COVID-19 has brought to light the irrationalities of city planning
In opposing central planning, Frederick Hayek brought up one important point: No one has enough collective knowledge of time and space to plan society. Individuals, generally, have different needs and preferences. Moreover, even for the same individual, needs and preferences are constantly changing over time.
This is why Hayek emphasized that prices in a free market are a superior tool for allocating resources. Prices signal to entrepreneurs where resources are most needed and, therefore, most valued. Additionally, prices are flexible, so they can communicate changes in needs and preferences. Centrally planned ideas lack the flexibility to accommodate people’s changing needs and preferences, often leading to waste and inefficiency.
Nothing currently illustrates this better than what has happened to transit (and plans contingent on transit) during the pandemic.
COVID-19 and public transit ridership
In 2003, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners established the Transit-Oriented-Development (TOD) plan to spark development centered around the transit system. As described, the TOD is “a walkable urban development supported by high-quality, frequent transit service” and includes “a mix of housing, retail, employment, retail, and recreational choices, allowing people to live and work in vibrant places with less dependence on a personal car.”
During the pandemic, however, transit ridership has gone down partly as a combination of growing remote work and social distancing behaviors.
In October, KSTP reported that,
According to Metro Transit, ridership is down 96% since last March when the pandemic was declared. To put that into perspective: in April 2019, there were 65,532 riders. In April 2020, the number of riders plunged to 1,352— a 97.9% decrease. It got even worse in May, dropping from 72,130 riders in 2019 to 1,158 in May 2020, a 98.4% decrease. The numbers have only slightly rebounded in August (down 97%) and September (down 96%).
In other words, the MET Council’s plans are now less feasible than when they were made back in 2003 due to changing conditions. To go through the same kind of plans now would likely cost more than before, and likely not accomplish the intended results.
Central planning = Waste and inefficiency
Certainly, the COVID-19 pandemic was unforeseen. However, private actors and businesses have been able to adjust their behaviors to accommodate changing conditions. The same cannot be said about the government.
Despite the declining feasibility and growing costs, the MET council is still forging ahead with transit-oriented development. In fact, in October, the MET Council announced that it
has $4.5 million in grants for transit-oriented development in Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and St. Louis Park. The grant awards help make it possible for people to live near transit services that help them get to jobs, school, appointments, shopping, and other destinations.
Three grant awards will help create 332 homes for families and individuals, most of them affordable to households with an annual income at or below 60% of area median income, which for a family of four is $62,040. The grants will help create nearly 60 full-time permanent jobs and nearly 700 temporary (or construction) jobs.
Research by the Center of the American Experiment has already shown that,
The Met Council’s supposedly expert planning has produced unaffordable housing, growing traffic congestion, a misallocation of scarce resources to obsolete transportation systems, and efforts to socially engineer a massive change in lifestyles to fit planners’ ideologies.
Forging ahead with transit-oriented development would likely result in much of the same, if not worse results, especially considering changing transport and housing needs since the pandemic.