Stopping by Show-Me on a Snowy Morning

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

All apologies to Robert Frost for the title, but the rest of the Show-Me Institute staff is in the process of digging their cars out from the snow and there isn’t anybody here to police my desecration of an American icon (not like that’s been a problem lately).

Events like this, though, bring to mind a number of legitimate concerns about Missouri roadways under severe weather conditions. While our good friend David Stokes has heaped praise on the folks of MoDOT as of late, I can’t help but wonder whether the response to this most recent storm is an indication that the department might be spread a bit too thin. I understand that nearly every major roadway in St. Louis County is undergoing construction, that MODOT is doing everything it can to ease congestion with warnings for motorists to stay home, and using highway plow groups the Post-Dispatch described as "gang plow strike teams," and that every complaint I have might be better directed at St. Louis County, but still — aren’t all of the excuses moot if nobody can get to work?

Maybe I’m just bitter that it took me 10 minutes to scrape off my windshield.

Changing the Rules for Initiative Petitions

Posted on by David Stokes

I respectfully, yet strongly, disagree with my colleague Dave Roland’s post yesterday on changes to the initiative petition/constitutional amendment rules in Missouri. We are a republic, not a direct democracy. We elect people to make laws and decisions. If they are not doing a good job, then we should elect different people. These petition-gathering amendment drives have led to some terrible legislation, in my opinion, such as the recent minimum-wage increase. They have also led to some excellent legislation, such as the Hancock Amendment. However, as more people and organizations become willing to pay people to gather signatures for pet causes, I believe it is reasonable to increase the amount of signatures required.

I disagree with some of the suggested changes, particularly the requirement that petition gatherers must be residents of Missouri. That is just silly. I support the increase in signatures required and the restriction on paying people by the signature, which is just an open invitation to fraud.

Light Rail Study Didn’t Focus on Crime

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

The Kansas City Star‘s Prime Buzz blog yesterday had a couple of posts criticizing our recent light rail study‘s use of crime statistics. While the statistics used by Randal O’Toole, the study’s author, are correct — as O’Toole points out at the end of the second part of the blog entry, the correct comparison is between types of transit — it’s misleading to suggest that O’Toole’s study has "characterized crime as one of the major reasons why Kansas City should not pursue light rail."

Crime on light rail systems is touched on only briefly in the full Show-Me Institute light rail study. Out of approximately 150 paragraphs of text (not including endnotes, pull quotes, etc.), I count seven that mention crime at all — one paragraph in the executive summary, five paragraphs on page 5, and one paragraph on page 23. In fact, the one mention of crime in the executive summary comes toward the end of a litany of reasons why light rail isn’t a worthwhile investment. In that list, O’Toole mentions crime 9th out of a list of 11 reasons — and even then, only after first mentioning safety statistics. Clearly, while light rail’s crime level in relation to buses is worth mentioning, it’s not one of the study’s primary arguments.

It’s true, I focused on the crime statistics myself during my response to the original Star piece covering the Show-Me Institute study, but that’s because O’Toole’s brief mention of light rail crime was the only aspect of the study that Mr. Spivak actually critiqued. If Mr. Spivak had criticized any of O’Toole’s economic or efficiency arguments, I would have responded to those instead.

Make no mistake, the study’s points about the high costs and low efficiency of light rail in relation to other forms of transit are O’Toole’s primary arguments — points which remain unchallenged by the Star. The only real "ado" about light rail crime was spurred by the selective coverage of Mr. Spivak’s original article.

Apart from O’Toole’s brief mentions of crime in the study, these are his primary arguments:

  • Light rail is expensive, typically experiencing high cost overruns;
  • Light rail has a much lower ridership capacity than freeway lanes;
  • Light rail costs much more to operate than buses;
  • Light rail requires years of advance planning, with no guarantee that transit needs or preferences will remain static during that time;
  • Few regions have actually seen increases in per-capita ridership after constructing light-rail lines;
  • Most regions see the share of riders using transit for travel actually decline after constructing light-rail lines;
  • Light-rail lines that operate in city streets significantly increase traffic congestion;
  • Light rail is particularly ineffective in municipalities without high concentrations of downtown jobs — like Kansas City;
  • Light rail is usually less energy efficient per passenger mile than passenger cars;
  • Light rail does not stimulate urban development without huge additional government subsidies.

The crime statistics O’Toole used are correct, but still only a small part of this analysis.

Government By the People?

Posted on by Dave Roland

Some Missouri legislators apparently think that the citizens of this state have too much say in the laws that govern us.

One of the best features of Missouri’s political scheme is that if enough citizens see that the General Assembly is failing to pass certain desirable laws, they can follow established procedures that allow the voters to act where the Legislature will not. The initiative process ensures that regular citizens have a direct way to enact legislation that, for whatever reason, our elected officials would prefer to avoid.

Five bills were filed recently in Jefferson City that would make it more difficult for Missouri citizens to place initiatives on the ballot for a direct vote of the people. Some of those bills are not so bad — such as proposals that would impose harsher penalties on those who commit fraud in collecting signatures, or prohibit those convicted of forgery offenses from collecting signatures. But others are plainly attempts to prevent Missourians from having a direct say in passing laws that they might find favorable. For example, one bill would nearly double the number of signatures required to place an initiative petition on the ballot. A couple of others would require those gathering signatures to be residents of Missouri — because, apparently, we can’t trust Kansans or
Illinoisans to hold the clipboards on which Missourians express their
support for a proposed initiative — and would prohibit petitioners who have hired help in collecting the necessary signatures to compensate their workers based on how well they do their job.

The only purpose for these changes is to make it more difficult for regular citizens to ensure that our interests are being protected by legislation approved by a majority of Missouri voters. The initiative process is especially important when, as is the case with this state’s horrendous eminent domain laws, the legislators have a better ear for the ringing of cash registers than for the voice of the people.

Responding to Criticisms of KIPP

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

There’s a discussion of KIPP’s drawbacks and merits in the comments section of the Talk of the Day blog. One of the comments links to a San Francisco education blog, which criticizes KIPP on three points:

1. Attrition, especially among male students. In other words, some students try KIPP and then find it’s not for them. KIPP requires long hours in school and a tremendous commitment, so it’s not surprising that some students choose not to stay. In general, boys have fallen behind girls academically and are dropping out at higher rates. So, KIPP isn’t immune to that problem. But the fact that KIPP isn’t for everyone doesn’t mean that no one should be able to choose KIPP. 

2. Discipline. When KIPP students act out, they have to sit on a special bench away from their group and then write a letter of apology. (At least, that’s the policy at the particular KIPP school the blogger is writing about.) That might seem harsh, but KIPP schools accept kids who have failed in inner-city schools and may have behavior problems. Ideally, kids will behave and won’t need discipline. But if they’re disruptive, separating them temporarily could be a reasonable way to teach them which actions won’t be tolerated while maintaining an orderly learning environment for their classmates. Most importantly, KIPP schools are up-front about classroom procedures and make both students and parents sign contracts that they will abide by the rules. Families that want a softer discipline system don’t need to send their kids to KIPP.

3. Lack of mindless adherence to arbitrary grade levels. OK, that’s not exactly what the blogger says, but that’s the gist of it. KIPP schools assign students to grade levels based on academic achievement, so a student who enters KIPP in seventh grade could be assigned to a sixth-grade class. In other words, kids study in groups of students with similar abilities, and aren’t forced to struggle in classrooms where everyone else’s achievement level is a grade or more ahead. I don’t see the problem. If grade level is important to parents, they won’t choose KIPP. 

No one is suggesting that all students should attend KIPP, or that KIPP’s unique educational approach is right for everyone. But SLPS isn’t right for everyone either. St. Louis students should be able to choose.

Missouri Bridges Score Highly on MSNBC Review

Posted on by David Stokes

Normally, if you had a sentence that contained the words, "Bridges," "score," "(MS)NBC"and "high(ly)," one would assume you were talking about Todd, not MoDOT. Luckily for us, though, we are indeed talking about MoDOT and Missouri bridges — to answer Arnold’s presumptive question before it is even asked.

MSNBC has today released a report documenting that thousands of bridges around the country have not received their two-year inspections, as required by federal law. The report is alarming, which was probably the point. But from our perspective, I would like to point out just how well Missouri scored, with only 19 out of 23,694 bridges that have missed their two-year inspection points. This ranks Missouri at 41st among the states. The states that rank above us, which have from 0 to 4 bridges beyond that schedule, all have far fewer bridges.

MoDOT deserves a great deal of credit for sticking to this important inspection schedule. County road departments deserve credit, too, as many of these bridges are locally maintained. This, along with the early success of the New I-64 project, is making my op-ed of last year look rather insightful!

More About KIPP Schools

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

This issue of Forbes examines education reform, and KIPP charter schools make a prominent appearance with an essay by Mike Feinberg:

In 1994, Dave Levin and I started KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) with 50 students in Houston after completing our two-year commitment to Teach for America. Our first year in Houston, two-thirds of students came to KIPP with a "bilingual" label. By the end of the first year, two-thirds were "gifted and talented."

Feinberg explains that KIPP schools, rather than skimming the cream from diverse traditional public schools, cater specifically to students who have fallen behind:

We are not achieving results by "cherry-picking" students. All schools are open-enrollment public schools. There is no admissions test. The average student enters KIPP two years below grade level in fifth grade, and leaves KIPP in eighth grade achieving at a ninth-grade level. Over 80% of KIPP students nationwide are low income, and 95% are African-American or Hispanic/Latino.

Feinberg also writes about KIPP’s projected expansion in Houston, where it hopes to capture 10% of the public school market and thereby pressure the traditional public schools to shape up.

I doubt KIPP will cause any improvement in the stagnant St. Louis public schools, which have proved themselves resistant to change from all quarters. But KIPP will provide some students who are currently trapped in SLPS with an attractive alternative. And it may pave the way for other charters and more choices for students.

By the way, I should mention that Kansas City already has a KIPP charter school, the KIPP Endeavor Academy. Here you can learn more about the school and see cute pictures of students and teachers working hard.

Denis Leary Would Be So Proud …

Posted on by Justin Hauke

Since the Regional Economist is one of my favorite publications, I wanted to add my own two cents on Eric Dixon’s recent digression on Michael Pakko’s article on smoking bans.

Mr. Dixon focuses on the vague benefits of smoker vs. non-smoker “utility,” a value that Dr. Pakko’s article avoids entirely. Instead, Dr. Pakko focuses on the tangible negative costs of smoking bans, providing a counter-argument to recent papers.

So while I agree with Mr. Dixon’s opposition to smoking bans, I disagree with his focus on aggregate utility as a value judgment. As he argues:

“Markets, though still far from perfect, ultimately do a better job of maximizing aggregate utility because each individual market participant is able to estimate his or her own utility in a way that no legislator can, and then act accordingly”

That statement is misleading. I don’t oppose smoking bans (and support the market) because I believe that non-smokers derive less “happiness” from them than smokers do without them. I oppose smoking bans because they are a direct infringement upon personal liberty.

Maximizing aggregate utility is not necessarily a good thing. Abusing certain minority groups might “maximize aggregate utility” if the benefits to the aggregate abusers outweigh the negatives of the abused. That’s why utilitarianism is a dangerous value judgment, especially for governments.

The government’s objective should be to maximize personal freedom to the extent that those freedoms don’t infringe upon the rights of others. And before you say, “But what about the non-smokers? Aren’t their rights being violated?” remember that the non-smokers are in smoking environments voluntarily. Going to a bar is a choice. Attending jury duty is compulsory. I have no problem with a smoking ban in a courtroom.

Overturning Light Rail a Good Decision for Kansas City

Posted on by David Stokes

 

When citizens pass an initiative referendum, judges or elected officials should use the greatest of caution in exercising their authority to overturn that initiative. Nonetheless, the Kansas City Council’s decision to overturn the 2006 light-rail referendum is one of the rare examples where such an action was not only justified, but necessary for the residents of Kansas City. The tremendous financial problems the “Chastain” light-rail plan would have caused if it had gone forward necessitated the difficult decision to overturn the referendum, for the benefit of Kansas City.

Now the city must decide whether to proceed with a light-rail transit system at all. The choice is difficult, because while there is ample evidence that light rail would not be the best way for Kansas City to address its mass transit needs, the voters have expressed a desire for some type of light rail. Balancing the competing goals and interests involved will be a difficult job for elected officials as this issue continues to be debated.

In a study released by the Show-Me Institute on January 23, author Randal O’Toole, an international expert on planning and transportation issues, stated, “The factor that seems to have the greatest influence on transit commuting is not the mode of transit or the region’s population density, but the concentration of jobs in a central transit hub. … Kansas City has only about 50,000 jobs in its central business district, less than 7 percent of the jobs in the entire metropolitan area. This suggests that … it is a poor candidate for rail transit.”  O’Toole’s study discusses many other problems, financial and otherwise, with light rail in Kansas City. The entire document is available at showmeinstitute.org.

The dramatic weaknesses of the Chastain plan were obvious, even to many supporters of light rail. The estimated costs were too low, the assumed federal and state funding was unlikely, and the plan itself was far too grandiose. The worst part of the plan’s design, though, was its attempt to get light rail on the cheap by taking tax money from the bus system rather than by increasing taxes. There may be many legitimate criticisms of the MetroLink light-rail system in Saint Louis, but at least the voters there approved a tax increase to pay for it, rather than attempting to cannibalize the bus system that is so critical in meeting the needs of the very people who depend on mass transit the most.

With the Chastain light-rail plan overturned, Kansas City must now decide how to address its mass transit needs. Although less extravagant light-rail plans are being considered, O’Toole’s study suggests Kansas City should also give strong consideration to other alternatives, such as the expansion of KCATA’s successful bus–rapid transit lines. The Troost bus–rapid transit line, for instance, has maintained strong ridership at very reasonable costs. Several more such lines could improve transit in Kansas City at a much lower cost than light rail would require.

Kansas City should also look at the examples of Las Vegas and Denver, which have contracted out many of their transit operations to private companies. Both cities have significantly expanded their bus systems and held costs down by allowing private contractors to bid on the rights to operate bus routes. Competitive contracting is one way for Kansas City to address its transit needs in a financially responsible manner.

All of these options should be analyzed and debated as Kansas City moves forward with its long-term transit planning. So far in this process, members of the Kansas City Council have made a tough but correct decision. They certainly have many more ahead.

David C. Stokes is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank.

 

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