Connect with us

Economy

The 15-Minute City: An extraordinarily bad idea

Published

6 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Randal O’Toole

” 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.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

President Trump Signs Executive Order Banning CBDCs

Published on

logo

By

The executive order marks a decisive pivot in US digital asset policy.

President Donald Trump took a bold step on Thursday by signing an executive order that establishes a cryptocurrency working group, fulfilling a key campaign pledge made during his appeal to digital asset advocates and also banning controversial Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).

This newly established advisory body is set to take on a pivotal role in shaping US policy on digital assets. Its responsibilities include collaborating with Congress to draft cryptocurrency legislation and advising on the development of a proposed bitcoin reserve. Additionally, the council will work to align efforts across federal regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the Treasury Department.

One of its more unique tasks will involve assessing the feasibility of creating and managing a national repository of digital assets. According to the executive order, these assets could potentially include cryptocurrencies confiscated during federal law enforcement operations.

On the same day, Trump issued another executive order banning the development and use of CBDCs within the United States.

The order explicitly forbids any attempt to “establish, issue, or promote CBDCs within the jurisdiction of the United States or abroad.” Trump justified the decision by warning of the risks posed by CBDCs, including threats to financial stability, personal privacy, and US sovereignty.

Often referred to as centrally-controlled “digital dollars,” CBDCs would be issued by the Federal Reserve and function as digital equivalents of physical currency, potentially granting the central bank expanded authority over monetary flows. Proponents argue that such a system could promote financial inclusion and provide tools for combating illicit activities.

CBDCs have raised significant concern among privacy advocates, who warn they could give governments unprecedented control over financial transactions. Unlike cash, which allows for anonymous and untraceable exchanges, CBDCs would operate on digital platforms managed by central banks.

Every transaction could be monitored, recorded, and tied to individual identities, creating a potential for constant financial surveillance. This capability could erode personal privacy, enabling authorities to track spending habits, purchasing behaviors, and even location data in real-time. For individuals who value financial autonomy and confidentiality, the prospect of such pervasive oversight is deeply troubling.

Additionally, CBDCs could serve as tools for censorship and control.

Governments or central banks could theoretically restrict or block transactions they deem undesirable, limiting financial freedom. For example, payments to politically sensitive causes, organizations, or individuals could be flagged or prohibited. In extreme scenarios, a CBDC system might even allow authorities to freeze assets or impose punitive financial measures against dissenters.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.
Continue Reading

Business

Taxpayers launching court fight against undemocratic capital gains tax hike

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Devin Drover 

There is no realistic chance the legislation will pass before the next election. Despite this, the CRA is pushing ahead with enforcement of the tax as if it is already law.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is filing a legal challenge today to stop the Canada Revenue Agency from enforcing a capital gains tax increase that has not been approved by Parliament.

“The government has no legal right to enforce this tax hike because it has not received legislative approval by Parliament,” said Devin Drover, CTF General Counsel. “This tax grab violates the fundamental principle of no taxation without representation. That’s why we are asking the courts to put an immediate stop to this bureaucratic overreach.”

The CTF is representing Debbie Vorsteveld, a resident of Mapleton, Ontario. Last year, she and her husband, Willem, sold a property that included a secondary home. They had rented the secondary home to their adult children, but had to sell it when their kids were ready to move on. The CRA says the Vorstevelds must pay higher capital gains taxes under the proposed capital gains increase or face financial penalties.

The CTF is seeking urgent relief from the Federal Court to block the CRA’s enforcement of the proposed tax increase. In its application, the CTF argues the tax increase violates the rule of law and is unconstitutional.

The government passed a ways and means motion for the tax increase last year but failed to introduce, debate, pass, or proclaim the necessary legislation into law.

Parliament is now prorogued until March 24, 2025, and opposition parties have all pledged to bring down the Liberal government. As a result, there is no realistic chance the legislation will pass before the next election. Despite this, the CRA is pushing ahead with enforcement of the tax as if it is already law.

A new report from the C.D. Howe Institute shows the capital gains tax increase will result in 414,000 fewer jobs and shrink Canada’s GDP by nearly $90 billion.

“The undemocratic capital gains tax hike will blow a huge hole in Canada’s economy and punishes people saving for their retirement, entrepreneurs, doctors and Canadian workers,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “It’s Parliament’s responsibility to approve tax increases before they’re imposed, not unelected government bureaucrats.

“The CRA must immediately halt its plans to enforce this unapproved tax hike, which threatens to undemocratically take billions from Canadians and cripple our economy.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X