Trains, market gains and monopolies…

Yesterday, my colleague, Sarah Brodsky, posted on the report on Missourinet about MoDOT’s desire to improve Amtrak’s performance in order to increase ridership. We discussed Amtrak around the office for about 1/2 hour, which is one of the great parts about working at a think-tank like the Show-Me Institute. I come at this issue from the perspective of someone who loves riding trains.  My dad loves trains, and he passed that on to me.  I have taken several overnight train trips in my life, including trains to Seattle via Glacier National Park and a three-week jaunt around the east coast via Amtrak after college. So it infuritates me that every time I make a point to ride Amtrak something goes wrong. I took it to Chicago last summer for a bachelor party and the train was two hours late leaving St. Louis. I have taken the Missouri Mule to Jefferson City or Kansas City a couple of times and the delays while freight trains pass are exasperating. As simple as it may seem, I really believe that if Amtrak would just operate more efficiently more people would give it a chance. Perhaps Sarah is right that eliminating the subsidies would force Amtrak to shape up. Eliminating the subsidy to a de facto monopoly would more likely just cause Amtrak to close in Missouri, and I think Missouri benefits from Amtrak, if only for the drunks it takes off the highways after Hermann Octoberfest.

We have been trying to determine the extent of Amtrak’s monopoly. It is a monopoly in reality, but not necessarily legally codified as such. By that I mean Bill Gates could go insane and tomorrow put $20 billion into a new passenger railroad across America, in a way that he could not just go ahead and decide to start selling nuclear power to Missourians. The new railroad would be heavily regulated, no doubt, but private business can operate passenger rail service. The problem is doing it on a large scale profitably, which is quite likely impossible. I hope Missouri keeps at least the subsidy to have Amtrak operate at the current schedle, while insisting that those service levels improve. If a better operating agreement can ‘t be reached with the railroads that own the lines Amtrak operates on giving preference to whichever train was first scheduled as opposed to the freight line every time, than I don’t have much hope for the Missouri Mule.

With train tickets now generally costing signigicantly less than the gas to drive between comparible cities, not to mention to ability to drink beer while on a train, or the zany hijinks, there is an opening for better service to bring in more custmers.  How about that for a crazy idea?  That plus adding a train connection from St. Louis to New Orleans.  That bus ride to Carbondale to catch the train just is not going to cut it.

Welcome Eric Dixon

I’m pleased to announce that the Show-Me Institute has a new editor. Eric Dixon joins us from Idaho, where he worked at the Idaho Press-Tribune, as well as doing freelance work for the Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free-market think tank. He’s got a degree in journalism from Brigham Young University, and he’s got nearly a decade of experience with a variety of public policy organizations, including the Cato Institute, US Term Limits, and Liberty magazine.

As the Show-Me Institute’s editor, Eric will be in charge of maintaining the high quality of all of the Show-Me Institute’s publications, including our website and blog, our Policy Studies, and Show-Me Quarterly. He’ll also be writing op-eds and contributing to the weblog.

Where am I going? I’ll be doing technology policy research from home in Saint Louis as an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. I’ll also be helping out part time at the Show-Me Institute for the next few months to make sure the transition to the new editor goes smoothly. I’m also working on a study on eminent domain abuse in Missouri, which I hope to finish in the not-too-distant future. If you’d like to read more of my tech policy work, please check out my contributions to Cato’s blog and the Technology Liberation Front.

Will Amtrak Make a Comeback?

MoDot wants to make Amtrak more popular:

Weiler says Missouri has about 175,000 Amtrak riders annually. He speculates that could increase to 250,000 if on-time performance and reliability could be improved.

Amtrak’s problems are the inevitable result of the subsidies it receives and its monopoly position. It doesn’t need to attract new passengers, because when it isn’t profitable the state or federal government will bail it out. If the state wants a thriving rail service, it should tell Amtrak to sink or swim. 

Still, it could be that trains wouldn’t be used much more even if there were competition. Trains were an important form of transportation in the days before the airplane and when most people didn’t have cars. Fortunately, we don’t have government programs to keep alive other forms of transportation from that era. If we did, MoDot would be worrying about dwindling passenger numbers on Amhorseandbuggy.

State Invertebrate

Here’s a funny excerpt from the legislative report of the Missouri Medical Association, the cartel professional association that believes expectant mothers shouldn’t have the option of utilizing the services of a midwife:
 

At press time this afternoon, there isn’t much to report from the lay midwifery front. Senate Bill 303, which would legalize the practice, did not come up this week for the final Senate vote it needs before it can advance to the House.

However, late this afternoon, while the Senate was hotly debating a pivotal piece of legislation to name the crawfish as the official state invertebrate, Senator John Loudon, the author of the midwifery bill, offered this substitute version: “The Missouri Medical Society shall be known as the official invertebrate of the state of Missouri due to their unwillingness to compete with a bunch of midwives.” (We couldn’t make this up.)

Regrettably, Senator Loudon withdrew the amendment before the Senate could approve it. Even though he didn’t quite have our name right, we were this close to forever being a question on grade school civics tests in classrooms across the state. Rats!

Of course, we at the Show-Me Institute would never stoop to this kind of name-calling, but I have to admit that it made me chuckle.

The Credit Hours of Local Comparative Politics, Just for You …

O’Fallon, Mo., is considering expanding its city council in response to rapid population growth. If the 75,000 estimated population is correct, I believe that would make O’Fallon the largest municipality outside of the city of St. Louis itself in the greater St. Louis area. Someone should feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but my guess is that an Illinois-side city may be larger, but no Missouri municipalities are. Anyway, this got me thinking about the best set-up for a local government. There are, not surprisingly, many different options in our area. Kirkwood and Webster Groves have at-large councils that do not have individual wards. Every councilmember (six in both) represents the entire city. The plus of this is that each official gets to consider the good of the whole city when making decisions. The converse of that, and the reason I don’t like at-large seats, is that each official gets to ignore those minor, pesky issues that nobody wants to deal with. Who has to return the phone calls of the neighborhood crank if nobody represents that person specifically? And, sometimes, those neighborhood cranks are right about something.

O’Fallon is considering many options, mostly involving expanding the number of wards. Perhaps they would be like Wildwood, which for some insane reason chose to have eight wards with two councilmembers each. Florissant gets a little better, with nine wards but with just one rep. per ward. University City, where I proudly live, has only three wards but with two reps per ward. That system — three or four wards with two reps per ward — is used by a number of cities in St. Louis County. The city of St. Louis is, of course, the champion of too many elected officials, with 28 alderman for 28 (now very small) wards and 11 other citywide elected officials.

Whatever O’Fallon chooses to do will be affected by its city class, because charter cities have more authority to form their own style of government than other classes. In my opinion, cities should have fewer elected officials in general but pay them better to justify the work they put in. I should be clear that I do not mean “pay them better” in a dramatic sense, just higher stipends to encourage more residents to consider getting active. In my opinion, cities in the general range of 25,000 to 75,000 people should have a full-time city manager, a mayor elected citywide and paid a part-time salary of around $10,000, and four wards with one councilmember each making around $5,000 a year. One councilmember would be elected chair each year from within the body — I am looking at you, city of St. Louis, and your silly president of the Board of Aldermen position. The mayor would vote as a regular member of the council, not just sign or veto bills like governors or mayors of large cities. The most important thing O’Fallon could do is upgrade from a city administrator to a city manager, which sounds redundant, but the latter actually has more power and authority than the former.

Centene Questions Continue

A regular reader e-mailed me with his thoughts on the recent decision against Centene and Clayton in the ongoing battle over eminent domain, the planned Centene development and whether or not a prime corner in one of St. Louis County’s wealthiest cities is ‘blighted.’  He asked if the fact that the decision is not being ‘published’ means that Clayton residents now have a protection against eminent domain that residents in the rest of Missouri don’t?  As the Post article today explains, if the opinion against Centene was published it would be binding on similar cases in Eastern Missouri, but as it is not being published it is therefore not binding.  Sorry for the double negative, but I think that was the proper way to put it.  Anyway, I am not a lawyer, unlike my wife, dad, step-dad, step-mom, one out of three brothers, brother-in-law, former boss, and most of my friends, so I can’t give any definitive answers here.  However, I think this is an example of common-sense kicking its way into the legal system, as the appellate judges seemed well aware that the State Supreme Court would be making its own decision no matter how they ruled, so why bother with some of the formalities?  As the Supreme Court is expected to rule in a short period of time, as far as these things go, and there are no similar cases being decided in the near future, why kill more trees than you have to and publish the opinion? 

My correspondent further wrote that in his opinion, "Social liability is purposely created by local city councils."  I don’t know if he meant that as a general statement or specific to Clayton and Centene, but as a general statement about how governments get what they want I agree with him completely.   

Choice for Riverview Gardens Students

Students in the Riverview Gardens district may be able to transfer to other districts next fall:

192 teachers have received layoff notices and another 100 employees are expected to get notices. State educators are expected to vote on Riverview Gardens at the next meeting in May. The district currently has provisional accreditation[…]

If the district loses accreditation, Riverview Gardens officials will have two years to try and gain it back.

Unlike St. Louis, the elected school board would remain in place and would not be replaced by a transitional school board.

But as early as next fall, students could be allowed to transfer to more successful schools in nearby school districts.

Here’s the surprising part of the story:

District leaders Rhonda Key and Natalie Thomas say they welcome the intervention and see it as an opportunity to improve.

Threatening a district with state control sends administrators scrambling to improve graduation rates and test scores. Imagine what an incentive for improvement the district would have if parents could choose to send their kids to different schools.

Really, It’s a Great Experience, I Swear

At the risk of sound horribly self-serving, Tim is right. The Show-Me Institute intern is no ordinary intern. Though I did spend some time chained to the copier/fax machine, it was not time spent in vain. Not only did I get credit hours and valuable experience in the realm of state government and public policy, I also gained first hand exposure to an underreported political philosophy of which I had no previous knowledge, but is nonetheless gaining in popularity and relevance in today’s increasingly polarized and, well, silly political climate.

Seriously, these guys do great work, are really nice people, and are spearheading a movement with great promise for affecting positive change. Whether you’re a naive young grad student like myself, looking to change the world for the better, or a grizzled cynical veteran of the politics game simply looking for a breath of fresh political air, you’d be a fool to pass up this opportunity. Anyone with specific questions requiring a more candid answer should feel free to contact me here anytime.

Logical Education Policy

A Chesterfield resident is unhappy about a proposal to allow students to attend public schools outside of their district. This is the most candid letter to the editor about education policy I have ever read:

This may be logical for students in failing districts[.]

She goes on to complain that the bill wouldn’t just affect failing districts, it would actually send the kids from failing districts to other, not-failing districts. Then the Chesterfield residents wouldn’t be able to set class sizes as small as they’d like.

First of all, if you want to allow students to transfer out of failing districts, they have to transfer into other schools. I don’t know how you could write legislation to do that without affecting districts that aren’t failing–unless you allowed students to use vouchers to go to private schools instead. I doubt that’s what the letter writer had in mind, though.

But what struck me most about this letter is the lack of compassion for students in failing schools. She writes:

This bill threatens to overcrowd those successful districts that might host such students, perhaps setting them up for failure.

As though all the SLPS students aren’t "set up for failure" where they are now.

I encountered this attitude all the time when I attended a Chesterfield public school. They don’t want any outsiders to threaten their small classes, segregated schools, and resulting inflated property values.
This proposal certainly would be "logical" for students in failing districts. It would also be a step towards righting the injustice of public education in the city.

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