Testimony: Paving The Way To Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure

8/13/2019 Testimony: Paving The Way To Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure

1/8

TESTIMONY

ADVANCING LIBERTY WITH RESPONSIBILITY

BY PROMOTING MARKET SOLUTIONS

FOR MISSOURI PUBLIC POLICY

PAVING THE WAY TO

SUSTAINABLE

TRANSPORTATION

INFRASTRUCTUREPublic Comment to the Missouri Department

of Transportations Long-Range

Transportation Plan

By Joseph Miller

Testimony Before The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDO

December 20, 2013

o maximize the

benefit of every

dollar spent on

transportation

infrastructure, a

better method is

focusing on matchinginfrastructure

supply with its

actual demand,

while supporting

flexibility in the public

transportation sector.

To the MissouriDepartment of

Transportation:

My name is Joseph Miller and I ama policy researcher for the Show-MeInstitute, a nonprofit, nonpartisanMissouri-based think tank thatsupports free-market solutions forstate and local policy. Te ideaspresented here are my own. I

would like to thank the MissouriDepartment of ransportation

(MoDO) for taking publiccomment regarding its Long-Rangeransportation Plan. Tis testimonyis intended to share some relevantconsiderations as you evaluatetransportation funding and prioritiesfor the future.

In planning the future of Missourtransportation infrastructure,it is critical to identify real

priorities that will boost the statecompetitiveness and increasestandards of living. MoDOsLong-Range Plan is designed toidentify these priorities, but is onpartially successful. Te reportpoints out that MoDOs currenfunding model is unsustainable,but does not recommend increaseuse of the user pays fundingsystem to make up the shortfall,despite that models sustainabilityand economic advantages. Whilethe report gives sufficient priorityto providing for the infrastructurthat taxpayers strongly demand,

Joseph Miller is a

policy researcher at

the Show-Me Institute,

which promotes

market solutions for

Missouri public policy.


2/8

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE I TESTIMONY

2

namely roads, it also surprisinglysuggests costly expansions of inter-and intra-city passenger rail systems.

Weak trends toward increased publictransportation use do not justifythe pre-emptive construction of

expensive, fixed public transportationmodes. o maximize the benefit ofevery dollar spent on transportationinfrastructure, a better method isfocusing on matching infrastructuresupply with its actual demand, whilesupporting flexibility in the publictransportation sector.

MoDO has effectively managed

Missouris transportation networkin recent years. Its focus on bothefficiency and safety has meant thatfatalities have dropped since 2005

while conditions on Missourishighways, bridges, and rails haveimproved over the years.1Accordingto MoDO, since 2005 fatalitieshave fallen 24 percent, majorhighways in good condition have

risen to 89 percent, and bridgesin good condition rose from 74 to89 percent.2Te construction of abypass bridge, under budget, along

Amtraks Missouri River Runnerline improved that lines on-timeperformance to 89 percent.3

MoDO has completed these projectsrelatively efficiently. Te state has the

third-lowest administrative cost perstate-controlled mile and the 11th-lowest total cost per state-controlledmile in the country.4

Maintaining the currenttransportation system, mainlyhighways and bridges, is in theinterest of the states economy

and the safety of users of all formsof transportation. MoDO alsoneeds secure funding. As the Long-Range Plan points out, the gasolinetax has not increased since 1996,

while inflation for road repairs has

exceeded the consumer price indexinflation rates. For instance, theconsumer price index increasedby 60 percent from 1992 to 2011,but the cost of fuel5and concreteincreased at almost 200 percent.6

Without federal stimulus funds andbond issuances under Amendment3, MoDO funding problems wouldbe much worse.7Te Long-RangePlan does not call for any specificform of funding, but user-paysolutions such as higher gas taxes andtolling could be sufficient for roadrequirements while simultaneouslydiscouraging over-use of the roadsand urban sprawl.8

According to a recent MoDOreport, raising gasoline and diesel

fuel taxes by 5 cents would providean extra $195,956,039 per year.9Vehicles are becoming more fuel-efficient, which means that inthe future, Missouri may need toimplement a vehicle miles toll system,but for the short and medium term,fuel taxes should be able to meetMissouris infrastructure shortfalls.olling in Missouri currently runscounter to the state constitution, butif this prohibition were to be lifted,tolls would present a worthwhileopportunity for infrastructure financeNewer types of tolling do not requireexpensive and time-wasting toll boothoperations and can be designed toeliminate congestion while raising

According to a recent

MoDO report,

raising gasolineand diesel fuel taxes

by 5 cents would

provide an extra

$195,956,039 per

year.


3/8

December 2013

revenue. Even if the constitutionalproblems with tolling are not changed,MoDO can encourage tolling whereit is allowed in Missouri, such as onmajor local roads or in conjunction

with public-private partnerships andprivate financing.10

Although much of MoDOs Long-Range Plan is not controversial, some ofits priorities appear to be based on lessthan substantial claims and are unlikelyto benefit Missouri. Tese include:

1. MoDOs Long-Rangeransportation Plan speculates that

the state populations transportationpreferences are changing withoutsufficient supporting data. Much ofthe speculation is that in the futurepeople will drive less, and usetransportation alternatives more,due to lower incomes, migration tourban areas, rising fuel prices, anaging population, and millennialpreferences.11Tese trends

underpin MoDOs argument forgreater state emphasis on increasedtransportation options, but thereare reasons for doubt. Specificrebuttals include:

i) Lower real incomes in Missouriare likely an artifact of therecession and lingeringeconomic downturn, and the

assumption that real income willremain flat or fall for the next 20years is extremely pessimistic.12

As much as lower real wages iscorrelated with less vehicle milestraveled (VM), rising incomeis correlated with more driving.13

ii) Urban population in the U.S.is increasing, but in mostcities, the fastest growth isin the suburbs and exurbs.Te most recent census data

confirms that localities far fromcity centers are growing fastest,and the growth in many citycenters is low or negative.14In Missouris case, both SaintLouis City and County lostpopulation from 2000-2010(8 percent and 2 percent,respectively). However, theexurban county of St. Charles

grew by 27 percent.15

Mostlysuburban Greene Countygrew at 14.5 percent.16As theMoDO Long-Range Planstated, people who live inthe suburbs and exurbs drivemore than those living in theurban core.17Tat may not bethe preferred choice of urbanplanners, but it is reality.

iii) Fuel prices are rising, butincreasing vehicle fuel efficiencyis likely partially offset by itseffect on driving behavior. TeLong-Range Plan pointed outthat fuel prices have risen fasterthan inflation since 1992.18However, they did not mentionthat average fuel efficiency

rose from 28.4 to 35.6 milesper gallon (mpg). Moreover,passenger vehicles are expectedto have an average fuel economyof 54.5 mpg by 2025.19Gasprices tend to be volatile,20butit is possible that rising incomesand more fuel-efficient vehicles

Te most recent census

data confirms that

localities far from city

centers are growing

fastest, and the growth

in many city centers is

low or negative


4/8


4

will offset the effect of risingfuel costs on VM.

iv) Tere is yet to be solidevidence that aging baby

boomers will flock to citycenters. It may be that retireesprefer city life to suburban life,but it also possible that thelarger effect is a net populationoutflow from the Missouricities as baby boomers retireto warmer climates or smallertowns.21Tat type of retirementtrend is well-documented.22

v) Millennials23might driveless because of hard economictimes, not preferences. Tegeneration began driving as gasprices peaked in the mid-2000s,before entering the workforce,during the deepest post-warrecession in American history.

Youth unemployment in the

United States has topped 15percent since 2009 and thelabor participation rate amongmillennials is also depressed.24

While there may be less ofa preference to drive amongyoung consumers, the largereffect on car ownership andVM may be unemployment,low wages, and extensive

education-related debt. Tosewould be cyclical problems thatshould not become the basis oflong-term plans as of yet.

2. Missouri may become poorer ifMoDO attempts to providetransportation options simply

for options sake. In the Long-Range Plan, one of MoDOsgoals is to help provide more formof transportation to Missouriresidents.25But not all forms of

transportation are economicallyefficient, such as passenger railand urban rail transit. MoDOreceives most of its funding, andcould receive more in the future,from (federal and state) gasolinetaxes and fees for owning a vehiclTe low elasticity of vehicle milestraveled in response to gas priceincreases is evidence of significant

demand for roads, which MoDOshould use its funds to build andmaintain.26But passenger raildoes not exhibit such demand.For example, the Missouri RiverRunner requires a 166 percentsubsidy per ticket just to breakeven.27It is likely that no ticketprice could be set so that the linewould become self-supporting,as increasing ticket prices tonecessary levels would reducedemand. Passenger rail ridershiphas increased in Missouri from2007 to 2012, but that growth habeen slow and overall, there arefewer users now than in 2000.28Despite this, the Long-Range Plansuggests adding lines, at about $1

billion each, from Kansas City toSpringfield, Quincy to Saint LouiSaint Louis to Springfield, andKansas City to Omaha.29Whilethe current annual $8 million to$9 million subsidy to supportthe Missouri River Runner isnot a large expense for the state,

Missouri urban areasare dispersed and

have low population

densities, making

expensive passenger

rail and especially

high-speed rail

disadvantageous.


5/8

December 2013

MoDO should not use therecent slight increase of popularityof that line to justify a multi-billion passenger rail system. Nordoes a high-speed rail line from

Kansas City to Saint Louis appearsupportable. Despite initial federalsupport for high-speed rail in theUnited States in 2009, interest inimplementing plans has waned ascost estimates soared. Te only truehigh-speed rail line currently underconstruction is a controversialproject in California.30Missouriurban areas are dispersed and

have low population densities,making expensive passenger railand especially high-speed raildisadvantageous.

What is true of inter-citypassenger rail is true of light-railoptions in Missouris cities, whichprior to now, MoDO has nottraditionally prioritized in its

expenditures. Light-rail transitsuch as the Saint Louis Metrolinkhave cost approximately $1.6billion in capital costs over thelast two decades,31but less than 4percent of Saint Louis commutersuse the system.32Expansion oflight rail in Saint Louis or itsintroduction in Columbia orKansas City may increase the

use of public transportation, butonly after costly spending and

with extremely subsidized ticketprices. Many poor and disabledMissourians require publictransportation, such as those thatOAS provides in rural areas andstandard urban bus systems. A

better focus for MoDO wouldbe providing efficient transitoptions for those poor anddisabled Missourians who needit, not idealized and illusory rail

options in an attempt to convincepeople with means to abandontheir automobiles.

Missourians will benefit greatly ifMoDO can implement a long-termplan that focuses on maintainingthe forms of transportation thatMissourians use, addresses criticalneeds, and maintains flexibility for achanging economy. It can only do soif it has adequate funds, which user-generated funds can help provide.Expensive public transit options basedon unproven trends are unlikely toimprove statewide transportation and

will waste essential funds.

Light-rail transit such

as the Saint Louis

Metrolink have cos

approximately $1.6

billion in capita

costs over the last two

decades, but less than

4 percent of Sain

Louis commuters use

the system


6/8


6

NOTES1Missouri Department of Transportation(MoDOT). A Vision for Missouris Trans-portation Plan: Long Range Transporta-tion Plan. Page 49.

2Ibid. Page 73.

3Ibid. Page 30.

4Hartgen, David T., M. Gregory Fields,and Elizabeth San Jose. 20thAnnualReport on the Performance of State High-way Systems (1984-2009/10). Page 46.

5Thompson, Nick. State Officials Lookfor Funding Fix for I-70. View onlinehere: http://www.komu.com/news/state-officials-look-for-funding-fix-for-i-70/.

6

MoDOT. A Vision for Missouris Trans-portation Plan: Long Range Transporta-tion Plan. Page 34.

7MoDOT. Connections: January 2009.View online here: http://modot.org/Con-nections/archives/2009/jan09.pdf.

8National Surface TransportationInfrastructure Financing Commission.Paying Our Way: A New Framework forTransportation Finance. Page 6.

9MoDOT. Financial Snapshot: October2013. Page 19.

10Stokes, David, Leonard Gilroy, andSamuel R. Staley. Missouris ChangingTransportation Paradigm. View onlinehere: http://www.showmeinstitute.org/publications/policy-study/privatiza-tion/359-missouris-changing-transporta-tion-paradigm.html.

11MoDOT. A Vision for Missouris Trans-portation Plan: Long Range Transporta-tion Plan. Pages 6-14.

12CBO. The Budget and Economic

Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023.Pages 46-49.

13U.S. Energy Information Administra-tion. Chapter 3. Vehicle-Miles Traveled.View online here: http://www.eia.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.html.

14U.S. Census Bureau. Patterns of Met-ropolitan and Micropolitan PopulationChange: 2000 to 2010. Pages 25-31.

15Moore, Doug. St. Louis falls to itslowest population in more than cen-tury. View online here: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-louis-falls-to-its-lowest-population-in-more-than/article_a1434d74-4046-11e0-8ae8-0017a4a78c22.html.

16Census Bureau, Missouri CensusData Center. Population Data Series2010 County Population. View onlinehere: http://www.missourieconomy.org/indicators/population/county-pop-2000-010.stm.

17MoDOT. A Vision for Missouris Trans-portation Plan: Long Range Transporta-tion Plan. Pages 7-8.

18MoDOT. A Vision for Missouris Trans-portation Plan: Long Range Transporta-tion Plan. Page 34.

19Vlasic, Bill. U.S. Sets Higher FuelEfficiency Standards. View online here:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/business/energy-environment/obama-unveils-tighter-fuel-efficien-cy-standards.html?_r=0.

20Smith, James L., and Cary M. Magu-ire. Oil and Gas Price Volatility: Whatare the Drivers? Page 10.

21Brock, Fred. Baby Boomers SecondAct. View online here: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/realestate/greathomes/GH-Retire.html.

22Retirement patterns: Anywhere butcities. View online here: http://stat-chatva.org/2013/11/25/retirement-pat-terns-anywhere-but-cities/. Movementwest and southwest: http://www.thestreet.com/story/10010152/1/ba-by-boomers-busting-the-retirement-mi-gration-mold.html.

23Noren, Laura. Who is the Millenni-al Generation? | Pew Research. Viewonline here: http://thesocietypages.

org/graphicsociology/2011/10/04/who-is-the-millennial-genera-tion-pew-research/.

24Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employ-ment And Unemployment Among Youth Summer 2013. View online here:http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/youth.pdf.


26Hanly, Mark, Joyce Dargay, and PhilGoodwin. Review of Income and PriceElasticities in the Demand for Road Traf-fic. Pages 12-17.

27Obtaining by comparing 2012 ticketrevenue with average yearly expendi-ture. 2012 ticket revenue: Ridershipgrows on Amtraks Missouri passen-ger trains. View online here: http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn-ing_call/2013/08/ridership-grows-on-amtraks-missouri.html. Regular MOsubsidy: MoDOT. A Vision for MissourisTransportation Plan: Long Range Trans-portation Plan. Page 46.

28Ibid. Page 15


30Note: Other high-speed rail lines areunder construction in the United States,including from Chicago to Saint Louis.However, other than California, linesunder construction reach speeds of only110 mph, below international standardsfor high-speed rail. High-speed rail inthe Northeast and elsewhere are still inthe concept phase.International Union of Railways. General definitions of high speed. View onlinehere: http://www.uic.org/spip.php?arti-cle971.Illinois High Speed Rail. Construction.View online here: http://www.idothsr.org/2010_const/.Rogowaski, Mark. Hyperloop: The HighCost, And Long Journey, Of CaliforniasRail Project.

31National Transit Database. CapitalFunding Time Series. View online here:http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdpro-gram/data.htm.

32U.S. Census Bureau. CommutingCharacteristics by Sex 2009 AmericanCommunity Survey 1-Year Estimates.View online here: http://factfinder2.cen-sus.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?fpt=table.


7/8

December 2013

PERSONAL NOTES


8/8

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE ITESTIMONY

4512 West Pine Blvd. I Saint Louis, MO 63108 I 314-454-0647 I www.showmeinstitute.org

View State Government Spending:

showmeliving.org

Read Our Blog:

showmedaily.org

Find Us on Facebook:

facebook.com/showmeinstitute

Use Our Interactive Database:

showmedata.org

Follow Us on Twitte

twitter.com/showm

Testimony: Paving The Way To Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure

Documents

Transcript of Testimony: Paving The Way To Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure