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 ..

If you go back and read the charter for turnpikes, they are all supposed to come back to the state after they are paid for. Your first statement is totally inaccurate.

In Turner's case (as with others) we voted to maintain as it is....because we can't afford them. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still a flawed system. The roads could be MUCH more efficiently paid for by funding through the state. That small increase in tax across the whole state's population, would allow every one of them to be absorbed without losing quality. Not only do you remove administrative overhead, but a lot of extra costs in maintaining the relationship/hardware/services that the rolls require. There's a long list of why it would be better to be public again (not counting the obvious "free ride" argument). But you can't make a simple sentence blanket statement like that and leave out the entire history of why behind it.

If the state can barely afford the current levels of highways..why would we even want to add a 75 mile stretch of interstate highway maintenance to our budget. It's better off remaining tolled.

That is one instane where I completely agree with you. I do think they should continue being tolled. I don't think every new highway should be tolled, i.e. anything like I-35 or I-40.

If the state can barely afford the current levels of highways..why would we even want to add a 75 mile stretch of interstate highway maintenance to our budget. It's better off remaining tolled.

They don't care about the maintenance or the actual need. This is all about keeping the contractor lobby fat and happy. Specifically, a very powerful road building lobby.

That is one instane where I completely agree with you. I do think they should continue being tolled. I don't think every new highway should be tolled, i.e. anything like I-35 or I-40.

Either I misunderstand you or don't agree (or both). I think that the highways that provide basic interstate transport from border to border and are paid for with federal funds should not be toll roads. On the other hand, if the state is responsible to maintain them, the cost of their maintenance could be the basis for the tolls, but it should be set up so that the tolls only fund the maintenance, nothing more.

... and personally, I think the toll should be reduced during the times that the capability of the road is reduced. Why am I paying the full toll when the road is under construction / maintenance and I can't go the normal speed limit? Whinge, piss, moan ... I'm done.

Either I misunderstand you or don't agree (or both). I think that the highways that provide basic interstate transport from border to border and are paid for with federal funds should not be toll roads. On the other hand, if the state is responsible to maintain them, the cost of their maintenance could be the basis for the tolls, but it should be set up so that the tolls only fund the maintenance, nothing more.

... and personally, I think the toll should be reduced during the times that the capability of the road is reduced. Why am I paying the full toll when the road is under construction / maintenance and I can't go the normal speed limit? Whinge, piss, moan ... I'm done.I like what Dallas has done with building new highways and adding an express toll lane to it. It pays for itself and the other highway fairly quick and the same thing is being done with 635. I agree that tolls should be for maintenance and toll cost set accordingly. Any city highway arteries are free and the special bypass highways are toll highway along with express lanes on every highway. If they widen I-35 to Norman, they could make it 8 lanes, build an additional 4 lanes though it and toll those 4 lanes so the entire highway is 12 lanes and have 4 service lanes the entire highway. Do that, and I guarantee you, all of this induced demand crap and this "we can't afford it" will be proven wrong right here in OKC.

I believe 635 is going to have 16-20 lanes total through parts of it. We will see how that works out. Do we need to widen I-35 to Norman 12 lanes right now, of course not. OKC hasn't hit that critical mass yet and likely won't for a long time, but that's what my idea of a good toll road is. If the money is already there for Kilpatrick to be widened then they should stop tolling it unless we can't pay for it's maintenance. So I think we might be on the same page.

Also, I wish we would go with Texas and charge the license plate instead of having toll tags. Also, the Texas tolls look better ;)

I like what Dallas has done with building new highways and adding an express toll lane to it. It pays for itself and the other highway fairly quick and the same thing is being done with 635. I agree that tolls should be for maintenance and toll cost set accordingly. Any city highway arteries are free and the special bypass highways are toll highway along with express lanes on every highway. If they widen I-35 to Norman, they could make it 8 lanes, build an additional 4 lanes though it and toll those 4 lanes so the entire highway is 12 lanes and have 4 service lanes the entire highway. Do that, and I guarantee you, all of this induced demand crap and this "we can't afford it" will be proven wrong right here in OKC.

I believe 635 is going to have 16-20 lanes total through parts of it. We will see how that works out. Do we need to widen I-35 to Norman 12 lanes right now, of course not. OKC hasn't hit that critical mass yet and likely won't for a long time, but that's what my idea of a good toll road is. If the money is already there for Kilpatrick to be widened then they should stop tolling it unless we can't pay for it's maintenance. So I think we might be on the same page.

Also, I wish we would go with Texas and charge the license plate instead of having toll tags. Also, the Texas tolls look better ;)

Induced demand crap???

Of course induced demand wouldn't have an effect if you build 400% of current capacity. That argument is crap.

Induced demand basically says...if you have a road at capacity (or nearing it) adding an additional lane will be meaningless longterm. As the demand from the 3 lanes will spread quickly to the 4th lane. If you have 4 at capacity, adding a 5th won't solve the issue longterm.

If you have 6 very underutilized lanes, adding 1 in each way won't do anything to induce much demand at all. (See EKG -- you could widen it to 8 lanes and wouldn't stir up much more traffic than is currently handles)

Expand 19th street in Moore even more and induced demand will fill that extra lane as demand for lanes is bursting at the seams.

Adding 9 lanes overnight would take forever to fill, if ever. So by going to an extreme (an improbable one at that) to prove a point (or counter one), is fairly childish.

I disagree with you. We'll see when Dallas completes 635 and even if it is near capacity still, Dallas is the fastest growing metro area in the US, so yeah. I'm sorry, but I'm not sold on induced demand. The city planners can find a way to work and predict future traffic counts so they build and expand our highways accordingly. You can do it smart and not waste a ton of money by adding things like raising gas tax a bit, adding a mileage tax, adding additional express tolls.

OKC needs to have a light-rail and an extensive bus network and then we can look at our ridership and then accurately gather our traffic counts and have a study done about the traffic counts on I-35 from downtown to Norman for a possible widening of the highway. If all 6 lanes are at capacity, then instead of making 8 lanes, add a lane to the existing highway and add four adjunct toll lanes and I guarantee you that will fix the problem for a LONG time. Again, I'm not trying to suggest lets go out and make every highway 20 lanes or something like that, we just need to make sure we build our highways smart and not just do the "add a lane" thing thinking that will solve it. That's what I'm trying to say with the "induced demand crap", which probably wasn't the best choice of words.

If the majority of people choose to drive cars, then we should have massive highways. . . if the majority of people ride buses, then we have a huge bus network with four lane highways and a two bus lanes and a bus lane on every street. . . if the majority rides light-rail, we should an expansive light-rail system with stations all over. . . if the majority walks and rides bikes, we should have 30 ft. sidewalks and 4 lane bike lanes. . . A great city, would balance it out and have the best of both worlds. If there was no traffic to support the widening of I-35, I wouldn't be asking to widen it. The people decide what they want, and OUR government builds for us, we just have to make sure it is finically responsible.

As technology improves, roads and tracks will last much longer than they used to. Also, if you see the cities with the worst traffic in world, the cities in Europe that recorded in increase in traffic and gridlock, were also the cities that were the best economically performing as well. Sorry if I sound or sounded childish in this post or my last, and again, I'm not advocating for building 20 lane highways, I would just want balance, as every great city has. I understand pedestrians will and should come first in the core areas of city and urban environments and I'm not trying to argue against that.

I disagree with you. We'll see when Dallas completes 635 and even if it is near capacity still, Dallas is the fastest growing metro area in the US, so yeah. I'm sorry, but I'm not sold on induced demand. The city planners can find a way to work and predict future traffic counts so they build and expand our highways accordingly. You can do it smart and not waste a ton of money by adding things like raising gas tax a bit, adding a mileage tax, adding additional express tolls.

OKC needs to have a light-rail and an extensive bus network and then we can look at our ridership and then accurately gather our traffic counts and have a study done about the traffic counts on I-35 from downtown to Norman for a possible widening of the highway. If all 6 lanes are at capacity, then instead of making 8 lanes, add a lane to the existing highway and add four adjunct toll lanes and I guarantee you that will fix the problem for a LONG time. Again, I'm not trying to suggest lets go out and make every highway 20 lanes or something like that, we just need to make sure we build our highways smart and not just do the "add a lane" thing thinking that will solve it. That's what I'm trying to say with the "induced demand crap", which probably wasn't the best choice of words.

If the majority of people choose to drive cars, then we should have massive highways. . . if the majority of people ride buses, then we have a huge bus network with four lane highways and a two bus lanes and a bus lane on every street. . . if the majority rides light-rail, we should an expansive light-rail system with stations all over. . . if the majority walks and rides bikes, we should have 30 ft. sidewalks and 4 lane bike lanes. . . A great city, would balance it out and have the best of both worlds. If there was no traffic to support the widening of I-35, I wouldn't be asking to widen it. The people decide what they want, and OUR government builds for us, we just have to make sure it is finically responsible.

As technology improves, roads and tracks will last much longer than they used to. Also, if you see the cities with the worst traffic in world, the cities in Europe that recorded in increase in traffic and gridlock, were also the cities that were the best economically performing as well. Sorry if I sound or sounded childish in this post or my last, and again, I'm not advocating for building 20 lane highways, I would just want balance, as every great city has. I understand pedestrians will and should come first in the core areas of city and urban environments and I'm not trying to argue against that.

Unfortunately adding 4 toll lanes in addition to the current 6 lanes to I-35 would cost around $200,000,000 a mile. That won't happen so I'm not even going to continue the argument.

I doubt it will happen as well. That's okay, OKC just needs planners that will do things right and create balance and be able to accurately predict where our city is going, that's all.

I doubt it will happen as well. That's okay, OKC just needs planners that will do things right and create balance and be able to accurately predict where our city is going, that's all.

Create a balance? If the OKC built environment was the path of a pendulum with auto-centric on the far left and walkability on the far right where do you think the pendulum has been stuck for the last 60 years and how far to the right do you think it needs to swing to be in balance? The State spent $600 million rebuilding 4 miles of interstate. Can we get $600 million for walkability? Can we go to war to ensure the free flow of bicycles at market prices?

Create a balance? If the OKC built environment was the path of a pendulum with auto-centric on the far left and walkability on the far right where do you think the pendulum has been stuck for the last 60 years and how far to the right do you think it needs to swing to be in balance? The State spent $600 million rebuilding 4 miles of interstate. Can we get $600 million for walkability? Can we go to war to ensure the free flow of bicycles at market prices?

did that 600 mil come from the state?? interesting

Create a balance? If the OKC built environment was the path of a pendulum with auto-centric on the far left and walkability on the far right where do you think the pendulum has been stuck for the last 60 years and how far to the right do you think it needs to swing to be in balance? The State spent $600 million rebuilding 4 miles of interstate. Can we get $600 million for walkability? Can we go to war to ensure the free flow of bicycles at market prices?

So you don't want balance? You want a system that is favored towards mass transit and walking? We'll get to cars. . . . whenever we get to them? I don't understand what exactly you're saying. I know it cost a crapton of money building interstates, <<<I UNDERSTAND THAT. Walking and biking is better for you, I know, I bike miles everyday through Edmond and walk A LOT, I love it!!!!! 600 million for new trails and sidewalks in OKC, I'd be all in for that.

Highways are not made to walk on, they're for cars. Urban roads should geared towards lower speed limits and designed with pedestrian safety specifically in mind. Bike lanes, wide sidewalks, low speed limits, ect. Suburban roads should be built with automobiles in mind with wide sidewalks and bike paths, off of the roads. A bike network if you will. I'll snap a pic of the new Covell and get the specs of it, because I think that is a great road for a suburban city like Edmond. There are a few things I don't like about it, but other than that, I think it's great. Also, I would love to have something like Deep Deuce in Downtown Edmond really, I wish the entire city core, inside the ring of 235, 44, 40 would be entirely urban and model off of Deep Deuce with 5-10 story buildings filling the entire area. That would be awesome, with some nice shiny mystery towers of course ;).

You say a great city can't have balance(if I understand correctly), I disagree. Keep in mind, I'm talking about the CMSA, not just the Oklahoma City limits.

Oh and do you not think, that if we raised gas tax, add a mileage tax, and incorporate express tollways, that we still couldn't fund our highways?

did that 600 mil come from the state?? interesting

Of course ODOT paid for it. They might have gotten the money from the feds (which is a reimbursement of the gasoline tax collected by the state and sent to the Federal government), but ODOT spent the money.

So you don't want balance? You want a system that is favored towards mass transit and walking?

No, I am trying to figure out what you mean by "balance".

No, I am trying to figure out what you mean by "balance".

balance the people that want to drive can drive those that don't want to drive having other options ... ie commuter rail/street car/bike trails .. ect

balance the people that want to drive can drive those that don't want to drive having other options ... ie commuter rail/street car/bike trails .. ect

So how does that manifest itself. If the City spends $3 million repaving 1 mile of road, what is 'balance'; 1 mile of sidewalk or $3 million?

Balance isn't a factor of spending, it is a factor of two things

1) Accessibility
2) Comfort

this

I guess I just don't get it then. The two options complete for the same space and dollars and for the last 60 years the automobile has been winning in a landslide. This story was in our local paper on Sunday. Maybe this is what we are talking about needing to happen.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-04-27/story/jacksonville-council-bill-could-give-new-look-street-plans


Jacksonville changes a lot from Maxville to San Marco, but the city’s rules for building roads are pretty much the same, mile after mile.

The City Council is ready for that to change.

The council voted Tuesday to create a new city board to look into setting new rules for roadwork that could help streets fit better with the neighborhoods around them.

Abstract as it sounds, backers say changing the rules can make real differences in people’s lives by making thoroughfares safer and more inviting to walk, run or bike as well as drive by car.


Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-04-27/story/jacksonville-council-bill-could-give-new-look-street-plans#ixzz2RxaKuWLS

No, I am trying to figure out what you mean by "balance".Ok so, obviously in Downtown OKC, pedestrians are prioritized and come first. Downtown OKC is a vibrant area with life and whether you drive there or live right by it like Sid Burgess, you walk more when you're there. In a place like Edmond, you have malls, strip malls, lifestyle centers, box stores, ect. You drive to these places in a car, so cars come first in city like Edmond. Doesn't mean it's a bad city, in a prefer living in a suburb like this, but it's part of the greater OKC metro area, so in an urban environment, like Deep Deuce, you want people and bicyclist to have the benefit of the doubt, and still want people that live in suburbs like Edmond and Norman to be able to access downtown, so how do you make that happen? You can transport them efficiently on a world class highway and a light-rail and/or commuter rail system.

Here's my look on it.

*Widen I-35 to Norman 8 lanes on the highway and add a 4 lane express tollway. Redesign the service roads to 2 lanes in each direction, one way, texas turn arounds and dual left turn lanes and a dedicated right turn lane all the way to Norman.

*Widen I-240 to add 1 HOV lane in each direction and do the same thing as I said with the service roads.

*Redesign our interchanges to flyovers

*Widen I-40 to six lanes and 1 HOV lane each direction all the way through the city including through Midwest city

*Build a new 4 lane highway (2 lanes in each direction) to loop around Edmond extending from Hefner park way.

*as far as the loop from Norman, I'm not familiar with how bad traffic is there so I wouldn't know to do that or not

Do that, and I promise you, we should be good on highways for a decade or two.

Onto mass transit

*Build regional HSR (that hopefully will one day connect to a national HSR and in my dream land international HSR)

*Build and incorporate a light-system along our highways and connecting to the convention center, airport, Santa Fe station???, connect it to Moore, Norman, Yukon, Midwest City, Edmond, Nichols Hills, and make sure you make it feasible expand it in the future to cities like New Castle, Jones, Guthrie, maybe even Stillwater. Provided OKC keeps growing

*Build commuter rail connecting cities like OKC, Edmond, Norman, Guthrie, Jones, El Reno, Stillwater, Shawnee, New Castle ect. Keep in mind some of these smaller cities are growing fairly fast and as long as OKC keeps it momentum, I think it could work, as long as population and projected ridership counts justify doing so.

*Create an expansive bus network

*Build and extend a street car route throughout the OKC city limits

Some other things like

*Build a world class bike trail network similar to Milwaukee's

*Add 12 ft. sidewalks and bike lanes to nearly every street in the city

*Build more ped bridges and/or tunnels over/under highways and a couple over the river

*Redesign and rebuild city streets in concrete and add landscaping. I also would bury every utility line, except the main power lines.

I understand that ALL of this would cost way too much to be economically feasible and likely won't happen. But, that would be amazing if we could do that. If OKC'S core would fill up completely with mixed use developments 4-10 stories high, that would be great!!!!! That is what I mean when talking about balance. Is that good?

I guess I just don't get it then. The two options complete for the same space and dollars and for the last 60 years the automobile has been winning in a landslide. This story was in our local paper on Sunday. Maybe this is what we are talking about needing to happen.

hold on let me find the linkI think you mean't compete and if so, my response that is, they don't have to.

Thanks - yes I meant 'compete'. Your ideas would work great in a world with unlimited funds. In the mean time, ODOT only has so many dollars to spend and they spend those disproportionally on moving cars. I also don't think the vast majority of people know which form of transportation they prefer since most have only used 1 form their whole adult life. Everything other than the automobile is a novelty for them. I remember the look on my kids faces when they first learned they could ride their bikes to the library. You could tell they never viewed their bike as a means of transportation. Up until then it was just a toy.

Watch this car commercial - it should scare the **** out of any parent and make them realize they are a complete failure.

http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7oJe/subaru-forester-grew-up-in-the-backseat

Thanks - yes I meant 'compete'. Your ideas would work great in a world with unlimited funds. In the mean time, ODOT only has so many dollars to spend and they spend those disproportionally on moving cars. I also don't think the vast majority of people know which form of transportation they prefer since most have only used 1 form their whole adult life. Everything other than the automobile is a novelty for them. I remember the look on my kids faces when they first learned they could ride their bikes to the library. You could tell they never viewed their bike as a means of transportation. Up until then it was just a toy.

Watch this car commercial - it should scare the **** out of any parent and make them realize they are a complete failure.

Subaru Forester TV Commercial, 'Grew Up in the Backseat' - iSpot.tv (http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7oJe/subaru-forester-grew-up-in-the-backseat)

cars are a complete failure? ..... really not so much

Yeah that is an odd commercial. I sure wouldn't want to grow up in the back seat of a Subaru that's for damn sure lol. I don't think it would make them a complete failure though.

I wish ODOT would be restructured and a new agency formed for rail and transit. Maybe have ORA Oklahoma Authority and OMaTA Oklahoma Mass Transit Authority lol or something like that, but ODOT has made it obvious that they aren't focused on mass transit and I'm VERY worried that TxDot is going to realize that ODOT really doesn't have their heart sunk into the HSR (which is what I think) and are going to pull the plug completely from Oklahoma's chance at having a HSR.

We are in a really good position here more so than most realize. Many states would love to be in our position and I firmly believe just because of our proximity to Texas and how much of our state borders Texas, if we play our dice right, we might be one the first states to get a high speed rail. Along with California obviously.

I would be all for cars, trains, boats, buses, bike, feet, unicycles, horses, etc... all competing on a level playing field and letting the best (most efficient) system win.

I think you are right about ODOT. It is very sad commentary that the biggest engine driving rail in Oklahoma is the Texas Department of Transportation.

Ok so, obviously in Downtown OKC, pedestrians are prioritized and come first. Downtown OKC is a vibrant area with life and whether you drive there or live right by it like Sid Burgess, you walk more when you're there. In a place like Edmond, you have malls, strip malls, lifestyle centers, box stores, ect. You drive to these places in a car, so cars come first in city like Edmond. Doesn't mean it's a bad city, in a prefer living in a suburb like this, but it's part of the greater OKC metro area, so in an urban environment, like Deep Deuce, you want people and bicyclist to have the benefit of the doubt, and still want people that live in suburbs like Edmond and Norman to be able to access downtown, so how do you make that happen? You can transport them efficiently on a world class highway and a light-rail and/or commuter rail system.

Here's my look on it.

(snip)


You're talking about tens of billions of dollars for the highways alone.

Here's the deal. We don't have bad traffic here. In fact we have some of the least bad traffic of any city I've been in. I work downtown. I live in Midwest City. It takes me about 20 minutes to get home during rush hour traffic. That's not bad at all. We don't have need of more roads. We might need a few redesigned intersections, but that's it.

If we are seeking "balance", then we need to build sidewalks, bike trails, and light rail for the next 40 years and not a single additional road. Then we might be balanced. Right now transportation options in OKC are as balanced as dinner at John Goodman's house.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090723195241/familyguy/images/1/1e/John_Goodman.jpg

I'll give you a hint. John Goodman does not represent mass transit funding.

People in this city will use the transportation options they have available. Right now the design of our city supports one option: the car. That's it. So when someone has to go somewhere, they take a car. We shouldn't pretend that people are clamoring for more highways when we haven't given them any other options.

Induced demand works like this: I am at home. I want a hot dog. I have many options. 1) I can get in my car and drive to a place across town that has great hot dogs. 2) I can get in my car and drive to the Sonic down the street that has okay hot dogs. 3) I can walk to the Sonic down the street. 4) I can make a hot dog at home. 5) I can do without a hot dog for now (there would actually be a lot more options than this, but I'm keeping it simple).

There is a certain amount of pain-in-the-ass I'm willing to go through for that hot dog across town. If I have wide lanes and easy interstate access and little traffic, I might be able to get there in 15 minutes. If there's a traffic jam, it might take me an hour. Maybe that hot dog is so good it's worth a 15 minute drive. If that's the case, I'll be using the interstate and getting that delicious hot dog. But is it worth an hour? Two hours? I make decisions like this every time I get in my car. The longer the commute, the more likely I am to choose options 2, 3, 4, and 5. If I choose to just go to Sonic 2 miles down the street, then that's one less car on the interstate. If I choose to walk to Sonic, eat a hot dog at home, or not eat one at all, then that's one less car on the local street as well.

Induced demand means that the more lanes you build, the more people are going to choose to drive across town to get that hot dog. Where I live now you always have to get in your car to go anywhere, unless you want to walk a mile or more on major streets with no sidewalks. That's not balanced. What will happen if you add 4 more lanes to our interstates? You will spend a buttload of money, people will drive more, and they will drive faster. But you won't give them better transportation options.

You're talking about tens of billions of dollars for the highways alone.

Here's the deal. We don't have bad traffic here. In fact we have some of the least bad traffic of any city I've been in. I work downtown. I live in Midwest City. It takes me about 20 minutes to get home during rush hour traffic. That's not bad at all. We don't have need of more roads. We might need a few redesigned intersections, but that's it.

If we are seeking "balance", then we need to build sidewalks, bike trails, and light rail for the next 40 years and not a single additional road. Then we might be balanced. Right now transportation options in OKC are as balanced as dinner at John Goodman's house.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090723195241/familyguy/images/1/1e/John_Goodman.jpg

I'll give you a hint. John Goodman does not represent mass transit funding.

People in this city will use the transportation options they have available. Right now the design of our city supports one option: the car. That's it. So when someone has to go somewhere, they take a car. We shouldn't pretend that people are clamoring for more highways when we haven't given them any other options.

Induced demand works like this: I am at home. I want a hot dog. I have many options. 1) I can get in my car and drive to a place across town that has great hot dogs. 2) I can get in my car and drive to the Sonic down the street that has okay hot dogs. 3) I can walk to the Sonic down the street. 4) I can make a hot dog at home. 5) I can do without a hot dog for now (there would actually be a lot more options than this, but I'm keeping it simple).

There is a certain amount of pain-in-the-ass I'm willing to go through for that hot dog across town. If I have wide lanes and easy interstate access and little traffic, I might be able to get there in 15 minutes. If there's a traffic jam, it might take me an hour. Maybe that hot dog is so good it's worth a 15 minute drive. If that's the case, I'll be using the interstate and getting that delicious hot dog. But is it worth an hour? Two hours? I make decisions like this every time I get in my car. The longer the commute, the more likely I am to choose options 2, 3, 4, and 5. If I choose to just go to Sonic 2 miles down the street, then that's one less car on the interstate. If I choose to walk to Sonic, eat a hot dog at home, or not eat one at all, then that's one less car on the local street as well.

Induced demand means that the more lanes you build, the more people are going to choose to drive across town to get that hot dog. Where I live now you always have to get in your car to go anywhere, unless you want to walk a mile or more on major streets with no sidewalks. That's not balanced. What will happen if you add 4 more lanes to our interstates? You will spend a buttload of money, people will drive more, and they will drive faster. But you won't give them better transportation options.I want to give (them) better transport options while making driving easier and better flowing traffic. That's why I wanted a rail system and building sidewalks and bike lanes along nearly every street.

If we are seeking "balance", then we need to build sidewalks, bike trails, and light rail for the next 40 years and not a single additional road. Then we might be balanced. Right now transportation options in OKC are as balanced as dinner at John Goodman's house.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090723195241/familyguy/images/1/1e/John_Goodman.jpg

I'll give you a hint. John Goodman does not represent mass transit funding.

People in this city will use the transportation options they have available. Right now the design of our city supports one option: the car. That's it. So when someone has to go somewhere, they take a car. We shouldn't pretend that people are clamoring for more highways when we haven't given them any other options.

This.

Also, to go along with induced demand is latent demand. Those are trips we decide to delay until traffic is better - this practice prolongs rush hour. I don't know the word for it but there is also demand that tries to preempt the traffic - like leaving work early to avoid traffic or a football game 5 minutes before it is over (let's leave early to avoid traffic).

I want to give (them) better transport options while making driving easier and better flowing traffic. That's why I wanted a rail system and building sidewalks and bike lanes along nearly every street.

The problem is that what is good for walking is bad for cars, and what is good for cars is bad for walking so you can't have both in the same place - which I think your whole point is that there should be auto-centric areas and walkable areas - and the two shall not mingle. Is that correct?

The problem is that what is good for walking is bad for cars, and what is good for cars is bad for walking so you can't have both in the same place - which I think your whole point is that there should be auto-centric areas and walkable areas - and the two shall not mingle. Is that correct?Yeeeeaaaaah, pretty much but it isn't that they shouldn't mingle entirely, more so transition if that makes sense. Also, having a network in between the two to get there with mass transit, private cars, and walking/or biking.

There was a time when we did have light rail to Guthrie, El Reno, and Norman. We also had a functioning streetcar system, which I rode to highschool every day for three months in 1946. It wasn't governmental action that did away with all of them. It was pure economics -- the general public did not make use of them enough, and the operators finally got tired of the red ink. The interurban lines vanished first. Then, one by one, the streetcar routes were replaced by buses -- whose routes could be changed easily to meet changing demands. Finally in 1947 the last streetcar trundled into the barn and into history.

For a time, buses remained a popular form of mass transit -- but the public eventually abandoned their use in favor of the automobile (when gasoline was less than 25 dents a gallon), and the result is the sorry excuse for a transit system that we have today.

Our city and state government is no more, or less, incompetent today than it has been for the past 60 years. It was Will Rogers (1979-1935) who observed that we should be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. The more things change, the more they stay the same!

I'm glad to see the relative newcomers and younger folk taking such an interest, but they need to study our history a bit more to see how current actions simply reflect the fact that we don't study history and thus are doomed to repeat it...

You are sort of right Jim but the former streetcar system didn't fail because it had a lack of ridership. It failed for 4 reasons.

1) The federal government subsides urban sprawl at a density to low for mass transit
2) Roads were made for cars and people were not charged to drive on them
3) Rail systems had to pay a franchise fee to the City but were forced to keep fares too low to pay for the service
4) GM bought the struggling systems and closed them so they could sell buses.

Imagine this scenario and tell me how long cars would survive

1) Minimum housing density is 20 units per acre
2) Mass transit received all funding currently going to highway maintenance and construction
3) Roads had to be built by the auto manufactures but they couldn't raise car prices to pay for it.
4) Schwinn and Huffy bought Ford, GM, Chrysler, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Nissan, and Volkswagen - and shut them down.

Heck, the auto industry has every advantage afforded them and they still had to be bailed out by the federal government.

You are sort of right Jim but the former streetcar system didn't fail because it had a lack of ridership. It failed for 4 reasons.

1) The federal government subsides urban sprawl at a density to low for mass transit
2) Roads were made for cars and people were not charged to drive on them
3) Rail systems had to pay a franchise fee to the City but were forced to keep fares too low to pay for the service
4) GM bought the struggling systems and closed them so they could sell buses.The subsidy for sprawl didn't happen until after the interurbans were abandoned. The massive road-building program didn't get started until 1950 or so, three years after Oklahoma Railway Company stopped using rails altogether. I don't have details to counter your third and fourth points, but I do know that utilization of the streetcars was extremely low. I hardly ever saw one more than 1/3 full, even during rush-hour times. And selling buses didn't help the transit systems' bottom line -- they were still running mostly empty most of the time, which resulted in longer waits between buses.

The big impetus for our urban sprawl was simply a ridiculous contest between OKC and Houston in the mid-5os to see which could hold the title of "Largest US city" in terms of acreage. That's when we annexed a narrow strip of land alongside SH3 almost all the way to Okarche, and expanded into Pott County. It was promoted by the Chambers of Commerce and leading newspapers in both cities. Most of the annexed area remained undeveloped for years; quite a bit is still farmland to this day!

The closest bus stop to my house is some 2.5 miles away. The bus runs so infrequently that I hardly ever see it (and actually I'm not certain that stop is still on the route). Except for a 7-11 a quarter-mile away, the nearest grocery store is a mile and a quarter. And there's not a single sidewalk in the addition (although a new mile of sidewalk, with ADA access ramps and walk-don't-walk signals, was added last year between that grocery and the 7-11, although it's almost all undeveloped open fields there). And Council Road is being 4-laned from the 7-11 north to Memorial...

Ah, priorities...

There was a time when we did have light rail to Guthrie, El Reno, and Norman. We also had a functioning streetcar system, which I rode to highschool every day for three months in 1946. It wasn't governmental action that did away with all of them. It was pure economics -- the general public did not make use of them enough, and the operators finally got tired of the red ink. The interurban lines vanished first. Then, one by one, the streetcar routes were replaced by buses -- whose routes could be changed easily to meet changing demands. Finally in 1947 the last streetcar trundled into the barn and into history.

For a time, buses remained a popular form of mass transit -- but the public eventually abandoned their use in favor of the automobile (when gasoline was less than 25 dents a gallon), and the result is the sorry excuse for a transit system that we have today.

Our city and state government is no more, or less, incompetent today than it has been for the past 60 years. It was Will Rogers (1979-1935) who observed that we should be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. The more things change, the more they stay the same!

I'm glad to see the relative newcomers and younger folk taking such an interest, but they need to study our history a bit more to see how current actions simply reflect the fact that we don't study history and thus are doomed to repeat it...Wow, that's really interesting!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never knew about the light rail. I did know about the old street car in Downtown OKC, but didn't know it ran all the way to Guthrie. That's cool! Hopefully we will learn this time then.

From 1932 to 1945 practically nothing was built in America. First we had the Great Depression and then we had WWII. If streetcar ridership suffered during that time it was because A) no one had jobs to go to, and B) Half the male population went to the Pacific and Europe.

My mom lived Dustin back then and she remembers taking the interurban to Tulsa. I'm not sure if she could get on it in Dustin or if she had to go up to Henrietta first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_Tulsa,_Oklahoma


The Tulsa street car system had been bought by National City Lines and shut down in favor of buses in February 1926

National City Lines was a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors.

From 1932 to 1945 practically nothing was built in America. First we had the Great Depression and then we had WWII. If streetcar ridership suffered during that time it was because A) no one had jobs to go to, and B) Half the male population went to the Pacific and Europe.

My mom lived Dustin back then and she remembers taking the interurban to Tulsa. I'm not sure if she could get on it in Dustin or if she had to go up to Henrietta first.

Transportation in Tulsa, Oklahoma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_Tulsa,_Oklahoma)



National City Lines was a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors.

in the 30's very few were in the pacific or in Europe ... and even at the height of the depression the unemployment rate was 24.9 % plenty of people had jobs to go to

Wow, that's really interesting!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never knew about the light rail. I did know about the old street car in Downtown OKC, but didn't know it ran all the way to Guthrie. That's cool! Hopefully we will learn this time then.


I don’t know who the operator was but I’m pretty sure it was one of the rail roads…. but until sometime in the mid-60’s you could take special game day trains to OU football games. They apparently came from various parts of the state including Wichita KS. It would be nice to have OKC commuter rail for this again.

If there is anyone who remembers this in any detail it would be nice hear your thoughts memories on the trains that took fans to OU games.

For the love of Pete. Move over Catch22, I am going to join you on the bench.

For the love of Pete. Move over Catch22, I am going to join you on the bench.

The Gatorade is cold.

Also, I wish we would go with Texas and charge the license plate instead of having toll tags. Also, the Texas tolls look better ;)

Texas still has toll tags. I'm assuming you're referring to the no toll booths. Texans get TollTags and put them on their windshields just like we do with PikePass (since TollTags from the NTTA allow for way cheaper tolls for the driver compared to the license plate billing). I agree that most Texas tollways are stunning compared to ours, but when one has such a larger population, you would hope so.

Several years ago a very seasoned engineer who worked to the Texas department of transportation told me that for a very long time Texas has built their highways to much higher standards than Oklahoma and many other states from the very start.

Having traveled around much of Texas I would say that they have invested far more money in their streets and highways..
That investment is one reason why the Texas economy has been one of the best in the nation for many years.

Several years ago a very seasoned engineer who worked to the Texas department of transportation told me that for a very long time Texas has built their highways to much higher standards than Oklahoma and many other states from the very start.

Having traveled around much of Texas I would say that they have invested far more money in their streets and highways..
That investment is one reason why the Texas economy has been one of the best in the nation for many years.

I completely agree with this. I know most Okies when they're in the DFW area look in awe at their interchanges (particularly 75/635). And as many have said, Oklahoma's poor interchanges definitely contribute a significant amount to highway traffic, along with way too many wrecks (e.g. I-35/I-240). With Texas, I've always wondered if they're still taxing way too low like Oklahoma, but are fine because they have that many more people bringing in revenue? When the double-decker portion of I-635 gets done, that is truly going to show how far beyond they are compared to us.

I completely agree with this. I know most Okies when they're in the DFW area look in awe at their interchanges (particularly 75/635). And as many have said, Oklahoma's poor interchanges definitely contribute a significant amount to highway traffic, along with way too many wrecks (e.g. I-35/I-240). With Texas, I've always wondered if they're still taxing way too low like Oklahoma, but are fine because they have that many more people bringing in revenue? When the double-decker portion of I-635 gets done, that is truly going to show how far beyond they are compared to us.

It not just the big city highways in Texas…
I have driven many very rural west Texas/ panhandle 2 lane state highways that put many if not most of ours in Oklahoma to shame.

It not just the big city highways in Texas…
I have driven many very rural west Texas/ panhandle 2 lane state highways that put many if not most of ours in Oklahoma to shame.

We've had a lot of people here say that once you exit from the federal interstates, the whole world changes in TX though. That the state highways are pretty sad, and comparatively worse than OK's. Now i dont' know if that's true because i really dont ever go off the interstate on my way through TX. But i guess there must be enough examples of both to form those opinions.

Now i will say, even in DFW, there is some truth to that. If you travel any of the state connectors (non-toll) between Dallas and FW, you'll notice a definite difference in quality, wich you would expect given the funding and vehicle. count. However, the last few times i was in the area, i noticed most of those roads were well into, or just starting MAJOR rebuilds, as in rip and replace.

The only think i'll say is that I 100% bet you that TXDOT isn't opperating under the same budget from the 80's like ODOT is. That makes a MAJOR diffrence in what you're able to do. Although that lack of funding has forced ODOT to be come more creative in obtaining alternate funding for projects.

Guys,

I hate to break it to you but Texas is the size and population of many very developed nations. They're just going to have better infrastructure. They've got about the same tax burden as we do (slightly higher in fact) but they have far, far more people (and consequently, corporations).

I'd like nice things too but something are just silly to wish for. We just can't afford them.


The biggest advantage Texas has is the hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue they have received from their oil and natural gas production both on land and off shore over the years. What Texas has received from this over the years dwarfs what we receive in Oklahoma. New Texas Oil & NG production is providing that state with many new billions per year, again dwarfing Oklahoma’s production increases.
Texas is currently flush with petro dollars and it continues to grow.

We've had a lot of people here say that once you exit from the federal interstates, the whole world changes in TX though. That the state highways are pretty sad, and comparatively worse than OK's. Now i dont' know if that's true because i really dont ever go off the interstate on my way through TX. But i guess there must be enough examples of both to form those opinions.

Now i will say, even in DFW, there is some truth to that. If you travel any of the state connectors (non-toll) between Dallas and FW, you'll notice a definite difference in quality, wich you would expect given the funding and vehicle. count. However, the last few times i was in the area, i noticed most of those roads were well into, or just starting MAJOR rebuilds, as in rip and replace.

The only think i'll say is that I 100% bet you that TXDOT isn't opperating under the same budget from the 80's like ODOT is. That makes a MAJOR diffrence in what you're able to do. Although that lack of funding has forced ODOT to be come more creative in obtaining alternate funding for projects.Some of the farm to market roads in Texas is not in the best of shape but I have driven tens of thousands of miles on 2 lane Texas state highways and have never seen their state highways as bad as some I have seen in Oklahoma.
I have lived and worked in the Oklahoma panhandle and in western parts of Ok where they seem to be at the end of the line when it comes to highway money. Those state highways seem like they are always the worst in Oklahoma.
The budget makes a huge difference.
Texas has always had a lot more money to work with and it shows.

The simple reality is that Oklahoma laid too much pavement. They couldn't afford to build it and they can't afford maintain it - but by gum, every town in Oklahoma with more than 10,000 people should be connected by a four lane road to the interstate system (which btw - we can't afford to maintain either). That is why I am continually shocked that people think the answer is more roads when there are other historically proven ways that are more efficient at moving people. Sooner or later we really do need to stop wasting taxpayer money because we are rapidly running out of it - and then what do we do?

^ Wish the 'Like' button was working.

The simple reality is that Oklahoma laid too much pavement. They couldn't afford to build it and they can't afford maintain it - but by gum, every town in Oklahoma with more than 10,000 people should be connected by a four lane road to the interstate system (which btw - we can't afford to maintain either). That is why I am continually shocked that people think the answer is more roads when there are other historically proven ways that are more efficient at moving people. Sooner or later we really do need to stop wasting taxpayer money because we are rapidly running out of it - and then what do we do?


lots in this post simply is not true

It's all true. See, two can play that game.

Guys,

I hate to break it to you but Texas is the size and population of many very developed nations. They're just going to have better infrastructure. They've got about the same tax burden as we do (slightly higher in fact) but they have far, far more people (and consequently, corporations).

I'd like nice things too but something are just silly to wish for. We just can't afford them.

Sid, I really respect your opinions 99% of the time, but what you posted here strikes me as pure malarkey.

Oklahoma absolutely could afford better roads if ODOT had more common sense and designed things correctly. Unfortunately, this is coupled with our moronic state leadership that decides in their infinite wisdowm that bonds won't be sold for transportation projects, so in lieu of funding a needed project in an efficient manner that allows for a faster and safer completion, Oklahoma citizens can continue driving through deadly interchanges, under crumbling bridges, and through fatal construction zones. ODOT is an abomination and I have every confidence that they would still screw projects up even with all the funding in the world. They don't have good leadership, their designs are poor, and their work is shoddy. Inefficiencies, inconsistency, delays, and a variety of other problems plague any project ODOT is involved with. There's no accountability for anything, so we get left to wonder why ODOT makes the asinine decisions they do. As a simple example, have you noticed the ridiculous amount of road signs in this state? What about the wild inconsistencies between them in color, size, font, placement? What about in how they're mounted; the gaps between the panels? The steel frames protruding out, the different supports? What about the lights that never function on a lot of the highways or the ones that don't get repaired for 6 months at a time? We get stuck with an I-40 that is 6 lanes from Yukon to El Reno, but not from the western edge of OKC all the way through Yukon. We get stuck with an I-40 downtown that is 12 lanes wide at some points but already bumpy and cracking and it's fed on either end by bridges that are crumbling or a two lane interchange. What about the new on and off ramps on the new I-40 that make zero sense? We're going to be stuck with an "iconic" boulevard that we don't need that just inhibits our other stated goal of gentrifying areas that the original I-40 isolated. Why can't ODOT close some of the lesser used roads they're responsible for in places where the populations are drying up? What about Oklahoma being stuck with interchanges like the one between I-35 and I-240 that will wait years for repair, and we all know that the final results won't be a pleasing finished project (i.e. still have cloverleafs, merge lanes that are too short, etc.)? There is so much wrong with ODOT and we end up paying out the ass for things that shouldn't be there in the first place because of the idiocy that permeates ODOT.

If Oklahoma had better interchanges and intersections, that would help alleviate a lot, if not most, of what screws up the system currently. Obviously some highway expansion is necessary as the population grows, but what we do now is lunacy. There is not a reason one why Oklahoma should have a 10 lane highway that feeds into a 2 lane interchange! Why should the highways in most areas be anything wider than 3 lanes? If the new I-40 was 3 lanes in each direction, but had a 4th parallel lane purely for on and off ramps, why would that not be sufficient? There doesn't need to be on and off ramps for every street throughout the city, merely at main points, because we are talking about interstates with the sole purpose of moving people quickly. If the intersections were better coordinated to help prevent backups at lights that trickle onto the highway, that would make a tremendous difference. ODOT needs to plan better, design better, coordinate better. Those 3 things alone would change things dramatically, but coupled with a new funding process or increased funding from our legislature (which is a pipe dream, I know), that would make all the difference in the world. It's complete bull**** that we're stuck with the system we have. It's purely the result of excess stupidity and minimal common sense.

:congrats: Nothing to add OnlyOne.

we have 10% +/- of their budget with 14.7 +/- of their population but we have 26% +/- of their land size for our roads to spread out upon

we have 10% +/- of their budget with 14.7 +/- of their population but we have 26% +/- of their land size for our roads to spread out upon

that is why too much math for me...

that is why too much math for me...


it just shows what was said earlier .. they have more money (per person) and they serve a smaller area (relative to population)

And they are way more willing to leverage huge amounts of debt.


And that much of that Texas debt will be paid off with vastly devalued currency.
You need to be responsible but there is such thing as good debt.


Done right debt that grows our economy and makes us more competitive in the world is like an investment.
When you look at the Texas highways and university’s you soon see this is something that Texas has done in spades over Oklahoma and for a very long time. These investments are in part why their economy has done so well.

So Oklahoma just more density. That is what I have been saying all along. We can do that by getting more people or serving a smaller area.

OU48A - explain to me the logic of borrowing money in 2013 to build a road in 2023 and repaid with taxes in 2023. Why not just wait until 2023 to get the taxes and then build the road in 2024 debt free (which also means interest free)?

we have 10% +/- of their budget with 14.7 +/- of their population but we have 26% +/- of their land size for our roads to spread out upon

That basically says we have too much road for the number of people and area in Oklahoma.

Another good piece of information to consider is number of lane miles in each state. (I think this is a good comparison because the weather in TX and OK is similar and the type of traffic is similar as well so maintenance should be comparable.)

According to the Federal Highway Administration, Oklahoma has 235,004 total lane miles of road and Texas has 654,923 lane miles. Okahoma has 33% of the road to maintain with 10% of the budget in this comparison. Is it any wonder why there is such a disparity in road "quality"?

Then consider lane miles per capita: OK - population 3,751,351 with 235,004 lane miles; TX - population 25,145,561 with 654,923 lane miles (2010 Census data). Texas has nearly seven times the population with less than 3 times the road to maintain. That is a very strong case supporting JTF's position that Oklahoma is grossly overbuilt with pavement. Then add in the poor design and maintenance OnlyOne spoke of and it should be clear why Oklahoma roads are in such a sorry state. There are 16 people per lane mile in OK, and 38 people per lane mile in TX therefore maintenance funding will be lacking in Oklahoma. Even with this indication of lower traffic per lane mile, our roads suffer due to lack of proper maintenance and poor design.

Then consider the difference in rural and urban roads in each state. In TX, 440,730 lane miles are rural and 214,193 are urban. OK however has 198,904 rural lanes miles and only 36,100 urban lane miles. Once again it appears JTF's point about 4 lane highways connecting every small town is valid - 85% of the lane miles in Oklahoma are rural. We definitely need to reconsider what size road is built in specific parts of the state. It would be fiscally responsible to reduce the number of rural lane miles replace them with well built, two lane Farm to Market roads. We should think about grinding up the pavement on hundreds of section line roads and leave them unpaved. This is the only way we will ever be able to properly maintain a reasonable road network in this state.

Table HM-60 - Highway Statistics 2008 - FHWA (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/hm60.cfm)

Why on earth does anyone think we should build more when we cannot maintain the roads we have now?

Why on earth does anyone think we should build more when we cannot maintain the roads we have now?

i wonder if that counts all of the roads including dirt or not?

Well, not much you said I disagree with. Maybe I wasn't being clear. I'm not saying we can't do better. Not suggesting that at all. In many of the other 99% of my posts that you agree with, I've said as much.

What I said, and stand by, is that you just can't compare two things that are not the same.

You went on and on about specific failures and any Texan can too.

Look, I agree, we can do better. Better leadership, blah blah blah, but at the end of the day, they got more money.

Our budget: $1.7B
Texas budget: $17.08B

That's 10x as much money.

They don't have 10 times the population. They do however have, as ou84 already mentioned, huge revenues from a couple big industries. Something we can't hold a flame to yet.

Now, better leadership could balance that couldn't it? Sure.

You'll never hear me say we shouldn't try harder. But making certain comparisons demands a slice of responsibility. You can't just willy-nilly say because Texas has streets of gold, there's no reason we can't either.

As a matter of fact, there is a lot of that TxDOT does I hope we never touch with a 10 foot pole.


I hope everyone on this forum reads this:
http://www.samcoinc.org/Pie%20Chart%20-%20%20TxDOT%20Biennial%20Budget%202010-2011.pdf

Take a look at how much construction is actually paid for with cash. Take a look at how much money is just on maintenance. Then take a look at how much of their budget is just paying back loans.

Yeah, they've got nice highways but in 20 years, if that debt isn't paid off and the potholes start showing, they'd better hope they've had the growth in the mean-time to generate significant revenue sufficient to repair and maintain all those new roads.

I'm not a fan of build it, then they will come with billions and billions of dollars for highway projects. It utterly demands growth, and lots of it, to pay for itself later when the maintenance budget comes due.

So, I think we agree, we can do better. But if you keep telling me we can have exactly what Texas has without raising taxes by a gazillion, I"m going to reply right back and tell you you're living in a dream world. Those construction companies aren't going to simply work for better leadership. They'll want their billions.

Sid, when I went back and reread my post, it sounded a bit like I was going off on you. That wasn't my intent and I apologize if that's the impression you got. I started typing and it just snowballed.

I think we are basically in agreement. I don't think that we can have what Texas without raising taxes or tolling more roads; Texas does a far superior job with their designs for quality interchanges, consistency in design, and quality of workmanship (I understand our weather and soil have a huge impact on this, but we can do better). And Oklahoma can and should emulate Texas in those ways. BoulderSooner pointed out that Oklahoma has 10% of Texas' road budget and 14.7% of Texas' population, but CaptDave shared that we have 33% of Texas' lane miles! This is part of the disconnect I see from ODOT and state leadership on this issue. Oklahoma doesn't need that many roads that have to be kept up by the state. Oklahoma has too many roads. But my point was that by focusing on what's truly needed and cutting out the excess and waste, we can do a much better job on interchanges, intersections, highways, even though we don't have a Texas size budget with which to work. I don't know that Oklahoma should just go selling bonds every time there's a road project, but don't you think bond issue(s) for the I40-I44 interchange, the I240-I35 interchange, and the I235-I44 interchange would do wonders in relieving a lot of traffic problems/death traps here in the city and might be the way to go? ou48A made the point about Texas investment in itself, and that is definitely an area where they've trumped Oklahoma and that investment is one of the reasons Texas continues to grow at a breakneck pace (while we can't even repair a capitol building that's falling apart or complete a center that citizens have agreed to match $40 million for!). As JTF argues near constantly, we need to do a much better job of offering better service to a reduced area and maximizing the return on our investments. CaptDave's most recent post supporting JTF's points says it the best. We can't even keep up with what we have and Oklahoma is already overbuilt. Small towns that are dying are being connected by brand new highways all over the place. It's nauseating. And this supports my point about leadership. This habit of building roads wherever there's 20+ people needs to stop immediately. We can't keep supporting rural areas that offer little to nothing in return and think we'll somehow cover everything else we need.