A seemingly non-controversial urban planning concept has triggered protests in Oxford, UK and widespread derision on social media. An idea promising benefits for both the environment and our physical wellbeing is now seen by many as a new form of tyranny.

As Wikipedia explains: “The 15-minute city is an urban concept in which most daily necessities and services, such as work, shopping, education, healthcare, and leisure, should be located within an easily reachable 15-minute walk or bike ride from any point in the city. This approach aims to reduce car dependency, promote healthy and sustainable living, and improve the overall quality of life for city dwellers.”

Walking or biking to common destinations rather than driving is attractive because it promotes exercise while reducing the environmental impact of passenger vehicles. The popularity of Redfin’s Walk Score and the premium commanded by real estate in walkable communities show that many people value living in convenient locations. And there is reason to believe that the demand for walkability is rising.

After World War II, car-oriented subdivisions became popular as more were able to afford single family homes, with the space and privacy they offered. The need to drive everywhere seemed a reasonable price to pay for these benefits. Today, with more people living alone, having fewer children, or retiring as empty nesters, the tradeoff between space and convenience is shifting in the opposite direction.

Policy can support the transition to greater walkability through zoning changes that promote mixed use communities. As offices lose popularity, downtowns can be diversified to include more apartment buildings, ideally with ground floor retail. On residential streets near downtown, single family homes can be gradually replaced by multi-family dwellings, medical offices, and stores.

As trips by foot and bike replace car trips within a mixed-use community, it may also make sense to tweak the streetscape to enhance safety for pedestrians and bikers. Bike accommodations should also work for those using scooters.

But if urban planners make changes in a heavy-handed manner, the likelihood of popular pushback increases. Accommodations for pedestrians and bikers almost inevitably inconvenience drivers, but policies whose main objective is to make driving more difficult foster resentment.

In Oxford, protestors destroyed bollards placed by the city government to block off specific streets that normally accommodate passenger vehicles. (Another college city, Berkeley, CA, has been blocking city streets to vehicular traffic since 1975.) Oxford is also being criticized for its plan to impose fines on motorists for driving between sections of the city rather than remaining in their zone.

Similarly, converting traffic lanes or parking spaces to bike lanes can upset drivers and small business owners especially if the bike lanes are poorly utilized. In San Diego, reporters counted only 43 cyclists using a recently installed bike lane during a 2–1/2 hour period at midday. A jewelry store owner along the route reported fewer customer visits and complaints about parking from those that did reach her store. In an op-ed about empty bike lanes, Bill Slack noted that hilly San Diego would be challenged to achieve the level of bicycle utilization seen in flat European cities like Amsterdam held up as exemplars by new urbanists.

If 15-Minute Cities are indeed an idea whose time has come, it will be adopted through choice with the support of relatively modest policy change. But if planners try to impose this vision through coercive or heavy-handed policies, the backlash in Oxford could spread. Gradual adoption may be frustrating to urban planners anxious to tackle climate change, but it is always worth remembering that automobile usage in any given city makes a miniscule contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions.