The roads in your third pic cost way less to build and pretty much require no maintance

Has any tax ever been replaced? Seems to me the new ones are simply added on, but the old ones linger on forever...

Good point, but we still need the money so maybe we end up with both. I did see where Seattle was proposing a $25 fee when you buy a bike to support the cost of bicycle related infrastructure.

Good point, but we still need the money so maybe we end up with both. I did see where Seattle was proposing a $25 fee when you buy a bike to support the cost of bicycle related infrastructure.

You mean they aren't going to tax the bicycle riders based on how far the ride? LOL

Since only a very tiny fraction of the population rides a bike for any distance shouldn’t they require bike riders over a certain age to have a license to drive and also a license tag on the bicycle? And shouldn’t the price of these licenses be high enough to subsanually cover the cost of these new bicycle lanes.
While we at it I guess we should start charging people to walk on our trails and sidewalks too.

While we at it I guess we should start charging people to walk on our trails and sidewalks too.

Yes, and the further they walk, the more they should be charged.:wink:

Since only a very tiny fraction of the population rides a bike for any distance shouldn’t they require bike riders over a certain age to have a license to drive and also a license tag on the bicycle? And shouldn’t the price of these licenses be high enough to subsanually cover the cost of these new bicycle lanes.
While we at it I guess we should start charging people to walk on our trails and sidewalks too.

The city use to require either licenses or plates for the bikes bikes but eventually decided it was not worth the cost to run the administration. Anyway why should the bike licenses have to support all the infrastructure when car, commercial vehicle, plane, train and boat licenses do not come close to covering the related infrastructure costs?

^^ *like*, +1, bingo, we have a winner, amen.

Well, according to the sources in Seattle, the City of Seattle actually SAVES money when a person rides a bike vs. that same person driving - so maybe the City of Seattle should pay people to ride a bike.

My son will be old enough to drive in a few years. That means he will need a car, insurance, gas money, etc... I could pay for that OR I could move us to an area where he can be transportation self-sufficent via a bicycle/mass transit and pay him $400 a month NOT to drive. Which one makes more financial sense?

When bikes or pedestrians require trillions and trillions of dollars of infrastructure, require several hundred square feet to land use (parking in multiple places + roadway + safe distance, etc), contribute massively and negatively to local pollution and respiratory health, contribute to the urban heat island, and kill 40k+ people a year... then yeah, I think they'd be one of those things we should regulate and tax more.

:)

FTW.... pretty well sums it up.

Is be happy with another highway creates job security for m. Sidewalks all over the city would as well. 200 feet of sidewalk cost $1000 in concrete alone. The same $1000 in concrete will get you 27 square feet of highway or 81 square feet of driveway does not matter to me I get paid by the hour to deliver the concrete. As for the turns in the highway they definantly need to be straightened up a bit cause I got to slow way down going through them when I'm driving the concrete truck or ill roll over and it takes me a few miles to get back up to speed

I live in warr acres and drive to 44 and sw 134 every day to get to work the only real traffic issues I see when I drive anywhere rather in my car or the concrete truck in the end of the hefner parkway and between sw 44th where 240 and 44 meet seems to me a lot of that congestion could be resolved by giving 152 direct access to 240 without having to get onto 44 and crossing multiple lanes in a short distance. 40 44 interchange does need to be widened to 3 through lanes sooner rather than later as do most of our interchanges need to be fixed

Is be happy with another highway creates job security for m. Sidewalks all over the city would as well. 200 feet of sidewalk cost $1000 in concrete alone. The same $1000 in concrete will get you 27 square feet of highway or 81 square feet of driveway does not matter to me I get paid by the hour to deliver the concrete. As for the turns in the highway they definantly need to be straightened up a bit cause I got to slow way down going through them when I'm driving the concrete truck or ill roll over and it takes me a few miles to get back up to speed

Given our highway and city streets need as much work as the state/fed and city can allocate money to them, job security should hardly be an issue.

Given our highway and city streets need as much work as the state/fed and city can allocate money to them, job security should hardly be an issue.

The problem is they seem more interested in using asphalt which saves 40% upfront but only has 30% the lifespan of concrete in our climate. Look at south council had that road been paved in concrete there wouldn't be ruts so deep I can't drive my car on it cause it sets too low I got high centered on council just north of 44th just driving down the street lol. The city would be better off paving all main roads in concrete and side roads in asphalt instead of visaversa it would save the city billions over time.

I live in a rural part of OKC. I don't get this idea that because I don't live in urban OKC, I don't deserve good roads in my area? ..But it's ok that MY tax dollars pay for urban reconstruction, repaving, bike lanes and side walks, etc.

Okla county uses chip & seal on a lot of rural roadways with good results. Where I live is right on the border of Okc and Edmond. Between those two citys, and the county, hardly anything gets done. so I guess, in a way, that works to save money.

Well, according to the sources in Seattle, the City of Seattle actually SAVES money when a person rides a bike vs. that same person driving - so maybe the City of Seattle should pay people to ride a bike.

My son will be old enough to drive in a few years. That means he will need a car, insurance, gas money, etc... I could pay for that OR I could move us to an area where he can be transportation self-sufficent via a bicycle/mass transit and pay him $400 a month NOT to drive. Which one makes more financial sense?

or you have your son get a job and pay for his car and insurance him self

Lol, Boulder. How is a newly turned 16 year old going to come up with money, randomly, for a car and insurance. If the kid plays sports, or is in any extracurricular activity, while in school, they have absolutely no time to work. I'm a last decade high school and college grad. I can tell you that my sports kept me bust from 6am to sometimes 7 or 8 at night( just practice and strength and conditioning/film study) Monday thru Friday. You must be an older man/woman. Where that stuff wasn't as pushed on you to be good in your choice of hobby/sport.

I live in a rural part of OKC. I don't get this idea that because I don't live in urban OKC, I don't deserve good roads in my area? ..But it's ok that MY tax dollars pay for urban reconstruction, repaving, bike lanes and side walks, etc.

Okla county uses chip & seal on a lot of rural roadways with good results. Where I live is right on the border of Okc and Edmond. Between those two citys, and the county, hardly anything gets done. so I guess, in a way, that works to save money.

As I understand the argument, it boils down to cost per person. Your rural road may cost X to maintain for 1,000 people. A more urban road could cost 4X to maintain, but for 10,000 people. It's a not who deserves what issue, it's a what's the most cost effective in terms of return on investment.

When bikes or pedestrians require trillions and trillions of dollars of infrastructure, require several hundred square feet to land use (parking in multiple places + roadway + safe distance, etc), contribute massively and negatively to local pollution and respiratory health, contribute to the urban heat island, and kill 40k+ people a year... then yeah, I think they'd be one of those things we should regulate and tax more.

:)When Bike paths are very seldom used for true transportation as is overwhelmingly the case in most situations bike paths become nothing more than a very expensive subsidy for a form of recreation that very, very few people utilize.

Even if it’s a comparatively (to roads) small amount of money it’s not hard to see that there are far better returns on investment with our borrowed money that would benefit far more people.

Lol, Boulder. How is a newly turned 16 year old going to come up with money, randomly, for a car and insurance. If the kid plays sports, or is in any extracurricular activity, while in school, they have absolutely no time to work. I'm a last decade high school and college grad. I can tell you that my sports kept me bust from 6am to sometimes 7 or 8 at night( just practice and strength and conditioning/film study) Monday thru Friday. You must be an older man/woman. Where that stuff wasn't as pushed on you to be good in your choice of hobby/sport.
I had no problem saving enough of my own money to pay cash for an adequate vehicle when I turned 16. When there is a will there is a way….making it happen is largely a matter of priorities. The average teenage has no excuses.

I had no problem saving enough of my own money to pay cash for an adequate vehicle when I turned 16. When there is a will there is a way….making it happen is largely a matter of priorities. The average teenage has no excuses.

You must not realize how many hours a week todays kids spend on video games.....lol they don't have time to work..

No one here suggested you shouldn't have good roads.

...In rural areas and have taxpayer dollars pay for it. Go back and look. In this tread and in others. There are those who think that way. Maybe not in those exact words, but definately the mentality.

When Bike paths are very seldom used for true transportation as is overwhelmingly the case in most situations bike paths become nothing more than a very expensive subsidy for a form of recreation that very, very few people utilize.

OU48A - Although dedicated bike lane are primarily to be used by cyclists, at other times these lanes provide a safety barrier for cars turning onto adjacent streets, when it's necessary to swerve and avoid an accident, even to pull over in an emergency. A wider road makes for a safer road, and bike lanes result in wider roads.

OU48A - Although dedicated bike lane are primarily to be used by cyclists, at other times these lanes provide a safety barrier for cars turning onto adjacent streets, when it's necessary to swerve and avoid an accident, even to pull over in an emergency. A wider road makes for a safer road, and bike lanes result in wider roads.
Sure they do, but wide streets without cyclist are even safer for all and come without the additional cost of signage and road markings…. The least cyclists could do pay a little extra for having extra signage and road markings that’s there to keep a very tiny number of people safer….It’s in their own self interest.

Given our highway and city streets need as much work as the state/fed and city can allocate money to them, job security should hardly be an issue.

I have always believed that more timely seal and slurry would be money well spent.

The other thing I see as a problem is how we build our roads from the very start.
Roads in the Texas panhandle that see a lot of very heavy oil field traffic often hold up a lot longer than do roads in Oklahoma…..
To a certain extent it’s we are getting what we paid for along with some poor decisions.

I think rural roads are actually an easy concept. Section-line roads should be maintained by state and counties.

That’s the way it should be but I have seen several examples where oil companies at their own expense have hauled in massive amounts of gravel to spread on county section line dirt roads. Over the years some counties have many miles of graveled roads done in this way.
It was once very common to use heavy raw oil on county dirt roads….maintainers mixed it in with the dirt and sometimes sand. This was a cheap fix that made roads passable in wet conditions. It also reduced the dust pollution that the EPA complains about today.

There is too much rural prosperity that OKC depends on via agriculture and energy to let our Oklahoma rural roads go unmaintained to some extent.
The EPA wants us to reduce our road dust pollution. That means more pavement.

I had no problem saving enough of my own money to pay cash for an adequate vehicle when I turned 16. When there is a will there is a way….making it happen is largely a matter of priorities. The average teenage has no excuses.

Well yeah, but a model T was only about 500 bucks when you were 16.

Well yeah, but a model T was only about 500 bucks when you were 16.LOL
Granted the dollar bought a lot more than in the 1970’s than now but starting at age 13 I did work hard with plenty of sweat involved doing things that most city kids today and many of their parent would turn their nose up at. I took advantage of my opportunities and didn’t waste much money on things I didn’t need. In high school my JR & SR year and in college I didn’t take spring break trips or trips in the summer, I worked heavy large DIA pipeline construction. I bought a brand new car while in college. I left college debt free and had enough money left over to make some small investments. I’m not brilliant by any stretch, but like I said, when there is a will there is a way!

If you think the EPA has absolutely anything to do with rural road construction, you sir are funny.

I challenge you to cite me one, single moment in history where this happened. Show me a transfer of money from the EPA to a contract for the construction of a road for the purpose of mitigating dust.

You've mentioned this in rapid-fire in two posts now.


When/if you reply, do it in the Politics section.



Back to building roads.
Fact…The EPA regulates some types of dust pollution…. They have at least talked about how to reduce dust pollution on rural roads. How far along this is, I’m not sure. But I did not say that the EPA had anything to do with actual rural road construction…. just that EPA regulations might cause more roads to be paved to reduce dust pollution. Their decisions could impact our road building?

Where I come from (rural Oklahoma county) we didn't want our section line roads to go from gravel to asphalt. As soon as a road was paved, you could bet that within 24 months you would have subdivisions sprouting up like weeds.

Some types of dust? That's like saying the EPA regulates some types of air.

Dust is a layman way of saying particulates. If you mean dust like the kind of dust clouds coming off of a factory, then yes.

If you mean dust like the kind your truck makes while driving a dirt road, then no.

A couple senators made up the whole story about them regulating 'common' dust and the EPA has done nothing but very publicly say it isn't true -- at least not in the blatant over-generalization that it was presented.

Our dirt roads are not influenced by the EPA.

While road dust may be regulated differently to say that the EPA has had nothing to say or do with road dust pollution has just not been true.

This is from the EPA site.

It says……..” Unpaved rural roads are a source of pollution”….

“The type of equipment used by agricultural producers in rural areas causes particulate matter pollution from unpaved roads to be a concern”

“Control of these emissions, where possible at all, may involve such techniques as paving with asphalt or concrete or stabilization of dirt roads.”

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency have helped fund a manual of standard procedures that describes and illustrates cost-effective techniques and practices that can be used to enhance stability and maintenance of unpaved roadways while reducing sedimentation and improving the quality of surface waters”

“EPA has developed a federal implementation plan (FIP) to control dust from unpaved roads, unpaved parking lots, and vacant lots in the Phoenix area (Maricopa County, Arizona). The FIP supplements current local regulations and requires the owners and operators of certain unpaved parking lots, unpaved roads, and disturbed vacant lots to control dust.”

“EPA is not requiring the control of dust from every unpaved road. In fact, unpaved roads do not need to be stabilized unless vehicles drive on them 250 times a day or more.”
Rural Roads | Agriculture | US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/trur.html)

As can be clearly seen Road dust has been an EPA issue……If they can develop a road dust+ plan for the Phoenix area they can probably do it elsewhere. In the above it says the EPA CAN REQUIRE…. It appears this could impact some of our road paving decisions?

Having thought about this issue, I have come to a surprising solution that will benefit all. See, I grew up in the country, and I desperately miss the wide open space and not having neighbors 10 ft from me. I also miss the old days of back roading. Here is my solution:

Mill up all the roads north of NW 150th. Turn these into dirt roads. People will flock back to the "city" for better infrastructure. In the mean time, I will stay put, buy the land around me as the price of homes/land tanks, and then I will have my wide open spaces and dirt roads!!!! Heck ya! Lets do this! Unlike a lot of people around here, I embrace the rough dirt roads. I miss them.

Having thought about this issue, I have come to a surprising solution that will benefit all. See, I grew up in the country, and I desperately miss the wide open space and not having neighbors 10 ft from me. I also miss the old days of back roading. Here is my solution:

Mill up all the roads north of NW 150th. Turn these into dirt roads. People will flock back to the "city" for better infrastructure. In the mean time, I will stay put, buy the land around me as the price of homes/land tanks, and then I will have my wide open spaces and dirt roads!!!! Heck ya! Lets do this! Unlike a lot of people around here, I embrace the rough dirt roads. I miss them.

Welcome to the New Urbanism.

I'm going to peg you as a T2 type person. I'm a T5 myself.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0wEuJRMt3_A/ULeGthmBlQI/AAAAAAAAAH4/J2Q2JAz4qbQ/s1600/Transect.jpg

For those wishing to know more about the rural to urban transect or to find your T# look here:

http://www.transect.org/

Really good information. Don't take this the wrong way but I want to see the context of some of these quotes.

Nonetheless, it certainly challenges my already-stated views. I'll dig deeper. Thanks again.

You can read everything the quotes were taken from on the EPA link that I provided.
There very well be more to this than meets the eye and not covered on the link..... but I do know that the city of Norman has been dealing with this dirt road issue to some extent and that there soon will be only a few miles of unpaved county/city roads in far eastern Norman.

Welcome to the New Urbanism.

I'm going to peg you as a T2 type person. I'm a T5 myself.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0wEuJRMt3_A/ULeGthmBlQI/AAAAAAAAAH4/J2Q2JAz4qbQ/s1600/Transect.jpg

For those wishing to know more about the rural to urban transect or to find your T# look here:

Center for Applied Transect Studies (http://www.transect.org/)

Can't really argue with that. Now before you T6's and D's start criticizing me, keep in mind that I am a low maintenance person. I don't need them fancy paved roads, nor do I need fancy utilities (except for electric). I grew up on well water, and we had a burn barrel for our trash (although I would consider other options as I have since learned how bad that is :)). Let's start milling up some roads!!

I'm pretty happy with anything in between T5-D. Actually, I like living in T5 but have immediate access to T6 & D.

But I want to go back to T1-T2 eventually. I miss the wild woods of Alaska and one day will return "home". Well after the kids are gone...I've thought about doing a rural cluster development both for preservation and to allow for weekend or longer getaways.

Oklahoma City metro does not need any new highways/freeways, there are plenty. The problem is the poorly designed/outdated interchanges. As others have said, fixing those bottlenecks will cure most of the congestion on the freeways.
I just hope ODOT has lost its fetish for left lane exits on its future interchanges. Left lane offramps/onramps kill traffic flow

Can't really argue with that. Now before you T6's and D's start criticizing me, keep in mind that I am a low maintenance person. I don't need them fancy paved roads, nor do I need fancy utilities (except for electric). I grew up on well water, and we had a burn barrel for our trash (although I would consider other options as I have since learned how bad that is :)). Let's start milling up some roads!!

Why would you get critized? T2 is on the transect. What isn't on the transect is urban sprawl which as you know is destprying rural America just as much as it is destroying urban America. As for milling up roads, OKC is late to get that memo as we keep passing bond issues to pave, and even 4 lane, rural roads - while many cities and counties are doing just what you suggested. They figured out of the property tax collection will never be enough to cover the cost of the road so they are choosing not to throw the money away. OKC will figure that out one day as well.

Counties turn some paved roads back to gravel (http://www.naco.org/newsroom/countynews/Current%20Issue/12-13-10/Pages/Countiesturnsomepavedroadsbacktogravel.aspx)

Here are some quotes from the article but read it - you can clearly see the people who are bitterly clinging to their pavement. I'm not sure what part of "we can't afford it" isn't getting through to them.


Counties in Iowa, Michigan, California and South Dakota are among those that have decided either to stop maintaining a percentage of their asphalt roads or to pulverize some paved roads and downgrade them to gravel.

...

While costs vary from state to state, he said that in parts of South Dakota, “you can place 8 inches of gravel surfacing for the cost of 1 inch of asphalt pavement.”

...

In Sonoma County, Calif., it would take an estimated $55 million a year to maintain the county’s road network in its current condition, according to county officials. But the county can only afford to budget about $5 million annually using existing revenues.

...

In Brown County, 500 of the county’s 680 miles of road are paved; 150 miles can be maintained with the current budget of $7 million per year.

Why would you get critized? T2 is on the transect. What isn't on the transect is urban sprawl which as you know is destprying rural America just as much as it is destroying urban America. As for milling up roads, OKC is late to get that memo as we keep passing bond issues to pave, and even 4 lane, rural roads - while many cities and counties are doing just what you suggested. They figured out of the property tax collection will never be enough to cover the cost of the road so they are choosing not to throw the money away. OKC will figure that out one day as well.

Counties turn some paved roads back to gravel (http://www.naco.org/newsroom/countynews/Current%20Issue/12-13-10/Pages/Countiesturnsomepavedroadsbacktogravel.aspx)

Here are some quotes from the article but read it - you can clearly see the people who are bitterly clinging to their pavement. I'm not sure what part of "we can't afford it" isn't getting through to them.

our city revenue is sufficient to cover our bonds going forward

our city revenue is sufficient to cover our bonds going forward

Makes you wonder why if the City has sufficient money they are issuing bonds at all. Why can't they just pay for road construction and replacement out of the general fund in the year they do the work? Or do we pay the interest because we like to?

Makes you wonder why if the City has sufficient money they are issuing bonds at all. Why can't they just pay for road construction and replacement out of the general fund in the year they do the work? Or do we pay the interest because we like to?

so is your position that all debt is bad??

Makes you wonder why if the City has sufficient money they are issuing bonds at all. Why can't they just pay for road construction and replacement out of the general fund in the year they do the work? Or do we pay the interest because we like to?

We're like a college student who takes out a loan just to build good credit.


so is your position that all debt is bad??

Don't know about JTF, but I believe that, yes, all debt is bad.

We're like a college student who takes out a loan just to build good credit.



Don't know about JTF, but I believe that, yes, all debt is bad.

when money is cheap debt can be a very useful tool


and we are much more like a responsible adult with a perfect credit score that wants to by a house

when money is cheap debt can be a very useful tool


and we are much more like a responsible adult with a perfect credit score that wants to by a house

Houses loans are too good to be an accurate comparison, houses at least have the chance to either hold their value or raise in value over 30 years. Pluse the interest can be a tax break. Street widening is like getting a loan on a new larger more expensive automobile that gets worse fuel mileage, which will either need total replacement or expensive maintenence later, but can be used to get income and access other the distant places.

so is your position that all debt is bad??

Un-necessary debt is bad. But lets stick with the home loan analogy. The life span of the average home right now in the US is 150 years (that will drop significantly over the next 20 years BTW). So it makes sense that someone would take out a 30 year loan to buy an asset with a lifespan of 150 years. However, what if the bank didn't require you to take out a 30 year loan. What if you could pay cash for your house one year (or even one month) at a time with no loan at all, then after 30 years you would own it. Wouldn't that be a much better option? OKC could do that with their roads - but for some reason they choose to borrow money 10-15-20 years in advance, pay interest on it, and then build the roads. Why take out a loan today, to build a road (or sidewalk) in 2019 and then repay that loan with tax dollars from 2019? Why do that - unless you can't really afford the road and you are relying on a growth model to have the money materialize by the time you have to repay the loan?

The fatal flaw in the growth model is - nothing grows forever.

Inflationary advantages of cheap debt don't offset depreciation of assets/inventory if they are not productive. No different than a manufacturing company buying a big new machine...if it doesn't make them more money, it doesn't matter how 'cheap' the note was.

The availability of capital is exactly what's pushing a 'growth or bust' approach and it isn't healthy for local government, IMHO.

the city spends tons and tons of money that are in the abstract and that are not "productive" in that context

Oklahoma City hasn't shown it's willing to do that. Instead, it's choosing to subsidize peripheral obligations by building expensive infrastructure meant to accommodate growth.

And I might add that the growth on the periphery comes at the expense of already developed, but under utilized areas or by the abandonment of entire parts of the City.

I picture many cities like I do the Winchester Mystery House, except 'ol lady Winchester didn't let the existing parts of her house fall into disrepair while she kept building the new parts. Imagine if everyone built homes the way cities are constructed.

http://www.alamedainfo.com/Winchester_Mystery_House_San_Jose_CA_C31107.jpg

I posted references to the numbers earlier. I didn't post links to all the websites where I got the numbers. I could find them again if I had to. Suffice it to say, Oklahoma has a lot more roads per capita than most any other state. We are over-roaded. We have tons and tons of empty space where people can and have built spread-out suburbs. What we lack is a sizable number of urban neighborhoods with high density and the amenities that go with it. Part of the reason is that we keep devaluing land and harming neighborhoods that already exist, by making even cheaper land available farther out. If I can get a 40% bigger yard for the same price, and the only downside is that I have to drive on the interstate an extra 4 minutes, I'm going to do that. Suburban flight becomes much easier.

The result of all this is that, with very few exceptions, our nicest neighborhoods are on the very outskirts of the city. If you want to live in a nice place, you move to the almost-country. And in 15 years, you move again. It's a continuous process, we keep spreading out. We get more and more roads, and they become more expensive to maintain. Even if our economy is doing well right now, it's in spite of our growth patterns.

I'm not saying people can't live in spread-out suburbs. You want to live that way, that's fine. But there are a whole lot of people who would like to live in a more urban space. Oklahoma City does not need to tell them "this is not the place for you." Right now I live in a nice apartment in MWC. I really wish there was something close by for me to walk to. I'm young and healthy. I would love it if I could walk to a little corner grocery, or a cafe, a few shops. I live right next to a bunch of people anyway, why not? The reason I can't is because everything is so spread out, I'd have to walk nearly a mile down a major street with no sidewalk to get anywhere. We don't need more of that.

If we stop expanding, those nicer neighborhoods will start to fill in. Home values will rise. More property taxes will be collected. Our streets and schools will improve. We don't lose anything.

You just described the entire "drive 'til you qualify" home building industry.

So, just so I don't have to come back to this thread anymore since it's going to be about. . . . . all this crap that is has been about, it is safe to say that OKC won't be seeing any new highways or interstates in the near future?

So, just so I don't have to come back to this thread anymore since it's going to be about. . . . . all this crap that is has been about, it is safe to say that OKC won't be seeing any new highways or interstates in the near future?

LOL - I think we reached that conclusion back on page 1.

Un-necessary debt is bad. But lets stick with the home loan analogy. The life span of the average home right now in the US is 150 years (that will drop significantly over the next 20 years BTW). So it makes sense that someone would take out a 30 year loan to buy an asset with a lifespan of 150 years. However, what if the bank didn't require you to take out a 30 year loan. What if you could pay cash for your house one year (or even one month) at a time with no loan at all, then after 30 years you would own it. Wouldn't that be a much better option? OKC could do that with their roads - but for some reason they choose to borrow money 10-15-20 years in advance, pay interest on it, and then build the roads. Why take out a loan today, to build a road (or sidewalk) in 2019 and then repay that loan with tax dollars from 2019? Why do that - unless you can't really afford the road and you are relying on a growth model to have the money materialize by the time you have to repay the loan?

The fatal flaw in the growth model is - nothing grows forever.

i have never agreed with you more than i have on this post.

LOL - I think we reached that conclusion back on page 1.Ok I just wanted to make sure haha ;P

Ok I just wanted to make sure haha ;P

Yep. I just don't think you'll find state leaders and local leaders have the appetite to fund such highway expansion. Increasing capacity on existing, maybe, but brand new highways, unless toll roads - never.

Yep. I just don't think you'll find state leaders and local leaders have the appetite to fund such highway expansion. Increasing capacity on existing, maybe, but brand new highways, unless toll roads - never.Yeah, I kind of figured, toll roads are becoming the new normal for new highway construction it seems like, but makes sense it a way.

Well we are the #1 toll road state after all. And especially fun since they were supposed to have ALL converted back to non-toll 30 years ago. I understand the argument that the current budget can't fund them, fine. But when the toll folks say they continue to have budget problems, that one pisses me off. With the amount of traffic and the number of cars that go through those things, any shortfall is because someone is being paid too much. There should be better oversight on the tolls roads to ensure the public isn't getting screwed over.

What i'd REALLY like to see, is that 5cent per gallon use tax put in place. It's so very minimal on your cost to fill up, but it makes such a big different when pooled together. That really needs to be shoved into ODOT's bank so we can get some things done....heck maybe even convert some tolls back. But that only works, if the legislature doesn't pull the crap they're known for, and just remove allocated dollars from ODOT and let the tax replace them. The use tax seems very fair to me though....the more you use, the more you pay....just like in any other aspect of life.

We take our roads for granted...that they'll be there, but we dont ever want to pay to have them maintained. Somehow some magic road fairy is supposed to come down and help out. If people only realized how much a gallon of gas costs in Europe!

I love toll roads. Pay for the road you use. Oklahoma is a very conservative state, but bring up toll roads and everyone becomes socialist. Make it free to all! (never mind that now we won't be able to fund them properly.)

Well we are the #1 toll road state after all. And especially fun since they were supposed to have ALL converted back to non-toll 30 years ago. I understand the argument that the current budget can't fund them, fine. But when the toll folks say they continue to have budget problems, that one pisses me off. With the amount of traffic and the number of cars that go through those things, any shortfall is because someone is being paid too much. There should be better oversight on the tolls roads to ensure the public isn't getting screwed over.

While it was before my time so I do not know how heavily promoted or if it is was worded to favor passing, people voted for cross-payment and expansion over going free many years ago, probably most turnpikes since that vote have lower volume, which makes for a slower overall collection rate and so less likely to ever to paying off again like we had with some of the individual ones. Even today there is at least some interest in a south Kirkpatrick loop, Tulsa might have some interested in a northern half to the semi loop turnpike they have and we could probably find others willing to make a case for something else (like a loop around Norman, Lawton, Shawnee or Muskogee).

Well we are the #1 toll road state after all. And especially fun since they were supposed to have ALL converted back to non-toll 30 years ago. I understand the argument that the current budget can't fund them, fine. But when the toll folks say they continue to have budget problems, that one pisses me off. With the amount of traffic and the number of cars that go through those things, any shortfall is because someone is being paid too much. There should be better oversight on the tolls roads to ensure the public isn't getting screwed over.

What i'd REALLY like to see, is that 5cent per gallon use tax put in place. It's so very minimal on your cost to fill up, but it makes such a big different when pooled together. That really needs to be shoved into ODOT's bank so we can get some things done....heck maybe even convert some tolls back. But that only works, if the legislature doesn't pull the crap they're known for, and just remove allocated dollars from ODOT and let the tax replace them. The use tax seems very fair to me though....the more you use, the more you pay....just like in any other aspect of life.

We take our roads for granted...that they'll be there, but we dont ever want to pay to have them maintained. Somehow some magic road fairy is supposed to come down and help out. If people only realized how much a gallon of gas costs in Europe!

the toll roads are not supposed to be converted over ....

the turner was when it was paid off ..... but we voted as a State to not turn in back into a non toll road and instead pooled its debt with the entire system ..

the toll roads are not supposed to be converted over ....

the turner was when it was paid off ..... but we voted as a State to not turn in back into a non toll road and instead pooled its debt with the entire system ..

That and Florida has more toll mileage than Oklahoma.

That and Florida has more toll mileage than Oklahoma.

Every new freeway or added lane in Florida will be tolled from here on out. No more 'free'ways in Florida. The east loop of I-295 has only been open for a couple of years and traffic is already at a stand still during morning and evening rush hours.

Toll lanes on I-295 by 2017|Action News - Jacksonville News, Weather & Sports - ActionNewsJax.com (http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/Toll-lanes-on-I-295-by-2017/NizAKIsE8U29LgKuMNC5MQ.cspx)