Counterpoint: We need a 2040 Plan for Minneapolis, not Fantasyland

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Minneapolis adopted a new long-range plan in 2018. One of its core ideas is that we need much more housing density in our urban core to preserve habitat, transform how people travel, and fight climate change. To this end, the city created a long-range plan that assumed a 75% population growth by 2040 and a transportation plan that assumed a 60% reduction in driving by 2030.

Density would be supported by transit and transit would support density. This was the “density compact” referred to in “Density minus transit equals failure” (Opinion Exchange, Jan. 23). This commentary argues that a lack of transit investment is holding back the creation of density needed to fight climate change.

Trouble is, both of the core assumptions of the plan are fantasies. Reality is that from 2020 to 2024, the population of Minneapolis declined and it is forecast to grow only 11% in the next 20 years. The reason for the small amount of growth is that the United States is not having enough babies to even come close to replacing its population. The last time the United States had enough babies to replace its population was in 2007 and that was a blip. Eight states actually shrank in 2023. Immigration is the only reason we are not removing housing.

We will never, ever see 75% growth. Not even close. Seattle grew 30% from 2020 to 2030 and Minneapolis is not Seattle.

Likewise, the idea of a 60% reduction in auto travel and a commensurate increase in walking, biking and transit is also a fantasy. Rather than seeing transit ridership doubling or tripling or more, local ridership declined 25% in the eight years prior to the pandemic and another 40% post-pandemic. It is recovering now, but a major issue is that foot traffic is down 45% in the region’s biggest transit destination, downtown Minneapolis.

Yet Minneapolis is building as if this dream world is coming true. It now allows much bigger and taller buildings almost anywhere in the city instead of just at transit nodes. It no longer requires parking with new housing because it presumes it is unneeded, is rebuilding its streets for transit and bikes instead of automobiles, and is removing parking in commercial nodes. Protections for affordable existing single-family homes were eliminated to expose every single parcel to densification.

The state massively increased transit funding in the last session under the assumption of a huge increase in transit ridership from all this new density. But it all is built on sand.

The 2040 Plan was designed to make people feel good. To make them feel like they have agency and efficacy over climate change. I get it. I wish I could be the hero and stop climate change too. But at some point, reality has to set in. There will be no massive change in housing density. There will be no massive change in how we travel.

The question is, what can we realistically do about climate change if we plan for reality?