Your extrapolation needs a lot of work. While your point is well taken, unless all paved roads, including residential streets are being rehabilitated with 2 -38' wide slabs of CRCP, it holds no water.

No doubt, so cut my estimate in half, and then take another half of that off. It is still $25 trillion. Divide that by 10 and we are now at $2.5 trillion. How much are those floormats again?

Letter to the Editor in today's Oklahoman:

Better option for Oklahoma City's new boulevard | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/better-option-for-oklahoma-citys-new-boulevard/article/3735595)

Was that in print?

We just concluded a press conference. Here is the press release info.


CITIZENS GROUP ALLEGES OKC BOULEVARD FEDERAL REVIEW PROCESS FLAWED

December 10, 2012, Oklahoma City, OK ‐ Friends for a Better Boulevard (FBB) today challenged the legitimacy of the federal review process being undertaken by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the City of Oklahoma City (City) with regard to the new boulevard proposed to be built through downtown. The nearly $100 million project, which is being paid for with federal funding, is subject to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Earlier this year, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) officials ordered additional reviews and public scoping to ensure the project meets all NEPA regulations. However, recent statements and information provided to the public by City and State officials indicate there are serious problems with the way in which the federal review process in being handled.

Bob Kemper, FBB Chair, said that the group had recently learned that the engineering firm hired to develop and review various design alternatives for the proposed boulevard was restricted by City officials to only develop alternatives that allowed the boulevard to serve as a bypass and throughway, even though NEPA and FHWA regulations specifically prohibit such limitations when developing and reviewing alternatives.

"Federal law requires that all reasonable alternatives be evaluated and that no action be taken that would limit the choice of those alternatives," Mr. Kemper said. "Unfortunately, it appears the City has done just that. We’re very concerned that the process is being manipulated so as to arrive at a predetermined solution."

FBB spokesman David Dickerson said that at a public meeting held last Monday, City officials tried to justify the limitations imposed on the development of alternatives by claiming that the FHWA requires the boulevard to be built as a bypass. However, Mr. Dickerson said a representative of the FBB spoke with FHWA officials after the meeting and was told that those claims are not true.

"We were told by the FHWA that ODOT and the City may propose any changes to the design and function of the boulevard that they want,” Mr. Dickerson said. “They are under no requirement by the FHWA to limit alternatives only to those that allow the boulevard to serve as a throughway or bypass.”

Mr. Kemper said that in the discussions last week with the FHWA, federal officials stated that they were puzzled by the statements made by City officials last Monday night and don’t understand why the City continues to push for development of the boulevard as a bypass and throughway when so much has changed in the downtown area since the original design was proposed a decade ago.

"The public doesn’t want it. The FHWA doesn’t require it. So why are we building it that way?” Mr. Kemper said. “It seems to me that ODOT and the City have a lot of explaining to do.”

Mr. Dickerson said that at the meeting last Monday, City officials also tried to justify their actions based on a commitment made by the City to ODOT in 2005 to allow the boulevard to serve as a detour route in the event of a major accident on the new Crosstown. However, Mr. Dickerson said that an FHWA official issued a statement last week making it clear that no such requirement exists under the FHWA’s Record of Decision (ROD) for the Crosstown EIS and that there is no requirement for such in the EIS.

”Due to the failure of ODOT and the City to properly evaluate the proposed boulevard under NEPA, those prior decade‐old commitments between ODOT and the City are irrelevant at this point,” Mr. Dickerson said. “Until such time as the public scoping and alternatives analysis processes are complete and the FHWA issues a final decision on the proposed project, the agreement between ODOT and the City is meaningless,” he said. “It does, however, reinforce the fact that the original design and purpose of the boulevard was a prearranged solution between ODOT and City officials which they continue to press for today.”

Mr. Dickerson said that one of the most serious consequences of the City’s restricted review criteria on the current evaluation is the fact that a “no‐build” alternative was not thoroughly reviewed and provided as an alternative as it typically serves as a baseline comparison of all other alternatives. Mr. Dickerson said that’s unfortunate given the fact that NEPA regulations require it and that many of public comments offered Monday were in support of not building the boulevard at all and reestablishing the original street grid.

"FHWA regulations and federal law are absolutely clear,” Mr. Dickerson said. “A no‐build option must always be reviewed and provided as an alternative. Unfortunately, the restrictions placed on the consultant prohibited that from being done. Instead it seems that ODOT and City Officials are bound and determined to ensure that a boulevard is built and that it functions as a downtown expressway. ”

Mr. Kemper said that the root of ODOT’s and City’s NEPA problems lies in the fact that they mistreated the boulevard project from the beginning as a simple mitigation measure under the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Crosstown, when in fact the proposed boulevard should have been treated as a major federal action in and of itself requiring the same level of environmental review, public scoping, alternatives analysis and mitigation plans as the Crosstown.

“ODOT and City officials privately negotiated a solution for the boulevard,” Mr. Kemper said. “There was no detailed review of possible alternatives, including whether or not to build it at all. There was no specific public scoping process as to the need, purpose and design of the boulevard. And there were no mitigation measures provided to address the specific impacts of building a boulevard versus returning downtown to the original street grid,” he added. “That’s why the FHWA has stepped in and is now requiring a separate Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed boulevard, including a new public scoping process and detailed alternatives analysis."

"Unfortunately, as complex as the issues are and based on the way ODOT and the City are mishandling the process, a simple EA may not be enough," Mr. Kemper said. "This may require a new Environmental Impact Statement specifically for the boulevard."

Mr. Kemper said the Friends for a Better Boulevard group is exploring all options to adequately represent the best interest of the public including preparation of a new EIS.

Was that in print?

Yes

Poor Eric Wenger.... He's probably getting tired of the concerned citizens of OKC lol.

The press release info is asking many of the same questions I have had since I first heard about it many, many years ago now. Have written letters to the powers-that-be over that time frame and have NEVER received even a generic "thank you for writing" form letter in response (not the case with most other issues). Since they have already spent so much money building the flyover ramps, I can certainly understand the reluctance to not build at all, and return it to the grid. But why continue to throw good money after bad?

Poor Eric Wenger.... He's probably getting tired of the concerned citizens of OKC lol.

Not nearly as tired as we are of him, city engineers, and Gary Marrs-minded enablers on the horseshoe.

The press release info is asking many of the same questions I have had since I first heard about it many, many years ago now. Have written letters to the powers-that-be over that time frame and have NEVER received even a generic "thank you for writing" form letter in response (not the case with most other issues). Since they have already spent so much money building the flyover ramps, I can certainly understand the reluctance to not build at all, and return it to the grid. But why continue to throw good money after bad?

That is a common misconception about what many think works best. It isn't a bad plan to use the flyovers that have been built to reconnect to SW 3rd and California. I think it is a mischaracterization to say that is not building a boulevard - the city is trying to make people believe that is preferred by FBB yet it could not be farther from the truth. The only thing the "Two Boulevards on the Grid" plan does is eliminate the "transitional segment" the city claims is necessary for the street to function. Yet they have not seriously evaluated the simplest design which is actually a combination of the ODOT plan AND reusing the existing street network.

Not nearly as tired as we are of him, city engineers, and Gary Marrs-minded enablers on the horseshoe.

The NewsOK live tweets with quotes from Marrs and McAtee at last week's Council meeting were quite sorry sounding. They are fully on board with backing whatever PW wants.

Yeah in case anyone can't tell, I've had it with Marrs. When I come back from Christmas I'm going to speak at City Hall just because I derive immense pleasure from watching Marrs' head explode whenever downtown is brought into question.

It was obvious a few years ago he didn't sign onto this to talk about downtown every meeting, kind of like how Brian Walters would literally put his head down when downtown was brought up. Now he's actively fighting against it, without question..

Btw Cafe, who left the Planning Dept. now? I saw they just posted a Planner 3 for Housing and Comm Dev. on my APA listserv email :/

Btw Cafe, who left the Planning Dept. now? I saw they just posted a Planner 3 for Housing and Comm Dev. on my APA listserv email :/

I'm trying to find out - I know some people had planned to retire in late 2012/early 2013, so that might be it.

Burt McAnally asked yesterday why the City Planning Department wasn't a larger part of the design process for the boulevard. At least it doesn't appear they had any significant voice in the discussions. We do seem to have it backwards in OKC - I thought planners' expertise was in land use, etc and engineers' actually followed the land use determination with providing designs for the designated use.

I'm trying to find out - I know some people had planned to retire in late 2012/early 2013, so that might be it.

I believe my assumption was correct. Someone is retiring in March and they actually have the foresight to hire a replacement now and train him/her on the detailed grant process.

That is my understanding as well CaptDave. Planners determine the needs and specifications - engineers build it. OKC has the engineers doing the whole process and then only have to justify their results to themselves. That's good work if you can find it.

OquSczOMkO4

The Farmer's Market area is our Toontown in the eyes of far too many people downtown. And we certainly can't have anyone seeing the homeless shelter at California and Classen......

I believe my assumption was correct. Someone is retiring in March and they actually have the foresight to hire a replacement now and train him/her on the detailed grant process.

I would seriously hope that someone with Planner 3 qualifications already knows CDBG :eek:

You sure you wanted to go into the private sector? (that would be an "lol jk")

Toontown is most of OKC.

Toontown is most of OKC.

OK . . . So . . . Now that we have gone full circle (and the Florida Urbanist has summarized the situation)--after 62 pages and 1550+ posts, with no existing real estate being damaged or wasted in the process . . . Let's go back to the beginning and "re-think" the entire project bearing in mind all of the preceeding excess baggage containing many different agendae (agendas) are still up for consideration unless "the fix" is in.

Form: What IS a "boulevard"?
Function: Is it to move the maximum amount of traffic at the highest rate of speed possible?
Feasibility: See previous suggestions and pay attention to Sean Cummings contribution to the cause.
Financing: Still up in the air, yet an elevated boulevard isn't really a Boulevard at all. Is it? Isn't it more like a second-rate rehash of a proven and ugly transportation failure?
Faith: We all know that OKC Government will "Do the Right Thing" . . . (in order to overcome the hurdles of Frustration and Foul-ups)

Sidenote: Although I certainly see certain advantages of Restoring The Grid . . . I also think about the existing "Boulevardae" in the OKC vicinity: Classen Boulevard and Grand Boulevard. One of their most notable characteristics is: They Curve. This is why I'm not 60% against constructing an on-grade road on top of the "right-of-way" of the former "Crosstown". As long as it is bicycle and pedestrian friendly, with a median containing plants that don't require man-made watering, and has parking lanes to visit all of the quaint shops selling stuff.

Sidenote: Although I certainly see certain advantages of Restoring The Grid . . . I also think about the existing "Boulevardae" in the OKC vicinity: Classen Boulevard and Grand Boulevard. One of their most notable characteristics is: They Curve. This is why I'm not 60% against

Point well taken RadMod - however the curve ODOT and OKCPW is proposing is not necessary and only makes sizable chunks of land unavailable for future development.

If the current plan is so vastly superior to the Two Blvds on the Grid idea, why not model the TBOTG design using the same parameters they used for the predetermined option and show the results? If I thought every option had been objectively evaluated for both future development opportunities AND traffic movement and the ODOT/OKCPW design truly was the best possible path for the boulevard, I would support their efforts wholeheartedly. However, it is fairly obvious the Stantec Option 'A' decision was reverse engineered to arrive at a predetemined solution.

If the current plan is so vastly superior to the Two Blvds on the Grid idea, why not model the TBOTG design using the same parameters they used for the predetermined option and show the results?

As I said: If "The Fix" isn't already in, then there is no reason for the primary "movers and shakers" not to reassess the "reverse engineered" program . . . Beyond that consideration, there is no reason for them to not look seriously at other alternatives that would be more generally acceptable to those who will actually use the proposed roadway for the next few decades.

Still . . . As much practical sense as The Return of The Grid might make, I'm not sure that it would meet my personal expectations for "A New OKC Boulevard" (to replace that POS that used to be The Crosstown Pothole Bridge) . . .

As I said: If "The Fix" isn't already in, then there is no reason for the primary "movers and shakers" not to reassess the "reverse engineered" program . . . Beyond that consideration, there is no reason for them to not look seriously at other alternatives that would be more generally acceptable to those who will actually use the proposed roadway for the next few decades.

Still . . . As much practical sense as The Return of The Grid might make, I'm not sure that it would meet my personal expectations for "A New OKC Boulevard" (to replace that POS that used to be The Crosstown Pothole Bridge) . . .

If the feds tell them to get their act together.

Also, California Ave will provide the chance for an awesome terminating view into downtown from the west. You'll drop down at grade and follow an improved California Ave to the Stage Center. Dramatic view of the Skyline and will create the commercial opportunity equivalent to N. Broadway (AA). Plenty of older buildings to be renovated, and also enough open space for new development.

Although, as a firm believer in States Rights and those of the Political Entity sometimes referred to as "County and City Government" I hesitate to suggest that The Feds should benefit from any usurpation of Local Control, I think there comes a time when Aunt or Uncle Sam(antha) needs to snap the elastic nose of some of the clowns in official positions and do the right thing for a change. (rethink the design before buying into it).

Although, as a firm believer in States Rights and the Political Entity sometimes referred to as "County and City Government" I hesitate to suggest that The Feds should benefit from any usurpation of Local Control I think there comes a time when Aunt or Uncle Sam(antha) needs to snap the elastic nose of some of the clowns in official positions and do the right thing for a change. (rethink the design before buying into it).

We have checks and balances. Not a superior level of government over another.

So is the Check written by The Federal Govenment in line with the Balance in the account?
(i would give them some credit if they helped make sure we get a proper boulevard)

Which ever design they approve, I sure hope there will be trees on each side just like the renderings show them

So is the Check written by The Federal Govenment in line with the Balance in the account?
(i would give them some credit if they helped make sure we get a proper boulevard)

No. As a country we abandoned pay as you go highway construction a long time ago. The gasoline tax comes nowhere close to covering the cost of maintenance and new construction. I saw somewhere that if interstate highway development was to be paid for by the gasoline tax alone (which is how it was sold to the American people BTW), that tax would have to be something like $3 a gallon now.

Here is an interesting paper on the subject.
http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.org/assets/28b773b9f18cdb23da3e48a8d7884854/Do-Roads-Pay-for-Themselves_-wUS.pdf

No. As a country we abandoned pay as you go highway construction a long time ago. The gasoline tax comes nowhere close to covering the cost of maintenance and new construction. I saw somewhere that if interstate highway development was to be paid for by the gasoline tax alone (which is how it was sold to the American people BTW), that tax would have to be something like $3 a gallon now.

Here is an interesting paper on the subject.
http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.org/assets/28b773b9f18cdb23da3e48a8d7884854/Do-Roads-Pay-for-Themselves_-wUS.pdf

Sumuvabitch . . . You mean they lied to us agin? =)
Boulevard: On Grade. Following the Right o' Way of The Expensive Elevated Abortion Formerly Known as "The Crosstown Expressway".
Drainage and Pedestrian/Bicycle/Segue/Etc. concerns addressed. Roundabounts . . . okay . . . Forget the trees.
Better Western bridged over OKC BLVD than OKC BLVD elevated over Western (but only if "roundabouts" are out of the question. like the one that used to be at 23rd and I-35 or the one that used to be called "the classen circle")

No. As a country we abandoned pay as you go highway construction a long time ago. The gasoline tax comes nowhere close to covering the cost of maintenance and new construction. I saw somewhere that if interstate highway development was to be paid for by the gasoline tax alone (which is how it was sold to the American people BTW), that tax would have to be something like $3 a gallon now.

Here is an interesting paper on the subject.
http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.org/assets/28b773b9f18cdb23da3e48a8d7884854/Do-Roads-Pay-for-Themselves_-wUS.pdfWell I would be in favor of rising the gas tax a little bit.

Well I would be in favor of rising the gas tax a little bit.

Truth be told, if I can sell my suburban house first I would be happy with the $3 per gallon tax.

Back to the boulevard, this is exactly why we need to have the boulevard on the grid and not an expressway through downtown. We have to start maximizing the utilization of our streets because we can't afford to keep building roads all over the prairie. Streets aren't just for moving cars. They are a catalyst for growth but traffic engineers feel the need to have that growth happen at the end of the road on the suburban fringe and not right on the road itself. ODOT and the City want the expressway downtown so people living on the suburban fringe can get home 3 minutes faster. I want people to live along the downtown grid so they can get home 33 minutes faster.

$3 gallon? We don't even have a state gas tax, zilch. You can look it up, but there are 20 or fewer states with no tax. And people wonder why the roads are so bad, lol!

$3 gallon? We don't even have a state gas tax, zilch. You can look it up, but there are 20 or fewer states with no tax. And people wonder why the roads are so bad, lol!

I don't wonder. The private automobile is only possible because of massive public subsidies. People driving cars come no where close to paying the cost.

roads are bad because of truck traffic ... cars, suv's pickups to very little damage to roads ..

What impact does ice and heat have?

What impact does ice and heat have?

a bunch especially when combined with semi trucks ..

$3 gallon? We don't even have a state gas tax, zilch. You can look it up, but there are 20 or fewer states with no tax. And people wonder why the roads are so bad, lol!

Are you sure ? I remember back in the 80's voting for a 5 cent per gallon increase to be able to get more matching US funds. Here's a chart through 2009 - GasPriceWatch - View Full Image (http://www.gaspricewatch.com/imgs/popup.html?motor_fuel_rev.gif)

Also, on Gasbuddy.com, the fuel taxes by state is a combined Federal, State and Local.

Gasbuddy chart -

Total US Fuel Taxes by State
State Gasoline
(¢/g) Diesel
(¢/g) Other Taxes Comment
Alabama 16 19 3 "Other Taxes" include a 3 cpg UST fee for gasoline and diesel, 0-6 cent county/city/pj tax for gasoline that can vary by county/city
Alaska 8 8 0.0715 "Other Taxes" include a 0.0715 cpg Inspection fee
Arizona 18 26 1 “Other Taxes” include a 1 cpg UST tax.
Arkansas 21.5 22.5 0.3 Plus 0.3 cpg environmental assurance fee, this is assessed at the wholesale level for underground storage tank funds
California 36 10 2 “Other Taxes" include a 2 cpg state UST fee (gasoline and diesel), a 2.25% state sales tax for gasoline, a 9.42% state sales tax for diesel, gasoline and diesel rates are rate + local sales tax
Colorado 22 20.5 1.25 "Other Taxes" include a 1.25 cpg UST/Inspection fee (gasoline and diesel)
Connecticut 25 51.2 7.2569 "Other Taxes" is a 7.2569% Gross Receipts tax applicable to gasoline only
Delaware 23 22 1.5537 "Other Taxes" is wholesaler percentage. Additional .9% Gross Receipts tax for the State Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund is also assessed at the wholesale level (1.5537%) after yearly exclusions are met. (Title 7: 9114)
Washington DC 23.5 23.5 0
Florida 27.4 30.5 5.52 Gas Tax rate can vary from 27.4-35.5 cpg depending on area, "Other Taxes" include 2.071 UST/Inspection fee (diesel) + 1.25 cpg state sales tax, 2.196 UST/Inspection fee (gasoline)
Georgia 7.5 7.5 0.5 The state excise tax is 7.5 cpg on (gas and diesel), additional 14.3 cpg state sales tax on diesel, 12.1 cpg state sales tax on gasoline. Gas and Diesel Tax rates are rate + local sales tax (varies by county and city cpg taxes which are weighted by population), "Other Taxes" include a 0.5 cpg UST (gasoline and diesel)
Hawaii 17 17 0.1191 “Other Taxes” include 0.1191 Inspection fee (gasoline and diesel), 0.1 cpg environmental response tax, 4% sale tax on diesel + local fees, and county taxes can range between .088 to .18
Idaho 25 25 1 "Other Taxes" include a 1 cpg UST
Illinois 19 21.5 7.35 “Other Taxes” include a 6.25% local sales tax (local sales tax can vary between 6.25-10.5%, or higher) and a 1.1 cpg UST. The sales tax calculated off the retail price less federal and state excise taxes
Indiana 18 16 8 “Other Taxes” include a 7% sales tax (gasoline only) and a 1 cpg UST (gasoline and diesel)
Iowa 21 22.5 1 “Other Taxes” include 1 cpg UST fee
Kansas 24 26 1.03 “Other Taxes” columns include 1 cpg environmental assurance fee, 0.03 cpg inspection fee
Kentucky 28.5 25.5 1.4 “Other Taxes” include 1.4 cpg fee collected for the Underground Storage Tank Fund.
Louisiana 20 20 0.925 "Other Taxes" include a 0.925 UST/Inspection/Miscellaneous fee
Maine 30 31.2 1.651 “Other Taxes” include fees for a Groundwater Oil Clean-up Fund, Costal/ Inland Surface Oil Cleanup fee, and Market Share Act fee.
Maryland 23.5 24.25 0.1369 "Other Taxes" include a 0.1369 UST/Inspection/Miscellaneous fee
Massachusetts 21 21 2.6191 “Other Taxes” include 2.6191 cpg UST/Spill Clean Up/Inspection fund tax
Michigan 19 15 6 “Other Taxes” 0.875 cpg for environmental regulation fee, Diesel Tax rate is rate + 6% local sales tax
Minnesota 28.6 28.5 1.9 “Other Taxes” includes a 1.9 cpg UST/Inspection/Miscellaneous fee
Mississippi 18 18 0.4 “Other Taxes” include a 0.4 cpg Environmental Protection Fee. Additional 3 cpg Seawall tax in Hancock, Harrison and Jackson counties (gasoline only)
Missouri 17 17 0.3 "Other Taxes" include a few additional fees on all fuel sales - agriculture inspection fee (.0005 per gallon) and transport load fee (.0025 per gallon) - 0.3 cpg
Montana 27 27.75 0.75 “Other Taxes” include a 0.75-cpg fee toward the state cleanup fund
Nebraska 26.2 26.2 0.9 “Other Taxes” include a 0.9 cpg Release Prevention fee for gasoline, and a 0.3 cpg Release Prevention fee for diesel
Nevada 24 27 0.8 “Other Taxes” include a 4-9 cent County Option Tax (varies in Washoe county, 13.21082 sales tax for gasoline,12.55611 sales tax for diesel), 0.75 cpg cleanup fee, and .055 cpg inspection fee (gasoline only)
New Hampshire 18 18 1.625 “Other Taxes” include 0.125 cpg for Oil Pollution Control fund, and 1.5 cpg Oil Discharge Fee
New Jersey 14.5 17.5 4.055 “Other Taxes” include 4 cpg Petroleum Products Gross Receipts Tax (included in Diesel Tax rate) and 0.055 cpg "first time purchaser" fee
New Mexico 17 21 1.875 “Other Taxes” include a 1.875 cpg load fee
North Carolina 37.5 37.5 0.25 “Other Taxes” include a 0.25 cpg inspection tax
New York 25.8 24.05 0.35 Gasoline and Diesel Tax rates also include a 8-8.75 cpg state sales tax + 4% local sale tax rate (most areas), "Other Tax" include a 0.05 cpg Petroleum Test Fee (gas only)and a 0.30 cpg spill fee, State excise tax is 8 cpg on gasoline and diesel, Petroleum Business Tax 17.8 cpg gas only and 16.05 cpg diesel ((article 13A))
North Dakota 23 23 0.025 "Other Taxes" include a 0.025 cpg UST/Inspection/Miscellaneous fee
Ohio 28 28 0
Oklahoma 16 13 1 “Other Taxes” include a 1 cpg UST fee
Oregon 30 30 0.0445 "Other Taxes" include a 0.0445 cpg load fee (per load,usually equates to $4.00 per load). For diesel, IFTA carrier there is a 16.38 cents per weight mile tax for gross of 80000lbs, this is in lieu of 30 cpg.
Pennsylvania 31.2 38.1 1.1 “Other Taxes” include a 1.1 cpg UST (gasoline only)
Rhode Island 32 32 1.12 “Other Taxes” includes a 1.12 cpg environmental protection fee
South Carolina 16 16 0.75 “Other Taxes” includes a 0.25 cpg inspection fee and 0.50- pg environmental fee (UST cleanup)
South Dakota 22 22 2 “Other Taxes” include a 2 cpg Tank Inspection fee
Tennessee 20 17 1.4 “Other Taxes” include a 1-cent special tax for gasoline, and a 0.4 cpg environmental assurance fee
Texas 20 20 0.1375 "Other Taxes" include a 0.1375 cpg load fee (based on per 8000 gallons, generally equates to $11.00 per 8000-10000 gallon load)
Utah 24.5 24.5 0.5 "Other Taxes" include a 0.5 cpg UST/Inspection/Miscellaneous fee
Vermont 19 28 1 “Other Taxes” include a 1 cpg license fee for UST fund, and a 2% transportation assessment fee on gasoline only (changes on a quarterly basis)
Virginia 17.5 17.5 0.6 “Other Taxes” include a 0.6 cpg petroleum storage tank fee (UST). There is an additional 2.1% sales tax on motor fuels for localities that are part of the Northern Virginia Transportation District
Washington 37.5 37.5 0.01023 "Other Taxes" include a 7/10's percent (0.0007 cpg) HASMAT fee, .00953 cpg Oil Spill Response fee
West Virginia 33.4 33.4 0 12.9 cpg included in state sales excise tax
Wisconsin 32.9 30.9 2 “Other Taxes” include a 2 cpg UST fee (gasoline and diesel) that is included in the tax rates
Wyoming 13 13 1 “Other Taxes” include a 1 cpg UST fee (cleanup fund for gasoline and diesel) that is included in the tax rates
Please note the above rates are meant as only guidelines of pump taxes and may not represent the full tax amount at the pump.
Source: Compiled by GasBuddy Organization from various sources.

What impact does ice and heat have?

You're kidding aren't you ?

The jumbled data you posted just proves my point. Oklahoma has the fifth lowest gas tax (http://www.oklahomagasprices.com/tax_info.aspx) and the 16th lowest population density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) (tax payers per mile of pavement to be maintained). The logical thing to do would be to raise the gas tax.

We do in fact have a gas tax. What we don't have is sales tax on gasoline; this is closer to the definition of an excise tax.

Some time back I suggested that the federal gas tax ought to be boosted by a quarter or so, just to help replenish the Highway Trust Fund. (This would have added $7ish to the cost of this week's road trip.)

I think the federal fuel tax should rise by 3 cents for gasoline, 6 cents for diesel put a tax on cng fuel and a yearly $100 tax on electric vehicles to help our a little with closing funding shortfalls.

The jumbled data you posted just proves my point. Oklahoma has the fifth lowest gas tax (http://www.oklahomagasprices.com/tax_info.aspx) and the 16th lowest population density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) (tax payers per mile of pavement to be maintained). The logical thing to do would be to raise the gas tax.

The point is you stated Oklahoma has zero fuel tax, remember, zilch, which in not true.

Forget the population density, we have major interstates that contribute to the problem.

Warning: This post does not mention the OKC BLVD, but is a response to other posts.
I don’t believe I can agree with you about the need for increased fuel taxes. I don’t think that providing any level of government with more tax revenue designated to correct a problem, has actually every worked. Roads have always been “bad”, will always be “bad” and they are “bad” everywhere. While I understand that during your last trip to wherever else, USA, the roads were all pristine without a pot hole in sight. I assure you that it is very possible that you were on new roads, or recently redone roads or most likely you had on “vacation colored” glasses. I would bet that if you were on those roads every day, your sentiment would be much like it is in good ol’ OKC. So, instead of complaining about our poor roads and lack of fuel tax revenue, how about we attempt to design something to have 100,000-ish cars abuse it at 60+ miles per hour 24 hours each day. Remember that while the road may be 40-100’ wide, car and truck tires are only about 12” wide, so most of the abuse will take place on strips about 24” wide. New road constructing technology is a better solution, or even understanding that as soon as a road is constructed, it immediately begins breaking down. At least it’s not cobble stone.
Please don’t take this perspective as attacking or personal, I didn’t mean it so and this post was writing with an increased level of jest.
Disclaimer: I don’t work for the city, nor does anyone I care about work for the city.

Inhale, exhale....Bob's gotta love reading all this non sense. So................................................ .............................................Decem ber 17th is the deadline for those letters.....

Letter sent

Getting back to the thread topic......

Thanks to all who have sent in your comments to ODOT concerning the boulevard. Even if you have already sent them, please take a few minutes to read through the following information. There has been some significant new revelations come to light in public comments from city and ODOT officials that have raised serious questions about the process used to arrive at their "recommended" design. It is somewhat lengthy, but it offers this new information for you to consider in your comments and maybe even new comments.

URGENT REMINDER – PUBLIC COMMENTS ON BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVES DUE BY MONDAY, DECEMBER 17


Friends for a Better Boulevard urges everyone concerned about the future of downtown Oklahoma City to send your written comments about the design and function of the proposed Boulevard to the Oklahoma Department of Transportation.

Public comments are due on or before Monday, December 17th.

Comments must be submitted in writing, either by mail or email at the addresses listed below or through ODOT’s online public comment form:

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING & RESEARCH DIVISION
PROGRAM COORDINATION BRANCH
200 N.E. 21ST ST.
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-3204


ODOT Public Comment Form (http://www.okc.gov/okcblvd/commentform_english.pdf)


If you use the online comment form, please save your completed comment form to your computer as a PDF document and send the PDF as an attachment in an email to the federal and local officials listed below.

It is very important that you send a copy of your written comments to each of the individuals listed below.

If you’ve already provided written comments, please consider providing additional comments after reviewing the following information.

At the December 3rd public meeting, ODOT and the City presented 4 potential design alternatives. The following is a short description of each:


Alternative A is an east-west bridge on the Oklahoma City Boulevard over Western Avenue.
Alternative B is a north-south bridge on Western Avenue over the Oklahoma City Boulevard.
Alternative C is a signalized intersection at Western Avenue and the Oklahoma City Boulevard.
Alternative D is a roundabout at the interchange of Western Avenue and the Oklahoma City Boulevard.


City and ODOT officials stated their preference is Alternative A.

From statements made during the December 3rd Public Meeting: The city restricted the consultant hired to evaluate options for the boulevard from analyzing any alternative that did not result in a continuous through movement that gives precedence to rapid vehicular movement over all other considerations. No serious, objective analysis was ever completed on reconnecting the existing street network to Interstate 40 using California and SW 3rd Street - effectively the "no build" option.

Information to consider including in your comments:

1) As required by the National Environmental Policy Act, all reasonable alternatives must be rigorously explored and objectively evaluated.

2) As required by the National Environmental Policy Act, a “no build” alternative must always be evaluated and included as an alternative.

3) As required by the National Environmental Policy Act, no action shall be taken prior to a final decision that would limit or prejudice any alternatives.

4) As required by the National Environmental Policy Act, appropriate mitigation measures must be considered, including those not already part of the proposed action or alternatives.

5) Statements by City officials prior to the public meeting indicate directives were given in evaluating alternatives which restricted consideration to only those alternatives that provide for the proposed boulevard to function as a throughway and bypass.

6) Statements by City officials prior to the public meeting indicate City officials prejudiced the alternatives selection process by privately negotiating and predetermining selection of Alternative A as the preferred alternative.

7) At the public meeting, City and ODOT officials provided no detailed analysis or description of appropriate mitigation measures to remedy socio and economic impacts as a result of implementing Alternative 'A'.

8) City officials stated at the public meeting they are required to build the proposed boulevard as a throughway and bypass based on the FHWA’s 2002 Record of Decision for the Crosstown Expressway Environmental Impact Statement.

9) FHWA officials stated after the public meeting that there is no requirement in the 2002 Record of Decision or Environmental Impact Statement requiring the propose boulevard to be built as a throughway or bypass.

10) City officials stated at the public meeting that the proposed boulevard must be built because it is required as a mitigation measure under the 2002 Record of Decision.

11) ODOT officials stated at the public meeting that the FHWA is now requiring a new Environmental Assessment on the entire proposed boulevard and that the design and function of the proposed boulevard can be changed, including not building the boulevard and returning the original street grid.

12) Please urge that ODOT and the City rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all alternatives without prejudice for the proposed boulevard serving as a throughway or bypass

13) Please urge that ODOT and the City rigorously explore and objectively evaluate a “no build” alternative where the original street grid is returned and the Crosstown is reconnected to the grid

14) Please urge that ODOT and the City provide appropriate mitigation measures to remedy all socio and economic impacts resulting from the final preferred alternative.

15) Please urge that ODOT and the City strictly comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and all FHWA regulations regarding NEPA.

16) Please urge that ODOT and the City undertake a new Environmental Impact Statement if at any point in the Environmental Assessment process it is determined there are significant environmental impacts as a result of the proposed action.


NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT COPY AND PASTE THE ABOVE INFORMATION. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS ARE IN YOUR OWN WORDS.


Please send copies of your written comments to all of the following:

Federal Highway Administration Officials:

Victor Mendez
Federal Highway Administration
1200 SE New Jersey Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20590

Victor.Mendez@dot.gov

Ivan Marrero
Federal Highway Administration
5801 N. Robinson, Suite 300
Oklahoma City, OK 73118

Ivan.Marrero@dot.gov


Elizabeth Romero
Federal Highway Administration
5801 N. Robinson, Suite 300
Oklahoma City, OK 73118

Elizabeth.Romero@dot.gov



Mayor and City Councilmembers:

Mayor Mick Cornett - mayor@okc.gov

Gary Marrs - Ward1@okc.gov

Ed Shadid - Ward2@okc.gov

Larry McAtee - Ward3@okc.gov

Pete White - Ward4@okc.gov

David Greenwell - Ward5@okc.gov

Meg Salyer - Ward6@okc.gov

Skip Kelly - Ward7@okc.gov

Patrick Ryan - Ward8@okc.gov

City Council letters may be mailed to:

200 N. Walker, 3rd Floor
Oklahoma City, OK 73102

One last reminder - as of this post, you have approximately one hour to submit your comments to ODOT. The form and e-mail address for ODOT is below:

http://www.okc.gov/okcblvd/commentform_english.pdf

You may email it directly to froesler@odot.org or use the send function embedded in the form.

You may write to you elected council rep and to the Federal Highway Administration after today, but the deadline for public comments to ODOT is this afternoon.

Thank you to everyone who has worked on the effort for this boulevard to be something we can be proud of and one that will spur economic redevelopment of a much larger area of downtown.

State gasoline tax is 16 cents per gallon. Diesel tax is 13 cents per gallon. Neither has been raised since the '70s.

State gasoline tax is 16 cents per gallon. Diesel tax is 13 cents per gallon. Neither has been raised since the '70s.

So I hope that 13 cents is in addition to the 16 cents...otherwise, that seems a lil bassackwards!

Hmmmmm........
Alternative A is best pick for Oklahoma City Boulevard design | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/alternative-a-is-best-pick-for-oklahoma-city-boulevard-design/article/3739592)

Wow, the Oklahoman really must think its readers are ignorant idiots. They actually said that a bridge over Western will be more pedestrian friendly than an intersection like what Northwest Expressway has and that Oklahomans are too stupid to use a roundabout?!

Here's a paper I meant to post a while ago. Its someone's MIT master's thesis about how/why freeways have been removed from central cities and what the economic effects were (136 pages). [link] (http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=77410829357671552234&gk=cisco)

When did it become a priority that OKC grow up and be urban one day. The only people in OKC that I see that peculiar desire are the several people in this forum that advocate urbanism. I think probably the vast majority of OKC citizens grew up in a more rural setting and the reason they came to OKC was for the jobs available, not because of a desire to live in a dense urban area. Those that work in the core want to go to work and leave work in the least amount of time possible, therefore if the anti-blvd folks get one of the major entry/exit arteries choked down even more you are going to see a lot of companies change their mind about locating down town.

Well sid, I made it a point to try not to be obtuse and that is the reason I limited it by writing "the only people I see", which would probably not be in line with the people you know, you think? I assume you felt saying a "ton of people " you know want OKC to become more urban" would be quite a few, but the statement could be considered obtuse. A ton of people to me would mean 2000 pounds worth of people, which if you use 200 lbs. as an average weight that would be ten people or at 150 lbs about 13 adults and a six year old. Not so impressive, you think? To your last point I would like to know how many people are actually saying that is the trend. Did you see that in an urbanist magazine? Regardless I would contest that statement in a major way when it comes ot OKC. For example, Boeing is coming because of Tinker and I read a quote in the Oklahoman or the Gazette recently that quoted an Edmond realtor saying it was remarkable how many of the Boeing employees were looking for houses in Edmond. I will not bore you with other examples but I am fairly sure there are a "ton" of them.

Well sid, I made it a point to try not to be obtuse and that is the reason I limited it by writing "the only people I see", which would probably not be in line with the people you know, you think? I assume you felt saying a "ton of people " you know want OKC to become more urban" would be quite a few, but the statement could be considered obtuse. A ton of people to me would mean 2000 pounds worth of people, which if you use 200 lbs. as an average weight that would be ten people or at 150 lbs about 13 adults and a six year old. Not so impressive, you think? To your last point I would like to know how many people are actually saying that is the trend. Did you see that in an urbanist magazine? Regardless I would contest that statement in a major way when it comes ot OKC. For example, Boeing is coming because of Tinker and I read a quote in the Oklahoman or the Gazette recently that quoted an Edmond realtor saying it was remarkable how many of the Boeing employees were looking for houses in Edmond. I will not bore you with other examples but I am fairly sure there are a "ton" of them.

Popsy, it is so well documented that more Americans want to live in walkable communities, it is not even an argument. Among 18-30 year olds it is even more overwhelming.

There will always be plenty of places to live rurally for the people who desire that, but our suburban and urban areas are going to change. Remember that walkable urbanism could mean the same size homes, lots, and apartment complexes that we see being developed across Oklahoma County, just arranged and designed differently. People who want to drive will always be able to drive, but streets and land uses will be designed differently to allow people the option of not driving. This change is going to happen without question as 20-somethings grow up. Contrary to popular belief, growing up in today's most auto-oriented suburbs is kind of isolating and even physically unhealthy (this too is well documented), so many kids get out of suburbia wanting to build communities with character and form more like the small towns and urban neighborhoods they have visited.

This is going to happen and it has already started, including in Oklahoma City. Not only is it true here, this is one of the places where it has been the most true. Paying attention to urbanism has been part of the equation that has made Oklahoma City successful in the last decade. So that's why we should view our long-term infrastructure choices in light of what future generations will find useful.

Hmmmmm........
Alternative A is best pick for Oklahoma City Boulevard design | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/alternative-a-is-best-pick-for-oklahoma-city-boulevard-design/article/3739592)

Talk about a misinformed editorial. Option A is not pedestrian friendly. Bridges are not pedestrian friendly (Well, I'm pedestrian friendly ;)).

Popsy, it is so well documented that more Americans want to live in walkable communities, it is not even an argument.

Really? Then why were the three fastest-growing cities in the state suburbs?

Oklahoma City metro area tops state in population growth | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-metro-area-tops-state-in-population-growth/article/3688726)

Statewide, the fastest-growing cities were Mustang and Piedmont (3.5 percent growth) and Yukon (3.4 percent).

I would say there is an argument. Suburbs still have something to offer, especially to families with children (that's the main reason I live in suburbia). And no, I don't work downtown so I'm not someone who is pushing for the boulevard to be a long "off ramp".

I just think the city is trying to what's best for all of it's citizens. They've already made changes that benefit the urbanists to the detriment of the commuters. The whole process is about compromise and it's not over yet.

This editorial completely ignores the fact that ALL alternatives were not evaluated in an objective manner. Instead, it is favoring a "lesser of four evils" solution rather what is truly the best design for the future of Oklahoma City.

The city and ODOT have not complied with the federal evaluation requirements for a $100 million project. Those requirements state all alternatives must be objectively evaluated and the process cannot prejudice the outcome in any way. The results of the recently completed study were reverse engineered to offer these four alternatives and completely ignored several that offered better economic development opportunities and cost less to build.

The argument about a lack of exits is disingenuous at best. There are only two exits to downtown now because I-40 is not complete. OKC Public Works and The Oklahoman ignore the fact that once the eastern and western ends of the new Crosstown are reconnected there will be four locations to exit I40 again. That fact alone should be enough to alleviate any debate over traffic congestion at Western because it is a temporary problem that will be resolved once the boulevard is complete. Option 'A' is irrelevant in this matter because EVERY design includes those two exits reopening and reconnecting city streets to I40 in four locations.

This is a choice about what we really want OKC to be in 20 years. Do we want to treat downtown like an office park with tall buildings? Or do we want to actually follow up on the rhetoric about restoring downtown and make it a place work, shop, AND live? We will know where the City Council's priorities lie in a few days.

Really? Then why were the three fastest-growing cities in the state suburbs?

Oklahoma City metro area tops state in population growth | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-metro-area-tops-state-in-population-growth/article/3688726)

Statewide, the fastest-growing cities were Mustang and Piedmont (3.5 percent growth) and Yukon (3.4 percent).

I would say there is an argument. Suburbs still have something to offer, especially to families with children (that's the main reason I live in suburbia).

I understand. However, consider that "suburb" does not have to be the antonym of "walkable community," even though this is mostly true in our metro. I think we can agree school district choice and new construction are the number one factors driving people to the suburbs. So rates of suburban growth do not indicate people have preferences against walkability. In fact, suburban developments are now changing to have walking trails and sidewalks that allow people to at least walk recreationally. So the market is starting to respond cautiously. We will build better suburbs.

I think when people choose OKC's suburbs for whatever reason, there should be a reasonable expectation to deal with traffic as a part of the auto-dependent lifestyle that they are purchasing.

For example, Boeing is coming because of Tinker and I read a quote in the Oklahoman or the Gazette recently that quoted an Edmond realtor saying it was remarkable how many of the Boeing employees were looking for houses in Edmond. I will not bore you with other examples but I am fairly sure there are a "ton" of them.

The primary reason the vast majority of people move to Edmond is for the school system. It has nothing to do with desiring to live in a bubble or gated community. I moved to a location in OKC where my kids could go to Edmond Schools. People are going to do what they see as best for their kids over their desires for lifestyle - I would prefer to live somewhere in downtown OKC but chose not to solely based on the school system.

Now let's ask HOW the OKC school system fell apart. Suburban flight facilitated by high speed roads and unrestricted greenfield development gutted the tax base that funded an effective school system in our inner cities. The white flight left the poor and non-white kids in grotesquely underfunded and under-resourced schools. Dispute it if you wish but any clear thinking individual knows this to be true.

The only way cities can ever restore their school system to be competitive with the affluent suburbs is to start reestablishing the tax base. The only way to reestablish the tax base is to redevelop downtown in such a manner that will attract people to live there and pay property taxes to the city rather than the suburbs. This is an absolute fact but one that is inconvenient for suburbanites to hear.

This boulevard can either begin the redevelopment process or merely facilitate the continuation of escaping to the suburbs. It makes sense to start the process NOW that will enable OKC to offer a real choice for families considering OKC as their new home - suburban or urban, but not one based on the public education available to their children.

It is amazing that all the self proclaimed "fiscal conservatives" cannot grasp the cost of sustaining a suburban lifestyle. There are personal costs and infrastructure costs associated with expecting the government to facilitate and sustain that choice.... but I'll save that for another time.

Are certain city staffers moonlighting with the DO OpEd section?

They've already made changes that benefit the urbanists to the detriment of the commuters.

Do you really consider going from 6 lanes to 4 lanes and having to go 25 instead of 35 or 45 a detriment to commuters?