http://i42.tinypic.com/9zvi50.png
Oklahoma ranks 41st out of 50 states in automotive tax collections yet is one of the most car dependent cultures in the country. We also have some of the worst roads in the nation and one of the most underfunded public transportation systems. Time to raise the gas tax from 17 cents/gallon, according to this report (http://itd.idaho.gov/econ/MiscReports/Comparison%20of%20Annual%20Motor%20Vehicle%20Opera ting%20Costs%202011.pdf). Time to fund public transportation infrastructure: bike lanes, commuter rail, streetcars, and bus systems.

Not a bad idea, but I'd prefer if it was combined with a policy of turning a lot of country roads back into gravel and establishing an urban growth boundary. My fear would be that raising gasoline taxes will just result in people wanting to build more roads. That's not what we need. We have too many miles of road per person as it is.

Not a bad idea, but I'd prefer if it was combined with a policy of turning a lot of country roads back into gravel and establishing an urban growth boundary. My fear would be that raising gasoline taxes will just result in people wanting to build more roads. That's not what we need. We have too many miles of road per person as it is.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Well said.

Not to mention gas taxes are becoming less useful in raising revenue due to less gas being bought, more hybrids and fuel-efficient cars, fewer miles being driven. I agree though, we need more funds.

A more short term solution is looking at OK's constitution. It is very restrictive on allowing road bonds to be sold. Also, OTA needs to be unshackled. Nobody likes toll roads, but absent a major tax increase, the money will just not be there for new roads. You want to drive on new roads...you pay for it yourself.

Yeah. It's not a gas tax parity issue. We need a full-fledged new look into what transportation needs to be funded, how and when. Gas tax is not the answer.

Approximately 1.5 billion gallons of gas are consumed in Oklahoma per year. The Metro transit budget is $25 million/year. (http://www.gometro.org/transit-funding) The city transit budget could be tripled, presumably with a tripling of route miles, for measley 3.3 cent per gallon increase in taxes. Gas tax is absolutely the answer.

Approximately 1.5 billion gallons of gas are consumed in Oklahoma per year. The Metro transit budget is $25 million/year. (http://www.gometro.org/transit-funding) The city transit budget could be tripled, presumably with a tripling of route miles, for measley 3.3 cent per gallon increase in taxes. Gas tax is absolutely the answer.

I think the take home point is that it's one answer to our problem, but there are other correct answers as well. It should be one of many tools in our arsenal.

Approximately 1.5 billion gallons of gas are consumed in Oklahoma per year. The Metro transit budget is $25 million/year. (http://www.gometro.org/transit-funding) The city transit budget could be tripled, presumably with a tripling of route miles, for measley 3.3 cent per gallon increase in taxes. Gas tax is absolutely the answer.

but just out of curiosity... wouldn't a gas tax to increase city transit cause more people to use transit and thus less gas, and thus the budget would have to be decreases? Not saying we shouldn't do it... but just saying that if they triple the budget and then triple the spending to match that budget... couldn't a decrease in gas sales because of that transit set us into a situation of not being able to get enough money to keep that budget?

also, in your example to tripling... you are looking at gas consumption for the state and then applying that to an OKC tranist system... I'm pretty certain that the rest of the state would not be happy with a 3.3 cent increase in gas tax if all of that money is going to OKC transit. so the question is what is the gas consumption for OKC

I think the rest of state is proud of OKC and shouldn't mind 3.3 cents. If money gets too tight they can always come to the city and make use of the bus system. To your first point, the buses are almost never full so the new ridership wouldn't likely cost much more.

Also the assumption is wrong that people will immediately begin riding the bus if gas taxes rise. People are much much more stubborn than that. People are addicted to driving and 3.3 cents more per gallon isn't going to change gas consumption one bit.

no reason to raise the gas tax

I think the rest of state is proud of OKC and shouldn't mind 3.3 cents. If money gets too tight they can always come to the city and make use of the bus system. To your first point, the buses are almost never full so the new ridership wouldn't likely cost much more.

Also the assumption is wrong that people will immediately begin riding the bus if gas taxes rise. People are much much more stubborn than that. People are addicted to driving and 3.3 cents more per gallon isn't going to change gas consumption one bit.

I will give you your remarks on the first point. but if you honestly think that people in Tulsa, Enid, Woodward, Weatherford, Lawton, Altus, Ada, Ardmore, or McAlister care about the OKC transit system then you are misinformed. Having grown up in Rural Oklahoma, i can tell you first hand that the perception is that OKC gets almost all of the tax dollars as it is. And so making a new tax across the state that specifically only helps OKC will not be popular at all. There is no way it could or would happen. The whole state is not going to allow the passing of a tax that only benefits approximately 35% of the population of the state.

The whole state benefits when OKC and Tulsa are vibrant. But you are right, it's not politically feasible to have a state-wide tax that benefits, or is seen as benefitting, only the city. You'll just never pass that. Now you might get to increase gas taxes with purposes of better road maintenance, but if people think this is just going to big city folk, you're wasting your time. That's why I think an urban growth boundary is necessary. You can pitch that to smaller communities as preventing urban sprawl, helping support small towns and protecting our farmland. Combine that with an education bill that keeps small town schools well-funded, and then you can throw in your gas tax and push a new ODOT policy to return "maintaince-intensive low-traffic roads" to gravel. That could pass. OKC will just have to fund its own bus system.

The 3.3 number was not meant to be the finished proposal, just an idea of what can be accomplished with minor tax increases. The gas tax could be doubled, with a third of the increase to OKC, a third to Tulsa, and a third rural. Even rural people are beginning to see the need for transportation taxes. At the end of the day the graphic speaks for itself. We have the worst roads because we have some of the lowest taxes.

The 3.3 number was not meant to be the finished proposal, just an idea of what can be accomplished with minor tax increases. The gas tax could be doubled, with a third of the increase to OKC, a third to Tulsa, and a third rural. Even rural people are beginning to see the need for transportation taxes. At the end of the day the graphic speaks for itself. We have the worst roads because we have some of the lowest taxes.

then the gas tax increase should only go to roads ...

I actually like JTF's idea for a mileage tax.

no reason to raise the gas tax

Please explain why? In more than on line if you are able to do such a thing. I know you have it in you and you aren't that absent of ideas to address the situations expressed in this thread.

For me, it is going to need to be an overall adjustment in the way Oklahoma does business. It has to be a mix of rural roads, which are relatively unused, to go back to gravel. We also need to let OTA expand and take over additional highways or update existing ones. Some that come to mind are Hwy 4 from I-40 to I-44, a Southeast Metro loop from I-44 east along/north of Indian Hills and then up along the same corridor of 12th/Sooner Road to I-240, Northwest Expressway/Hwy 3 up through NW OK, and that's just in the immediate area.

I also agree that we need to create borders where new streets can be built. I would say we need a moratorium on any new suburban street development that would sprawl the actual residential footprint of cities until they are completely infilled.

Yeah. It's not a gas tax parity issue. We need a full-fledged new look into what transportation needs to be funded, how and when. Gas tax is not the answer.

Agreed.

No, that's not true. ODOT still operates on a budget designed for the 80's because funding has continually failed to be increased, while costs go up. A tax increase IS needed. A small 5 cent a gallon tax has been sent for voting several times, but short-sighted "no new taxes) republicans keep knocking it down. They're more concerned with saying they defeated a new tax than getting things working.

Overlooked in all this discussion about tax increases is the ability of the individual Oklahoma citizen to fork over more $$$ merely because our relative tax rate is lower than other locations. This isn't a state flush with cash. We're in the midst of one of the largest tax increases in our nation's history with Obamacare coming online. There's nothing here that takes into consideration the slightest notion about overall taxation levels, income levels, or affect on Oklahoma's lowest-income citizens.

There has to be more to the public policy of raising taxes than just "everyone else's taxes are higher, so we should raise ours." That's an effete and sophomoric rationale. What are state and local governments funding that shouldn't be funded? What are our priorities?

If the best reason we can create for justifying gas tax (or any other tax, for that matter) increase is "everyone else taxes more," then I'm delighted to be a "short-sighted Republican" working hard to knock those notions down hard and fast.

Overlooked in all this discussion about tax increases is the ability of the individual Oklahoma citizen to fork over more $$$ merely because our relative tax rate is lower than other locations. This isn't a state flush with cash. We're in the midst of one of the largest tax increases in our nation's history with Obamacare coming online. There's nothing here that takes into consideration the slightest notion about overall taxation levels, income levels, or affect on Oklahoma's lowest-income citizens.

There has to be more to the public policy of raising taxes than just "everyone else's taxes are higher, so we should raise ours." That's an effete and sophomoric rationale. What are state and local governments funding that shouldn't be funded? What are our priorities?

If the best reason we can create for justifying gas tax (or any other tax, for that matter) increase is "everyone else taxes more," then I'm delighted to be a "short-sighted Republican" working hard to knock those notions down hard and fast.

We're talking $0.05 per gallon. That's not breaking anyone's budget.

We're talking $0.05 per gallon. That's not breaking anyone's budget.

No disrespect, but that's an arrogant position to take. How dare you presume to know everyone's budget and financial situation, and to declare unilaterally that everyone can afford it. I would never presume to say what you can or cannot afford.

Can you not see, or do you just not care, how arrogant that position is?

When we hear of the inability of local, state, or federal governments to get anything done because of gridlock, we're amazed; yet when absurd ideas are fostered by unilateralist proclamations such as tax increases on the basis of "everyone can afford it, therefore we shall do it" is it any wonder that average folks are perplexed, and that the natural response is to oppose it?

If the original MAPS had been pitched on this basis, we wouldn't be worrying about the Thunder tonight.

Some of the most ridiculous ideas on this forum ever are in this thread.

I would never presume to say what you can or cannot afford.

It's really not about affordability. The most affordable options are public transit and bicycle riding. Once you admit to yourself that car culture enables convenience above all else, the affordability argument flies out the window. There's nothing arrogant about introducing facts into a discussion that is wrought with denial.

It's really not about affordability.


At least you admit that the previous assertion was, at best, disingenuous. There's at least the tacit admission that there is no interest in assessing the affordability option, because it is preemptively deemed to be irrelevant.



The most affordable options are public transit and bicycle riding.


Not for real people who commute 10 or 20 miles to work. Not for folks like my 77-year-old mom who needed to get to her aunt's house on a moment's notice for emergency support as her health failed, or her mom's house just a few years prior to that. Again, the detachment-from-reality factor comes into play here. I'm sorry real world scenarios detract from your self-proclaimed moral high ground.



Once you admit to yourself that car culture enables convenience above all else, the affordability argument flies out the window.

So the real motivations here have nothing to do with any real interest in civic improvement; its about advancing your predisposed agenda to vilify the "car culture" that you have deemed to be evil, manufacturing a moral high ground to ascend. The idea here isn't about improvement. Its about taxing to punish what you think is a "bad" thing, wrapped in some psuedo-civic argument.



There's nothing arrogant about introducing facts into a discussion that is wrought with denial.

There is everything arrogant about presuming how best to spend someone else's money, especially to presume "someone else" can arbitrarily afford it.

You want to talk alternative transportation, improving transportation systems, assessing how we might fund them, great. I'm all for that kind of legitimate discussion. This isn't it.

Overlooked in all this discussion about tax increases is the ability of the individual Oklahoma citizen to fork over more $$$ merely because our relative tax rate is lower than other locations. This isn't a state flush with cash. We're in the midst of one of the largest tax increases in our nation's history with Obamacare coming online. There's nothing here that takes into consideration the slightest notion about overall taxation levels, income levels, or affect on Oklahoma's lowest-income citizens.

There has to be more to the public policy of raising taxes than just "everyone else's taxes are higher, so we should raise ours." That's an effete and sophomoric rationale. What are state and local governments funding that shouldn't be funded? What are our priorities?

If the best reason we can create for justifying gas tax (or any other tax, for that matter) increase is "everyone else taxes more," then I'm delighted to be a "short-sighted Republican" working hard to knock those notions down hard and fast.

I would probably say the biggest problem is costs have gone up to maintain infrastructure, but the revenue hasn't been increased. When my company's costs go up, so do the prices to consumers to raise revenue. They don't maintain price points that are from 10-20-30 years ago. Doing so would run them out of business and that doesn't help anyone. Now there are things that can be done to help reduce costs, but at some point revenue needs to increase to cover expenses.

For transportation in this state if that means that all divided-limited access highways must turn into toll roads, then so be it. The other option of course is increasing the gas tax to cover those expenses, plus the additional costs of any non-toll roads that still need to be maintained from the same budget.

So in my eyes the justification for any additional gas tax is simply that the demand is there, revenue isn't covering expenses, and short of just closing down roads left and right - it's the fairest way it can be handled. To further my point on fair, why should US 62 from Lawton to Altus be free but (for example - since this isn't happening) Hefner Parkway be turned into a toll road to cover expenses.

I understand we aren't the richest state in the Union, but neither should we be one of the largest donor states. That goes against all the values various politicos yak about but never back up. We are suppose to be an oil and gas rich state, so let's use that to our advantage to cover expenses that this state incurs. All we here are people complaining about being in debt or adding to the deficit; Oklahoma isn't fighting against that by any stretch. Until we pay our own way, we contribute to that by forcing other states in the Union to pay our bills that we can't cover.

At the end of the day if that means highways need to be closed or roads torn up and turned back into gravel/dirt, then so be it. It's our fault for spending beyond our means and letting sprawl get out of control.

I would probably say the biggest problem is costs have gone up to maintain infrastructure, but the revenue hasn't been increased. When my company's costs go up, so do the prices to consumers to raise revenue. They don't maintain price points that are from 10-20-30 years ago. Doing so would run them out of business and that doesn't help anyone. Now there are things that can be done to help reduce costs, but at some point revenue needs to increase to cover expenses.

For transportation in this state if that means that all divided-limited access highways must turn into toll roads, then so be it. The other option of course is increasing the gas tax to cover those expenses, plus the additional costs of any non-toll roads that still need to be maintained from the same budget.

So in my eyes the justification for any additional gas tax is simply that the demand is there, revenue isn't covering expenses, and short of just closing down roads left and right - it's the fairest way it can be handled. To further my point on fair, why should US 62 from Lawton to Altus be free but (for example - since this isn't happening) Hefner Parkway be turned into a toll road to cover expenses.

I understand we aren't the richest state in the Union, but neither should we be one of the largest donor states. That goes again all the values various politicos yak about but never back up. We are suppose to be an oil and gas rich state, so let's use that to our advantage to cover expenses that this state incurs. All we here are people complaining about being in debt or adding to the deficit; Oklahoma isn't fighting against that by any stretch. Until we pay our own way, we contribute to that by forcing other states in the Union to pay our bills that we can't cover.

At the end of the day if that means highways need to be closed or roads torn up and turned back into gravel/dirt, then so be it. It's our fault for spending beyond our means and letting sprawl get out of control.

This is by far the most relevant and sensible post in this thread and brings relevant issues to the table, although I'm not necessarily on board with the sprawl issue. How we go forward facing these issues isn't easy. I do tend to think toll roads are going (and already are in many states) to play a huge part in this going forward, but that's obviously only one piece of the puzzle.

I would probably say the biggest problem is costs have gone up to maintain infrastructure, but the revenue hasn't been increased. When my company's costs go up, so do the prices to consumers to raise revenue. They don't maintain price points that are from 10-20-30 years ago. Doing so would run them out of business and that doesn't help anyone. Now there are things that can be done to help reduce costs, but at some point revenue needs to increase to cover expenses.

For transportation in this state if that means that all divided-limited access highways must turn into toll roads, then so be it. The other option of course is increasing the gas tax to cover those expenses, plus the additional costs of any non-toll roads that still need to be maintained from the same budget.

So in my eyes the justification for any additional gas tax is simply that the demand is there, revenue isn't covering expenses, and short of just closing down roads left and right - it's the fairest way it can be handled. To further my point on fair, why should US 62 from Lawton to Altus be free but (for example - since this isn't happening) Hefner Parkway be turned into a toll road to cover expenses.

I understand we aren't the richest state in the Union, but neither should we be one of the largest donor states. That goes against all the values various politicos yak about but never back up. We are suppose to be an oil and gas rich state, so let's use that to our advantage to cover expenses that this state incurs. All we here are people complaining about being in debt or adding to the deficit; Oklahoma isn't fighting against that by any stretch. Until we pay our own way, we contribute to that by forcing other states in the Union to pay our bills that we can't cover.

At the end of the day if that means highways need to be closed or roads torn up and turned back into gravel/dirt, then so be it. It's our fault for spending beyond our means and letting sprawl get out of control.

and i would support an increase in gas tax to fix and pay for roads across the whole state. because it would be a tax affecting the whole state. my issues with the comments from the originating poster is that they were talking about an increase in the gas tax for the whole state to pay for and expand OKC transit, only. that i am adamantly opposed to.

and i would support an increase in gas tax to fix and pay for roads across the whole state. because it would be a tax affecting the whole state. my issues with the originating post is that it was talking about an increase in the gas tax for the whole state to pay for and expand OKC transit, only. that i am adamantly opposed to.

Yeah I agree, that doesn't make any sense. Of course if you want to change habits and get people into mass transit, then we need to stop building new roads or expanding existing ones. As previously pointed out, many people here have commutes between 10 and I would say 30 to 40 miles each way depending on where they live. That is the nature of the beast where sprawl is one of our contributing enemies. However, you aren't going to be able to force people onto mass transit/commuter rail unless it can cut down on the commute headaches. My commute is 25 miles each way, it takes me about 30-40 minutes depending on the time of day. I'm not going to stop driving myself when it is a relatively stress free commute (even though 35/240 still makes me want to start smoking).

The state should definitely not be required to pay for OKC's transit dreams. OKC area interstates should all charge tolls themselves if they are really wanting to fund it that badly.

To the person who quoted me, I would recommend you go get some exercise to burn off that rage, but I wouldn't want to be so arrogant as to recommend how other people spend their time. The book Energy of Slaves argues that dependence on fossil fuels enables arrogance, impunity, and contempt. You're exhibiting all of these symptoms.

I understand we aren't the richest state in the Union, but neither should we be one of the largest donor states. That goes against all the values various politicos yak about but never back up. We are suppose to be an oil and gas rich state, so let's use that to our advantage to cover expenses that this state incurs. All we here are people complaining about being in debt or adding to the deficit; Oklahoma isn't fighting against that by any stretch. Until we pay our own way, we contribute to that by forcing other states in the Union to pay our bills that we can't cover.

You lost me on this one. How does federal tax money impact this issue?
It's a trick question, by the way. If you say that we are basing our highway repair bill on federal money, then isn't it incumbent on the federal government to de-federate (I think I just made up a word!) federal highways, if they aren't serving the nation as a whole or else to go ahead and pay for them if they are supporting the national infrastructure? If you say otherwise, then this paragraph is unimportant to your post.
I'm not trying to engage in an argument, so much as to clarify my irritation regarding one of my soap-box issues that some believe our state is in some sort of a federal welfare status that we should be ashamed of or at least admit that we love the federal government's teat and should shut up and keep on sucking.
My bottom line to this issue: If the federal government is spending money in OK on highways (or anything, for that matter), they must have determined that it gets them some bang for the buck. If they are and don't think it is, turn the highway over to the state. If the state doesn't see any value to the pavement, get rid of it.

Raise the gasoline tax by 25 cent per gallon and build this:

https://sites.google.com/site/okcrail/_/rsrc/1303828761724/home/route_map.jpg

Raise the gasoline tax by 25 cent per gallon and build this:

https://sites.google.com/site/okcrail/_/rsrc/1303828761724/home/route_map.jpg

You could remove a fair bit of what you've proposed here and do an even better job by focusing on the more usable routes. Lawton to OKC to Tulsa. Wichita to OKC to Ft. Worth. Boom, you've got a great setup for OK that you can then build commuter rail off of.

You could remove a fair bit of what you've proposed here and do an even better job by focusing on the more usable routes. Lawton to OKC to Tulsa. Wichita to OKC to Ft. Worth. Boom, you've got a great setup for OK that you can then build commuter rail off of.

That is his commuter rail idea. :)

He has a thread on it here somewhere that goes into detail, might have to search under his old username (Kerry) to find it though.

Not for real people who commute 10 or 20 miles to work. Not for folks like my 77-year-old mom who needed to get to her aunt's house on a moment's notice for emergency support as her health failed, or her mom's house just a few years prior to that. Again, the detachment-from-reality factor comes into play here. I'm sorry real world scenarios detract from your self-proclaimed moral high ground.

I wanted to hear more about this. Why do you call the people commuting 10 to 20 miles real? I have a car and don't mind driving. Gas consumption is a convenience, not a necessity, so it should be taxed as such. Much as many other states do and similar to what is done with tobacco.

That is his commuter rail idea. :)

He has a thread on it here somewhere that goes into detail, might have to search under his old username (Kerry) to find it though.

I mistyped in my earlier post. Whoops!

The same arguments were used a few years ago when they tried to raise the gas tax here (when we were being threatened with $2/gal gas). It was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters. The problem isn't really that there aren't enough transportation taxes, but a lot of the money has been diverted to non-transportation uses over the decades (like education).

LandRunOkie : sorry but have to disagree with your post. Getting to work, school etc is a necessity, not a convenience. Unless you live within walking distance, gas consumption is hardly a convenience for most.

The idea that you can add rail and eliminate the cost of road infrastructure is ludicrous. If nothing else, in this state farm-to-market road structure is required. Modern commerce is facilitated by point to point transportation. By creating even the rail structure shown and to then let the other roads fall into unusable condition would be economic suicide. Free movements of goods creates economic efficiencies. This whole discussion and hatred of roads has gotten so myopic as to be juvenile. Rational analysis of infrastructure goes way beyond moving people and the arbitrary assignment of who gets to prosper and who doesn't. A few people need to take some basic lessons in logistics and economics before trying to simplify this argument to ridiculousness.

I am working on some infrastructure development projects in Africa. If people think that a good road system doesn't facilitate economic growth then they need to actually see areas where it doesn't exist. And guess what, these places have rail travel.

Simple answers are for simple minds.

The idea that you can add rail and eliminate the cost of road infrastructure is ludicrous. If nothing else, in this state farm-to-market road structure is required. Modern commerce is facilitated by point to point transportation. By creating even the rail structure shown and to then let the other roads fall into unusable condition would be economic suicide. Free movements of goods creates economic efficiencies. This whole discussion and hatred of roads has gotten so myopic as to be juvenile. Rational analysis of infrastructure goes way beyond moving people and the arbitrary assignment of who gets to prosper and who doesn't. A few people need to take some basic lessons in logistics and economics before trying to simplify this argument to ridiculousness.

I am working on some infrastructure development projects in Africa. If people think that a good road system doesn't facilitate economic growth then they need to actually see areas where it doesn't exist. And guess what, these places have rail travel.

Simple answers are for simple minds.

It would be ridiculous. Good thing no one is arguing for that.

We have roads. We have more paved highway miles per person than any other state. By a significant margin. We have double the toll road miles per person than the next highest state. And yet we have people arguing for more. We aren't going to turn into Africa any time soon, despite how hot it gets here in the summer. But what we don't have is commuter rail. That's where we should be focusing our efforts, not in building more roads.

sorry but have to disagree with your post. Getting to work, school etc is a necessity, not a convenience. Unless you live within walking distance, gas consumption is hardly a convenience for most.
I rode my bike to school for years and firmly believe it builds confidence and relieves stress. I would go so far to say that it improves productivity during working hours. There's no question it improves morale.

Imagine $10/gallon gas. Now, voila, it's not a necessity. Unemployment would begin to skyrocket, housing would falter, and people generally wouldn't have anywhere to drive. My point is if $10 gas makes it unnecessary, it's unnecessary period, because prices will go up in the long run. And as I said earlier, the US can't control oil prices, so we should control what we can control: transit, rail, bike lanes, etc.

I think Rover claimed its stupid and vindictive to want higher gas prices. However the current lax regulation and taxation of the production of oil and flow gas will lead a depopulation of the planet. We got to 7 billion people through increases in agricultural productivity mostly. Higher oil prices will reduce agricultural productivity for many reasons, including the fact that fertilizer is a petroleum product. So the more we do to conserve oil now will mean less famine in the third world when it comes to that.

I think Rover claimed its stupid and vindictive to want higher gas prices. However the current lax regulation and taxation of the production of oil and flow gas will lead a depopulation of the planet. We got to 7 billion people through increases in agricultural productivity mostly. Higher oil prices will reduce agricultural productivity for many reasons, including the fact that fertilizer is a petroleum product. So the more we do to conserve oil now will mean less famine in the third world when it comes to that.

You need to re-read. I did not advocate for or against higher gas prices. The market will dictate, or should. That includes making users pay fairly for what they use, including roads. That can be in taxes or tolls, whichever most fairly associates value paid and value received.

...Imagine $10/gallon gas. Now, voila, it's not a necessity. Unemployment would begin to skyrocket, housing would falter, and people generally wouldn't have anywhere to drive. My point is if $10 gas makes it unnecessary, it's unnecessary period, because prices will go up in the long run.
How is it no longer a necessity? You still have to have it to get to work, school etc. No matter what the price becomes, folks will make non-esssential spending cuts to their budget. Don't eat out as often, go to the movies or a Thunder game etc etc. While unnecessary trips can be consolidated etc, there is only so much of that one can do.

California is finally trying to implement a mileage tax. Big surprise, the free-loaders and people who tried to game the system are against it.

Sen. Introduces Bill To Test Out Taxing Motorists For Every Mile They Drive « CBS Los Angeles (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/05/05/sen-introduces-bill-to-test-out-taxing-motorists-for-every-mile-they-drive/)


Southland commuters were not thrilled about the idea of a VMT tax.

“I bought a hybrid…one, because of my drive. I’m very opposed. I drive to Brentwood every day from Burbank, and I am already paying more than I should be,” Carmen Smith said.

“So if we go on vacation and I drive up to Mammoth, that’s 600 miles. We’re being taxed on vacations?” Kim Robinson said.


Question to Carmen, if the freeway is paid for by gasoline taxes, and you don't buy gasoline but still use the road, who do you think should be paying for your share of the maintenance bill?

California is finally trying to implement a mileage tax. Big surprise, the free-loaders and people who tried to game the system are against it.

Sen. Introduces Bill To Test Out Taxing Motorists For Every Mile They Drive « CBS Los Angeles (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/05/05/sen-introduces-bill-to-test-out-taxing-motorists-for-every-mile-they-drive/)



Question to Carmen, if the freeway is paid for by gasoline taxes, and you don't buy gasoline but still use the road, who do you think should be paying for your share of the maintenance bill?

Good point. BTW You constantly put me in a state of cognitive dissonance. And it's no picnic.

Good point. BTW You constantly put me in a state of cognitive dissonance. And it's no picnic.

I know exactly what you mean. I had to toss a world-view I held for 20+ years in the trash and create a new one from the ground up.

http://i42.tinypic.com/9zvi50.png
Oklahoma ranks 41st out of 50 states in automotive tax collections yet is one of the most car dependent cultures in the country. We also have some of the worst roads in the nation and one of the most underfunded public transportation systems. Time to raise the gas tax from 17 cents/gallon, according to this report (http://itd.idaho.gov/econ/MiscReports/Comparison%20of%20Annual%20Motor%20Vehicle%20Opera ting%20Costs%202011.pdf). Time to fund public transportation infrastructure: bike lanes, commuter rail, streetcars, and bus systems.
So what has changed in Oklahoma, since that time some years back when people voted to reject raising gas taxes by a 90% margin, or whatever high figure it was?

I know exactly what you mean. I had to toss a world-view I held for 20+ years in the trash and create a new one from the ground up.

I don't know how I missed this, it was several days ago. But, JTF, I could have written what you did above.

The idea that you can add rail and eliminate the cost of road infrastructure is ludicrous. If nothing else, in this state farm-to-market road structure is required. Modern commerce is facilitated by point to point transportation. By creating even the rail structure shown and to then let the other roads fall into unusable condition would be economic suicide. Free movements of goods creates economic efficiencies. This whole discussion and hatred of roads has gotten so myopic as to be juvenile. Rational analysis of infrastructure goes way beyond moving people and the arbitrary assignment of who gets to prosper and who doesn't. A few people need to take some basic lessons in logistics and economics before trying to simplify this argument to ridiculousness.

I am working on some infrastructure development projects in Africa. If people think that a good road system doesn't facilitate economic growth then they need to actually see areas where it doesn't exist. And guess what, these places have rail travel.

Simple answers are for simple minds.


This^ is the best post in this thread by far.
There is some really strong ignorance elsewhere. LOL

This^ is the best post in this thread by far.
There is some really strong ignorance elsewhere. LOL
No.

Everything in moderation, and that includes moderation itself.-- Tadahiko Nagao

Everything is good in moderation. Even moderation.-- Eveta Cherneva

Anything can be poisonous -- water, even oxygen, if that's all you have.-- Ms. Dorothy "Electron Dottie" Kelly (my HS chem teacher)
I think what we need is some balance, though. We are poisoning ourselves on asphalt and concrete roads without allowing a balance with rail. My brother has had some substance abuse problems in the past (cough, cough, still going on) and doesn't have a driver's license. He lives in Ponca City and needs to get to the VA hospital in Wichita frequently. How does he get there? There's NO passenger bus service or rail service in Ponca City. When I can't take him, how does he get there? We need balanced transportation options here ... and in Africa.

This^ is the best post in this thread by far.
There is some really strong ignorance elsewhere. LOL

And more than a little selfish motivation and entitlement at the expense of modernizing more efficient transportation systems in the US.

No one is advocating eliminating roads and personal automobiles. But the fact is they are subsidized just as public transportation and passenger rail transportation are supported.

I for one am not interested in bike lanes, public transit, car pool lanes etc. Sounds like the liberals are moving in to destroy this fine state. Yes possible we could move up from 41st but the liberals could pay for it . I do think some toll roads are not a bad idea . If you use a NICE Highway then be willing to supplement paying for it. If the liberal group does not like it here they could return from whence they came. I am actually from California and I came here to escape Liberalism.

If you had to pay the actual cost of driving your car you couldn't afford it. The automobile only exists in a subsidized world and is the direct result of the federal government manipulating the housing and transportation industries. I forget, what do we call people again who support the government manipulating the free market and offering subsidies to special interest groups?

I think your problem is that your sense of left/right only goes back to the day you were born and on the day you view the US as being a "right wing" country with every day since being one more step to the left. The reality is, by the day you were born America was already way left of center, so your whole frame of reference is way off. Don't feel bad, I used to think the same thing at one time.

The only real difference between you and the hated "liberals" is which special interest group you want to give tax dollars to. On the subject of market manipulation in general you and the libs are in the same boat.

I for one am not interested in bike lanes, public transit, car pool lanes etc. Sounds like the liberals are moving in to destroy this fine state. Yes possible we could move up from 41st but the liberals could pay for it . I do think some toll roads are not a bad idea . If you use a NICE Highway then be willing to supplement paying for it. If the liberal group does not like it here they could return from whence they came. I am actually from California and I came here to escape Liberalism.

Sorry to break the news to you, but folks who ride bikes, use car pool lanes, mass transit, etc. generally have cars as well and pay taxes. There is nothing conservative about being inefficient or wasteful.

I for one am not interested in bike lanes, public transit, car pool lanes etc. Sounds like the liberals are moving in to destroy this fine state. Yes possible we could move up from 41st but the liberals could pay for it . I do think some toll roads are not a bad idea . If you use a NICE Highway then be willing to supplement paying for it. If the liberal group does not like it here they could return from whence they came. I am actually from California and I came here to escape Liberalism.

Because bike lanes equal godless liberals? You know that doesn't make any damn sense, right?

you know, they pave those bike lanes with the bones of the righteous.

There is nothing conservative about being inefficient or wasteful.

Actually, as one of the few real Tea Partiers I can tell you that a lot of 'conservatives' do support inefficiency and waste. It drives me crazy. For some reason they attach political idiology to elements of their own lifestyle that are apolitical, and then if you don't conform to or adopt that element you are a commie, even if that element is fascist or communist itself.

Let me give an example. Government at many levels mandate single use exclusionary zoning and federal lending laws actively discourage mixed-use developments. This requires almost everyone who wants freedom of movement so as to participate in commerce, and society in general, to own one car per adult. Why is there so little outrage from the right on this mandate? And worse yet, why are people who oppose this government mandate consider to be big government liberals by default? It boggles the mind and defies all logic.

Just to spur a little....bike lanes often have costs associated with them that most people don't think of. Here's a quick breakdown, and you can see why people might argue against them (although I don't...when they are done properly).

1 - the pavement under a bike lane does not have to be as strong. Sidewalk thickness is more than adequate for a bike for obvious weight reasons. HOWEVER, when you plop a bike land on the street and don't have it separated with a barrier, you have to build it to withstand a car that could potentially drive on it.

2 - putting in the barrier can be expensive, but it can be a null cost when you factor in the reduction in pavement thickness for point #1. It requires a little more room though so right of ways could very quickly be exhausted with this method. It also precludes the possibility of the area to the outside of the bike lane being used as parking. Again, there's an analysis to be made on where the need is compared to the cost between 1 and 2.

3 - use is a major factor too. It's very easy to see a bike lane as waste because the extra cost with either 1 or 2 creates a space that is, more often than not, going to be empty or have low traffic. When a car is stuck in traffic and sees an empty bike lane, they usually think "they should have made this a 4 land road instead of putting in that stupid bike lane". Too bad they don't think, "if I had used my bike instead of my car, I would be there already". But reality is what it is and if you don't look at the way people will actually act instead of how you wish they would, then you're setting it up for failure.

That's all related to the gas tax too. Because if you're attempting to try and push people to alternate forms of transport, you need to examine the actuality of their behavior, not just what you desire the behavior to be. You can pave a bike lane on every road in OKC and put in commuter rail all you want. But if people don't have a reason to use it, it wont matter. The tax would have to make it prohibitive to drive or the commute would need to take longer to migrate people over. You push that tax, you're going to see the energy sector pounce like a mad man....and OK's economy would tank too....remember we are an energy state regardless of what diversification efforts we've been pushing. Point to Point travel has to be quick and easy...hands down. Right now, there's no way for mass transit to beat the care in OKC....even at rush hour.

Just to spur a little....bike lanes often have costs associated with them that most people don't think of. Here's a quick breakdown, and you can see why people might argue against them (although I don't...when they are done properly).

1 - the pavement under a bike lane does not have to be as strong. Sidewalk thickness is more than adequate for a bike for obvious weight reasons. HOWEVER, when you plop a bike land on the street and don't have it separated with a barrier, you have to build it to withstand a car that could potentially drive on it.

2 - putting in the barrier can be expensive, but it can be a null cost when you factor in the reduction in pavement thickness for point #1. It requires a little more room though so right of ways could very quickly be exhausted with this method. It also precludes the possibility of the area to the outside of the bike lane being used as parking. Again, there's an analysis to be made on where the need is compared to the cost between 1 and 2.

3 - use is a major factor too. It's very easy to see a bike lane as waste because the extra cost with either 1 or 2 creates a space that is, more often than not, going to be empty or have low traffic. When a car is stuck in traffic and sees an empty bike lane, they usually think "they should have made this a 4 land road instead of putting in that stupid bike lane". Too bad they don't think, "if I had used my bike instead of my car, I would be there already". But reality is what it is and if you don't look at the way people will actually act instead of how you wish they would, then you're setting it up for failure.

That's all related to the gas tax too. Because if you're attempting to try and push people to alternate forms of transport, you need to examine the actuality of their behavior, not just what you desire the behavior to be. You can pave a bike lane on every road in OKC and put in commuter rail all you want. But if people don't have a reason to use it, it wont matter. The tax would have to make it prohibitive to drive or the commute would need to take longer to migrate people over. You push that tax, you're going to see the energy sector pounce like a mad man....and OK's economy would tank too....remember we are an energy state regardless of what diversification efforts we've been pushing. Point to Point travel has to be quick and easy...hands down. Right now, there's no way for mass transit to beat the care in OKC....even at rush hour.

All good points. But none of it has to do with whether you have a (D) or an (R) beside your name. :)

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....

If you had to pay the actual cost of driving your car you couldn't afford it.

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.

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.same thing with 100 billion hsr in California