The St. Joseph News-Press, Oct 28
Don’t allow urban/rural split on highway funding
When Blake Hurst speaks about the importance of transportation to rural Missouri, he comes at his subject with a lifetime investment in the issues involved. What he has to say now matters.
Hurst, a third-generation farmer from Atchison County, Missouri, is the president of Missouri Farm Bureau, the state’s largest farm organization. He long ago earned his reputation as a defender of agriculture and, by extension, rural America.
This is why he recently testified before the Missouri Transportation Task Force about the need for an increase in funding for highways and bridges. He championed a traditional method, the user-paid fuels tax, as the best way to fund improvements.
“I was able to talk about the deterioration of rural Missouri roads,” he explained later, “and how bad roads are making it more difficult to move farm products to market and safely transport rural kids to school.”
This is valuable testimony, but what is more striking is what Hurst observed at the task force hearing.
He told of a representative for Uber, the ride-sharing firm, waxing poetically about a future for transit that might best be described as “a series of autonomous (driverless) cars picking up riders and efficiently moving them hither and yon.” If so, expect broad expanses of the state to be left out of the discussion - and without a transit vision for the future.
He spoke of a task force member who suggested the solution to state road funding woes is simply to return responsibility for lettered routes to counties - as if money magically will appear to make this anything but a disaster for farmers and rural communities.
He related how another member of the task force from St. Louis figured that funding should follow population, so that the metropolitan areas would get a bigger share of transportation dollars than they already do. Hurst responded by noting rural Missourians on average annually drive 50 percent more miles than urban residents and typically drive larger vehicles, so the miles per gallon in rural areas tends to be lower.
“In other words, per capita spending on fuel taxes is greater in rural areas,” he said.
Hurst’s core message was that the current funding allocation between rural and urban areas works well by taking into account both population and miles driven.
“It would be a mistake and a distraction,” he warns, “to renew regional sniping while our roads and bridges are in crisis.”
Lots of people will speak before the state task force, but few if any will bring a more thoughtful perspective, or one more important in behalf of rural Missouri.
_____
The Kansas City Star, Oct. 29
Duct tape and expensive repairs won’t fix KCI. It’s time for something new
The terminals at Kansas City International Airport can’t be sustained in their current states. It’s time to replace them.
All public structures - bridges, schools, arenas, airports - deteriorate. Timely repairs and additions can extend a structure’s lifespan, but eventually, all public improvements must be rebuilt, replaced or torn down.
The trick is knowing when to make a change. It would be foolish to build a new airport every five years, but equally foolish to pile on the duct tape and bailing wire to keep a terminal in use for 100 years.
How do we know that now is the time for a new KCI? The past provides a clue.
Kansas City’s Municipal Airport, just north of downtown, was dedicated in 1927. It was considered a bit of a risk. Some city officials, convinced people weren’t meant to fly, resisted its construction. They were outvoted. Aviator Charles Lindbergh helped cut the ribbon that August.
Millions of people flew into and out of Municipal Airport over the next several decades, impressed by its design and, yes, convenience. But by the early 1960s, city officials knew Municipal was out-of-date, with runways that were too short and terminal spaces that were often crowded and inconvenient.
They launched the campaign to build a new commercial airport and terminal north of the river. Voters overwhelmingly approved the idea.
Municipal lasted 45 years as the city’s main airport. Now, KCI is 45 years old.
The conclusion seems clear: Changes in travel habits, the airline industry, the needs of customers and the challenges of maintenance all point to a top-to-bottom overhaul of commercial airport facilities roughly twice a century.
Remember, 11 million people used the airport last year. That’s easily three times more than the attendance for the Chiefs and Royals combined.
And the airport must operate all day, seven days a week, in blizzards, storms, hot weather and cold. Getting people to and from their destinations, with their luggage intact and their comfort and safety protected, is an intricate challenge. Airport terminals wear out pretty quickly.
Even opponents of a new terminal concede this. They argue instead for “extensive renovations” to fix the problems at KCI because that would be cheaper.
Would it?
The terminal has been renovated before, and again recently: A $250 million project to replace windows, floors, jet bridges and other infrastructure was finished in 2004. Now, 13 years later, the airlines say the terminals are largely obsolete.
Another renovation would cost $350 million. But it’s good money after bad: A $350 million renovation that extends the terminal’s life for another 15 years equates to an average annual cost of $23 million. A new $1 billion terminal that lasts 50 years costs $20 million annually, not including interest.
And what happens when those 15 years are up? You still need a new terminal.
But a new terminal might cost $1.5 billion or more in 2032. And the airlines - which have rejected the renovation approach - may have decided to reduce service or leave entirely in the interim, pushing those costs onto fewer and fewer passengers.
Kansas City voters can choose a different path. They can do so with no risk to their checkbooks. Taxpayers who don’t use the airport won’t pay for it. In fact, many of the users live outside the city limits, and they’ll help pay the cost.
A new terminal will create hundreds of construction jobs, and those workers will pay earnings taxes. It’s possible the new terminal will generate additional employment in shops and restaurants, further bumping the revenue take.
A new terminal will also mean a cleaner, safer environment for the people who work at the facility. That’s important.
Like many Kansas Citians, we were upset with the chaotic process for picking a developer and putting the terminal on the ballot. The attempt to push through a no-bid contract for Burns & McDonnell was a mistake.
Edgemoor Infrastructure’s proposed design seems skimpy on some details, and that’s a disappointment. We also hoped the city and the company would have completed a memorandum of understanding by now, outlining the terms of the parties’ agreements.
If voters reject the new terminal, though, the city will have to go through this process again. No one wants that.
During the past three weeks, The Star has outlined the case for a new terminal at Kansas City International Airport, fulfilling a commitment to examine the issues surrounding the Nov. 7 vote.
We’ve made the case that the current airport is less convenient than it should be. The terminal is a security challenge in a post-9/11 world. The facility is dark and unwelcoming, hurting business recruitment and leaving visitors with a poor impression of our community.
Now we add a fourth reason for a new terminal: The current terminals have reached the end of their useful lives.
We have a developer who has promised inclusion and transparency. We have a $1 billion project, paid for by users. And we have a chance to boost the entire metro area by building a 21st-century airport.
Kansas City looked to the future in 1927 and 1972. We must do so again by voting yes on Nov. 7.
______
The Jefferson City News-Tribune, Oct. 29
In free society, journalists must be able to do their jobs
We join in the concern other journalism organizations have expressed over the arrests of reporters covering protests in St. Louis last month.
The protests occurred after a white former police officer was acquitted in September in the 2011 killing of a black suspect.
The Associated Press reported the Committee to Protect Journalists sent the letter Tuesday to Mayor Lyda Krewson pointing out at least 10 journalists have been arrested while covering the protests, and six reported police used excessive force, including pepper-spray and two instances where reporters’ faces were shoved into the ground.
“Journalists should not have to fear for their physical well-being at the hands of law enforcement when they cover newsworthy events. We ask you to conduct a thorough examination of cases in which reporters were assaulted or arrested and discipline individual officers found to have behaved unacceptably,” the letter states. It was signed by the leaders of 17 other media advocacy groups, including the American Society of News Editors, Associated Press Media Editors and the Society of Professional Journalists.
At least six journalists reported police used excessive force at the scene. One journalist alleges police officers knocked him to the ground and pepper-sprayed him in the face; one officer used his foot to push the journalist’s head to the pavement. Another has filed a lawsuit alleging police beat him and repeatedly pepper sprayed him in the face. At least two journalists allege police pepper sprayed protesters and journalists indiscriminately.
Here in Jefferson City, we haven’t had such problems. At times, we’ve had our disagreements with law enforcement or other local officials. But we’ve always had a mutual respect for the jobs each other performs. They understand we have a job to do, and we try to stay out of their way so they can do their jobs.
Unfortunately, not all cities have such relationships between law enforcement and journalists.
Reporters, photographers and other journalists shouldn’t fear law enforcement when they are lawfully covering the news.
Journalism is not only the first draft of history, it’s a necessity to preserving a free society.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.