An article in EducationNext discussed recent research on transportation methods in cities where many students exercise choice. The article describes how Denver, Detroit, New Orleans, New York, and Washington D.C. are finding ways to provide transportation to students who attend a school of choice. It also found that in most cases, students don’t have long commutes. 

In some cities, like New Orleans and New York, the district simply provides students with transportation, including students who choose their schools. Washington D.C. has school district-provided transportation or free access to public transportation for all students. Denver provides students who exercise choice with a free shuttle-bus service. And many individual charter schools will provide transportation, like in Detroit.

More places than those mentioned in the study are creating ways to help students with transportation. Low-income families in Minnesota can qualify for transportation cost reimbursements if their child enrolls in a charter school or open enrollment in the local district. Businesses are also stepping in, as parents and school districts have connected with rideshare programs, tailored specifically to get students to and from school.

And in Missouri, where charter schools are eligible for state transportation aid, these schools can work with the local district or use another contractor to arrange transportation.

Concern over transportation shouldn’t determine where students go to school. Transportation is a means to an end and shouldn’t prevent students from attending the school of their choice.

The post But How Will They Get to School? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The city and the commission that oversees the airport have endorsed a plan to impose $3 pick-up and drop-off fees on TNCs serving the airport. That means every time a passenger is either picked up or dropped off at the airport by drivers for companies like Uber or Lyft, they’ll pay an additional $3 on top of their regular fare. There are two apparent motivations for the fees: (1) the airport wants to collect as much revenue as possible; and (2) taxis pay a $4 pick-up fee at the airport, and so regulators want to “level the playing field” between taxis and the more popular TNCs. There are also two fundamental problems with the proposal.

For one, taxis pay a special pick-up fee partially because they’re guaranteed fares at the airport. They queue at a designated area where, after waiting their turn, they get a fare. But this designated area wasn’t free to build, and TNC drivers cannot que there for guaranteed fares. TNC drivers respond to passenger requests in real time, and so must find fares “on their own.” Moreover, TNCs impose no special costs on airports like taxis do in terms of a designated waiting area or congestion. So if the TNC business model doesn’t necessitate these extra costs, why should TNCs or their passengers pay for them? Should TNCs be punished for being efficient? The answer may irk you as much as it does me: because of the “convenience of being allowed to offer curbside pickup.”

Secondly, it is not the government’s job to pick winners and losers. By protecting some market participants at the expense of others, policymakers hurt ordinary consumers—the overwhelming majority of society—in two ways. In the present case, consumers must first pay artificially higher prices for a service they demand. Second, economic progress is slowed by propping up failing businesses. Some city officials say that allowing TNCs to operate at the airport could hurt taxis’ business. They’re exactly right. Ford’s Model T hurt the carriage industry, and the advent of electric refrigerators hurt the ice industry—but society as a whole grew richer. The market destroys some jobs as others are created. Imposing fees on TNCs will not “level the playing field”; it will simply protect government-favored businesses from the pressures of the market (i.e., the preferences of consumers).

If policymakers truly want to level the playing field, they should eliminate fees, regulations, and other perks that help some at the expense of others—for both TNCs and taxis. Deregulation has already proved itself effective in the vehicle-for-hire industry. I hope officials keep this in mind going forward.
 

The post Fining Businesses for Convenience? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

To help cab companies compete with Uber and other ride-hailing firms, the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission voted Wednesday to slash license fees and reduce inspection requirements.

The new rules, which take effect Thursday, also cut minimum liability insurance requirements for the cab firms.

Fingerprint background checks still will be required for new cab drivers but they’ll be able to get them from lower-cost private vendors instead of at the commission office.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch article linked above goes into greater depth on what is changing in Saint Louis, so hit the link to get the full rundown. Show-Me has discussed the issue at length for a number of years now, and more recently my colleague Graham Renz in particular has repeatedly raised flags about the behavior of Missouri’s taxi cartels and their impact on consumers. After the Legislature defanged taxi commissions statewide, this week’s regulatory changes were more or less a foregone conclusion.

On behalf of Graham, I have the privilege of saying that today’s events are no surprise. When you let the market work, innovators will innovate, or else be left behind, and it seems clear that the Commission has recognized and responded to that reality this week.

Whether in transportation or energy or some other sector of the economy, monopolies and oligopolies often work to the detriment of the average person and to the advantage of entrenched interests. Let the market—let competition, let innovation—work, and the result tends to be far superior to letting the status quo ossify, with the backing of government bureaucracy.

These reforms were long overdue, but they are here. Congratulations, St. Louis.

The post No Surprise: Fresh Competition from Rideshare Companies Leads to Taxi Reforms in St. Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

HB 130’s passage means that Missouri will be an easier place to earn an extra income and get around. Rather than navigate a patchwork of rules and regulations—or none at all—TNC drivers and riders across the state will now all follow the same, reasonable rules. In some cities, like Kansas City, St. Louis, and Columbia, bureaucrats and special interests have attempted to regulate TNCs out of existence, killing jobs, slowing economic progress, and reducing consumer choice. HB 130 eliminates unnecessary barriers to market entry, thereby expanding economic opportunity (especially for the disadvantaged) and efficient transportation choices.

I commend the Legislature and Governor for advancing liberty and economic freedom by making HB 130 law. (The law’s swift progression has even prompted ossified and cartelized taxi firms to call for deregulation.) We’re hopeful this is just one of many free-market transportation reforms to become law over the next few years. 

The post HB 130 a Win for Transportation and Economic Freedoms appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

SB 185 would create a statewide regulatory framework for TNCs, making it possible for them to operate across different jurisdictions that may have conflicting local regulations (or no TNC regulations at all). The law embodies free-market principles and could create jobs, improve mobility, and increase personal freedom. Show-Me Institute analysts, myself included, have testified in favor of SB 185 and similar legislation (e.g. HB 130) for years. So why is the bill hung up?

The Missouri Times reports that a senator:

opposes the legislation because he fears it will lead to fewer people, namely those who sign up to become drivers for TNCs like Uber, Lyft or Sidecar, to forgo paying for insurance. If a person signs up to become a driver, he says, and a TNC promises to cover his or her insurance when they’re driving for the company, drivers could forget their insurance only applies when they are on the clock when it comes time to renew their personal insurance.

In short, the bill seems to have been held up over concerns that TNC drivers, who use their own personal automobiles while on the clock, will simply forget they still need to purchase an individual auto policy.

If this concern is indeed motivating the filibuster, it seems misguided for two reasons. First, most TNC drivers work part time, and therefore likely own automobiles for personal use (57% of Uber drivers work less than 15 hours/week, and 86% work less than 35 hours/week.) Since these drivers own cars primarily to use themselves, it seems unlikely they’ll just forget to buy insurance once they start driving a few hours a day for a TNC. Second, to register your vehicle in Missouri, you need proof of insurance! It’s hard to understand why Missourians would forget to purchase (state-mandated) insurance just because they receive commercial coverage when driving for a TNC. It’s even harder to see how that fear would outweigh the potential benefits of sensible TNC regulations.

Proponents of SB 185 are still optimistic, but the future of free-market transportation reform is unclear. I remain hopeful that the policies embodied by SB 185 will eventually enable drivers to earn a living, help riders save money, and make it easier for all Missourians to get around. 

The post Can Legislation Make You Forget to Buy Insurance? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Testimony–Senate Bill 185: State Regulations for Transportation Network Companies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) are firms that use information technology to connect drivers and riders through a smartphone application. The most prominent TNCs nationwide and here in Missouri are Uber and Lyft. TNCs allow drivers to use their personal vehicles to provide prearranged rides to customers who agree to a set fare prior to engaging the driver. TNCs have proved popular, efficient, and affordable in major cities across the county and world. They also provide economic opportunity: Uber estimates it could have as many as 10,000 drivers in Missouri if statewide regulations are approved.  

Proposed legislation, in the form of House Bill 130 (HB130), could help Missouri get ahead of the transportation curve. It would streamline the administrative procedure for TNCs and TNC drivers. Rather than deal with a fragmented set of regulations throughout Missouri cities, under HB130 TNCs would need to comply with just a single law. HB130 also prevents local regulatory bodies from imposing anti-competitive and otherwise burdensome regulations on TNCs.

Missouri residents deserve affordable, convenient transportation options. They also deserve greater employment opportunities. HB130 can help achieve these goals by reducing barriers to market entry, streamlining regulations, and lowering the cost of doing business. Read the full testimony I submitted regarding TNCs to the Missouri House General Laws Committee here.

The post Will Missouri Transportation Policy Catch up with the 21st Century? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Testimony: The Introduction of State Regulations Concerning Transportation Network Companies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A forthcoming decision from a St. Louis County Court could restrict the ridesharing company Uber from operating in the region. The Metropolitan Taxi Commission (MTC) is seeking a restraining order against Uber, and Uber claims the MTC has breached anti-trust law. A decision could be issued this month.    

In short, the MTC is trying to stifle competition. Firms like Uber and Lyft provide innovative services consumers overwhelmingly prefer to traditional taxis. In an effort to save their own skins, taxi companies are trying to impose on ridesharing firms the same outdated, burdensome regulations they comply with (rather than push for a reform of current regulations).

But the MTC and taxi companies aren’t alone. Some commentators claim firms like Uber (and others in the so-called ‘gig economy’) are bad for consumers and workers alike, threatening not just public safety, but also the financial well-being of ordinary workers. Despite the lack of evidence for either of these claims (see here and here, respectively), there is a more fundamental  question these detractors ignore: Why shouldn’t  people  have the right to choose to ride or work with Uber?

And by the way, if Uber is dangerous, why are Missouri cities without it continually pressuring regulators to bring it to town? If Uber is bad for workers, why is the President of the Saint Louis NAACP urging the MTC to let it operate, so as to provide jobs for those with fewer economic opportunities? If Uber is so terrible that the MTC is trying to bar it from operating, why are consumers calling out for it?

Economists estimate that Uber produces nearly $7 billion in social value annually. It’s time regulators step out of the way  and let riders and drivers in St. Louis get a piece of that pie.

The post Free to Ride and Free to Earn appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Ridesharing in Springfield  
• The disappearance of recess  
• Mizzou's future  
• Interstate physician licensing  
• Blight (?) in Clayton  
• Kansas City's identity  

Click on the link below to read it all.

The post Show-Me Institute’s October 2016 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First, the city and TNCs got into a bit of a spat. (Listen to Mayor James’s thoughts here.) Then a compromise was reached, allowing TNCs to operate in the city. But now the terms of that compromise are coming up for review, and guess what? The city wants more control, and TNCs don’t want them to have it.

The major proposed changes to the City’s TNC ordinance include: (1) eliminating a 30-day orientation period and replacing it with a 30-day temporary permit; (2) forcing drivers to acquire additional insurance and increasing the company’s permitting fee from $45,000 to $70,000; and (3) handing all background-checking duties to the city.

1. The Star and regulators have cast a 30-day orientation period—during which TNC drivers can operate without a city permit—as a loophole for “dangerous” and “undocumented” drivers to “overcharge passengers or do something much worse.” While these worries are likely overblown, simply replacing the orientation period with an issued-on-the-spot permit is unlikely to threaten TNCs’ ability to operate in the city. In fact, if this measure were implemented, Kansas City would still be one of the easiest places to start driving for a TNC (compared to, say, Dallas). If this change assuages the concerns of regulators at little to no cost, so be it.
2. Requiring extra insurance and increasing the fees TNCs pay to the city are a different story. In short, the heavier insurance burden forces TNC drivers to carry the same insurance as taxi drivers. It requires insurance to cover incidents even when, for example. a TNC driver is involved in an accident while providing a ride but not working through the ridesharing app. This, in conjunction with higher city permitting fees, will place a significantly greater financial burden on drivers and will likely keep many from entering the market at all.
3. Lastly, and most controversially, handing background-checking duties to the city’s preferred vendor over those contracted by TNCs is complicated. This proposed change would keep driver information centralized and thereby prevent unqualified drivers from going from one TNC to another. But it isn’t clear that the vendors TNCs currently use for background checks are any less thorough than the city’s preferred vendor. If it came down to just this change, Kansas City regulators should ask themselves: is conducting their own background checks worth driving Uber and Lyft out of town for good? Although officials have public safety in mind, as my former colleague Joseph Miller has argued, they should let riders assess the level of “risk” they are willing to take.

So, overall, and unsurprisingly, city regulators are vying for greater control in a market averse to red tape. Not all of the proposed changes are onerous, but many would put additional barriers between consumers and service providers. Perhaps city leaders will learn how to get out of the way this time around.

To learn more about the proposed ordinance changes, and to leave your comments, click here. 

The post Uber and Kansas City Go at It Again appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In the past, when companies or individuals violated MTC policies, police in Saint Louis City and County enforced the commission’s rulings by ticketing drivers. That is, after all, how the region responded to Lyft in 2014. However, Saint Louis City has flatly refused to use its police to block Uber, and police in Saint Louis County haven’t done much either. While the MTC could have used its very limited law enforcement capacity to attack Uber in 2015, the commission found itself in the midst of a public relations nightmare, with the state legislature seemingly ready to step in and completely overhaul the MTC. As a result, Uber now operates in Saint Louis, the police do nothing, and the MTC (while reiterating that Uber is acting illegally) keeps its head down.

 Now that the state legislature has failed either to reform the MTC or implement statewide ridesharing regulations, and with the unprofessionalism of MTC commissioners fading into memory, the taxi commission is reportedly planning to remind everyone who runs this town. As the Riverfront Times reports, the commission will begin seeking out UberX drivers and citing them for operating without a commission license. If such an act does not prompt Uber to shut down its services in the region altogether, it may seriously diminish the number of people willing drive for the company.

Whether or not the MTC will follow through on its threats is an open question. But what Saint Louisans should recognize by this time is that Uber, operating outside the regulatory framework of the MTC, has provided an innovative new service for all Saint Louis residents for almost a year. Where is the evidence that Uber is dangerous? Where are the market failures that the MTC needs to correct? From what we’ve seen so far, it seems that the ridesharing market operates just fine without the MTC.       

The post Uber Under Threat in Saint Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, nothing was accomplished. On the issue of MoDOT funding, many reforms were proposed, such as reducing the size of the state highway system, increasing the state fuel tax, and allowing for public-private partnerships for tolling I-70. None of these proposals became law, although a proposal to increase fuel taxes by 5.9 cents came very close to going to a vote of the people.

As for ridesharing regulation, bickering over the exact level of safety regulation in the Senate was enough to scupper a promising reform bill. Until lawmakers are convinced that Missourians can choose for themselves the level of security that they consider adequate, the chances are slim for further regulatory reform in the state.

The only major transportation bill that passed the Missouri legislature was SB 861, which started out as a port improvement measure but ended up as a grab bag of corporate welfare measures. For instance, the bill would authorize tax deductions to lure back jobs that have gone to other states, whether or not these jobs have anything to do with ports.

While the legislature may have left transportation in the lurch, the news is not all bad. The recent passage of more funding at the federal level (through the FAST Act) and increased revenue at the state level has placed MoDOT on firmer financial footing, at least for the near future. This has led MoDOT to add 855 projects to its 2017–2021 state transportation improvement program, providing more than $700 million in new construction awards every year through 2021. As the threat that MoDOT will be unable to maintain the state highway system recedes, so does pressure to do anything to increase MoDOT’s funding.

However, major projects, like the rebuilding of I-70, remain out of reach for Missouri. And access to ridesharing services in Missouri’s largest metropolitan area (St. Louis) is still in legal limbo. It would be a mistake for Missouri’s policymakers to think they can continue to put off making sound policy reforms and hope outside circumstances continue to break in our favor. 

The post End of Session Puts the Brakes on Transportation Reform in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We’ve written about ridesharing regulations in Missouri many times before, and we have submitted testimony on HB 2330 specifically. While state regulation of industries is not something the legislature should consider lightly, in the case of ridesharing, local government intransigence invites state-level intervention. For instance, in Saint Louis City and County, the Saint Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission has fought tooth and nail against the entry of Lyft and Uber. Far from embodying the ideal of local control, the commission, half of whose members are representatives of existing taxi companies, uses the state’s enabling legislation as an argument for why it cannot accommodate the entrance of ridesharing services.

The problem of local regulatory bodies trying to block ridesharing companies is not limited to Saint Louis; it's a nationwide phenomenon. In response, 30 states (including all of Missouri’s neighbors save Iowa) have approved statewide ridesharing regulations similar to those proposed in HB 2330.

Ridesharing can provide increased services and employment opportunities in Missouri’s urban areas, and efforts to allow these types of companies to operate safely and effectively could benefit the entire state. Whether or not HB 2330 becomes law, Missouri cities should reform their ridesharing regulations.

The post Ridesharing Regulations Pass Missouri House appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Let’s consider the charge of bullying. Companies like Uber and Lyft have bargained hard with local regulators, trying to get rules changed to fit their business model. But let’s not forget how for-hire vehicles were regulated in Kansas City and St. Louis before these companies came along. Regulatory bodies (often representing existing taxi companies) capped the supply of cabs, fixed pricing, limited business practices, and stifled innovation. When Uber and Lyft tried to enter these markets a couple of years ago, regulators and taxi representatives fought over every inch of regulation, and the fight continues in Saint Louis. That foot-dragging is what prompted efforts to regulate these companies at the state (rather than the local) level. So who are the bullies? The regulators who micromanaged the entire taxi market for generations, or Uber and Lyft?

Now let’s talk about tax revenue. Under the current regulations, ridesharing drivers would not have to pay local earnings taxes in Kansas City and Saint Louis simply for picking up passengers there. According to one Kanas City Star author, Uber will be using city streets but not paying for them. First of all, provisions in these bills don’t specifically target the earnings tax; they prohibit municipalities from charging any kind of special tax on ridesharing companies, which happens. And second, the idea that streets would be starved of funding because of earnings-tax losses just isn’t credible. Kansas City has long treated street maintenance as the red-headed stepchild of the budget-making process, with only 3% of the city’s funding going to streets. In fact, in the upcoming budget, the tax-incentive budget is equivalent to the streets’ capital budget. When we consider that this includes both federal and state fuel tax support, and that many Uber and Lyft drivers are Kansas City residents who pay other taxes, the idea that we need to kill regulatory reform to give Kansas City a larger cut seems a bit much. Any increased tax revenue would be more likely to go the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority than to streets.

Companies like Uber and Lyft are pushing for long-overdue reform in cities across the country. And unlike their opponents, they aren’t seeking to outlaw their competition—only to run their businesses their way. They only have political clout because residents in Missouri see the great benefit of these services and want to use them. If newspaper columnists or policymakers don’t like Uber’s business model, they don’t have to drive for Uber and they don’t have to ride Uber. But they shouldn’t be allowed to make that decision for the rest of us, or empower those who would. 

The post Kansas City Star Worried over “Bullying” from Uber, Lyft appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Testimony: Regulations for Transportation Network Companies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We’ve written about this commission many times before, but to sum things up:

·         At least four of the nine commission members are taxi industry representatives.

·         The body used its regulatory discretion to pass pointless rules and freeze market entry for new companies. The MTC felt it had the ability to discern taxicab demand in the region, as well as the right to control taxi supply and industry practices.

·         The MTC dragged its feet over the entry of Uber and other ridesharing services, with regularly evolving justifications. While most other large cities initiated reforms to welcome these types of companies, the MTC still fights to block Uber from Saint Louis.

·         The commission itself devolved into bickering and infighting, with some members disgracing themselves and the region as a whole in the public arena.

The story of the MTC is a story of regulatory failure. A body designed to protect consumer interests was captured by industry representatives. The body then made competition very difficult or impossible, and essentially regulated out market innovation. If it were not for the disruptive effects of Uber, Lyft, and companies like them, does anyone doubt that it would have been business as usual at the MTC?

The for-hire vehicle market, and Saint Louis, are changing. The MTC, often using state enabling statutes as a shield, has shown itself incapable of dealing with this reality. Maybe Saint Louis would be better off without this taxicab commission. 

The post Missouri Legislature Considers Disbanding Saint Louis Taxi Commission appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It was not so long ago that Uber was not available in any city, much less Saint Louis. Heavy regulation restricted the supply of cabs in most large cities. With competition ruled out, it was often a sellers’ market for cab rides, especially at times like New Years’ Eve. It was the type of environment where someone could write an article like “How to Get a Cab in San Francisco and 4 Other Tips From Taxi Drivers,” which put the inability to hail cabs at the feet of “bossy” and otherwise clueless residents. In Saint Louis, on New Years’ Eves past, much of the taxi fleet decided additional fares weren’t worth their time and stayed home. Partiers waited hours for cabs that did not come.

With the introduction of ridesharing companies, findng a ride home is getting better across the country. People complain about surge pricing, but being able to make 2 or 10 times the normal fares keeps drivers on the road when it’s late or when it’s cold or when it’s New Years’ Eve. An expensive ride home is better than no ride home. Despite fears that ridesharing would lead to underservice of far-flung or economically disadvantaged areas, Uber provides transportation options where taxis are hard to find. At the time of writing, an Uber is within five minutes of my location in the Central West End. But it’s also available within six minutes of locations in Ferguson.

What of traditional cabs? Some may fear that Uber and its ilk spell the end of traditional cabs, but traditional taxis do have advantages. They have full-time drivers who could have more driving experience and knowledge of their cities. Taxi service is integrated into the civic environment, with cab lines at airports, hotels, and cab stands. Centralized operations could allow taxi companies to enforce standards of cleanliness and customer service that Uber cannot.

Some of these changes may already be happening. New data shows that increased competition from ridesharing is raising customer service levels for traditional cabs. Complaints against cabs have fallen greatly in New York City, and in Chicago there are suddenly fewer broken credit card machines. Whether traditional cab companies will survive is still an open question. We can only hope that in Saint Louis, and in other cities, the question is answered by potential customers, not regulatory bodies. 

The post As Uber Surges, Riders Reap the Benefits appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

                The sections of Springfield’s municipal code that deal with for-hire vehicles (which are likely to encompass Uber) were not written with ridesharing in mind. The code is primarily concerned with the operation of taxis, limousines, and hotel courtesy vehicles, and has no language for companies like Uber. It also envisions an industry consisting of taxi/limo companies (which own and license the vehicles) and drivers (who are hired to contract to drive the vehicles). However, ridesharing companies do not own a set amount of vehicles that they let out to professional drivers; instead, they merely connect potential passengers with people driving their own personal vehicles.

                This means that as things stand, if Uber attempted to open up in Springfield, it would be unclear who had to register the vehicles and how they would be registered. Either option—taxi or limo—would create awkward requirements for part-time drivers, as the code requires that vehicle owners:

1. Maintain a business address with telephone service.
2. Maintain a daily log of all trips.
3. File a balance sheet and income statement prepared by a certified public accountant that shows the “business” has not less than $5,000.00 in liquid assets.

The code also requires that drivers:

1. Follow a dress code (slacks and a collared shirt).
2. Complete first-aid training.
3. Take a physical exam.
4. Present evidence of previous taxi or driving experience.

Additionally, regulations regarding fares would block Uber’s surge pricing practices, an integral part of their business model.

Springfield’s for-hire vehicle regulations were written for a purpose, but times and market realities are changing. States and cities across the country have changed regulations so that Uber and companies like it can operate. This is a chance for Springfield to be proactive and write sensible regulations now, so that its residents will be able to enjoy ridesharing as soon as possible. 

The post Springfield May Be Ready for Uber, But Its Regulations Aren’t appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Just not legally.

On 10:00 A.M., Uber, a prominent national ridesharing company, simultaneously filed an anti-trust lawsuit against the Saint Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission (MTC) and launched UberX in defiance of that commission. This move followed the breakdown of negotiations between the MTC, Uber, and local government officials over new ridesharing regulations. Some MTC commissioners claim they have made all the concessions they can, and that they are simply enforcing state statutes on fingerprinting and background checks. However, Uber and other local officials claim that remaining regulatory barriers are unnecessary and will prevent Uber from serving the metropolitan area.

In addition to its inability to end Saint Louis’s status as the largest city in the United States without cheap ridesharing, the MTC continues to embarrass the city in its spare time. The latest incident came when a local resident submitted a sunshine request asking for comments and complaints received by the MTC in the last 18 months. One might expect a body whose core mission is to ensure quality cab service to have readily accessible complaint data, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. According to the MTC, complaints are not “readily kept in the ordinary course of our record keeping.” They charged the resident nearly $500 dollars, an amazing sum for files that most governmental organizations would have aggregated and digitized. Those who have read about the MTC’s reaction to a  Show-Me Institute sunshine request will be unsurprised by the MTC’s lack of professionalism.

It is exactly one year and seven months since Lyft, another ridesharing company, attempted to enter the Saint Louis market. Since that time, the MTC has constantly resisted reform, treated requests for information with contempt, insulted the public, and engaged in offensive infighting. How can a commission that cannot regulate its own behavior be expected to regulate the taxi market? How long must residents put up with this self-serving commission? As we’ve suggested before, it may be time for the state to disband the taxicab commission altogether. 

The post Taxicab Commission Still Stonewalling Uber, Residents appeared first on Show-Me Institute.