Missouri’s roads are often a mixed bag. Urban areas, such as Kansas City and St. Louis, face heavy traffic loads that strain infrastructure, while rural areas contend with neglect stemming from budget limitations. Harsh weather conditions further exacerbate the wear and tear, leaving many roads riddled with potholes and cracks. Rural highways critical for agriculture and trade can quickly deteriorate without sustained investment.

A recent post by the blog Construction Physics contained a chart depicting the road quality of the top 19 cities. It depicts the percentage of non-interstate roads at different quality levels, measured by the International Roughness Index (IRI) and tabulated by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). I’ve added St. Louis and Kansas City for comparison using the same scoring system.

Missouri’s interstates, whose standards and funding largely come from the federal government,  rank 15th out of 50th according to the IRI score. But our non-interstate roads rank 32nd, behind our neighboring state of Kansas (1st) but well ahead of Illinois (37th). Kansas has earned a reputation for relatively well-maintained highways, thanks to strategic funding and regular maintenance schedules. Illinois has committed significant resources to upgrading its aging infrastructure through recent legislative initiatives.

Importantly, both Kansas and Illinois employ toll roads to fund road maintenance. Missouri should, too. Show-Me authors have written extensively on tolling and road maintenance more generally. While Missouri recently increased its gas tax, it’s too soon to know how impactful it will be.

Improving Missouri’s roads requires more than patchwork solutions. Lawmakers and transportation officials must focus on sustainable funding mechanisms, better prioritization of projects, and more efficient use of resources. Policies that balance the needs of urban centers and rural areas will be critical in ensuring that all Missourians benefit from reliable roadways.

The post Kansas City and St. Louis Road Quality appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Saint Louis Alderman James Page suggested in the Post-Dispatch article that the ban may last about two weeks. City leaders should take that time to ask themselves several questions about how best to manage this unique mode of transportation.

First, how will a scooter ban impact law-abiding residents and visitors? The fleets of young people roaming the streets on weekends may be an issue, but they are far from the only ones in the market for cheap, short-range transportation. With gas prices reaching historic highs and continuing to rise, some city dwellers find scooters a less expensive alternative for short trips. For those who rely on public transportation, scooters also address the “last mile problem,” eliminating walks from transit systems to a destination. Some visitors who choose not to drive in the city rely on scooters as well; previous Post-Dispatch articles include photos of businesspeople scooting to conventions.

Second, if new city­-level regulations are under consideration, will they be the best solution to the youth scooter problem? Lee Foley, Lime’s director of community and government relations for the Midwest, has already put forward several possible restrictions the company could implement on its own units. These include requiring ID to restrict rider age, reducing maximum speeds, and limiting the Group Ride feature that allows one rider to activate multiple scooters. City leaders already plan to discuss solutions, likely including these options, with scooter companies in the weeks ahead.

Saint Louis officials are right in that they cannot continue to allow roaming youths on scooters to monopolize downtown police attention. However, they might want to consider the negative impacts of a long-term ban and the possibility of private solutions before instituting any new and permanent regulations.

The post Is a Scooter Ban the Answer in Saint Louis? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Under the proposed plan, Bi-State would operate the trolley while the Loop Trolley Transportation Development District (LTTDD) would still be liable for it financially. Bi-State would enter into a managerial and logistical support contract with the LTTDD without transferring ownership of the trolley. Leaders of the LTTDD are also asking Bi-State to reconsider the $1.26 million of federal traffic congestion and air quality improvement grants it denied to the trolley late last year.

The catch with restarting the trolley after years of broken promises and operational failures is that the federal government is threatening to claw back $37 million of grants that were used to build the trolley. At this point, the most sensible decision would be to do whatever would cost taxpayers less. This would mean doing some hard math, which I described here previously. The agenda for the Friday meeting does not indicate that a cost–benefit analysis has been undertaken.

And just as a reminder: $51 million of taxpayer’s money has already been spent on the trolley with little to nothing to show for it. As an example of things that can actually be done with that amount of money, India sent a satellite into orbit around Mars on a slightly larger budget of $74 million. I am neither advocating spending another $23 million on the trolley nor sending the trolley to Mars. But I do wish that the Loop Trolley developers had been as resourceful with our money.

But now that I think about it, sending the Loop Trolley to Mars might not be such a bad idea . . .

The post St Louis Reconsiders the Loop Trolley . . . Again appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Show-Me Institute Analyst Jakob Puckett responds to some of the comments he received about his recent report, Improving Missouri’s Transportation System through Tolling.

Read the Full Report

The post Reading the Comments: Toll Roads in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A proposal approved by the Overland Park City Council and the Kansas Department of Transportation to add two tolled lanes to U.S. Highway 69—one in each direction—will go before the Kansas Turnpike Authority for final approval. Local officials cited increased traffic from an expanding population, which is only expected to continue growing, as the need for such an expansion. Rather than paying for the project directly out of the city’s budget, officials want to use tolling to pay for the construction.

The lanes would be tolled electronically, with drivers either being billed from a K-Tag transponder or by having their license plate scanned. The prices to use these lanes will vary, with prices highest when road usage—the “demand” for roads—is highest. The original four lanes on the highway will continue to be toll-free, so drivers concerned about the cost won’t have to pay for a lane they don’t end up using.

Missouri policymakers also should consider using tolling to finance new highway lanes, particularly in areas where traffic is expected to increase beyond what the current system can handle. Congestion pricing, as this policy is also called, reduces travel times and can also help reduce local air pollution as fewer vehicles are idling on the road.

I hope the benefits of Overland Park’s tolled lanes won’t go unnoticed in Missouri. There are a lot of reasons why tolling is a policy that deserves to be explored in the Show-Me State as well.

The post Overland Park Considers Adding Tolled Lanes to Expand Highway appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With fuel tax revenue in a years-long stagnation and transportation revenues uncertain in the COVID-19 work-from-home era, P3s can be useful for funding big transportation projects. P3s are arrangements between a government agency and a private company to partner on a project’s financing, construction, and operation, typically through a long-term agreement. A big advantage of P3s is that investors can finance large projects upfront, rather than waiting for state transportation budgets to get back to normal.

P3s have other benefits. Because a company is responsible for road maintenance for, say, 30 years, it has an incentive to minimize costs over the long run. In contrast, state governments often have an incentive to minimize initial payments or upfront costs in order to make tax hikes or bonds more politically palatable.

Many states have turned to P3s to finance and operate road infrastructure improvements.

Toll road P3s shift the risk of generating enough revenue from the state government to the private sector. Moreover, by relying on tolls rather than existing state revenue sources, toll road P3s open up a new funding stream for road improvements and maintenance. P3s enable the private sector to offer toll-financed solutions where there isn’t a tolling agency or the political will to establish one.

P3s also avoid adding new state debt or liabilities. The toll road company is on the hook for future maintenance obligations, and the state can terminate the contract if the company does not hold up its end of the bargain.

The benefits of using P3s for toll-financed road improvements should prompt Missouri policymakers to reexamine Missouri’s P3 laws. Currently, P3s can be used for a range of infrastructure projects, but not toll roads. Several bills have been introduced in recent years that would change this, but none have passed. Perhaps falling fuel tax revenues and uncertain transportation budgets will encourage policymakers to reconsider.

The post How Transportation Public–Private Partnerships Can Benefit Missourians appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When troubled or sickly aristocratic English youth needed a place to recuperate in private away from their cruel stepparents, they would go to Secret Gardens, where magic and mystery would solve all of their problems. We don’t need mysterious places to address our transportation needs in Missouri, and most of our “Secret Gardens” are actually illegal meth labs. But, amazing as it may seem, there really is a local transportation funding option that is unknown to most municipal officials in Missouri. Local gas taxes are a little-used yet very efficient method of funding important local transportation priorities for cities like Lake Ozark as it considers ways to improve Bagnell Dam Boulevard and Valley Road.

I know what you’re thinking. If there is tax that most politicians don’t know about, why would you tell them? Our gas taxes are low in Missouri, and Missouri voters clearly like them that way, as attempts to raise our second-lowest-in-the-nation rate have consistently failed at the polls.

That low tax rate has benefits and costs. If you stop at a gas station near the state border, you can’t help but notice the large percentage of license plates from border states gassing up over here in Missouri. Those drivers do much of their driving in other states but choose to give us their tax dollars for Missouri roads.

But the low gas tax has costs, too. Missouri’s roads and bridges could certainly be in better shape. A 2019 report from the Federal Highway Administration ranked our roads as 8th worst in the nation. We don’t want to commit the logical fallacy of drawing causation from correlation, but there might be a connection between those 2nd-lowest taxes and those 8th-worst roads. Even for roads in good condition, increases in population, tourism, and more can burden a system.

The fact is, we need to invest more in our road and bridge system in Missouri, and our local roads are no exception. Local roads are maintained by cities and counties, not the state, and are funded by a mixture of the state gas tax, local property taxes, and sales taxes. Unfortunately, local sales taxes are the mechanism most frequently expanded to fund local roads, and they are the worst option of the three. Funding roads by sales taxes subsidizes the act of driving by charging shoppers in a manner unconnected to driving. Walkers, bikers, or carpoolers will pay just as much as solo drivers for road improvements. People who can drive on roads without directly paying for their upkeep will drive more than they otherwise would, with the resulting extra traffic, pollution, and other road issues.

Ideally, the cost of driving should be connected as closely as possible to the act of driving. Lake Ozark city leaders are currently considering a sales tax-based transportation development district (TDD) to fund improvements to Bagnell Dam Boulevard and Valley Road, both key roads for the region. A better option for funding local roads like these would be a local gas tax. A local gas tax fixes the discrepancies that sales tax funding methods generate and, more importantly, can raise substantial money for road improvements.

Seven cities in Missouri have adopted local gas taxes. By law, the money raised from these taxes can only be spent on roads within those communities. All of the local gas taxes enacted have been very low—none higher than two cents per gallon. Even at that low level, they can raise significant money, but none of these seven cities have the combination of local population and tourism that Lake Ozark has. With those tourists, a local fuel tax of just two cents per gallon could potentially bring over one hundred thousand dollars per year on top of the existing road revenue sources. That money would fund a substantial amount of road improvements for Lake Ozark, all while properly maintaining the connection between the act and cost of driving. Or, if Camden and Miller county leaders have similar concerns, countywide gas taxes could be implemented that would raise even more money.

Lake Ozark is the heart of an area vital to our state. The residents who live there and the tourists who visit need and deserve quality roads. A local gas tax would be an efficient and beneficial way to fund road maintenance and improvement. Community leaders and residents should strongly consider passing one this year. Lake Ozark does not need a hidden code or a secret garden to deal with its transportation issues, just community support to address these key improvement needs.

The post Local Gas Taxes Are the Secret Garden of City Road Funding Options appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Several bills have been introduced in the Missouri legislature, and one has made it out of committee, to raise the gasoline tax anywhere between one and ten cents per gallon. For the largest tax hikes, the changes would be phased in until the limit is reached, while smaller ones would take effect immediately. One bill would index the tax to inflation to ensure the tax keeps up with the rest of the economy. Another bill would place a surcharge on petroleum imports, taxing the distributers rather than consumers directly.

Considering all the proposals, the more modest changes could raise about $144 million, while the biggest increase could raise over $400 million. Other than the amount of money raised, what are other differences between these bills?

Indexing the gas tax to inflation is a good way to reduce future transportation funding crunches. Further, for each bill that would raise the gas tax on drivers, 30% of the revenue would go to cities and counties while the remaining 70% would go to the Department of Transportation (MoDOT).

The proposal to place a surcharge on petroleum imports rather than on drivers themselves could especially benefit MoDOT, though at the expense of local governments. Due to the tax not being on consumers themselves, all of the money raised would go to MoDOT’s state road fund and none to county and local governments, which also rely on gas taxes for local road maintenance. This bill would also lower income taxes in an effort to be revenue neutral.

Policy implementation aside, this boils down to a simple point.

According to a Missouri House Task Force, Missouri’s transportation infrastructure is “deteriorating (65),” jeopardizing traveler safety and economic growth. Roads and bridges are a vital part of our state’s economy, transporting nearly $500 billion of goods annually. Those who use them should contribute to their upkeep, and the standard means of doing so has become inadequate, as the spate of bills to increase the gas tax attests.

The problem has to be dealt with, or the whole state – drivers and non-drivers alike – will lose out. Infrastructure is a key component of the state’s long-term economic health. Since it must be recapitalized, user fees are the fairest and most efficient way of doing it.

The post A Taxing Endeavor appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Several weeks ago, Loop Trolley officials asked for $200,000 from St. Louis County to stay open for the rest of the year and another $500,000 to operate for next year. St. Louis County Council members did not oblige the request. Now, the Loop Trolley Transportation Development District (LTTDD)—the entity that owns the trolley—has announced that it will provide $90,000 for the trolley to finish out the year.

This announcement raises so many basic questions that deserve answers, such as:

• Why did the Loop Trolley ask for $200,000 if $90,000 was enough?
• Why did the LTTDD just now realize that it did not need to ask someone else for money it could provide on its own?
• Why do taxpayers in the trolley district have to keep paying for a project that cannot sustain itself?

It has been nearly one year since the trolley began operating. Ridership has been dismal; trolley officials predicted 400,000 riders for the first year of operation, but instead the total barely clears 15,000.

Isn’t it time taxpayers stop rewarding poor behavior and let the trolley stand or fall on its own merit?

The post A Day Late and $90,000 Short appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While it is good news that MoDOT appears to use available funds efficiently, that does not mean it has enough money to cover all needed infrastructure repairs in Missouri.

MoDOT has been in the midst of a years-long funding strain (pages 33-38). Between 2000-2010, MoDOT relied heavily on federal reimbursements and issued billions of dollars of bonds to fund its projects. Both sources, however, began to dwindle in 2011. While Missouri has the seventh-largest highway system in the country, it has the second-lowest fuel tax. Multiplying the problem, a decrease in money raised in Missouri for transportation means a decrease in matching federal funding.

Federal money makes up 42% of MoDOT’s budget. The fuel tax is the second largest component at 23%. The gasoline tax was set at $0.17 in 1996 and is still $0.17, meaning the value of that money has dropped significantly due to inflation. Relative to the size of the highway system, the revenue Missouri brings in per mile is less than a quarter of the national average. Simultaneously, construction and upkeep-related expenses have significantly increased due to lower productivity and higher regulatory barriers, as well as asphalt, crushed stone, and paving mixtures being significantly more expensive than just a decade ago. Having less money to spend on more expensive projects has made upkeep more difficult.

The amount of money MoDOT spent fell in 2011 and has not kept up with inflation, as you can see in the graph below:

Source: Missouri Budget Fiscal Years 2003–2017. Graph made by author. https://www.modot.org/previous-reports-joint-committee.

The surge in expenditures in 2010 coincides with the passage of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) in 2009, commonly known as the federal stimulus package. The ARRA added $400 million to MoDOT’s budget, which dissipated just as quickly due to the large number of projects for which it was needed. In 2014, ARRA funds totaled less than 1% of MoDOT’s revenues dedicated to the highway system (page 8).

Relying on large and sudden injections of federal money is not a viable funding solution, and any bonds that are issued face their day of repayment.

To raise the revenue needed to maintain our roads and bridges, a clear solution presents itself – increased use of user fees. The concept is simple and works in everyday life. Those who use a service pay for that service in return.

Numerous other states employ user fees in the form of more effective gasoline taxes and tolling, significantly boosting transportation revenue in a market-based way. Legal hurdles remain, though. Tolling interstates in Missouri would require federal approval, as Missouri turned down the opportunity to toll I-70, and questions remain regarding constitutional limits on where the funding to construct a turnpike authority can originate.

User fees may only be part of MoDOT’s solution, but they could increase its budget to meet current needs.

The post Show Me the Money appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Taxes will not be collected until construction is ready to begin.

But the tax funds will not come close to covering the cost of building the new line. The KC Streetcar Authority will also seek $100 million in federal funds. Earlier this year Congress rolled back the Trump administration’s proposed deep cuts in transit funding. But the outlook for help from Washington remains uncertain.

That assertion isn’t wrong, but it is woefully incomplete. As we’ve reported previously, the Jackson County court ruling allowing for the creation of the transportation development district that will levy taxes for the streetcar includes an important restriction: No taxes or assessments are to be collected from within the district until enough external funding—in this case federal funds—is available.

And those federal funds are indeed uncertain. The Trump administration position seems to be that it won’t hand out construction money for transit capital grants unless a previous administration signed a full-funding grant agreement, and no such agreement is in place for Kansas City’s streetcar. The Federal Transit Administration has previously called for the New Starts/Small Starts grant program—on which the Kansas City effort is dependent for funding—to be scrapped. As of now it is authorized only through 2021, after which it will cease to exist. Congress seems unwilling to reauthorize it.

Even if the occupants of Congress or the White House change significantly in 2018 or 2020, we are a long way from receiving any federal money for the streetcar, money necessary to permit the TDD to collect taxes and assessments. In the meantime, expect streetcar advocates to start looking elsewhere for their financial support.

The post The Asterisk in Streetcar Reporting appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Trump’s budget, which would go into effect in October if Congress approves it, would eliminate the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program, a nearly $500 million grant program run by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The streetcar expansion plan is reliant on federal support. According to a 4-page document put out by the Kansas City Regional Transit Alliance, $100 million of the $227 million expansion cost to expand the downtown streetcar line would be provided by the federal government through the Small Starts program. But that program is also facing a funding freeze:

The New Starts program, which helps fund local transportation projects costing over $300 million (a sister program, Small Starts, assists with projects under that threshold), would be frozen. New applications to the program, which currently has $2.3 billion to spend annually through 2020, would be outright rejected, limiting any new grants and placing the onus on local and state government to fund additional projects. [Emphasis added.]

This means the Kansas City request for streetcar money could be rejected outright. And that money is required for the extension to take place. According to the Kansas City Regional Transit Alliance,

The project will require federal grant funding, and the applicant and recipient would be the City just like with the starter line. If federal funds are secured, public involvement in the engineering and design is required.

The language from the court ruling allowing the new transportation development district (TDD) throws another wrench in streetcar advocates’ plans: no taxes or assessments can be collected from within the district until enough external funding—in this case federal funds—are available. The Trump administration has made the availability of federal funds highly unlikely. Congress could seek to continue federal New Starts funding, according to Rich Sampson of the Community Transportation Association of America, but it will be an uphill climb. And even if streetcar funding is provided by Congress, the administration may choose not to spend it.

Voters are being asked to take the risk of expanding the TDD and levying on themselves a special property tax assessment and a sales tax contingent on the Trump administration coughing up 40% of the total streetcar expansion cost. Laying aside the merits of the policy at hand, voters should be wary of approving something that is dependent on a funding source that may be little more than wishful thinking.

The post Can the Kansas City Streetcar Expansion Be Built Even If It Wins? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Opportunities for health care reform
• Our blueprint for free-market reform in 2017
• Electronic vehicle charging station policy
• Anemic startup growth in Missouri
• Sustainable funding for our transportation system
• Subsidy policy in Kansas City
• Free speech at Mizzou

Click on the link below to read more

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

To explore this question, we first need to look at traffic on the bridge. Before MoDOT placed weight restrictions, about 4,000 vehicles used the Champ Clark Bridge every day. That’s about as much as a lightly used urban street, and it’s low for a Mississippi River crossing. For example, bridges at Hannibal and Quincy each carry between 15,000 and 17,000 vehicles per day. Also, according to the Census Bureau, only four Missourians living in Pike County, Missouri (where the bridge is located) commuted to work in Pike County, Illinois. Actually, that estimate was within the margin of error, meaning it is possible that no one who lives in the county on the Missouri side of the Champ Clark Bridge works in the county on the Illinois side. About 500 residents of Pike County, Illinois, work in Pike County, Missouri. This low traffic makes sense when one notes that on the Missouri side there is only the small city of Louisiana (population 3,300) and the Illinois side of river is primarily farmland. Additionally, commodity flows are generally routed to the north or south of the Champ Clark Bridge.

Given the low traffic level on the Champ Clark Bridge, and the very few commuters who live in Missouri and commute to Illinois, a new Mississippi River bridge is likely to have limited positive impact for Missouri. The bridge’s replacement, therefore, is a perfect opportunity for Missouri to explore the option of tolling. Assuming the $60 million cost estimate is correct, a toll of around $2.50 per vehicle would be able to pay for bridge in 30 years, assuming existing drivers were willing to pay for the convenience of a Mississippi River bridge in that area. And if they are not, it calls into question the need for a bridge, with or without a toll. By placing a toll on the bridge, those who benefit greatly from the new bridge can fund its replacement without much, if any, additional strain on MoDOT’s or IDOT’s finances. It would be a fair way of funding a new bridge, and was in fact the method used to fund the construction of the Champ Clark Bridge in the first place.

The bottom line is that paying a new bridge on US Route 54 may not be worth it for Missouri, but it may be worth it for those who would actually use the bridge. The best way to find out whether that is the case is to explore the tolling option.

The post Is a New Mississippi River Bridge Worth $60 Million? 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.

                The East-West Gateway Council of Governments, which is responsible for coordinating transportation spending in the Saint Louis region, releases a transportation improvement program (TIP) every year. That program contains all scheduled transportation projects receiving federal aid for the next four years. The latest TIP, approved on July 29, shows the costs of projects (including the Loop Trolley) from 2016 to 2019.

                Despite the fact that the program was released months before the public was told that the Loop Trolley would be over budget, and Saint Louis County residents knowing they were on the hook for the those overruns, the latest TIP accurately puts the Loop Trolley’s cost at about $51 million. When the TIP was proposed (and commented on), the trolley’s cost was still only $44 million. But on the day the TIP was approved (July 29), the East West Gateway board approved a final additional project, sponsored by Saint Louis City, to improve “Delmar, DeBaliviere, and Loop Trolley Infrastructure.”

                The funding for that project comes from a $5.4 million federal STP-S grant, requiring a $1,350,000 local match. That grant should sound familiar, because that’s precisely the grant Saint Louis County is now being asked to match, which will cover cost overruns on the Loop Trolley.

                Given the timeline, it is almost certainly the case that regional planners have known about cost overruns on the Loop Trolley since mid-July. Indeed, they appear to have planned for dealing with problem by committing more federal funds (and the Saint Louis County match) to the trolley. However, they clearly did so before the county government, or county residents, had signed off on the plan. Those funds will come from county’s mass transit sales tax and could have been used to fund any number of other projects in Saint Louis County. No one should be under the illusion that Saint Louis only gets federal STP-S grants for streetcars; in the next 4 years the county is slated to receive 96 such grants.

                Might planners have known about the cost overruns before trolley construction began in the spring? Was this an attempt to make to the additional funding for the Loop Trolley a fait accompli once residents found out about it? We don’t know, but it is clear that the trolley funding process has not been as transparent as Saint Louis County residents could hope.

The post How Long Have Saint Louis Planners Known About Loop Trolley Cost Overruns? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Transportation Funding: I-70, Tolling, and the Road to Tomorrow appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A likely reason for MoDOT’s focus is the fact that the condition of state-controlled bridges ranks poorly compared to other states. Congestion may be low and road pavement tends to be smooth, but Missouri is among the bottom tier of states when it comes to the number of bad bridges. MoDOT claims that 2,000 bridges in the state are “structurally deficient and functionally obsolete.” Bridge closures, like the recent emergency shutdown of MO 291 in Kansas City, also receive significant media attention.

However, the claims that Missouri’s bridges are in crisis is somewhat misleading. Missouri has an extensive state highway system that includes not only the high-profile bridges across major rivers, but also many lightly used bridges that cross small streams. In other states, the latter usually belongs to counties or municipalities instead of the state transportation department. In Missouri, these numerous small bridges greatly add to the list of structures in need of repair.

To illustrate this fact, let’s consider MoDOT-controlled bridges in a condition listed as poor or worse in the National Bridge Inventory, of which there are 735. As the chart below demonstrates, the majority of these bridges are lightly traversed (less than 1,000 vehicles per day). In fact, less than 4 percent of bridges in poor or worse condition have daily traffic that exceeds 40,000 vehicles a day.

Looking at the location of bridges, we can see that the vast majority of structures in poor condition are located in rural areas away from major highways, which in other states would be the responsibility of county or local governments:

This demonstrates that the low-traffic bridges are in the worst shape; they are in most danger of closure if the “325 Plan” goes into effect. It is unlikely that a major, well-trafficked highway will have to shut down after a piece of the bridge crushes a school bus, as some alarmists have envisioned.

When we take away the many small bridges that do not see much traffic, Missouri is left in the same position most states are in: a few dozen ailing bridges that need attention. As for those small local bridges, it might be best if over time MoDOT returns those routes to the control of local governments, who can better perform a cost/benefit analysis on reconstruction proposals.

The post Missouri’s Bridges: Are They Falling Apart? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Transportation experts speculate that slow changes in the way people live and work have driven the decline. More Missourians once lived and worked in centralized geographic areas, reflecting the needs of a manufacturing-based economy and the means of the working class. The dispersal of jobs, residences, and increased ability to afford personal vehicles has made carpooling less attractive. While the decline in carpooling in Missouri may be primarily due to structural changes in the U.S. economy, its renaissance may come in the form of app-based technology created by ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft.

Services like UberPool and Lyft Line, now offered in test markets around the country, promise to create instant app-based carpooling. Riders request the service (at a steeply discounted price) and may end up sharing their ride with others heading in roughly the same direction. This means that riders do not need to find people to share the ride with or do not need to be going to and from the exact same locations as someone else in a carpool; it can be set up automatically.

If this type of technology were to roll out in Missouri cities, it’s possible to imagine tremendous benefits for residents. On-demand carpooling could allow Uber and Lyft to operate like super-efficient jitneys (small private buses with ad-hoc routes) rather than traditional taxis or carpools. Ridesharing companies have been accused of being yuppie-based transportation, but app-based carpooling (with its much lower pricing) has the possibility of greatly increasing mobility for the disadvantaged, especially those who live in areas where reliable mass transit is difficult, if not impossible, to access. In essence, app-based carpooling has the possibility of boosting not only carpooling, but transit (albeit privately operated) usage as well.

UberPool and Lyft Line represent just some opportunities that new business models can provide for Missouri cities. Yet, in Saint Louis and Kansas City, the attitude toward new ridesharing companies has been and continues to be reflexively hostile. If both cities can remove regulatory barriers, residents will be able to benefit from these new services, and ones as yet undeveloped.

The post Ridesharing: Game Changing for Carpooling and Transit? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read the full testimony for HB 738: .

Read the full testimony for HB 995: .

The post Funding The State Highway System With Increased Fuel Taxes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.