[Travel] The 15 Minute City and Low Traffic Neighborhoods.

[studio150]

Given the lack of investment in essential services, locally we will have to be the 3 hour city at least, and that's probably running rather than walking.

 

[worthingseagull123]

15 minute cities wont stop anyone driving.

It means all what you are perceived to need is a 15 minute walk from home.

However if you’d rather drive 10 minutes up the road to better shops or leisure opportunities, you are pefectly free to so.

No one will be prevented from going where they want, how they want to get there or when they go.

 

[RexCathedra]

15 minute cities wont stop anyone driving.

It means all what you are perceived to need is a 15 minute walk from home.

However if you’d rather drive 10 minutes up the road to better shops or leisure opportunities, you are pefectly free to so.

No one will be prevented from going where they want, how they want to get there or when they go.

I know that, and you know that, but that's completely useless for winding-up purposes, now innit?

 

[dsr-burnley]

15 minute cities wont stop anyone driving.

It means all what you are perceived to need is a 15 minute walk from home.

However if you’d rather drive 10 minutes up the road to better shops or leisure opportunities, you are pefectly free to so.

No one will be prevented from going where they want, how they want to get there or when they go.

The policy is to charge people £70 if they drive from one zone to another. They hope is to create a "15 minute city" as a result, whereby all zones have shops, doctors, and the rest within 15 minutes walk or bike ride of home. (Which obviously for pensioners means about 200 yards, though with difficulties about carrying the shopping home!)
Where the plan falls down, or hasn't been thought through, is that it must of necessity involve families moving round if they don't want to live in separate "zones". Otherwise, the council will offer permits in certain circumstances for people to cross zones, a limited number of times a year, to go and visit relatives. That's where a load of the opposition comes from. Some people (not just right wingers) don't agree with the basic principle that the council has the right to control how often, and when, you go and visit family and friends, and that visiting family and friends can only be done by paying a swingeing fee or by getting a licence from the local council. If councils are to be given that sort of control over freedom of movement, it ought to be by Act of Parliament and be properly debated (and hopefully thrown out).

This argument isn't about whether creation of 15-minute cities is a good idea, it's about whether restricted driving zones is a good idea. (As a caveat, they have said that if you drive out to the ring road, go round, and drive back in again, you can avoid the charge. I'm not sure how the extra driving would benefit anyone's environment.)

 

[Papak]

LOL….YEAH RIGHT

its been muted in other places and thankfully started to be challenged so that it can be debated rather than enforced without any…oh of course ‘’a consultation period’’ will be talked about …pfft when the decision really has been already made …no doubt our resident critic of car drivers will say otherwise.

Oh and with reference to using social media to back up ones claims…….i dared to post a link to Oxfords proposals on facebook a month ago which was then deleted with a warning on the grounds of misinformation pfffft

The word is mooted, muted means quite the opposite!

 

[nicko31]

Piers Corbin and Lawrence Fox protesting. My default position being the opposite of that pair of helmets.

On my doorstep, a minority have been causing a lot of trouble over the LTNs, the ULEZ will follow. I guess, it was only a matter of time before the usual grifters turned up.

Lawrence was claiming 90% of people are against it, the only thing people are 90% against in Oxford are the Tories.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The policy is to charge people £70 if they drive from one zone to another. They hope is to create a "15 minute city" as a result, whereby all zones have shops, doctors, and the rest within 15 minutes walk or bike ride of home. (Which obviously for pensioners means about 200 yards, though with difficulties about carrying the shopping home!)
Where the plan falls down, or hasn't been thought through, is that it must of necessity involve families moving round if they don't want to live in separate "zones". Otherwise, the council will offer permits in certain circumstances for people to cross zones, a limited number of times a year, to go and visit relatives. That's where a load of the opposition comes from. Some people (not just right wingers) don't agree with the basic principle that the council has the right to control how often, and when, you go and visit family and friends, and that visiting family and friends can only be done by paying a swingeing fee or by getting a licence from the local council. If councils are to be given that sort of control over freedom of movement, it ought to be by Act of Parliament and be properly debated (and hopefully thrown out).

This argument isn't about whether creation of 15-minute cities is a good idea, it's about whether restricted driving zones is a good idea. (As a caveat, they have said that if you drive out to the ring road, go round, and drive back in again, you can avoid the charge. I'm not sure how the extra driving would benefit anyone's environment.)

Which policy in detail is this then? It's an urban planning concept isn't it, without specifics to it's implementation in whichever context.

Isn't the argument that safer, less congested, cleaner urban areas is a good idea.

 

[LamieRobertson]

The word is mooted, muted means quite the opposite!

The word is pedantic as in you knew exactly what I meant …I do tend to type on the go ..I’ll try and triple check in future

 

[Papak]

The word is pedantic as in you knew exactly what I meant …I do tend to type on the go ..I’ll try and triple check in future

Tomorrow's lesson will be on gratitude

 

[LamieRobertson]

Tomorrow's lesson will be on gratitude

Lol…now that’s a neat reply

 

[worthingseagull123]

The policy is to charge people £70 if they drive from one zone to another. They hope is to create a "15 minute city" as a result, whereby all zones have shops, doctors, and the rest within 15 minutes walk or bike ride of home. (Which obviously for pensioners means about 200 yards, though with difficulties about carrying the shopping home!)
Where the plan falls down, or hasn't been thought through, is that it must of necessity involve families moving round if they don't want to live in separate "zones". Otherwise, the council will offer permits in certain circumstances for people to cross zones, a limited number of times a year, to go and visit relatives. That's where a load of the opposition comes from. Some people (not just right wingers) don't agree with the basic principle that the council has the right to control how often, and when, you go and visit family and friends, and that visiting family and friends can only be done by paying a swingeing fee or by getting a licence from the local council. If councils are to be given that sort of control over freedom of movement, it ought to be by Act of Parliament and be properly debated (and hopefully thrown out).

This argument isn't about whether creation of 15-minute cities is a good idea, it's about whether restricted driving zones is a good idea. (As a caveat, they have said that if you drive out to the ring road, go round, and drive back in again, you can avoid the charge. I'm not sure how the extra driving would benefit anyone's environment.)

I think people can drive to any zone they want, as often as they want, but they have to go via the Oxford ring road.

I am sure that is the case.

Otherwise what if you live in Oxford but work in Milton Keynes? You have no option but to drive.

 

[um bongo molongo]

I live in NW London and often go weeks without getting in a car. But there’s some challenging infrastructure and choice issues. Not only do you need decent and extensive public transport options (which we’re lucky to have here), but as one example, there’s choice issues about schools. At my daughter’s (state) primary school they all walk to school. I’ve literally never seen a car drop a kid off there. But at the nearby religious and fee paying schools, it’s a very different story, with a very marked impact on traffic.

Anyway, we all know in practice they’ll just use it as an excuse to rinse more money out of us.

 

[Rogero]

Brighton and Adur have signed up to this . It could get interesting . I saw a video yesterday of woman who wanted to get through some barriers and said she was willing to pay the fine and the so called security guards would not let her .

 

[Stat Brother]

Brighton and Adur have signed up to this . It could get interesting . I saw a video yesterday of woman who wanted to get through some barriers and said she was willing to pay the fine and the so called security guards would not let her .

They weren't so called security guards, just people assisting car drivers following the law.
Something the driver in question was refusing to do.

 

[Rogero]

They are allowed to drive through but have to pay a fine if they do is how I understand it .

 

[Stat Brother]

They are allowed to drive through but have to pay a fine if they do is how I understand it .

The signage suggests otherwise.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

LOL….YEAH RIGHT

its been muted in other places and thankfully started to be challenged so that it can be debated rather than enforced without any…oh of course ‘’a consultation period’’ will be talked about …pfft when the decision really has been already made …no doubt our resident critic of car drivers will say otherwise.

Oh and with reference to using social media to back up ones claims…….i dared to post a link to Oxfords proposals on facebook a month ago which was then deleted with a warning on the grounds of misinformation pfffft

I'm afraid that @Stat Brother has rather stumped me with this. Is it possible for someone to post a succinct synopsis? In the mean time my response will have to remain mooted . . . . .

 

[Stat Brother]

I'm afraid that @Stat Brother has rather stumped me with this. Is it possible for someone to post a succinct synopsis? In the mean time my response will have to remain mooted . . . . .

Should that not be muted?

 

[Swansman]

When Sweden decided to build one million apartments in the 1960s (a big change considering there was only about 3.5 million prior to that), part of the model was the 15 minute city.

Its really not a problem... at all.

Agree with this protestors about the IoT shit though as it essentially enables mass surveillance .

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Should that not be muted?

You won't whoosh me that easily, you crafty lycra-clad weasel.