The two things you propose won't do anything to fix those specific problems... most of these people are traveling to jobs in and around the core and using new roads would cause them to go out of their way. The highways you talk about would simply expand the sprawl and the traffic. Induced demand - build it and people will fill it up.

The two things you propose won't do anything to fix those specific problems... most of these people are traveling to jobs in and around the core and using new roads would cause them to go out of their way. The highways you talk about would simply expand the sprawl and the traffic. Induced demand - build it and people will fill it up.So just don't do anything then? I think the time is really coming for I-35 to be widened to 4 lanes in each direction. At the very least, just widen the part going from Downtown OKC to Norman, I am not kidding that thing is bumper to bumper traffic all the way to shields and I'm assuming it's the same way with the rest of highway.

By the time you get the 4th lane done, it will be at capacity. By the time you get the 5th lane done, it will be at capacity. We should upgrade our interchanges to reduce bottlenecks, and concentrate future funds on alternative transportation. Traffic jams cannot be eliminated by adding lanes.

So, to understand this right(which let me say, I am all for alt. transport. Light-rail, bus network, new sidewalks, bike lanes and paths ect. you name it), once we complete our rebuild of the existing interchanges, you wouldn't be for any widening and/or new construction of any highways???

BTW, If we built the highway quick enough like Dallas does, it wouldn't be at capacity as quick. The new 635 rebuild, I bet you won't immediately be at capacity when completed. The new Crosstown isn't at capacity yet.

So, to understand this right(which let me say, I am all for alt. transport. Light-rail, bus network, new sidewalks, bike lanes and paths ect. you name it), once we complete our rebuild of the existing interchanges, you wouldn't be for any widening and/or new construction of any highways???

BTW, If we built the highway quick enough like Dallas does, it wouldn't be at capacity as quick. The new 635 rebuild, I bet you won't immediately be at capacity when completed. The new Crosstown isn't at capacity yet.

Yes. That's exactly the point. Adding lanes NEVER solves congestion problems. It's called induced demand.

Long term, I think if I-35 was made straighter around Shields/Moore, it would get faster simply because so many people slow down for the curves. Same with I-44 down near SW 29th/SW44th. I am always amazed at the slowing of traffic in those turns. One person slows, then another, and another and finally traffic stops.

So, to understand this right(which let me say, I am all for alt. transport. Light-rail, bus network, new sidewalks, bike lanes and paths ect. you name it), once we complete our rebuild of the existing interchanges, you wouldn't be for any widening and/or new construction of any highways???

BTW, If we built the highway quick enough like Dallas does, it wouldn't be at capacity as quick. The new 635 rebuild, I bet you won't immediately be at capacity when completed. The new Crosstown isn't at capacity yet.

Also, I can't source it, but I swear I heard even Gary Ridley say that ODOT wouldn't be building any more new highways, just rebuilding and upgrading existing.

So, to understand this right(which let me say, I am all for alt. transport. Light-rail, bus network, new sidewalks, bike lanes and paths ect. you name it), once we complete our rebuild of the existing interchanges, you wouldn't be for any widening and/or new construction of any highways???

BTW, If we built the highway quick enough like Dallas does, it wouldn't be at capacity as quick. The new 635 rebuild, I bet you won't immediately be at capacity when completed. The new Crosstown isn't at capacity yet.

In select areas we could add some lanes where needed to smooth out bottleneck areas, but adding lanes as inventory to reduce congestion is bad planning.

I sometimes get the sense that a lot of people here don't fully grasp the concept of what heavy traffic is. If you are going slow on a highway, then OMG traffic is terrible and the highway needs to be widened. Yet, for the vast majority of people in this city, their commutes are 30 minutes or less. No doubt that 35 can get bad, but most of Moore is reachable from downtown OKC in 30 minutes, Norman, 40 minutes. Unless there is a wreck or something. I think most of the backup you see on 35 is related to the 240 interchange, which is slated for reconstruction in a few years anyway.

It is not the job of ODOT to make sure everyone can go 70 on the freeway during rush hour. Its had that mentality too long, and that's why its now broke AF and unable to keep up with what it has. And this entire thread is a moot point, because its like that everywhere. There is no money, period. Gas tax collections are down, the FHWA is scrambling for funds. Its just the truth. I guess we can do the Texas route and toll people to kingdom come. But the way we look at things is just going to have to change. I think thats what people are trying to say here.

Also, I can't source it, but I swear I heard even Gary Ridley say that ODOT wouldn't be building any more new highways, just rebuilding and upgrading existing.Well, it wouldn't surprise me. In general, OKC really has mild traffic. I think just this one highway should be widened and probably out by Hefner Parkway should be extended and our interchanges fixed and we should be good for awhile.

In select areas we could add some lanes where needed to smooth out bottleneck areas, but adding lanes as inventory to reduce congestion is bad planning.Eeeeeeeehhhhh, I agree to a certain extent.

I sometimes get the sense that a lot of people here don't fully grasp the concept of what heavy traffic is. If you are going slow on a highway, then OMG traffic is terrible and the highway needs to be widened. Yet, for the vast majority of people in this city, their commutes are 30 minutes or less. No doubt that 35 can get bad, but most of Moore is reachable from downtown OKC in 30 minutes, Norman, 40 minutes. Unless there is a wreck or something. I think most of the backup you see on 35 is related to the 240 interchange, which is slated for reconstruction in a few years anyway.

It is not the job of ODOT to make sure everyone can go 70 on the freeway during rush hour. Its had that mentality too long, and that's why its now broke AF and unable to keep up with what it has. And this entire thread is a moot point, because its like that everywhere. There is no money, period. Gas tax collections are down, the FHWA is scrambling for funds. Its just the truth. I guess we can do the Texas route and toll people to kingdom come. But the way we look at things is just going to have to change. I think thats what people are trying to say here.I could be kind of a hypocrite for saying this, but whenever people tell me OKC traffic is horrible or is getting awful, I kind of laugh and say well, you can go down to Atl, Houston, or LA for a bit and maybe you might rethink that lol

I could be kind of a hypocrite for saying this, but whenever people tell me OKC traffic is horrible or is getting awful, I kind of laugh and say well, you can go down to Atl, Houston, or LA for a bit and maybe you might rethink that lol

I am from the bay area, so I know traffic. I just dont want okc to be like the bay area traffic. OKC has time NOW for a plan. Not wait until its a to late plan.

There is no money, period. Gas tax collections are down, the FHWA is scrambling for funds. Its just the truth. I guess we can do the Texas route and toll people to kingdom come. But the way we look at things is just going to have to change. I think thats what people are trying to say here.

This is the realization the State of Florida finally came to. Nearly all new roads (and lanes) in Florida will be toll. The biggest is getting ready to start in Orlando. The I-4 expansion is going to be tolled and will cost up to $13 roundtrip to get to downtown Orlando. To their credit though, SunRail starts serivce next year and you can make the same trip faster for less money roundtrip than a gallon of gas.

Plans move forward on Interstate 4 toll expansion | Local News - WESH Home (http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/Plans-move-forward-on-Interstate-4-toll-expansion/-/11788162/18398286/-/a0hdv6/-/index.html)

http://www.sunrail.com/evolve/splash_page.html

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/3/26/sunrail_construction/_jcr_content/contentpar/articleBody/image.img.jpg/1364303526259.jpg

JFT, why would you want a milage tax instead of just raising the current gas tax? Wouldn't it be easier to sell and make things less complicated?

By the time you get the 4th lane done, it will be at capacity. By the time you get the 5th lane done, it will be at capacity. We should upgrade our interchanges to reduce bottlenecks, and concentrate future funds on alternative transportation. Traffic jams cannot be eliminated by adding lanes.

i don't totally agree with this .....


so you are saying if we made I35 from OKC to highway 9 west .. 6 lanes each way with 2 toll lanes each way it would be full when it is done??

not a chance .. it would take decades for it to fill ..


the new cross town is never full until to get to the west end where is reduces because of the bridge over I44


now in huge cities with tons of traffic and population i agree with you adding a lane in houston or boston or NYC of course you just induce demand .. because in those cities demand far out does supply

JFT, why would you want a milage tax instead of just raising the current gas tax? Wouldn't it be easier to sell and make things less complicated?

They could do that BUT... people are using less gas as fuel efficience increases and more and more cars are not using gasoline at all. The new Ford Fusion gets the equivalent of 99 mpg and it doesn't use a drop of gasoline. Meanwhile, my pickup gets 15 mpg so why is it fair that I pay more tax to use the same road the Ford Fusion gets to drive on for free?

The experts who study these issues have determined that a by-pass on the eastern sides of the metro to help relived the I-35 congestion will be needed. Because this is a quality of life issue for ten of thousands of people who could care less about sprawl, like it or not, it’s eventually going to be built.
In the Norman area there are building restrictions in place that would probably prevent this area from becoming highly developed. Others could do the same.

Demand outpaces supply... how do you think the demand got there? I-35 is still in the process of being widened and it is already at rush hour capacity on the completed part. Do we think traffic will magically improve on the part ALREADY completed when the section under construction gets done? People who drive the completed section already want more lanes and a whole other freeway.

But anyhow, it doesn't matter because as it has been pointed out several times, there isn't money to do it even if we wanted to.

THIS.

This is why I cringe a small amount when urbanists (I love each and every one of you) toss out Induced Demand at every opportunity.

It's certainly something we need to recognize and definitely need to avoid...but we can't come out and just say, well if we made EK Gaylord 10 lanes, we'd have bottle necks there every day at 5pm.

I stood out at EKG the other day during rush hour. The amount of "congestion" that is there in reality is a really kind of silly. I took several pictures between 5-5:30 where there were zero cars on EGK at the time for the stretch of road I was standing at.

Sooooo... I think we need to be more honest with ourselves and the public. Adding lanes and new highways can certainly encourage more growth and traffic...but we've got to be able to make better cases as well for denying the massive investment.

For me, it's much more about the $$$ than congestion. I really couldn't care less about congestion because I don't drive. But I care a ton about our local governments spending hundreds of millions of dollars on highway construction when most cities in Oklahoma still don't have sidewalks. It's a fairness, equality, and freedom issue. If at all the places I live I have to own a car to survive, then all the new road construction in lieu of pedestrian infrastructure is a tax I pay directly. We are all subsidizing the automobile --- way more than even car owners want to admit. At time when local governments are increasingly relying on debt for financing and roads are crumbling, it isn't a hard or unreasonable request to have us consider whether we should be investing in places that will continue to cost us more $ in the future or reinvest in places where infrastructure already exists and can be leveraged for more growth.

This has everything to do with freedom. Not simply the freedom for you to live where you want but the freedom to be capable of living in many, many places within our cities.



Additionally, there are several high-capacity roads in the world that are transit, bicycle, and pedestrian friendly. I love what the Dutch and in some part the Chinese, are doing on this front. Let's focus our efforts mostly on building better transit infrastructure if and when they are built and improving the grids we already have. If the discussion about building a new highway comes up, I'd rather counter it with a request to spend those $ on places, infrastructure that has already seen private investment and development.Very well said.

They could do that BUT... people are using less gas as fuel efficience increases and more and more cars are not using gasoline at all. The new Ford Fusion gets the equivalent of 99 mpg and it doesn't use a drop of gasoline. Meanwhile, my pickup gets 15 mpg so why is it fair that I pay more tax to use the same road the Ford Fusion gets to drive on for free?Well, I can't really argue with that. I would think the only argument would be "encouraging" people to drive more fuel efficient cars.

Well, I can't really argue with that. I would think the only argument would be "encouraging" people to drive more fuel efficient cars.

And what if we all drove more fuel efficient cars, who pays for road maintenance? My wife is now convienced her next car will be electric. When that happens it will be one less person helping pay for road maintenance - but still using the road.

And what if we all drove more fuel efficient cars, who pays for road maintenance? My wife is now convienced her next car will be electric. When that happens it will be one less person helping pay for road maintenance - but still using the road.You're right about that. I never really thought of that way. I think it would be a good idea then doing a mileage tax, but the real question now is, would people support it? 2,000+ extra dollars a year would be a hard bargain. I guess the government could say, no mileage tax, no new roads and expansions. I think that would cause a few problems though. Something will have to be done though if it cost a billion dollars to redo 5 miles of interstate through OKC. Why was that thing so expensive anyways? Was that just raw materials costs?

And what if we all drove more fuel efficient cars, who pays for road maintenance? My wife is now convienced her next car will be electric. When that happens it will be one less person helping pay for road maintenance - but still using the road.

What if we both win the lottery at the same time? I'd buy one of those little fancy golf cart-lookin' cars and donate the rest to road maintenence. I guess that is beyond the realm of possibilities . . . What would you do?

Sorry: Unfair imagination: I don't buy lottery tickets.

I just made the dollar amounts up. I have no idea what the milage tax would actually be.

What if we both win the lottery at the same time? I'd buy one of those little fancy golf cart-lookin' cars and donate the rest to road maintenence. I guess that is beyond the realm of possibilities . . . What would you do?

Sorry: Unfair imagination: I don't buy lottery tickets.My neighbor bought an Escalade themed one. :P

What if we both win the lottery at the same time? I'd buy one of those little fancy golf cart-lookin' cars and donate the rest to road maintenence. I guess that is beyond the realm of possibilities . . . I don't buy lottery tickets.

I would do my best to keep as much of my winnings away from government as I could :) But I don't play the lottery either. For some reason I have a philsophical problem taxing the dream of financial independence, which is really want the lottery is - just a $1 tax on a dream.

I just made the dollar amounts up. I have no idea what the milage tax would actually be.Well, it seems about right. Anyways, I still think it would be a hard sell.

Since almost none of the "Interstates" meet the original design requirements for landing aircraft (flat for x-number of miles) as mandated by President Eisenhower when the system was first proposed--as a part of national defense--I don't think any new ones should be built. In fact, all sections that don't meet the original standard should be torn up and converted to town houses with organic gardens along with BarterCenters. Of course, that proposal has about as much chance of success as people, in general, actually buying into General Eisenhower's warnings about watching out for shennanigans by The Military/Industrial Complex. =)

I would do my best to keep as much of my winnings away from government as I could :) But I don't play the lottery either. For some reason I have a philsophical problem taxing the dream of financial independence, which is really want the lottery is - just a $1 tax on a dream.

At least it is a voluntary tax.

THIS.

This is why I cringe a small amount when urbanists (I love each and every one of you) toss out Induced Demand at every opportunity.

It's certainly something we need to recognize and definitely need to avoid...but we can't come out and just say, well if we made EK Gaylord 10 lanes, we'd have bottle necks there every day at 5pm.

I stood out at EKG the other day during rush hour. The amount of "congestion" that is there in reality is a really kind of silly. I took several pictures between 5-5:30 where there were zero cars on EGK at the time for the stretch of road I was standing at.

Sooooo... I think we need to be more honest with ourselves and the public. Adding lanes and new highways can certainly encourage more growth and traffic...but we've got to be able to make better cases as well for denying the massive investment.

For me, it's much more about the $$$ than congestion. I really couldn't care less about congestion because I don't drive. But I care a ton about our local governments spending hundreds of millions of dollars on highway construction when most cities in Oklahoma still don't have sidewalks. It's a fairness, equality, and freedom issue. If at all the places I live I have to own a car to survive, then all the new road construction in lieu of pedestrian infrastructure is a tax I pay directly. We are all subsidizing the automobile --- way more than even car owners want to admit. At time when local governments are increasingly relying on debt for financing and roads are crumbling, it isn't a hard or unreasonable request to have us consider whether we should be investing in places that will continue to cost us more $ in the future or reinvest in places where infrastructure already exists and can be leveraged for more growth.

This has everything to do with freedom. Not simply the freedom for you to live where you want but the freedom to be capable of living in many, many places within our cities.



Additionally, there are several high-capacity roads in the world that are transit, bicycle, and pedestrian friendly. I love what the Dutch and in some part the Chinese, are doing on this front. Let's focus our efforts mostly on building better transit infrastructure if and when they are built and improving the grids we already have. If the discussion about building a new highway comes up, I'd rather counter it with a request to spend those $ on places, infrastructure that has already seen private investment and development.

i don't agree with every thing you wrote but thank you for the well thought out and reasoned comments

Demand outpaces supply... how do you think the demand got there? I-35 is still in the process of being widened and it is already at rush hour capacity on the completed part. Do we think traffic will magically improve on the part ALREADY completed when the section under construction gets done? People who drive the completed section already want more lanes and a whole other freeway.

But anyhow, it doesn't matter because as it has been pointed out several times, there isn't money to do it even if we wanted to.

If the I35/I235 corridor were fully finished tomorrow (all the way to highway 9 west) with the 44/235 interchange finished and the 240/35 interchange fixed ... then yes traffic would be noticeably improved on the entire route

And what if we all drove more fuel efficient cars, who pays for road maintenance? My wife is now convienced her next car will be electric. When that happens it will be one less person helping pay for road maintenance - but still using the road.

for get the fact that cars don't do much damage to roads .. trucks do ( you know how most of our good get to the POS)

1 truck damage is about equal to 10k cars.

thank you

1 truck damage is about equal to 10k cars.

Of course you are familiar with the old cliché/truism: "Everything you have came by truck."
I am fairly sure we have all seen the ads for the railroads about freight tonnage hauled by rail as compared to trucks on highways.
How about . . . All housing development shall henceforth only be allowed within walking/shopping cart pushing distance of train depots.

Sort of like in the good old days before the invention of Henry Ford's Frankenstein: The Mass Production of Internal Combustion Engine Carriers.

If the I35/I235 corridor were fully finished tomorrow (all the way to highway 9 west) with the 44/235 interchange finished and the 240/35 interchange fixed ... then yes traffic would be noticeably improved on the entire route


Absolutely. Those interchanges are so outdated and poorly designed, they are definitely the main culprits of the congestion along and near that corridor. Using your hypothetical along with throwing in a third lane each way on I-44 going under I-40 (by Mathis Brothers) and very few would even be talking about the need for new metro highways.

How many trucks is one winter and one summer equal to?

Once we started to subsidize highway construction, we really doomed freight by rail. If we got rid of it, highways would shrink, grow more expensive in accordance of market costs and rail freight would go up. Agree?

the highway system and car also greatly helped the expansion of the US economy in the last 75 years

You know, despite the massive federal spending to build the interstate system we still only have 4 trans-continental interstates (1-10, 1-40, I-80, and I-90). Even the poorly run Amtrack manages to do 2 (4 if you can't routes that only go as far east as Chicago).

You know, despite the massive federal spending to build the interstate system we still only have 4 trans-continental interstates (1-10, 1-40, I-80, and I-90). Even the poorly run Amtrack manages to do 2.

point being?

But what do we have to show for it exactly? Catch my drift? :)

An obligation for something we can't afford to maintain?

If the I35/I235 corridor were fully finished tomorrow (all the way to highway 9 west) with the 44/235 interchange finished and the 240/35 interchange fixed ... then yes traffic would be noticeably improved on the entire route

Yes you are correct.

Putting the increasing amounts of north /south traffic that passes though the OKC metro on a different highway and taking this traffic off of I-35 would reduce the congestion on I-35.
Since this traffic involves many heavy trucks removing them to a less crowed by-pass would make I-35 safer for commuters.

Yes you are correct.

Putting the increasing amounts of north /south traffic that passes though the OKC metro on a different highway and taking this traffic off of I-35 would reduce the congestion on I-35.
Since this traffic involves many heavy trucks removing them to a less crowed by-pass would make I-35 safer for commuters.

That makes sense.

i don't totally agree with this .....


so you are saying if we made I35 from OKC to highway 9 west .. 6 lanes each way with 2 toll lanes each way it would be full when it is done??

not a chance .. it would take decades for it to fill ..


the new cross town is never full until to get to the west end where is reduces because of the bridge over I44


now in huge cities with tons of traffic and population i agree with you adding a lane in houston or boston or NYC of course you just induce demand .. because in those cities demand far out does supply

Perhaps I was over exaggerating, but the point remains the same. Growth is inevitable, and adding additional capacity will, over time, be filled by increased demand. I think induced traffic is more a symptom of the interstate/highway system, than local streets. I can think of a ton of 4-lane streets in the metro that could easily support being a 2 lane road for the considerable future.

We do need to stop the ever-growing expansion at some point....we need to decide how much vehicle capacity is reasonable for the future....If we want 4 lanes, if we want 5 lanes. But we need to draw the line on how many lanes we want to add, because again, over time growth will fill those lanes. We need to set a schedule for getting commuter rail, express bus service, etc. to capture some of that growth and provide alternate transit solutions for an overall system.

Sure, in part. What will we subsidize tomorrow for more growth?

Give me a few trillion dollars and I'll inflate any nation's economy for a few generations. :)

But what do we have to show for it exactly? Catch my drift? :)

Point to point delivery has allowed distributed manufacturing and logistics on an unprecedented scale. I know it is fashionable to hate this kind of free enterprise here.

The trains are still free to compete and do. They carry more freight tons/mile than trucks. They carry a higher percentage than the European Union. Problem is, they don't connect well to airports, ports, or even to many manufacturing and distribution nodes. They do well in long haul with products that can be transshipped.

Point to point delivery has allowed distributed manufacturing and logistics on an unprecedented scale. I know it is fashionable to hate this kind of free enterprise here.

The trains are still free to compete and do. They carry more freight tons/mile than trucks. They carry a higher percentage than the European Union. Problem is, they don't connect well to airports, ports, or even to many manufacturing and distribution nodes. They do well in long haul with products that can be transshipped.

You're not very up-to-date with rail now, are you? Intermodel blurs the line between rail and truck, and the railroads are greatly expanding their intermodel hubs to allow for easier transfer from rail to truck and truck to rail.

How many trucks is one winter and one summer equal to?

I think that for the answer to that question you might wish to contact a Highway Dept. in Minnesota or North Dakota.
Why? Whatever they do, it seems to work better. In terms of smooth pavement.
(not to mention a lack of corrupt county commisioners who, independent of the walkablility factor, have their milk and oreos delivered by helicopter)

Sorry. Off topic: "Future highway or interstate expansion?" No. "Future highway and/or interstate expansion"? Qualified Maybe.

"How many trucks is one winter and one summer equal to?"
are we talking northern or southern hemisphere?
are we comparing rail-hauled apples or grapes from california on a truck?
are we attempting to discern the correct (your) answer? =)

I don't hate anything. Except maybe when there is no milk and the fridge and I have half a package of Oreo's that are calling my name. I hate it when that happens.Are you a fairy? Because exactly what you just, just now, HAPPENED TO ME!!!!!! lol now I have to drive to 7/11 for some milk. >_< haha

milk and oreos delivered by helicopterAt this point, it'd be something to have delivered by and ordinance drop from a satellite in space.

I can envision them removing the gasoline tax and replacing it with a line item on your tax return asking how many miles you drove in the previous year and then you pay a tax on that amount. When your car is sold/traded in/scrapped/switch insurance companies/registered/etc... they will check a national database to ensure your reported mileage matches the actual mileage and if it doesn't you will get hit with a hefty penalty.
At some point I could even see them graduating the tax: 10 cents a mile for the first 10,000 miles, 12 cents for the next 10,000, and 15 cents for every mile after 20,000 miles a year. So if you drive 25,000 miles a year you would owe $2,950 in mileage tax.

Kerry, so your thinking is that farmers, ranchers, oil field workers, etc., should have to pay for having to drive great distances for services?

There is a big difference between us. I want Oklahoma City to be nice place to live. You don't want to live in it. You want it to be an easy place to get to while you live somewhere else.



Oh really?? I have a business in OKC that creates both jobs as well as sales tax revenue for the city. I lived in Oklahoma City for many years and will always want it to be a nice place to live. I damn sure want it to be an easy place to get in and around for both residents and visitors alike. My reasons for currently living elsewhere have nothing to do with not "wanting to live in OKC."

Nice try. :rolleyes:

Ready for me to change your life? Next time you can, go to Native Roots and get a half-gallon of their milk. It's not as cheap as what you can get at 7/11 but you also need to shake it good first if you know what I mean. It's like dunking your cookie in pure cream.

Somehow, make that fit into the highway discussion.lol, somehow I knew you were going to say something like that haha. ;) Now, we could build a special highway network that would allow for emergency milk deliveries for vans to travel at high speeds to and no other traffic to deliver milk, but that would likely contribute to more sprawl as people can finely move out in the outskirts and have milk delivered to them in about 1 minute :p lol idk

Kerry, so your thinking is that farmers, ranchers, oil field workers, etc., should have to pay for having to drive great distances for services?

Short Answer: Yes

Slightly Longer Answer: They only go to the store once a month so they shouldn't be impacted too much. Plus it would be a replacement to the gasoline tax and then adjusted upward to cover the cost of freeway maintenance and expansion so what's the problem? Of course, if things got built the way I want them built the farmers and ranchers would be a lot closer to goods and services and the oil field guy would be unemployed due to a supply glut.

Sounds like a plan! ;)and in the back of your mind. . . *or you could just move to a more urban walkable environment and just walk a few blocks down the street and pick up the milk at Sprouts* lol am I right?

Short Answer: Yes

Slightly Longer Answer: They only go to the store once a month so they shouldn't be impacted too much. Plus it would be a replacement to the gasoline tax and then adjusted upward to cover the cost of freeway maintenance and expansion so what's the problem? Of course, if things got built the way I want them built the farmers and ranchers would be a lot closer to goods and services and the oil field guy would be unemployed due to a supply glut.

Obviously you never lived on a farm like I did. Once a month? LOL
Just one quick example is selling eggs. We took eggs to a grocery store in the city. I do believe that we did it more than once a month since we were never able to train our hens to just lay once a month.

I've always said... I don't care where you live. Just don't ask me to live in buildings that look like your home or pay for you to live anywhere you please. Let cities be cities and rural be rural and everyone pay for what they use.

That's always what's in the back of my mind. :)Ahhhh, I'm not like that, I'm for freedom and options for everyone! :)

Obviously you never lived on a farm like I did. Once a month? LOL

My mom grew up on a farm and she told me they only went to town once a month. I guess maybe if they had a paved road to their house they might have gone more often. Of course, she lived on a real farm with pigs, chickens, goats, a couple of cows, and a few crops; not on a single product factory farm like we have to day so they didn't need that much from town. She told me one Easter when she was 7 years old she wanted to dye eggs but grandma wouldn't let her, but mon and my aunt did it anyhow. After they got done they were scared they would get in trouble so they put the eggs back in the chicken coop. She said grandma never said a word when she went to collect the eggs the next morning and they were all blue.

My mom grew up on a farm and she told me they only went to town once a month. I guess maybe if they had a paved road to their house they might have gone more. Of course, she lived on a real farm with pigs, chickens, goats, a couple of cows, and a few crops; not on a single product factory farm like we have to day so they didn't need that much from town. She told me one Easter when she was 7 years old she wanted to dye eggs but grandma would let her, but mon and my aunt did it anyhow. After they got done they were scared they would get in trouble so they put the eggs back in the chicken coop. She said grandma never said a word when she went to collect the eggs the next morning and they were all blue.

LOL, cute story, Kerry.

Single use farm or no, thinking a modern farmer would only need to go to town once a month is not being reasonable.

My farm also had pigs, chickens and quite a few cows. We never had any of those nasty goats though. Biggest crops were wheat, alfalfa, and corn.

LOL, cute story, Kerry.

Single use farm or no, thinking a modern farmer would only need to go to town once a month is not being reasonable.

My farm also had pigs, chickens and quite a few cows. We never had any of those nasty goats though. Biggest crops were wheat, alfalfa, and corn.

Yea, I was just joking about the once a month thing. Little ole' ladies woudn't have to worry either since they only drive on Sunday's. :)

Here is what it comes down to though. Freeways are crazy expensive to build and they cost even more to maintain. The federal gasoline tax was created to pay for it but it currently only collects 1/2 of what is needed and that is going to get worse as cars get better gas milage and an increasing number of cars don't use any fuel at all. So how much is fuel economy expected to change? In 2015 the average is supposed to be 34.5 mpg but by 2025 that goes to 54.5 mpg. Sales of electric vehicles tripled last year to over 50,000 cars. While that is still a small number it is not going to slow down. New drivers also are not occuring at the rate they used to as the younger generation is choosing not to drive at all and the baby boomers are trading in the car for walkable neighborhoods (miles driven peaked in 2008). Then we have a federal government that is basically broke and has resorted to direct loans from the Fed to keep the lights on (and we all know how that is going to end). And finally, our current infrastrucutre requires $2 trillion just to fix it.

Some people want to blame the semis but the reality is the biggest factor in road destruction is mother nature. If no car or semi drove on the road at all it would still need to be maintained because nature would destroy it.

So back to farmers, ranchers, and oil field workers - I am not into exemptions, exceptions, etc... we are all in this together. If that results in my Ceasar salad costing more then so be it because we have been masking the real cost of providing goods and services for far too long. We have to start paying what things cost becasue we can't live on debt forever.

Plus it would be a replacement to the gasoline tax and then adjusted upward to cover the cost of freeway maintenance and expansion so what's the problem?Has any tax ever been replaced? Seems to me the new ones are simply added on, but the old ones linger on forever...

I think some visualizations might help.

It is much cheaper for a city to maintain roads and other infrastructure when you build neighborhoods like this:

http://gettingpurlywithit.com/sites/gettingpurlywithit.com/files/imagecache/slide/images/EastVillageNYC9.jpg

http://images.nymag.com/realestate/features/realestatess100802_brownstones_560.jpg

http://blog.outside.in/blogger-hq-images/brownstones.jpg

Rather than building neighborhoods like this:

http://www.heidifore.com/widgets/Sutherland_Subdivision_Hwy_42_Prospect_KY_40059_Ae rial_View_7.jpg

We as a city should promote the first type of construction, because that's best for us. We should not bend over backwards to support the second type of construction, because it's incredibly expensive to maintain.


Edit: Note that all those neighborhoods are way more expensive than I can afford, and I would be happy to accept a residence in any of them as a gift, in case someone is feeling generous.