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?

Brazil: A land entailing natural wonders, a powerhouse economy, and sugar cane ethanol? Yes, that’s right. Ranked second in terms of production and first for exporting, Brazil has long been a pivotal mover and shaker in the global ethanol industry.

Together with the United States, Brazil produces nearly 88 percent of the world’s ethanol supply. However, Brazil uses sugar cane as a preferred alternative to corn in its ethanol production.

With an annual yield of nearly 370 million bushels of corn, many Missourians are deeply connected to the corn-based ethanol industry. If the industry were to dry up, thousands stand to suffer in the short run. Even so, could there be a sweeter alternative?

Well, quite literally, yes. The Brazilian sugar cane industry is said to be seven times more efficient than that of the United States, and less expensive, too — nearly 30 percent cheaper, in fact. Regardless, it appears that the federal government has little interest in the more viable Brazilian blend.

In order to offset a federal tax credit targeted to ethanol blending companies, the United States has levied a tariff on Brazil’s ethanol, perhaps as a way to keep the international market out while spurring on its own domestic product.

Current and past administrations have vowed to reduce foreign oil imports, claiming that we have become too dependent on them. So, why a virtual ban on Brazilian imports? If ethanol is federally promoted as a solution to the so-called national security issue of dependence on Middle Eastern oil, why wouldn’t cheap, clean-burning ethanol from friendly Brazil be satisfactory? If officials are serious in addressing this as a national security issue, they would invest in other forms of energy — namely, those which are not harmful to our country’s environment and well-being.

Thankfully, it appears that lawmakers might be making a move in a better direction. Last week, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) fathered an amendment that would slash government subsidies of the corn industry while also lifting the tariff. Unfortunately, Coburn’s amendments may never become actual laws. Nonetheless, the Senate has shown an ever-increasing readiness to bring ethanol subsidies to the curb.

So, is investing in the precarious, ever-expanding corn-based ethanol industry worth the higher food prices, loss of necessary agricultural groundwater, and increased pollution that result? Well, some would argue that the aforementioned are a small price to pay to support an industry. I contend the contrary. Surrounding Missouri’s ethanol industry, we have corn farmers benefiting from subsidies, cattle farmers suffering from feed shortages, and mandates that often require we burn at least 10 percent less-fuel-efficient ethanol in our cars.

When subsidies are involved, benefits for some lead to costs for others. So, who’s right? You be the judge.

As a former Columbia resident, I’m not surprised that the city is working to build more bike trails. Columbia has a dedicated group of enthusiastic bikers, and some of the most beautiful trails I’ve ever seen. I put more miles on my bike than on my car during my time in Columbia. And who wouldn’t, with the MKT trail connecting the city to Missouri’s KATY trail, a stretch of more than 200 miles, some of which runs along the Missouri river?

But the cause of expanding bike trails, no matter how popular, should not give Columbia community leaders carte blanche to lay bike trails down wherever they please. If some person, business, or organization owns property and doesn’t want a bike trail running through it, they should be able to politely reject the city’s plan to construct a bike trail on their property.

Unfortunately, it appears that the city council may decide to ignore such a refusal. And, in a strange twist, the city is poised to harm the ability of some Columbia residents to enjoy the outdoors in the name of encouraging other Columbia residents to enjoy the outdoors. PedNet, the Columbia organization that promotes bike travel and the expansion of bike trails, is urging the city to use eminent domain in order to construct a bike trail on the Columbia Audubon Society’s (CAS) property.

Bill Mees, who is on the board of CAS, worries that the construction of the trail will irreparably damage the bird-friendly property. From his op-ed in the Columbia Missourian:

Actually, the trail would extend the full length of the south side of CAS property. The southwest corner is a steep forested hillside. Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act will require switchbacks and extensive grading. Result: 100- to 200-year-old trees cut down, and others damaged or killed by the construction.

I wonder, does the city of Columbia think that the views of people who enjoy biking matter more than the views of people who enjoy bird watching?

Some might argue that bike trails constitute a “public purpose,” and that the use of eminent domain is warranted. After all, eminent domain is used for roads. Aren’t bike trails, as a form of alternative transportation, just as valid of a public purpose?

In short: No. As much as bike enthusiasts might hope for a future when more people use bikes as their primary form of transportation, goods will not be transported by bike trail. Even the local grocery store’s stock involves road transportation. If public transportation rates were to double, roads would still be necessary — how else could buses travel?

Bike trails in general are traveled by a small set of the population. The bike trail that proponents want to construct on the Audubon Society’s property will be used by an even smaller group. Why take, and partially destroy, the Audubon’s Society’s property for use by these favored few?

It’s not as if there is no alternative. According to Mike Hood, the director of the city’s Parks and Recreation Commission, sending the bike trail through the Audubon Society’s property would cost nearly $1 million. An alternative route, along a section of existing sidewalk, would cost between $120,000 and $150,000.

I’m no city council member, but the decision seems easy. Choose the low-cost option that doesn’t require taking someone’s property.

My father founded and ran several area gas stations until his death. At first, he embraced the use of oil and gas mandates like those that regulate the ethanol industry — he saw ethanol as a possible revenue stream. However, optimism dwindled as each fall’s harvest brought bushels of despair, not what others had promised. He would one day realize the strife that comes with perverse government regulations.

Many have regarded ethanol to be the proverbial “fuel of the future,” claiming that it reduces the cost of gasoline at the pump while also emitting less pollution. Although ethanol can replace gasoline in some ways, it is less beneficial than many expect.

The Department of Energy began releasing data in 1997 determining that some of the benefits derived from ethanol don’t outweigh the costs, as researchers had previously believed. Ethanol may emit less pollution when burned in place of gasoline, but the Environmental Protection Agency reports that it releases carcinogens at far higher levels than they predicted when it’s created.

Despite the abundance of new testimonies and information, however, both the federal and state government continue to support ethanol ardently, as our country’s energy messiah.

Pointing to often-circulated claims of environmental friendliness and cost-effectiveness, Rep. John Shimkus from Illinois recently introduced new legislation that would impose further government mandates for the production of ethanol. Amid another distressing year for Detroit, this governmental decree would require that 50 percent of all new automobiles be capable of running on ethanol and other non-petroleum fuels by 2014. That number would stiffly rise to 95 percent just three years later.

So, do the advantages of ethanol outweigh the costs? The answer, simply, is no. Aside from its counterproductive environmental effects and proven efficiency loss for each mile to the gallon, ethanol is a precarious investment for the government to force on us for several reasons:

• First, it has been shown that increases in ethanol production are correlated with an increase in food prices. These effects can be felt not only statewide, but also nationally and internationally.
• Second, and as a direct result of government mandates, a cloud of pseudo–market demand now hangs heavily above the heartland. Simply put, the current supply/demand ratio did not arise naturally from the decisions of producers and consumers, interacting voluntarily in the market. Instead, the ethanol industry is artificially bolstered by government sanctions.
• Finally, both this mandate and others like it point to the essence of how government controls harm the economy. There are too many hands in the cookie jar, and, as a result, everyone’s hand gets stuck; the cookie crumbles. Automakers should not be burdened with absurd requirements such as this from legislators who seek to alter the free market for the sole benefit of their constituents, and at the expense of everyone else.

Don’t get me wrong, I support the development of renewable energies and green solutions. Markets reward efficiency. However, as both a Missouri resident and an owner of my father’s businesses, I find that legislation like our own E-10 mandate and the proposal advanced by Rep. Shimkus in Illinois are harmful — especially in the long run.

Neither supply nor demand would exist at anywhere near current levels without both federal and state mandates, both of which have propelled ethanol into the forefront of the American auto and oil industries. As it stands, the eagerly pushed supply of ethanol more than satisfies current market demand. And that, folks, is just basic economic principle.

Elsberry, in Lincoln County, voted down a local gas tax increase proposal yesterday. Considering that the vote requires a two-thirds majority to win, it failed by a mile. I am embarrassed to admit I only recently became aware that cities in Missouri even had that option. According to the Post-Dispatch, only one small city in the entire state has implemented it — Matthews. See Article IV, Sec. 30(a)(3)3, aka page 67, of the Missouri Constitution for the applicable rules.

This is one local tax increase for which I could easily vote in favor. I prefer increased use of tolling to address most of our highway issues, but that is not realistic at the local road level. Per-mile charges raise serious privacy concerns for me, and although private local roads presently serve a worthy purpose, they have little chance of expanding beyond certain neighborhoods. That leaves us with gas taxes. I think most people would agree that the gas tax is one of the better taxes, from the perspective that the people who use the public asset end up paying for the majority of that asset.

If I lived in a community that was having legitimate issue with funding road maintenance, I could see myelf voting for a small, local gas tax increase.

This is shaping up to be a good week. Today, Combest again linked to a couple more stories that involve a reduction of government in our lives. First and foremost, I want to strongly commend the leadership of Jefferson County for choosing to ban red light cameras in the unincorporated areas of the county. (Their ability to ban them in the incorporated areas is very limited.) This is an example of leaders placing liberty above tax revenues, and I think it is terrific.

Second, it appears that the state’s business franchise tax will be eliminated. This was a key part of the legislature’s “Fix the Six” agenda, and the governor has indicated that he will sign the legislation phasing out the tax. This is a tax change that will benefit all businesses in the state (at least all large enough to qualify to pay it) — not just those chosen for special tax treatment.

So far this week, we have serious movement on lower taxes, reduced government intrusions, fewer government officials, and municipal disincorporation. Although all of those things may not come through, I’d say this has been a great week.

The governor has announced that Missouri will seek additional funding for high-speed rail. This is, in my opinion, a very poor choice. Even if you accept the argument that we should spend the available money because other states will do so if we don’t (an argument I don’t accept), building high-speed rail still commits Missouri to subsiding the long-term operating and maintenance costs.

Maybe you believe that high-speed rail will make money for Amtrak — in which case, I have a bridge over the Missouri River to sell you. Randal O’Toole has written extensively on this issue, particularly in a study about the implications of high-speed rail for Missouri published by the Show-Me Institute. The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) had an earlier plan to pursue a much smaller amount of money, which would allow it to implement engineering-based improvements to the current Amtrak route. That was much better policy. It involved a (comparatively) reasonable amount of money to make direct improvements to an existing system. The new proposal to go full-bore for high-speed rail across Missouri is a decision that I believe the state will quickly and seriously regret.

Unless, of course, we don’t get the funding at all, which would be terrific.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recently decided that it will not allow any more airports to adopt the private security option for passenger screening. This decision was made as part of the TSA’s rejection of a request from the Springfield-Branson Airport to use private screeners. Sen. Roy Blunt is introducing a measure that would require the TSA to allow private screening companies to operate in airports that want them. Who is right here? Should the TSA be the only entity allowed to screen passengers?

I think the key issue here is the idea of competition. In a report for San Diego, the authors at Reason put it well (emphasis added):

“Taxpayers win whenever there is competition, even when the competition is won by public sector providers” said Adam B. Summers, policy analyst at Reason Foundation and co-author of the report. “They get more accountability, better results, and lower costs. [...]“

Private screening companies are used at only 16 airports in the county. Springfield-Branson would have been no. 17. 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. I know we aren’t used to thinking about the terms “government employees” and “complacency” together, but if the presence of competition in a small number of airports serves to reduce the TSA’s complacency, that benefits all of us.

One six-year-old report found that private screeners did a better job than government employees, but another report said that there are no cost savings because the TSA still overseees the private security companies, which operate according to the same requirements, rules, etc.

I believe the real reason for this denial of the private screening option has more to do with organized labor. From the KMOV Channel 4 report on this story:

The American Federation of Government Employees, the nation’s largest federal employee union, has praised [TSA Administrator John] Pistole’s decision.

TSA employees will be deciding on union representation shortly. Government unions are generally the most ardent opponents of any type of privatization.

Anytime I write anything about Branson, I always think, “What would Yakov say?” So, here is my best attempt at a Yakov Smirnoff–style joke about this situation:

In USA, people worry they the screeners will touch their junk as they board the plane. In Russia, people worry about the plane itself because the whole plane is made of junk!

Fire off better jokes in the comments, if you dare!

Missouri has a ludicrous system of licensing movers. I am ashamed to admit I have not done more reporting on it. Luckily, other people have. Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation is litigating the issue, and has written an op-ed about the absurdity of allowing present competitors to determine whether another company can enter the business.

I want to keep this post concise, so I’ll just point out that Sen. Bill Stouffer has introduced legislation, S.B. 58, to change Missouri’s system. It does a number of good things. Most importantly, it removes the insane provision that anybody who wants to be a mover in Missouri has to prove to the government that there is a need for the new service. That is a decision for markets, not governments, to make.

This proposal would be a victory for economic freedom in Missouri. The bill is still in the early stages. It will likely have some changes, and in the end it may not be perfect. But the perfect needn’t be the enemy of the good, and so far the proposal looks promising.

Let us now be pleased by small victories. Actually, it’s a big victory if you live in Washington, Mo., and care about liberty. The Washington City Council has wisely chosen to end the city’s use of red light cameras. Hopefully, many more Missouri cities will make the same decision.

A online shout-out to former intern Phil for bringing this story to my attention.

A few days ago, the American Planning Association (APA) named Wydown Boulevard, which runs through Clayton and the city of St. Louis, as one of the great streets in America.

This post I wrote three years ago is part one of the series on urban planning that I’m continuing today. The theme of this post is different from the first, because although planners had almost nothing to do with the success of the Delmar Loop, they certainly did with Wydown Boulevard. But the planning that shaped Wydown was the work of private industry and individuals, not the government. I want to make that clear.

“Planning” today is intimately linked in most people’s minds with government oversight and regulation. At the APA’s website, both the “What is planning?” and “What do planners do?” questions immediately begin with a reference to government.

Many of the subdivisions that were built along the St. Louis central corridor (Wydown is in the heart of that corridor) were built in a unique, intensely private style found throughout St. Louis. That includes private roads, sewers, and other infrastructure paid for by internal assessments and fees from property owners, not by general taxes for government provision of those services. I don’t think Wydown was ever a private road, but many of the neighborhood streets along it were (some still are), and I believe the streetcar that served Wydown was likely a private company, too, although I have been unable to find conclusive information about that particular streetcar that reveals whether or not it was actually private.

As the APA itself says:

• Subdivisions along trolley line originally developed as “private places,” characterized by large 1- to 3-acre lots with traditionally designed single-family estates, mature trees, and native plants

Yes, some of the more recent cited reasons for issuing this award involve government planning — the bike lanes, for example. But the neighborhoods of St. Louis’ central corridor have historically been some of the most privately operated urban subdivisions in the country. Wydown is a beautiful street that I have enjoyed traveling many times. It deserves an award for planning. But it’s important to remember that it was private planning, not government planning, that made Wydown what it is.

Q: Four drivers are traveling down Highway 70, going approximately 55 mph. Allen is drunk; Betty is 85 years old and has trouble seeing clearly and reacting quickly; Clarence is coming off of a 27-hour shift at work; and Deandra is happily texting while listening to ABBA on an oldies station. Which of these drivers is the most dangerous, and who most deserves a ticket?

A: Whoever causes an accident.

This is a trick question, designed to make you think about which driving distractions are actually dangerous. Some people get in collisions when there is no identifiable distraction, but the list of possible distractions is endless, including a blinding glare from the sun, kids in the back seat, and hilarious bumper stickers on other cars. One important aspect of driving, or just being on the road, is safely negotiating the hazards that come one’s way.

In the Springfield News-Leader, Timothy Cloninger postulates that texting is no more dangerous than other driving distractions, and requests that both drivers and lawmakers exercise common sense in assessing the danger (emphasis mine):

Distracted driving is the problem, not texting. Existing laws already cover this, including careless driving, driving without due care and attention and reckless driving.

Cloninger also points out that legislation against texting while driving could simply encourage violators to pay more attention to hiding their behavior:

Even if you believe it should be illegal, a law that specifically calls out texting is impossible for police to proactively enforce: One, it’s too easy to avoid detection: simply hold your phone in a lower, more dangerous position.

Show-Me Institute research assistant John Payne stated on this blog that “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.”

While creating more legislation may seem like a proactive way to protect us from one another, this is not necessary if there are already laws that prohibit dangerous driving. Most people want to drive safely and will go to great lengths to avoid a collision. I personally wish that drivers would not text or play with Foursquare while operating a vehicle. Yet I respect their rights to make their own decisions, and I evaluate their driving safety based on how many accidents they are involved in, rather than on what they were doing at the time.