Missouri Sen. John Lamping (R-Dist. 24) talks about the recently concluded 2014 state legislative session.
Useless Taxi Regulation In Saint Louis
The recent conflict between Lyft and the St. Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission (MTC) adds even more credence to the argument that the MTC should not exist. Under the guise of protecting public safety, the MTC controls market entry for taxis in Saint Louis, sets prices, and needlessly regulates the for-hire vehicle market in favor of large taxi companies. There are many examples of these types of competition stifling regulations in the MTC’s For Hire Vehicle Code, including:
Regulations that restrict market entry:
- Section 203: All For Hire Vehicle Owners require a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) from the MTC. The MTC, staffed by taxi industry players, gets to decide if there is enough demand for more cabs. (The MTC has frozen CCN issuances for taxis until they finish a study on taxi demand, because apparently the job of the MTC should be to centrally plan taxi supply).
- 202: Transfer or sale of a CCN must be accompanied by a $2,500 application fee.
- 210: All CCNs must retain and maintain a non-residential office address with a business telephone number that is staffed 24 hours a day.
- 301: All for-hire vehicles require a permit (airport taxi, premium sedan, etc.). Vehicles can only receive one type of permit.
- 602: Taxis cannot be older than nine model years and premium sedans cannot be older than five model years. Taxis that are more than six model years cannot enter service and premium sedans more than two model years cannot enter service.
- 604: All new premium sedan CCNs require at least three sedans at the time of permit issuance.
Regulations that restrict competition:
- 501: Taxi meter rates are controlled.
- 301: For-hire vehicles can only receive one type of permit; hence, airport cabs cannot compete with normal taxis which cannot become premium sedans.
- 604: Premium sedans cannot be stationed within 2,500 feet of a hotel or business property.
- 604: Premium sedans must contract for passengers at least 60 minutes before pickup.
Regulations that are needless or simply ridiculous:
- 501: Taxis must have printed, in colors contrasting to that of the vehicle surface to which affixed, on the outside of one door, the name of the vehicle license holder in letters at least 2.5 inches high.
- 504: Drivers are required to wear a uniform of black slacks and a solid, button-up shirt.
- 701: All on-call taxicabs should arrive at a hotel with heat or air conditioning running, set between 65-75 degrees.
- 304: Vehicles cannot have spinning wheels or covers.
- 304: Bumper paint must match vehicle paint unless paint is not required, then it must be factory black.
You are free to believe these and many other MTC regulations have some tangential connection to keeping passengers safe. But the simplest explanation is that the purpose of these rules is the same as their result: to limit market entry and control competition. Equally simple is the method for improving taxi service in Saint Louis: shutting down the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission.
Useless Taxi Regulation In Kansas City
Kansas City’s attack on Lyft has been a reminder to many residents of the city’s excessively regulated for-hire vehicle market. City officials have long claimed that these regulations are all about safety. But any cursory inspection of Kansas City taxicab code reveals provisions that are clearly designed to limit competition and have nothing to do with passenger safety. Here are just some examples from the city’s taxicab code:
Ordinances that limit market entry:
- Section 76-43 prohibits jitneys (private vehicles operating fixed routes within the city).
- 76-73 (a). Caps taxi permits to 500.
- 76-73 (b). All new applicants to operate taxicabs must permit at least 10 vehicles.
- 76-75: Cab and livery vehicle owners must pay $300 per year for every permitted vehicle (in addition to a $50 application fee, driver’s fees, and inspections fees).
- 76-191 Holder of taxicab permits have to provide on demand service 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
- 76-191 (b). All taxicab companies must maintain a non-residential place of business that is staffed 24 hours a day.
- 76-212 Taxis cannot be more than eight years old and must have a luggage capacity of 15 cubic feet or greater.
Ordinances that set prices and reduce competition:
- 76-192 (a) requires all taxis to use a meter.
- Section 76-43 prohibits jitneys (private vehicles operating fixed routes within the city).
- 76-192 (b) sets fares for meters.
- 76-236 Livery vehicles cannot solicit passengers on any public way or airport or cruise in search of patronage. They cannot park for any time longer than picking up passengers and cannot accept any fare that has not been previously arranged.
Ordinances that are ridiculous, needless, and/or outdated:
- 76-203 Taxi drivers cannot sleep in their vehicles or play loud music.
- 76-203 (1) Taxi drivers cannot wear jogging suits or shorts from October 1 to April 30.
- 76-207 All taxis are required to have at all times detailed street map.
- 76-210 Taxicabs must have a top light visible from all directions.
- 76-210 Taxis must have the company name of vehicle written in letters not less than two inches or more than six inches in height.
These are just a few of the many questionable regulations that have nothing to do with customer safety and everything to do with controlling the market and reducing competition for large taxi companies. Needless to say, transportation options in Kansas City would greatly improve if these and other sections of the taxicab code were repealed.
MetroLink: The Great Race – Part Deux
On Friday, May 9, Citizens for Modern Transit (CMT) held a race between the MetroLink, cars, and bikers from one metro stop to another one. That seemed rigged in favor of the MetroLink to us, so we held our own race from our office in the Central West End to BARcelona in Clayton.
St. Louis’s light rail, MetroLink, has been built on press events and promises. The CMT made-for-media race earlier this month is a great example of the former, but consider some of the promises made to sell MetroLink:
* “…some of Metro Link’s heaviest use could come from lunch-hour passengers moving among downtown, Union Station and the Central West End.” – St. Louis Post-Dispatch 10/26/1988
* “The city is talking with investors and developers about building a golf course just north of the King Bridge, an area of abandoned rail lines… City planners picture light industry around the golf course.
“Conventioneers, just five minutes from East St. Louis by rail, offer a natural market for a golf course…” – St. Louis Post-Dispatch 10/17/1993
During our race, Joseph Miller provides the numbers behind MetroLink. It’s incredibly expensive and there are better ways to improve public transportation. For example, money used on MetroLink would be better spent improving bus service.
Note 1: When Joseph Miller refers to “city” and “city planners” he means the “St. Louis region” and “regional planners”.
Reflecting On 2014 Education Legislation
As I reflect on the 2014 Missouri legislative session, it is easy to get caught up in what could have been. I would have loved for the transfer fix to have resulted in a school choice law that significantly expanded opportunities for students. That was not to be the case. Still, the Missouri Legislature did do some good things.
Last year, opponents of Common Core were not able to get any legislation passed. Not even a bill requiring public meetings on the matter. This year, lawmakers passed a Common Core bill with overwhelming bipartisan support. The bill does not repeal Common Core, but does make the repeal possible. The bill calls for convening work groups to evaluate Missouri’s education standards. The result could be a new set of standards or the groups could end up adopting Common Core. More importantly, the bill will make it impossible for a new set of learning standards to be foisted upon Missourians without the public’s knowledge.
The legislature also took a small step in the right direction on teacher licensing. With the passage of Senate Bill 782, the legislature created a new pathway to the classroom for prospective elementary school teachers. Now, individuals can obtain certification to teach elementary school from the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE). ABCTE already offers teacher certification in several middle and high school subjects. This reduces barriers to entering the teaching profession, making it easier for mid-career professionals to switch careers. Thus far, studies of ABCTE teachers have been pretty positive.
This simple expansion of pathways to the classroom will not lead to a systematic change, but it is a great piece of legislation. It is simple, to the point (about four lines of text), and reduces unnecessary barriers to entering the teaching profession.
Senate Bill 493 Is Not A School Choice Bill
On Thursday, the Missouri Legislature passed Senate Bill 493. Described as the “transfer fix,” the bill contains many provisions. One is the ability of students to use public dollars to attend a nonsectarian private school. If you believe the hype, I should be celebrating. After all, I am a proponent of private school choice. Sadly, I have been wrestling with whether this is even a victory for the school choice crowd.
Don’t get me wrong. I am glad that the legislature moved in a bipartisan manner to get this bill passed. Unlike the education establishment, I am willing to compromise and there are many needed aspects in this bill. Nevertheless, I cannot help but feel as if the students who need educational options got the short end of the stick with this deal.
Am I being too cynical? Should I be celebrating? To answer this question, I asked several school choice policy experts this question:
Is this a win for school choice or does it do more harm than good?
Here were their responses:
Mike McShane – Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
The number of hoops parents and schools are required to jump through in order to participate will most likely prevent students from ever accessing a private education. This is Potemkin private school choice.
Patrick Wolf – Professor and 21st Century Chair in School Choice at the University of Arkansas
I wouldn’t expect more than a handful of families to navigate all of those huge roadblocks to exercise private school choice, especially since religious schools are excluded from the program. When families have a broad set of private school choices, nearly 80 percent of them choose private schools with a religious ethos. That is their preference. This is essentially a private school choice program without the private school choice part.
Jonathan Butcher – Education Director at the Goldwater Institute
I don’t think it does more harm than good, but I’m not sure it will accomplish anything. At least not right away.
Matt Ladner – Senior Advisor of Policy and Research for the Foundation for Excellence in Education
The academic catastrophe going on in Kansas City and Saint Louis have been well understood for decades. On the private side of things, this legislation brings to mind an inspector on the Titanic making conditional offers of an approved life vest three years in the future.
Jason Bedrick, policy analyst at the Cato Institute, and Jay Greene, head of the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, both pointed to the exclusion of religious schools and the testing requirement as very negative aspects of the bill.
“It’s especially painful when a ‘school choice’ program is designed in such a way that its passage is, to say the least, no cause for celebration,” Bedrick wrote.
Greene cautioned that this legislation might stifle future pushes to create school choice programs in Missouri.
A fix to some of the transfer issues was needed and on balance, the bill is mostly positive. But given these comments, I think my initial reaction was correct – this is not a school choice bill. It addresses some issues, but it does not expand options for students.
Summary of the private option:
Students in unaccredited schools within unaccredited districts are free to transfer. They must first apply to an accredited school within their district. If there are no spaces, they are able to transfer to another district or, upon voter approval, a private school. The private school must be located within the unaccredited district, nonsectarian, accredited, administer state tests, and meet a few other criteria. There is no transportation for transfer students.
Landmark ‘Right to Try’ Legislation Crosses The Finish Line
As the session was coming to a close this afternoon, the Missouri House and Senate both passed the “Right to Try” bill and sent the legislation to the governor. As I’ve written and testified in the past, the law will allow greater flexibility for terminally ill patients. Specifically, it allows these patients to seek medications that the drug companies have developed and the FDA has determined to be safe for humans, but are not yet sold on the market. Assuming the governor does not block it, Missouri is set to become one of the first states in the country to enact such legislation. Following the passage of last year’s Volunteer Health Services Act, Missouri is certainly on a roll when it comes to enacting forward-looking and people-empowering health care reforms. Right to Try’s passage is a victory for Missourians.
Congratulations to the legislators who made the bill happen, to the Goldwater Institute, which has pioneered the idea, and most importantly, to the patients and families who will benefit from this law’s enactment.
Medicaid Expansion Push Fails Again; Ditch The Spending And Enact Real Reform
This Wednesday, the Obamacare crowd introduced, and then withdrew, their final attempt at Medicaid expansion in Missouri. That means the state will not expand Obamacare for another year, and that’s good news for Missourians. It isn’t “conservative” to strap a spending bomb to substantive Medicaid reforms and then call the whole thing a “transformation.” Legislators were right to reject it.
Instead of suggesting that special interests will block substantive Medicaid reform, Missouri’s policymakers should stand up, fight the special interests rather than carry their legislation, and deliver the Medicaid fixes we have been promised for years. That some lawmakers would articulate specific reforms and yet would block their progress as a way to force an expansion is as cynical as it is disappointing.
No doubt, expansion supporters will promise that the Medicaid fight will continue next year. And they’re correct. We’ll see you then.
The Illusive Millennials: Kansas City’s Hunt For The Perfect City Dwellers
Have you heard of the millennials? They are big spenders and transit takers, would rather live downtown, and don’t mind higher taxes. They are every city planner’s dream, and Kansas City is spending taxpayer money on stadiums and streetcars and bar districts to pack them in. The only problem is, this simplified view of Americans ages 25-34 is a mirage, which city planners use selectively to support wasteful government projects.
Contrary to the rhetoric, millennials are relatively immobile and have lower incomes than generations that preceded them. This most likely is an effect of the credit crunch and economic downturn, which has left many millennials without steady incomes to spend or credit to buy new housing.
Also contrary to rhetoric, millennials are not upending the dominance of the car in American travel. In 2000, 5.4 percent of workers ages 16-34 used public transportation for their commutes. In 2010, that number increased to 6.1 percent. That is an increase for sure, but a rather small one considering the expansion of transit systems in the 2000s and the wealth-reducing effects of the recession. The vast majority still drive. Most trends point to a “car light” preference among young people rather than a dramatic move to transit reliance.
When millennials do move, it appears to be for economic reasons, not whether a city is considered cool or has a streetcar. The list of top 20 millennial destinations (of which Kansas City is No. 14), contains some cities with lots of public transportation (Portland, Washington, D.C.), but also many cities that are derided for urban sprawl (Houston, Atlanta, etc.). While the transit correlation may be spurious, all of the cities popular with millennials are among the top performing metro areas in economic growth. The obvious conclusion is that millennials, like the generations that preceded them, chase economic opportunity, not transit. As a millennial who has moved to cities for jobs multiple times, my experience is that the number of sports teams or streetcar lines matters very little in the decision-making process.
If Kansas City planners really want to attract millennials, they will stop trying to make Kansas City cool and focus on creating more opportunity. The millennials will bring the cool with them. Instead, Kansas City officials use a millennial straw man as support for a fabulously wasteful streetcar and other large government projects. And if we believe an author at the Kansas City Star, the only problem is the city hasn’t approved streetcar expansion fast enough. When it comes to looking cool, Kansas City spares no expense. That is, of course, until those millennials buck the plan and want to rideshare with Lyft. Then it’s more important for the city to protect taxi companies than to look cool.
