Access Oklahoma Turnpike Projects

[bombermwc]

"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.

[BoulderSooner]

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 ..

[rte66man]

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.

[bombermwc]

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?

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[mugofbeer]

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.

[gjl]

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.

[bombermwc]

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.

[jn1780]

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.

[MagzOK]

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.

[jn1780]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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"

[OKCTalker]

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?”

[TornadoKegan]

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

[bombermwc]

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.

[MagzOK]

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.

[David]

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?

[jn1780]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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 ..

[Jeremy Martin]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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 ..

[MagzOK]

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.

[bombermwc]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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 ..

[bombermwc]

And there we go.....lol.

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