Back in the real world, Kansas City is caught up in a questionable transportation project of its own – joining the rush to become the latest U.S. city to build a super-expensive, super-trendy downtown streetcar system.

With an initial 2.2-mile line already under construction, the Kansas City City Council has unanimously approved the creation of a Transportation Development District (TDD) to expand the streetcar line to almost 10 miles. Kansas City residents need to consider the project’s enormous costs and questionable benefits of the proposed expansion.

Streetcars are an extremely costly form of public transportation. The Kansas City TDD aims to spend $472 million to build 7.6 miles of streetcar routes in Kansas City. That is a mind-boggling $62 million per mile to build a system that (as one critic puts it) “offers little more than a way to move downtown workers from their offices to lunch.” For no more money, Kansas City could add 100 buses to its existing fleet of 250 buses and greatly increase bus service throughout the entire Kansas City metro area.

It is always fun to spend other people’s money and supporters of streetcar expansion expect to raise more than half of the needed funds – or more than $250 million – from the federal government. That still leaves a substantial sum of money that will have to be raised in additional taxes on residents and businesses inside – and, it is important to note, outside – the transportation district.

People within the TDD will have the opportunity to vote in a special election (at a time yet to be determined) on whether to accept higher sales or property tax levies to support the project. Taxpayers outside the district will not get a chance to vote, but they will be on the hook as a result of the fact that the city of the Kansas City is a major property owner within the TDD. As such, the city will shoulder a significant portion of the tax load – and it will pass that burden along to at-large Kansas City residents through higher taxes or reduced services.

The whole project begs the question: What possible advantage can there be to building a new streetcar system, given the much lower costs and the much greater range and flexibility that buses provide?

NextRailKC and others describe the huge expense and extreme inflexibility of streetcar systems as a hidden asset – signifying a valuable long-term commitment on the part of government to provide reliable public transportation within a designated area. According to this argument, developers and investors see this commitment, and so they are inspired to build around streetcar routes.

As a favorite example, streetcar supporters point to Portland’s celebrated Pearl District. There, it is argued, is the proof that streetcars can spearhead incredible urban development that justifies the streetcar system’s out-sized expense. However, even streetcar proponents admit that Portland’s streetcar was only a part of a large-scale investment plan, involving more than $400 million in tax subsidies that supported growth in streetcar corridors.

Kansas City residents would be wise to reject Bart’s advice and listen to his mother’s more mature assessment. Better to improve what is already there – roads and existing public transportation – than to join the rush to be part of the latest urban planning fad.

Joseph Miller is a policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Beware The Jabberwock (And Downtown Streetcars) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A recent email sent to drive traffic to Slay’s campaign site with one of its inane polls referred blithely to “your tea party friends.” Slay’s team seems to want to send the message that government-hating right wingers are welcome here. No wonder the Show-Me Institute set up shop in the city.

There is, of course, only one legitimate reply to this, and, not surprisingly, it was said by Homer Simpson. From the fourth season, episode 14 — you’ll find the video here. The line comes at about the 0:48 mark. Definitely one of the best lines in one of the single best episodes of the best TV series ever.

Thanks to St. Louis’ own Bart Simpson for the article link.

The post “That’s Right, and Who Might You Be?” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While some might say that the risk of coyote attack is still very low — negligible, even — and that therefore we shouldn’t spend lavish amounts of money guarding against it, I respond that the risk can’t be much lower than some other risks the government pours billions into thwarting. And when Tower Grove Park is once again free of coyotes, we will have the government’s Coyote Patrol to thank — just as Homer knew to credit the Bear Patrol for keeping bears out of Springfield:

The post Something Must Be Done! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

1. Missouri’s portion of the rail stimulus is a (comparatively) small amount of tax dollars that DOES NOT commit Missouri to building some new high-speed rail system.
2. The dollars will likely be used in a manner that will bring demonstrable and measurable improvements to our current rail system. Or maybe they won’t, but at least we’ll know if that’s the case and have the ability to test and measure results before we commit to spending more money. So far, the first of these projects (undertaken without stimulus money) has had measurable success in reducing delays and allowing for increased traffic. (I believe strongly that eliminating delays is more important than speeding up the trip.)
3. If the state spends a reasonable amount of money making demonstrable improvements to our current system, that will increase voluntary ridership (it already has) — which will (presumably and hopefully) decrease the required subsidy amount.

It is theoretically sound, but practically unrealistic, to expect that MoDOT would not have applied for stimulus funds and that the state would not have have received any for high-speed rail. MoDOT deserves credit for applying for shovel-ready projects that will improve our current Amtrak service rather than reaching for the fantasy world of bullet trains to Ballwin.

The projects that MoDOT will undertake with this money, and the project they already completed without stimulus funds, are based on engineering — not on delusions of taking the Orient Express at 250 mph. A study completed in 2007 by Mizzou engineers listed the most cost effective ways for MoDOT to improve existing rail service. The study recommended projects, such as the recently completed California (Mo.) rail-siding extension (scroll about two-thirds down the page) that would immediately improve rail service. Those are the projects for which MoDOT received funding, not pie-in-the-sky projects requiring newer, larger, and interminable subsidies.

The nationwide high-speed rail plan as a whole, announced last week, is a sad joke, as aptly described by Chrissy in her recent post. However, Missouri’s part in it is a relative bright spot, and MoDOT deserves commendation for keeping its plans focused — almost as much commendation as that candidate in Illinois who made the Simpsons monorail reference before I did:

“All this money to get from Chicago to St. Louis 45 minutes faster? This isn’t informed public policy, it’s a ‘Simpsons’ episode,” gubernatorial candidate Dan Proft said in a statement.

The post Missouri Can Be Proud of Its High-Speed Rail Allocation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This will be a grand experiment for Missouri and the entire country. If it works, it may open up a range of new possibilities, and perhaps once again encourage Kansas City to consider privatizing its airport. If the Branson airport fails, it will do so without taxpayer dollars being involved — only the investors would lose their money. (Remember when companies sometimes used to fail without the federal government bailing them out? Those were the good old days. …)

In my opinion, the best thing the airport has going for it, businesswise, is that it is starting small:

Peet also has set expectations low. Reno gets about 2.5 million air travelers a year, or nearly 68,500 travelers a day, he notes. Discount king Southwest Airlines has 38 flights a day there. But to reach Peet’s goal of 250,000 passengers a year, Branson Airport needs only 685 passengers — five to six planeloads a day.

Branson is not an easy drive from St. Louis or Kansas City. My family went to Branson for a weekend last year, and we drove. I would love to have the option to fly there on a discount airline. If I could knock two hours off the trip each way by flying, that would be worth a little extra money to me. For people who live farther away, this airport opens up Branson to a lot more people — not to sound like a chamber booster for them, or anything. …

This line in the article immediately reminded me of The Simpsons:

“Reno’s got beautiful scenery. Branson’s got beautiful scenery. They’ve got a lake. We’ve got three lakes. They’ve got lots of hotel rooms. Branson’s got lots of hotel rooms. They’re pretty isolated. Branson’s pretty isolated. The only thing they’ve got that we don’t are the casinos, and a lot of people don’t want to be around gambling.”

Because we all know that Branson is what Las Vegas would be like if it were run by Ned Flanders.

The post Branson and Its Fancy New Airport appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I know what you are thinking: Is there a point to all of this? Not really, but because I am the only staffer to make it through the snow to come in today (thanks to my new 4WD SUV, and the fact that I live only a mile away), I may be particularly inclined to poignancy. Which gets me to reassessment, that special period every two years in Missouri during which our property gets revalued — a process that determines our tax rates.

This morning’s Wall Street Journal has bad news for anyone expecting the upcoming reassessments to lead to tax cuts, at least in the St. Louis area. You can’t read the full article without a subscription, but I’d like to point you to the map that’s on page one today, if you are interested. This map lists the decline in the price of homes in about thirty major cities during the past year. St. Louis has one of the smallest declines, at 3.7 percent. Many other cities have seen declines well into double digits, and only a few cities have slightly smaller declines.

This is all pertinent because, as the Post-Dispatch has reported recently, many homeowners are gearing up for a fight in St. Louis County, which has been ground zero for assessment and property tax issues during the past decade. From what I’ve heard, many people were astounded when, in an article that ran a few weeks ago, the St. Louis County assessor claimed property values really hadn’t gone down that much. Well, at least according to Zillow.com and the WSJ, he may be right. Frankly, the difference may be even less than negative 3.7 percent in St. Louis County, because that number applies to the entire metro area, and the new home construction prices in extended suburbs like St. Charles have probably fallen more than areas like St. Louis city and county.

I am not saying that this is a good thing. Of course, I would like to see lower property taxes and less government involvement in our lives. Fewer government employees and (self-assumed) government responsibilities are the best things that can come from a recession. But, to repeat what I said here a few weeks ago, the best thing that most of us can probably hope to arise from this reassessment in Missouri is that our property taxes will remain level for the next two years. Considering how much they have increased during past cycles, perhaps a leveling-off would not be so bad.

The post “Can You Smell It In The Air, Opus?” “Dirty Socks?” “No, Reassessment.” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The first editorial focuses on the Florida legislature’s unanimous passage of a health care reform bill during this last session. The bill was aimed at kicking the government out of our health care decisions, rather than trying to further regulate and manipulate the free market. Gov. Charlie Crist signed the bill in an effort to combat the notion that health care coverage has to be an all-or-nothing decision. Before this bill was signed, health care coverage plans were littered with state mandates and regulations that often drove up the price of the plan beyond the reach of average individuals. As the author points out, these erstwhile mandates included such "necessary" procedures as the age-old practice of acupuncture, not to mention chiropractic visits (I searched a long time for a clip from the Simpsons episode where Homer sort of becomes a chiropractor, but had no luck). All kidding aside, this is quite an accomplishment for those free-market advocates who think the government would only worsen the problem (jeez, who could think something like that!).

The second editorial also focuses on a bill that is working its way through the legislature in New Jersey (yeah, I know, New Jersey is ahead of Missouri — uh oh) that will allow residents to cross states borders to buy an affordable health care policy. By opening out-of-state markets, it allows competition to flood the New Jersey market, which can only benefit that state’s consumers. Rather than being held hostage by existing health care companies in the state that are able to coordinate and charge higher premiums, consumers will be able to select from a number of approved health care providers (don’t even get me started on what approved means, but that is a topic for a different day) throughout the United States.

Because New Jersey’s average health care costs are almost double the national average, this bill should be welcomed with open arms. Nevertheless, opponents of the bill say policy buyers will only be able to get "bare bones" coverage. That is simply not true. Even if did happen to be true, it is not like policy holders would switch to a lesser plan than they originally had; this would simply allow those who had nothing before to have something.

Let’s all hope this bill succeeds, and Missouri legislators take notice.

Alright, that is all for now. I have to get home so I can make it home for the two-hour "Lost" finale.

The post For Wall Street Journal, Lightning Strikes Twice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It was not the role of the audit to ask whether Springfield should be providing these utility services in the first place, which is unfortunate. A 1970 study by University of Missouri economists demonstrated that public electric utilities that produce their own power are less efficient than private utilities. Unfortunately, we had to pay for our copy of the study, so I can’t link to it online. But here’s a passage from its conclusion:

The tax-interest subsidy, however, does not explain why some municipalities invest in new generating equipment when their costs, even after adjusting for capital costs and taxes, are still higher than alternative purchase arrangements. Such action appears to depend on other explanations, e.g., bitter rivalry, legal barriers, incorrect information, etc.

Here is an op-ed I wrote on this issue, as it affects Kirkwood. Kirkwood, though, merely distributes the water and electricity it purchases wholesale from private utilities (which the above-mentioned study showed was more efficient than a municipality producing its own power). Springfield is much worse — it still produces and treats its own water and electricity. Here are the stats. There are very few large cities left that still do this, for reasons detailed in the study.

Springfield should sell its electricity, gas, and water systems to the private sector. That would bring in a huge amount of money for Springfield, and allow the city to focus on things the private sector does not also provide, like police and local roads. It should sell its computer network, too, while we are on the subject. Then City Utilities can concetrate on transit and the 911 call center it operates. The leadership of CU, though, remains deluded by the idea that a government-owned system is somehow better for the citizens than a private system.

The post Springfield and City Utilities Audit Cries Out for Simpsons References appeared first on Show-Me Institute.