This notice may be too late for those of you who read our blog to tune in, but for those of you Columbia readers who encounter this blog entry right after I post it and find yourselves near a radio, be sure to tune in to The Eagle 93.9 FM at 4:33 p.m. to hear research assistant John Payne talk about unemployment and possibly our new study of the relationship between taxes and economic growth.

Charles Jaco just finished taping an interview with Show-Me Institute research assistant John Payne, about the Metro mass transit system in the St. Louis area. At least some portion of it is slated to appear in tonight’s FOX 2 news broadcast at 10:00. Be sure to tune in. [UPDATE: The video is now online.]

For more information about St. Louis transit, read Payne’s recent op-ed about MetroLink, which also ran on the Riverfront Times blog and in the St. Louis Business Journal. His commentary attracted some attention from a Metro board member, who responded on our blog, followed by a short rejoinder by Payne.

The Show-Me Institute ran a trio of pieces in October 2008 about transit funding in St. Louis, considering the problem from different angles. We’ve also been fortunate enough to publish a few pieces analyzing Kansas City light rail plans, by transit scholar Randal O’Toole and policy analyst David Stokes. Although these latter pieces considered the issue specifically as it relates to the Kansas City area, many of the broad observations about light rail costs and efficiency apply just as well to St. Louis.

Today’s Southeast Missourian asks the above question about Missouri transportation funding in an editorial (link via a certain Mr. Combest). They leave it as an open-ended question, asked as a follow-up to a presentation by the Missouri Transportation Alliance at a recent forum in Cape Girardeau.

This is one question for which the Show-Me Institute has some answers. And, yes, those answers might have to include a gas tax increase. They should also include a dramatic expansion of tolling — and, if that tolling is done via public-private partnership (PPP), then it wouldn’t first be necessary to amend the state’s Constitution (at least, according to MoDOT’s opinion). The important thing, in my opinion, is to keep any tax increases as analogous as possible to user fees, like the gas tax, and away from general taxes that move in the wrong direction by externalizing internal costs. We should be striving to internalize costs to the greatest practical degree, such as through gas taxes, tolling, and license fees, not the other way around.

For more information, read the op-ed I wrote on the subject of private financing for Missouri transportation, the related testimony I provided, and our primary studies of tolling, PPPs, etc.

First, I’d like to thank Hugh Scott for his response to my op-ed arguing against expansion of the MetroLink system. I doubt we will ever see completely eye to eye on the subject, but an informed dialogue can still be illuminating for everyone involved.

Before I respond directly to any of Scott’s points, let me just clarify something that may have been unclear from the op-ed (a 700-word format does not allow for full explanation of every point): I was not arguing against the proposed half-cent sales tax. My point was that we should not expand the MetroLink system into areas with relatively low population densities because the lines would have low ridership and be even more heavily reliant on tax dollars than current lines.

Scott observes that the flexibility of buses is a disadvantage as well as an advantage, a point well-taken. Light rail is undoubtedly better than buses when it comes to understanding routes. However, the question is whether that disadvantage outweighs the advantages of flexibility and lower costs that buses provide, and my answer is that it depends on population density. The denser an area, the more rail should be preferred to buses, and vice versa.

With regard to the possible lines of MetroLink expansion, Scott is perfectly right that Metro does not plan on expanding the system without federal funds to diffuse the costs of constructing the line(s). However, even if a new line would not cost area taxpayers a cent to build, it could still be a bad deal for them if very few people rode it and they were then on the hook for operating costs. Again, my argument is that the best method of forecasting ridership is through population density. Aside from the north-south corridor, none of the proposed lines come close to matching the densities found along the current lines.

Finally, I agree that MetroLink performs well against the light-rail systems of other cities, but that is a relative metric when the question should be an absolute one: Do the benefits justify the costs? Even existing lines do not meet the profit-loss test used in the private sector, so light-rail systems are not efficient by our most common metric for success. Perhaps we need another absolute standard we could use to determine which light-rail lines are successes and which are failures, but for now the best that can be said is that it is unclear whether the benefits of MetroLink expansion would outweigh the costs.

The Show-Me Institute recently released an op-ed by research assistant John Payne titled, “Adding New MetroLink Lines Too Costly, Inefficient.” The piece appeared on the Riverfront Times blog on Feb. 15, along with comment from the paper, and ran in the St. Louis Business Journal on Feb. 19.

We recently received a thoughtful response from Hugh Scott, III, who has been a member of Metro’s Board of Commissioners for nearly five years, commenting on Payne’s op-ed. In the interest of furthering dialogue about important issues like public transit funding, his entire letter appears unedited below:

As even noted anti-tax advocate Glenn Beck acknowledged on his show yesterday, (2/22/10) some taxes are necessary. In the case of public transit, I would maintain that taxes supporting these systems inure to the economic benefit of metropolitan areas. Public transit enables people to commute to jobs and transit centers provide a critical mass of customers for businesses located near them. Not only does Metro employ 2000 St. Louisans but it assists countless thousands of workers to get to jobs in healthcare, retail, manufacturing and distribution. For many of these commuters, no public transit would mean no job.

Show-Me Research Assistant John Payne misses the mark in his article, “Adding New MetroLink Lines Too Costly, Inefficient.” While he tacitly agrees that public transit is important for our community, he advocates opposition to the proposed referendum for a ½ cent sales tax on the April ballot. The focus of his criticism is on the part of the proposal which suggests some the addition of light rail corridors. Extending light rail is however, not the major thrust of the proposal.

Throughout its history, BiState (Metro) has not had sufficient dedicated taxes to support its operations. It has relied on the beneficence of the City of St. Louis and the adjoining Missouri and Illinois counties, the States of Missouri and Illinois, and the Federal government to provide operating subsidies. Some of these entities have been generous over the years. Others have been quite parsimonious. In all cases, awarding of funds is arbitrary and Metro must beg for money from its stakeholders on an annual basis. If Metro is expected to operate in a business-like manner, it must have a stable reliable source of revenue. This, in fact, is what the April 6 ballot proposal is really all about.

When the last tax measure failed in a very close vote in November of 2008, Metro was forced to cut 40% of its bus and train service and 400 staff members. This resulted in the loss of at least 5000 jobs in our community. While half of these cuts were quickly restored due to the receipt of emergency funds from St. Clair County and the State of Missouri, deeper cuts will be necessary if the proposed tax is not approved by the voters. With the approval of the new tax, pre-2009 service will be restored and the current system will be able to operate on a stable financial footing for the first time in memory.

Other short term (1-5 year) priorities include implementation of a bus rapid transit system similar to the “higher speed bus routes” advocated by Payne, adding amenities such as a “smart card” fare system, and beginning planning for more light rail. These programs will be implemented only after the pre 2009 service is in place and only when funds are available. The five year plan does not call for construction of new light rail corridors.

Putting a light rail extension in service will take a minimum of ten years. It will also require large amounts of federal funds in order to build. Metro does not believe that the community should “foot the bill” for any Metrolink expansions without the majority of the funds being provided by the federal government. Instead Metro is asking for funds to begin the planning process so that when federal funds become available for light rail expansion, St. Louis will be in line. It only makes good sense to spend some money on planning. Otherwise, federal money for light rail will go to other cities and St. Louis will be left out.

Payne tries to make a case for increased bus service as opposed to more light rail. He asserts that buses are a better form of transit because they are cheaper and provide more flexible route opportunities. This was precisely the argument made by former BiState CEO, Col. Rudolph Smyser in the 1960’s when he ordered the shutdown of the last of the street car lines in St. Louis.

While it may be argued that buses are superior to light rail from an economic standpoint, flexibility of routes is precisely the problem with buses. Businesses which might prosper by being near a transit stop do not locate near bus stops because a bus stop might easily move to another street or corner. Many non-transit dependent customers will not ride buses because it is often difficult to know where the bus is going. With streetcars, subways and light rail, one need only look at a map showing landmarks or look down the track to know where the car is headed.

In some ways, Metro has successfully mitigated the confusion caused by changing bus routes by creating a hub and spoke system integrating buses and light rail. Thus a person who boards a bus that says “Clayton Station” can expect to travel to the Clayton Metrolink station. Similarly, a passenger who boards our most heavily traveled bus route, Grand Avenue, can be confident the bus will travel north or south on Grand without deviating. In a sense, our increased market share in buses may be in part attributed to our lack of flexibility with routes not the reverse.

In conclusion, Metro has built a world class transit system which integrates bus and rail service quite successfully. While our population density might be low for light rail travel our market share compared to peer group cities is very high. Light rail continues to gain popularity from non-transit dependent riders and nationally, our market share is in the top three cities in our ten city peer group. The April ballot proposal is about preserving this fine system. Our first priority must be to stabilize the existing system. Future planning is always important but it comes further down the list of priorities.

Show-Me Institute research assistant John Payne recently had an op-ed published in the Riverfront Times about the proposed tax hike to fund a MetroLink expansion. Payne’s piece elegantly summarizes the following points about why Proposition A is a bad idea:

1. Although the campaign message focuses on strengthening current lines that have had service cuts, the proposition would focus appropriated funds on expansion to less populated areas. MetroLink already has trouble paying for its current infrastructure; expansion would only create the need to use even more tax dollars in the future, or cut existing lines still further.
2. MetroLink has a poor track record of correctly forecasting its costs. (Payne cites as an example the Cross-Country MetroLink Extension, which cost upwards of $676.8 million after an initial projection of $550 million.) If it had been constructed through a public-private partnership (like in Denver), the contractor would have been accountable to spend more responsibly, without repeatedly asking for tax increases. In contrast, MetroLink’s need for a tax increase is written into its 2009 fiscal budget.
3. Expansion of bus routes is much more cost-effective than expanding light rail. From the op-ed:
   

   We would obtain a much greater benefit at a significantly lower cost if we instead focused our public transportation dollars on new, higher-speed bus lines, which are cheaper and far more adaptable than light rail. Although the expansion of light rail into every reach of suburbia may promise an end to traffic congestion and the revitalization of the city, it will ultimately entail spending huge amounts of money in order to transport far fewer additional passengers than are served by the lines already in existence.

4. Some, like the members of this Facebook group supporting the measure, argue that additional public transit services are necessary in order to help the city’s low-income residents. Many advocates of Proposition A don’t realize that the tax increase it would bring is regressive, because it offers no rebates or exemptions based on income level, so it would disproportionately hurt the poor. It would be used to expand services past the city and county, so the people paying the taxes won’t benefit directly from the expansion.

I’m currently reading Gridlock: Why We’re Stuck in Traffic and What to Do About It by Randal O’Toole, the Antiplanner. Although the book discusses the problems in America’s transportation system in general, certain parts of it are specific to light rail in Saint Louis and the debate surrounding the proposed MetroLink expansion. I’d like to share some passages from Gridlock that communicate why expanding MetroLink is unnecessary and cost-inefficient.

First, O’Toole provides evidence that expanding MetroLink hasn’t historically increased ridership in Saint Louis:

When St. Louis opened its first light-rail line in 1993, it was hailed as a great success because system ridership, which had shrunk by nearly 40 percent in the previous decade, started growing again. But when St. Louis opened a second line in 2001, doubling the length of the rail system, rail ridership remained flat and bus ridership declined. By 2007, total system ridership was no greater than it had been in 1998.

Second, O’Toole describes how Saint Louis experienced a reduction in energy efficiency after launching a light-rail line. He explains that this is because the city ultimately uses more fuel on buses that carry smaller average loads than it did before building the line.

For example, in 1991, before Saint Louis built its first light-rail line, St. Louis buses averaged for than 10 riders and consumed 4,600 BTUs per passenger mile. In 1995, after opening the light-rail line, average bus loads declined to less than 7 and energy consumption by bus and light rail together increased to 5,300 BTUs per passenger mile. CO₂ emissions also climbed, from 0.75 pounds to 0.88 pounds per passenger mile.

Third, MetroLink’s revenues add up to less than its expenses, and an expansion would exacerbate this deficit:

The transportation plan for St. Louis [...] notes that the transit agency’s projected revenues could not even cover its operating costs, much less the cost of light-rail expansion. The plan adds that county voters rejected a tax increase needed to support transit operations and that, even with that tax, the agency’s revenues would be insufficient to support the proposed expansions.

O’Toole has written several pieces on the subject of high-speed rail for the Show-Me Institute. His most recent study for the Show-Me Institute, “Why Missouri Taxpayers Should Not Build High-Speed Rail,” was published in September.

Yesterday, the Post-Dispatch ran a front-page article about efforts to ban texting while driving, and compared them to the crackdown on drunk driving 30 years ago. There are a number of studies showing that texting while driving is as dangerous as drinking and driving, and I do believe the government has a responsibility to create and enforce reasonable safety rules for its roads — so, if laws banning texting while driving substantially reduced accidents, I would support them.

Unfortunately, there is no such evidence. A newly released study by the auto insurance industry found no decrease in auto crashes in states that enacted laws banning texting or talking on a hand-held cellphone while driving. The researchers find this result puzzling, but it could simply be that the law is unenforceable. This is not to say that texting while driving is a good idea, but the government of Missouri (or at the federal level, for that matter) should not be in the business of passing unenforceable, ineffectual laws.

As it stands, if a police officer observes a vehicle moving dangerously, the driver can be ticketed for careless and imprudent driving regardless of the reason behind such reckless behavior. Accordingly, we may not need a law against texting while driving to cut down on the dangers associated with it.

For too long, legislators have been avoiding the 800-pound gorilla in the back seat. In the interest of safety, legislators throughout Missouri and across the nation have mandated seat belt use, outlawed alcohol use while driving (obviously, we all agree with that one), banned talking on cell phones, and required children to sit in car seats or booster seats until they are 19 years old (OK, not quite that old). Now, they are banning texting.

All of these laws merely skirt around the edges of the real problem, which is that far too many people are rocking out to music or yelling back at the talk show host while they are driving. This carnage must stop. In the name of safety, and to fully protect the children — whom, as you may have heard — are the future, our leaders must finally take the necessary step to protect us from ourselves by banning the outrageous practice of listening to the radio while driving. It is only right.

(Thanks to Missouri safe-driver-of-the-year John Combest for the links.)

Here are some things to be happy about! Missouri ranks last among the 50 states in the number of professions subject to occupational licensing; we have generally low excise taxes; and, (in all likelihood) the way the state will use rail stimulus funds is probably best use we could have hoped for. Before everyone jumps all over me, let me explain why it is the best we could have reasonably hoped for:

1. Missouri’s portion of the rail stimulus is a (comparatively) small amount of tax dollars that DOES NOT commit Missouri to building some new high-speed rail system.
2. The dollars will likely be used in a manner that will bring demonstrable and measurable improvements to our current rail system. Or maybe they won’t, but at least we’ll know if that’s the case and have the ability to test and measure results before we commit to spending more money. So far, the first of these projects (undertaken without stimulus money) has had measurable success in reducing delays and allowing for increased traffic. (I believe strongly that eliminating delays is more important than speeding up the trip.)
3. If the state spends a reasonable amount of money making demonstrable improvements to our current system, that will increase voluntary ridership (it already has) — which will (presumably and hopefully) decrease the required subsidy amount.

It is theoretically sound, but practically unrealistic, to expect that MoDOT would not have applied for stimulus funds and that the state would not have have received any for high-speed rail. MoDOT deserves credit for applying for shovel-ready projects that will improve our current Amtrak service rather than reaching for the fantasy world of bullet trains to Ballwin.

The projects that MoDOT will undertake with this money, and the project they already completed without stimulus funds, are based on engineering — not on delusions of taking the Orient Express at 250 mph. A study completed in 2007 by Mizzou engineers listed the most cost effective ways for MoDOT to improve existing rail service. The study recommended projects, such as the recently completed California (Mo.) rail-siding extension (scroll about two-thirds down the page) that would immediately improve rail service. Those are the projects for which MoDOT received funding, not pie-in-the-sky projects requiring newer, larger, and interminable subsidies.

The nationwide high-speed rail plan as a whole, announced last week, is a sad joke, as aptly described by Chrissy in her recent post. However, Missouri’s part in it is a relative bright spot, and MoDOT deserves commendation for keeping its plans focused — almost as much commendation as that candidate in Illinois who made the Simpsons monorail reference before I did:

“All this money to get from Chicago to St. Louis 45 minutes faster? This isn’t informed public policy, it’s a ‘Simpsons’ episode,” gubernatorial candidate Dan Proft said in a statement.

Yesterday, the Obama administration pledged $8 billion in federal stimulus funds to develop a high-speed rail system in the United States. This is no surprise. Congress set this money aside in February 2009, and the president described his vision for the project in April 2009.

California and Florida will receive $2.3 billion and $1.25 billion, respectively, which are the largest single awards. Obama’s home state of Illinois will receive $1.1 billion of this money, which is the third-highest amount. Missouri will receive much less money under this program: “only” $31 million, which equals 0.39% of the allocated funds.

In a recent study for the Show-Me Institute, “Why Missouri Taxpayers Should Not Build High-Speed Rail,” Randal O’Toole demonstrated that the president’s high-speed rail plan would result in high costs and few benefits:

If Missouri decides to build moderate- or high-speed rail, it may be responsible for cost overruns, operating losses, and the costs of replacing and rehabilitating equipment about every 30 years.

O’Toole has written several pieces for the Show-Me Institute about high-speed rail. He has a vision for transportation in Missouri that is more fiscally responsible than President Obama’s:

A better plan would be to use the state’s share of the $8 billion stimulus funds solely for incremental upgrades, such as safer grade crossings, longer track sidings, and signaling systems, that do not obligate state taxpayers to pay future operations and maintenance costs.

Alarmingly, the Obama administration emphasizes that this money is merely a down payment. This means that states, which are already cash-strapped, are left to pick up the rest of cost of these high-speed rail projects. For example, although the the Amtrak route from Chicago to St. Louis stretches 284 miles, the federal grant will cover only the 182-mile segment between Alton and Dwight, which constitutes only 64 percent. Illinois will have to find a way to pay for the rest of the project.

Although I understand that this money will pay for improvements to the existing rail in Missouri, I am concerned that this project will costly and will have low marginal benefits. Taxpayers are paying $31 million to increase the speed of the train that runs between Kansas City and Saint Louis by a mere five miles per hour. However, I will defer the analysis of the Missouri project and how it relates to O’Toole’s study to David Stokes, because he knows much, much more about transportation policy than I do. I look forward to reading his thoughts on this subject.

Missouri’s law against young people sending text messages while driving is only the beginning. Regulators want to make sure drivers can think about nothing but the road in front of them:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called distracted driving a “hot button” issue for state legislatures and said he’s against all distracted driving, not just cell phone use.

“I don’t care what the distraction is,” he said. “We’re going to set the highest bar possible. There should be no distractions.”

An obvious problem with outlawing all distractions is that we could never enforce such broad controls on drivers’ behavior. That doesn’t dissuade the texting ban’s supporters, who say that whether anyone is ever found to be in violation of a law doesn’t matter. Here’s how an AAA spokesman puts it:

“The benefit of having it in the statute is voluntary compliance, sort of like every other law.”

Perhaps the roads are safer because drivers willingly cooperate with texting bans, but, if so, texting bans are the exception. Most laws are effective because we can prosecute people for breaking them, and thereby deter people from breaking them in the future.

The more laws we write restricting drivers’ activities, the less we’ll be able to depend on their voluntary compliance. Drivers won’t pay attention to a laundry list forbidding every activity they could engage in while behind the wheel.

Today’s Kansas  City Star has a story by Brad Cooper about the efforts of the Missouri Transportation Alliance to generate discussion of the future of transportation funding in Missouri. I commend the MTA for its efforts, but I am concerned that it is focusing too much on simply trying to decide which tax (or taxes, plural) to raise:

The group has looked at various ideas for funding transportation — gas taxes, sales taxes, licensing fees — but hasn’t settled on any ideas that could eventually be taken to voters to approve, McKenna said.

Too little of the discussion appears to be devoted to the question of the role that private financing can play in Missouri — or, put another way, how can the laws be changed to allow for more private financing in Missouri? My own preference is for a dramatic expansion of private financing and tolling for projects both big and medium (it does not really work nearly as well for small projects), along with a small increase in the gas tax. But check out the story in the Star and visit the MTAs web site for more details of their work.

There is a decent article in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch about proposals for transit-oriented development in St. Louis. I say “decent” because it has a lot of good information, but it also misses out on a few key points and never attempts to question government involvement in all of these projects. Read the article carefully, and then tell me if you can find one proposal discussed at all that does not involve significant government subsidies. Is transit-oriented development really profitable if every project depends on things like this?

That changed last fall, when the federal government made $1.5 billion in transportation funding available as part of its economic stimulus package. Metro and McCormack Baron partnered to apply for $19 million, a good chunk of the $43.2 million it would take to build the development project.

How can someone really say the following when every TOD project around MetroLink has been subsidized?

“There’s a market out there for this,” he said. “I don’t think we’ve quite recognized it yet.”

Look, I’d love to be wrong about this, and will gladly correct myself if someone can give me an example of a TOD project that succeeded on its own merits. Furthermore, I am fully aware that developments of all types in Missouri have been taxpayer subsidized, as I, along with others here at the Show-Me Institute, have also argued against. But I won’t buy into any dreams of St. Louis becoming a mass transit mecca until I see one TOD that succeeds without the crutch of the taxpayer subsidy. I expect to wait a long time.

The Kansas City Star is reporting on the opening of a new sidetrack along Missouri’s Amtrak route connecting St. Louis and Kansas City. This expenditure of $8 million will have immediate, quantifiable benefits for transportation in Missouri. It isn’t some pipe dream of spending enormous sums of money in the hope that a small number of people will ride more rail or transit. Rather, it is an engineering-based improvement that will begin improving our rail service right away. I cited this as an example of well-directed resources in my testimony two month ago before the Joint Transportation Oversight Commission.

Needless to day, this improvement is a far better use of tax money than some dream of high-speed rail that will get someone from Kansas City to Chicago in 7 hours at best, when they can fly there for the same price in 1 hour and 20 minutes.

If this pre-filed bill becomes law, red-light cameras will be with us forever. H.B. 1229 would send all revenue from the cameras to school districts. Anyone who opposes cameras at intersections would then appear to be an enemy of education.

I have heard some complaints from people, via talk radio and message boards, that after two years and more than a half billion dollars, I-64/40 still has traffic jams at rush hour. I have news for the complainers: They could have expanded it to 10 lanes in each direction, and eventually it would still get backed up (I exaggerate, but only a bit). First, let’s all admit that we can’t properly judge the new highway’s traffic issues after only three rush hours, and this morning’s took place in poor weather. Beyond that, however, there is something called the Fundamental Law of Road Congestion. In short, as you expand capacity, which MoDOT did for part of the new project, you release latent demand that fills up that capacity.

Dr. Ken Small is one of the leading urban and transportation economists. He wrote a study for the Show-Me Institute that we thought was terrific. He’s also written extensively about road congestion. If the people of Missouri want reduced traffic jams, there is only one way to do it, and it isn’t capacity expansion. (Don’t take this as indicating a blanket opposition to capacity expansion. There are plenty of reasons that such expansion is often needed.) The only way to reduce congestion in Missouri is through pricing. If you want your roads to be “free,” you’ll get high traffic at peak times. On the other hand, if you want free-flowing traffic on highways at 5:30 p.m., the only way to do it is to charge a toll that continually adjusts pricing as demand changes.

MoDOT did an amazing job with the project, and so did the private contractors involved. But MoDOT does not control the laws of economics, and there is nothing they could have done to eliminate congestion.

Combest linked today to a Missourinet article about a decline in the state’s transportation funding:

State Transportation Director Pete Rahn has warned lawmakers that transportation funding will soon drop from $1.5 billion dollars to $421 million, which would end the ramped up construction the past few years which has vastly improved Missouri roads and bridges.

The article talks about proposals to address the decreased budget with more taxes, specifically targeting Missouri’s gas tax, which is lower than in all of our neighboring states — except for Oklahoma, which has the same 17-cent tax. A reliance on gas tax increases can only do so much, however. After all, as the article mentions, new cars are becoming more fuel efficient, and raising the gas tax only accelerates a switch to more fuel-efficient cars, decreasing the budget further.

Instead of taxes, what about tolls? The Show-Me Institute published a policy study last year about privately funding roads. It’s a model that has worked in Europe, and in other parts of the United States. The Skyway in Chicago is a good example of a public highway being successfully transferred to private ownership. A 99-year lease shifted a large cost from the government to a private company, and the people are paying directly for their travel on that road, rather than having to pay a flat fee regardless of their usage.

Maintenance of roads is expensive, but also potentially lucrative for a private company. The profit motive incentivizes companies to attract customers by maintaining the roads and keeping road closures to a minimum; so, a private company almost certainly wouldn’t entirely shut down a highway for two years to do roadwork. Rather than increasing taxes, Missouri should be transferring its expensive public roads to private companies that have a a financial stake in keeping the traffic flowing.

The Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal weighed in with its position on truck-only lanes for Missouri. Its editorial view is really that truck-only lanes are worth considering and could be good for Missouri, but the paper didn’t stake out a strong view either way. The editorial is mildly disappointing, because although it mentions how the Kansas City Star has called for the use of toll roads (as have I), it then says that toll roads “aren’t perfect,” but never tells us what it views as the problems or weaknesses of toll roads. But the good news is that the paper is at least writing in positive terms about truck-only lanes, provided a fair financing system can be found.

Of course, a great financing system could pretty obviously be enacted simply by making the trucks that use the roads pay the tolls to finance the roads. For that matter, the entire highway should be tolled so that we all pay for whichever system we choose to use. I have no problem with gas taxes, and raising the gas tax to pay for highways is far preferable to raising the general sales tax. But using the gas tax as a financing system for truck-only lanes would make the people who drive only on local roads pay just as much for the highway as truckers and long-distance commuters would.

I won’t go into the extreme detail of how we fund transportation in Missouri, but we pay for our roads in many different ways. The people who primarily use local roads pay for them through gas, sales, and property taxes. Tolling the highway would be the fairest and most efficient way to make sure that the people who use the highway — especially people and truckers from out of state — pay for their use of the asset. Passenger cars and, I presume, trucks with enormous gas tanks can quite easily make it across Missouri without filling up and thereby paying gax taxes within Missouri. Currently, many people and trucks driving across the state intentionally stop and fill up while in Missouri because of the low gas taxes here. However, if we pay for a new I-70 and a new I-44 with increased gas taxes (which, again, isn’t the worst idea), we can expect some of the current fill-ups to be redirected across state lines.

Tolling the highway, and eliminating gas taxes for the drivers who pay the tolls, is the best way to fund the changes. Fears of diverting trucks to lesser highways are overblown, especially if trucks are allowed to double-rig in the truck-only lanes, and the toll itself isn’t set too high. The goal is to bring in enough funding to build and maintain the road, not earn a profit.

Thanks to Combest for the link.

Abby Sunderland, a 16-year-old American, is another sailor who hopes to become the youngest to sail around the world. In a few weeks, she plans to depart for a nonstop six-month voyage.

I haven’t heard about any government criticism of her or any attempts to put her in state custody. That could change before the middle of December, but it seems likely that she’ll set sail without any state interference.

Abby Sunderland, Laura Dekker, and Jessica Watson are three teenagers with similar goals but divergent experiences — and those differences are a result of the actions of their respective countries’ governments. They’re a reminder that policies can change the course of people’s lives.

To learn more about Sunderland, check out her blog.

MoDOT Director Pete Rahn has received a well-deserved award from Governing Magazine for his work at MoDOT. I eagerly second the award. (A quick note on Governing: I used to read it regularly. You might assume that most of the writers and readers here, coming from a free-market perspective, would hate a magazine dedicated to government. But, honestly, it’s not as terrible as you might imagine.)

Here’s the key quote from the award, via the MoDOT presser:

Governing magazine specifically praised Rahn’s ability to “partner with the private sector in unique ways to build large-scale transportation projects quickly and affordably.”

That is definitely something worth praising.

Today brought sad news for Laura Dekker: The Dutch court has forbidden her to set sail and extended state guardianship until July. This despite the fact that she passed every test they set for her:

The court said that while Dekker’s sailing skills were adequate and a psychological report concluded that the voyage would not harm her social or emotional development, there were questions about safety and her ability to continue her schooling while at sea.

It turns out that the psychological assessments were given simply for the purpose of digging up a reason to stop Dekker. She wouldn’t have been allowed to sail had she failed them, and she’s not allowed to sail now that she’s passed.

I’m appalled that Dekker’s inability to attend school while sailing is given as a reason for the state to detain her on land. By this reasoning, a court could prevent kids from going on extended vacations with their families or participating in any competitive sports.

The headline for this AP article on rail subsidies says it all. Shockingly, a government agency has overstated its efficiency and understated its subsidies. This report covered by the article documents the enormous subsidies required to operate Amtrak. It is notable that the totals used in this new study come very close to the totals used by Randal O’Toole in his work for us on high-speed rail. Compare this excerpt from the AP article (emphasis added):

The Northeast corridor has the highest passenger volume of any Amtrak route, greatly enhancing efficiency. The corridor’s high-speed Acela Express made a profit of about $41 per passenger. The more heavily utilized Northeast Regional lost almost $5 per passenger.

With this excerpt from Randal’s paper:

If trains in the most heavily populated corridor in the United States cannot cover their costs, no other trains will come close.

According to the bipartisan Amtrak Reform Council, Amtrak’s trains between Boston and Washington lost nearly $2.30 per passenger in 2001.

They are almost certainly considering different years, so the fact that the estimates are so close is good evidence for the accuracy of O’Toole’s work (not that more evidence was needed). The study claims (and I’ll accept the claim as true) that the northeast high-speed rail system makes money. Before anyone jumps to the conclusion offered in the article:

Rail planners may decide that spending the funds on high-speed rail makes more sense than slower intercity rail, which the Amtrak numbers show need higher subsidies.

You must read the history of high-speed rail in Japan, which O’Toole thoroughly documents in his paper on high-speed rail for the Show-Me Institute. In Japan, the first high-speed rail system was successful because it connected three cities in one of the most densely populated parts of the world. However, for reasons of politics and more, Japan started building high-speed rail all over the place. None of the other routes were anywhere near as successful as the Tokyo–Osaka–Nagoya route, and the national railroad eventually went into serious financial difficulties. The moral of the story is that just because high-speed rail might work in by far the most densely populated part of the United States does not mean it will work elsewhere.

Hat tip to the Beacon for the original link.

During the drive home from work yesterday, I listened to a discussion of high-speed rail on NPR’s “Marketplace.” Mitchell Hartman discussed a new report from the Pew Research Center reminding us that high-speed rail depends on federal assistance. Pew calculated that Amtrak receives a $32 subsidy per ticket, on average, from taxpayers. Amtrak, however, estimates that the size of the subsidy is $8. From the show’s transcript:

The difference is Pew includes all the costs of running a railroad, like depreciation — that’s wear-and-tear on tracks and trains — and overhead, like the legal and HR departments. Taxpayers pick up those costs too. Amtrak got $1.3 billion in funding last year.

The program even quoted Randall O’Toole, a Cato Institute senior fellow and self-described “Antiplanner”:

Best thing we can do for mass transportation would be to privatize it, let the private operators respond to the market, and then we’ll have a more efficient system that might be attractive to more people.

O’Toole has written several policy studies for the Show-Me Institute on the subject of high speed rail and its free-market alternatives. His most recent, “Why Missouri Taxpayers Should Not Build High-Speed Rail,” was published late last month.

High-speed rail is relevant to Missouri, particularly as officials consider upgrading the tracks from Saint Louis to Kansas City to accommodate high-speed trains. As David Stokes testified before the Joint Committee on Transportation Oversight earlier this month:

For Missouri to build true high-speed rail — the type that American tourists ride in Europe at 150 mph — would cost Missouri taxpayers billions more, all to serve the small percentage of the population that uses passenger rail.

Laura Dekker is still waiting for permission to set sail; latest reports say the Dutch court will issue its decision on Friday.

Dekker is bending over backward to respond to criticisms of her plans. She’s delaying her trip until after this school year. She says she’ll study while she’s sailing, and take exams when she stops at ports along the way. She’s already submitted to an IQ test for the court’s scrutiny. (What will they ask her to do next? Postpone the voyage until she gains entrance to Harvard Law School?)

Another boat will shadow her in the most challenging waters, and a veteran sailor has volunteered to escort her the entire way.

And the big news is that she might have her own reality show. I can hear the response now: “These reality shows have gone too far. People need to stop doing outrageous things to get on television.” But I think a show could be a positive thing. It would involve a lot of close monitoring of Dekker’s voyage, and probably extra safety measures. Dekker would not be able to recklessly head off into a storm or other dangerous situation into which a film crew would not agree to come along. (Although I doubt Dekker would act foolishly on her own, considering that she intends to break up the trip into short segments and take other precautions, the close presence of people and cameras should reassure everyone further.)

I’m looking forward to hearing the court’s decision. There are just a few more days to wait!

Don’t worry, I still detest red light cameras and think they are a total violation of our rights. I think the state should ban them throughout Missouri. However, I give Springfield some credit for truly using them for public safety purposes rather than as a back-door revenue generator. The article in the Springfield News-Leader (link via Combest, who is a very safe driver), details how the city has made almost no money from the cameras, although the company that installed them has certainly made its share.

I am not generally someone who gives much credit for intent over results (that is a mindset of the left side of the political spectrum), but I am going to make a slight exception here. I still think the people of Springfield should demand that the cameras be removed, but it is better if they are only used for traffic enforcement, and not as a money raiser. Springfield’s city traffic engineer (Earl Newman, quoted below) sums it up nicely at the end:

St. Louis’s mixture of significant additional revenue with those public safety benefits worries Newman, who is concerned the financial windfall muddies the water.

“When you’re making a lot of dollars, that means people are still running lights,” he said. “And it’s going to give the appearance it’s being done for the money.”

Jessica Watson started out yesterday on an attempt to sail solo around the world. I hope she completes her voyage safely.

Meanwhile, Laura Dekker remains on land, waiting for Dutch authorities to decide whether she’ll be allowed to sail. We’ll see later this month if she gets to try to circumnavigate the globe, too.

I guess because we are always going somewhere, transit issues never seem to go away. Just today, we have the details of a proposed new commuter rail system for Jackson County. The plan details can be found here in the Kansas City Star. For more info, KC Light Rail has some thoughts about it here.

You might think that because we have released two studies by Randal O’Toole, one criticizing light rail and one criticising high-speed rail, that we might automatically be opposed to a commuter rail plan. That supposition would be premature, though, primarily because I haven’t had time to get to know the details, but also because there are things about commuter rail in general — and this plan in particular — that might make it a more cost-effective way for Kansas City to go.

Below, I have bolded some of the plan’s good ideas, as reported in the Star article:

Sanders said the commuter rail system could be built for as little as $7 million per mile, using existing rail corridors throughout the area. In some areas, double tracks would need to be laid to avoid conflicts between freight and commuter lines.

Sanders said the rail plan could be operational in two years after money becomes available. It would use diesel-powered commuter railcars that could travel faster and more cheaply than light rail, which can cost $70 million per mile.

The best idea, though, is this one at the end:

One option: A private company might operate the system.

So, I will be responsible and reserve judgment for now, but I will have much more to say when, and if, this plan moves forward.

Today’s Columbia Daily Tribune has a terrific editorial asking a lot of tough questions about the value of high-speed rail for Missouri. Questions like: Will anyone ride it? What about the operating costs? Will more subsidies be required? And where the hell was I?

All good questions, and all answered (except the last one) in Randal O’Toole’s new Show-Me Institute study about high-speed rail in Missouri. Check out both the article and the study, and thanks to Combest for the original link.

Today, we released a new study about the proposed high-speed rail corridor that, if constructed, would connect Saint Louis, Kansas City, and Chicago. The study was written by Randal O’Toole, one of the nation’s leading thinkers on transit and planning. Missourinet covered the study this morning, and I’d like to thank Combest for linking to it. Randal appeared on The McGraw Show this morning on KTRS, and I’ll put a link up to that interview when it gets put online. This afternoon at 2 p.m., Randal will be guesting on the Mark Reardon Show on KMOX, and I encourage you all to listen in.

Be sure also to read the briefing paper and the op-ed that go along with the full study.