The hypermobility fallacy: trading quality of life and place for the illusion of efficiency and speed

For too long, urban transport planning has been seduced by the siren song of hypermobility – the relentless pursuit of moving ever more people across ever greater distances, ever faster. This obsession, underpinned by the alluring promise of “saved time”, is a fallacy, one that systematically undermines the richness of urban life.

In the context of multiple crises—the cost of living, biodiversity collapse, loneliness, liveability (hell, even loveability)—it’s imperative that we dismantle this flawed paradigm and take a more human centred approach to urban mobility.

And to do this, we need to begin with time itself.

In his book Four Thousand Weeks, Oliver Burkeman exposes the inherent limitations of our time obsessed culture. We are snared in a “time utilisation trap”; the misguided belief that we can (and should) maximise the use of our finite time to accomplish everything we feel we should or could. This trap is fuelled by the illusion of control, is a productivity myth, leads to chronic overwhelm, and distracts us from meaningful choices—all pitfalls that directly correlate to our approach to urban transport and mobility. We relentlessly strive for efficiency in our transport systems, driven by the belief that we can bank these “saved” minutes for more productive or leisure activities.

Yet, as Burkeman compellingly argues, this pursuit often leaves us feeling more pressured and less present. We become so fixated on reaching the destination—the supposed bounty of “saved” time—that we disregard the journey itself and the immediate moment. This is the hypermobility fallacy: the singular focus on increasing travel speed and distance and reducing travel time, often at the profound expense of the quality of the transit experience and the very character of the urban environments we navigate.

We’ve forgotten that transport is a means to an end; that “end” is a city we’re all proud to call home. So, what would it take for urban transport to instil this sense of pride?

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig explores the distinction between what he refers to as “classical” and “romantic” quality. While it’s discussed through the metaphor of his motorcycle, this distinction provides a powerful lens through which to critique hypermobility.

Our dominant transport paradigm overwhelmingly favours what Pirsig refers to as “classical quality” – the quantifiable, the efficient, the ostensibly logical. We laud the engineering prowess of sprawling motorway networks and high speed rail lines, judging their success by metrics like vehicle throughput and reductions in advertised journey times.

However, this relentless pursuit of objective efficiency frequently blinds us to Pirsig’s “romantic quality” – the immediate, sensory experience of movement, the tangible connection to our surroundings, and the genuine feeling a place evokes. A vast arterial road might be classically “efficient” in funnelling vehicles, but it rarely engenders a sense of quality or enhances the lived experience of the communities it bisects. This remains true for this road even if it hosts more sustainable modes like bus rapid transit (BRT) or protected bicycle lanes.

Frédéric Gros’s A Philosophy of Walking explores the romantic quality of a much slower form of transport, walking. Gros elucidates walking not merely as a means to an end but as a fundamental way of engaging with the world. Walking necessitates a slower pace, fostering a deeper connection with our surroundings, prompting contemplation, and sharpening our awareness of place. It underscores the inherent value in the journey itself, a stark contradiction to the hypermobile imperative of minimising travel duration. Gros reminds us that to walk is to take the time, to permit the world to unfold at a human rhythm, and to cultivate a profound relationship with the landscapes and urban environments through which we move.

Crucially, and to bring this philosophical discussion back to our current reality, the justification for many hypermobilities focused transport projects often hinges on the supposed economic benefits derived from “travel time savings”.

However, a significant body of research, and I could list endless references here – exposes this as the lynchpin in the hypermobility fallacy. The predicted travel time savings from increased road capacity or faster transit options are rarely, if ever, fully realised. Instead, these “saved” minutes tend to be absorbed by induced demand – more people choosing to travel further or more frequently, ultimately leading to the restoration of congestion levels. The promised time savings, the cornerstone of many costly infrastructure projects, become a phantom benefit, a perpetually receding horizon.

Applying a “romantic transport” mindset to urban transport planning compels a radical rethinking of priorities. If the much vaunted travel time savings are largely illusory, then the justification for projects that prioritise hypermobility at the expense of local amenities and quality of life evaporates.

A shift from classical to romantic transport would see us focus on:

• embracing proximity and localised living: Creating more compact, mixed use neighbourhoods where daily needs are within easy walking or cycling distance fundamentally reduces the need for long, time consuming commutes, rendering the pursuit of marginal time savings less relevant. This resonates with Gros’s emphasis on immediate surroundings and challenges the economic models built on the false premise of ever increasing mobility.
• investing in quality transit experiences: Prioritising investment in public transport that is not merely a means of conveyance but a comfortable, reliable, and even enjoyable experience. This includes well designed infrastructure, frequent service, and integrated networks that serve local needs effectively, rather than solely focusing on rapid transit to distant centres. If the time “saved” is never truly realised, the focus should shift to making the unavoidable travel time more pleasant and productive.
• prioritising people and place: Recognising that streets and public spaces are not simply arteries for vehicular flow but vital components of the urban social fabric. Designing infrastructure that prioritises pedestrians, cyclists, and public realm enhancements, even if it entails marginal increases in some journey times, fosters more vibrant, liveable, and economically resilient communities. This directly counters the hypermobile logic that prioritises travel speed above all else.
• valuing slower, more engaging modes: Acknowledging the inherent value in slower modes of transport. Investing in pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, greenways, and potentially even slower, more scenic public transport options, recognises that some journeys are about the experience, not just the arrival. This aligns with Gros’s philosophy of walking as a way of being in the world and rejects the singular focus on minimising transit time.

The hypermobility fallacy, built on the deceptive promise of unrealised time savings, has led us down a path of sprawling cities, congested roadways, and a diminished quality of urban life. It is expensive to the point of unaffordable. It is deeply unsustainable and climate destroying.

By acknowledging the illusion of these “saved” minutes and embracing a more holistic understanding of time, quality, and movement, we can begin to design urban transport systems that truly serve the wellbeing of our communities and foster a richer, more meaningful experience of the places we inhabit.

The focus must shift from chasing phantom time to cultivating quality of life, one journey at a time.

---