With some rough numbers. I-40 in Oklahoma has around 115 exits border to border. You are looking at around $10,000 per electronic toll reader. So most are going to require 4 to record when you enter and exit the interstate. I wouldn't include interstate interchanges because those people who be scanned in when they got on that interstate. Exits that have more than one lane would require more, but it all should average out to 4 per interchange.

So there we are looking at $4.6 million to toll I-40 completely with the equipment. Monthly operating costs are estimated around $1,000 a month...or $460,000 for the 460 units needed. There will be other ramp up costs of course - getting the electronic tags out to everyone and managing the huge influx of people. However in the grand scheme of things not that much. I-40 in OKC alone does around 150,000 cars a day. So when you think on average if tolls are just a $1, those vehicles will be generating $4.5 million a month - in OKC alone - or $54 million a year. That is pretty significant...especially when you consider that the money goes back in for toll road operations. It would also go in to help pay for highway patrol and other items in the existing state budget.

With some rough numbers. I-40 in Oklahoma has around 115 exits border to border. You are looking at around $10,000 per electronic toll reader. So most are going to require 4 to record when you enter and exit the interstate. I wouldn't include interstate interchanges because those people who be scanned in when they got on that interstate. Exits that have more than one lane would require more, but it all should average out to 4 per interchange.

So there we are looking at $4.6 million to toll I-40 completely with the equipment. Monthly operating costs are estimated around $1,000 a month...or $460,000 for the 460 units needed. There will be other ramp up costs of course - getting the electronic tags out to everyone and managing the huge influx of people. However in the grand scheme of things not that much. I-40 in OKC alone does around 150,000 cars a day. So when you think on average if tolls are just a $1, those vehicles will be generating $4.5 million a month - in OKC alone - or $54 million a year. That is pretty significant...especially when you consider that the money goes back in for toll road operations. It would also go in to help pay for highway patrol and other items in the existing state budget.

why would the money go to the state and not the federal govt for the federal highway

why would the money go to the state and not the federal govt for the federal highway

Go back a couple pages where I stated in a tolling of the interstate system, they would all be turned over to the state to manage. Most already have turnpike authorities and know how to manage them. In a way it would be the federal government washing its hands of the interstate system and letting the states being solely responsible for them.

And just think how even much more these guys would have to pay for their groceries at Whole Foods if we had didn't have a highway system to transport goods.

So what - we throw away over half the food we buy and that doesn't count what gets thrown away between the field and the grocery store check-out line. Plus, our poor people are the most overweight population in the history of the world. I think the doubling of food prices would be a huge step in the right direction - AND - would encourage us to restore a local food supply model that we had for the first 350 years in America.

I find it interesting that all these "hate the interstate" discussions are woefully absent of discussion of the reality of contribution to industry efficiency, productivity and net social rate of return as has been quantified numerous times by many people/organizations. An understanding of the impact of interstates, or any other infrastructure item, that does not objectively look at ALL effects is devoid of context, which just makes it opinion. Most people are totally ignorant of all the factors that affects economics and tend to focus on a few they know, understand, or have taken on as their personal cause. Like anything, the roll of the interstate system has now had 50 years to have it greatest incentive effect, it will not have the same marginal effect going forward. But the same would be said of developed rail systems, ports, airports, etc.

Does making a toll system make sense...it may deserve more study. However, we must be careful not to start disincentivizing marginal but important start-up and other industries which help the overall economy but may be eliminated by added taxes. Often, there are serious unintended consequences to incomplete analysis or misapplication of selected statistics. Can anyone say Obamacare?

We would still have freight trains and freight train are 10X more efficient than trucks (and that doesn't count the cost of the 'free' road trucks drive on).

Rail freight is more efficient than truck freight | Grist (http://grist.org/article/freight-trains-19th-century-technology-due-for-a-21st-century-revival/)

So? Those kinds of facts are included in real and objective studies. It doesn't change the fact of the impact of a complete infrastructure and the impact of the interstate system. These kind of one of factoids is merely a misdirection play and doesn't make any kind of argument. If this freight train vs truck cost factoid was the only important fact then any industry would be stupid to not ship by train...but they choose not to for many other reasons that affect their commercial economics.

So? Those kinds of facts are included in real and objective studies. It doesn't change the fact of the impact of a complete infrastructure and the impact of the interstate system. These kind of one of factoids is merely a misdirection play and doesn't make any kind of argument. If this freight train vs truck cost factoid was the only important fact then any industry would be stupid to not ship by train...but they choose not to for many other reasons that affect their commercial economics.

You mean like throwing "Obamacare" in a post just as a diversion tactic? Pot...kettle. :)

You mean like throwing "Obamacare" in a post just as a diversion tactic? Pot...kettle. :)

No, like saying there are always unintended consequences with adding taxes (tolls are taxes). Just like Obamacare is a noble enough idea, it has had a chilling effect on a number of industries' hiring practices and may actually hurt those whom it intended to help....just like tolls that sound great in theory but could wind up hurting any number of important industries and therefore the general public. The context of the two issues made an appropriate illustration to the point and is only diversion if not understood.

So? Those kinds of facts are included in real and objective studies. It doesn't change the fact of the impact of a complete infrastructure and the impact of the interstate system. These kind of one of factoids is merely a misdirection play and doesn't make any kind of argument. If this freight train vs truck cost factoid was the only important fact then any industry would be stupid to not ship by train...but they choose not to for many other reasons that affect their commercial economics.

I'm not sure what you expect Rover. If you want to sit around and wait for a study before providing any more input don't let us stand in your way. Or, you can talk about the study we are talking about - it is the one that says toll all interstates.

http://reason.org/files/modernizing_interstates_toll_finance.pdf


Executive Summary

The Interstate highway system is America’s most important surface transportation system. With
just 2.5% of the nation’s lane-miles of highway, it handles some 25% of all vehicle miles of travel.
It served to open the country to trade and travel, enabling the just-in-time logistics system at the
heart of U.S. goods movement. Yet the first-generation Interstate system is wearing out. Most of
the pavement has exceeded or is nearing its 50-year design life, meaning that nearly the entire
system will need reconstruction over the next two decades. In addition, more than a hundred
interchanges are major bottlenecks, needing redesign and reconstruction, and about 200 corridors
need additional lanes to cope with current and projected traffic.

The need for massive investment to transform the first-generation Interstate into what this report
calls Interstate 2.0 occurs just as our 20th-century highway funding system—based on fuel taxes
and state and federal highway trust funds—is running out of gas. Steady increases in vehicle fuel
economy, the lack of inflation indexing of fuel tax rates, and political gridlock over increasing fuel
tax rates all make it very difficult even to maintain current pavement and bridge conditions and
prevent congestion from getting even worse. The transportation community agrees that we need to
phase out fuel taxes and replace them with a more sustainable funding source, generally agreed to
be mileage-based user fees of some sort. But no consensus exists on how and when to do this.

No, like saying there are always unintended consequences with adding taxes (tolls are taxes). Just like Obamacare is a noble enough idea, it has had a chilling effect on a number of industries' hiring practices and may actually hurt those whom it intended to help....just like tolls that sound great in theory but could wind up hurting any number of important industries and therefore the general public. The context of the two issues made an appropriate illustration to the point and is only diversion if not understood.

Oh I agree that tolling interstates could have a major impact...but what if it was at the expense of the gasoline taxes? Toll every highway and completely do away with the gas tax. States take over responsibility for operating the toll roads. You are now completely cutting the federal government out of the process except for enforcing design and safety requirements. The money doesn't touch the Fed. The states are then required to live within their means. Sure it may sting for some states, like Maine which has part of I-95 with only 1000 cars per day on it heading up towards Canada. In those cases...should it really be an interstate when it gets as much traffic as a neighborhood street?

Multiple studies have already been done...not waiting on any.

The one you link is from a far right organization associate with Koch, ALEC and others. Not saying they are wrong, but they do generally have an agenda to push. It is easy to find one or a few reports supporting a specific point of view. I tend to read multiple reports from multiple perspectives and try to find the things they agree on or cannot deny. If you go into any project with an already defined strong opinion you will generally see the result you want. I just try to be objective.

My take away from the Reason Foundations study was to toll all interstates in order to create a revenue stream that could serve as a basis to issue bonds (debt) in order to repair and considerably expand the current interstate system. Ditch the current pay-as-you-go model for a buy today and pay for it tomorrow racket. And that makes sense because why shouldn't the bankers get their cut of the nations freeway system.

I've changed my mind. I'm now in favor because quite frankly the market is in serious need of some new stable bonds.

Venture, the problem I see with turning it over to the states is no uniformity. One state figures it can save money with substandard construction which will affect interstate commerce. The interstate highway enabling act was called "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways". Because it was formed after Ike saw the military importance of a system like this, and defense a common obligation among the states and commonwealths, it needs to primarily stay with federal oversight.

Venture, the problem I see with turning it over to the states is no uniformity. One state figures it can save money with substandard construction which will affect interstate commerce. The interstate highway enabling act was called "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways". Because it was formed after Ike saw the military importance of a system like this, and defense a common obligation among the states and commonwealths, it needs to primarily stay with federal oversight.

Why couldn't we have a similar situation like we do now with interstates as toll roads? Still have federal mandates and design specifications, but the states are in full control of the funding? I guess you could work a part in there with a licensing fee to the Fed to cover oversight expenses, but I'd rather cut as much out of Fed as possible. It could also be stipulated that no roadway can be removed from the interstate system if it was part of the original plan. Essentially if it is on the map below, the states are required to maintain interstate standards but others can be pulled down.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Highways1955.gif

Congress uses federal highway funds to blackmail states. Just Google 'withhold federal highway funds'. They aren't going to give up that power but I 100% agree it would be better to just let the states do it. If some states choose not to keep their interstates up to standards without providing an alternative transportation network let them try it.

By using common standards then safe and good transportation infrastructure is assured for interstate commerce. That doesn't fit the libertarian point of view though as they could care less about interstate commerce, only what is cheapest for a particular individual. Isolationism, whether it is international, interstate, or intercity is a hallmark of the belief. Calling it blackmail is just spinning. But, if we are one country and a national economy that relies on such things as efficient infrastructure, then there have to be federal standards. While we are at it, why don't we have different railroad safety standards state to state....or why not county by county. That would certainly be safe and efficient too.

Intetstates are already built by the states to federal standards. That is why we have things like ODOT, CalTrans, and TxDOT, Even the federal taxes are collected locally and then sent to the federal government who turns around and sends back to the states that beg the most. All we are talking about is cutting out the middle man.

Some of you are mixing road debt with municipal services paid for by citizens of communities who shop and pay sales taxes. People who choose to live in suburbs pay for their services already. And the "Government" doesn't send cops anywhere. Municipal fire, police, etc are funded in individual cities at a local level BY THE RESIDENTS via sales taxes. Water and sewage are paid for by the users of the community as well. If you own property, you pay property tax. Schools are primarily funded by property taxes. It's apples and oranges. If you want to look at cities who are in debt, look no further than that great inner city utopia of Detroit.

If you move out to the middle of nowhere, but still technically within Oklahoma City, then everyone else's property taxes are paying for your services. Your taxes aren't sufficient to cover the increased costs from where you chose to live. Plus by moving farther out, you drive down home values in previously built-up areas. It's a cycle of urban abandonment and decay. This causes lower property values within the city, and causes funding problems.

No, like saying there are always unintended consequences with adding taxes (tolls are taxes). Just like Obamacare is a noble enough idea, it has had a chilling effect on a number of industries' hiring practices and may actually hurt those whom it intended to help....just like tolls that sound great in theory but could wind up hurting any number of important industries and therefore the general public. The context of the two issues made an appropriate illustration to the point and is only diversion if not understood.

Not only may that have to happen, it may be a totally intended consequence.

In the beginning Ike said "let there be interstates." And what happened is shipping companies found that it was easy to ship on these free roads using big trucks. In part, the trucking industry took off because of these dependable roads. Some of this obviously would have come at the expense of the rail companies. Now they themselves had benefited from government funding back in the previous century, so they aren't exactly victims. But when you give shipping companies free roads, they're going to use them.

Now we're at the point where these free roads are going to cost a lot of money to replace. A good amount of the damage done to them over the decades came from the trucking companies that have grown so substantially in the last 50 years. If we put in higher costs for those trucks to use our roads, part of it will be as a funding source, but part of it will be pressure for shipping companies to make more use of rail lines, which are more efficient and cheaper to maintain. It's the "quit tearing up our roads, jackass" plan.

If you move out to the middle of nowhere, but still technically within Oklahoma City, then everyone else's property taxes are paying for your services.

Um, no. The only revenue OKC, or any other municipality in this state, gets from property taxes is an amount supposedly sufficient for debt service. Oklahoma County forks over 16 mills to OKC. (Other counties may vary.) This is state law.

That said:


Your taxes aren't sufficient to cover the increased costs from where you chose to live. Plus by moving farther out, you drive down home values in previously built-up areas.

"Increased costs"? Definitely. How to recover those costs -- well, we've had threads on that before.

The point was people complain about high taxes but then choose to live in a location that requires higher taxes. It is like they think everyone else is wasting taxpayer money but them. When I joined the Tea Party I assumed everyone else that was joining had already figured out that sprawl was one of the leading cause of high taxes (and a whole host of other problems); boy was I wrong. When I bring it up at Tea Party events or with people I know it is like I start talking in a foreign language. They simply don't understand what sustainable government is and of all people on this planet that should understand it, I would think the Tea Party people would be at the top of the list, after all, I am a Tea Partier and I understand it. Maybe I am just not explaining it right :).

Not only may that have to happen, it may be a totally intended consequence.

In the beginning Ike said "let there be interstates." And what happened is shipping companies found that it was easy to ship on these free roads using big trucks. In part, the trucking industry took off because of these dependable roads. Some of this obviously would have come at the expense of the rail companies. Now they themselves had benefited from government funding back in the previous century, so they aren't exactly victims. But when you give shipping companies free roads, they're going to use them.

Now we're at the point where these free roads are going to cost a lot of money to replace. A good amount of the damage done to them over the decades came from the trucking companies that have grown so substantially in the last 50 years. If we put in higher costs for those trucks to use our roads, part of it will be as a funding source, but part of it will be pressure for shipping companies to make more use of rail lines, which are more efficient and cheaper to maintain. It's the "quit tearing up our roads, jackass" plan.

Railroads cannot do what trucks do. It is ludicrous to believe that rail will ever serve the complex logistics requirements that enable all sorts of economic benefits that the trucking system does. Rail is PART of a system but will not and cannot be THE system. If you have ever worked logistics you know what I mean.

By the way, I believe there is almost three times the miles of freight railroad lines already existing in the US as there is interstate highways. Two thirds of it is class I.

Meanwhile, back at the farm... how do we pay to replace the aging interstate system? We built it the first time on debt. Are we just going to do that again?

I know Texas highways probably better than most anybody on this forum. I don't mean to be contradictory, but I have traveled thousands and thousands (and thousands) of miles of Texas roads in just about every section of the state over the last 30 plus years and I seriously have no idea where these "TONS of really crappy highways" in Texas are located. Granted there are temporary crappy areas where all the road construction is going on, but the finished products are top notch. From Interstates to US Highways to State Highways to many of the FMs...I've driven them all. Bottom line is that Texas has one of the best roads and road systems in the entire US. I've driven FMs that blow away some of the US Highways in other states. It's not really even debatable if you've actually driven the road system to any degree. It's just a fact and has nothing to do with any complex or whatever.
Texas roads are going bad in a hurry, some of it is county maintenance on FM/RM roads and their desire to chip seal the world with that crap. The roads around Central Texas changed greatly in the 9 years that I lived there (2003-12) and not for the better. In most cases the roads were better before they put that crap down than they were a year later.


I'm okay with it so long as we charge according to weight. It's not Ford Fiestas and Honda Fits causing wear and tear to our system, it's 18-wheelers. Let them pay for the damage we're subsidizing right now. Of course, that's a very academic point. There's no way something like this would make it out of Congress with all of the lobbies who'd be against it.

We would still have freight trains and freight train are 10X more efficient than trucks (and that doesn't count the cost of the 'free' road trucks drive on).

Rail freight is more efficient than truck freight | Grist (http://grist.org/article/freight-trains-19th-century-technology-due-for-a-21st-century-revival/)
"THEY" wouldn't pay for it, "WE" would end up paying for it in higher prices to cover expenses. Remember the fuel surcharges on a lot of things back in 2008-09? Prices have just gone up to cover those costs. Add a $4.00 or more fuel tax (like Europe has) to every gallon and watch prices skyrocket as EVERYTHING uses fuel of some kind for delivery including the hallowed train system. Also, the majority of what we touch everyday has oil costs bundled into it either as a component of manufacture and shipping costs. There is a bunch of that is in all of these devices that we type all of the out on. Oil is not just for transportation.

Railroads cannot do what trucks do. It is ludicrous to believe that rail will ever serve the complex logistics requirements that enable all sorts of economic benefits that the trucking system does. Rail is PART of a system but will not and cannot be THE system. If you have ever worked logistics you know what I mean.

By the way, I believe there is almost three times the miles of freight railroad lines already existing in the US as there is interstate highways. Two thirds of it is class I.

I'm not saying railroads are going to completely replace trucks. I am saying that reducing what is effectively a subsidy for the trucking industry will change the way some goods are shipped. You change the price points, and more goods will be shipped by rail, when it is possible.

Will prices for shipped items go up? Of course they will. But we're talking about literally a trillion-plus dollars of investment that needs to be made to repair the interstates. That absolutely has to come from somewhere. Since we are paying for it anyway, the question is how can we structure those payments to end up with a more efficient system?

Rover, what are these complex logistics requirements you believe trains can't serve?

I didn't see it upthread, but under current Federal law, you cannot place a toll on EXISTING Interstate lanes. You would have to add lanes or build a completely new road in order to be able to toll an Interstate. Roads such as the Turner , etc were grandfathered in.

I didn't see it upthread, but under current Federal law, you cannot place a toll on EXISTING Interstate lanes. You would have to add lanes or build a completely new road in order to be able to toll an Interstate. Roads such as the Turner , etc were grandfathered in.

3 States (Missouri, Virginia, and North Carolina) currently are allowed to toll existing interstates but they have no reason to do so because they would just have to turn the money over to the federal government and they also feel that if they charge people to drive on the interstate it will hurt commerce in their states. Under the proposal from the Reason Foundation the tolls would be implemented over 20 years as freeways are rebuilt or expanded, with all new interstates opening as toll roads (ex. I-37, or whatever designation US69 will get in Eastern Oklahoma).

Texas roads are going bad in a hurry, some of it is county maintenance on FM/RM roads and their desire to chip seal the world with that crap. The roads around Central Texas changed greatly in the 9 years that I lived there (2003-12) and not for the better. In most cases the roads were better before they put that crap down than they were a year later.

I'm sure there are pockets of the FMs that are going bad, but I stand by my statement that the road system overall is still superior. For example, I just drove SH6 from Hempstead to Waco yesterday morning and it's a smooth, mostly controlled access 4-lane the whole way with only a little construction around Bryan-College Station. And that's not a US or IH route. Much better and smoother than the stretch of I-35 I drove last night through Murray and Garvin counties.

My knowledge of Texas roads is limited so this is all I know:

1) I-20 from Dallas to the Louisiana state line sucks.
2) I was too busy in Dallas trying to keep from being run over to focus on what the pavement was actually like.

I'm sure there are pockets of the FMs that are going bad, but I stand by my statement that the road system overall is still superior. For example, I just drove SH6 from Hempstead to Waco yesterday morning and it's a smooth, mostly controlled access 4-lane the whole way with only a little construction around Bryan-College Station. And that's not a US or IH route. Much better and smoother than the stretch of I-35 I drove last night through Murray and Garvin counties.
The system WAS great, the roads are not. I used to go from Austin to College Station a bunch when I had a project under construction there and the same with US-290 to Houston or Texas 71 to Columbus (at I-10). We also drove to West Texas often so we had experience with those roads and when moving between Austin and Denver in 2012. In June we drove from Denver to Midland a bunch. Then I also rode motorcycles all over from the Hill Country to the Piney Woods. There is quite a bit of construction in the panhandle and West Texas. It changed in the 9 years that I lived there due more to the type of "paving" that was being used, the system is still better than a lot of places even if the paving is horrible.

That's cool and all. If a town wants to be that way, then they could create a spur or something. How has that helped Europe, and even more so, Europe is not in good shape, at all! So using them as an example seems a bit off. I am for freedom of what people want, and if they want the top option on your photo, then great, I would probably even opt for that. But, if they want the lower town, then people should be able to live that way. I also think it would be great if we removed a bunch of entries and exits on highways, making them more limited access. I just flat out disagree with the notion of tolling interstates.

How about this, I-40, I-35, I-44, and I know there are about 5 others, I don't think should be tolled. Now, if a tollway were to be built across multiple states with very high speed limits, then I would be all game for one.Moved from other thread, I still stand by my point. Please explain further, JTF...

I'm sure there are pockets of the FMs that are going bad, but I stand by my statement that the road system overall is still superior. For example, I just drove SH6 from Hempstead to Waco yesterday morning and it's a smooth, mostly controlled access 4-lane the whole way with only a little construction around Bryan-College Station. And that's not a US or IH route. Much better and smoother than the stretch of I-35 I drove last night through Murray and Garvin counties.

You're saying that newly constructed portions of I-35 through those counties is worse than SH6 from Hempstead to Waco? I'm calling BS.

Also, portions of that route on SH6 are even newer than the newly re-done I-35 in southern OK.

If you guys don't like tolling every interstate how about this option - which is coming closer to reality.

There are too many good quotes to list them all but here are some.

A black box in your car? Some see a source of tax revenue - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-roads-black-boxes-20131027,0,6090226.story#axzz2iyteOJiI)


WASHINGTON — As America's road planners struggle to find the cash to mend a crumbling highway system, many are beginning to see a solution in a little black box that fits neatly by the dashboard of your car.


And while Congress can't agree on whether to proceed, several states are not waiting. They are exploring how, over the next decade, they can move to a system in which drivers pay per mile of road they roll over.


This really is a must for our nation. It is not a matter of something we might choose to do," said Hasan Ikhrata, executive director of the Southern California Assn. of Governments, which is planning for the state to start tracking miles driven by every California motorist by 2025.


"The gas tax is just not sustainable," said Lee Munnich, a transportation policy expert at the University of Minnesota.


But the House leadership killed the proposal, acting on concerns of rural lawmakers representing constituents whose daily lives often involve logging lots of miles to get to work or into town.
^Probably misidentified Tea Partiers who don't want to pay for the road they are driving on.


At the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the San Francisco Bay Area, officials say Congress could very simply deal with the bankrupt Highway Trust Fund by raising gas taxes. An extra one-time or annual levy could be imposed on drivers of hybrids and others whose vehicles don't use much gas, so they pay their fair share.

Due to higher mileage gasoline cars and electric cars, an alternative way to pay for highways is going to have to be found. As long as this tax is roughly equal in cost to what people currently pay in gas taxes, I would be OK with it.

I just bought a new car yesterday that gets 2X the gas mileage of my pickup so I am now paying 1/2 the gas tax I was before.


As long as this tax is roughly equal in cost to what people currently pay in gas taxes, I would be OK with it

What good would that do? The gasoline tax collects a little less than half of what is needed just for maintenance of what we have now. This tax would need to at least double the current revenue. As for privacy - the NSA is already tracking us.

I fail to see how your car mileage has anything to do with privacy. They really don't even need a little black box. Just check your odometer every time you get your license plate renewed.

I think their objective is that mileage driven on an interstate goes to the federal government, miles on state highways go to the state DOT, and local governments get the tax for miles on local streets. Not sure how that would work for subdivisions like mine where we own the streets. I wonder if we would get the money. To do that they would have to track which type of road you are on.

A mandated black box is a horrible idea. Here is my proposal. A few options layer out and use just one of these, a few of them, or every single one!

1. Implement a mileage tax while keeping gas tax while raising the gas tax by 2 cents a gallon.

2. Build new and/or improve existing highways and essentially building an Autobahn here in the US with no speed limits, tolling the highway. This would be good doing something running I-35 from Texas to Illinois and if it works improving and updating I-40. Also states could have their own high speed limit and/or unlimited speed highways. These would be tolled as well.

3. Add taxes to other fuels as well. CNG, Hydrogen(if there are any out there), Biofuel, and Electric Cars. For electric cars, have a meter on the charger that you include in your taxes each year. Have DPS in Oklahoma start inspecting cars once every three years or so and charge $20 for each inspection and noting the mileage on the car while figuring how much electricity you have used to charge it. If you were found to have been inaccurate in reporting your taxes regarding the amount of electricity you have used to charge your car, you would be audited.

Those are just a few ideas and obviously would have to be further modified and reviewed before they would ever be implanted.

I fail to see how your car mileage has anything to do with privacy. They really don't even need a little black box. Just check your odometer every time you get your license plate renewed.

This would probably be a good time to invest in Digital Odometer Roll-back Kits.
Or at least in the stock of the companies that manufacture them.

State inspections need to come back and I think you should have to have the vehicle re-inspected every time you make a modification to the engine and exhaust system. Oklahoma might as well get on board and get emission standards established or the feds will do it for us at the cost of $100 per car. We have way too many amateur modifications and some cars that should not be on the road. I see quite a few that are considered totaled by insurance standards and not safe for the road. Not to mention there are many cars with no stop, turn or working brake lights or they fail to install the high intensity lights properly blinding everyone else in traffic.

just a note that 'totaled by insurance standards' doesn't necessarily equate to a mechanically unsound or emissions train wreck of a car. A older vehicle with cosmetic damage to enough parts will be totaled if the cost of parts, labor and paint for the cosmetic repairs exceeds X% of the vehicle's value.

As far as privacy goes, Flo already wants to track your driving habits with the Progressive Snapshot device.

As far as privacy goes, Flo already wants to track your driving habits with the Progressive Snapshot device.

That is how the company that made this device got started. It was originally for the insurance industry to make sure people were driving as a little as they said they were.


The hunt for that technology has led some state agencies to a small California startup called True Mileage. The firm was not originally in the business of helping states tax drivers. It was seeking to break into an emerging market in auto insurance, in which drivers would pay based on their mileage.

A mandated black box is a horrible idea. Here is my proposal. A few options layer out and use just one of these, a few of them, or every single one!

1. Implement a mileage tax while keeping gas tax while raising the gas tax by 2 cents a gallon.

2. Build new and/or improve existing highways and essentially building an Autobahn here in the US with no speed limits, tolling the highway. This would be good doing something running I-35 from Texas to Illinois and if it works improving and updating I-40. Also states could have their own high speed limit and/or unlimited speed highways. These would be tolled as well.

3. Add taxes to other fuels as well. CNG, Hydrogen(if there are any out there), Biofuel, and Electric Cars. For electric cars, have a meter on the charger that you include in your taxes each year. Have DPS in Oklahoma start inspecting cars once every three years or so and charge $20 for each inspection and noting the mileage on the car while figuring how much electricity you have used to charge it. If you were found to have been inaccurate in reporting your taxes regarding the amount of electricity you have used to charge your car, you would be audited.

Those are just a few ideas and obviously would have to be further modified and reviewed before they would ever be implanted.

Again, I'm not in support of a mileage tax, CNG/biofuel taxes are fine. Maybe a tax for full electric, but it shouldn't be much. The thing about electric/alternative fuel cars is they tend to be very lightweight, thus causing basically none of the sort of wear and tear which has left our interstate system in the shape it's in. The trouble is 18-wheelers and the amount of weight they transport. I've noticed Oklahoma seems to be refurbishing its weigh stations and I actually see them open, so maybe this is happening?

1. Implement a mileage tax while keeping gas tax while raising the gas tax by 2 cents a gallon.

How are you going to handle enforcement and validation of measuring mileage?


2. Build new and/or improve existing highways and essentially building an Autobahn here in the US with no speed limits, tolling the highway. This would be good doing something running I-35 from Texas to Illinois and if it works improving and updating I-40. Also states could have their own high speed limit and/or unlimited speed highways. These would be tolled as well.

So the answer is to building even more highways? How does that solve the cost problem of the others? You can't tear down existing interstates. So you are going to start running parallel highways. This is going to jack costs up even more since you are now maintaining two roads but only one is generating income. Also, from my experience you are setting it up for failure. In Indiana and Ohio, you see many people avoid the turnpike/toll road for secondary highways (US 20, OH 2, US 24). What good is a high speed, tolled "Autobahn" going to be when most will opt for the free road?

The other thing with safety. Exactly why would we even bother entertaining a "Reasonable but Prudent" speed limit? We saw this backfire in Montana in the 90s. You had people going there to open it up on the highways. Of course what ended up happening is the the highway patrol then makes the call on what is reasonable. There were cases where people got tickets for going 85 mph and over and convicted.

You can call for unlimited speed limits, but when what will you do when a person traveling 150 mph (see Montana again as examples of this) crosses center and flies into oncoming traffic? Do you really want to dead with the bloodshed it will cause? Let's not forget that the vast majority...99.999999999% of motorists driving today are not capable of handling a vehicle that fast. If something goes wrong, how are they going to recover? I grew up in a racing family. I was taught how to handle situations at high rate of speeds, I also think my flight school training helped as well in keeping aware of multiple things at once, but I am still not that comfortable with staying at high speeds for extended period.

Right now it does seem 80 or 85 mph will be the max for speeds. Going higher than that doesn't seem all that reasonable due the lack of skilled drivers. Granted many think they can handle it until the kid is on the evening news after shattered the car and the being cleaned up with a fire hose.


3. Add taxes to other fuels as well. CNG, Hydrogen(if there are any out there), Biofuel, and Electric Cars. For electric cars, have a meter on the charger that you include in your taxes each year. Have DPS in Oklahoma start inspecting cars once every three years or so and charge $20 for each inspection and noting the mileage on the car while figuring how much electricity you have used to charge it. If you were found to have been inaccurate in reporting your taxes regarding the amount of electricity you have used to charge your car, you would be audited.

Why only inspect electric cars? All vehicles should be and start getting some of these wrecks off the road. As others have said, electric cars are also lighter and cause less wear on the roads. Why should they have even more stringent regulations than someone with a gasoline engine?

I still think at the end of the day the solution needs to be given to the states. Maintain the federal safety and design requirements on any road carrying an interstate or US highway. Do not allows states to remove/reduce the number of interstates from the present number. Then turn over the cost management and funding completely to the states. Allow them to make the decision on how they want to handle it. If they choose to fund their upkeep through tolls, so be it. If they want to keep them free and use local sales or income taxes to pay the bill...that's their choice.

Give them to the states. Reduce the gas tax to handle basic administrative costs of the highway division of the DOT. Then get out of the way and let it play out.

Clearly what will happen is a hodgepodge combination of remedies that won't entirely solve the problem and will push things off further into the future.

What I see happening:

1) New interstate construction will be of higher quality and made with more durable materials. This increases cost but increases longevity more. This is something that will have to happen, no matter what.

2) Higher taxes on interstate shipping. 18 wheelers are what cause the most damage so we'll tax them at higher rates. This will be very unpopular with the trucking industry and they'll oppose it, but it seems half the vehicles on our interstates are big trucks and they're benefitting tremendously by the standard gasoline tax relative to the damage they cause and the use they get out of our interstates.

3) A new vehicle tax of some kind on the purchase of new automobiles. I don't think the public will get behind a mileage tax, especially with recent NSA revelations. We don't trust our government that much. But a purchase tax that taxes into account weight of the vehicle, etc, could be easier to stomach.

4) Increases in rail shipping can take the weight off of our interstate system. Higher taxes on semis (see #2) can make rail shipping more cost competitive and reinvestment in this sort of infrastructure can help lower costs long term.

5) Gradual changes to city design that limit suburban sprawl should help prevent growth of "commuter" interstates, i.e., those that people use only to get from one side of the city to the other. This isn't what the interstate was designed for and I'd bet a lot of our costs are wrapped up in maintaining those.

In the end, though, this is merely a problem of how we allocate our tax dollars. The problem has been that we're paying less taxes than predicted. More efficient vehicles mean we pay less money. It's helpful to consumers but it's painful for governments because the predicted revenue source did not appear. The question is just what do we use to replace the old model?

Again, I'm not in support of a mileage tax, CNG/biofuel taxes are fine. Maybe a tax for full electric, but it shouldn't be much. The thing about electric/alternative fuel cars is they tend to be very lightweight, thus causing basically none of the sort of wear and tear which has left our interstate system in the shape it's in. The trouble is 18-wheelers and the amount of weight they transport. I've noticed Oklahoma seems to be refurbishing its weigh stations and I actually see them open, so maybe this is happening?

90% of the damage to roads is done by mother nature. Shouldn't that 90% cost be spread across everyone who drives? And then we have new construction - who pays for that?

Again, I'm not in support of a mileage tax, CNG/biofuel taxes are fine. Maybe a tax for full electric, but it shouldn't be much. The thing about electric/alternative fuel cars is they tend to be very lightweight, thus causing basically none of the sort of wear and tear which has left our interstate system in the shape it's in. The trouble is 18-wheelers and the amount of weight they transport. I've noticed Oklahoma seems to be refurbishing its weigh stations and I actually see them open, so maybe this is happening?That's the other thing, something really needs to be done about the semi trucks. First and foremost, it should be illegal for them to drive on the left side of the highway(the fast lane) and there needs to be tighter restrictions on weight and further studies should be done to more accurately figure the impact.

That's the other thing, something really needs to be done about the semi trucks. First and foremost, it should be illegal for them to drive on the left side of the highway(the fast lane) and there needs to be tighter restrictions on weight and further studies should be done to more accurately figure the impact.

I agree the left lane restriction is something that is needed - I'm shocked we don't have it already. Obviously there will always be a need for semis with time sensitive items, but there needs to be more encouragement to use rail for long distance shipping.

That's the other thing, something really needs to be done about the semi trucks. First and foremost, it should be illegal for them to drive on the left side of the highway(the fast lane) and there needs to be tighter restrictions on weight and further studies should be done to more accurately figure the impact.

Back in the 80's, my ex-brother in law worked for Sun Gas. He told us stories how they would move drilling equipment from location to location and would take the long way arounrd to avoid the weigh stations. They tore roads up and didn't even care.

How are you going to handle enforcement and validation of measuring mileage?Well, Venture, I honestly can't answer that. I'm sure there is a way. Like I said, this was mainly for sh!ts and gigs, but could be taken seriously. If the case were to be seriously considered, it would have to further modified and further studied to calculate the practicability of it,




So the answer is to building even more highways? How does that solve the cost problem of the others? You can't tear down existing interstates. So you are going to start running parallel highways. This is going to jack costs up even more since you are now maintaining two roads but only one is generating income. Also, from my experience you are setting it up for failure. In Indiana and Ohio, you see many people avoid the turnpike/toll road for secondary highways (US 20, OH 2, US 24). What good is a high speed, tolled "Autobahn" going to be when most will opt for the free road?

The other thing with safety. Exactly why would we even bother entertaining a "Reasonable but Prudent" speed limit? We saw this backfire in Montana in the 90s. You had people going there to open it up on the highways. Of course what ended up happening is the the highway patrol then makes the call on what is reasonable. There were cases where people got tickets for going 85 mph and over and convicted.

You can call for unlimited speed limits, but when what will you do when a person traveling 150 mph (see Montana again as examples of this) crosses center and flies into oncoming traffic? Do you really want to dead with the bloodshed it will cause? Let's not forget that the vast majority...99.999999999% of motorists driving today are not capable of handling a vehicle that fast. If something goes wrong, how are they going to recover? I grew up in a racing family. I was taught how to handle situations at high rate of speeds, I also think my flight school training helped as well in keeping aware of multiple things at once, but I am still not that comfortable with staying at high speeds for extended period.

Right now it does seem 80 or 85 mph will be the max for speeds. Going higher than that doesn't seem all that reasonable due the lack of skilled drivers. Granted many think they can handle it until the kid is on the evening news after shattered the car and the being cleaned up with a fire hose.First off, I am not proposing building any news highways at this time rather than modifying the existing ones. I've read before that the Autobahn is one of the safest highways in the world. If we were to improve our driving schools and be stricter on "minor" violations such as not using turn signal, weaving in and out of traffic, cutting people off, following too closely etc. we could improve driving and reduce accidents.

Obviously intercity highways would have to have speed limits, but we could establish corridors that have no speed limits and I think they would be successful. You are always going to have people that are going to speed regardless of a posted speed limit or not. I also really think people are more focused when they are traveling at higher speeds. There is a difference between driving 150MPH down a country highway and driving 150MPH down a country highway like an idiot.

For driving school, train people. Take on an open parking lot and have them hydroplane and teach them how to recover. Tell them if you are going to be doing the speed limit or under, stay out of the fast lane and/or yield to people in the fast lane. Have them drive on a track at 120MPH(which is about the top speed of most cars on the roads today, electronically limited or otherwise). I suppose you and me are different, I am comfortable driving at high speeds, some people are different and I respect that. No one should be forced to drive at high speeds.




Why only inspect electric cars? All vehicles should be and start getting some of these wrecks off the road. As others have said, electric cars are also lighter and cause less wear on the roads. Why should they have even more stringent regulations than someone with a gasoline engine?

I still think at the end of the day the solution needs to be given to the states. Maintain the federal safety and design requirements on any road carrying an interstate or US highway. Do not allows states to remove/reduce the number of interstates from the present number. Then turn over the cost management and funding completely to the states. Allow them to make the decision on how they want to handle it. If they choose to fund their upkeep through tolls, so be it. If they want to keep them free and use local sales or income taxes to pay the bill...that's their choice.

Give them to the states. Reduce the gas tax to handle basic administrative costs of the highway division of the DOT. Then get out of the way and let it play out.My bad, I probably wasn't clear enough, inspect every car, not just electric ones. I agree with your decision to give the decision to the states though.

Clearly what will happen is a hodgepodge combination of remedies that won't entirely solve the problem and will push things off further into the future.

What I see happening:

1) New interstate construction will be of higher quality and made with more durable materials. This increases cost but increases longevity more. This is something that will have to happen, no matter what.

2) Higher taxes on interstate shipping. 18 wheelers are what cause the most damage so we'll tax them at higher rates. This will be very unpopular with the trucking industry and they'll oppose it, but it seems half the vehicles on our interstates are big trucks and they're benefitting tremendously by the standard gasoline tax relative to the damage they cause and the use they get out of our interstates.

3) A new vehicle tax of some kind on the purchase of new automobiles. I don't think the public will get behind a mileage tax, especially with recent NSA revelations. We don't trust our government that much. But a purchase tax that taxes into account weight of the vehicle, etc, could be easier to stomach.

4) Increases in rail shipping can take the weight off of our interstate system. Higher taxes on semis (see #2) can make rail shipping more cost competitive and reinvestment in this sort of infrastructure can help lower costs long term.

5) Gradual changes to city design that limit suburban sprawl should help prevent growth of "commuter" interstates, i.e., those that people use only to get from one side of the city to the other. This isn't what the interstate was designed for and I'd bet a lot of our costs are wrapped up in maintaining those.

In the end, though, this is merely a problem of how we allocate our tax dollars. The problem has been that we're paying less taxes than predicted. More efficient vehicles mean we pay less money. It's helpful to consumers but it's painful for governments because the predicted revenue source did not appear. The question is just what do we use to replace the old model?For the most part I agree with you. The only thing I disagree with is number five. Why should we tell people how to use roads they(we) paid for?

If you are going to make a system why not make one that is scalable and can ensure that it meets the funding needs of the future. The tax should be 100% collected by a mileage tax and it should be a flat-rate for every vehicle on the road. If you do it by weight what happens when people start buying lighter cars or if the trucking industry switches to trains? Plus, eventually we'll end up in an income tax situation where the government starts exempting certain types of cars, or they say someone's income isn't high enough to pay the mileage tax, driving at different times of the day have different tax, etc... If you think the income tax is screwed up let Congress start monkeying around with a progressive mileage tax full of tax credits and loopholes.

On second thought, if the mileage tax does to 'miles drive' what an income tax did to 'per capita income' maybe it is a good solution after all.

I just bought a new car yesterday that gets 2X the gas mileage of my pickup so I am now paying 1/2 the gas tax I was before.


So, you live in the suburbs and drove a gas guzzler. Who would have thought? Lol.

I just bought a new car yesterday that gets 2X the gas mileage of my pickup so I am now paying 1/2 the gas tax I was before.

Directly. How much do you pay indirectly every time you buy something?


I wonder how much the average final price of goods and services will necessarily increase when commerce rolls into that price actual transportation costs, along with the increased overhead and profit they are entitled to for being the middle man in our infrastructure financing scheme?

Same issues with city, county and state services.

So, you live in the suburbs and drove a gas guzzler. Who would have thought? Lol.

Pretty sure I have been transparent on that. If I knew 10 years ago what I know now I would have been living a walkable neighborhood the whole time, but I didn't. Trust me, if our real-estate market would improve I would sell my suburban home as fast as I could.

Directly. How much do you pay indirectly every time you buy something?


I wonder how much the average final price of goods and services will necessarily increase when commerce rolls into that price actual transportation costs, along with the increased overhead and profit they are entitled to for being the middle man in our infrastructure financing scheme?

Commerce would adjust to eliminate transportation costs. That is the whole point of removing the subsidy. Remove the subsidy and efficiency has to take over.

For the most part I agree with you. The only thing I disagree with is number five. Why should we tell people how to use roads they(we) paid for?

Well, there are two different competing interests here.

Clearly, from my perspective, it is best to have a well maintained, high speed road that runs from just comfortably outside my neighborhood to anywhere I want to go. That way I can have nice slow traffic around my house, but in 3 minutes I can be driving 80 mph, and if I leave my house at halftime I can get anywhere in the city before the 3rd quarter begins.

That is clearly best for me. High speed traffic flow and easy access to anywhere in the city is very convenient.

Now, the city on the other hand, has a competing interest. They have to pay for all this stuff. And when I make that transition from guy in the car to taxpayer, my interests shift. As much as I enjoy my easy transportation, I don't necessarily want to pay the money necessary to make it happen. The city has to be a good steward of the taxpayers' dollars. And right now what we're finding is that these massive interstates, while they make travel faster, are incredibly expensive.

It's not a matter of "telling people how to use roads they paid for". I'm not talking about closing down existing interstates. I'm talking about what roads are we going to build tomorrow that people will be using in 30 years. So the question is, can we get a better city by spending our money more efficiently? Well we already know the answer to that, we can. We do it by increasing city density. More people per square mile, more public transportation, more "stuff" in a smaller area.

Now clearly not everyone wants to live in a 500 square foot NYC apartment for $2500 a month. Density can go to an extreme and that sort of lifestyle doesn't appeal to everybody. On the other hand, probably 98% of the people in OKC live a suburban lifestyle, and not all by choice. There's just not a lot else to choose from here. I don't have a corner grocery. I have to get in my car to go anywhere. The success of neighborhoods like Deep Deuce shows that there's a strong market for a more urban environment than OKC currently provides. I think as time progresses, you'll see more and more of those neighborhoods develop, especially if we keep investing in things like the streetcar and other public works.

From the perspective of the city, we want a much much larger number of people living in efficient urban neighborhoods that we do spread out in suburbs. I'm not sure what the ideal mixture is, but we're nowhere near it right now. Imagine if everything from I-35 on the east, to I-44 on the north and west, to the river on the south, was as dense as Bricktown and Deep Deuce. Imagine if we had a streetcar running regularly over that entire area. It would hold an immense number of people in a fairly small area. We would be able to do it without sky-high New York rent prices, and we'd be able to do it without the vast and expensive interstate network that we are currently paying for, just to move people around a city that has a huge amount of empty space.

--

We are never ever going to have a perfectly planned little SimCity world where we all live. I'm not holding out any hope that OKC will look anything like that little imagined scenario anytime in my lifetime. But when we're talking about making billions of dollars of public investment, planning where the new roads are going to go and where the city will be in 20, 30, or 50 years, we should push for that type of development that will be best for the city overall.

Edit:

Not everybody will want to live in an urban neighborhood. That's fine. Some people are absolutely in love with the suburbs and all that goes along with it. That's okay too. But shouldn't we have different choices of how to live in our cities? If somebody wants to live in a high rise apartment downtown, don't we want a city that has that option for them? And if people want to live in an urban neighborhood like Deep Deuce, shouldn't we encourage that? Neighborhoods like that are becoming very very popular nationally, and if we want to attract more people and more money we should build for that demand. Shouldn't we have those options here, especially if other people living in those neighborhoods saves you tax dollars?