Time to Raise Gas Tax in OK

[SoonerDave]

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 again 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.

This is by far the most relevant and sensible post in this thread and brings relevant issues to the table, although I'm not necessarily on board with the sprawl issue. How we go forward facing these issues isn't easy. I do tend to think toll roads are going (and already are in many states) to play a huge part in this going forward, but that's obviously only one piece of the puzzle.

[jedicurt]

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.

and i would support an increase in gas tax to fix and pay for roads across the whole state. because it would be a tax affecting the whole state. my issues with the comments from the originating poster is that they were talking about an increase in the gas tax for the whole state to pay for and expand OKC transit, only. that i am adamantly opposed to.

[venture]

and i would support an increase in gas tax to fix and pay for roads across the whole state. because it would be a tax affecting the whole state. my issues with the originating post is that it was talking about an increase in the gas tax for the whole state to pay for and expand OKC transit, only. that i am adamantly opposed to.

Yeah I agree, that doesn't make any sense. Of course if you want to change habits and get people into mass transit, then we need to stop building new roads or expanding existing ones. As previously pointed out, many people here have commutes between 10 and I would say 30 to 40 miles each way depending on where they live. That is the nature of the beast where sprawl is one of our contributing enemies. However, you aren't going to be able to force people onto mass transit/commuter rail unless it can cut down on the commute headaches. My commute is 25 miles each way, it takes me about 30-40 minutes depending on the time of day. I'm not going to stop driving myself when it is a relatively stress free commute (even though 35/240 still makes me want to start smoking).

The state should definitely not be required to pay for OKC's transit dreams. OKC area interstates should all charge tolls themselves if they are really wanting to fund it that badly.

[LandRunOkie]

To the person who quoted me, I would recommend you go get some exercise to burn off that rage, but I wouldn't want to be so arrogant as to recommend how other people spend their time. The book Energy of Slaves argues that dependence on fossil fuels enables arrogance, impunity, and contempt. You're exhibiting all of these symptoms.

[Dubya61]

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.

You lost me on this one. How does federal tax money impact this issue?
It's a trick question, by the way. If you say that we are basing our highway repair bill on federal money, then isn't it incumbent on the federal government to de-federate (I think I just made up a word!) federal highways, if they aren't serving the nation as a whole or else to go ahead and pay for them if they are supporting the national infrastructure? If you say otherwise, then this paragraph is unimportant to your post.
I'm not trying to engage in an argument, so much as to clarify my irritation regarding one of my soap-box issues that some believe our state is in some sort of a federal welfare status that we should be ashamed of or at least admit that we love the federal government's teat and should shut up and keep on sucking.
My bottom line to this issue: If the federal government is spending money in OK on highways (or anything, for that matter), they must have determined that it gets them some bang for the buck. If they are and don't think it is, turn the highway over to the state. If the state doesn't see any value to the pavement, get rid of it.

[Just the facts]

Raise the gasoline tax by 25 cent per gallon and build this:

[HangryHippo]

Raise the gasoline tax by 25 cent per gallon and build this:

You could remove a fair bit of what you've proposed here and do an even better job by focusing on the more usable routes. Lawton to OKC to Tulsa. Wichita to OKC to Ft. Worth. Boom, you've got a great setup for OK that you can then build commuter rail off of.

[venture]

You could remove a fair bit of what you've proposed here and do an even better job by focusing on the more usable routes. Lawton to OKC to Tulsa. Wichita to OKC to Ft. Worth. Boom, you've got a great setup for OK that you can then build commuter rail off of.

That is his commuter rail idea.

He has a thread on it here somewhere that goes into detail, might have to search under his old username (Kerry) to find it though.

[LandRunOkie]

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.

I wanted to hear more about this. Why do you call the people commuting 10 to 20 miles real? I have a car and don't mind driving. Gas consumption is a convenience, not a necessity, so it should be taxed as such. Much as many other states do and similar to what is done with tobacco.

[HangryHippo]

That is his commuter rail idea.

He has a thread on it here somewhere that goes into detail, might have to search under his old username (Kerry) to find it though.

I mistyped in my earlier post. Whoops!

[Larry OKC]

The same arguments were used a few years ago when they tried to raise the gas tax here (when we were being threatened with $2/gal gas). It was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters. The problem isn't really that there aren't enough transportation taxes, but a lot of the money has been diverted to non-transportation uses over the decades (like education).

LandRunOkie : sorry but have to disagree with your post. Getting to work, school etc is a necessity, not a convenience. Unless you live within walking distance, gas consumption is hardly a convenience for most.

[Rover]

The idea that you can add rail and eliminate the cost of road infrastructure is ludicrous. If nothing else, in this state farm-to-market road structure is required. Modern commerce is facilitated by point to point transportation. By creating even the rail structure shown and to then let the other roads fall into unusable condition would be economic suicide. Free movements of goods creates economic efficiencies. This whole discussion and hatred of roads has gotten so myopic as to be juvenile. Rational analysis of infrastructure goes way beyond moving people and the arbitrary assignment of who gets to prosper and who doesn't. A few people need to take some basic lessons in logistics and economics before trying to simplify this argument to ridiculousness.

I am working on some infrastructure development projects in Africa. If people think that a good road system doesn't facilitate economic growth then they need to actually see areas where it doesn't exist. And guess what, these places have rail travel.

Simple answers are for simple minds.

[hoya]

The idea that you can add rail and eliminate the cost of road infrastructure is ludicrous. If nothing else, in this state farm-to-market road structure is required. Modern commerce is facilitated by point to point transportation. By creating even the rail structure shown and to then let the other roads fall into unusable condition would be economic suicide. Free movements of goods creates economic efficiencies. This whole discussion and hatred of roads has gotten so myopic as to be juvenile. Rational analysis of infrastructure goes way beyond moving people and the arbitrary assignment of who gets to prosper and who doesn't. A few people need to take some basic lessons in logistics and economics before trying to simplify this argument to ridiculousness.

I am working on some infrastructure development projects in Africa. If people think that a good road system doesn't facilitate economic growth then they need to actually see areas where it doesn't exist. And guess what, these places have rail travel.

Simple answers are for simple minds.

It would be ridiculous. Good thing no one is arguing for that.

We have roads. We have more paved highway miles per person than any other state. By a significant margin. We have double the toll road miles per person than the next highest state. And yet we have people arguing for more. We aren't going to turn into Africa any time soon, despite how hot it gets here in the summer. But what we don't have is commuter rail. That's where we should be focusing our efforts, not in building more roads.

[LandRunOkie]

sorry but have to disagree with your post. Getting to work, school etc is a necessity, not a convenience. Unless you live within walking distance, gas consumption is hardly a convenience for most.

I rode my bike to school for years and firmly believe it builds confidence and relieves stress. I would go so far to say that it improves productivity during working hours. There's no question it improves morale.

Imagine $10/gallon gas. Now, voila, it's not a necessity. Unemployment would begin to skyrocket, housing would falter, and people generally wouldn't have anywhere to drive. My point is if $10 gas makes it unnecessary, it's unnecessary period, because prices will go up in the long run. And as I said earlier, the US can't control oil prices, so we should control what we can control: transit, rail, bike lanes, etc.

I think Rover claimed its stupid and vindictive to want higher gas prices. However the current lax regulation and taxation of the production of oil and flow gas will lead a depopulation of the planet. We got to 7 billion people through increases in agricultural productivity mostly. Higher oil prices will reduce agricultural productivity for many reasons, including the fact that fertilizer is a petroleum product. So the more we do to conserve oil now will mean less famine in the third world when it comes to that.

[Rover]

I think Rover claimed its stupid and vindictive to want higher gas prices. However the current lax regulation and taxation of the production of oil and flow gas will lead a depopulation of the planet. We got to 7 billion people through increases in agricultural productivity mostly. Higher oil prices will reduce agricultural productivity for many reasons, including the fact that fertilizer is a petroleum product. So the more we do to conserve oil now will mean less famine in the third world when it comes to that.

You need to re-read. I did not advocate for or against higher gas prices. The market will dictate, or should. That includes making users pay fairly for what they use, including roads. That can be in taxes or tolls, whichever most fairly associates value paid and value received.

[Larry OKC]

...Imagine $10/gallon gas. Now, voila, it's not a necessity. Unemployment would begin to skyrocket, housing would falter, and people generally wouldn't have anywhere to drive. My point is if $10 gas makes it unnecessary, it's unnecessary period, because prices will go up in the long run.

How is it no longer a necessity? You still have to have it to get to work, school etc. No matter what the price becomes, folks will make non-esssential spending cuts to their budget. Don't eat out as often, go to the movies or a Thunder game etc etc. While unnecessary trips can be consolidated etc, there is only so much of that one can do.

[Just the facts]

California is finally trying to implement a mileage tax. Big surprise, the free-loaders and people who tried to game the system are against it.

Sen. Introduces Bill To Test Out Taxing Motorists For Every Mile They Drive « CBS Los Angeles

Southland commuters were not thrilled about the idea of a VMT tax.

“I bought a hybrid…one, because of my drive. I’m very opposed. I drive to Brentwood every day from Burbank, and I am already paying more than I should be,” Carmen Smith said.

“So if we go on vacation and I drive up to Mammoth, that’s 600 miles. We’re being taxed on vacations?” Kim Robinson said.

Question to Carmen, if the freeway is paid for by gasoline taxes, and you don't buy gasoline but still use the road, who do you think should be paying for your share of the maintenance bill?

[Stew]

California is finally trying to implement a mileage tax. Big surprise, the free-loaders and people who tried to game the system are against it.

Sen. Introduces Bill To Test Out Taxing Motorists For Every Mile They Drive « CBS Los Angeles



Question to Carmen, if the freeway is paid for by gasoline taxes, and you don't buy gasoline but still use the road, who do you think should be paying for your share of the maintenance bill?

Good point. BTW You constantly put me in a state of cognitive dissonance. And it's no picnic.

[Just the facts]

Good point. BTW You constantly put me in a state of cognitive dissonance. And it's no picnic.

I know exactly what you mean. I had to toss a world-view I held for 20+ years in the trash and create a new one from the ground up.

[Bunty]

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.

So what has changed in Oklahoma, since that time some years back when people voted to reject raising gas taxes by a 90% margin, or whatever high figure it was?

[zookeeper]

I know exactly what you mean. I had to toss a world-view I held for 20+ years in the trash and create a new one from the ground up.

I don't know how I missed this, it was several days ago. But, JTF, I could have written what you did above.

[ou48A]

The idea that you can add rail and eliminate the cost of road infrastructure is ludicrous. If nothing else, in this state farm-to-market road structure is required. Modern commerce is facilitated by point to point transportation. By creating even the rail structure shown and to then let the other roads fall into unusable condition would be economic suicide. Free movements of goods creates economic efficiencies. This whole discussion and hatred of roads has gotten so myopic as to be juvenile. Rational analysis of infrastructure goes way beyond moving people and the arbitrary assignment of who gets to prosper and who doesn't. A few people need to take some basic lessons in logistics and economics before trying to simplify this argument to ridiculousness.

I am working on some infrastructure development projects in Africa. If people think that a good road system doesn't facilitate economic growth then they need to actually see areas where it doesn't exist. And guess what, these places have rail travel.

Simple answers are for simple minds.

This^ is the best post in this thread by far.
There is some really strong ignorance elsewhere. LOL

[Dubya61]

This^ is the best post in this thread by far.
There is some really strong ignorance elsewhere. LOL

No.

Everything in moderation, and that includes moderation itself.

-- Tadahiko Nagao

Everything is good in moderation. Even moderation.

-- Eveta Cherneva

Anything can be poisonous -- water, even oxygen, if that's all you have.

-- Ms. Dorothy "Electron Dottie" Kelly (my HS chem teacher)
I think what we need is some balance, though. We are poisoning ourselves on asphalt and concrete roads without allowing a balance with rail. My brother has had some substance abuse problems in the past (cough, cough, still going on) and doesn't have a driver's license. He lives in Ponca City and needs to get to the VA hospital in Wichita frequently. How does he get there? There's NO passenger bus service or rail service in Ponca City. When I can't take him, how does he get there? We need balanced transportation options here ... and in Africa.

[DavidD_NorthOKC]

This^ is the best post in this thread by far.
There is some really strong ignorance elsewhere. LOL

And more than a little selfish motivation and entitlement at the expense of modernizing more efficient transportation systems in the US.

No one is advocating eliminating roads and personal automobiles. But the fact is they are subsidized just as public transportation and passenger rail transportation are supported.

[sprdthewrd]

I for one am not interested in bike lanes, public transit, car pool lanes etc. Sounds like the liberals are moving in to destroy this fine state. Yes possible we could move up from 41st but the liberals could pay for it . I do think some toll roads are not a bad idea . If you use a NICE Highway then be willing to supplement paying for it. If the liberal group does not like it here they could return from whence they came. I am actually from California and I came here to escape Liberalism.