These policies have been implemented successfully in many states, but in this post I’ll address some objections to these policies and see if they hold water.

Objection: We shouldn’t toll commercial trucks because the trucking companies will pass those costs along to the people buying their products.

Part of the price of a product is the cost it takes to transport the product somewhere. If trucks carrying products are causing more damage than they’re paying to repair, then underpaying for the products’ transport is in effect subsidizing it. Any tolling costs passed on to customers would be less overcharging for a product and more reflecting its true price.

Objection: Tolling is unfair to local communities near interstates that depend on highway traffic for their customers.

As my colleague Graham Renz has said before, this is another way of saying that communities near toll roads will not be subsidized. Not paying the true cost of driving means that some businesses benefit from more drivers due to an artificially low cost of driving.

Tolling may mean that traffic on these routes decreases, but adequately charging drivers for the damage they do to the roads can hardly be described as unfair. Moreover, the current situation of Missourians who do not live near interstates subsidizing the travel that benefits communities near interstates hardly seems like a fair proposition.

Ultimately, while these two objections may initially seem like they raise serious problems for tolling proposals, they only tell half the story. The benefits of tolling still outweigh the costs, so tolling should be on the table as an option for funding road maintenance needs.

The post Objections to Tolling Only Tell Half the Story appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to the study, the assessment is based upon:

. . . data that states submitted to the federal government, [and] ranks each state’s highway system in 13 categories, including traffic fatalities, pavement condition, congestion, spending per mile, administrative costs and more. This edition of the Annual Highway Report uses state-submitted highway data from 2016, the most recent year with complete figures currently available, along with traffic congestion and bridge data from 2017.

The write up specific to Missouri is here, and it is worth reading in its entirety. While some states spent in excess of $200,000 per mile, Missouri maintained a high rating while just spending under $24,000 per mile. This did not come at a cost to pavement condition, where Missouri ranked higher than some of the states that greatly outspent us.

It’s also worth noting that Missouri scored the worst on bridges (40 out of 50). Some good news is that the governor just announced a federal grant of $20 million to address exactly that.

My colleagues and I have written a great deal about the need to increase MODoT revenue and have suggested some possibilities. Advocates of restrained government are right to demand that government spend existing money wisely before seeking more revenue. This report from Reason suggests that MoDOT is being more responsible with taxpayer money than other states.

The post Some Good News Regarding Missouri’s Highways appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Solutions for Missouri’s Transportation Infrastructure appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For a thorough analysis of the current state of Missouri's highway system and the challenges it faces in the near future, check out Joseph Miller's new Policy Study, Funding the Missouri Department of Transportation and the State Highway System.

The post Are Rural Highways a Burden on MoDOT? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Not all transportation modes are of equal importance in the Kansas City area. The region’s dispersed population and employment mean that most residents use highways and streets to commute. In Jackson, Clay, and Platte Counties, more than 90% of commuters drove to get to work (according to U.S. Census data from 2009 to 2013). The next most popular form of getting to work is actually just not going anywhere (that is, working at home). Aside from commuting, much of the metro area’s freight traffic uses the highways, and the region’s bus networks also make use of city streets.

Highways and streets are indisputably the most-used part of Kansas City’s transportation network. The only rival for importance may be the freight rail network, as Kansas City is the nation’s second largest freight rail hub. That might lead one to predict that most of the spending in the Kansas City area’s Transportation Improvement Program from 2016–2020, which includes, “. . . all federally funded surface transportation projects and all regionally significant surface transportation projects planned for the Kansas City metro area during federal fiscal years 2016–2020,” would be for highways and streets. That prediction would be wrong.

In reality, 56% of all regional and Missouri-side spending ($1.35 billion) will be for public transportation projects like the bus system and the streetcar. Road and bridge projects only get 32% of the pie, with “complete streets” and pedestrian/bike projects combining for around 11% of spending. These numbers, if anything, overestimate Kansas City’s commitment to road and bridge investments, because the vast majority of spending on roads comes from the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), which is tasked with maintaining the state network, whatever the ideological bent of Kansas City regional planners. MoDOT does not handle non-state highway projects. 

If we take MoDOT out of the equation, only about 12 percent of the region's spending ($124 million) is going to roads and bridges. That’s only slightly more than is going to the streetcar starter line, which supporters admit is not really about transportation at all. Seventy-two percent of non-MoDOT transportation spending is going to transit, which, as of 2014, accounted for less than 2 percent of the regions commuters.

How long can Kansas City leaders go on ignoring the transportation modes everyone relies on while lavishing funds on modes few people use if they still expect to have a functioning system? 

The post Kansas City Prioritizes Transportation Few Use appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

After the recession in 2009, growth in traffic on Missouri’s highways slowed to a crawl and actually declined in urban areas. This led to some who were ideologically opposed to personal vehicle use and highway construction to claim that residents were abandoning their cars for public transportation or live/work communities. This point of view is still echoed by transit activists, and even the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) wrote this assumption into their planning in 2013.

But subsequent driving data has contradicted these assumptions (or hopes). As we’ve pointed out in other blogs, public transportation use in Missouri’s major cities is essentially flat, and does not indicate a demand-side sea change. And when the state’s employment level began to grow in 2012, driving (VMT) grew as well. Missouri’s roads were seeing more driving than ever in 2014, and the trend accelerated in 2015. Over the course of last year, total VMT in the state grew 4.6%, and driving on urban roads grew by 6%. The following charts show the trend:

Whether the acceleration in driving has to do with lower fuel prices or an improving economy makes little difference. The long-term trend in Missouri’s VMT has been growth, with recession numbers looking ever more like an aberration, not a harbinger of things to come. This has implications for future infrastructure needs in the state, which policymakers ignore at Missouri’s peril. 

The post Driving in Missouri Accelerating appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

SJR 18 has two parts. The first part would increase the state’s regular fuel tax by 1.5 cents per gallon and the state’s diesel fuel tax by 3.5 cents per gallon. This increase has the potential to net MoDOT around $60 million in additional revenue annually, which would put off any immediate funding crisis for the state.

However, SJR 18 is different from other fuel tax increase proposals in that it also contains provisions for transferring responsibility for the state’s “supplementary” highway system to localities. The supplementary system is mostly made up of the state’s letter routes, but also includes urban streets like Gravois Road in Saint Louis and MO Route 283 in Kansas City. We’ve discussed before how these routes eat up a significant portion of MoDOT’s budget. These types of roads are maintained by counties and municipalities in most other states.

SJR 18 would not simply hand off the supplementary highway system to localities without any aid. The state would continue to provide localities with financial support for the transferred roads (fixed at the average spending of the last three years on that road). This means that in the short-term, MoDOT would spend the same amount on these highways as it does today. However, over the long term this spending would be capped, with local governments responsible for increased investment.

SJR 18—which would require a vote of the people before being enacted—is an interesting policy proposal that addresses both short-term and long-term financial problems at MoDOT. It does not encompass a large tax increase, and instead focuses on capping long-term spending as a method of setting MoDOT’s funding on firm footing.

The post New Bill Would Raise Missouri Fuel Tax, Cut Highway Miles appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

And while they might not seem like much, Missouri’s highways are something to be proud of, too. Even though we have one of the largest highway systems in the country, the vast majority of those roads, from I-44 to US 36 to Route ZZ, are in great condition. They get us to work, get goods to us, and allow us to enjoy virtually every corner of the state.

While there is no threat to Missouri’s natural beauty, the same cannot be said of the condition of the state highways.  The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), which funds our state highways, is in serious financial trouble. Whether or not the state can continue to maintain the highway system is an open question. Even worse, there is no money for major improvements like rebuilding I-70 or replacing our many aging bridges.

The prime reason for this is that the largest source of funding for highways, a 17 cent fuel tax, has brought in less and less money over the years. Part of that can be blamed on inflation; part of it is the result of more fuel-efficient vehicles. And no doubt, MoDOT—like any government organization—could have made more prudent spending decisions in decades past.

The most important question now is not how Missouri has gotten into this mess, but how we’re going to out of it. Not long ago, state policymakers backed a statewide sales tax to pay for highways. Bad idea. Why should Missouri’s shoppers pay as much as—or more than—trucks just passing through the state for improved roads? It’s not fair to those who choose to drive less, and it’s not good economic policy to subsidize driving. Missouri voters did the right thing when they overwhelmingly rejected the new tax.

Fortunately, Missouri has a better option: have drivers pay for the highways. Since the inception of the state highway system, it has relied on user fees for funds. There is no reason to abandon that principle now. A small increase in the fuel tax—a few cents per gallon—could prevent MoDOT from running out of money. Many policymakers agree. The governor has come out in favor of a fuel tax increase, and multiple legislators have pre-filed bills that would enact such an increase. For example, one proposal would increase the state’s per-gallon tax on diesel fuel by 3.5 cents and on regular fuel by 1.5 cents.

Higher fuel taxes are not the only solution. MoDOT is looking at tolling I-70, which could provide the funds to construct a modern highway, paid for by those who benefit from it most. Another proposal would allow the state to hand over control of smaller highways to counties and cities in return for additional local transportation funding from MoDOT. Giving local governments the responsibility for maintaining what are for practical purposes local roads, as is done in other states, could allow MoDOT to better focus its resources.

Missouri can’t let its highway system fall into a state of disrepair, but it can fix the system’s user funding base. If Missouri can do that, both residents and visitors alike will be able to enjoy the view with full confidence that the road is good shape and that they are helping to pay for it. 

The post The End of the Road for Scenic Missouri? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“Moore [the representative] cited figures showing that Missouri spends the vast majority of its transportation funding in the rural areas of the state, even though more than 80 percent of the state's transportation dollars from gas and auto sales taxes come from the urban regions in and around St. Louis and Kansas City.”

Although Missouri does spend a significant amount on rural highways for structural reasons, MoDOT does not spend most of its money in rural areas, nor does it systematically underfund urban highways.

To show this, first we will look at total MoDOT capital and maintenance spending. As shown in the chart above, in 2013, 61% of total MoDOT outlays went to urban highways and 39% went to rural highways.

It’s clear that most spending happens in urban areas of the state, not rural ones. One might still think this is lopsided in favor of rural areas, as the vast majority of highway user fees come from urban areas. However, 86% of highway lane miles are in rural areas, and almost half of daily traffic in Missouri takes place in rural areas. Missouri’s rural highway system, mostly due to the Missouri State Routes (the letter routes), is the fourth largest rural highway system in the nation. While traffic per mile in rural areas is low outside of the interstates, roads need to be maintained and bridges need to be replaced.

Even though Missouri spends a significant amount of money on its rural highways, urban areas have not been starved. In fact, the latest Federal Highway Administration data shows that, whether one looks at how much money MoDOT spends per lane mile or vehicle, the state’s urban highway spending is at about at the national average.

Furthermore, MoDOT’s spending in Missouri’s largest urban areas has achieved enviable results. Both Saint Louis and Kansas City have significant highway capacity and low congestion. In Kansas City and Saint Louis, 80% or more of major highways are in good condition. That's excellent for a large metropolitan area and far better than cities like Indianapolis (62%), Milwaukee (38%), or Los Angeles (16%).

MoDOT’s continuing funding problems should prompt Missouri policy makers to consider the extent of the state highway system. Many lesser-used routes might be better handled at the local level, as they are in other states. Such a reform would allow to MoDOT to fund improvements and maintenance on both critical rural and urban thoroughfares. However, there is little evidence that MoDOT is starving its urban system as measured either by spending or current highway conditions.

The post The Urban-Rural Divide in MoDOT Spending appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As state officials are quick to point out (in arguing for increasing MoDOT funding), Missouri has the seventh-largest state highway system in the country by total miles. However, what they are less likely to point out is that Missouri’s state highways include many small and little-used routes that would be handled by cities and counties in most other states. For instance, despite the fact that Illinois’s highway system is less than half the size of Missouri’s, total traffic in that state is one-third greater than in Missouri.

Unfortunately for MoDOT, low traffic levels do not mean low costs. The mileage alone (~24,000) of Missouri’s least-used highways results in significant annual capital and maintenance spending. In 2013, for example, nearly 30% of the state’s total highway spending ($414 million) went toward work on routes that primarily serve short-distance, intra-county travel. Most states only set aside between 1% and 5% of total spending maintaining smaller roads, but because of our high number of local roads, Missouri uses about 16% of its funds maintaining these types of routes. That MoDOT is forced to spend so much on maintaining smaller local routes is especially difficult, because federal aid is much harder to acquire both for maintenance spending and ancillary routes (which are not part of the National Highway System).

Missouri’s abnormally extensive state highway system is the result of decades of state policy, with programs like “Get Missouri Out of the Mud” (starting in the 1920s), the creation of “Farm-to-Market” roads, and many other ad hoc decisions constantly expanding MoDOT’s responsibilities. While MoDOT officials have talked about stopping state highway growth, the percentage of MoDOT spending that goes towards maintaining Missouri’s smallest state highways has greatly increased in the last 20 years:

Given MoDOT’s financial constraints and the skepticism with which Missouri residents view any tax increase for the state highway system, it may be time for state policy makers to reevaluate the scope of Missouri’s state highway system. Returning routes that are local in character to local governments might both relieve much of MoDOT’s funding problem and give local residents the autonomy in prioritizing their own transportation needs. 

The post Expansive Commitments Drain MoDOT Dollars appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

However, instead of delivering a concrete plan or slate of options for what might be done to improve I-70, Missouri State Highway Commissioner Stephen Miller outlined a grand vision for making I-70 the state’s first smart highway. He expressed a desire to coordinate with the private sector, so as to take advantage of innovative approaches to constructing and funding a new I-70.

Getting private companies and fresh thinking into the MoDOT planning and financing is an excellent idea. The commissioner correctly pointed out that MoDOT’s past experience with planning reform, such as the introduction of design-build contracts, has seen impressive projects come in under budget. And there are many exciting opportunities for adding value to a new I-70 and making efficiencies in its construction. Improved information technology and perhaps even designing a highway with self-driving vehicles in mind might propel I-70 to the forefront of highway design.

However, when it comes to funding highways, Missouri, far from reaching for the future, has been and continues to be a laggard. Open road tolling allows significant value capture from highways, creating a revenue stream for public private partnerships (PPPs) to not only design and build, but also to finance, operate, and maintain modern freeways. These types of toll roads already exist in many states (15 states are already part of one integrated system), including Missouri’s neighbors, but not in Missouri. In fact, Missouri does not even have the enabling legislation for PPPs to rebuild highways. High-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes create revenue streams for the expansion of highways in other states, but not Missouri. Mileage based user fees (MBUFs), another innovative revenue source, is rolling out in Oregon; Missouri has yet to study the possibility.

In redesigning I-70, MoDOT is right to think the private sector can help build a better highway more efficiently. However, Missouri should not lose sight of the fact that modern funding mechanisms already exist in other states and around the world. While having a “smart highway,” whatever that turns out to be, may be great for Missouri, the state does not need to wait on futuristic solutions to fund a much-improved I-70. It really just needs to get with the times.

The post The Future of I-70: “Not a Plan, But a Big Idea” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In terms of sheer importance to the state economy, there is no contest between the Missouri state highway system and transit. The state highway system carries virtually all cross-state traffic, most commuters, and $711 billion of freight annually. Transit carries a tiny sliver of commuters in the state’s largest cities. Even in Saint Louis City and County, where the state’s transit network is most dense, less than 5 percent of commuters use transit.

What of subsidies? In 2013, the largest source of non-user funding the Missouri highways received was from the now chronically underfunded federal highway trust fund. In that year, Missourians sent the federal government about $877 million in road user funds and got back about $938 million to spend on highways. That’s a $66 million subsidy. Add in local spending and other small sources of non-user fees, and Missouri’s subsidies for all highways is around 10 percent.

How, then, can CAP claim that 46 percent of major highways do not pay for themselves? First, the study CAP issued broke highways and arterial roads into sections, which may not be an appropriate way of measuring the cost-effectiveness of highways. One should note that, on this measure, 54 percent of the system either broke even or was in the black (36 percent). Second, CAP’s study does not look at all forms of indirect user fees, including permit fees and other non-fuel taxes. Using incomplete data from the FHWA (which counts bonds and reserves that may be based on user fees as non-user revenue), At most, 24 percent of Missouri’s highway spending is not derived from user fees. That means, even with no tolling and the fifth lowest gasoline tax in the nation, user fees manage to pay for at least 76 percent of highway costs.

With transit in Missouri, taking 2013 as an example, fares only covered 16 percent of total costs. In years with major construction, this number falls below 10 percent. And while CAP claims 46 percent of highway segments are in the red, every segment of Metro, including MetroLink, is deep in the red. The best bus routes (counting only weekdays in Metro’s highest ridership months) recover 82 percent of its operating costs from fares. Most routes perform much worse, with a third of all routes receiving subsidies in excess of 80 percent of their operating costs. The numbers are no better in Kansas City.

Comparing the systems, it is clear that highways could be paid for entirely with user fees, especially if rigorous cost-benefit analysis is used to evaluate new highway projects. We argue for this all the time. Transit is a different story. It would be essentially impossible for Metro to break even using fares, which would have to quintuple in order to cover just its operating costs. As that would make a reduced monthly pass $195 and a regular pass $390, it is safe to say people would stop riding Metro altogether before it broke even.

CAP essentially would have Missouri take user revenue from the system virtually all Missourians use and depend on in order to give more money to a system that very few use despite incredible subsidies. CAP’s plan is fiscally irresponsible and endangers the future of transportation in Missouri.

The post Do User Taxes Pay for Highways? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Towards Market Orientation: Funding Transportation Infrastructure in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As we wrote before, the plan does not simply prioritize the highways that are most used for commercial and personal transportation. Rather, MoDOT will split state highways into a primary and secondary system. The primary system will include the highways necessary to connect all of Missouri’s communities, while the secondary system mostly handles local traffic. For this reason, Missouri highways that carry less than 500 vehicles a day are sometimes in the primary system while heavily trafficked US routes in urban areas are sometimes in the secondary system.

The primary system under the 325 Plan will cover about 8,000 miles of Missouri’s 34,000-mile highway system, and it will receive the funding to maintain its current state of repair. The secondary system will be maintained as much as funds allow, but their state of repair will deteriorate over time. A map of the 325 primary highways in the Kansas City area is shown below.

All told, only around 900 of Jackson, Clay, and Platte County’s 1,800-plus miles of state highways will be included in the 325 Plan’s primary system. While that includes all of Kansas City’s interstate highways, it excludes most Missouri routes and as much as half of the US routes in those three counties. Among those left out are parts of US 169 and US 71, both of which carry thousands of trucks and tens of thousands of passenger vehicles every day. These well-published omissions have led some to believe MoDOT is attempting to spread the pain wide, instead focusing on maintaining the most efficient highway system, in an effort to convince residents to increase funding.

Whether or not MoDOT’s 325 Plan is politically motivated, there is no doubt that without increased funds parts of the state highway system in the Kansas City area are going to suffer. That is not good for quality of life or the economic competitiveness of the region. If that situation is to be avoided, Missouri will have to modernize the user-funding base that supports the state’s critical roadways.

The post Kansas City, Meet the 325 Plan appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The heart of the 325 Plan is separating a primary state highway system that is necessary to connect Missouri’s communities from a secondary system. That primary system, about 8,000 miles of the state’s 34,000 miles of highways, will be kept in the condition they are in today. The remaining miles will receive less-than-adequate maintenance and will deteriorate over time.

Should the 325 Plan be implemented, it would be bad news for Saint Louis City and County. That is because the plan prioritizes the highway connections between, and not among, Missouri’s communities. Very heavily trafficked highways like Lindbergh, Gravois, Route 340, and parts of Manchester Road will not be part of the primary system because they carry mostly local traffic. All told, only around 55 percent of Saint Louis City and County’s state and interstate highways (by route mile) would receive primary system funding. The map below shows the area’s state highways and what portion would be in the primary system under MoDOT’s 325 Plan.

The obvious absence of US 67 (Lindbergh), despite the fact that it is both a US route and carries more than 20,000 daily vehicles (along with more the 2,000 trucks) along much of its length, in favor of rural highways that carry only hundreds of vehicles has led some to describe the plan as anti-urban and a political move to spread the pain wide. Whether or not this charge is merited, MoDOT’s declining construction budget was always going to mean tough choices and deteriorating roads in much of the state. That’s a situation to avoid, and one that can be avoided if the state modernizes the user-fee base that has funded the highway system for decades.

The post Saint Louis, Meet the 325 Plan appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Former proponents of Amendment 7 claim that sales taxes are the best solution for MoDOT’s problems because they are the most politically feasible method of raising large amounts of money. Raising the state gasoline tax (currently 17 cents per gallon)—MoDOT’s principle revenue stream, they say—is not good policy because it is a declining source of funds and it does not poll well. But as we have shown before, fuel consumption has been declining very slowly, and it actually increased in the last year. The erosion in the gas tax’s purchasing power is mostly the result of inflation; Missouri last increased its fuel taxes in 1996, since which time prices have increased an average of 34 percent.

Far from being politically unfeasible, raising the gas tax is actually the simplest method for the state legislature to raise more money for MoDOT. That is because the provision that forces tax increases to go to the voters, the Hancock Amendment, has exceptions for small increases of existing revenue streams. Under the amendment, the legislature can increase revenue in any given year as long as new revenue does not exceed $106 million ($50 million in 1980 indexed to personal income growth) or 1 percent of state revenue looking back two years ($84.2 million for last year), whichever is lower.

Using 1 percent of previous state revenue as a cap, the legislature can collect around an additional $84 million in fuel taxes next year. Missouri currently generates about $29 million per cent from fuel taxes, meaning the state could raise fuel taxes by more than two cents without triggering Hancock requirements. Or, if Missouri followed the example of the federal government and many other states in charging diesel at a higher rate than regular gasoline, the state could raise the diesel fuel tax rate by five cents and the regular fuel tax by one cent and remain under the cap. That would generate an addition $78 million for MoDOT next year.

What’s more, because state revenue has been growing and per-cent fuel receipts have been declining recently, the state legislature could raise the fuel tax in successive years, which could give MoDOT the needed funds to maintain and make necessary improvements to state highways. In fact, this is precisely how Missouri last increased its fuel taxes in the 1990s.

Fuel taxes, as indirect user fees, are a preferable and possible way of funding highways in Missouri. If more money truly is required, the legislature has the option to raise fuel taxes without sending the issue to a ballot and without resorting to new, inappropriate funding mechanisms.

The post Highway Funding in Missouri: The Fuel Tax Option 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.

Check out our new video on the condition of Missouri’s highways and bridges:

The post Video: Missouri Roads – Better Than You’ve Heard appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Broadway Bridge is one of four major bridges that span the Missouri River in Kansas City. Built in 1954 and operated as a toll road until 1991, the bridge is heavily traveled. The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) had considered rebuilding the aging bridge and replacing its interchange at 6th street, but the $200 million price forced a cash-strapped MoDOT to defer the project.

With the proposed 0.75-cent statewide sales tax, the funding might be made available for the bridge. However, some in the media have pointed out (correctly) that the project will consume much of the new sales tax money set aside for the Kansas City area, leaving less for transit.

That should not surprise anyone. After all, it was MoDOT’s growing highway funding needs and dwindling revenues that prompted the call for the statewide sales tax in the first place. And in terms of mobility in Kansas City, it is clear that the Broadway Bridge has a greater impact than any conceivable transit project. The bridge carries more cars per day (approximately 41,000) than the entire Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) bus system’s number of passengers each day, plus significant freight. It is far more cost effective than the half billion dollar streetcar expansion plan, which is likely to carry only 13,000 passengers per day.

While we might disagree with Kansas City’s transit supporters about priorities, they are right to think that using a sales tax to subsidize highway and bridge projects is unfair. After all, the thousands of drivers and truckers using the Broadway Bridge stand to benefit from a new bridge far more than the Kansas City residents who bike or walk to work, but they will pay for it equally.

And there is a better way. From 1956 to 1991, the Broadway Bridge operated as a toll bridge. That toll should be brought back (without the booths) to finance the construction and maintenance of the new bridge. If the toll were variably priced, the new bridge could guarantee congestion-free travel across the Missouri River.

Whether it is the Broadway Bridge or any other highway project, people should pay for them based on how much they actually use the route, which means gas taxes or tolls. Implementing a statewide sales tax is an unfair and economically unsound policy. The most likely result will be a highly political allocation of sales tax dollars and disappointment for transit supporters.

The post Shock: Transit Supporters Discover Sales Tax Will Go To Roads appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The city of Warrenton, in Warren County, was well-represented. Several people in various city capacities spoke. Warrenton is located near where the proposed I-70 toll would begin, according to a Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) plan presented in the last session of the Missouri Legislature. Warrenton officials, to say the least, are opposed to this plan.

One city official said enacting a toll at this location would make Warrenton “a ghost town.” Others said it would devastate city businesses and cause people to move out of the city. Others said it would cause travelers, truckers, etc., to avoid the area entirely and cost Missouri tax revenue. One said a toll would put their businesses at a “competitive disadvantage.”  They all have a right to their opinion; but they are all totally, completely, abjectly wrong.

You know what would put Warrenton businesses at a competitive advantage, not disadvantage? Having a new, expanded, six-lane highway serving the city and county. It is not like Missouri is inventing toll roads here. There are thriving cities along toll roads throughout the United States. They are not “ghost towns.” The entire idea of that is preposterous. Did the Lake of the Ozarks Community Bridge harm the community because it has a toll? Did Party Cove disappear when they enacted a small toll that paid for building a brand new bridge and saved drivers a half hour of driving to get across the lake?

Tolling works across the United States to build infrastructure we need while the people who benefit from it pay for it. It is human nature to fear risk more and judge benefits less than deserved. That is what I saw yesterday from civic leaders in Warrenton.

Show-Me Institute research on private financing and tolling, public-private partnerships, highway investment, and I-70 are available here.

The post Warrantless Fears Of Tolling In Warrenton appeared first on Show-Me Institute.