Nice ou48 :)

Maybe we should toll the bike lanes? Let bikers pay for their own road instead of making car drivers do it? I see it now, BikePass.....please attach your sticker to your helmet so it can be read as you drive through the lane....oh wait, you drove around it on the grass......where's a bicycle cop when you need one?

Nice ou48 :)

Maybe we should toll the bike lanes? Let bikers pay for their own road instead of making car drivers do it? I see it now, BikePass.....please attach your sticker to your helmet so it can be read as you drive through the lane....oh wait, you drove around it on the grass......where's a bicycle cop when you need one?LOL:Smiley051

same thing with 100 billion hsr in California

Same with every form of transportation anywhere. :-P

So few people ride bikes that if they had to pay for the full cost of bike lanes very few bike riders could afford its real cost…. This works both ways.

Please explain to me what the full cost of riding my bike entails? I don't need a paved trail capable of supporting 100,000 lbs. In fact, I can make my own trail on a bike for free.

Why should my party affiliation have anything to do with this? That's been my political stance all along. I don't give a rats butt what party you're with. The issue at hand is what influences my vote. I vote for candidates that think they way I do, regardless of their party. So I don't really see what bearing your comment about D or R has to do with my discussion of bike lanes....

It doesn't, but see sprdthewrds' post above.

Please explain to me what the full cost of riding my bike entails? I don't need a paved trail capable of supporting 100,000 lbs. In fact, I can make my own trail on a bike for free.Where can you do that? Out in the middle of nowhere maybe. Ever tried riding a bike in the sand? Swamp? I've been mountain biking before, but even that usually has pre-deisgnated trails that hundreds if not thousands of people ride on a year. Technically you don't need roads to drive cars either in that logic, there are off road cars and trucks that can go right through brush, swamps, deep mud, beaches/sand, and other places bicycles fail to go so they are inferior.

I do believe though, the comment was made to say your cost is the exact same cost as what it cost for roads to be built, seeing as bicycles can be ridden on roads as well. They also have huge trails system specifically for bikes and so on.

Don't get me wrong here, I'd looooooove to see a trail like the Minneapolis Greenway here in OKC.

I do believe though, the comment was made to say your cost is the exact same cost as what it cost for roads to be built, seeing as bicycles can be ridden on roads as well. They also have huge trails system specifically for bikes and so on.

The cost ISN'T the exact same as what it cost to build a road though. In fact, it is orders of magnitude less expensive to build a bike path than it is a single lane street covering the same distance. However, the cost of the pavement is only a small part of the cost of driving. Before you can drive the car it has to be built, and we saw how many billions the auto bailout cost us. Then you have to burn some kind of fuel and we see that we spend trillions on the military to ensure the free flow of oil at below market prices. Then on top of that we give billions in tax credits to oil companies. Then when those cars are in accidents we spend trillions more on healthcare for the victims. Then we have the environmental cost which we are just now beginning to come to grips with. And hell, for all we know quenching our thirst for oil is now causing earthquakes. When bicycles "cost" that much let me know.

The part that makes me so frustrated is how the "small government" crowd turns around and supports the very reason for such an invasive and expensive government. Go freaking figure. If people really were for small government, they would follow my lead and actually try to build and live in a society that doesn't require all powerful. expensive, and intrusive government.

You can't compare bicycle infrastructure costs to auto infrastructure costs. You compare lifestyles to lifestyles. The biking subculture is much more health friendly, which reduces community healthcare costs. A recent academic journal article suggests (http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/transport-theory/portlands-bike-lanes-will-cut-the-citys-health-costs/) that Portland will save nearly $600 million in healthcare due to its $57 million investment in bicycle infrastructure.

So few people ride bikes that if they had to pay for the full cost of bike lanes very few bike riders could afford its real cost…. This works both ways.

The fallacy in this argument is that the majority of bike riders over 18 also drive cars and pay the taxes that are used for road maintenance.

The cost ISN'T the exact same as what it cost to build a road though. In fact, it is orders of magnitude less expensive to build a bike path than it is a single lane street covering the same distance. However, the cost of the pavement is only a small part of the cost of driving. Before you can drive the car it has to be built, and we saw how many billions the auto bailout cost us. Then you have to burn some kind of fuel and we see that we spend trillions on the military to ensure the free flow of oil at below market prices. Then on top of that we give billions in tax credits to oil companies. Then when those cars are in accidents we spend trillions more on healthcare for the victims. Then we have the environmental cost which we are just now beginning to come to grips with. And hell, for all we know quenching our thirst for oil is now causing earthquakes. When bicycles "cost" that much let me know.

The part that makes me so frustrated is how the "small government" crowd turns around and supports the very reason for such an invasive and expensive government. Go freaking figure. If people really were for small government, they would follow my lead and actually try to build and live in a society that doesn't require all powerful. expensive, and intrusive government.


Very wrong. I posted a refutation of that view earlier in this thread. The cost of a bike lane is NOT cheaper than a road for the reasons I list. If it's at street level and not separated by a barrier (which I most cases it is not), it must be built to road standards because a car would make use of it. Think of a fully loaded box truck driving down the road. They are moving around another car or something in the road. They end up in the bike like (hopefully with no one in it). That road has to be built to support that truck or its going to break the pavement and cause far more issues. I don't want to repeat the entire post, so you can scroll up to read it (since it doesn't look like you did before).

The fallacy in this argument is that the majority of bike riders over 18 also drive cars and pay the taxes that are used for road maintenance.There is no fallacy here at all….and to say so is really idiotic.

The amount of goods, services and people that is transported on paved roads is much higher than on bike lanes which are used by only a tiny but vocal fraction of the population. Bike lanes provide almost no economic benefit to society.

Subsidizing health clubs such as the Y would be cheaper and a smart expenditure of our limited resources.
Because it would benefit far more people the money for bike lanes would be better spent on mass transportation IMHO.

A lot of bike riders are killed or injured at disparately higher rates, so there goes your health care benefits.
Bikes also slow down the transportation of many people goods and services…. This is causing an additional cost to society.

Bombermwc - if a bike lane is capable of supporting the weight of a box truck then it is way over engineered. You need to take that issue to the Public Works department. However, you can't blame that on the bikers - that is 100% the result of box truck driver and automobile issues. The ONLY cost attributed to a bike lane as a result of the biker is the cost of the paint.

The ONLY cost attributed to a bike lane as a result of the biker is the cost of the paint.
That’s^ fantasy land stuff again!

ou48A - how much do you think 1 mile of bike lane built to bicycle specifications cost?

A lot of bike riders are killed or injured at disparately higher rates, so there goes your health care benefits.
Bikes also slow down the transportation of many people goods and services…. This is causing an additional cost to society.

The leading cause of death in the US for young people is car accidents. The leading cause for old people is heart disease. Both of these factors are addressed by cycling and building the cycling infrastructure. Health care costs are now 18% of US GDP. This is addressed by bicycling as well.

ou48A - now you are just making crap up hoping it will stick. You are talking to people who know what we are talking about. This isn't amateur hour.

ou48A - how much do you think 1 mile of bike lane built to bicycle specifications cost?

I don’t know, but it’s real cost is a lot more than paint as you absurdly suggested.

And it’s also a lot more than just the cost of installation.
Let them all pay their own way and I guarantee that paved streets / roads will be around a lot longer than any bike lanes in our area.

The leading cause of death in the US for young people is car accidents. The leading cause for old people is heart disease. Both of these factors are addressed by cycling and building the cycling infrastructure. Health care costs are now 18% of US GDP. This is addressed by bicycling as well.
Bike lanes will not help the heath care for the vast majority of our population. Because such a small part of the population would ever use a bike lane with regularity it a very expensive way to address heath care. A membership to the Y would very likely be cheaper in many cases.
I would guess that the death rate per mile driven is much higher for a bike driver than a car/ vehicle occupant

Well ou48A, here is something I have the satisfaction of knowing and that you will just have to live with because there isn't squat you can do about it - your way of life is going away because it bankrupted the country.

http://www.npr.org/2014/05/15/312674249/700-000-jobs-are-at-stake-if-the-highway-trust-fund-goes-broke


The federal gas tax that's supposed to pay for the nation's highways doesn't bring in enough money. But Congress hasn't raised the tax in more than 20 years and isn't likely to do so now.

...

Transportation advocates are calling this Infrastructure Week. To mark that week, President Obama spoke yesterday on the banks of the Hudson River just north of New York City. Construction is underway there on $3.9 billion replacement for the old Tappan Zee Bridge. Engineers say one out of nine bridges in this country needs repair.

Road builders, who lobby for highway funding, contend that hundreds of thousands of miles of roads also need fixing. And while some may debate the numbers, there is no dispute that the federal highway trust fund, which pays for Washington's share of road and bridge repairs, is about to run dry. NPR's Brian Naylor reports on how that happened.

BRIAN NAYLOR, BYLINE: It was with a vision of a wheeled utopia that Congress approved the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.

ou48A - now you are just making crap up hoping it will stick. You are talking to people who know what we are talking about. This isn't amateur hour.
Well ou48A, here is something I have the satisfaction of knowing and that you will just have to live with because there isn't squat you can do about it - your way of life is going away because it bankrupted the country.
Amateurs spend money in poor cost effective ways that don’t benefit the most people possible.
Bike lanes and trains that very few people would ever use, yet you always advocate for, is the stuff of the real amateurs.

I'm also curious how much freight and commerce is moved via bike lanes. My guess is slim to none in most cities.

I'm also curious how much freight and commerce is moved via bike lanes. My guess is slim to none in most cities.

This discussion is just getting absolutely stupid at this point. Granted in bigger cities couriers via bike lanes are a big deal, here probably not to much yet.

The conversation is jumping the shark. The fact of the matter in all of this is that gas tax income does not cover the cost of the infrastructure it is suppose to support. Forget bike lanes and everything else.

There isn't much freight and commerce moved via sidewalks, but people still say they are needed? Enough with the asinine comments that a whiny child will make when they have nothing of substance to contribute.

Plu...don't let yourself be sucked into the world of stupidity and misdirection that OU48 is based. You are smarter than that.

Okay, so lets assume the entire known world of commerce would cease to exist, millions and millions of people would lose jobs over night, people would starve to death waiting for food to arrive, and all known laws of physics would be suspended if we shifted transportation dollars from roads to mass transit and bikes - what are we going to do about the funding shortage in road building? Are we going to sit around and do nothing?

For the record, I am putting my money on "sit around and do nothing".

I'm also curious how much freight and commerce is moved via bike lanes. My guess is slim to none in most cities.
The issue is more about wasteful spending IMHO on things that very few people use when there are or far more pressing needs…. Plutonic Panda don't let Venture's aversion to fiscal responsibility and his juvenile personal insults derail your already good common sense.

In Norman there are miles of crumbled sidewalks that lots of people actually use, particularly in older areas near campus that would benefit far more people if the city would shift funding from its bike program no matter how small it is to help rebuild sidewalks…..
By comparison very few people board the train or ride bikes in Norman.

Its seems like walkability needs good sidewalks….
The worst sidewalks I have ever seen are in Norman OK.

So back to the subject, ou48A, how would you save the transportation trust fund from going broke?

The issue is more about wasteful spending IMHO on things that very few people use when there are or far more pressing needs…. Plutonic Panda don't let Venture's aversion to fiscal responsibility and his juvenile personal insults derail your already good common sense.

In Norman there are miles of crumbled sidewalks that lots of people actually use, particularly in older areas near campus that would benefit far more people if the city would shift funding from its bike program no matter how small it is to help rebuild sidewalks…..
By comparison very few people board the train or ride bikes in Norman.

Its seems like walkability needs good sidewalks….
The worst sidewalks I have ever seen are in Norman OK.

Aversion to fiscal responsibility? Majority of my posts highlight otherwise, so I'm not sure where you are pulling that from. Though the content of many of your posts don't really have much to back them regardless. Also don't flatter PluPan to try to continue to manipulate his way of thinking - it really is pathetic.

Bike lanes are never meant to for use in the transportation of goods. They are meant to increase the overall quality of life which is near and dear to many higher end projects you claim to want Norman to attract. If they held no value in the grand scheme, no one would do them. They also provide a good safety zone for bikes which I'm sure you would be for.

Perhaps Norman and other areas should invest in developing a system where you have the street, a small grassy divider, a bike lane, a small curbed divider, and the sidewalk. This eliminates the need to build bike lanes up to specs of the main road and you get the safety of new side walks and bike lanes.

With that though, I yield back to Kerry who deserves your answer on how to fix the transportation fund.

I would guess that the death rate per mile driven is much higher for a bike driver than a car/ vehicle occupant

Has it really not occurred to you that this could be because there aren't bike lanes and other safe places to bike? Shouting about the death rate on bicycles only argues further for bike-specific paths, you know...

The issue is more about wasteful spending IMHO on things that very few people use when there are or far more pressing needs…. Plutonic Panda don't let Venture's aversion to fiscal responsibility and his juvenile personal insults derail your already good common sense.

In Norman there are miles of crumbled sidewalks that lots of people actually use, particularly in older areas near campus that would benefit far more people if the city would shift funding from its bike program no matter how small it is to help rebuild sidewalks…..
By comparison very few people board the train or ride bikes in Norman.

Its seems like walkability needs good sidewalks….
The worst sidewalks I have ever seen are in Norman OK.

Plenty of people bike in Norman. There are areas north of campus and surrounding areas that leave a lot to be desired, but of course bikers could use better sidewalks, too, so I agree with you there. (Worst sidewalks, though? A bit hyperbolic IMO... most of the town has fine sidewalks). Not to mention that "very few biking" (not true) would probably increase if there were a safe way to do it...

Plenty of people bike in Norman. There are areas north of campus and surrounding areas that leave a lot to be desired, but of course bikers could use better sidewalks, too, so I agree with you there. (Worst sidewalks, though? A bit hyperbolic IMO... most of the town has fine sidewalks). Not to mention that "very few biking" (not true) would probably increase if there were a safe way to do it...

Norman likely has the most bikers per capita in Oklahoma. There are bikes everywhere around campus and central Norman. Though I agree there are many sidewalks that are heavily used that need repair, many from the WPA Era. The bike infrastructure could be much improved as well especially considering the amount of people biking. It's something Norman needs to fund through a MAPS-like tax increase as well as other transportation improvements.

I tossed together a new thread to discuss these Norman focused ideas to let this thread get back on track. :)

http://www.okctalk.com/norman/38093-maps-norman-ideas.html#post797026

So back to the subject, ou48A, how would you save the transportation trust fund from going broke?

???

I'll even make it fun for you and let you give me 2 answers.

1) How would you keep the trust fund from going broke later this year if you were King and could pass any plan you wanted?
2) How would you do it with a plan that has any chance in hell of passing congress?

Plenty of people bike in Norman. There are areas north of campus and surrounding areas that leave a lot to be desired, but of course bikers could use better sidewalks, too, so I agree with you there. (Worst sidewalks, though? A bit hyperbolic IMO... most of the town has fine sidewalks). Not to mention that "very few biking" (not true) would probably increase if there were a safe way to do it...

No they do not.......I will strongly disagree with you or anyone about their being plenty of people using the bike paths in Norman. That’s just not happening all year round in Norman.
My house sit directly next to designated Norman bike path. I am usually home all day. The average number of bikes per day all year long has got to be well less than 10 a day…..And that probably being very generous........ It’s nearly zero for about 1/3 of the year. About the only time there are significant numbers of bikers is when they have a bike event in late July. The bike paths are much more about making the city look good in the economic development areas and the attractiveness to new business. Other than that there is nothing cost effective about them.

Has it really not occurred to you that this could be because there aren't bike lanes and other safe places to bike? Shouting about the death rate on bicycles only argues further for bike-specific paths, you know...

Or to have cheaper and safer forms of recreation.

So back to the subject, ou48A, how would you save the transportation trust fund from going broke?

I would raise the gasoline fuel tax and phase in a mileage and weight tax…
I would also start building roads with much higher standards from the very start so they last a lot longer and are much cheaper to maintain in the long run. I would invest in new types of technology that would keep our major bridges and over passes from freezing up with ice and snow, helping to prevent corrosion caused by road salt or other chemicals. I would build more mass transit in heavily congested areas and yes even HSP in areas where it would break even.
The bottom line is that I would help the most people I could with what I had to work with and that’s not trains to nowhere and bike paths that only a very tiny fraction of the population ever uses and even fewer depend on them for transportation to work / school

So back to the subject, ou48A, how would you save the transportation trust fund from going broke?

The silence in response to your question is deafening.

The silence in response to your question is deafening.
LOL........Really,,,,,,, are you drinking or did you just miss my post #96 in this thread

LOL........Really,,,,,,, are you drinking or did you just miss my post #96 in this thread

No, I'm not drinking, I'm not doing anything but overlooking the post. I missed it. A mistake.

Your answer ignores the fact we start from where we are. We can't go back and rebuild all the roads to different specifications. Raising the tax would have people up in arms unless it's a local tax to bribe a new retail store to town. Your crowd doesn't believe in federal taxes of any kind for infrastructure - it's all for weapons, bailouts of corporate America, and pork projects for the home state.

No, I'm not drinking, I'm not doing anything but overlooking the post. I missed it. A mistake.

Your answer ignores the fact we start from where we are. We can't go back and rebuild all the roads to different specifications. Raising the tax would have people up in arms unless it's a local tax to bribe a new retail store to town. Your crowd doesn't believe in federal taxes of any kind for infrastructure - it's all for weapons, bailouts of corporate America, and pork projects for the home state.

Wrong again…..I am not in that crowd...
Whatever we do will take many decades to achieve. Odds are that it will be a blend of many things and will depend a lot on local circumstances.

For the record, I am putting my money on "sit around and do nothing".

I might as well, too, considering how state voters several years back voted not to raise the state gas tax by the huge margin of 90%. I don't think a lot of towns want to raise sales taxes any more to improve their streets, either. Taxes are high enough.

No they do not.......I will strongly disagree with you or anyone about their being plenty of people using the bike paths in Norman. That’s just not happening all year round in Norman.
My house sit directly next to designated Norman bike path. I am usually home all day. The average number of bikes per day all year long has got to be well less than 10 a day…..And that probably being very generous........ It’s nearly zero for about 1/3 of the year. About the only time there are significant numbers of bikers is when they have a bike event in late July. The bike paths are much more about making the city look good in the economic development areas and the attractiveness to new business. Other than that there is nothing cost effective about them.

You've claimed to be off Tecumseh in NW Norman over by the Healthplex in the McMansion neighborhood there. Is that not the case? And you are home all day? So that means you aren't in the more dense part of Norman where there are bikers everywhere. Perspective is everything. 24th SE is a designated bike route as well...and there are several on it every day even with the amount of traffic it carries.

I would raise the gasoline fuel tax and phase in a mileage and weight tax…


Okay, we will call that the answer to "if you were King for a day". Now what is your plan that will pass Congress?

Keep in mind - we need $3.6 trillion to fix our roads, let alone build new roads to specifications you wish for.

I think this article does a pretty good job of putting the problem in context.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbowman/2014/03/18/a-gas-tax-increase-for-transportation-improvements-is-dead-on-arrival/

Bombermwc - if a bike lane is capable of supporting the weight of a box truck then it is way over engineered. You need to take that issue to the Public Works department. However, you can't blame that on the bikers - that is 100% the result of box truck driver and automobile issues. The ONLY cost attributed to a bike lane as a result of the biker is the cost of the paint.

Well there's a great example of ignoring the facts of reality because they don't fit in with your view of what you think things should be. And apparently you didn't go back and read the reasons I list for why they aren't constructed in the manner you're saying. I'm not making it up...it's how its done, whether you like the idea or not. There are many reasons for why its done that way...and PLENTY examples of it in practice. The way you want it done is via the barrier method so the car doesn't end up on it. But (and I'm repeating the post now) the extra cost in creating the barrier washes out the cost of the extra underlying pavement for a non-barrier road so there isn't a significant cost savings from either method. The most flexible and efficient method is the painted section like OU is suggesting....but at FULL road thickness.

You can't simply rely on sidewalk thickness levels for a bike lane. Potholes and cracks form from the lack of support/root barrier/organic pop-outs/etc. Not to mention the outpushing force the road surface creates as heavy vehicles drive by. If you question that, just check out an intersection in the summer and see how many wheel divots there are...ie the asphalt is literally squeeze out from under the tires. It has to go somewhere..and its gonna take the path of least resistance.

I think what you are describing is more attributable to a trail rather than a lane. The state of Illinois follows your idea for their own trail guidelines...not lanes. [URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=Illinois Trails[/URL]

You don't have to like it, but it's reality.

I'd have no problem with (gradually) reconfiguring the entire city with bike lanes. They make great sense in an urban environment and can help encourage people to exercise.

"But people don't ride bikes here" you say.

People don't ride bikes here because everything is really spread out and there are no bike lanes. Clearly I'm not going to ride a bicycle down NW Expressway today. It's a good way to get killed. But if the area around my home had dedicated bike lanes, I'd be a lot more likely to ride for local trips. I'm certainly not going to pedal to Best Buy if I'm going to buy a new TV, but if I need to grab a few things from the grocery store, I could do that. The more urban your area is, the more sense it makes. The more bike lanes you have, the more it helps your area to become more urban. Wave a magic wand tomorrow and put them in all over the city and you aren't going to have cyclists magically appear. Cletus who weighs 300 lbs and drives an F-350 because it helps support his girthy frame, is not going to suddenly decide that a riding a bike is the best thing for him. But over the course of years more people will decide that a bike is useful for short trips, and will make more and more use of it.

It's the same thing for trains. Cletus and his brats, Cletus Jr and Cletusetta, and his dog Rabies, are not going to suddenly decide to take the train into the city when they want to go to a Thunder game. They are going to want to drive and by god if they can't park 10 feet from the arena then they're gonna bitch about how Bricktown ain't got no good parking. But what will happen is that normal people will begin using it because it is convenient (as long as it goes where people want it to go). They'll avoid traffic and parking issues. This won't result in fewer cars downtown, it will result in more people downtown, more stuff to do.

You've claimed to be off Tecumseh in NW Norman over by the Healthplex in the McMansion neighborhood there. Is that not the case? And you are home all day? So that means you aren't in the more dense part of Norman where there are bikers everywhere. Perspective is everything. 24th SE is a designated bike route as well...and there are several on it every day even with the amount of traffic it carries.



Then let’s not put money into bike paths where very few people use them…. Let’s put the money for bike paths where the most people use them….. In Norman that’s probably near campus and not out where I live…..
By my standards where I live is hardly a “McMansion neighborhood”. When it comes to housing and vehicles I have long lived well below my means as a deliberate strategy…. I highly recommend it. Along with some sound investments it’s basically why I was able to retire from corporate life at age 45…..

Well there's a great example of ignoring the facts of reality because they don't fit in with your view of what you think things should be. And apparently you didn't go back and read the reasons I list for why they aren't constructed in the manner you're saying. I'm not making it up...it's how its done, whether you like the idea or not. There are many reasons for why its done that way...and PLENTY examples of it in practice. The way you want it done is via the barrier method so the car doesn't end up on it. But (and I'm repeating the post now) the extra cost in creating the barrier washes out the cost of the extra underlying pavement for a non-barrier road so there isn't a significant cost savings from either method. The most flexible and efficient method is the painted section like OU is suggesting....but at FULL road thickness.

You can't simply rely on sidewalk thickness levels for a bike lane. Potholes and cracks form from the lack of support/root barrier/organic pop-outs/etc. Not to mention the outpushing force the road surface creates as heavy vehicles drive by. If you question that, just check out an intersection in the summer and see how many wheel divots there are...ie the asphalt is literally squeeze out from under the tires. It has to go somewhere..and its gonna take the path of least resistance.

I think what you are describing is more attributable to a trail rather than a lane. The state of Illinois follows your idea for their own trail guidelines...not lanes. [URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=Illinois Trails[/URL]

You don't have to like it, but it's reality.
LOL
Good post ……This^ man knows what he is talking about!

Fortunately we don't need to guess what would happen when a City rethinks the spending of its transportation dollars and puts humans before machinery. We have real world examples.

Part 1
S0_JCoOtaLQ

Part 2
8Nbu0fR66Cw

Part 3
1h4bdppKHSQ

Found this interesting. A poll on a Connecticut TV stations poses the question about raising the gasoline tax. Not sure why the polling company got the 'No' response wrong. Money paid into the gasoline trust fund cannot be spent on anything.



Should The Federal Tax On Gasoline Be Raised, As Senator Chris Murphy Proposes?

Yes, Provided The Funds Go To Road Maintenance. - 9%
No. Once Collected, The Money Can Be Spent On Anything - 91%

Should The Federal Tax On Gasoline Be Raised, As Senator Chris Murphy Proposes? - Results (poll 8113188) | Polldaddy.com (http://polldaddy.com/poll/8113188/?view=results)

On edit - Crap, I just read the reader comments at the bottom of the poll and now I am depressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2THe_10dYs

You may be getting the wrong impression of my view of this stuff because of my disagreement with JTF on implementation. Let me set the record straight that I'm a supporter of rail and bikes. BUT, I don't want to spend billions of dollars when it's all done just to force something in. These things only work when there is a concentration. Mix that with walkability and you really have to re-think the concept of how a city is laid out....and basically not follow the pattern used in the U.S. and look back at European towns from before there were cars.

The idea being that you divide the city up into areas...really no more than a mile.....and this is all theoretical and not practical, I understand that. Each area has what you need for your daily life. You can walk/bike to a SMALL grocer every day if you want...not making a grand 1 hour event at Crest once a week. There are small shops for other retail items, etc. One block might have Lowe's, another might have the mall, etc. That's when you make use of the rail to hop from one area to the next. That level of density allows the rail to operate in a manner that gets you from point to point quickly without having to stop 80 times on the way in. Heck, that can even be done in a sprawled area if it's done right...Washington D.C. Incorporating bike lanes into that area plan is necessary because you don't want to mix the modes of transport...car/foot/bike.

I can appreciate the chicken vs egg problem here too. We don't build it because people aren't there to use it. But people aren't there to use it BECAUSE it's not there....ie downtown living. It takes something to spur the thing into action. We're at least starting with the downtown rail, although I would argue that until it becomes a real commuter rail, you aren't going to see it work. And I would also say that OKC would need to INWARDLY grow to get a more dense population IN from the extremities before it works either. Driving from Piedmont to a rail station near 44/NW Exway isn't going to save you time getting downtown today (not that im either arguing to put a station in Piedmont or at 44/NWX).

My problem with these arguments and studies and whatever is that they don't mean jack crap to OKCs problems. If we're going to plan these things out, we need to plan them for OKC in the way that we KNOW people will use them....not how we want them to. Jim-Bo-Bob is going to drive from one end of the shopping center to the other end even if you put in a moving sidewalk!!!! You're not going to take the car away (nor should you), but you can do things to make sure that the plan you put in place is one that meets both ideas in the middle. Put in bike lanes where it makes sense....look at your population stats compared to what commercial options are near by and you'll know where you can do that. When you put it in, don't sacrifice the flow of car traffic by cutting 2 lanes out of a 4-land road. Be realistic because those cars AREN'T going anywhere...you WILL NOT see a comparative reduction in car traffic with that bike lane there, you'll just piss people off in 2 lanes with an empty bike lane next to them. It's just the reality of our situation.

You may be getting the wrong impression of my view of this stuff because of my disagreement with JTF on implementation. Let me set the record straight that I'm a supporter of rail and bikes. BUT, I don't want to spend billions of dollars when it's all done just to force something in. These things only work when there is a concentration. Mix that with walkability and you really have to re-think the concept of how a city is laid out....and basically not follow the pattern used in the U.S. and look back at European towns from before there were cars.

Maybe we have been talking past each other then because I don't want to spend money on mass transit, bike lanes, and sidewalks all over OKC. I want all that money and resources concentrated in the urban core and then build out from there block by block. I want to build a new walkable OKC inside sprawling OKC - not force walkability in places people will never walk. I am opposed to a metro-wide bus system and I don't want park-and-ride lots on the commuter rail system. I want a neighborhood based bus system and rail connecting areas of high density with other areas of high density. Streetcars should only be an extension of walking as well, connecting one walkable neighborhood with other walkable neighborhoods over relatively short distances. I would be opposed to making NWExp bikeable, but the new downtown boulevard should be all about biking, walking, and mass transit and cars should be 4th on the list of priorities.

Holy mother I think we actually agree on something.....watch out!

Holy mother I think we actually agree on something.....watch out!

We're all scared.

Anyhow, for me increasing density and shifting to mass transit, biking, and walking are long-term solutions to the fact that we can't afford to maintain our roads. The Federal Highway Trust Fund goes broke later this year and there is no way to un-break it that Congress is willing to pass. There are really only 5 options on the table:

1) Increase the gasoline tax
2) Switch to mileage tax
3) Toll the interstate system
4) Use the general fund
5) Stop building/maintaining roads

My guess is they will use option 4.

5) Stop building/maintaining roadsThat is not only stupid and self-destructive, but that is all out crazy.

Stop building/maintaing roads..... if I had billions of dollars and unlimited power, I'd appoint you mayor and leader of Kansas City and let you implement that philosophy because I'd really to know just how bad that would fail. If it succeeds, I promise you, I will never advocate for another highway again and buy a house in Deep Deuce.

That is not only stupid and self-destructive, but that is all out crazy.

Stop building/maintaing roads..... if I had billions of dollars and unlimited power, I'd appoint you mayor and leader of Kansas City and let you implement that philosophy because I'd really to know just how bad that would fail. If it succeeds, I promise you, I will never advocate for another highway again and buy a house in Deep Deuce.

I don't think he was saying he would do that, just that we are limited in options available to fix the funding issue.

My gas tax plan takes care of #1 and #2, but really they serve to improve the roads rather than discourage their use.

What I want to see in the next MAPs program is some major infrastructure help. Rather than relying on bonds and crap, I'd like to see a refocused effort to repave across the city. Their recent maps of the state of the roads show how bad off we are. A lot of those are just 2 lane roads that just need a new layer of asphalt on them, and they aren't going to do anything but make it a more pleasant drive for those residents. You're not going to encourage or discourage sprawl just be repaving a pot-hole ridden road out in the far SE sector. BUT, in areas where it makes sense, part of that project could be to alter the streetscape to include things like bike lanes or a bus pull-off (out of traffic flow).

The general fund is something that's going to help for some small things, like something at a park, but it's just not ever going to have enough to do something on a real scale...just not enough dollars to go around. So if we want to do things like this (properly), we really need to look at finding a new way to fund it. The city isn't a never-ending money pot, and if they have money to throw around, then it means they're taxing too much. But there are a lot of federal grants that could be used on both sides (repaving and bike lanes).

There are really only 5 options on the table:

1) Increase the gasoline tax
2) Switch to mileage tax
3) Toll the interstate system
4) Use the general fund
5) Stop building/maintaining roads

My guess is they will use option 4.That is not only stupid and self-destructive, but that is all out crazy.

Stop building/maintaing roads..... if I had billions of dollars and unlimited power, I'd appoint you mayor and leader of Kansas City and let you implement that philosophy because I'd really to know just how bad that would fail. If it succeeds, I promise you, I will never advocate for another highway again and buy a house in Deep Deuce.

I wasn't advocating item 5, but it is one of the options. Personally, I would do #2 and #3. Somewhere I even posted how I would do #2 and #3. However, if you look at the conditions of our roads many local, state, and federal officials have already adopted the second half of #5. Think about that for awhile.

I wasn't advocating item 5, but it is one of the options. Personally, I would do #2 and #3. Somewhere I even posted how I would do #2 and #3. However, if you look at the conditions of our roads many local, state, and federal officials have already adopted the second half of #5. Think about that for awhile.If you did implement a mileage tax, would you stop the gasoline tax? I'd keep it if it were me. Every penny helps.

I would end the gasoline tax.

I would end the gasoline tax.

I endorse the mileage tax coupled with a gvw tax.

I would end the gasoline tax.Why? What about lawn mowers and other gas usages?