Ballot Initiative Lets Motorists Off Hook

In Sunday’s Columbia Daily Tribune, my editorial, “Ballot Initiative Lets Motorists Off Hook,” made the case that user fees, and not a general sales tax, should pay for highways in Missouri.

A ballot initiative proposes to implement a general sales tax to raise money for critical infrastructure projects in the state. However, the lack of funding for highways is the result of a falling real gas tax and increasing vehicle fuel efficiency. Along with the lack of tolling, this has meant funding for highways is decreasing as the cost of repairs escalates. As a chart created from our new website Show-Me Data illustrates, it has been many years since Missouri raised its gasoline tax:

However, a sales tax unfairly burdens those who drive less and subsidizes the actions of those who drive more. This encourages overuse of the roads and more congestion in Missouri. If the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) needs more funds to maintain and expand highway infrastructure, raising the gas tax or implementing tolls is superior to sales tax in terms of both fairness and economic efficiency.

For more about transportation funding, read our writings about a “HOT” route for a proposed South Saint Louis County Connector, opposition to past road funding sales taxes, and changing the transportation paradigm in Missouri.

Ballot Initiative Lets Motorists Off Hook

As first appearing in the Columbia Daily Tribune on 24 November, 2013:

Imagine ordering the usual for dinner at your favorite restaurant. When the check arrives, you are surprised to find a $2 surcharge for “movie tickets.”

When you demand an explanation, the waiter says the local theaters were losing money. Moviegoers did not want to pay higher ticket prices, so to save the theaters, they decided to make restaurant patrons pay for their tickets.

If the waiter’s explanation seems outrageous, it might interest you to know a new ballot initiative uses the same logic to pay for transportation. The initiative, which the private group “Missourians for Safe Transportation and New Jobs” supports, proposes a 1 percent sales tax on all businesses for 10 years. Its purpose is to raise $8 billion for the cash-strapped Missouri Department of Transportation, or MoDOT, to use on transportation — mainly road — projects. MoDOT needs the cash because during the last decade its road construction costs have rapidly risen while gas tax revenues fell. In 2012, MoDOT’s expenditures outstripped its funding by more than $300 million. If something is not done, MoDOT might not have the funds to maintain, much less improve, more than 33,000 miles of state roads.

MoDOT might need money, but implementing a state sales tax is the wrong policy. The fundamental problem with MoDOT funding, which a sales tax would only exacerbate, is that people who use the roads are paying less than their fair share. With a sales tax, those who use public transportation, ride their bike to work or simply drive less end up subsidizing those who use roads more often. Aside from being fundamentally unfair, the policy incentivizes individuals to drive more and shop less, because road use is artificially cheap and shopping is artificially expensive. That behavior results in increased congestion and pollution.

The real solution to MoDOT’s funding problems is simple: Make drivers pay for the roads. Aside from the fairness issue, charging users for the amount of road used will discourage overuse of highways and create a sustainable funding structure for MoDOT. Faced with higher gas prices and tolls, people will drive less or opt for fuel-efficient vehicles. This reduces congestion, road degradation and pollution.

At 17 cents a gallon, Missouri has one of the lowest gas taxes in the country. This is not automatically a bad thing, but it is an issue when state road maintenance is underfunded. If Missouri simply raised its rate to adjust for the inflation since the tax was set in 1996, MoDOT calculated it would get additional revenues of more than $150 million per year.

Another option is to toll new or improved roads. Other states, such as Texas and Oklahoma, have low gas taxes, but they finance roads with toll revenue. Tolling Interstates 70 and 44, along with new bridges such as the proposed Washington, Mo., bridge over the Missouri River, could greatly defray project costs. Missouri could find financing for roads and bridges in the private sector by auctioning the right to build or operate those tollways.

Implementing a 1 percent sales tax would encourage congestion, incentivize pollution and unfairly burden those who drive less. MoDOT might need more funds, but a sales tax does more harm than good. Missouri should alter its constitution to create a sustainable transportation tax structure that makes economic sense and enshrines the concept of fairness.

Missouri makes the restaurant patron pay for his meal and the moviegoer pay for his theater ticket; it is time to make drivers pay for their roads.

Joseph Miller is a policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

South County Connector Is Opportunity For Transportation Innovation

As first appearing in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on November 21, 2013:

“Thinking outside of the box” is viewed positively, but how about “thinking outside of the lane”? Not so much. We all want drivers focused on the road. Ingenuity behind the wheel is rarely a good thing. However, innovation is good for roads planning and construction. There is room for new ideas in highway building, and Saint Louis County government has an excellent opportunity for creativity with the South County Connector.

The South County Connector Project is a new road designed to create more efficient north-south traffic flow between Clayton and South County. The project is needed and will improve the region’s transportation network. Just as important, it offers the county a great opportunity to finance the project in a creative manner that utilizes user fees, encourages carpooling, and benefits all drivers.

Saint Louis already exercises creativity in transportation engineering. Some examples include the reversible lanes on I-70 in the city and the wonderful jughandle design at Hanley, Eager, and I-64.

Our focus is on the financing and access; we will leave the details of the route and design to the engineers. We believe Saint Louis County should strongly consider building the South County Connector as the region’s first High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) route. HOT routes allow high-occupancy vehicles (HOV) free use of the road while charging a fee to solo drivers. Saint Louis County already funds its roads in a variety of ways, including dedicated transportation property and sales taxes along with state gas tax funds and federal grants. This would just add tolling to the mix. The Missouri constitution’s prohibition against tolling does not impose any legal limits because the South County Connector is a Saint Louis County project.

The South County Connector could have a moderately priced toll on express lanes between River Des Peres Blvd. and Hanley Road during rush hours only. The toll should be high enough to limit congestion while remaining low enough to attract traffic. There is no need for toll booths — the entire system could easily be automated and payable via transponders (e.g., EZ Pass) for regular users and license plate-based payments via cell phone for others (once you safely stop, of course). Importantly, free access for cars with multiple adults would incentivize carpooling, thereby limiting congestion during rush hour.

There is no illusion that collecting a toll would cover the entire expense of building/maintaining the South County Connector. A high toll is not necessary here. Rather, the South County Connector’s toll on its new express lanes (perhaps even reversible express lanes) should be low enough to attract essential traffic to the road. That way, even the people who choose to avoid the toll road benefit from all the commuters who do choose to drive it. For better or worse, this recommendation may limit the ability of private operators to finance and manage the project. However, county government or a private company could operate what we envision.

Toll roads have reduced congestion and been financially successful in other localities. An example is State Hwy. 550 in Texas, which will connect two major highways with a tollway outside of Brownsville. Local officials believe the highway will serve important transportation needs, and the toll’s estimated revenue of $1 million per year makes the $41 million price tag more manageable. In California, private developers constructed HOT lanes on SR-91 in Orange County. By transferring less essential travel to non-peak times and public transportation, Orange County tollways have reduced peak congestion by more than 25 percent on most roads. The SR-91 lanes have proven successful in reducing congestion and do not take any money from general transportation funds.

Saint Louis County can be a leader in encouraging carpooling, user fees, and creative highway design all in one project. These are not radical ideas. All of them have been implemented effectively elsewhere. High-Occupancy Toll routes are the best way to increase capacity while remaining fiscally responsible and reducing congestion. In this case, “thinking outside the lane” is exactly what Saint Louis County needs.

David Stokes is a policy analyst and Joseph Miller is a policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

 

South County Connector Is Opportunity For Transportation Innovation

The Show-Me Institute has long supported market-based solutions to infrastructure projects in Missouri, including using tolls to pay for new highway projects throughout the state. This week, in an editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, we argued that the South County Connector should be Missouri’s first high-occupancy toll (HOT) road.

The South County Connector is a proposed route in Saint Louis County designed to ease north-south traffic congestion between South Saint Louis County and Clayton. Saint Louis County is responsible for this project, and is prepared to fund the road through property taxes, sales taxes, and gas tax funds. We suggest that Saint Louis County operate HOT express lanes on the connector in order to relieve congestion and help pay for the road. HOT lanes are express lanes that allow high-occupancy vehicles to use the lanes free while solo drivers pay a toll. This guarantees a free flow of traffic and generates revenue to pay for road construction and maintenance. HOT lanes have been successfully implemented in California and Virginia, and can serve Missouri as well.

For more on road funding in Missouri, read our other work about the possibility of tolling I-70 and transforming Missouri’s transportation funding paradigm.

Should School Choice Programs Require State Testing?

standardized_test

Jay Greene has an interesting piece on his blog about school choice and accountability testing. He writes:

There is a legitimate diversity of views on what constitutes a good education. We should be no more willing to impose the “right” kind of education on people than we would impose the “right” religion or the “right” political preference. Reasonable people disagree about what constitutes the good life and the government in a free society should not be in the business of severely restricting that range of disagreement.

Some argue that charter schools or private schools should not receive state funds unless they teach the state’s prescribed curriculum and administer the state-prescribed accountability tests. To this, Greene responds:

So, the state only pays for its own vision of a good education but you have to pay extra if you want to pursue something else. This is roughly comparable to the status of Dhimmis (non-Muslims in an Islamic state) who are allowed to practice a different religion as long as they pay an extra tax. Doesn’t feel compatible with a free society, does it?

In Missouri, opponents of school choice programs often state this very argument. In a recent position paper, the Cooperating School Districts of Greater St. Louis wrote that charter schools should have the “same accreditation process and accountability requirements of all public schools.” The same has been said about private schools in a school choice program.

These opponents of choice must not realize that we can have a “legitimate diversity of views on what constitutes a good education.”

Earlier this week, I had the pleasure of speaking with a group of parents at New City School, a private school in the Central West End neighborhood of Saint Louis. I asked them what they looked for in a school and why they chose New City. Of the seven parents, not one listed performance on standardized exams as their top reason and only one indicated it was in their top three considerations. The most cited reason for picking New City was the school’s commitment to diversity.

In their recent report, “More than Scores: An Analysis of Why and How Parents Choose Private Schools,” the folks at the Friedman Foundation found the same thing that I’m hearing from parents — they are interested in much more than just test scores.

New Terminal Already Costing Kansas City Taxpayers

On March 30, the Kansas City Star reported that according to Aviation Department Administrator Mark VanLoh,

Building a new terminal would not require general taxpayer funds. Instead, bonds would be paid by airport passengers, airlines and other users of the facility.

Now we learn from the Kansas City Business Journal that general taxpayer funds will be used after all. On Nov. 19, Austin Alonzo reported on the latest airport advisory group meeting:

During the meeting, Fowler announced that the board will “engage” New York-based transportation consultancy firm Frasca & Associates LLC as its independent consultant.

After the meeting, Fowler said Kansas City will handle the consultant’s contract, which could be worth as much as $100,000. More information on that choice and what the firm will do for the KCI Advisory Board will be revealed at the group’s next meeting.

Why are general taxpayer funds being used instead of airport funds? Apparently VanLoh cried poverty, saying the Aviation Department does not have the money. Mind you, the airport had the $117,000 to pay public relations firm Global Prairie to tell us how great an idea the new terminal is. The Aviation Department found the money to conduct the multi-year study that is now being considered. They even had the cash to loan Kansas City $10 million (at a modest rate of interest).

Terminal supporters may argue that the Aviation Department should not have to pay for a consultant to review Aviation Department claims. (After all, we at The Show-Me Institute have been investigating the matter for months at no public expense.) But even if you accept that argument, if the new terminal plan goes forward it, will put the airport into even more debt than the new terminal will generate in revenue. And that debt, we argue, could result in Kansas City making up the difference from the general taxpayer funds, as it has with Power & Light, The Citadel and this current airport consultant. Residents will certainly pay the high costs through airline tickets, parking, or reduced options at MCI.

The people of Kansas City do not want a new terminal. MCI’s biggest tenant, Southwest Airlines, says the proposed plan is too expensive and unnecessary. In most places, that would be enough to settle the issue, but in Kansas City, it just increases the cost (see also: streetcar).

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