Comments on: Should the “20 minute city” be the key objective of planning?

By: Alan Davies

Alan Davies — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 04:52:02 +0000

green-orange #8:

"The only “solution” is higher density, something that Mr Davies opposes"

Er, no I don't! Where on earth did you get that crazy idea? I've been lambasted on these pages for favouring higher density, too. The world is, indeed, a strange place.

By: green-orange

green-orange — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 02:11:45 +0000

Bullcr*p.

Specialisation occurs becuase of zoning which restricts the natural distribution of services. I’m reminded of a town planner in Adelaide which moaned the prescence of mechanics, car yards and service stations “cluttering” up the CBD “compared with world cities like New York or Paris”. Apparently Paris and New York have no service stations !

The post War planners used zoning laws to deliberately segregate land uses in some utopian fantasy of the “urban village”. The lack of access didn’t bother them because people had cars. In the future, when the roads became congested, well we were all going to have atomic powered hover sleds weren’t we ?

The postwar solution is failing. The outer suburbs are now so far from work that they are no longer viable. As you get further from the centre, the amount of work within 30 minutes gets smaller and smaller.

The only “solution” is higher density, something that Mr Davies opposes.

By: Shaniq'ua Shardonn'ay

Shaniq'ua Shardonn'ay — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 00:32:42 +0000

This map I discovered recently illustrates the commute many people make to the University of Ballarat: http://webapps.ballarat.edu.au/maps/ub_commute/
Even in low density areas commuting to and from work is not a simple process.

By: IkaInk

IkaInk — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 03:51:25 +0000

@Dylan – I agree wholeheartedly. I’ve no problem with households owning a car, and under the circumstances of the city completely understand why many households would own multiple cars. I do however believe cities on the whole would be far more ideal if one car was enough per household, and that at least a sizeable portion of the population could go without any car. The environmental, and social benefits would be significant.

By: Dylan Nicholson

Dylan Nicholson — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 03:38:40 +0000

Samuel, I was actually going to say ‘sunk cost fallacy’, but it’s not *entirely* a fallacy in the sense that many transport options do some significantly cheaper than using a car only if you don’t actually have to purchase a car.
Personally I think a goal of no households of 2 adults/2 kids feeling the need to own more than 1 car would be worth pursuing.

By: Samuel

Samuel — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 03:08:01 +0000

The major deficiency of the 20 minute city is that it expresses the cost of travel solely in terms of time. Within this framework, any project or service change that would reduce travel time to a key destination for some group of people below 20 minutes is justified. These decisions also need to consider the monetary costs of the project or service (not to mention other environmental, social and economic costs).

The analysis also ignores that people don’t make single trips, they make journeys that string together many trips. Do I need to live within in 20 minutes of everything, or is it acceptable to have several destinations within thirty minutes as long as I normally visit them altogether.

Dylan at 2. Owners of cars should ignore sunk costs when deciding whether to use the car for a particular trip. They can’t reduce these costs by not using the car. The time to have considered the cost of purchase etc, was when they bought the car. Cars are good. Pollution, congestion and other externalities of cars are bad.

By: melburnite

melburnite — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 02:28:54 +0000

Absolutely agree with everything you say I think Alan – yes many if not most people already live in a ’20 minute city’ assuming a car is available, and the things that are 20 minutes away are everyday things, not work or major shopping or entertainment. To achieve work and special destination trips to be 20 mins as well is quite unrealistic. So the strategy should certainly refine what it wants to achieve.

By: Dylan Nicholson

Dylan Nicholson — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 22:52:30 +0000

I’d be more than happy to scrap the 20 minute city idea and propose that the goal to be ensure that no residential zones are so devoid of retail and commercial options that those who live in them have no real choice but to drive. There’s so much wrong with the idea that “virtually all households have at least one car therefore we shouldn’t worry if people have to drive 20 minutes to get where they want” that I don’t even know where to start – but I’ll throw out two obvious problems: a) plenty of households can only afford one car, but have multiple people who need to travel to different locations at the same time, b) households that have realised they now need 2+ cars to get everywhere where they need to be have made such an investment in said vehicles that they get used far more than really makes sense, due to sunk costs etc. etc.

By: hk

hk — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 22:04:35 +0000

Maybe the level of debate would be improved by including statements focusing on aims for time-use which are based on averages such as 80% of trips for 80% of a person’s needs should be within 20 minutes of home, work and/or school?