Time to Raise Gas Tax in OK

[LandRunOkie]

Oklahoma ranks 41st out of 50 states in automotive tax collections yet is one of the most car dependent cultures in the country. We also have some of the worst roads in the nation and one of the most underfunded public transportation systems. Time to raise the gas tax from 17 cents/gallon, according to this report. Time to fund public transportation infrastructure: bike lanes, commuter rail, streetcars, and bus systems.

[hoya]

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

[HangryHippo]

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

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Well said.

[adaniel]

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

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

[LakeEffect]

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

[LandRunOkie]

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

[HangryHippo]

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

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

[jedicurt]

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

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

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

[LandRunOkie]

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

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

[BoulderSooner]

no reason to raise the gas tax

[jedicurt]

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

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

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

[hoya]

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

[LandRunOkie]

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

[BoulderSooner]

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

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

[Plutonic Panda]

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

[venture]

no reason to raise the gas tax

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

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

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

[MustangGT]

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

Agreed.

[bombermwc]

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

[SoonerDave]

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

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

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

[HangryHippo]

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

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

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

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

[SoonerDave]

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

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

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

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

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

[mkjeeves]

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

[LandRunOkie]

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

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

[SoonerDave]

It's really not about affordability.

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

The most affordable options are public transit and bicycle riding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[venture]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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