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

Carbon Tax

Only a Conservative Victory Would End Liberal Oil and Gas Sector Assault and Help Diversify Away From the US

Published on

From EnergyNow.ca

By Jim Warren

A minority Liberal victory in our upcoming federal election has the potential to take anti-Ottawa sentiment on the prairies to a whole new level. That’s because a Carney government can be expected to frustrate the legitimate aspirations of millions of Western Canadians. It’s what Liberals do.

Obviously, one of the most pressing economic concerns of the oil producing provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan is the collection of Liberal policies which are restricting growth in Canada’s non-renewable resource sector. Liberal anti-oil and anti-pipeline measures have hamstrung the capacity of the producing provinces to increase the revenue generating capacity of the oil and gas sector. They have restricted the ability of prairie people to benefit from the ingenuity, sweat and capital they have invested in their resources industries. The right to those benefits was supposedly guaranteed under the Canadian constitution.

It is far from clear that a Carney government would get behind developing increased export capacity for oil and gas. Previous statements Carney has made in support of new pipelines were clearly disingenuous. He supported a revival of Energy East when speaking in Kelowna. He went so far as to suggest the emergency powers of the government could be used to get it built. But during the French leadership debate he said Quebec would be given the power to veto any such project. Carney’s handlers should tell him it is impossible for both statements to be true at the same time.

Furthermore, Carney has expressed no intention of dismantling the labyrinthine approval processes and the legalized disruption of construction which makes export pipelines impossible to build (at least without incurring jaw dropping cost overruns). If those policy measures remain in place any pipeline given some sort of special approval, could still remain vulnerable to legal challenges and retroactive cancellation and shut down.

Let’s say special emergency approval for a pipeline is granted but the Impact Assessment Act (Bill C-69) and other onerous environmental regulations are allowed to remain in place. Couldn’t construction still be delayed or the line re-routed whenever a bird nest, arrowhead or rare plant is found on the right-of-way? Will protesters who block construction be treated with kid gloves or more like horn-honking truckers? Those are the sorts of issues that contributed to the $34 billion in cost overruns that plagued construction of the TMX.

There are, no doubt, measures a federal government could take to minimize these sorts of threats. Nevertheless, many of us expect a Carney government would not be prepared to provide truly bullet proof guarantees to new pipeline projects. The Liberals and their core supporters are too deeply invested in climate alarmist ideology to allow for the unfettered completion of pipelines or continued growth in oil and gas production.

The Liberals have already shown us who they are. They were very reluctant to enforce the law against environmental protesters during the period leading up to the cancellation of the Northern Gateway and the Keystone XL. In fact they awarded federal grants to activist organizations that helped organize protests and anti-pipeline court challenges.

Retroactive cancellation of previously approved oil production projects is a tactic recently embraced by environmental groups like Greenpeace in the UK. The Liberals’ allies in the environmental movement can be expected to apply a similar approach to new and pre-existing pipelines in Canada. The activists will no doubt be able to rely on grants from the Liberal government to fund their efforts.

There are approximately 75,000 people directly employed in extracting and transporting gas and oil on the prairies and about twice that number whose jobs rely indirectly on the sector. Several hundreds of thousands more understand how the ripple effects of the changing fortunes of the resource sector affect their province’s economies. For the past nine years those people’s interests and complaints have been ignored, frustrated and attacked by the Liberals and their allies in the environmental movement.

If the past is prologue, it is a safe bet the prairie West will be ignored and abused again should the Liberals pull off a minority election win. Their backers in the Bloc and NDP will insist on it. However, rejecting the reasonable aspirations of a large minority or majority of the citizens in the two major oil producing provinces is guaranteed to produce a precipitous decline in national harmony.

It is true there are large numbers of low information voters and woke supporters of environmental extremism in some of the big cities in the West. They are likely to elect a Liberal or two to the next parliament. But they do not represent the views of the people who create most of the wealth in the West—the people who risk their own capital and help build a more vibrant economy, as well as most of the people whose jobs involve sweating. Annoying these people, in order to garner support among the environmentally sanctimonious in Montreal and Toronto, will not make for a stronger, more united Canada.

Similarly, there are tens of thousands of farm operators who are vehemently opposed to Liberal backed measures that will limit their use of fertilizer and penalize them for owning cattle. Saskatchewan’s potash miners won’t take kindly to the imposition of export taxes on their products to save jobs in Ontario and Quebec. These are all capable people—and they don’t take being pushed around lightly.

Central Canadian fantasies about placing export taxes on Western oil shipped to the US, have already angered people in the producing provinces. Anti-Ottawa feelings on the prairies would surpass the boiling point if a Carney government actually attempted to do it.

An all too common response of federal Liberals and the talking heads in the mainstream media to spikes in Western alienation is to smugly claim, “They’ll get over it.” Don’t count on it.

Following a Liberal election win, expect court challenges over the abrogation provincial rights under the constitution and outright defiance of federal policies detrimental to Alberta and Saskatchewan. The federal government may face the prospect of having to arrest popular politicians for refusing to comply with unfair federal policies.

Cabinet Ministers in Saskatchewan have already said they would risk imprisonment for refusing to charge the carbon tax on natural gas used for home heating. The Saskatchewan government has also refused to comply with Liberal regulations requiring coal-fired power plants to be shut down by 2035. They have indicated the province can simply not afford to transition to renewables or nuclear within such a tight time frame.

Carney has had nothing to say about rescinding inane one-size-fits-all federal environmental regulations. Included in the class of mindless federal policies are plans to force people from the colder parts of the prairies to purchase electric cars and heat pumps even though they don’t function properly here in winter. We can expect many prairie people to resist the compulsory transition to EVs. And, as is the case with Liberal gun control laws, governments on the prairies are likely to ensure federal rules are lightly enforced.

More significantly, Carney would be confronted by a campaign to make significant changes to Canadian federalism that will provide greater autonomy to the prairies provinces. An additional bottom line demand will be the creation of constitutionally guaranteed energy corridors, allowing for the construction and protection of pipelines from the prairies to Canada’s coasts.

We are at a critical inflection point in our history that could influence the economic fortunes of Alberta and Saskatchewan for the rest of this century. There is a good chance that during the last half of this century renewable energy will be displacing non-renewable energy at a rate that reduces global demand for oil and gas. If this turns out to be the case, failing to get new pipelines built in the next decade will virtually guarantee a significant portion of Canada’s proven oil reserves will remain forever stranded. Hundreds of billions in potential revenues could been lost. That is, by the way, one of the goals shared by Mark Carney and the alarmist factions of the environmental movement.

Barring substantive reforms to federalism, including meaningful concessions to the producing provinces, the prospects for national harmony and less fractious federal-provincial relations are bleak. A Conservative majority victory in the upcoming federal election is clearly more likely to result in fair treatment for Alberta and Saskatchewan than a win for the Carney Liberals. Mark Carney doesn’t appear to realize heightened levels of alienation in the producing provinces have the potential to raise discontent to levels not seen since the days of the National Energy Program.

The next election could well be our last chance to ensure the producing provinces are permitted to maximize their constitutionally guaranteed capacity to generate non-renewable resource revenues.

Continue Reading

Business

Biden-era tax on natural gas repealed, a boon for energy industry

Published on

Fr0m The Center Square

By Thérèse Boudreaux

America’s natural gas industry celebrated Monday after President Donald Trump signed into law a resolution repealing Biden-era fees on methane emissions.

The Waste Emissions Charge, which Republicans say is the equivalent of a natural gas tax, was authorized by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency in November 2024.

The resolution rescinds that regulation under the Congressional Review Act. The CRA legislation gives Congress the authority to repeal regulations issued during the final months of a previous administration.

House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., called the repeal “a victory for the American businesses and families who would have been forced to bear the cost of the Biden-Harris Administration’s natural gas tax.”

“It’s time to restore American energy dominance by harnessing innovation and producing the natural gas needed to support our electric grid,” Guthrie added.

Energy experts who testified before Congress in February said the high energy prices during Joe Biden’s presidency directly resulted from increased environmental regulations on energy production. The regulations slowed down domestic energy production and consequently led to increased costs, they said.

The American Exploration and Production Council (AXPC) shares the same view, praising Republicans in Congress and Trump for repealing the Waste Emissions Charge.

“AXPC thanks President Trump for signing the Congressional Review Act legislation – to undo EPA’s flawed rule to implement the natural gas tax,” AXPC CEO Anne Bradbury stated. “While American energy producers remain laser focused on reducing methane emissions, this punitive rule risked undermining those efforts.”

An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office shows that “Charging for methane emissions leads to an increase in the price of natural gas and a decrease in the quantity of natural gas produced and consumed.”

But environmental groups have argued that the legislation will increase energy costs and disrupt efforts to reduce emissions of a potent greenhouse gas. Nearly 80 environmentalist groups recently sent a letter urging lawmakers to keep the regulation, about to take effect, in place.

The Center Square reached out to multiple environmental groups but received no response in time for publication.

Continue Reading

Trending

X