But the idea was to connect the metros with a faster route knowing that the state highways that were available before the turnpikes, were slow and poorly maintained.

Its sort of like college athletics. The big players subsidize the rest of the system but we still benefit from the whole system.

If Oklahomans weren't so dumb, we would have just given ODOT the money it needed to do the damned things themselves instead of creating the monster they did.

roads cost money maintaining roads costs money .. OTA solves that issue .. for the State legislature .. nothing about being dumb ..

if you live somewhere in Oklahoma and don't use the turnpike system it costs you 0.00 dollars ..

If I understand correctly, when OTA was seeking legislature approval to build the Kilpatrick and Creek in the late 1980's, rural lawmakers also wanted turnpikes, even though OTA said they would lose money due to less traffic on these "rural" routes, the only way to get the votes needed was to build these lesser traveled turnpikes to get the ones that were needed (Creek and Kilpatrick).



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickasaw_Turnpike

They also set the rates lower on the rural roads. So the rates are somewhat progressive. At the end day this is just a progressive vs consumption tax argument.

I would argue the Cherokee was needed as a substitute for the deathtrap that was OK33 (now US412B or something). There was no way ODOT had the $$$ to do it.

roads cost money maintaining roads costs money .. OTA solves that issue .. for the State legislature .. nothing about being dumb ..

if you live somewhere in Oklahoma and don't use the turnpike system it costs you 0.00 dollars ..

That's the most capitalist statement i've seen here in a very long time. But it does definitely reflect the opinions of a lot of Oklahomans. My retort would be, you could very easily extend that same logic to education. If you don't have kids in school any longer, why should you pay for it? Socialism isn't a bad word folks. We use it every day in the US...and this is an example of it. Otherwise we would all have to pay for private access roads/etc. What you do with that Socialism is what differentiates US Socialism from Communist Socialism.

The reason is multifaceted but in general here are the two main reasons to support these things.
1 - because everyone benefits from it being done and being done well and in a way that's not corrupt.
2 - I'll say it again, when you widen the base, you lower the rate. When everyone pays for something like education or roads, across the ENTIRE population, then the amount that each person has to pay is much lower.

You benefit from them being there even if you don't directly use them. Your doctors are educated here (among a million other professions as well) and EVERYTHING you purchase, uses a road as some point to get from A to B, including the turnpike (especially if you live in Tulsa).

I would prefer to abolish the OTA and just give ODOT the money to handle the roads. But it does mean that we would have to raise a tax...and in Oklahoma, that's heresy.

Stitt wanted to say he passed that whole grocery tax thing. Well those $200M didn't go away, they just took it from somewhere else....and you still paid for it. We're not all that dumb mr sh!tt.

2 - I'll say it again, when you widen the base, you lower the rate. When everyone pays for something like education or roads, across the ENTIRE population, then the amount that each person has to pay is much lower.
.

when people that don't use turnpikes they pay 0.00 dollars for them .. every one less those people pay nothing

never mind.....

I still don't understand why people are assuming new major metro area turnpikes are going to be money losers without contemplating that the existing non-money losing turnpikes are the ones in the state's major metro areas.

I still don't understand why people are assuming new major metro area turnpikes are going to be money losers without contemplating that the existing non-money losing turnpikes are the ones in the state's major metro areas.

It's just a hatred for turnpikes, period. There's a lot of it for some reason. Me, I love the turnpikes. They're significantly maintained better than non-turnpike highways, they're significantly better during winter weather bouts, they are generally just better to drive on. No offense to ODOT, I mean they do the best they can do with their limited funding.

We just got back from Dallas yesterday and used turnpikes all over north Texas. With the federal government not really opening new interstates -- or if they are they're super slow to do it -- turnpikes can get it done now. And the best part is that if you don't drive on it, you don't have to worry about paying for it.

It's just a hatred for turnpikes, period. There's a lot of it for some reason. Me, I love the turnpikes. They're significantly maintained better than non-turnpike highways, they're significantly better during winter weather bouts, they are generally just better to drive on. No offense to ODOT, I mean they do the best they can do with their limited funding.

We just got back from Dallas yesterday and used turnpikes all over north Texas. With the federal government not really opening new interstates -- or if they are they're super slow to do it -- turnpikes can get it done now. And the best part is that if you don't drive on it, you don't have to worry about paying for it.

If I-44 wasn't tolled, a lot of out-of-state revenue would be taken off the table. That's where the education comparison stops making sense. We are not paying for Texas, Missouri, or Kansas kids to attend our schools. And the out-of-state vehicles are not always directly benefiting Oklahoma's economy; some are passing through.

That's kind of the idea around most of Oklahoma's turnpikes, trying to get out-of-state traffic to drive around the metro areas. Saving ODOT money on maintenance and expansion on interstates going through the metro areas. Now I think a strong argument can made that those rural turnpikes in the middle of nowhere should be converted into non-turnpikes. These were are all 'delegated' to OTA anyway by state legislature and have been around for decades.

That's the most capitalist statement i've seen here in a very long time..

thank you for the kind words

Who will be the thousands of people that will need to use the north/south connector that is planned to go through east Norman?

[QUOTE=MagzOK;1285194]It's just a hatred for turnpikes, period. There's a lot of it for some reason. Me, I love the turnpikes. They're significantly maintained better than non-turnpike highways, they're significantly better during winter weather bouts, they are generally just better to drive on. No offense to ODOT, I mean they do the best they can do with their limited funding.

I think my issue is with the OTA, not all turnpikes. This is taken from the OTA about page, "To construct, maintain, repair, and operate Turnpike projects and highways, with their access and connecting roads at such locations and on such routes as it shall determine to be feasible and economically sound."
During discovery in the latest lawsuit against the OTA it was found that if the OTA does not issue more bonds that they will not have the money to continue to repay them. This is my issue with them, They are not financially sound and they have to build and create more debt just to survive. Everyone who uses the turnpikes has to pay for their reckless spending. How about we get the existing bond debt under control before they get Oklahoma 10 billion more in the hole?
Please read this page to learn why they can't make enough money.
https://pikeoffota.com/why-does-a-roadway-cost-more-when-the-ota-is-in-charge/ I know the source is anti-turnpike but they do site their work to back up what they are saying.

I would prefer to abolish the OTA and just give ODOT the money to handle the roads. But it does mean that we would have to raise a tax...and in Oklahoma, that's heresy.

Abolishing the OTA would also require repaying all bondholders. The State of Oklahoma doesn't have the money to do that either.

The point being that every penny for turnpikes came from either user fees (tolls) or investors - not taxpayers. No one has ever been forced to drive on them or invest in them.

[QUOTE=MagzOK;1285194]
https://pikeoffota.com/why-does-a-roadway-cost-more-when-the-ota-is-in-charge/ I know the source is anti-turnpike but they do site their work to back up what they are saying.

that link is LOL

not well sourced or well reasoned ..

Who will be the thousands of people that will need to use the north/south connector that is planned to go through east Norman?

I'm one, I would use that regularly.

I'm one, I would use that regularly.

I will also. I drive to north Texas regularly and would gladly pay to bypass central OKC/I35 from Edmond to get out of town. I will also utilize it when going to OU sporting events in Norman during the weekday evenings just to bypass the bumper to bumper commuters.

Abolishing the OTA would also require repaying all bondholders. The State of Oklahoma doesn't have the money to do that either.

The point being that every penny for turnpikes came from either user fees (tolls) or investors - not taxpayers. No one has ever been forced to drive on them or invest in them.

Sort of repeating record here, but those bonds could easily be paid by the new tax dollars raised. The debt doesn't disappear just because OTA goes away. It would just have to transfer to the state. Think of it like an infrastructure acquisition.

@Boulder - my statement wasn't to support or detract from that capitalist statement. it was just to state what that statement was.
I think you still missed the point of what I was saying though. In fact you just rolled right over it. You're right, if you dont use it, you dont pay for it. Just like my example of the public education system. But my point was that if ODOT maintained these instead, it would be better for everyone.

About the comment of out of state drivers, there still can be fuel/charging taxes on those folks. The state is large enough that it would be difficult to traverse the entire state without having to stop at least once for fuel/charging. Much like a toll, it just becomes a use tax. But again, that folds into how we start collecting taxes as gasoline becomes less of a thing over the next 50 years. Even diesel will likely be reduced eventually as electric semis become more practical (very long term view). Might as well start planning for them now.

Sort of repeating record here, but those bonds could easily be paid by the new tax dollars raised. The debt doesn't disappear just because OTA goes away. It would just have to transfer to the state. Think of it like an infrastructure acquisition.

@Boulder - my statement wasn't to support or detract from that capitalist statement. it was just to state what that statement was.
I think you still missed the point of what I was saying though. In fact you just rolled right over it. You're right, if you dont use it, you dont pay for it. Just like my example of the public education system. But my point was that if ODOT maintained these instead, it would be better for everyone.

About the comment of out of state drivers, there still can be fuel/charging taxes on those folks. The state is large enough that it would be difficult to traverse the entire state without having to stop at least once for fuel/charging. Much like a toll, it just becomes a use tax. But again, that folds into how we start collecting taxes as gasoline becomes less of a thing over the next 50 years. Even diesel will likely be reduced eventually as electric semis become more practical (very long term view). Might as well start planning for them now.

the diesel tax for truckers won't come close to replacing their tolls .. and out of state driving currently pay fuel taxes ..

Sort of repeating record here, but those bonds could easily be paid by the new tax dollars raised. The debt doesn't disappear just because OTA goes away. It would just have to transfer to the state. Think of it like an infrastructure acquisition.

"New tax dollars" means more taxes, and the debt "transferring to the state" means putting perhaps a billion in new debt on Oklahomans. That would require at a minimum a majority vote of both houses and the Governor, and voting for those things would be political suicide.

As for "infrastructure acquisition," roads are cost centers, not profit centers, and the cost of turnpikes is currently paid by tolls. Your plan would shift that to Oklahoma taxpayers. Again - a nonstarter.

The first step would be to actually let ODOT issue bonds to complete whole projects at one time. You would see less OTA sponsored in the future if this was done.

"New tax dollars" means more taxes, and the debt "transferring to the state" means putting perhaps a billion in new debt on Oklahomans. That would require at a minimum a majority vote of both houses and the Governor, and voting for those things would be political suicide.

As for "infrastructure acquisition," roads are cost centers, not profit centers, and the cost of turnpikes is currently paid by tolls. Your plan would shift that to Oklahoma taxpayers. Again - a nonstarter.

I mean all of what I suggested is never going to happen anyway...it's just talk. But you're right, it would take a LOT of conversations to sell that. And i don't disagree that there's not much will to do it. We're all too happy complaining about the tolls and OTA to look at changes. You say "new tax" in Oklahoma and everyone goes bonkers, even if it's for their own interests. But hey, that's people. It's not unique to Oklahoma either. Just look at what happened in California back in the early 00's under Brown. The whole dang state about went bankrupt over people refusing taxes.

It's just a "what if" folks. Calm your panties.

I mean all of what I suggested is never going to happen anyway...it's just talk. But you're right, it would take a LOT of conversations to sell that. And i don't disagree that there's not much will to do it. We're all too happy complaining about the tolls and OTA to look at changes. You say "new tax" in Oklahoma and everyone goes bonkers, even if it's for their own interests. But hey, that's people. It's not unique to Oklahoma either. Just look at what happened in California back in the early 00's under Brown. The whole dang state about went bankrupt over people refusing taxes.

It's just a "what if" folks. Calm your panties.

new taxes had nothing to do with California about going bankrupt ... spending did ..

The first step would be to actually let ODOT issue bonds to complete whole projects at one time. You would see less OTA sponsored in the future if this was done.

That would require a constitutional amendment or a compliant Supreme Court.

new taxes had nothing to do with California about going bankrupt ... spending did ..

I guess that depends on how you look at it. You are right that spending ran away, but that's not fully why it happened.

Proposition 13 caused the spending to exceed income...hence the almost bankruptcy. They voted to cap property/income taxes (among other things) in Prop 13 and they shot themselves in the foot. Supermajority requirements for changes meant that they couldn't fix it either. As said, it required a massive political will to correct the issue. Prop 25 changed that. It didn't change the tax, but it put to a vote the ability to change from a supermajority to a majority to make budget changes....not tax changes.

CA is still one of the most expensive places to do business and is extremely heavily regulated...and taxed. But for some reason, people still do a LOT of business there. I know when my office has any sort of acquisition, the CA offices are the first to close and the staff is often the first to RIF....they're both too freaking expensive. But that has nothing to do with what we're talking about lol......

So OTA does comment about how our tolls are still very low compared to the other toll owners around. Does anyone know if that comment was made adjusting for local cost of living? I mean it doesn't cost the same to do work in Oklahoma as it does in say New Jersey. So frankly, we should be the lowest tolls. So is that just a way they are trying to make us feel better about getting rammed from behind?

That would require a constitutional amendment or a compliant Supreme Court.
Why do people defend insanity? Just f@cking do it. Get rid of the tolls. It’s a very simple task.

I would bet $1, if OTA were to be allowed to issue bonds, they would abuse it.

I truly don't understand the hatred of toll toads since only those who use the roads pay the toll.

I don't mind toll roads. I use whatever road gets me to my destination the most efficiently and don't care if it's a toll road or not. I will get on the Kilpatrick for 2 miles then exit if I think it is the most efficient for me at that time. I just got on the Kilpatrick EB at Hefner Parkway only to get off on Penn just a few days ago to avoid all the stop lights on Memorial in rush hour traffic. I take the Kilpatrick SB at HW66 to either 10th st or I40 W going to Yukon.

I would bet $1, if OTA were to be allowed to issue bonds, they would abuse it.

I truly don't understand the hatred of toll toads since only those who use the roads pay the toll.

When it was contained to the city connectors, i think most people would agree. When they started building in-city roll roads that should have been "free", like the Kilpatrick or the Creek, that's when it started getting ridiculous. ODOT isn't building anything new because they can't afford to. So OTA builds anything new and keeps it perpetually tolled to keep the money coming in since ODOT, again, can't afford them. And keep in mind, the ORIGINAL idea was that the original pikes would be turned over to the state when they were paid for. That obviously didn't happen....the money was too good.

Pull out an old school atlas and look at the percentage of tolls roads in Oklahoma compared to almost any other state. At this point, we're getting insane at the amount we have.

A lot of people talk about comparing to TX, but they're really doing the same thing these days. They even found a way to spend a **** ton of money on 635 so they could find a way to toll that. The George Bush, the Sam Rayburn. Anything that's totally new in TX seems to come from their toll systems too. Doesn't mean as an out-of-state driver that I just love that. But if i want to get to those areas conveniently and quickly, i have to pay.

There are a million opinions here about that balance between state and federal dollars on roads. But suffice to say, we're not state taxing to the level we would need to in order to maintain all of these roads and the federal taxes won't be enough to pay for them either. So we're stuck. Every new road option you get in OK is going to continue to be a toll road as long as the current model continues to be the only one in play. It sucks.

I would bet $1, if OTA were to be allowed to issue bonds, they would abuse it.

I truly don't understand the hatred of toll toads since only those who use the roads pay the toll.

You mean ODOT? They would still be confined to their budget. So they would have to be selective about what projects they issued bonds for. Some of the high profile projects like I-235/I44 and I-240/I-35 interchanges took a lot longer than they should have and I'm sure there was increased cost by dragging it out to multiple contracts over several years.

And keep in mind, the ORIGINAL idea was that the original pikes would be turned over to the state when they were paid for. That obviously didn't happen....the money was too good.


Actually it has nothing to do with the money being "too good." It was put up to a vote of the people of the state of Oklahoma to continue the toll system or not, and the people spoke and thus you had the continuance of the turnpike system. Residents saw the writing on the wall that the Feds weren't in a hurry to build new highways outside of what was already here, which continues today across the country. Look at I49 through Louisiana, Arkansas, and up into Missouri. Even it's not completely finished and it's been ongoing since planning started in 1965. Construction actually started in 1977.

Turnpikes are great. The maintenance budget is incredible. People complain all the time about the lack of maintenance on ODOT maintained highways (i.e. potholes, cracks, holes in bridges, lack of LANE STRIPING and REFLECTIVITY, lack of operational lighting -- lighting and striping/reflectors are common complaints all over this forum, winter weather clearance) but NOBODY complains about any of these issues on turnpikes -- because they don't exist.

The Kilpatrick very well may not be there today yet had OTA not been available. Do you know how many years it took ODOT to reroute I-40 here through OKC? It took forever to get the funding and then on top of that all the red tape. They had to get special congressional allocation of monies to fund it thanks to our congressional delegation. But even then it took forever.

Turnpikes provide choice. Pay if you want to drive on it, or use an alternative route and not pay. I mean, it's pretty simple.

I think some kind of hybrid model can be adapted for the urban turnpikes. People can spend more for the express lanes. Of course, that may not work as well here compared to Texas because really our roads are nowhere near as congested. Less incentive to actually use the express lanes.

And keep in mind, the ORIGINAL idea was that the original pikes would be turned over to the state when they were paid for. That obviously didn't happen....the money was too good. .

this has not been true since 1954 1 year after the turner opened ... period .... why? so they could build more turnpikes not because the " money was too good"

These points keep getting ignored in discussions of Oklahoma turnpikes, by the “make them free” crowd: Eliminating tolls would shift annual operating costs (cutting grass, plowing snow, paying State Troopers) from OTA to ODOT which doesn’t have the money in their budget. Legislators don’t want to appropriate funds because it would either raise taxes or pull funds from other state agencies. It would also trigger a bond default, and Oklahoma REALLY doesn’t have money to repay bondholders. Further, all future capital costs to widen existing roads or build new ones would be shifted to Oklahomans.

Oklahoma is a poor state, and turnpikes allow for us to have nice things - good, safe roads - paid for by users, many of whom are from out of state.

Finally, turnpikes are similar to airlines: Both offer a user-paid form of transportation that’s an alternate to using public roads. Why aren’t people complaining that air fares should be “free?”

These points keep getting ignored in discussions of Oklahoma turnpikes, by the “make them free” crowd: Eliminating tolls would shift annual operating costs (cutting grass, plowing snow, paying State Troopers) from OTA to ODOT which doesn’t have the money in their budget. Legislators don’t want to appropriate funds because it would either raise taxes or pull funds from other state agencies. It would also trigger a bond default, and Oklahoma REALLY doesn’t have money to repay bondholders. Further, all future capital costs to widen existing roads or build new ones would be shifted to Oklahomans.

Oklahoma is a poor state, and turnpikes allow for us to have nice things - good, safe roads - paid for by users, many of whom are from out of state.

Finally, turnpikes are similar to airlines: Both offer a user-paid form of transportation that’s an alternate to using public roads. Why aren’t people complaining that air fares should be “free?”

I just travel Amtrak. I have boarded at several different stations (OKC, Norman, Gainesville, Ft Worth) none of them ever required you to double check baggage weight or size before boarding. And they don't charge you for baggage like some of the airlines do. Plus it's more scenic and gives you more legroom then any airline would

So the money isn't too good huh? So let's look at the folks in charge of the OTA and check their salaries. All that administrative overhead is money that is wasted. All that money spent on the toll systems in general, is money wasted. It's a self feeding monster. Its like school consolidation. When you only have 1 superintendent to pay instead of 2, you immediately free up cash. One payroll department instead of 2. etc. Not paying for that pay by plate cameras and the software....bam, immediate cash influx. I think you can see where i'm going with that.

I'm blue in the face at this point, but if we wanted to do this right, we would have to tax ourselves to do it. I'm not sure what isn't clear about that statement. People keep saying the same thing over and over about maintenance. Yeah, I know. I'm not saying we would be able to do it without taxing. That's sort of a "DUH" moment.

As for the new roads question...that's probably a fair point for federal dollars. HOWEVER. You could also just as easily have the state build these roads as state highways (without all those connecting side roads...just build it like an interstate), then you dont have to mess with the feds. We already did that anyway by building the turnpikes....zero fed money there.

The State of Oklahoma and it's people are perfectly CAPABLE of doing these things. We don't really NEED the federal dollars to do those projects. Hell, most of Tulsa is built on state highways, not federal interstates. Seems to work for them. Last time I looked in OKC, Hefner Parkway and the Broadway Extension were both good roads too and they are state highways.

What it comes down to is, are you willing to pay the tax to do it right or not...plain and simple. If not, then we're going to maintain the current model. Personally, i think we could do BETTER than the OTA model if ODOT was doing it themselves. It would be more transparent, it would have fewer conflicts of interest (they are best served by continuing to expand...especially in the metros), and it's not as burdensome to the people that have to use it as their main artery on a daily basis.

So the money isn't too good huh? So let's look at the folks in charge of the OTA and check their salaries. All that administrative overhead is money that is wasted. All that money spent on the toll systems in general, is money wasted. It's a self feeding monster. Its like school consolidation. When you only have 1 superintendent to pay instead of 2, you immediately free up cash. One payroll department instead of 2. etc. Not paying for that pay by plate cameras and the software....bam, immediate cash influx. I think you can see where i'm going with that.

I'm blue in the face at this point, but if we wanted to do this right, we would have to tax ourselves to do it. I'm not sure what isn't clear about that statement. People keep saying the same thing over and over about maintenance. Yeah, I know. I'm not saying we would be able to do it without taxing. That's sort of a "DUH" moment.

As for the new roads question...that's probably a fair point for federal dollars. HOWEVER. You could also just as easily have the state build these roads as state highways (without all those connecting side roads...just build it like an interstate), then you dont have to mess with the feds. We already did that anyway by building the turnpikes....zero fed money there.

The State of Oklahoma and it's people are perfectly CAPABLE of doing these things. We don't really NEED the federal dollars to do those projects. Hell, most of Tulsa is built on state highways, not federal interstates. Seems to work for them. Last time I looked in OKC, Hefner Parkway and the Broadway Extension were both good roads too and they are state highways.

What it comes down to is, are you willing to pay the tax to do it right or not...plain and simple. If not, then we're going to maintain the current model. Personally, i think we could do BETTER than the OTA model if ODOT was doing it themselves. It would be more transparent, it would have fewer conflicts of interest (they are best served by continuing to expand...especially in the metros), and it's not as burdensome to the people that have to use it as their main artery on a daily basis.

It was the people of Oklahoma who voted to continue the OTA and expand the network. The people of Oklahoma didn't think the "money was too good", they wanted to keep building turnpikes. Man, you're really missing the mark and don't understand the history.

So the money isn't too good huh? So let's look at the folks in charge of the OTA and check their salaries. All that administrative overhead is money that is wasted. All that money spent on the toll systems in general, is money wasted. It's a self feeding monster. Its like school consolidation. When you only have 1 superintendent to pay instead of 2, you immediately free up cash. One payroll department instead of 2. etc. Not paying for that pay by plate cameras and the software....bam, immediate cash influx. I think you can see where i'm going with that.

I can't even remotely see where you are going with this. Where is the cash influx coming from in a hypothetical world with no infrastructure in place to collect tolls?

The last turnpike built was the Gilcrease Expressway. That road didn't even start out as an OTA initiative. ODOT and the City of Tulsa came to them, because that was only way the road was going to get built.

A good argument can be made that ODOT and OTA should be consolidated into one, but that's not going to make the tolls go away. It would at least put an end to the OTA 'bogeyman' arguments though.

So the money isn't too good huh? So let's look at the folks in charge of the OTA and check their salaries. All that administrative overhead is money that is wasted. All that money spent on the toll systems in general, is money wasted. It's a self feeding monster. Its like school consolidation. When you only have 1 superintendent to pay instead of 2, you immediately free up cash. One payroll department instead of 2. etc. Not paying for that pay by plate cameras and the software....bam, immediate cash influx. I think you can see where i'm going with that.

I'm blue in the face at this point, but if we wanted to do this right, we would have to tax ourselves to do it. I'm not sure what isn't clear about that statement. People keep saying the same thing over and over about maintenance. Yeah, I know. I'm not saying we would be able to do it without taxing. That's sort of a "DUH" moment.

As for the new roads question...that's probably a fair point for federal dollars. HOWEVER. You could also just as easily have the state build these roads as state highways (without all those connecting side roads...just build it like an interstate), then you dont have to mess with the feds. We already did that anyway by building the turnpikes....zero fed money there.

The State of Oklahoma and it's people are perfectly CAPABLE of doing these things. We don't really NEED the federal dollars to do those projects. Hell, most of Tulsa is built on state highways, not federal interstates. Seems to work for them. Last time I looked in OKC, Hefner Parkway and the Broadway Extension were both good roads too and they are state highways.

What it comes down to is, are you willing to pay the tax to do it right or not...plain and simple. If not, then we're going to maintain the current model. Personally, i think we could do BETTER than the OTA model if ODOT was doing it themselves. It would be more transparent, it would have fewer conflicts of interest (they are best served by continuing to expand...especially in the metros), and it's not as burdensome to the people that have to use it as their main artery on a daily basis.

this entire post is LOL the OTA does all of the above and still has the money to pay for all of the roads and maintenance and for the Highway patrol on the roads (fully paid by the OTA) ..

the state would need to find money to maintain the roads and to fund the the Highway patrol positions to patrol those roads .. and the the snow crews ect ...

also the OTA director used to make 0.00 dollars until our fine AG decided that was not ok ..

It was the people of Oklahoma who voted to continue the OTA and expand the network. The people of Oklahoma didn't think the "money was too good", they wanted to keep building turnpikes. Man, you're really missing the mark and don't understand the history.

I don't think that the people of Oklahoma thought that the enabling act would mean that the Turner Turnpike would still not be paid for 60 years later. They had no idea that the OTA would keep rolling over the debt in perpetuity.
The OTA needs to satisfy it's existing bonds before getting itself even deeper in debt.
I'd be alright with Turner continuing to be a toll road if they tolls were not crazy. Maintenance isn't cheap, even more so when the OTA is paying for it. Make the toll cover maintenance and admin costs and that's alright with me. Don't make me pay for all the rest of your bad decisions.

I
I'd be alright with Turner continuing to be a toll road if they tolls were not crazy. Maintenance isn't cheap, even more so when the OTA is paying for it. Make the toll cover maintenance and admin costs and that's alright with me. Don't make me pay for all the rest of your bad decisions.

the tolls on the Oklahoma turnpikes are not "crazy" at all .. go drive on other states turnpikes ..

I don't think that the people of Oklahoma thought that the enabling act would mean that the Turner Turnpike would still not be paid for 60 years later. They had no idea that the OTA would keep rolling over the debt in perpetuity.


Well, the vote was to keep expanding the network via cross-pledging. Cross-pledging would indicate a more of a permanency of tolls, including the Turner. Or atleast as a voter that's how I would see it. And I'd still vote YES today.

OMG does anyone read? It's like you see the post but dont actually read it. Maybe skim to pick up the pieces you just want to argue about?

If ODOT took over, WE WOULD HAVE TO RAISE TAXES. There's no magic money fairy here. I've been EXTREMELY clear on that from my first post. And ALLLLL that goes in to the conversation about raising a tax here in OK. And why that hasn't happened yet. It's an extremely clear path to how we got where we are and when we voted this stuff 40 years ago (retaining the turnpike), the world was NOT what it is today. How many of you were driving the turnpikes 40 years ago? Lordy.....I'm not arguing about what happened, I'm complaining about the short-sightedness of the OK voters in making that decision.

Most of the counters to my statements, seem to revolve around the funding issue, which I've been anything but unclear about.

so what I am reading here now, is that OTA is wonderful and why would we ever let anyone other than OTA build roads in Oklahoma. That's how its been, so that's how it should continue to stay forever and we should just accept that. Personally, i reject that and think we can do better. We just have to convince the voters that this is true. And based on what I'm reading here, the short-sightedness will continue so there will be no way that will happen. I in fact did say that before too. My points are all about what is POSSIBLE.

OMG does anyone read? It's like you see the post but dont actually read it. Maybe skim to pick up the pieces you just want to argue about?

If ODOT took over, WE WOULD HAVE TO RAISE TAXES. There's no magic money fairy here. I've been EXTREMELY clear on that from my first post. And ALLLLL that goes in to the conversation about raising a tax here in OK. And why that hasn't happened yet. It's an extremely clear path to how we got where we are and when we voted this stuff 40 years ago (retaining the turnpike), the world was NOT what it is today. How many of you were driving the turnpikes 40 years ago? Lordy.....I'm not arguing about what happened, I'm complaining about the short-sightedness of the OK voters in making that decision.

Most of the counters to my statements, seem to revolve around the funding issue, which I've been anything but unclear about.

so what I am reading here now, is that OTA is wonderful and why would we ever let anyone other than OTA build roads in Oklahoma. That's how its been, so that's how it should continue to stay forever and we should just accept that. Personally, i reject that and think we can do better. We just have to convince the voters that this is true. And based on what I'm reading here, the short-sightedness will continue so there will be no way that will happen. I in fact did say that before too. My points are all about what is POSSIBLE.

70 years ago .. not 40 ..


and the state needs to lower taxes not raise them ..

And there we go.....lol.

Lower taxes but still expect things to get done. There's that magic funding fairy.

I don't think that the people of Oklahoma thought that the enabling act would mean that the Turner Turnpike would still not be paid for 60 years later. They had no idea that the OTA would keep rolling over the debt in perpetuity.
The OTA needs to satisfy it's existing bonds before getting itself even deeper in debt.
I'd be alright with Turner continuing to be a toll road if they tolls were not crazy. Maintenance isn't cheap, even more so when the OTA is paying for it. Make the toll cover maintenance and admin costs and that's alright with me. Don't make me pay for all the rest of your bad decisions.

Bonds & tolls serve as different sources of funds for different needs: Bonds pay for capital construction & expansion (new roads, lanes & bridges), and tolls pay for operating & admin costs (cut the grass, plow the snow, pay the troopers, G&A). That's no different than how most people & organizations operate, whether owning a house, buying a car, operating a business. And I think ODOT is about the same, having to wait until large funds are allocated (fed & state) before starting on a new highway, interchange or expansion project. A street project near me has been held up because it borders two municipalities, and when one had the money the other did not.

70 years ago .. not 40 ..


and the state needs to lower taxes not raise them ..
The state needs to lower taxes in some areas, but raise them and others. Overall, Oklahoma should be collecting more taxes than it does. It is so depressing at least for me driving either from the west coming from California to Oklahoma or even driving up from Dallas and seeing just how crappy the state looks.

Well good luck with that. Oklahomans don't understand this concept that it cost money to do things. They just want taxes lowered and that's it. Short-sighted vision on the near term with no concept of what the long-term means. They'd rather have $1 today than $5 tomorrow.

I get that people don't like taxes and when you live on a tight income, it's hard to want to see more taken. But if you're able to absorb the inflation we've seen in the last 5 years, you would have easily been able to absorb a 5c/gallon gas tax that would have paid for millions upon millions in road projects. Gas has gone up multiple dollars, so you can't tell me that the 5c was going to break the bank. That's exactly how that widen the base lower the rate works too. More people pay, the less each person has to pay. But we can't seem to get people to think that way in the state.

Speaking of those tax cuts. Did anyone also notice that you still have taxes on groceries? Even that token that gov. crapface pushed through for his own appearance, didn't cover all groceries. It only covers certain items. And that $200M the state lost from those taxes. Well guess what, you are either going to find that tax coming from somewhere else so you still have to pay it, or you're going to lose $200M in services from the state. There's that short-term gain, long-term loss.

Well good luck with that. Oklahomans don't understand this concept that it cost money to do things. They just want taxes lowered and that's it. Short-sighted vision on the near term with no concept of what the long-term means. They'd rather have $1 today than $5 tomorrow.

I get that people don't like taxes and when you live on a tight income, it's hard to want to see more taken. But if you're able to absorb the inflation we've seen in the last 5 years, you would have easily been able to absorb a 5c/gallon gas tax that would have paid for millions upon millions in road projects. Gas has gone up multiple dollars, so you can't tell me that the 5c was going to break the bank. That's exactly how that widen the base lower the rate works too. More people pay, the less each person has to pay. But we can't seem to get people to think that way in the state.

Speaking of those tax cuts. Did anyone also notice that you still have taxes on groceries? Even that token that gov. crapface pushed through for his own appearance, didn't cover all groceries. It only covers certain items. And that $200M the state lost from those taxes. Well guess what, you are either going to find that tax coming from somewhere else so you still have to pay it, or you're going to lose $200M in services from the state. There's that short-term gain, long-term loss.

what "groceries" did it not cover?

what "groceries" did it not cover?

The county and local taxes on those groceries.

The county and local taxes on those groceries.

Also, prepared foods (for varying definitions of "prepared"), and a few other things. I think some dept of govt put out a list of what it doesn't cover.

Well good luck with that. Oklahomans don't understand this concept that it cost money to do things. They just want taxes lowered and that's it. Short-sighted vision on the near term with no concept of what the long-term means. They'd rather have $1 today than $5 tomorrow.

I get that people don't like taxes and when you live on a tight income, it's hard to want to see more taken. But if you're able to absorb the inflation we've seen in the last 5 years, you would have easily been able to absorb a 5c/gallon gas tax that would have paid for millions upon millions in road projects. Gas has gone up multiple dollars, so you can't tell me that the 5c was going to break the bank. That's exactly how that widen the base lower the rate works too. More people pay, the less each person has to pay. But we can't seem to get people to think that way in the state.

Speaking of those tax cuts. Did anyone also notice that you still have taxes on groceries? Even that token that gov. crapface pushed through for his own appearance, didn't cover all groceries. It only covers certain items. And that $200M the state lost from those taxes. Well guess what, you are either going to find that tax coming from somewhere else so you still have to pay it, or you're going to lose $200M in services from the state. There's that short-term gain, long-term loss.

It eliminated the 4.5% sales tax, which is the state portion, of all groceries (excludes prepared foods). And it wasnt $200m, it was expected to reduce state revenues by $400m.

You'll likely see more income tax cuts attempted this year. Although Oklahoma is one of the least tax burdened states, Stitt has made it a point to cut income taxes further.

It eliminated the 4.5% sales tax, which is the state portion, of all groceries (excludes prepared foods). And it wasnt $200m, it was expected to reduce state revenues by $400m.

You'll likely see more income tax cuts attempted this year. Although Oklahoma is one of the least tax burdened states, Stitt has made it a point to cut income taxes further.

And to cut services that the state provides

It eliminated the 4.5% sales tax, which is the state portion, of all groceries (excludes prepared foods). And it wasnt $200m, it was expected to reduce state revenues by $400m.

You'll likely see more income tax cuts attempted this year. Although Oklahoma is one of the least tax burdened states, Stitt has made it a point to cut income taxes further.

And to cut services that the state provides

https://www.newson6.com/story/6786d0e363279c239b0dd190/ota-begins-bridge-repair-projects-on-turnpikes-near-muskogee-sapulpa

This may be the wrong place to ask, but why is OTA closing a bridge for almost a year for rehab when it was just constructed a few years ago as part of the Turner widening project? They are saying they are "emergency" repairs, which makes me wonder if they either get built wrong or if they were hit by something?

https://www.newson6.com/story/6786d0e363279c239b0dd190/ota-begins-bridge-repair-projects-on-turnpikes-near-muskogee-sapulpa

This may be the wrong place to ask, but why is OTA closing a bridge for almost a year for rehab when it was just constructed a few years ago as part of the Turner widening project? They are saying they are "emergency" repairs, which makes me wonder if they either get built wrong or if they were hit by something?

found this from further down in your link


The $596,608 emergency repair was awarded in December to Built Right Construction LLC. Work includes replacing bridge beams and a portion of the bridge deck and concrete rails that were damaged in a previous semi-tractor-trailer fire underneath the bridge

How dare they spend money to fix that bridge that was damaged by a semi being on fire underneath it so soon after being built.

Bonds & tolls serve as different sources of funds for different needs: Bonds pay for capital construction & expansion (new roads, lanes & bridges), and tolls pay for operating & admin costs (cut the grass, plow the snow, pay the troopers, G&A). That's no different than how most people & organizations operate, whether owning a house, buying a car, operating a business. And I think ODOT is about the same, having to wait until large funds are allocated (fed & state) before starting on a new highway, interchange or expansion project. A street project near me has been held up because it borders two municipalities, and when one had the money the other did not.

tolls absolutely also go to pay debt service on turnpike bonds. toll road bonds are revenue bonds, not general obligation bonds.

found this from further down in your link

Ah, I missed that part. Pretty crazy that it damaged the bridge that badly. Also wild that it's only a ~$600,000 job but will take a year. I guess that's mostly due to traffic control. Of course it had to happen under a brand new bridge. Couldn't have been one of the ones that needed work anyway, lol.

Ah, I missed that part. Pretty crazy that it damaged the bridge that badly. Also wild that it's only a ~$600,000 job but will take a year. I guess that's mostly due to traffic control. Of course it had to happen under a brand new bridge. Couldn't have been one of the ones that needed work anyway, lol.

FYI - below is a snippet from the OTA website. Hopefully the late winter 2025 is referring to February and not December. “Late Winter 2025” is definitely a strange way to word it though.

-44/Turner Turnpike narrows near Sapulpa in Creek County
Westbound I-44/Turner Turnpike will have one lane closed at W. 111th St. (mm 214) on
the west side of Sapulpa starting at 8 a.m. Tuesday through late winter 2025 for
emergency bridge repairs to the county bridge that crosses above turnpike traffic. W.
111th St. will be closed between S. 152nd W. Ave. and S. Willow Lane for the duration
of the bridge repairs. A signed detour route will be in place for local county road traffic.
The $596,608 emergency repair was awarded in December to Built Right Construction
LLC. Work includes replacing bridge beams and a portion of the bridge deck and
concrete rails that were damaged in a previous semi-tractor-trailer fire underneath the
bridge