Should Missouri Toll I-70?

Posted on by David Stokes

Think about the difference in the taxes that property owners pay to fund local parks and the entrance fee your family pays to visit Yellowstone National Park. That is the appropriate framework to begin discussing toll roads. Everyone in the community can access local parks so general taxes support their existence. A much smaller percentage of people visit Yellowstone each year, and those people support it with an admission fee. Interstate highways are like Yellowstone – admission fees (tolls) are the preferred means of funding.

The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has announced plans to make Interstate 70 a toll road to fund renovations. Let us make two assumptions: MoDOT will overcome any legal and political impediments to do this (not a safe assumption) and the renovations to I-70 are necessary (I think MoDOT is on safe ground here). With those assumptions set, the focus simply becomes: Is tolling I-70 a good public policy decision? I believe it is.

Missouri has less history with tolling than many other states. Most toll bridges across rivers in Missouri were converted to free facilities decades ago. Two bridges continued as tolls until recently — the McKinley Bridge in Saint Louis and one connecting Missouri and Iowa. The only toll facility now in Missouri is the Lake Ozark Community Bridge, which opened in the 1990s. Unlike neighboring states Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, Missouri has never tolled its highways.

The plan is to have a private contractor reconstruct and toll the part of the highway between Saint Louis and Kansas City, but leave the parts within the urban centers toll-free. Without tolls, MoDOT officials say they would have to increase the gas tax 15 cents per gallon, almost doubling Missouri’s current — and admittedly, low — tax of 17 cents per gallon. The future toll rate (or rates, if they are adjustable, as they should be) is unknown, though the rate should be high enough to fund the highway and discourage congestion, but low enough to discourage taking alternate routes.

In July 2011, I visited a gas station in downtown Saint Louis to film a video on excise taxes in Missouri. We found a gas station, which at one point had cars from Illinois filling its entire lot. We spoke with the manager of an Illinois car service company that drove a dozen of its vehicles every day from Illinois to Missouri just to fill up with gas. Right now, it is inarguable that Illinois residents subsidize Missouri drivers (by buying more gas here than they consume via road usage). If Missouri raises its gas tax, thousands of southern Illinois commuters will see their costs increase too, including many who never drive on I-70 or do so merely for the first few blocks into downtown Saint Louis. (And yes, the new Mississippi River Bridge should have been a toll bridge.)

A Missouri driver, using baseline assumptions of driving 20,000 miles per year in a car getting 25 miles per gallon, would pay $120 more per year in gas taxes after a 15-cent increase. That would equal eight trips on I-70 if we estimate a $15 toll to cross the state. However, all Missouri motorists and anyone else buying gas in Missouri would pay that tax increase, whether they use I-70 or not. Truckers and frequent highway travelers would likely have to pay more with a toll than with a gas tax increase. There is nothing unfair about that because they are the people choosing to use the asset and drive the road.

How should one pay for public goods and services, through taxes or user fees? Good public policy often comes down to the economic questions of rivalry and excludability. Pure public goods are non-rivalrous (meaning that your consumption of it does not limit my consumption) and non-excludable (meaning that it is difficult to prevent someone from using a particular good). Sound public policy suggests that general taxes pay for those types of public goods. A local road system is not excludable (there is no means of keeping someone from leaving their driveway and driving on the street) and non-rivalrous (your use does not impede my use, although congestion makes any road rivalrous in certain conditions). Taxes, such as a general gasoline tax, are preferred for these systems.

Interstate highways connecting major cities (and many bridges) do not meet those standards for public goods. Their limited entry points make it easy to control access, so they are readily excludable. And while highways are not considered rivalrous, they are more rivalrous than local roads because of greater issues with congestion due to peak travel time demands and limited alternative routes. Smart policy is to pay for services like this via fees — in this case, tolls.

Tolls provide the necessary funds to build and maintain the road assets that benefit certain users, such as truckers, more than others. They provide a reliable source of funds to maintain the road in the future. With the recent technological improvements to tolling, fees can be efficiently collected without the long lines at toll plazas that some people may remember. Every state should move in the direction of lower general taxes for roads and more tolls where appropriate. Missouri’s I-70 is one road where it is appropriate.

David Stokes is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri Public Policy.

Toll Road Twofer

Posted on by David Stokes

Please check out this op-ed that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran yesterday on turning I-70 into a toll road. Be sure to also read the comments – they are wonderful. Man, am I ever an idiot . . .

This afternoon, I am pleased to appear on the Mark Reardon show on KMOX NewsRadio 1120 to discuss this issue. I will be on during the 3 p.m. time slot. Please listen in if you can.

I support turning I-70 into a toll road, for reasons discussed in the op-ed and in this blog post.

Another Way To Keep Score?

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

In a league as competitive as the NFL, it serves a team well to gain any advantage available. In Major League Baseball, the bigger market teams have a competitive advantage in that they can spend more money to acquire the higher-priced free agent talent to improve their teams. However, in the NFL, there is a salary cap ($120 million for 2011). So where can a team find a competitive advantage? There are numerous ways teams can gain an edge over their rivals; one such opportunity is the tax advantage.

Like most people, NFL players have to pay taxes on their income. A team located where income tax rates are lower theoretically could offer contracts that are lower in nominal dollars but allow the players to receive higher take-home pay (for the purposes of this post, I am not taking into consideration deductions and tax loopholes, nor am I factoring in cost-of-living adjustments).  Which team’s players have the lowest income tax burden in the NFL? Well, there a couple of things to consider. First, what is the state and local income tax rate for where the players play their eight home games? Next, what is the state and local income tax rate for each of the team’s divisional foes (the players will travel for a road game against each of their divisional opponents)? The other games on a team’s schedule change from year to year, so the combined burden the players face will change somewhat from year to year.

So, for the 11 games (out of the 16 total) that a NFL team has on its schedule every year, is there a noticeable difference between the income tax burdens that the players on different teams face? From my calculations, there is (basic calculations —I only used the top marginal rate, so these numbers do not take into account the lower rates for the lower brackets and these numbers are slightly higher than they really would be). Take, for example, the Houston Texans. A team member who plays a game in Houston would pay no income taxes at either the state or local level. Therefore, for the eight games played in Houston, a Houston player will pay no income taxes. A Houston player will pay no income taxes for the road games in Jacksonville and Nashville, and $1,973.13 for the one game in Indianapolis. Therefore, the total income tax burden for a Houston Texans player making the median salary for these 11 games is $1,973.13. In contrast, a NFL player making the median salary would face a state and local income tax burden of close to $46,000 if he played for the Oakland Raiders (9.3 percent tax rate for eight games in Oakland and one game in San Diego plus the 4.63 percent and 7 percent rates for the games in Denver and Kansas City, respectively). Multiply that figure by 53 (the total number of players on the active roster) and the burden on a team’s players can increase substantially. If you used the mean salary ($1,900,000) instead of the median salary, the burden also increases.

Would this tax burden make much of a difference? I cannot say definitively (I am not an economist), but if one team had to pay a couple of million dollars, which counts against the cap, to just the income taxes, while another team only paid $100,000 or $200,000, I can tell you which team I would rather own.

When Progress and Preservation Collide

Posted on by Greg Aubuchon

Successful cultures arise from a dynamic process that balances a healthy respect for the past with an optimistic regard for the future. In this sense, progress may be understood as successive series of creative destruction and new growth. Among the many benefits of growth is an expansion of the tax base. In this world, an excessive pining for the past and the preservation of its symbols stymies growth and our future prosperity. Today, Saint Louis is confronted with this very issue. Some preservationists are attempting to block the construction of a new medical facility in Saint Louis. Their reason: to preserve the decrepit symbol of a bygone era at the expense of the city and its taxpayers.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently reported the St. Louis Preservation Board’s denial of a demolition permit to Saint Louis University (SLU) to raze the vacant Pevely Dairy headquarters building at the corner of Chouteau Ave. and South Grand Blvd. (you probably recall the Pevely smokestack). SLU officials intend to build a surgical center at the site, but now claim that the historic building may scuttle their plans if the building is not leveled and removed.

Before moving on to more pressing matters, perhaps a brief review of the tax implications is in order. Saint Louis public records indicate that the two parcels in question (1001 South Grand Blvd. and 3626 Chouteau Ave.) generate approximately $93,000 in annual property tax revenues for the city. See here and here. The future tax status of the properties, however, is uncertain (I called SLU’s controller, Gregory Haney, but he declined to express his opinion or share his knowledge on the subject). If the properties fall under SLU’s non-profit status, then SLU may be tax-exempt (similar to SLU’s 200 North Grand property). On the other hand, if property ownership vests in a for-profit entity, similar to Tenet Health System’s ownership of property underlying Saint Louis University Hospital, then taxes will likely be assessed and collected.

In either case, the city still stands to gain revenues if the surgical center is developed. This would arise from earnings taxes on new jobs created at the facility (although we have advocated for the elimination of the earnings tax and for alternative payments in lieu of taxes from tax-exempt non-profits, this blog post deals with the facts and law as they currently exist). For the sake of example, at 1 percent on taxable earnings, 124 jobs at $75,000 annual salary generates $93,000 in revenues, which compensates for the loss of property tax revenues under the tax-exempt scenario, but provides additional incremental revenues to the city under the alternative scenario. In either case, both the economy and the tax base are increased, which is a good thing.

While the tax implications are interesting, perhaps the more fundamental question is why are preservationists so insistent on saving the aging Pevely headquarters building? The history of progress is replete with tear-downs and rebuilds. Progress necessarily implies creative destruction, replacing old with new. Sometimes you have to let go of the past if you are to embrace the future. The past is but a distant memory. Happiness, prosperity, and success are forward-looking concepts that reside, if at all, in the future. Saint Louis, embrace the future, not the past. The Preservation Board should reconsider its decision.

Donnybrook: Audrey Spalding Returns to KETC

Posted on by Audrey Spalding

Show-Me Institute Policy Analyst Audrey Spalding returned to Saint Louis local roundtable discussion show Donnybrook on December 15, 2011. Among the topics covered this time were: a proposal to ban texting while driving in the state of Missouri, the new leadership announced by the RCGA, the controversy surrounding Lowe’s and “All-American Muslim,” and Pujols’ departure from the Saint Louis Cardinals.

Click here to watch the video of the event.

College Loans: It Seems We ALL Have Them Now

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon is asking some state universities for a loan. To be more specific, Gov. Nixon is asking the University of Missouri-Columbia, the University of Central Missouri, Truman State University, Missouri State University, and Southeast Missouri State for a total of $107 million to help fund the Missouri Department of Higher Education (DHE) due to the state’s expected budget shortfall next year. The exact size of the budget gap is not yet known. There are differing reports on its size, with some articles stating it will fall between $400 million-$600 million while the St. Louis Post Dispatch reports that the shortfall is $750 million. Regardless, the amount is not insubstantial.

However, the plan for obtaining a $107 million loan from state universities to help fund a department that gives a lot of money to . . . well, state universities, seems odd. If the state is facing a shortfall, it needs to make the tough decisions to balance the budget (i.e., cut spending and NOT raise taxes). What happens if the state faces a similar situation in fiscal year 2014? Will Nixon ask for ANOTHER loan?

There are other places in the budget that can be cut (granted, these cuts alone will not make up the amount of money needed, but they are a start) before even thinking about cutting money from the DHE, never mind resorting to this loan plan. However, that is not to say that cuts cannot be made in DHE. The DHE budget is not sacrosanct.

For example, in fiscal year 2012, the DHE gave more than $400 million ($366,765,401 from general revenue) to the University of Missouri system. If Gov. Nixon wants a $63 million loan from the University of Missouri-Columbia, why doesn’t he ask the legislature to cut $63 million from the University of Missouri system. Lawmakers can always appropriate more money in future fiscal years (not that they necessarily SHOULD). Why ask for a loan?
Prudence is a virtue for a reason. Before engaging in plans meant to avoid the task at hand, wouldn’t it be better if the state actually finds out what it is paying for and truly decide what it NEEDS to pay for, and what people can do without?

What’s Next? Indefinite Detention Of People Who Text And Drive?

Posted on by Audrey Spalding

Just in time for holiday travel, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended banning the use of cell phones while driving. The news came when the NTSB completed its investigation of a tragic accident that occurred in Missouri in which two people died and another 38 were injured.

This provides the perfect narrative for what some might consider to be very compelling and policy-minded journalism: A tragedy has occurred and a cell phone was involved. Shouldn’t there be a law against that?

Consider this line from the New York Times’ series of articles on the subject: “With virtually every American owning a cellphone, distracted driving has become a threat on the nation’s roads.” Indeed, in September 2009, the newspaper wrote that it was time to crack down, saying that “…texting at the wheel is a national hazard that calls for a firm federal response.”

This weekend, I heard an interview on National Public Radio with Matt Richtel, the author of several Times articles regarding the dangers of cell phone use while driving, discussing whether he considered himself to be an advocate. Richtel provided the standard journalist line, saying that he just thinks it is important to ask tough questions.

Well, here are two more.

1. Traffic fatalities, crashes, accidents, etc. have declined dramatically. If driving is safer than ever, why is there such concern?

The argument I hear again and again (most recently when I sat in on Donnybrook) is that banning cell phones while driving is about safety. However, Missourinet reports that this year, traffic fatalities are headed for a 62-year low. The same trend is seen on the national level. Fatality, injury, and crash rates have all declined substantially since 1990.

If fatalities, crashes, and injuries are down, then I hardly think that we are experiencing a “national hazard” that warrants an outright ban on cell phone use while driving. Of course, there have been accidents where cell phones were clearly the cause. However, with traffic accidents and fatalities down during the same time period that cell phones became popular, cell phone use is clearly not as dangerous as some fear.

And, even if an action comes with a small amount of risk, that does not mean we should pass a law to ban it. In fact, driving with children in the car may be more distracting than those pesky cell phones. Should we ban driving with children? Are we in the midst of a national driving-with-children epidemic?

2. How could this possibly be enforced? And, do we really want to create another vague reason to stop and question citizens?

How on earth could a ban on cell phone use be enforced? Would a police officer be able to pull you over if you look down briefly while driving? How could the officer discern whether you are talking on a hands-free phone or merely singing along to the radio?

The New York Times should know better than to advocate for additional vague ways for police to stop and question individuals. After all, the Times did an excellent study of a “stop, question, and frisk” policing policy. The newspaper found that after a drastic decline in violent crimes in New York City, the number of stops the police made increased dramatically.

Knowing that police officers can sometimes abuse their ability to stop, question, search, and detain individuals, why would anyone advocate for more vague reasons to stop and question people? Driving dangerously is already illegal. What more do cell phone ban advocates need?

Indeed, the last thing I want to see after the passage of federal legislation that allows for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is another vague reason that police can use to stop and search citizens.

The solution is not to ban cell phones.

I do not condone texting while driving. I also am not a fan of eating while driving, or letting your adorable pet distract you while driving. Though it would make an excellent point and is legal, I do not recommend that you hold a banana to your ear and pretend to talk to it while driving.

I was in a nearly fatal car accident when my family first moved to Michigan. The culprit? Ice. Should driving in Michigan be banned from October through April? Obviously not. Instead, I support independent groups working to inform drivers about dangerous winter driving conditions. Similarly, efforts to educate drivers about the dangers of distracted driving may end up saving lives.

But an outright ban? It is an overreaction to a tragedy.

Among the Blackhawks Fans

Posted on by David Stokes

Please check out our latest video where we ask Chicago Blackhawks fans if they intend to take advantage of Missouri’s low excise taxes during their visit to Saint Louis. Intrepid intern Amy and I interviewed as many fans from Illinois as we could, asking if they knew about our low taxes on gas, cigarettes, and alcohol, and if that information was going to influence their purchasing decisions. Enjoy!

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