File this under “Creative Revenue Streams”:  Missouri lawmakers are considering legislation that would allow school districts to sell ad space on their buses as a way of raising revenue, and at least one school district is already taking the idea very seriously (emphasis mine).

The people who have researched the idea said it wouldn’t bring in a ton of money, but many districts are in a position where every little bit helps.

Parents and school officials in the Lee’s Summit School District met and discussed the idea Thursday evening.

Parent Keith Asel said it could make about $500,000 for Lee’s Summit schools.

“With all the budget cuts we’ve had, if we can just incrementally move the needle through things like school bus advertising, we can get to a number that really makes a difference,” he said. “We’ve got to think outside the box. The traditional means, I mean, we’ve already put such a burden on taxpayers.”

As it turns out, 17 states already allow districts to implement such an advertising program. Parents at the meeting reportedly did not have a problem with the idea, either, so long as the advertisements are age-appropriate. Supporters said ads for “alcohol, tobacco and even sugary foods” would be “restricted,” which I assume means effectively or explicitly “banned.”

My take? It is a great idea. Until I saw this story I had not realized that such a bill was floating around the Capitol, but apparently the bill has support from both sides of the aisle. Like the parent in the report says, we have to “think outside the box” if we want to improve education and reduce tax burdens. This, to me, is a great proposal that seems like it would promote both objectives.

The Kansas City Police Department recently completed a study of the city’s red light camera program, detailed in the Kansas City Star. The study’s focus? Whether red light cameras have improved safety on Kansas City streets since they were installed in January 2009. The conclusion? No.

Since January 2009, accidents increased at 11 of 17 monitored intersections, and fatal crashes increased at 13 of those locations. Kansas City is not the first to see this happen with its red light camera program. The Star interviewed University of Illinois at Chicago Assistant Professor Rajiv Shah, who studied a red light camera program in Chicago:

“I’d say [Kansas City’s results are] very consistent with what cities across America have found . . . There’s really not a hard connection between reducing accidents and red-light cameras.”

The results of this study should have red light camera proponents reevaluating their positions. As we have pointed out before, red light cameras have many problems: they invade privacy and create a constitutionally suspect presumption of guilt. They are also prone to mistake. Brenda Talent, executive director of the Show-Me Institute, was fined for a violation she did not commit in Kansas City last year, and 1,000 lucky drivers were falsely accused of running red lights in Arnold, Mo., just two weeks ago.

Not surprisingly, American Traffic Solutions, the company that runs the program, publicly criticized the police department’s findings. ATS identified weather patterns, impaired drivers, and cell phone usage as the cause for increased wrecks. In other words, ATS identified anything but the red light cameras, which the company receives $1.6 million a year to operate, as the culprit for the increased crashes.

Despite the police study, it is likely that camera proponents will not rest. The Star editorial focused on a study by city engineers that found a decrease in total violations at monitored intersections. The Star praised the decrease in violations and declared that “red light cameras are working in Kansas City.” Fewer people running red lights, maybe; but if more accidents are occurring at monitored intersections, it is a stretch to conclude that red light cameras improve safety just because total violations have dropped.

Much to the dismay of proponents like the Star, the police study just confirmed what we already knew. Red light cameras are not about public safety, they are about generating revenue through traffic enforcement. The program has been very lucrative in Kansas City. The police study reports that officers have written nearly 200,000 tickets at $100 per ticket — adding $20 million to the city coffers.

I saw this excellent story on Tony’s Kansas City. Independence, Mo., is privatizing bus and transit services within the city. The Independence City Council has decided to contract with a private bus operator to meet the city’s transit needs, and I think that is great. (The city intends to maintain some service from ATA, the Kansas City public transit provider, so this is not a 100 percent privatization. But it is close.)

I look forward to seeing how this works out for the city and its residents. I am confident it is going to work out great. In our policy study on public-private partnerships for Missouri transportation, we discussed these options for transit at length (see Section VII, pages 32-36). There are many examples of successful transit privatization efforts in the United States, including Las Vegas and Denver. Here is a key finding from Wendell Cox, a local authority on transit and highways, as quoted in the policy study (note: competitive contracting is a common form of privatization):

Competitive contracting has produced positive results for transit agencies in the United States and abroad. The quality of competitively bid transit has been found to be equal to or better than that provided previously, and ridership has generally risen as cost savings allow for expanded service. According to Wendell Cox, direct savings from competitive contracting have ranged from 14 to 52 percent, with an average of 30 percent, over the former non-competitive service in cities that have competitively contracted out at least 10 percent of their service.

After this transit privatization works out to everyone’s benefit, I hope Independence can privatize a few more things. To their additional credit, at least the golf courses in the city are all privately operated.

If you have not done so lately, check out the latest videos on our video page.

A couple recent videos:

• Are Missouri Public Schools Failing to Make the Grade? Saint Louis Public Schools Superintendent Kelvin Adams and University of Missouri Professor Michael Podgursky have the scoop.
• If You Play, You Pay I-70 in Missouri may be switching to a toll road, and Show-Me Institute Policy Analyst David Stokes thinks this sounds better than raising gas taxes for everyone.

Both videos are embedded below.

Please check out this op-ed that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran yesterday on turning I-70 into a toll road. Be sure to also read the comments – they are wonderful. Man, am I ever an idiot . . .

This afternoon, I am pleased to appear on the Mark Reardon show on KMOX NewsRadio 1120 to discuss this issue. I will be on during the 3 p.m. time slot. Please listen in if you can.

I support turning I-70 into a toll road, for reasons discussed in the op-ed and in this blog post.

This Missouri News Horizon story has some updated information on the Missouri Department of Transportation’s (MoDOT) proposal to institute tolling on I-70. The story has some good information about the plan; a plan that I enthusiastically support. I think this is an excellent plan from MoDOT.

MoDOT officials state that in order to pay to rebuild I-70 using gas taxes (and I have nothing against gas taxes; I just prefer tolls where feasible), they would have to impose a 15-cent per gallon state gas tax hike. I am going to do a follow-up post next week on costs after I have time to work through the numbers, but for now, realize that everyone in Missouri would pay that same extra 15 cents, including people who rarely use highways, particularly I-70. People in Kennett would pay the same as people in Kingdom City. People who drive primarily on local roads (paid for with local property and sales taxes as well as gas taxes) would pay the same as people who drive predominantly on highways (which gas taxes pay for almost entirely).

The Show-Me Institute released a terrific study on private financing of highways back in November 2008. The study was done by “distinguished urban economist” (Freakonomics’ words, not mine) Kenneth Small. It may be my favorite paper that we have released, and it has something important to say about this exchange in the hearing with MoDOT yesterday:

Committee chair, Sen. Bill Stouffer, R-Napton, said he was concerned that motorists may try to avoid I-70 if it became a toll road, pushing traffic onto smaller roads, such as Highway 36 and Highway 50.

Keith said the concern was valid, but it would be up to the toll road operator to make sure tolls aren’t excessive.

The concern about traffic being pushed onto other roads because of high tolls is legitimate. Prof. Small states on page 23 of the study: 

The best results occur when the objective for awarding the franchise takes into account a combination of all three forms of payment by users and taxpayers: their own costs of congestion, toll payments, and the subsidy required. This is a highly stylized model not suited for designing a franchise for a specific road, but it does highlight the importance of considering not only toll payments and subsidies but also congestion costs incurred by users of both roads. 

I have one minor critisicm of the proposal. I do not think this should be required:

After the project is complete, the contractors would operate the toll plazas for a period of years until the contractor’s investment has been repaid.

I say just toll it now and forever. After the investment is repaid, there will still be maintenance costs. It may be reasonable to require that the toll be lowered at that point in time (when the debt is gone and MoDOT faces just upkeep), but doing away with toll at that point is not necessary, in my opinion. However, that point is minor, and I think MoDOT deserves great credit for this proposal.

Over at the St. Louis Beacon, high-speed spending (and rail) enthusiast Rick Harnish is just flat-out misleading people to get his beloved waste-of-money concept going. Throughout the article, he keeps referring to trips between Saint Louis and Chicago taking 3, or perhaps down to 2, hours.

But the core of it is getting major cities within two or three hours of each other. So, St. Louis to Chicago within three hours — with completely new infrastructure the entire way, it’s possible you get it down under two.

But you know what? The entire project currently underway in Illinois is based on implementing a 4-hour trip each way (at best). We are spending billions to knock a little more than an hour off of the current Amtrak route, and supporters of it are intentionally downplaying that.

Later in the interview, Harnish gives a great little aside downplaying safety of cars and claiming, by insinuation, that trains are safer.

. . . if you believe that our strength and unique identity is tied to the ability to risk your life everyday in a car . . .

OK, so we risk our lives everyday in a car. Would we not risk them in a train? Now, I am not saying passenger trains are unsafe — they are indeed safe. But if you compare them to cars, there are more fatalities on passenger rail than in motor vehicles per passenger mile. According to the latest data, passenger cars have 0.9 fatalities and 83 injuries per 100 million passenger miles. Passenger rail has 2.9 fatalities and 1,226 injuries per 100 million passenger miles. So they are both safe, but let’s not pretend passenger rail is safer.

High-speed rail is to transportation policy what ethanol is to agriculture policy. They are both high-cost jokes designed to please limited constituent groups (corn farmers, unions, Keynesian economists) which would not exist if markets made these choices instead of politicians. (High-speed rail on the eastern seaboard may pass the market test, and thanks to John Combest for the link.)

There is no ballpark quite like Wrigley Field. Although I am a diehard Cardinals fan who passionately despises the Chicago Cubs, I can appreciate a truly great and historic ballpark when I see it.

Last weekend, I traveled to Chicago to see some college friends and visit Wrigley for the first time. I thought about driving, but that would have set me back about $100 in gas. I thought about flying, but airfare to Chicago was running above $250. I thought about Amtrak, but that would have set me back about $60 roundtrip.

Instead, I took Megabus to and from Chicago for a total of $21 roundtrip. That cost you, the taxpayer, next to nothing because private commercial buses receive an average federal subsidy of $0.10 per passenger per trip. Amtrak, on the other hand, receives an average federal subsidy of $57.04 per passenger per trip.

I personally don’t think subsidies are necessary and would willingly pay an extra 10 cents for my bus fare if federal subsidies were discontinued. Compared to Amtrak subsidies, however, the cost to taxpayers is negligible.

Through federal subsidies, intercity buses are partly exempt from the federal diesel fuel tax, paying 7.4 cents per gallon instead of 24.3 cents. Assuming that the bus got 4 miles to the gallon on the 300 mile trip to Chicago, Megabus would have paid $18.23 in tax to the federal government, but because of the subsidy, the company only paid $5.55. The company still paid the full state tax on fuel.

Commercial buses are a great example of the private sector stepping in to satisfy a demand that benefits consumers with a negligible burden on taxpayers.

I had an excellent trip because of Megabus. But next time I go to Wrigley, I better not see that silly white flag.

Working at the Show-Me Institute, located in the highly walkable Central West End, my colleagues and I often take short walks to lunch. Recently, food trucks have entered the competition for our dining dollars.

Given the large crowds that form around these trucks, they seem to be a hit, but apparently this is not the case for everyone. This week, police have cracked down on food trucks in the area — allegedly in response to a complaint.

A regulation in the city code forbids street vending within the Central West End, but until recently the restriction had not been enforced. Earlier this week, officers and inspectors issued warnings to multiple food trucks asking them to leave the area or face fines for violating vending regulations.

Christine Harbin, a former SMI policy analyst, wrote numerous times on these restrictions on private enterprise. First spotting food trucks in the Central West End back in March, she later followed up on the issue in a video interviewing both food truck owners and their customers. The verdict is still clear: there exists a strong consumer demand for these food trucks. Why should government inhibit healthy competition and growth of consumer choices?

Some people worry about the safety and health concerns associated with food trucks, but like any other restaurant or food provider, they must undergo government health and safety inspections to obtain permits for legally selling their goods.

Another common concern is the potential increase in street congestion. In Dr. Donald Shoup’s book, The High Cost of Free Parking, he explains the best way to manage street traffic is to introduce market determined parking fees.  Parking is not a free good, and should not be treated as one. Busy streets with more traffic and higher demand would have higher parking fees, while quiet less crowded streets with lower demand would cost less. This would force food trucks to internalize the externality of over consuming street parking.  If the trucks wanted prime location they would have to pay extra for it.

These trucks may be “technically illegal” in the area, but clearly there is a demand here that the government is barring. Originally, the downtown area had this same restriction, but now it benefits from many popular street vendors and food trucks. Why should the Central West End or any other area be treated differently?

Consumers would benefit if this restrictive ordinance was repealed throughout St. Louis, allowing their preferences — not the preferences of bureaucrats — to dictate food trucks’ placement and success.

To follow this issue further, watch Christine’s other video on the subject in which food truck owner Jeff Pupillo and a number of customers weigh in on food trucks and the unwanted competition they provide for some local restaurants.

I wish Missouri had a line-item veto for more than just budget bills. That way, Governor Nixon could have vetoed the part of HB 430 he didn’t like concerning billboard laws, and leave intact the other good parts of the bill. Especially — and if you visit here much you probably know where this is going — the parts of the bill that substantially changed and reduced Missouri’s ridiculous requirements for mover company licensing.

The other veto is just strange. It is not that I support the bill as much as I find the reason for the veto perplexing. The Governor vetoed HB 1008 because he felt it might authorize toll roads in Missouri. Of course, I want more toll roads in Missouri. But the legislation says nothing about tolling, and the author of the bill, Rep. Thomas Long, says it has nothing to do with tolls. But even if it did have something to do with tolls, allowing private parties to finance and operate highways and bridges would be good for Missouri’s economy, not harmful.

I repeat that I think Missouri should allow line-item vetoes for more than just budget bills.

And a hat tip to Combest for the original link to the story.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has once again changed its policy regarding private airport screeners — this time allowing airports across the country to apply to opt out of using the TSA and hire private security firms instead. We followed this before, when in February, the TSA announced that it would not allow any additional airports to opt out. Springfield-Branson Airport was one of the airports denied the use of private screeners under the old policy.

Springfield-Branson has been invited to reapply for permission to use private screeners and join Kansas City International Airport as one of the current 16 airports that contract private security firms.

The new application process has more requirements than it did before February, but hey, it’s a good start. Having private security firms provides competition for the TSA and that’s good because it boosts efficiency and cuts costs.

My colleague David Stokes put it best in a blog post earlier this year:

“The very existence of competition brings a greater degree of efficiency to the TSA, even if it continues to do the screening in the vast majority of American airports . . . but if the presence of competition in a small number of airports serves to reduce the TSA’s complacency, that benefits all of us.”

More importantly, could it mean more green in your wallet? As the Riverfront Times notes (emphasis added):

Motorists driving along roadways maintained by the Missouri Department of Transportation could receive fewer red-light camera tickets if preliminary reports from Arnold ring true statewide.

Beginning in February, MoDOT began changing the yellow-light signal times throughout Arnold, where all the city’s red-light cameras happen to be along state-controlled roads. In general, the change to the signals has lengthened the amount of time for yellow lights.

For example, motorists traveling southbound through the intersection of Highway 141 and Astra Way now have 1.6 seconds more yellow time — from 4 seconds to 5.6 seconds. MoDOT has also changed the length of time that all signals at an intersection appear red, generally giving intersections a bit more time to clear all cars before changing lights.

In so doing, Arnold has experienced an unintended consequence — the number of red-light runners has plummeted since MoDOT made the changes.

In January, the city issued 691 red-light camera citations, according to information obtained from a city council member. By March, the number of citations had dropped to 263. Last month, the vendor that operates Arnold’s red-light cameras — American Traffic Solutions — confirms that it issued just 198 citations. That’s a drop of 72 percent from the number of citations issued in January.

The Show-Me Institute has a long history of opposing red light cameras, particularly given the cameras’ questionable effectiveness in preventing accidents yet prodigious aptitude for raising money for cities. Lately, though, Missouri’s red light camera industry has been traversing rocky judicial and legislative roads. Earlier this month, policy analyst David Stokes astutely reviewed one court ruling in Saint Louis that could very well cripple the use of red light camera systems in the city. His analysis:

It will probably take an act of the legislature to declare unequivocally that red light camera programs are invalid as a matter of state law, but the red light camera issue may, for all practical purposes, be resolved by adjusting the signals where the cameras sit. The roads in Missouri may be getting a great deal safer, just by adding a little more time to yellow lights — a simple, nearly costless solution to an important issue of public safety.

Cities must be elated. After all, “safety” was the driving purpose behind their use of these cameras anyway, right?

Right?