I don't think the video is very fair; they leave things out like the fact that MetroLink is one of the ten most-used public transit systems in the country, and they think the race that CMT held was "rigged" so they basically hold their own race that's "rigged" in response.

They probably have some good points about the immense cost/benefit ratio of the system though, and how inefficient it is currently.

What are your thoughts?

The way the Metrolink system could be more effecient is to run it through the most densely populated areas in the city aka North/South line. Currently the system doesn't reach into the main residential areas of the city, and when/if they do i'm sure its ridership and value would improve tremendously. BTW that video was the most worthless "test/race" in terms of trying to prove anything of value. You would think the "institue" would have some figures and facts that would back up their assertions.

Are you a libertarian seeking validation for your world-view? If not, don't waste your time thinking about The Show-Me Institute.

MarkHaversham wrote:Are you a libertarian seeking validation for your world-view? If not, don't waste your time thinking about The Show-Me Institute.

I'd tend to agree with you, only this group's antics have real impact in validating, from a PR perspective, the Rex Sinequefeld-controlled Missouri legislature. It had a hand, for instance, in selling to our state that it was right for the legislature to torpedo the "Aerotropolis" tax incentives.

At some point, they must be confronted, don't you think?

I don't know. You can't really argue against them, because their conclusions aren't based on logical arguments to begin with but rather wishful thinking. Confronting them lends them validity they don't deserve, so I prefer not to do so unless they are brought up by someone else.

Plus remembering they exist raises my blood pressure.

What's the agenda here? Despite the repeated references to a planned line to St. Charles, there are no expansion plans on the table. Does the Show-Me Institute advocate shutting down Metrolink? Are they in favor of cheaper forms of public transit like BRT? A bus is going to lose that race, too.

The cost argument is ludicrous anyway, when the cost of cars is so much greater. In the google car thread, someone posted a study estimated that car accidents alone cost $871 billion a year in the US. That's just accidents. Add in the cost of roads, gas, new cars, maintenance, tires, etc. and we're spending trillions every year.

The video says we spent a billion dollars on Metrolink so far. But in one year, the money spent on car crashes is $871 billion, according to this Fox News report.

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2014/05/ ... ping-871b/

So, if that money saved from car crashes was divided up evenly to the 50 states, 1/50th of $871 Billion is $17.42 billion per year to Missouri. So KC and St. Louis could build 8 more complete metrolink systems each, equivalent to our current system every single year. I don't think it would take more than a couple of years at that rate to put a stop within walking distance of just about everyone in the metro area.

Nothing wrong with being libertarian, by the way. I am, I think. But I'm a practical libertarian with concern for the greater good. I don't think Rex can say that.

jstriebel wrote:I'm a practical libertarian with concern for the greater good.

There's a term for that, it's Republican.

wabash wrote:

jstriebel wrote:I'm a practical libertarian with concern for the greater good.

There's a term for that, it's Republican.

Huh? I don't think so.

It's what Republicans used to be before the charge to the right.

wabash wrote:

jstriebel wrote:I'm a practical libertarian with concern for the greater good.

There's a term for that, it's Republican.

You mean Democrat.

And yeah, Libertarian is a bad philosophy for high schoolers who haven't thought the whole thing through yet, or billionaires seeking ideological cover for their terrible self-interested proposals.

I'm very drawn to the concept of libertarianism, so I don't want to put a negative connotation on that term. Unfortunately, things like the tea party have already done that.

But the idea that government should be hands-off where possible and that freedoms should reign sounds right to me.

But there are always going to be realities that political ideologies need to adjust to, and how you deal with those makes all the difference. Which, I suppose, is why I'm a left-leaning libertarian.

I can see where the basic concept of libertarian aligns slightly more with Republican than Democrat, but if it really still aligned, the Republicans wouldn't be what they are today. And what they are today isn't something I can align myself with.

I really don't like to label myself at all, I think it's limiting, so I stick with independent. Liberal, libertarian, independent. Something like that.

jstriebel wrote:I'm very drawn to the concept of libertarianism, so I don't want to put a negative connotation on that term. Unfortunately, things like the tea party have already done that.

But the idea that government should be hands-off where possible and that freedoms should reign sounds right to me.

But there are always going to be realities that political ideologies need to adjust to, and how you deal with those makes all the difference. Which, I suppose, is why I'm a left-leaning libertarian.

I can see where the basic concept of libertarian aligns slightly more with Republican than Democrat, but if it really still aligned, the Republicans wouldn't be what they are today. And what they are today isn't something I can align myself with.

I really don't like to label myself at all, I think it's limiting, so I stick with independent. Liberal, libertarian, independent. Something like that.

The Republicans of today are probably more Libertarian than they've ever been. Heck, their biggest wonk / VP candidate is known to hand out Ayn Rand books to staffers. You sound like an independent, since you apparently don't align yourself with the policies of libertarians or liberals.

This is veering off-topic, but I appreciate the discussion anyway, so I'll jump in:

My issue with libertarianism is this: in the absence of government control (let's say libertarians totally get their way in Congress and the White House), there's inevitably a power vacuum, which instead would be filled with corporations. Although money in politics is getting worse and worse, at the end of the day, we all still get to democratically elect our government representatives.

If corporations controlled the day-to-day operations of the country? Like, directly controlled them, rather than with at least one layer of separation via our democratic process the way it is now?

I shudder at the thought.

Libertarian way looks great on paper just like the 2014 cardinals looked great on paper but it a different story on the playing field. We would have to pay a toll as soon as you pull out of your garage and drive on your street owned by a private company...

Just to clarify, I agree with all or most of the above. That's where I say I'm a practical libertarian, not an idealistic one.

Here's one example. On the issue of marriage equality, I believe the state should get out of marriage altogether. We should have legal unions so we can give out appropriate benefits, but marriage is a religious thing, and it's odd to see the state have a hand in that.

But that seems like an unlikely step. So the practical side just straight up endorses gay marriage/marriage equality.

And then there's other examples where my libertarian side gets almost entirely overridden by my liberal side where I believe government intervention is necessary for the greater good. I don't necessarily have a good example, but I know they exist.

Anyways, I just wanted to clarify that I agree. I come at things from a libertarian perspective, I think, but then I greatly adjust to the realities of our society and our situations. And those adjustments tend to be liberal in nature.

Well, it seems like you could just be a liberal and save yourself a step, but whatever works for you I guess!

Hello,

I am probably the main creator of the video in question. I've seen a couple of things in the responses that I would like to address.

1. The Metrolink is not the tenth most used public transportation system in the U.S. The most recent data shows that in terms of UPT, it ranks 83rd. Corrected for population it is most 226th most used. In terms of passengers miles it is 58th. The Metrolink is the 10th best performing lite rail in the U.S., but there are less than 30 reporting lite rail lines in the U.S., and lite rail is usually outperformed by bus and heavy rail transportation. So all in all, not impressive. Data for those interested: http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm

2. Extensions to St. Charles County and a North-South Line in the city are indeed part of future plans. It tops the transit lists at EWG meetings and details of those plans can be seen here: http://metrostlouis.org/Libraries/MTF_d ... cument.pdf (page 37)

3. The race was meant to show a realistic use of public transportation, and even there I would say we favored the Metrolink by selecting spots close to (although not on top of) Metrolink stations. If we are realistic with the benefits of the Metrolink system, perhaps we can all be realistic when it comes to planning priorities for transit, roads, and bike routes in the future.

Joseph Miller
Policy Researcher
Show-Me Insitute

jemiller768 wrote: 1. The Metrolink is not the tenth most used public transportation system in the U.S. The most recent data shows that in terms of UPT, it ranks 83rd. Corrected for population it is most 226th most used. In terms of passengers miles it is 58th. The Metrolink is the 10th best performing lite rail in the U.S., but there are less than 30 reporting lite rail lines in the U.S., and lite rail is usually outperformed by bus and heavy rail transportation. So all in all, not impressive. Data for those interested: http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm

I notice you call it "lite rail", like it's a potato chip or something.

jemiller768 wrote: 3. The race was meant to show a realistic use of public transportation, and even there I would say we favored the Metrolink by selecting spots close to (although not on top of) Metrolink stations. If we are realistic with the benefits of the Metrolink system, perhaps we can all be realistic when it comes to planning priorities for transit, roads, and bike routes in the future.

I think most will agree that Metrolink isn't a very good way to travel to places not served by Metrolink.

jemiller768 wrote: Joseph Miller
Policy Researcher
Show-Me Insitute

Joseph - first off welcome to the forum.

What is the Show-Me Institute's stance on mass transit needs for the St. Louis region?