago
Trump to Counter Foreign Social Media Censorship Demands and Defend Free Speech Online