Monthly Archives: June 2023

15-minute cities and the new feudal system

Posted on by
3

While the power elite will continue to enjoy their jet-set lifestyles, the general public will increasingly be restricted to 15-minute cities as “climate lockdowns” are imposed.

Serfs weren’t allowed to leave their village without their master’s permission. They spent their whole lives restricted to a small area, except perhaps for a rare pilgrimage. As councils start to require permits to drive down certain roads or into certain areas, the parallels with the feudal system are obvious.

15-minute cities are superficially attractive. The basic idea is that employment, retail outlets, health services, schools and various other amenities should be easily accessible to people’s homes – indeed within a short, 15-minute walk or cycle ride. This new urban geography is designed to reduce car dependency and foster “stronger communities.”

Encouraging walking and cycling is a key aspect of the policy, though in practical application this has meant using a big stick rather than a carrot.

The road space available to cars is reduced to make way for cycle lanes or wider pavements. Speed limits are lowered; traffic lights increased; parking restricted; obstacles placed in the road; streets closed.

These measures create delays and impose costs on motorists, reducing their mobility and deterring them from travelling outside their immediate area.     

Indeed, proponents of 15-minute cities admit that mobility is not their priority. Because, they hope, key amenities are accessible locally, they argue mobility is no longer needed to the same extent.

But here the movement hits a major hurdle: economies of scale.

Many services are inefficient or not viable at a micro level. In a relatively free economy, this means they would tend to be driven out of business by more efficient competitors that serve a larger catchment area and population.

An obvious illustration is to compare big edge-of-town supermarkets with the same brands’ “local” iterations, the latter having far less choice and significantly higher prices. Consumers often choose to drive further to a big supermarket in order to do a weekly shop in one go, which may be cheaper and more efficient than making frequent visits on foot or by bike to smaller local stores. (Of course, staying at home, shopping online and waiting for deliveries is another option under the 15-minute-city model – which may explain why the Big Tech elite are promoting it so enthusiastically.)

The 15-minute city concept therefore implies using planning controls and mobility restrictions to hinder the economies of scale associated with larger catchment areas – effectively forcing businesses and consumers to stay local. Accordingly, such policies are now commonplace across the UK, Western Europe and “progressive” US cities, representing a shift to command-and-control economics and a further erosion of private property rights.

There are similar issues with labour markets. If mobility is restricted – for example, by slower journeys or a forced reduction in car ownership – then it becomes harder for potential employees to find jobs that match their skills and talents. The size of the area in which they can access opportunities may shrink dramatically. The same problem applies to many small businesses. Productivity and wages suffer. Welfare dependency may increase.

The 15-minute-city movement seeks to overcome the economies of scale problem through high-density living. If large numbers of people are stacked on top of one another in blocks of small apartments, then a population of tens of thousands can be packed into a square mile. But given current rates of new home construction, it will typically take several decades to densify neighbourhoods in this way. Lost economies of scale will not be replaced in the foreseeable future.

Moreover, high-density districts have disturbing social and political implications. Residents of detached houses on large plots are relatively free to engage in various activities without affecting their neighbours. Their physical environment promotes self-reliance, independence and resilience. They have the space to accumulate possessions, resources and reserves; make repairs; start various businesses; even grow their own food.

By contrast, high-density apartment blocks are characterised by monitoring and surveillance; rules and regulations; permits; conflicts over communal space, repairs and maintenance. Eccentric, offensive or anti-social behaviour may affect a large number of neighbours, providing a rationale for meddling and intervention. This kind of neighbourhood promotes a culture of interfering in other people’s lives.

And residents of small apartments can’t own much. Their possessions and real resources are severely limited by lack of physical space. They have relatively little scope for self reliance and are more vulnerable to becoming dependent on the state in any crisis. They are therefore more controllable.

15-minute cities are an attempt to manipulate the built environment in order to undermine individual freedom. They’re a Trojan horse for big government and top-down control.

Richard Wellings

On the road, no-one can hear you scream!

Posted on by
3

Why stop at a red light? Once you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. But seriously, why stop when you can see the junction is deserted and it’s safe to go?

I saw the light about traffic lights in Cambridge in 2000. A junction normally choked with queueing traffic, that took three entire signal changes to cross, was deserted. Is there a bank holiday no-one has told me about, I wondered as I breezed through. Then I realised the lights were out of action, and it hit me – traffic lights are an unnecessary evil! We’re better off left to our own devices! Eureka!

In an early video I made on the subject, when lights were out at Charlotte St/Goodge Street, I asked a cab driver what he made of it. “You’ve just got to be a bit more careful on the junction,” he said, “that’s all”. That is all. How ironic that when lights are out, we are urged to exercise caution, implying that as soon as they are “working” again, we may revert to norms of neglect.

“Traffic light removal only works in low traffic volumes,” said government road safety adviser, Robert Gifford, in my 2008 Newsnight report. But I’ve witnessed the same thing during power cuts across London. Never was it more agreeable to cycle down Shaftesbury Avenue and round Piccadilly. Taxi-drivers smiled and waved you on. Free from artificial barriers to natural flow, the familiar congestion vanished into thin air. I emailed TfL Vice Chair, Dave Wetzel. His officers said they had told the Police to erect barriers to stop traffic from entering the affected areas. I emailed a Chief Inspector contact at the Met. He replied, “No such action was taken”. 

Traffic officers like us to think we need their interventions to keep traffic moving and keep us safe. Nothing could be further from the truth. Westminster City Council’s safety audit reveals that 44% – nearly half – of all personal injury “accidents” occur at traffic lights. I put accidents in inverted commas because most accidents are not accidents. Nor, as the authorities would have us believe, are they mostly due to human error. They are events contrived by the dysfunctional rules of the road.

The flaw at the heart of the system is the traffic engineering concept of priority – priority for main roads, or traffic from the right. It abandons common law principles of equal rights and responsibilities, and imposes anti-social rights-of-way. It tells main road traffic to plough on, regardless who was there first. It produces conflicting speeds and puts side road traffic and pedestrians at a dangerous disadvantage. It promotes aggression. “Get out of my way!” yells priority, as it denies infinite filtering opportunities and expressions of fellow feeling. And it produces a “need” for regulation and signage that cost the earth, in both senses. How many of the other 56% of “accidents” in the WCC audit are due to priority? Compiled in the context of priority, the stats don’t tell us. Why do we “need” traffic lights, those weapons of mass distraction, danger and delay? To break the priority streams of traffic so others can enter or cross. Traffic lights make us stop to avoid the inconvenience of slowing down. Genius!

From a video shot 20 years ago, I’m still haunted by the image of a mother and toddler waiting to cross the Euston Road. Eventually the lights changed. They set off, only to be caught in the “pen” (yes – traffic engineers treat us like sheep) in the middle of the six-lane highway, where they had to wait again for the other lot of lights to change. Meanwhile, the toddler in his buggy is at the ideal level to inhale the toxic fumes that damage health and development. These abuses are repeated daily throughout the land, promoted by the law of the land in the guise of the rules of the road. In the domestic sphere, coercive control is illegal. On the roads, it’s rampant.

The simple solution to our road safety and road rage problems, and many of our congestion and air quality problems, is to replace priority with equality. Then, whoever arrives first, on foot or on wheels, goes first, more or less, as in other walks of life. My interest in avoiding collision with you mirrors your interest in avoiding collision with me. Instinctively we approach carefully and merge at low speeds. It’s the peaceful anarchy that breaks out whenever traffic lights break down: anarchy in the original sense of self-government.

In the absence of a bridge or flyover, all junctions, rural and urban, could be all-way give-ways. As a river absorbs tributaries, main road traffic can easily accommodate minor road traffic. All drivers have to do is take their foot off the accelerator.

Freedom to filter not only transforms road safety and civility, it reduces air and noise pollution. In a 2007 article, I showed it cuts emissions by up to four times. A study by the engineering department of Surrey University has since found that traffic lights multiply emissions by up to 29 times! Most victims who suffer unnecessarily on the altar of the malign traffic system are anonymous, though one name stands for many: Ella Kissi-Debrah. The DfT is aware, but rejects reform. Should traffic authorities be facing corporate manslaughter charges?

So, with exceptions such as multi-lane intersections at peak times, traffic lights are unnecessary per se. Of course system reform needs combining with driver re-education and a new driving test. The new rulebook or advice guide could be written on one page. 1. All road-users are equal. 2. The vulnerable are more equal than others. 3. Drive on the left. 4. Give way to others who were there first. 5. You’re a driver and a pedestrian too. 6. Use the inside lane except when overtaking. 7. Take it easy and have a nice day.

Martin Cassini

For more information about these ideas, visit Equality Streets.