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.

This^. I guess it is the name New Urbanism that conjures the image of nothing but high-rise buildings in people's minds - but New Urbanism runs the gauntlet from virgin nature to skyscraper. The smart code is written to guide the development at every level of density - including no density.

SmartCode Central (http://www.smartcodecentral.org/)

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.

Prices will go up, depending on how efficient our transportation network is.

This issue is something we're going to have to deal with, one way or another. There is no "close our eyes and it will go away". We can either pay more taxes or change our lifestyles. There's no other option. Now fortunately, by "lifestyles" what I really mean is "background stuff that you won't notice". It doesn't matter to me whether my TV gets shipped to me via 18 wheeler, train, airplane, or whatever. I just want it cheap and fast. Let UPS or whoever figure out how to get it to me.

Now ideally we should target our investments towards whatever would be the most efficient. Whatever is best, that's what we should spend our money on. For 50 years we've built interstates like they are going out of style. Now we had a lot of reasons for doing that. A lot of it had to do with troop movements in preparation for a Russian invasion that never came. True story. We wanted to be able to get tanks and jeeps from one place to another, rapidly. Turns out we really didn't need to do that, but it was great for driving quickly for other purposes. And since we had these hundreds of thousands of miles of free highways, trucking companies were able to quickly grow. They were more efficient than they would have otherwise been, because of all these wonderful free roads.

Our current transportation system is more heavily oriented towards trucking than it would be without free interstates. Now, we can either keep paying lots of tax dollars to keep the current interstate system operating like we have, or we can stop doing that and other types of transportation will become more efficient. In other words, if it costs 8 cents a mile to transport a crate of tube socks in a truck, and it costs 9 cents a mile to transport them by train, then a reduction in funding to our interstates would theoretically cause shipping costs to increase by one cent per mile per crate of tube socks. Beyond that and people would simply stop shipping by truck and would ship everything by rail instead.

In reality we have about 6 billion different factors that are going to affect our shipping costs and how we operate. It is impossible for us to talk about it in depth on a message board and reach any kind of accurate determination of what is going to happen. In general what we know is that we aren't funding our interstates properly. So we either have to pay more, or accept that our interstates will gradually decline until other transportation options become more efficient by default. Personally, I think a strong interstate system is very valuable, and is worth maintaining, but those costs have to be paid for by somebody. So a truck shipping tax, even if it is passed on to consumers, seems the best way to me. If the tax was too high, shipping companies would look for the most efficient way to avoid the tax, which may mean increased rail or ship transportation. This would result in lower costs and more business.

Agreed. There's no simple answer that doesn't have many ramifications to everyones' way of life. Silly to think so.

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.
What you are calling the "fast lane" is for passing slower traffic. It is not intended for anyone to occupy as the "driving lane". For example, on a 3-lane highway, the left lane is for passing, the middle lane or driving at normal speed and the right lane is for slower moving traffic and those entering/exiting the highway. Supposedly you can be ticketed $206 for driving in the left most lane no matter what type of vehicle you drive.
Hallelujah! Oklahoma busting slow drivers in left lane - Autoblog (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/11/hallelujah-oklahoma-busting-slow-drivers-in-left-lane/)

What you are calling the "fast lane" is for passing slower traffic. It is not intended for anyone to occupy as the "driving lane". For example, on a 3-lane highway, the left lane is for passing, the middle lane or driving at normal speed and the right lane is for slower moving traffic and those entering/exiting the highway. Supposedly you can be ticketed $206 for driving in the left most lane no matter what type of vehicle you drive.
Hallelujah! Oklahoma busting slow drivers in left lane - Autoblog (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/11/hallelujah-oklahoma-busting-slow-drivers-in-left-lane/)

Many don't seem to understand the basic intent of the various lanes. Of course any given day you see some tool out there doing 80-90 mph in the left lane and getting pissy at people using it as a passing lane - as intended.

Many don't seem to understand the basic intent of the various lanes. Of course any given day you see some tool out there doing 80-90 mph in the left lane and getting pissy at people using it as a passing lane - as intended.

Hey, I am using it to pass! Constantly.

;)

Hey, I am using it to pass! Constantly.

;)

Officer, I didn't think it was safe to change lanes at the speed I was going.

We should have a minimum (3) lanes for our Interstates. The semi's should not be allowed in the left lane. Maybe the lanes could have seperate speed levels... 80 / 70 / 60. This would allow for the individual driver to manage their comfort levels / experience levels that fits best.

...and no, there should never be a toll to pay for the use of this highway.

We should have a minimum (3) lanes for our Interstates. The semi's should not be allowed in the left lane. Maybe the lanes could have seperate speed levels... 80 / 70 / 60. This would allow for the individual driver to manage their comfort levels / experience levels that fits best.

...and no, there should never be a toll to pay for the use of this highway.

Even better yet, build some sort of system into the road, be it computerized or magnetic, that interacts with the automobiles and enables them to drive themselves at speeds over 100 mph.

How about instead of expensive interstates that need constant maintenance and expansion we devise some kind of less expensive alternative to get people from one city to another (the way the rest of the world does it).

I don't mind having interstates. But rail lines appear to be a lot cheaper to maintain. If we're using them mostly to ship freight, I'd prefer we use the cheaper method.

Even better yet, build some sort of system into the road, be it computerized or magnetic, that interacts with the automobiles and enables them to drive themselves at speeds over 100 mph.

Until some glitch shows its face and you end up with a 300 car pile up and 40 people killed. I liked the idea of smart highways in the past, but I just don't trust technology enough to let go of the wheel. Sitting in an airplane without being in the cockpit is tough for me as it is. LOL

Did I miss where they discovered automated cars don't wear out the road? Not only would we still have to maintain the pavement but now we would have to maintain the automation system. That doesn't sound like a way to save money to me.

So we have a serious funding shortage for roads and some how adding a self-driving network is going to save us money? Charles Marohn over at Strong Towns said he had his ah-ha moment while coming up with a $6 million solution to a $300,000 problem.

From the November Commission meeting:

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/press/2013/13-046_november_commission_wrap-up.pdf

Executive Director Mike Patterson reported on the continuing resolution approved by Congress and the president in late October that ended the partial federal government shutdown and will fund federal operations and authorizations through Jan. 15. While the short-term extension will fund ODOT’s bid lettings for February and at least part of March, a solution for the federal government’s Highway Trust Fund is still needed to ensure ODOT’s 2014-2021 Eight-year Construction Work Plan stays on schedule. Patterson explained that the trust fund is currently at a record low level and faces insolvency unless federal lawmakers act soon. Created in 1956, the Highway Trust Fund provides funding to states for highway and bridge projects from revenue collected from the federal fuel tax and motor vehicle excise taxes. Unfortunately, declining revenues in recent years have created a $9 billion shortfall and uncertainty for transportation programs nationwide. About 50 percent of ODOT’s Eight-year Construction Work Plan is funded with federal money.

“We’re closely monitoring the situation with the Highway Trust Fund and preparing to
delay putting new projects out for bid if necessary,” Patterson said. ‘We’re certainly hopeful
that lawmakers in Washington, D.C. will act in the near future on a solution for the trust
fund’s cash balance before that happens.”

Patterson also recognized the ODOT Video Production Branch for its award-winning
video of the demolition of the old SH-28 bridge over Big Cabin Creek in Mayes County,
which recently earned an Upper Case award from the Oklahoma City Chapter of the Public
Relations Society of America for the best video produced for an external audience. The video
was featured on several construction and demolition websites and has been viewed more
than 41,000 times on YouTube.

At least the video got done before the trust fund went broke.

Here is the video...

MYN0JwDQXWU

It is about darn time.

White House opens door to tolls on interstate highways, removing long-standing prohibition - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/white-house-opens-door-to-tolls-on-interstate-highways-removing-long-standing-prohibition/2014/04/29/5d2b9f30-cfac-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html)


With pressure mounting to avert a transportation funding crisis this summer, the Obama administration Tuesday opened the door for states to collect tolls on interstate highways to raise revenue for roadway repairs.

The proposal, contained in a four-year, $302 billion White House transportation bill, would reverse a long-standing federal prohibition on most interstate tolling.

...

The question of how to pay to repair roadways and transit systems built in the heady era of post-World War II expansion is demanding center stage this spring, with projections that traditional funding can no longer meet the need.

That source, the Highway Trust Fund, relies on the 18.4-cent federal gas tax, which has eroded steadily as vehicles have become more energy efficient.



You baby-boomers who created this transportation problem are going to have to pay for it on your own. The millinieals and some of us Gen Xers are checking out. Good luck.

On edit - reading the comments at the bottom of that article is depressing. How can that many people be that stupid? It is like they are conditioned to be outraged without even thinking what they are outraged about.

It is about darn time.

White House opens door to tolls on interstate highways, removing long-standing prohibition - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/white-house-opens-door-to-tolls-on-interstate-highways-removing-long-standing-prohibition/2014/04/29/5d2b9f30-cfac-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html)



You baby-boomers who created this transportation problem are going to have to pay for it on your own. The millinieals and some of us Gen Xers are checking out. Good luck.

On edit - reading the comments at the bottom of that article is depressing. How can that many people be that stupid? It is like they are conditioned to be outraged without even thinking what they are outraged about.

JTF.... The problem is the people that will be in charge of the toll. They will spend money to spend money. This will increase shipping costs on food, oil, clothing, and everything else. I think this is a bad idea. The government needs to manage the money they get better and get rid of all of the beaurocracy. I don't believe they allocate money correctly to each state and the system needs to be fixed.

We have created a disposable society - we throw everything away simply because it is cheaper to go buy something else. Maybe food, clothing, oil, and everything else SHOULD cost a lot more. Alas, we have a created a transportation system over the last 60 years that we cannot afford - so what do we do about it? We either need to pay what it costs or we find a better transportation system.

Anyhow, this proposal leaves it up to the states to determine how they want to raise the revenue. My guess is that freeway tolling will spread faster than state lotteries did.

Just think, when you eat your salad that travel a 1000 miles from California you will be paying for road maintence in 5 states. That should be good news for local farmers.

I do like how the proposal, as you pointed out, leaves this up to the states. In essence it appears it is no different than it is now, except it removes the restrictions on taxing the interstates that were previously exempt. If the states can't spend the money appropriately then, well it is easier to hold those politicians responsible than at the Federal level...well in theory.

JTF.... The problem is the people that will be in charge of the toll. They will spend money to spend money. This will increase shipping costs on food, oil, clothing, and everything else. I think this is a bad idea. The government needs to manage the money they get better and get rid of all of the beaurocracy. I don't believe they allocate money correctly to each state and the system needs to be fixed.

This tolling proposal would leave it up to the states to make the choice and there's no reason the government should continue prohibiting the tolling of interstates. The states should mandate that the revenue generated from tolls should go 100% to the maintenance of roads. Anything else is foolish. Use road money for roads. Maybe then we can start focusing our dollars on other priorities like education, healthcare, corrections, or any of the myriad of other issues Oklahoma is facing.

This tolling proposal would leave it up to the states to make the choice and there's no reason the government should continue prohibiting the tolling of interstates. The states should mandate that the revenue generated from tolls should go 100% to the maintenance of roads. Anything else is foolish. Use road money for roads. Maybe then we can start focusing our dollars on other priorities like education, healthcare, corrections, or any of the myriad of other issues Oklahoma is facing.It should be brought to the people for a vote. I think this is good that they will allow tolling the interstates so debt ridden States like California can have them and when the folks from those states drive through Oklahoma and see we no tolls, they'll say 'isn't this so nice not having to pay to drive on a highway'.

It should be brought to the people for a vote. I think this is good that they will allow tolling the interstates so debt ridden States like California can have them and when the folks from those states drive through Oklahoma and see we no tolls, they'll say 'isn't this so nice not having to pay to drive on a highway'.

Why the hell would we not toll? We can't remotely keep up with all the maintenance needs we have now and it's only getting worse. I think all highways will be tolled in the future because we can't continue on like we have been doing. We've never been forced to bear the brunt of the true cost of these massive highway systems. Maybe this is the impetus that pushes us to better transit systems in this country? All forms are subsidized, but we can get a lot better bang for our buck than 10 lane highways.

Oklahoma would be stupid not to put tolls on the interstate system since a lot of rural interstate is used by people passing through. They could just put up some toll gates north, south, east, and west of the metro and charge everyone that passes through - like the way I-44 is now. If that doesn't generate enough money they can toll the urban freeways like the Kilpatrick does. Heck, except for I-4 every freeway in Orlando has a toll and starting in 2 years I-4 will have toll lanes.

Why the hell would we not toll? We can't remotely keep up with all the maintenance needs we have now and it's only getting worse. I think all highways will be tolled in the future because we can't continue on like we have been doing. We've never been forced to bear the brunt of the true cost of these massive highway systems. Maybe this is the impetus that pushes us to better transit systems in this country? All forms are subsidized, but we can get a lot better bang for our buck than 10 lane highways.I disagree. We don't need to toll every interstate. It about how we manage our money. This notion that seems to be pushed that our infrastructure is why we are in so much debt is hilarious.

I disagree. We don't need to toll every interstate. It about how we manage our money. This notion that seems to be pushed that our infrastructure is why we are in so much debt is hilarious.

Then you're ignorant regarding the problem. Is it the entire problem? No. Is it a big part of the problem? Definitely. On a related note, I assume you understand that infrastructure extends beyond just roads.

Then you're ignorant regarding the problem. Is it the entire problem? No. Is it a big part of the problem? Definitely. On a related note, I assume you understand that infrastructure extends beyond just roads.You know, I guess it comes down personal preference here. I do NOT think you should be charged for driving on the interstates. That is ridiculous imo, but if that is what the majority of people want, to be charged twice for something, then fine.

BTW, I was going to leave a sarcastic remark regarding the infrastructure extending beyond roads comment, but I think you're a cool guy and have great ideas, so I don't want to get on bad terms with you, so I'll simply say 'yes', I am every aware that there is more to infrastructure than roads and highways. Even worse, my comment was specifically pointing out to the roads and highway being the main source of the debt when in fact it isn't true, to which I was responding to other claims and notions.

It makes you wonder what lobbyists are pushing for this and how much their employers stand to profit from it. It is awesome though that the federal excise tax is immune to inflation or at least that's what policy makers must think since it hasn't been adjusted in over 20 years. No doubt though tolling the highway will fix everything. No doubt whatsoever.

You know, I guess it comes down personal preference here. I do NOT think you should be charged for driving on the interstates. That is ridiculous imo, but if that is what the majority of people want, to be charged twice for something, then fine.

What do you mean by being charged twice?

You know, I guess it comes down personal preference here. I do NOT think you should be charged for driving on the interstates. That is ridiculous imo, but if that is what the majority of people want, to be charged twice for something, then fine.

BTW, I was going to leave a sarcastic remark regarding the infrastructure extending beyond roads comment, but I think you're a cool guy and have great ideas, so I don't want to get on bad terms with you, so I'll simply say 'yes', I am every aware that there is more to infrastructure than roads and highways. Even worse, my comment was specifically pointing out to the roads and highway being the main source of the debt when in fact it isn't true, to which I was responding to other claims and notions.

Can you clarify what you mean by charged twice?

I reread what I wrote and pardon me for coming off like such a douchebag. Didn't intend for it to sound like that. We just have differing opinions on this issue.

I think you're a cool guy too and I wish you the best of luck on your cougar hunt!

You know, I guess it comes down personal preference here. I do NOT think you should be charged for driving on the interstates. That is ridiculous imo, but if that is what the majority of people want, to be charged twice for something, then fine.

In Oklahoma, I believe the Turnpike is not funded by federal gas tax, so I don't understand your "be charged twice" comment.

Possibly some feel "be charged twice" is paying tolls for a road built with tax dollars. Should that be the case they fail to realize the costs for road upkeep, improvements, etc. Is it a coincidence that the interstates with the smoothest roads in Oklahoma have tolls?

What do you mean by being charged twice?Being charged twice, it's simple. We already paid for the highway, so why pay for it again. Maintenance and paying for a new highway are two different things.

Can you clarify what you mean by charged twice?

I reread what I wrote and pardon me for coming off like such a douchebag. Didn't intend for it to sound like that. We just have differing opinions on this issue.

I think you're a cool guy too and I wish you the best of luck on your cougar hunt!I just meant highways like I-40 that are already paid for. With ODOT everything has to be paid for upfront, right? So, seeing as we have paid for the highways with gas tax and other revenue sources, putting a toll to charge us for a highway that is was already paid for, is not right, imo. Inner city highway and interstates like I-44 can be tolled, but I don't think main interstates like I-40 and I-35 should be tolled, but that is just my opinion.

You didn't come off like a douchebag at all. I was just saying I know there are more important pieces of infrastructure than roads.

As for the cougar hunt, thanks a lot dude! I'm trying to get everything goin ;)

Possibly some feel "be charged twice" is paying tolls for a road built with tax dollars. Should that be the case they fail to realize the costs for road upkeep, improvements, etc. Is it a coincidence that the interstates with the smoothest roads in Oklahoma have tolls?There is no reason we can't have a set of highways that aren't tolled and are kept up tax dollars. It is a matter of where our tax dollars are going, taxing new things such lottery, marijuana, mileage tax etc. I absolutely can not believe that the money from the lotto didn't raise a dime of the budget because they just diverted that money elsewhere. Raising the gas tax is also a must.

New loop around Edmond, toll it. New loop around around Norman, toll it. Widen I-35 to 10 lanes to Norman, include tolled express lanes with 80MPH speed limit and toll the hell out of it; people will use it. Toll 240 and I-44/Hefner parkway. I do NOT have a problem with that. Tolling I-35 and I-40 gets a fat no from me.

In Oklahoma, I believe the Turnpike is not funded by federal gas tax, so I don't understand your "be charged twice" comment.Ok, not sure what this has to with anything as I wasn't really referring to existing tollways.

I just meant highways like I-40 that are already paid for. With ODOT everything has to be paid for upfront, right? So, seeing as we have paid for the highways with gas tax and other revenue sources, putting a toll to charge us for a highway that is was already paid for, is not right, imo. Inner city highway and interstates like I-44 can be tolled, but I don't think main interstates like I-40 and I-35 should be tolled, but that is just my opinion.

You didn't come off like a douchebag at all. I was just saying I know there are more important pieces of infrastructure than roads.

As for the cougar hunt, thanks a lot dude! I'm trying to get everything goin ;)

I see what you're saying. Perhaps a compromise could be tolls on interstates here in Oklahoma up until you reach the inside of the inner city loop. For my example here, I-40 would be tolled until you reach I-44 in the west and the branch off for 240 in the east and I-35 would be tolled until you reach I-240 in the south and I-44 in the north of the city. I don't know really, it's just food for thought as I haven't vetted this plan fully as of this moment. But I think it could work reasonably well and you share the burden of maintaining roads with out of towners that also damage them.

Thanks. And to be clear, I agree with you that roads are very important pieces of infrastructure. There's just so much to keep up with. Everywhere we turn, something needs fixing. Roads, schools, jails, capitol building, museums, offices, it's never ending. I just meant that tolls seem like a reasonable way (to me) of helping spread the cost of some of this upkeep. I mean Oklahoma sure as hell isn't going to raise taxes to get this stuff up to snuff, so we've got to start looking elsewhere.

I hear you, and that is pretty reasonable. The other thing is, anything new needs to be tolled. Like an interstate from OKC to Denver, would be awesome, but would need to be tolled.

Unless we plan to take the money out of education or human services, there's precious little to cut/transfer. I believe we will see growing sentiment by the various states to make the Interstate Highway System largely toll roads. Once the sentiment reaches "critical mass," Interstate Highway toll roads will become ubiquitous. For me, converting I-35 and I-40 into toll roads from the respective state lines into the metro area would be a "no brainer." The funds allocated for Interstate maintenance and upkeep could be "off loaded" to the OTA, and the resulting savings used/transferred to maintain the state's other roads, highways and bridges.

http://shaughnessy7.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/fy-2013-ok-budget-graph.jpg

Ok, not sure what this has to with anything as I wasn't really referring to existing tollways.

I would look at it this way - yes they are "paid for" initially but wear and tear means they highways and never paid off - if that makes sense. Once a highway goes to a tollroad then it loses all outside funding like it is now. I look at this as a way for states to take responsibility for their own highways/interstates and less pressure on the federal government to pay for it. Like I-95 in Northern Maine...it sees something like a few hundred cars a day. That's a waste of our tax dollars when it should just be tolled.

I would look at it this way - yes they are "paid for" initially but wear and tear means they highways and never paid off - if that makes sense. Once a highway goes to a tollroad then it loses all outside funding like it is now. I look at this as a way for states to take responsibility for their own highways/interstates and less pressure on the federal government to pay for it. Like I-95 in Northern Maine...it sees something like a few hundred cars a day. That's a waste of our tax dollars when it should just be tolled.So the government shouldn't help fund major transportation projects at all? Maybe I mis-interpreted that.

Also, I understand the wear and tear, but that comes from a raised gas tax and mileage tax. Lets get that going. Toll more highways than we are now to reduce the ones we have to use taxes on and focus on those.

As far as the one in Northern Maine, I don't know anything about it.

... Also, I understand the wear and tear, but that comes from a raised gas tax and mileage tax. Lets get that going. Toll more highways than we are now to reduce the ones we have to use taxes on and focus on those. ...

Only half is coming from that on average, however Oklahoma has one of the lowest fuel taxes so it probably is not even covering that much. Toll roads are basically just shifting where and when the taxes are payed, with much stronger relation between who is paying and who gets the benefit than when half is coming out of general funds.

So the government shouldn't help fund major transportation projects at all? Maybe I mis-interpreted that.

Not exactly. What I'm saying is that we look at most toll roads around the country and they tend to be better kept. Why? My opinion is its because the money stays "local" instead of going into a big pot to be divided up by whichever congressperson lobbies more. You also have independent turnpike authorities that are focused only on their highways. Imagine freeing ODOT up to focus on state highways, non-tolled interstates/highways, rail, and other transportation forms.

Well, that is what I was wanting. For any new highway in the city to be tolled. The only two highways ODOT would really have to worry about it I-35 and I-40. I understand there are other state highways as well. The next widening of I-35 should come with express tolls similar to 635 in Dallas which would help pay for the highway while giving people the option to use a lower speed limited, more congested section.

I also wish ODOT would be relieved of their duties regarding rail and form an agency that really cares about passenger rail transit in Oklahoma.

Again, see, if it was me, pretty much any highway in OKC except I-40 and I-35 would be tolled. I would place express toll lanes on I-35 from downtown OKC to Norman as a trial to see how it works in Oklahoma, but a widening of that probably isn't the highest priority at the moment and won't happen for another 5+ years. Right now, I just wish planning would get underway so whatever happens with I-35, we get light-rail from it. The next highway projects really need to have light-rail funding dedicated. I know we're looking at commuter rail for now, but it'd just be nice to see ROW for light-rail in the future.

The freeways AREN'T paid for yet though. It might seem like the new I-40 through downtown is paid for but it isn't. The federal government had to sell Treasury bonds in order to have the money to give to ODOT. It should be tolled so those federal bonds can be paid off. Then it should be tolled even more to pay for maintenance. And then it should be tolled even more so we don't need to take out more bonds in 30 years when it is time to replace it.

So when did it become ok for people to have to pay to use a road? I'm personally 100% against and toll method, but if you want to create a use tax, which is what this really is, then put it on fuel. Then you're also collecting for municipal use as well. The amount collected can be divided up between city and state government by a percentage so that both parties collect on itIf you make it say 5% (for 57.50., then it's an extra ~2.75 on my typical fillup (15 gallons at 3.65 today). It would be 55.50 if i were a 5cent flat addition (extra $1.50). So either way, the collection is a pretty good amount, while not being really much of an impact for the consumer. Tolls, however, can become quite a burdon. Look at a toll at even a .25. Really that's .50 for the day since you have to come home too. 2.50 per week would be double that of the other methods over the course of a regular tank of gas. Not to mention the fact that there is a LOT of overhead with toll that isn't included in taxing. You have to pay to build the toll plazas, pay the plaza employees, pay to maintain the software and hardware (cash registers, credit card machines, pikepass system, etc). So that .25 doesn't go as far...which means they will want to raise the toll to a higher amount.

In the long run, the tax can be a much more stable amount through either method. It also has the benefit of supporting the whole state. All those towns that aren't near an interstate still help fill the state budget for the state highways out there in the rural areas....you know, how taxes are supposed to work. I tell you right now, if the interstates are tolled, the money will never be "enough" and the budget of ODOT will be screwed with because of it...ie reduced. And we'll be paying for things that we never use. Meaning, if you never leave OKC (and plenty people dont), your paying toll money to pay for the interstate in weatherford at a MUCH higher rate than the people in Weatherford do because you drive it daily on your commute. In the tax method, just like a traditional tax, everyone contributes to the whole state and everyone gets something from it....especially if it's split with the municipalities.

Plus, you put a toll plaza in town, you just make traffic that much worse. Check out places like Tampa to see how that sucks.

When did it become okay? Answer, when we ran out of money to maintain them.

Funny how actually paying for something you use is now an insurmountable burden. With your idea to tax gasoline so rural areas who aren't on the interstate system help pay for the interstate I have to ask, do you consider yourself a Republican, a right-winger, or a Tea-party member, because your wealth redistribution philosophy would make me question your self-identification.

What does the pump price of gasoline have to do with the fixed cost of road construction and maintenance?

A 10% drop in pump price will result in 10% fewer collections, while the lower price of gas will encourage more driving which causes more wear -- while collecting less revenue.

Tolls spread the direct cost of the maintenance to those who use the road; and you notice the higher weight/more axle vehicles pay a higher price; because they cause more damage to the roadway.

So when did it become ok for people to have to pay to use a road? I'm personally 100% against and toll method, but if you want to create a use tax, which is what this really is, then put it on fuel. Then you're also collecting for municipal use as well. The amount collected can be divided up between city and state government by a percentage so that both parties collect on itIf you make it say 5% (for 57.50., then it's an extra ~2.75 on my typical fillup (15 gallons at 3.65 today). It would be 55.50 if i were a 5cent flat addition (extra $1.50). So either way, the collection is a pretty good amount, while not being really much of an impact for the consumer. Tolls, however, can become quite a burdon. Look at a toll at even a .25. Really that's .50 for the day since you have to come home too. 2.50 per week would be double that of the other methods over the course of a regular tank of gas. Not to mention the fact that there is a LOT of overhead with toll that isn't included in taxing. You have to pay to build the toll plazas, pay the plaza employees, pay to maintain the software and hardware (cash registers, credit card machines, pikepass system, etc). So that .25 doesn't go as far...which means they will want to raise the toll to a higher amount.

In the long run, the tax can be a much more stable amount through either method. It also has the benefit of supporting the whole state. All those towns that aren't near an interstate still help fill the state budget for the state highways out there in the rural areas....you know, how taxes are supposed to work. I tell you right now, if the interstates are tolled, the money will never be "enough" and the budget of ODOT will be screwed with because of it...ie reduced. And we'll be paying for things that we never use. Meaning, if you never leave OKC (and plenty people dont), your paying toll money to pay for the interstate in weatherford at a MUCH higher rate than the people in Weatherford do because you drive it daily on your commute. In the tax method, just like a traditional tax, everyone contributes to the whole state and everyone gets something from it....especially if it's split with the municipalities.

Plus, you put a toll plaza in town, you just make traffic that much worse. Check out places like Tampa to see how that sucks.

In theory we were always paying to use the road, it was just hidden in the gas tax, plus since the gas tax was never high enough so we also payed out of the general revenue fund. The problem with putting it on fuel is it become somewhat unfair based on age of vehicle, plus if they can bring the cost of electric vehicles down then something has to change in the system. It is also a good thing that people would know much better what the costs are for where they plan to live.

The argument about Weatherford is a bit inaccurate, since most people that live there do not use it to commute it needs less maintenance and only has to be a basic four lane design. The areas in OKC and Tulsa are some of the most expensive to build and maintain because of all the extra lanes and junctures we have to make it a commuter network. Traffic counts will still be considered when choosing what projects do and when, plus no matter the tax method we probably will still be paying for part of what is around Weatherford so we can access everything west of it.

As far as the toll plazas I doubt that will be much of an issue for anyone local, as of several years ago already more than 98% of all Oklahoma turnpike use was through Pike Passes. If toll roads did become more widespread you could have a drop in the number of people stopping just for the receipt too.

So with Oklahoma being the Crossroads of America, if everyone pays tolls then Oklahoma will be an accessory to drug trafficking? ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know this doesn't have to do with much here, but I believe glow in the dark roads were brought up here and for the life of me, I'm too lazy to start a thread.

Glow In The Dark Roads? Not So Fast (http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1091932_glow-in-the-dark-roads-not-so-fast?fbfanpage)


More specifically, moisture, such as that encountered during rainfall, can quickly reduce the effectiveness of the glowing paint’s light output—the pilot road markings were just put in place two weeks ago, reports the BBC, and yet already they’re dimming due to large amounts of rain.

Another potential pitfall to the glowing lane markers: drivers have already been spotted cruising down the road in the test area with their headlights off so that they can see the glowing lines—a clear safety hazard if such roads should become widespread.

Nevertheless, the engineering firm Heijmans, which is behind the realization of the pilot program in the Netherlands along with interactive artist Daan Roosegaarde, says a new version of the glowing road markings is already in development, and will be ready later this summer.

just the facts - actually I usually vote democrat. I'm registered Republican but haven't had much reason to vote "R" in quite a while.

But I think you chose to leave out the part where I mentioned state highways. If you toll the interstates, you don't do anything for the ODOT budget for STATE highways. If you put an extra gas tax in, you actually collect for ALL roads. Remember, my suggestion even included a split for municipal roads too. I'm not sure how that is anything but a good thing. No one is left out of that picture....which is why Weatherford was my example...it has interstate/near by state highway, and obviously city streets.

catch22 - That's also why I offered two options. Flat and percentage. However, if you look at the percentage model, as the price of gas goes down so to the prices of other things. Specifically, as the price of oil goes down, the price of asphalt goes down. It really is a direct connection. If you choose a flat rate, obviously you have more control and it's less volatile.

If you vote Democrat then at least you are consistent on the wealth redistribution. I think we need to do a combination of things.

1) Toll every interstate and remove the majority of on/off ramps
2) Switch to a milage based tax
3) Implement regional rail sooner rather than later

The public should fund public transportation and the private sector should fund private transportation.

I vote democrat, but I wouldn't support points 1 or 2.

I vote democrat, but I wouldn't support points 1 or 2.

Of course you wouldn't - you have made it clear you want other people to pay your share.

How about this plan? This has to be one of the most stupid and mathematically impossible ideas I have ever seen.

Money-Losing Post Office Said to Be Highway Fund Source - Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-05-28/money-losing-post-office-said-to-be-highway-fund-target)


Raising the U.S. gasoline tax is out as a way to shore up the Highway Trust Fund. So is taxing drivers based on the number of miles they clock. A plan to use taxes on companies’ overseas profits hasn’t gone anywhere. So House Republicans are now turning to the money-losing U.S. Postal Service. Unusual as it may sound, possible savings from revamping the agency’s operations are on the table as one way to patch highway funding, said two Republican legislative aides with knowledge of the talks.

...

Tapping savings from Postal Service changes is one of several ideas being considered to bolster the highway fund, the aides said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Passing a highway bill is a priority for Congress this year.

...

“They’re looking desperately under every pot and crevice to come up with some money to pay for an extension of the trust fund,” he said in a phone interview. “They will have a terrible message to take home to their constituents this fall if they don’t find it.”

How is that making other people pay my share? My plan involved everyone in the state paying for all parts. That's how a tax works. Do you pay taxes for education? Guess what? Everyone pays it even if you go to private school or if you're 80. Why? Because everyone has to contribute in order for it to work. Same goes for ANY government benefit. You don't get something without having to pay for it. A tax at the pump is a MUCH more fair use tax. The more you use, the more you buy, the more you pay.

My plan actually helps everyone a lot more than just a state plan because it revenue shares between the local and state entities across the state. You pay taxes in Yukon, the city of Yukon gets part and the state gets part. If you never drive, you never pay. The more you drive, the more you pay. How is that not fair? If you toll interstates, you actually do what you claim I am doing. How? Because interstate travelers are now paying for all the state highway use. If you don't use an interstate, you aren't contributing to the funding. And ODOT has FAR FAR FAR FAR more miles of state highway than interstate.

How is that making other people pay my share? My plan involved everyone in the state paying for all parts. That's how a tax works. Do you pay taxes for education? Guess what? Everyone pays it even if you go to private school or if you're 80. Why? Because everyone has to contribute in order for it to work. Same goes for ANY government benefit. You don't get something without having to pay for it. A tax at the pump is a MUCH more fair use tax. The more you use, the more you buy, the more you pay.

My plan actually helps everyone a lot more than just a state plan because it revenue shares between the local and state entities across the state. You pay taxes in Yukon, the city of Yukon gets part and the state gets part. If you never drive, you never pay. The more you drive, the more you pay. How is that not fair? If you toll interstates, you actually do what you claim I am doing. How? Because interstate travelers are now paying for all the state highway use. If you don't use an interstate, you aren't contributing to the funding. And ODOT has FAR FAR FAR FAR more miles of state highway than interstate.
How is the gasoline it buy for my lawnmower a fair way to pay for the highways? I have never used my lawnmower on the street.

How is the gasoline it buy for my lawnmower a fair way to pay for the highways? I have never used my lawnmower on the street.

I went from a 15 mpg pickup to a 30 mpg Fiat. Oddly enough, I now drive more than ever because my cost to do so was cut in half. So I use the road 2X as much and pay half what I was. Multiple that by millions of people doing the same thing and we get our current problem.

How is the gasoline it buy for my lawnmower a fair way to pay for the highways? I have never used my lawnmower on the street.

Speak for yourself:

Waterboy(AD) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxQgTUwVyAY)

I went from a 15 mpg pickup to a 30 mpg Fiat. Oddly enough, I now drive more than ever because my cost to do so was cut in half. So I use the road 2X as much and pay half what I was. Multiple that by millions of people doing the same thing and we get our current problem.Is that a bad thing you have a better MPG?