MoDOT Gets a New Director

Posted on by Joseph Miller

Recently, the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) named Patrick McKenna as its new director. The previous director, Dave Nichols, stepped down earlier this year, and Roberta Broeker had been acting as director on an interim basis.

Mr. Mckenna, currently deputy commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, will take over MoDOT at a difficult time. While the department will not fall off a fiscal cliff next year (as was once feared), there is little doubt that MoDOT’s financial position is precarious. Worse yet, there are no funds available for large but necessary highway improvements like the rebuilding of I-70.

While the problems are challenging, there are solutions available to Missouri that will not require large general tax hikes. For instance, if Mr. McKenna were to drive from the New Hampshire Department of transportation in Concord to MoDOT’s headquarters in Jefferson City, the fastest route would take him through six states with open-road tolling:

Tolls are just one of MoDOT's options for financing I-70 reconstruction and other expensive infrastructure projects, and the success Missouri’s neighbors (and New Hampshire) have had with this method of funding should encourage Mr. Mckenna to consider it.

What Was FDR’s Stance on Government Unions?

Posted on by John Wright

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the president who brought us modern labor law, famously believed that collective bargaining does not belong in the public sector. This may seem strange to modern readers who know FDR as a supporter of organized labor. Let’s take a closer look at what FDR actually said.

In 1937, Roosevelt wrote to the President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, a government union, and gave his opinion that employee organizations have a “logical” role in government. Roosevelt believed that government employees should organize in order to ensure “fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions . . . and impartial consideration and review of grievances.”

However, Roosevelt was careful to clarify that “meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.” In particular, he believed that collective bargaining agreements were incompatible with public sector work:

The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

FDR’s issue with government collective bargaining is that in our system of government, “we the people” set public policy through the democratic process. Binding the people to a collective bargaining agreement takes authority away from the people.

FDR applies similar logic to the topic of strikes:

. . . a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. 

The issues FDR was concerned about affect us today. For example, the Monarch Fire Protection District is still bound by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement signed years ago, before voters put a new, pro-taxpayer board in charge of the district. And in University City, unrest with the firefighters union has caused a couple of incidents imperiling public safety. Now the University City firefighters union is using a collective bargaining agreement to try to limit the city manager’s discretion in contracting out for basic services and managing public safety.

Regardless of whether we should go as far as Roosevelt and prohibit collective bargaining in our government, it is important to craft labor relations laws in light of the important differences between the public and private sectors. Laws ensuring that government remains accountable, even when government workers are unionized, could be called Roosevelt laws in honor of FDR’s legacy.

Inefficient Bus Service Plagues North Saint Louis County

Posted on by Joseph Miller

Metro, which operates public transportation in Saint Louis City and County, has announced that it has nearly completed a brand new bus transfer station in North Saint Louis County, at a cost of around $5.29 million. Aside from its modern look, the station will have indoor waiting areas and a free park-and-ride lot, as well as public restrooms. While better facilities are nice to have, Metro’s most serious problem in North County is an expensive and slow bus service, not the amenities at their bus stops.

 In 2013, Metro spent about $160 million on its bus system. The performance of that system is questionable, both in terms of total ridership and cost-efficiency. In no Saint Louis County census tract does transit account for 25% of all commuters. No bus route covers its operating costs with fare revenue, and many large buses travel Saint Louis’ streets nearly empty. Why aren’t county residents, even in depressed areas of Saint Louis County, using the bus more often?

Perhaps the better question is why those with any other option would take the bus to begin with. The map above shows the bus routes that currently serve North Saint Louis County.

What is immediately obvious is that, aside from downtown and a couple routes to mid-county areas, buses that serve North County stay in North County. They do not provide direct service to the Central West End, South Saint Louis City, West Saint Louis County, or South Saint Louis County, much less Illinois. Most routes funnel riders to the MetroLink, where they have to transfer to a train, and (if their final destination is not on top of the MetroLink) transfer once more to reach their final destination.

To illustrate how time consuming this process can be, we list rush-hour travel time from a randomly chosen address in Ferguson, MO, to prominent employment areas and compared that to travel time for a car.

Employment Area

Region

Transit Time (Minutes)

Drive Time (Minutes)

Drive Time Advantage

Barnes Jewish Medical Campus

City—Central West End

53

30

23

Earth City

North County

52

22

30

Lambert-STL

North County

34

14

20

Busch Stadium

City—Downtown

59

24

35

Chesterfield Commons

West County

118

40

78

AB Brewery

City—South

76

24

52

West County Mall

West County

113

35

78

Galleria

Mid-County

72

20

52

Christian Hospital

North County

52

14

38

U.S. Steel (IL)

Illinois

121

28

93

 

Of course a car will be faster than transit, but it is surprising just how much faster it is, even for areas near Ferguson. Take the Galleria, which is about 10 miles (or a 20 minute drive) away. Using transit, the trip would take well over an hour. Why? The fastest transit route includes two transfers, which entails a lot of waiting around.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy solution for making the Saint Louis bus system better. The region has low population density and spread-out work locations. But it’s never going to look better until Metro can provide service that people will actually find value in without breaking the bank. Metro does plan to change routes after the completion of its transit center, and that may improve the situation somewhat. But maybe, before it plans another $5 million bus stop, Metro should consider how many new buses that money could buy them, and why anyone who could park in their free lot would want to use the bus anyway. 

New NCTQ Report Highlights Holes in Missouri Teacher Policy

Posted on by Michael Q. McShane

The National Council on Teacher Quality is out with its annual state-by-state report on teacher policy. I’m still digging through all of the findings, but I do want to bring your attention to the table shown above (which appears on page 63 of the report), wherein the authors take a big-picture look at Missouri education policy and ask if it is oriented toward identifying and rewarding the most effective teachers.

What does this mean?

·         Missouri does not base tenure decisions on demonstrated teacher effectiveness

·         Missouri does not ensure that districts use teacher evaluation results when selecting professional development activities.

·         Missouri does not pay better teachers more.

·         Missouri does not specify that ineffectiveness is grounds for dismissal for teachers or principals.

·         Missouri does not require that teacher effectiveness be taken into account when teachers are looking to renew their licenses.

·         Missouri does not make evidence of teacher effectiveness the basis for granting Missouri licenses for teachers with licenses from out of state.

·         Missouri does not place its student teachers in classrooms with teachers that have demonstrated effectiveness.

I’ll be the first to say that student test scores should not be the sole measure of a teacher’s effectiveness. An over-reliance on standardized tests has led to many unintended and unfortunate consequences.  But two course corrections working in tandem—rethinking what tests we give children and how we use the results, and rethinking how we help recruit, reward, and retain great teachers—have a great deal of potential for improving Missouri’s education system.

If we’re going to have policies like licensure and tenure, they should be based on teacher effectiveness, not simply how long someone has been in the classroom.  If districts are going to spend millions of dollars on professional development activities, the money should be in areas where teachers are struggling to improve student achievement.

Ultimately, a move towards a system with greater school choice would diminish the need for heavy-handed, centrally-driven teacher evaluation policies.  Individual school leaders would be responsible for putting together the best possible staff so families would want to send their children to that particular school. Parents, who have access to detailed information both about their child and how well he or she is doing, would be the ultimate arbiters of teacher quality. But until such a system is in place, we must work harder to identify great teachers, recruit them into our schools, and then do what is necessary to keep them here.

An Organization of Union Conservatives?

Posted on by John Wright

Terry Bowman had had enough. Sitting in his breakroom several years back, he saw an article in his union’s newsletter about “the healthcare policy that Jesus would’ve advocated.” A seminarian at the time, Terry knew his scripture pretty well, so the article caught his eye.

The article argued that Jesus would’ve supported Obamacare. Terry found the use of religion for partisan politics deeply offensive—especially when he was paying for it with his union dues. Terry knew he had to do something.

Terry Bowman would go on to start Union Conservatives, an organization “dedicated to bridging the gap between union workers and liberty, building an organization of like-minded voices, and strengthening unions through conservative principles.” Union Conservatives is a network of conservative union members across the nation who are pro-worker but are tired of union cultures that ignore the conservative perspective.

According to the group’s website, Union Conservatives’ mission includes “providing liberty to union members who have differing political views than their union leadership,” and “reshaping union policy to reflect the large numbers of conservative members.”

Ideally, a union is an organization that tirelessly represents the interests of all of its members. Unfortunately, many unions get involved in political causes that don’t directly benefit their members. Indeed, sometimes a union’s political activities are in conflict with the beliefs of a significant portion of its members. Groups like Union Conservatives are there to provide balance and bring together people who believe in both the free market and their union.

Direct Primary Care Makes a Splash in Springfield

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Early last month the Springfield News-Leader published an excellent article about direct primary care, a topic we’ve covered extensively. Direct primary care (DPC) generally removes middleman insurers from the care equation, facilitating improvements not only in the cost of care, but also in the availability of care for the patients enrolled in DPC programs. And the title of the article explains the state of affairs in DPC well: “A different doctor’s office is on the rise locally—and it’s a critique of the traditional health system.” As you might expect, I highly recommend reading the whole piece.

 

But before you do, I’d like to highlight one quote from the story that is among the better explanations of the principles of not only DPC practices, but of substantive health care reform in general.

 

“The classic analogy of direct primary care is auto insurance,” said Dr. Shelby Smith, who will open Equality Healthcare with two fellow doctors in December. “Everybody needs auto insurance for a car wreck. You don’t use auto insurance for a car wash, or an oil change or new tires. Sort of what we’re doing in the primary care realm is saying that primary care in this country should be accessible, it should be affordable and the pricing should be very transparent.”

 

Bingo. Dr. Smith’s focus on access and the cost of care is not only what DPC practices are largely all about, but they are also what the focus of our public policy should be. “Coverage” is not care, and until policymakers more readily recognize this fact at the state and federal levels, we should not expect insurance rates to stop rising or insurance plans to stop failing en masse. DPC offers a blueprint for health care policy progress; hopefully lawmakers will study it closely.

Springfield May Be Ready for Uber, But Its Regulations Aren’t

Posted on by Joseph Miller

Recently, an editorial in the Springfield Business Journal promoted the benefits ridesharing companies like Uber could bring to Springfield residents. The author of that article wrote about how he had used the service many times in other cities and enjoyed the experience. He also felt that demand in Springfield is there for Uber and companies like it to be successful. However, while the author and city residents might be ready to embrace new transportation options, the city’s regulations are out of date and, as written, could block ridesharing companies.

                The sections of Springfield’s municipal code that deal with for-hire vehicles (which are likely to encompass Uber) were not written with ridesharing in mind. The code is primarily concerned with the operation of taxis, limousines, and hotel courtesy vehicles, and has no language for companies like Uber. It also envisions an industry consisting of taxi/limo companies (which own and license the vehicles) and drivers (who are hired to contract to drive the vehicles). However, ridesharing companies do not own a set amount of vehicles that they let out to professional drivers; instead, they merely connect potential passengers with people driving their own personal vehicles.

                This means that as things stand, if Uber attempted to open up in Springfield, it would be unclear who had to register the vehicles and how they would be registered. Either option—taxi or limo—would create awkward requirements for part-time drivers, as the code requires that vehicle owners:

  1. Maintain a business address with telephone service.
  2. Maintain a daily log of all trips.
  3. File a balance sheet and income statement prepared by a certified public accountant that shows the “business” has not less than $5,000.00 in liquid assets.

The code also requires that drivers:

  1. Follow a dress code (slacks and a collared shirt).
  2. Complete first-aid training.
  3. Take a physical exam.
  4. Present evidence of previous taxi or driving experience.

Additionally, regulations regarding fares would block Uber’s surge pricing practices, an integral part of their business model.

Springfield’s for-hire vehicle regulations were written for a purpose, but times and market realities are changing. States and cities across the country have changed regulations so that Uber and companies like it can operate. This is a chance for Springfield to be proactive and write sensible regulations now, so that its residents will be able to enjoy ridesharing as soon as possible. 

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging