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

Ottawa foresees a future of despair for Canadians. And shrugs

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Lee Harding

A government report envisions Canadians foraging for food by 2040. Ottawa offers no solutions, just management of national decline

An obscure but disturbing federal report suggests Canadians could be foraging for food on public lands by 2040.

Policy Horizons Canada released the dire forecast on Jan. 7, 2025, in a report entitled Future Lives: Social Mobility in Question. It went largely unnoticed at the time, but its contents remain deeply concerning and worth closer examination.

Policy Horizons Canada is a little-known federal think-tank within the public service that produces long-term strategic foresight to guide government decision-making. Though not a household name, its projections can quietly shape policies at the highest levels. It  describes itself as the government’s “centre of excellence in foresight,” designed to “empower the Government of Canada with a future-oriented mindset and outlook to strengthen decision making.” Its current head is Kristel Van der Elst, former head of strategic foresight at the World Economic Forum.

The report warns that the “powerful promise” that anyone can get an education, work hard, buy property and climb the social and economic ladder is slipping away. Instead of a temporary setback, the authors argue, downward mobility could become the norm. They liken Canada’s future to a board game with “more snakes than ladders.”

“In 2040, upward social mobility is almost unheard of in Canada,” the report states. “Hardly anyone believes that they can build a better life for themselves, or their children, through their own efforts. However, many worry about sliding down the social order.”

While these scenarios aren’t firm predictions, foresight reports like this are intended to outline plausible futures. The fact that federal bureaucrats see this as realistic is revealing—and troubling.

Post-secondary education, the report suggests, will lose its appeal. Rising costs, slow adaptation to labour market needs, long program durations and poor job prospects will push many away. It predicts that people will attend university more to join the “elite” than to find employment.

Home ownership will be out of reach for most, and inequality between those who own property and those who don’t will drive “social, economic, and political  conflict.” Inheritance becomes the only reliable path to prosperity, while a new aristocracy begins to look down on the rest.

The gap between what youth are told to want and what they can realistically expect will widen, fuelling frustration and apathy. As automation and artificial intelligence expand, many traditional white-collar jobs will be replaced by machines or software. “Most people (will) rely on gig work and side hustles to meet their basic needs,” the report warns.

This leads to one of the darkest predictions: “People may start to hunt, fish, and forage on public lands and waterways without reference to regulations. Small scale agriculture could increase.”

The authors don’t propose solutions. Instead, they ask: “What actions could be taken now to maximize opportunities and lessen the challenges related to reduced and/or downward social mobility in the future?”

That question should concern us. Policymakers aren’t being asked how to prevent the collapse of social and economic mobility but how to manage its
fallout. Are those envisioning Canada’s future more interested in engineering a controlled implosion than fostering hope and opportunity?

Yes, artificial intelligence will bring challenges and change. But there is no excuse for despair in a country as rich in natural resources as Canada. Besides, the 2021 income data used in the report predates even the release of the first version of ChatGPT.

If policymakers are serious about restoring upward mobility, they must prioritize Canada’s resource economy. Ports, pipelines, oil and gas development, and mining are essential infrastructure for prosperity. When these sectors are strangled by overregulation, investment dries up—and so do jobs. The oil patch  remains one of the fastest paths from poverty to wealth. Entry-level jobs in the field require training and safety courses, not four-year degrees.

Similarly, post-secondary education doesn’t need to be as expensive or time consuming as it is now. We should return to models where nurses could earn certification in two years instead of being funnelled into extended university programs. And if governments required universities to wind down defined benefit pension plans, tuition would fall fast.

Unfortunately, there’s a real risk that policymakers will use reports like this to justify more wealth-killing socialism. A home equity tax, for example, might be pitched to avoid future tensions between renters and homeowners. Such a tax would require Canadians to pay an annual levy based on the increased value of their home even if they haven’t sold it. These policies don’t build wealth—they punish it, offering temporary relief in place of lasting progress.

Unless we choose a more sensible path, the controlled demolition of Canada will continue.

Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country

Continue Reading

Economy

Canada’s Energy Wealth Is Bleeding South

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Genie

Without infrastructure, Canada is losing billions while the U.S. cashes in on our oil and gas

Canada’s energy wealth is stuck in traffic, and our American neighbours are cashing in. It’s worse than that. Canada is bleeding millions of dollars daily because it lacks the infrastructure to export its natural resources efficiently.

While our oil and gas continue to flow—mainly to the United States—provinces like Alberta and British Columbia are forced to sell at steep discounts. This isn’t just an economic inefficiency; it’s a structural failure of national policy. The beneficiaries? American businesses and their governments which pocket the profits and tax revenues that should be circulating through the Canadian economy. This is no way to achieve economic sovereignty for Canada.

With U.S. interests reaping the rewards, this should have been a central talking point when Prime Minister Carney met with President Trump earlier this month.

Ottawa often offers the recent completion of the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) pipeline as an example of federal support for the energy sector. But such claims are misleading. Kinder Morgan, a private enterprise, had initially planned to build the extension without a penny from taxpayers. It withdrew only after being crippled by federal regulatory delays and political uncertainty.

Ottawa stepped in not as a benevolent saviour to help Albertans, but to prevent lawsuits and save face—ultimately overpaying for the pipeline and watching construction costs balloon to nearly six times the original estimate.

To now declare this bungled project a “gift” to Alberta, as a recent op-ed in the Toronto Star did, is not only tone-deaf: it’s an insult. It ignores the fact that Alberta’s taxpayers helped finance the very project Ottawa botched. It also reveals an astonishing lack of understanding of the historical, economic and political dynamics at play between Ottawa and Western Canada.

The tragedy is that TMX, despite its importance, is insufficient. Our infrastructure bottlenecks remain. With each passing day, Canada forfeits wealth that could fund essential improvements in health care, education and national defence.

According to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, which has developed a real-time tracker to monitor these losses, the price differential between what we could earn on global markets versus what we settle for domestically adds up to $26.5 billion annually.

Ottawa’s reluctance to greenlight new infrastructure is a primary cause of this problem. Ironically, the losses from this reluctance in a single year would be enough to pay for another TMX, mismanaged or not. The solution lies in a national commitment to building utility corridors: designated routes that facilitate the movement of energy, goods and services unhindered across provincial boundaries.

Carney’s recent promise to remove all interprovincial trade barriers by July 1 is a nice soundbite. But unless it includes meaningful infrastructure commitments, it is bound to fail like every other rhetorical flourish before it.

Canadians should be rightly skeptical. After all, what Ottawa has failed to achieve in the 157 years since Confederation is unlikely to be accomplished in the next 60 days.

The political math doesn’t help either. The Bloc Québécois holds the balance of power in the 45th Parliament, and its obstructionist stance on national pipeline development ensures the advent of more gridlock, not less. The federal government continues to uphold Bill C-69—dubbed the “no-pipelines bill”—further entrenching the status quo.

Meanwhile, Canada remains in the absurd position of relying on U.S. infrastructure to transport oil from the West to Ontario and Quebec. This undermines our economic independence, energy security and national sovereignty. No amount of “elbows up” will correct this enormous gap.

If the prime minister is serious about transforming Canada’s economic landscape and making the country strong, he must bypass the Bloc by cooperating with the Official Opposition. A grand bargain focused on utility corridors, interprovincial infrastructure and national trade efficiency would serve Alberta, Saskatchewan, and every Canadian who depends on a strong and self-reliant economy.

The stakes are high. We need a more productive country to face challenges within Canada and from abroad. Billions in lost revenue could fund new hospitals, more schools and better military readiness.

Instead, along with the limited exports of oil and gas, we’re exporting great opportunities to middlemen—and greater economic strength—south of the border.

The path forward is clear. A strong, self-reliant Canada needs infrastructure. It needs corridors. It needs leadership.

Marco Navarro-Genie is the vice president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is coauthor, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).

Continue Reading

Trending

X