After my post yesterday about Metro’s proposed Daniel Boone Corridor expansion, I was looking around the usual websites that a Show-Me Institute intern might search and found this interesting tidbit from the Kansas City Star.
Kansas City’s light-rail plans are making some folks on the west side of the state nervous, as well. Who can blame them?
The article should raise a few eyebrows, mostly by showing how hundreds of millions of dollars are spent with such little hesitation.
People respond to prices, incentives, and mandates. We all know that, although many people wish it were not so. Today’s Joplin Globe has an enlightening article on how one such business has responded in a very rational way to incentives, and left Missouri for Kansas. Thanks to Combest for the link, and my point here is not to call for further tort reform. Missouri passed some great, much-needed changes in 2005, and they need time to work themselves out. Just as doctors on the west side of the state may favor Kansas over Missouri, doctors on the east side favor Missouri over Illinois. I understand that on the south side doctors perfer to practice in the middle of Table Rock Lake so they can be in either Missouri or Arkansas depending on the precise situation.
According to the National Association of Childcare Resource and Referral Agencies, full-time, year-round child care for young children now costs more than public university tuition in 44 states. The state of Missouri is actually quite lucky, thought, because it is one of the six states where the average tuition of its four-year state colleges is slightly higher than the average cost for full-time infant child care. In Missouri, child-care enrollment costs represent about 10 percent of the $66,580 median household income for a married, two-parent household with children under 18. This could all change very soon, however.
Yesterday in Columbia, a group met to consider restructuring and reshaping regulations that deal with everything from class enrollment size to professional development, hygiene, and safety in child care centers:
This is the second time in three years the state has attempted to revise the rules that some consider outdated and lax. […]
In 2005, the Missouri Department of the Health and Senior Services, which oversees child care regulation in the state, attempted unsuccessfully to internally revise the rules for every type of provider at once. It failed to gain support from providers, who argued the changes would prove a financial hardship.
In 2008, I see the very same issues at play — and it’s even worse now, given the state of the economy. Adding such frivolous legislation would only increase the already-substantial costs of child care.
I’m an impatient guy. I hate waiting around for small problems to get solved so I can move on with my life. Some people might call me bullheaded. I won’t argue with them. But I don’t even come close when compared to the Metro transit agency.
Yesterday, September 16, I had the good fortune to attend the Metro public hearing in Clayton and watch Dave Stokes give his opinions about Metro’s future financial options. At the hearing, I was given a handy packet explaining the state Metro is in today. There were three main theses in the packet. The first, as one would expect, was explaining all the good Metro has done for the community, such as employing more than 2,200 people and reducing traffic, pollution, and oil dependence. Great — I would expect that from public transportation of any kind. You don’t need to tell me twice how convenient the MetroLink is, especially for public events like Cards games.
The second section gave a great color-coded map of all the expansions Metro is currently planning. MetroLink would run all over the city and county, all the way from Chesterfield Bottoms Valley, to I-55 & I-270. Also, it gave a detailed plan of the next planned expansion, the Daniel Boone Corridor, which will run from Clayton to I-270 at Westport. This new line could be open in as soon as 10 years. Ironically, the offices of the Clayton branch of the Show-Me Institute overlook the area that would be dedicated for the MetroLink expansion. There is also a highlighted section explaining bus–rapid transit (BRT). According to Metro, “BRT is an innovative, high capacity, lower cost public transit solution that can significantly improve urban mobility.” These buses would have designated lanes and traffic signals, and would be allowed to travel at great speeds. And not only that, the BRTs look strikingly like a vehicle found in Star Wars.*
Now, if I were to stop the blog post here, you would think Metro is in great shape. They are helping the community and have ambitious expansion plans. The only problem is the third thesis included the packet, the section that details the potential service reductions Metro is planning for both MetroBus and MetroLink. If MetroLink does not gain additional local funds, it will not be eligible for additional state and federal funds, which would mean not only an end to expansion, but also a reduction in service in order to lower costs. MetroLink would be reduced by 42 percent. There would be no service after 8 p.m. and no extra trains for events like Cardinals games. Also, trains would run every 20 minutes rather than every 15. Overall convenience would fall even more. Why take a train into the city that won’t be operating by the time you need to leave? I can’t remember the last time I left a Cards game before 8 p.m. In all, 57 percent of service would be reduced, including nearly half of all bus routes.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran an article this morning detailing the woes of Metro’s newly released audit. Apparently, a great deal of Metro’s financial trouble dates back to the creation of the Shrewsbury line, which opened in 2006. This line has plagued Metro with problems, including a disastrous lawsuit that cost the agency $27 million, including legal fees. In total, the Shrewsbury line cost Metro $676 million.
With all the costs and problems associated with the Shrewsbury construction, Metro should be very cautious with any expansion. How many more fiascos can it survive before having to cut service drastically? This city has become very dependent on Metro, and cannot afford to have public transportation disappear.
Now, one would think that such a sizable debt, combined with the risk of having to reduce service, would cause Metro to focus on shrinking its defecit. Expansion should be the last thing on the minds of its officials right now. While these new lines and BRTs would be great, they simply aren’t attainable right now. As Dave stated in his testimony, fare hikes may be necessary to increase Metro’s revenue, but should not be the only factor. Alternate solutions need to be found to fill Metro’s debt, and increasing this debt by adding new lines should not even be up for debate.
For more thoughts about public transportation, be sure to take a look at the Show-Me Institute’s policy study with the Reason Foundation, “Missouri’s Changing Transportation Paradigm.”
* If I’m not mistaken, I am the first person on the blog to link to Wookiepedia. I take great pride in this fact.
Regulations come in three categories. First, you have common-sense regulations to protect public health and safety — the kind everyone agrees we need. Then, you have pointless regulations about the fat content of restaurant food, or who can call themselves an interior decorator. And, finally, there are those well-intentioned regulations that try to do the impossible. Like making skydiving safe. The current skydiving regulations have been deemed insufficient, perhaps because they don’t outlaw gravity.
Nicely correlating with our presentation of an upcoming appearance by Steven Levitt, of Freakonomics fame, is an interesting post on his blog of the same name. (Note: Registration is full and closed for Tuesday’s talk, so don’t even think about it.) The “Freakonomics” post discusses a recent survey of economists by Scott Adams on how they feel about the upcoming presidential election. (Note #2: What is the proper way to differently style and cite a book and a blog of the same name? I honestly have no idea.) The survey itself is very interesting and worthwhile to peruse, but my intention here is to point out one small but important error in the demographics part.
The survey and the related discussion both point out the easy fact that economists who list themselves as registered Republican or registered Democrat obviously favor the candidate of their party affiliation. But the discussion then goes to note that economists who are registered independent also favor Obama, by a fairly substantial margin. The problem with the party affiliation question is that it does not account for states that do not require, or even allow, voters to register by party. I often hear people in Missouri say while talking politics that they are “registered this-or-that’s.” I always want to say, and sometimes do say, “No, you’re not, we don’t register by party here.” A more accurate way to phrase the question is, “Do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, Indepedent, third-party supporter, or non-voter?”
How the hell can this affect the results? Well … if someone, for a poll or survey, asks me whether I am a registered member of a party, it is perfectly legitimate for me to say no. If they instead ask me whether I consider myself a member of a certain party, I would say yes, and any other answer would be lying. We can be sure that some of the responders to this question are from states like Missouri that do not register by party. As such, people from those states with strong political leanings may have very reasonably chosen “registered independent” as the best of the available options, even though they are not truly independents. With a polling universe heavy on people from acadamia, it is likely that many of those not-really-independents favored the obvious candidate.
The results of the poll are not my point. And the overall survey is very interesting. But doing the demographics in a way that assumes all people register by party, or else officially register as an independent, is erroneous.
We have a new winner in the easiest-to-write blog post title contest. I deserve no praise, and am certainly no genius, for combining the corporation “Bunge” with the verb “jump.” Nonetheless, I simply must point out a great post by David Nicklaus over at Mound City Money concerning recent comments made by Bunge CEO Carl Hausmann about Missouri’s ethanol mandate. Check out the entry, and the comments, as well as the Show-Me Institute’s own contribution to the debate on ethanol. The highlight of Mr. Hausmann’s talk is clearly:
“I believe very much in free markets. … I hate government mandates, including biofuels.”
Beautiful.
By way of Edspresso, I found an article about Chicago’s Noble charter schools:
Olsen and his staff have actually convinced kids that long school days, lots of homework and a grueling work ethic is good for them.
The curriculum requires twice as much math and twice as much reading and writing than what a regular high school requires. And when people here say, “Failure isn’t an option,” they mean it.
Read the whole thing to find out what a successful network of charters looks like.
Noble schools have done a great job of keeping kids in school and preparing them for college. They employ the time-tested methods of long school days, weekend tutoring, and high expectations that are perfectly legal options for all public schools, but for some reason are implemented only by schools like charters, that face competition.
I find it hard to temper my enthusiasm about charters like Noble. But I should note that Noble’s success story doesn’t mean all charters are great, just like a few low-achieving schools in Missouri don’t indicate the failure of charters generally. Some charters are spectacular; some are not. The more charters a state allows to open, the sooner we’ll find the best ones.
Tuesday, Sept. 23, is slowly yet surely approaching, and the closer it gets, the more excited I become to hear Steven D. Levitt speak. Not only is his lecture being presented by my employer, the Show-Me Institute, but he will be speaking at my school, the John Cook School of Business at St. Louis University. I will literally have to walk only 50 yards from my apartment to hear one of my favorite contemporary authors speak in my own back yard. It doesn’t get much better than that.
Steven D. Levitt is a rock star among economists, a title that would have been an oxymoron a few years ago. The book he co-authored, Freakonomics, has taken economics out from the dark, dusty classroom and into the pop-culture spotlight. To call his work “nontraditional” or “unconventional” would be an understatement. Quite abruptly, Freakonomics has become one of the foundations of an economic education. Repeatedly, I have had professors assign different sections of the book as in-class readings. I cannot recommend this book highly enough to anyone, whether or not they have a background or interest in economics. Then again, I’m posting on a free-market economic think tank blog, so I’m sure those reading this are familiar with Freakonomics.
Since beginning my study of economics at SLU a few years ago, people have suggested I read Freakonomics, but I didn’t take the time to do so till this past summer. Frankly, I wish I had gotten around to reading it sooner. The book analyzes topics I would never have dreamed to associate with economics, such as sumo wrestling results and inner-city gang financing. Levitt successfully shows that there is a transparent economic layer to nearly anything you can imagine. Levitt’s speech on the 23rd promises to be both entertaining and thought-provoking. I could try to predict the topics he will cover, but I believe such an efforts would be in vein. Nothing at this point would surprise me. I would be in a state of euphoria if I heard any official news about the Internet rumors concerning a possible sequel, Superfreakonomics.
If you have not yet read Freakonomics, I highly advise it. Don’t forget to check out the details of the speech, and to register. Be advised that seats are going fast.
The talk will be held Tuesday, September 23rd, an the Anheuser-Busch Auditorium in the lower level of the John Cook School of Business at St. Louis University. I hope to see you there.
