Kansas City and St. Louis Road Quality

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Our roads are crucial for commerce, safety, and daily life. Yet the state’s extensive road network presents challenges that have lingered for years. The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) oversees approximately 34,000 miles of highways, making it one of the most extensive state-maintained systems in the nation. This vast responsibility is coupled with a perpetual struggle for adequate funding and consistent maintenance.

Missouri’s roads are often a mixed bag. Urban areas, such as Kansas City and St. Louis, face heavy traffic loads that strain infrastructure, while rural areas contend with neglect stemming from budget limitations. Harsh weather conditions further exacerbate the wear and tear, leaving many roads riddled with potholes and cracks. Rural highways critical for agriculture and trade can quickly deteriorate without sustained investment.

A recent post by the blog Construction Physics contained a chart depicting the road quality of the top 19 cities. It depicts the percentage of non-interstate roads at different quality levels, measured by the International Roughness Index (IRI) and tabulated by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). I’ve added St. Louis and Kansas City for comparison using the same scoring system.

Missouri’s interstates, whose standards and funding largely come from the federal government,  rank 15th out of 50th according to the IRI score. But our non-interstate roads rank 32nd, behind our neighboring state of Kansas (1st) but well ahead of Illinois (37th). Kansas has earned a reputation for relatively well-maintained highways, thanks to strategic funding and regular maintenance schedules. Illinois has committed significant resources to upgrading its aging infrastructure through recent legislative initiatives.

Importantly, both Kansas and Illinois employ toll roads to fund road maintenance. Missouri should, too. Show-Me authors have written extensively on tolling and road maintenance more generally. While Missouri recently increased its gas tax, it’s too soon to know how impactful it will be.

Improving Missouri’s roads requires more than patchwork solutions. Lawmakers and transportation officials must focus on sustainable funding mechanisms, better prioritization of projects, and more efficient use of resources. Policies that balance the needs of urban centers and rural areas will be critical in ensuring that all Missourians benefit from reliable roadways.

Where Did the Report Cards Go?

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) is an agency in the executive branch that carries out the priorities of the state board of education. It aims to “ensure that all Missouri students have access to high-quality public education and are prepared for college and careers.” In its latest budget request submitted to the governor for the 2025–26 school year, DESE requested $10 billion to carry out this work.

Last week we found out that it is neglecting to carry out one of the boards’ nine “major duties,” which is accrediting local school districts. The 98 percent of school districts that were fully accredited a decade ago can count on that being unchanged for at least another couple of years.

In addition, as of this writing, DESE is no longer complying with the federal requirement that state education agencies publish state, district, and school report cards detailing student performance. DESE had a school report card web page until recently, when it disappeared with no indication of whether the report cards are being updated or ever coming back.

Both of these issues bring into question whether Missouri should be receiving over $1.6 billion in education funding from the federal government since it does not “meaningfully differentiate between schools and districts” or publish the required report cards. The board and DESE are shirking their responsibilities and yet they want $10 billion from taxpayers for the FY 2026 budget. Missourians should be highly disappointed, to say the least, in their state education leaders.

 

 

 

Public Schools without Boundaries with Jude Schwalbach

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Jude Schwalbach, policy analyst at the Reason Foundation, about his report Public Schools Without Boundaries: 2024. They discuss how open enrollment policies are reshaping K–12 education by allowing students to attend public schools outside of their assigned districts, examine why Missouri ranks poorly in supporting open enrollment, highlighting significant areas for improvement in the state, and more.

Read Jude’s full report here.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Will the New Commissioner of Education Bring More Accountability to Missouri School Districts?

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

I guess we have our answer. On November 25, 2024, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) released the newest Annual Performance Report (APR) scores under the state’s accountability system—the Missouri School Improvement System (MSIP 6). Each district and school received an APR score based on a variety of factors, including student performance, during the 2023–24 school year. The score is a percentage of the points the district received out of its total possible points (which varies by district), and that number is supposed to determine whether a district is considered “accredited” by the state.

So, what happened last year and what does it mean? It’s hard to say. DESE’s press release states: “The data shows that Missouri schools are meeting the more rigorous requirements and higher expectations set forth in MSIP 6 . . .” This is according to the new commissioner who took over the department last summer. And then in a bulleted list, there’s this: “The APR will not be used for classifying LEAs this year.” (LEA stands for local education agency.) In other words, for the tenth year in a row, the accountability system will not be used for district accreditation. Why not? DESE doesn’t say. Also, when DESE plans to update district accreditation, which won’t be for another two years, it is going to use a three-year rolling average of the APR scores instead of a single year. Why?

What is clear is that the state board of education and the new commissioner are punting when it comes to accountability for school performance. Parents who want to know how their children’s district is doing—both in real terms and compared to other districts in the state—have to rely on sites like MoSchoolRankings. That’s information DESE ought to provide. The state leaders of public education in Missouri either have no confidence in their measurement system or they have no confidence in their schools.

It’s Time to End Free Transit in Kansas City

Posted on by David Stokes

We all know that you get what you pay for. When you pay nothing for something, you usually get something that isn’t worth very much. This applies to public transit just like everything else.

Several years ago, Kansas City decided to make its public transit free for all. After all, the purpose of local government is to just give things away for free, isn’t it? For several years, the pandemic-related free federal money train has allowed this “free transit” plan to continue, but that train is coming to a stop. Now, Kansas City leadership has some decisions to make. The transit authority has considered ending the “free” part of the ride before, and now it is time to do away with it once and for all.

Nobody is suggesting funding the entire transit system with fares. Subsidizing transit is an accepted part of urban economics, but that doesn’t mean you should make it free. “Subsidized” transit means you help low-income workers, encourage alternate transportation to large events, and help offset traffic problems. “Free” means you get homeless people sleeping on the bus and cuts to bus lines because you don’t have enough funding. “Free” results in fewer people using transit because the bad aspects of “free” are what matter most to people. Here is what happened in Tucson, Arizona when it moved to “free” transit several years ago:

“We have become a mobile refuge from the elements, frequented by drug users, the mentally ill and violent offenders that have made Sun Tran unsafe to ride,” the local Teamsters union warned in a letter to the city.

As one very sensible Kansas City bus rider put it at a transit meeting on November 13: “she doesn’t mind paying a fare as long as it’s affordable and bus lines don’t get cut.”

Fares are an important part of funding for a decent transit system. Perhaps more importantly, they also help keep the elements out of the system that make other people not want to use it. The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority should reinstate fares immediately.

What to Make of Big Tech’s Pivot to Nuclear

Posted on by Avery Frank

The American nuclear industry is making headlines seemingly every week, with developments in construction, innovation, legislation, and regulation. Recently, there have been a number of stories about large tech companies embracing nuclear energy. Consider these stories:

  • “Microsoft deal would reopen Three Mile Island nuclear plant to power AI”
  • “Amazon goes nuclear, to invest more than $500 million to develop small modular reactors”
  • “Amazon and Google have plans for fueling their data centers: Nuclear power”
  • “Oracle will use three small nuclear reactors to power new 1-gigawatt AI data center”

Why are some of the largest corporations, who are the biggest consumers of energy, trying to get nuclear plants up and running?

In my view, energy security—access to sufficient, affordable, and reliable energy—is the key motivator. These corporations likely foresee potential shortfalls in energy supply, particularly for sources that can meet demand at any time.

As these headlines show, corporations are even willing to go “behind-the-meter” in order to have access to clean, reliable, and consistent nuclear power. Behind-the-meter refers to the practice of purchasing power directly from a plant, bypassing tradition utility infrastructure. For Missouri, these national trends again highlight the need to seriously consider nuclear power as a solution to building a reliable grid for the future.

What Big Tech is Saying about Energy

A strong and reliable electric grid is vital. Demand for electricity is growing because of data centers, artificial intelligence, electrical manufacturing, and electric vehicles. More than ever, citizens rely on energy to power their daily lives.

Michael Terrell, senior director for energy and climate at Google, said this:

We feel like nuclear can play an important role in helping to meet our demand, and helping meet our demand cleanly, in a way that’s more around the clock.

When major corporations, whose profits depend on uninterrupted power, express concern about future electricity demand, it is worth paying attention.

A Warning Sign for Missouri

Missouri is not doomed, but if you see a bear running away from something in the woods, it is wise to at least consider why it is running. Big Tech’s movement toward nuclear may be a similar warning signal.

Missouri needs to be prepared for an immense energy transition. Amending the Construction Works in Progress (CWIP) law is one way forward. This would open the door for nuclear construction by allowing utilities to gradually recover costs during construction as opposed to all at once afterwards. Investing in more nuclear power is an investment in a strong, reliable power source that we will need as energy demands continue to increase.

Does the Hancock Amendment Mean Anything to Town and Country?

Posted on by David Stokes

Town and Country, a suburb of St. Louis with a slightly pretentious name, is making a mockery of the Hancock Amendment. The city has imposed a 23-cent property tax increase (from zero to 23 cents), and is doing so without a vote of the people.

Is this legal? Perhaps.

Is this wrong? Absolutely.

The Hancock Amendment clearly states that new taxes and tax increases have to be approved by voters. Here is Section 22(A) of the state constitution (emphasis added throughout):

Section 22. (a) Counties and other political subdivisions are hereby prohibited from levying any tax, license or fees, not authorized by law, charter or self-enforcing provisions of the constitution when this section is adopted or from increasing the current levy of an existing tax, license or fees, above that current levy authorized by law or charter when this section is adopted without the approval of the required majority of the qualified voters of that county or other political subdivision voting thereon.

However, there are a few exceptions. The one the city seems to be relying on here is in RSMO 137.073.5, which states that a city that has previously voluntarily lowered its property tax rate below the legal ceiling may raise it up to that ceiling without a vote of the people.

However, the state auditor’s annual report on property taxes (page 4) explains how this works:

Sections 137.073.5(3) and 137.073.5(4), RSMo, provide that a voluntary reduction taken in a non-reassessment year (even numbered year) results in a reduced tax rate ceiling during the following reassessment year (odd numbered year). These provisions also allow taxing authorities that voluntarily reduce a tax rate in a previous even numbered year to reverse the impact of the voluntary reduction to reinstate a higher tax rate ceiling in the following even numbered year. To increase the tax rate in the following even numbered year, the taxing authority must conduct a public hearing, and adopt an ordinance, a resolution, or a policy statement justifying its action before setting and certifying its tax rate.

That explanation makes clear that the laws above are intended for reductions and increases that occur in subsequent years. The idea that Town and Country could reduce its property tax rate to zero and then increase it 27 years later without a vote of the people is, frankly, absurd. It’s a total violation of the spirit of the Hancock Amendment.

While this may not be a violation of the law, it is appalling. The residents of Town and Country have every right to be angry that they are being denied their right to vote by the city. Furthermore, if it is legal (and I am hoping someone challenges it in court) this loophole needs to be addressed by the state legislature. A city or county should not be able to set a tax rate for 27 years at zero and then just raise it because two generations ago voters approved a higher rate the city just hasn’t used.

This sort of chicanery is an example of local government at its worst.

Does St. Louis Need a City Manager?

Posted on by David Stokes

A version of this commentary appeared in the St. Louis Business Journal.

Back in 2022, in response to the seemingly endless parade of scandals and mismanagement coming from City Hall downtown and the county offices in Clayton, several city managers in the area circulated an op-ed arguing that both the City of St. Louis city and St. Louis County should adopt a city/county manager system of government. Are they correct? Would the City of St. Louis benefit from professional, nonpartisan city management? (We will save the county discussion for later.)

As part of my new paper on municipal government in Missouri, just released by the Show-Me Institute, I reviewed the research and evidence on the use of city managers in local government. It is certainly an idea worth considering. Four of the five largest cities in Missouri use a city manager system, as do nearly all the larger suburbs in St. Louis County (if you count the closely related city administrator form).

The authors advocating for adoption of professional management argued that the change would, among other things, reduce corruption and improve the quality of public services.  Based on the research I reviewed, the first point is likely; the second is possible but by no means certain.

Overall, the academic evidence suggests that adopting a city manager would reduce corruption, improve financial reporting, lead to more broadly focused legislation (and fewer narrowly targeted measures), reduce political conflict, and increase innovative policy thinking (in ways good and bad). St. Louis may not reap all of these benefits, but it should get some of them, especially reduced corruption.

On the other hand, there is not enough evidence to state that professional management would significantly affect taxes and spending, city employee pay levels, or the quality of city services.

The last claim by proponents of a city manager is key. Would the adoption of a city manager improve the quality of basic governmental services? (For example, would the potholes get filled faster under a city manager?) The presumption of better service quality with professional management is common, and it may be correct. But the evidence is not as clear as its supporters would suggest. Professional management might well perform better than management by elected officials. But as one academic stated, “For decades, analysts have presumed this performance gap exists, but they have yet to empirically demonstrate that any differences actually exist.”

Discussing change in St. Louis without considering the crime problem would be an enormous omission. The prevailing assumption is that police are more insulated from public pressure (for better or worse) in cities with a city manager. But even assuming that this presumption is true, does it lead to higher or lower crime rates? Another economist researched that question and found that there was no evidence that the presence (or absence) of professional management has any effect on municipal crime rates.

Professional city management may be what St. Louis needs, and it deserves careful consideration, but it is unlikely to provide dramatic or easy solutions to the city’s many problems.

 

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