Are businesses and people in our state ready to make the jump from an economy that is heavily dependent on fossil fuels to one that would “meet 100 percent of power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy” over the next ten years?

Let’s start with Missouri farmers. Are they ready to switch to electric tractors, trucks, and combines in order to reduce their carbon footprint to the vanishing point over the course of a single decade?

We can answer that question with an unequivocal “No.” Here’s why.

Begin with the fact that there are no—repeat, no—Tesla-like, battery-powered farm vehicles on the market today that could begin to replace most of today’s diesel-powered vehicles in doing the heavy-duty, energy-intensive work involved in ploughing fields and gathering harvests. The battery-powered substitutes for today’s machines don’t exist, and – even if they did – other problems would prevent their instant and widespread use.

Did any of the utopian thinkers who devised the Green New Deal stop to consider that most farms are wired in much the same way as most homes. That is to say, they are not wired for industrial use – which is what would be required to bring about the presumed greening of agriculture through electrification.

The problem here cannot be solved by putting up hundreds or even thousands of new wind turbines to supplement the 500 now in use in Missouri – which provide an average of two megawatts of power per turbine, and then only when the wind blows.

As Blake Hurst, the president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, points out, the electrification of Missouri agriculture would be an immensely expensive undertaking. It would require nothing less than “totally rebuilding the electrical grid” in order to deliver far greater quantities of electric power to farms in thinly populated areas around the state. The grid, along with charging stations and other supporting infrastructure, would have to treat every farm with a fleet of one truck, one tractor, and one combine or cotton-picker as if it were a town with 10,000 or more inhabitants.

To understand the physics, consider a conservative estimate of the electrical requirements posed by a hypothetical electric combine that replaces a typical grain combine. The latter weighs 15 tons, consumes approximately 15 gallons of diesel fuel per hour, and is often used about 16 hours a day during harvest. At 40-percent efficiency, its diesel engine delivers about 244 kW of power.

To do the same work, the electric combine would need to carry the equivalent of about 3.5 Tesla batteries (4,400 pounds) for each hour of continuous use. It would therefore need approximately 28 Tesla batteries to go eight hours without recharging. The combined weight of all of batteries would be 17 tons, making the electric combine significantly heavier than the piston-driven combine. While battery technologies are improving, it will be some time before any dramatic changes in energy to weight are likely to take place.

Since recharge time has to be short for economic reasons (a farmer racing against time to bring in a harvest can’t afford to spend several hours a day twiddling his thumbs), suppose that the electric combine “fast charges” in 20 minutes, an optimal time suggested for electric cars. The charging station and related infrastructure (i.e., generation and power distribution) would have to be capable of supplying in the vicinity of six megawatts of power during the recharge period! Let us pause to consider what that means.

Recharging a single combine requires the same power output as three of today’s wind turbines. According to government data, 1 megawatt of power capacity will supply 750 homes. Looked at in this way, the infrastructure necessary to recharge just one electric combine in 20 minutes would also be capable of supplying electrical power to the equivalent of 4,500 homes.

Suffice it to say: If you multiply that one combine by the total number of big combines and other heavy-duty vehicles used on Missouri farms today, you arrive at a very big number.

Even if we, as a state, were prepared to pay the huge costs of participating in a federal government-led crash effort to transition from diesel-powered to battery-powered farming, it is doubtful that our farmers would thank us. Apart from the inevitable adjustment problems in the introduction of new equipment, the electric combines, tractors, etc. would be more likely to bog down in muddy fields because of the extra weight of carrying a multitude of Tesla-like battery packs. And that’s not all. Barry Bean, a large cotton grower in the Bootheel in southeastern Missouri, shudders at the thought of the long lines of farmers with their tractors and cotton-pickers at charging stations at the end of a long day: “We all work the same hours and we’d all be coming in at the same time.”

*****

Let us turn then to freight transportation, another area important to Missouri as a crossroads between East and West, North and South. If, in the year 2030, all of the heavy trucks passing through Missouri were battery-powered, what would it take to charge them? We could not answer that question without a good deal more research. But we can say what it would take to open a single recharging station to handle a tiny fraction of the heavy-truck traffic that flows through the little village of Kingdom City, lying at the intersection of Interstate 70 and U.S. Route 54, on a daily basis.

Using the same analysis as above, to support a single service station at this site capable a) of recharging a Class 8 truck in 20 minutes that has been on the road for eight hours, and b) of handling 10 such trucks simultaneously, we have estimated that the supporting electric infrastructure must be capable of supplying close to 40 megawatts. That is the equivalent of about 20 2-megawatt windmills just to serve one refueling station. That same infrastructure would serve the needs of about 30,000 homes, or a decent-sized town.

*****

All this brings us to a final consideration. Where does Missouri’s electrical power come from? According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we get more than three-quarters of Missouri’s net electrical generation from burning coal, and another five percent from natural gas-fired plants. Oh, yes, our one nuclear power plant in Callaway County is good for another 10 percent, not that the Green New Deal manifesto is calling for more nuclear power.

Even in the act of saying “sayonara” to the use of fossil fuel in just two sectors of the state’s economy – agriculture and freight transportation – we would have to fall back on fossil fuels to provide additional electrical generating capacity.

The post Why the “Green New Deal” Will Not Fly in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While organizations that release infrastructure report cards are almost universally pushing for greater investment (and therefore tend to be alarmist about current conditions), there is little doubt that Missouri’s waterway infrastructure is in a poor state of repair. Nearly every lock and dam on the upper Mississippi is well past its useful life. While many don’t think of the rivers as important carriers of freight, Missouri’s rivers carry almost 50 million tons of freight annually. Rivers are especially important for shipping agricultural products and commodities to international markets. And with the expansion of the Panama Canal nearly completed, the Mississippi River may become a more important conduit for Missouri’s exports in the future.

The federal government is primarily responsible for maintaining and improving waterway navigability, specifically through the Army Corps of Engineers. Theoretically, funding for the Corps’ projects should come from a 29 cent per gallon tax on barge fuel. When the Corps takes on a new project, it is also supposed to split the costs 50-50 with barge companies.

In reality, barge fuel tax revenue is insufficient for such a system to work. Even with a rate increase last year, the tax will bring in only about $100 million in revenue in 2015. Individual lock and dam projects usually cost hundreds of millions—if not billions—of dollars to complete. Thus, while dozens of projects require repairs, the Corps can only address a few projects at any given time. And even these require heavy taxpayer subsidies. In 2015, general funds accounted for 70% of federal spending on inland waterways. Worse yet, 50-50 cost splits with barge companies are honored more in the breach, because Corps projects regularly run over budget. Overruns are handled by taxpayers, not barge companies. The table below lists the two largest lock and dam projects and shows the division of costs for each.

A federal body notorious for cost overruns and funded with insufficient user taxes is unlikely to build and maintain an efficient, modern, inland waterway transport system. The shipping companies and exporters that would directly benefit from an improved system could, with federal coordination, make the necessary investments. But until they do, Missouri will not be in a position to see large economic gains from the Panama Canal expansion and can expect low marks for its waterways in the future. 

The post Missouri’s Waterways Receive Bad Marks for Transportation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

At the same time, a $5.3 billion expansion of the Panama Canal, long delayed, is nearing completion. New locks that can handle much larger ships are expected to open in early 2016. The expansion will also increase the number of ships that can traverse the canal, decreasing congestion at this critical bottleneck.

While these developments are taking place more than a thousand miles away from Missouri, they may have a large impact on the state’s freight system. Currently, about 97 percent of the $1.2 trillion of freight that flows through Missouri does so by road and rail. That includes goods shipped to and from the West Coast as part of international trade movements. Despite Missouri’s access to the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, only 1 percent of freight by value move by barge in the state, and most public port authorities see little river freight.

But that could change. With the widening of the Panama Canal it may become cheaper freight to move large container ships directly to and from the Gulf and Atlantic Coast rather than rely on West Coast ports and cross-continent truck or rail networks. Labor unrest on the West Coast is reportedly incentivizing international freight companies to diversify their freight networks.

The hope among many Missouri transportation planners is that these changes to the international freight network will improve the competitiveness of Missouri’s freight network, and especially its inland waterways, by lowering costs and increasing reliability. For example, grain from Missouri could be put on barges down to the Gulf Coast where it could be directly shipped to Asia. MoDOT and other government bodies are looking at possible investments to take advantage of increased traffic.

However, the optimism should be paired with prudence. Freight experts at Missouri’s annual transportation conference have cautioned that the state lies in an area of the country where it is unclear whether the Panama Canal’s expansion will have great impact. Exporting internationally may become cheaper, but Missouri’s principle markets are likely to remain in neighboring states. Currently, only $12 billion of Missouri’s outbound freight is headed for international markets.

In terms of investment, Missourians should also remember that barge travel is inexpensive in Missouri partially because shippers pay very little of the cost of maintaining the navigable rivers on which they rely. If the Panama Canal expansion truly makes barge freight more competitive, barge companies should be able to afford new port investments without state funding.

The post Port Strikes, Panama, and the Future of Missouri Freight appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Jackson County and Union Pacific came to an understanding on purchasing the 15.5-mile Rock Island Corridor and two smaller spurs between Kansas City and Lee’s Summit for $59.9 million earlier this year. With the $10 million federal grant, the county residents will still need to fund a $50 million purchase.

But as the map above demonstrates, those purchases still leave the county well short of functioning commuter rail lines, without additional right-of-way or agreements with freight rail companies.

It is not simply a matter of purchasing track. The city has an ongoing dispute with freight companies over how commuter trains will arrive in downtown Kansas City. Regional planners are pushing for a connection with the streetcar at River Market, but Kansas City Southern Rail (KCSR) opposes this idea because it would jeopardize operations at Rock Creek Junction. KCSR suggests a connection at Union Station, but that could raise construction costs to $1.5 billion.

Using freight rail lines to get commuter rail into downtown Kansas City is no small problem, as the city is the country’s second largest freight rail hub, and rail lines downtown are already congested. Aside from providing a source of employment, having such a large freight rail hub has positive benefits for Kansas City’s manufacturing competitiveness. It would not be economically sound for the county to jeopardize freight efficiency to heavily subsidize the commutes of fewer than 4,000 residents.

While the county does not know how it will connect commuter rail to the city center, it is clear how it will pay for it: higher taxes. The county already has a plan to implement a county-wide 1 cent sales tax. But sales taxes are already very high in Kansas City. With the city still not giving up on a more expansive streetcar network, also to be funded with sales taxes, the increased tax burden may harm the city’s competitiveness. A yes vote is certainly not guaranteed.

The county does not yet have a plan for a functioning commuter rail system, and implementation depends on a tax that voters have not yet accepted. County officials should recall this before spending $50 million on right-of-way. They should also consider that Saint Louis is implementing Bus Rapid Transit, which can easily handle 4,000 commuters a day, for under $40 million. As for Kansas City residents, they should ask why city planners waste millions of dollars planning rail plan after rail plan without the approval, or even in the face of explicit disapproval, of voters.

The post Another Push for Rail Transit in Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Missouri Department of Transportation’s (MoDOT) state freight plan is an excellent summary of the state of the system and provides valuable insight on what trends will impact Missouri’s freight transportation network in the future. The plan rightfully prioritizes the maintenance of the system that currently exists and the need to work together with private businesses and local governments to implement needed improvements to the state freight network.

Read the full testimony: .

The post Testimony: Comments On The State Freight Plan appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In the Missouri State Freight Plan, drafted by the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), 2011 data showed that truck freight totaled over 500 million tons, carrying goods valued at approximately $711 billion. Proponents of using sales taxes to pay for highways argue that if it costs more to move those 500 million tons (by increasing user fees for commercial vehicles), shipping companies will charge higher prices to haul goods, leading to higher prices for Missourians.

However, setting aside the counterargument that charging shipping companies for the highways they use promotes efficient supply chains and local production, the fact is the vast majority of trucking freight in Missouri is not bound for Missouri. For example, of the 500 million tons of freight traffic in 2011, only 39 percent of that freight is either inbound or intrastate trucking. Forty-six percent of traffic by weight simply passes through Missouri. In terms of value of the goods transported, only 26 percent has a destination within Missouri while 61 percent of goods by value transit the state.

This means that if Missouri were to use general sales taxes—or any other type of non-user fee—to subsidize highways, the downstream price benefits would mostly accrue to consumers and producers in other states. Having commercial vehicles pay the actual costs of maintaining the highways might mean that prices rise on Missouri goods, but most of the effect would be exported to other states.

That’s why user fees are almost always preferable, when feasible, to general taxation; the cost of using the highway is internalized into the cost of the good, no matter where the final consumer lives. The use of general taxation to pay for highways would lead to higher prices for Missourians, who would provide a subsidized ride for shipping companies and artificially cheap products to residents of other states.

The post User Fees Stop Pass-through Traffic from Getting Free Ride appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It is in that spirit that lawmakers in Jefferson City are now looking at the proposed legislation calling for creation of a “Midwest China hub,” or “Aerotropolis,” at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.

According to newspaper reports, the legislature is prepared to scale back or totally eliminate $300 million in tax credits intended for owners of warehouses and real estate in and around the airport, while retaining $60 million in subsidies to encourage freight forwarders to route international freight through Lambert.

If so, that represents real progress – and a greater responsibility on the part of our lawmakers, including some of the prodigals who call themselves fiscal conservatives. However, while the final numbers are uncertain, talk of finding other means to funnel tax credits to Aerotropolis demonstrates a continuing blind spot on the part of legislators.

The question is: Why should the state of Missouri put up any money for Aerotropolis unless it supports the public good in some clear and identifiable way? Where is the justification for taking $60 million out of the pockets of Missouri taxpayers and giving it to unseen and unknown freight forwarders located in other cities around the world?

No one has advanced the slightest evidence that Missouri farmers or businesses have suffered a loss of exports – to China or anywhere else – because of inadequacies in the current transportation system.

Whether it is in shipping tools, pharmaceuticals, or frozen meat, there are fast and efficient means for Missouri exporters to reach key destinations around the world.

Supporters of Aerotropolis confuse economic incentives and competitive advantage. Yes, we can give taxpayers’ money to freight forwarders – the socalled travel agents of cargo – to offset obvious disadvantages in routing cargo through Lambert, which has no regularly-scheduled passenger or cargo flights to destinations outside North America. But that’s just asking people to take your money for doing something that doesn’t make any sense.

The real irony in the Aerotropolis saga is that our politicians and lawmakers – joined by business lobbying groups in St. Louis and Jefferson City – want to use taxpayers’ money to help Chinese carriers compete against U.S. carriers. In its eight-page economic impact report, the St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association noted that “China has determined to grow their market share in air freight from 15-20% to 50%” in the transport of Chinese-made goods. Do we really want to help the Chinese government reach one of its objectives at the expense of our own carriers?

Our lawmakers may think that they should leave something on the table for the special interests that have lobbied long and hard for the Aerotropolis legislation.

But $60 million is not some trinket that a spendthrift might pick up upon leaving a store. It is taxpayers’ money and it is equal to the median household income in Missouri multiplied 1,300 times. Here’s a novel idea: Why not return the $60 million to Missouri taxpayers?

Andrew B. Wilson is a fellow at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri Public Policy.

The post The End of Aerotropolis Subsidies? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I spent some time looking for that study, or any discussion of its results. Finally, about to give up, I emailed the Midwest China Hub Commission to ask whether the study Jones had promised was available.

Here is the response I received:

The study you refer to is still underway but very close to completion. The St. Louis RCGA is spearheading the impact analysis with possible completion and release of findings to come at the end of next month or June. The findings of the analysis will be made public at that time.

So, despite statements from legislators and special interests that subsidizing freight traffic is a good idea for Missouri, no study has been published that backs up those statements.

Right now, state legislators, local politicians, and special interest groups are in a rush to award $480 million in state subsidies that they say would further the China Hub dream. But the legislative session ends in mid-May, so the promised study won’t be done in time for legislators to consider the results before awarding almost half a billion dollars in subsidies.

There’s a lot that I don’t understand about this tangle of subsidies, but this is perhaps the most mystifying. Legislators who say that they want to keep Missouri fiscally responsible are now pushing to award almost half a billion dollars without any formal attempt to weigh the costs and benefits of the proposal.

From Sen. Eric Schmitt:

This is new. This is new investment. This is new economic activity that we just don’t have. When you have zero flights a week and we want to move forward and actually create this kind of international trade hub, which is what it is, that’s activity that we don’t have now.

What evidence is there to substantiate Schmitt’s statements? Has any analysis been done demonstrating that the award of tax credits would result in increased freight traffic to Saint Louis?

From Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge, director of airports at Lambert-Saint Louis International Airport and Ed Monser, president of Emerson:

[The Aertropolis subsidy bill] has the support of organized labor because of the job impact it would bring to Missouri and support from rural legislators because of the opportunity to export Missouri beef and pork, as well as other agriculture products, to countries not currently buying these commodities.

But what evidence is there to prove that this project and related incentives would result in new jobs? What study has been done that demonstrates that China would import Missouri agricultural products if the state spent $420 million to subsidize the construction and operation of cargo warehouses?

If there were an award for unsubstantiated, overblown commentary, it would go to Rep. Caleb Jones, who told CBS:

It’s going to create demand for all of Missouri and our products and goods. Folks from my district are going to be able to load up cattle and drive it to St. louis and have it in China the next day.

What evidence is there showing that this project and package of incentives will “create demand for all of Missouri”? How do Jones’ constituents know that there’s a market for their cattle in China? Instead, isn’t there a chance the constituents of the 117th district will have to pay roughly $80 each, which is what this bill will cost every Missourian — and then receive no benefit?

The aerotropolis tax credit bill does not have to be passed this year. After all, there’s no firm commitment from China, the legislation contains hidden costs, and no study has been produced demonstrating that this proposal makes financial sense.

What’s the rush?

The post Where’s the Evidence That the China Hub Makes Financial Sense? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Day envisions the possibility of a continuous urban corridor between Saint Louis and Kansas City, which would expand past Missouri east through Ohio, and become one of the nation’s primary urban corridors. In this model, a high-quality roadway connects major urban areas to one another, with economic activity naturally springing up around, and supporting, the area between major cities. In order for Missouri to regain its former status as the crossroads for the movement of people and goods across America, it needs to address the long-run congestion and capacity issues along I-70. A multi-level plan is required to best address the long-term projected transportation needs of the future, and to allow for economic growth in the heart of Missouri.

The current Highway 50 south of the Missouri River could be upgraded over time to interstate standards, as it already is near Jefferson City and for parts east of Kansas City. This, as envisioned by Day, would be I-70 South. The current I-70 could largely remain within its current footprint. The most important improvement would be to construct a new I-70 North, including both a highway and railroad tracks for freight and passenger trains. This new highway would allow for economic growth in cities such as Mexico and Moberly, as well as being as excellent train route. A new train route north of the current I-70 would be ideally suited for maximum efficiency, because of the flat and open nature of the land there. Day points out that, with improvements in railway technology, movement of freight by train is much less expensive, and yet safer, than moving freight by trucks, as is common today.

Day identifies two aspects of current plans by the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) for I-70 that he thinks may limit opportunities for growth. First, any plans to finance the improvement of I-70 by primarily relying on gasoline taxes will face funding difficulty in the future, because technological advances in fuel efficiency and other possible changes will substantially reduce gasoline tax revenues. It could be an even worse idea to move from using gasoline taxes for transportation infrastructure to using sales taxes, because it would move funding even further from a user-pays model of inter-city travel, to a plan where senior citizens who no longer drive would have to pay as much for highways as daily suburban commuters.

Day believes that Missouri needs to meet its future transportation investment demands by increasing our use of user fees and public-private partnerships. The user fees would enable a system in which those who use the road pay for it. Public-private partnerships could, in the long run, allow for the required financing to meet future demands, by bringing the efficiency and resources of the private sector to the public sphere.

Of course, “user fees” is another way of saying “toll roads.” There is nothing to fear from that. Modern electronic tolling has eliminated the need for inconvenient — and sometimes dangerous — toll booths. A three-pronged expansion of I-70, financed privately and funded through tolling, is the preferred method for expanding our highway and our freight capacity.

The other concern, according to Day, is MoDOT’s current focus on truck-only lanes to increase the freight capacity of I-70. Choosing to concentrate on trucking for freight movement ignores the demonstrated advantages in cost and efficiency of freight rail. Modern freight management techniques have substantially reduced delays in train yards, and the engineering advantages of steel-on-steel over rubber-on-asphalt are well-known. Day reports that railroads are capable of moving one ton of freight at the equivalent rate of 400 miles per gallon of fuel.

As another Show-Me Institute scholar, Randal O’Toole, has noted, freight rail has long been the least-subsidized major form of transportation in the United States. MoDOT’s plans for truck-only lanes would continue the subsidy advantages that America has long given the trucking industry. But why should the trucking industry be subsidized over other forms of transport, which may better fit Missouri’s ongoing needs?

Day does not envision a top-down imposition of his urban corridor plan. He intends his case study to start a discussion throughout Missouri, about the best ways Missourians can invest infrastructure dollars to get achieve greater economic growth. If we allow for the possibility of private investment, those infrastructure resources expand significantly. During the past decade, MoDOT has proven itself to be a top-level transportation organization. Day hopes that his ideas will become of part of their conversations, too.

David Stokes is a policy analyst for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Private-Sector Investment Could Build Innovative Urban Corridor appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This study presents the case for Missouri promoting more rapid economic growth by developing a Saint Louis–Kansas City urban corridor as a component and model for a subsequent, larger Kansas City–Columbus, Ohio, urban corridor. In the course of the development of these urban corridors, substantially enhanced transportation infrastructure investments would be necessary in order to realize the opportunities presented, and to obtain the benefits envisioned. This would involve large increases in the capacity of Interstate Highway 70, as well as opening up large areas of low-cost land for the location of new business ventures near to the highway developments.

This study also addresses the federal “Corridors of the Future” program, as well as addressing proposals that have been made to add truck-only lanes (TOLs) to the existing I-70. It also considers alternatives for providing advanced-technology freight transportation (based on enhancements of the current intermodal model), as well as high-speed passenger rail services that could be considered if the urban corridor concept were to be implemented.

Finally, the study elaborates the benefits of installing an advanced-technology freight railroad, with provision for passenger services, in the proposed urban corridor. It further contrasts the comparative benefits and costs of rail and truck movement of freight, including movement of freight by TOLs. The analyses presented here include a discussion of financing alternatives with a particular emphasis on the value of tolling, as a means of ensuring that those who use the infrastructure disproportionately pay a higher share of its costs.

Related Links

The post Building Missouri’s Urban and Transportation Infrastructures to Support Economic Development appeared first on Show-Me Institute.