No Money for I-40 Crosstown???

[Patrick]

We better act fast if we expect to capitalize on allof the fundraising Istook and Inhofehave done at the federal level.

-----------------

"Where's the money? Funding I-40 project needs city leadership
by Mary Mélon
The Journal Record
12/13/2004

I recently heard some powerful remarks by U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., that should concern all of us as business leaders.
Our city and state has no designated funding source for the realignment of Interstate 40 that was approved by the Federal Highway Administration in 2002.

The approved design plans are strategic and align themselves very well with the long-term vision for developing downtown and the riverfront. But the reason for the realignment is even bigger than a development issue.

I-40 was built in the 1960s with a projected life span of 50 years and a plan for 76,000 maximum vehicles per day. The current load is 119,000 vehicles per day. The result - a badly deteriorating road, especially at the Crosstown Expressway.

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation led the charge in looking for solutions and, in my view, did a great job pulling together a plan that serves as a "win-win" for city developers and citizens.

Congressman Istook has been instrumental in garnering more than $180 million in federal funds for the project. Normal federal share for a project like this is 80 percent, or $248 million in this case.

There is some chance of exclusive federal funding, however, that means a much greater expense and longer waiting time until completion. There is also some risk that, with the wait, all of the federal funds could literally go away if Istook and U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., lose their transportation chairmanships.

Since most projects of this nature are not completely funded with federal dollars, there is increasing pressure from other U.S. representatives to slow or eliminate funding.

Why would we want to take the chance of waiting? There are great plans for continued development that will be impossible until the project is finished. And, of course, there is a risk of some terrible human disaster resulting from the deteriorating condition of the road.

What is the solution? First and foremost, city leaders need to pay attention.

I am pleased to say that newly inducted Greater Oklahoma City Chamber Chairman Fred Hall hears the call and has put this issue high on the chamber's priority list.

The chamber has led many successful efforts in the past, and I am sure that this will be no exception. Whether it is a call for a bond issue, public/private partnership campaign, requests for state appropriations or a combination of all of these, I believe we will be hearing much more on this issue in 2005.

Please be ready to assist.


Mary Mélon is the publisher of The Journal Record. You may reach her by fax at 278-2890 or by e-mail at mary.melon@journalrecord.com. "

[metro]

Istook: Crosstown Expressway Project Could Face Lengthy Delay
Congressman Blames State Leaders For Failing To Fill Funding Gap

POSTED: 8:23 am CST December 22, 2004
UPDATED: 8:25 am CST December 22, 2004

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Relocating Oklahoma City's Crosstown Expressway could be delayed until 2014 unless local or state officials agree to fill a $180 million funding gap, according to Rep. Ernest Istook.

Istook, R-Okla., and other members of the state's congressional delegation have already secured $180 million for the $360 million Interstate 40 project. State officials argue that construction of turnpikes qualifies as a "soft match" for Oklahoma's share of the project.

"That meets the legal requirements, but it doesn't generate the federal funds," Istook said.

Istook said local and state leaders should consider an upcoming emphasis by the Bush administration on "private-public" partnerships to fund highway projects.

"It's a variation of tax-increment financing," Istook said. "You use the enhanced value that transportation brings to an area and bring the private beneficiaries to help pay for the improvements."

Istook said it is not known how much of a funding gap will remain after Congress passes a five-year highway authorization bill. But he said a $35 million boulevard to access downtown probably would be delayed if the project relies solely on federal funding.

Delays could stall development of the nearby Oklahoma River, he said.

"You can construct this new portion of Interstate 40 with federal funds, but it will take longer," Istook said. "And by taking longer, it will delay some of the other things that are important to revitalization efforts in Oklahoma City."

Meanwhile, some city and county officials are reluctantly weighing Istook's suggestions that funding gaps could be covered by either a bond issue or tax-increment financing.

Oklahoma County Commission Chairman Stan Inman said local leaders are being asked whether they prefer contributing local funding or accepting a delay.

"The city and I haven't gotten to talk about this, but I think both of us are hesitant to use public money on a federal project," Inman said. "Certainly, I-40 is much bigger than Oklahoma City or Oklahoma County."

Mayor Mick Cornett said he will consider Istook's suggestions.

"Most of our attention has been on the planning issues," Cornett said. "Our stance on this hasn't changed. This has been our No. 1 priority for five years, and it remains so."

Istook questioned why state leaders think the most expensive highway project in Oklahoma's history can be built without state funding.

Gov. Brad Henry said repairing roads and bridges, considered to be some of the worst in the nation, are a higher priority for the state.

[mranderson]

He may be correct about this one in the fact we may need a bond issue or a temporary tax.

I guess Earnest I-s-Took again.

[metro]

I like how he brushes his shortfalls off on local legislators, i'm gonna write buddy istook a letter

[mranderson]

I like how he brushes his shortfalls off on local legislators, i'm gonna write buddy istook a letter

I would like to see a very strong candidate who cares beat him next time. That is why I call him "I took."

[metro]

You guys can all nominate me and I"ll take over the SEnate. mwah ah ah ah..............

[HOT ROD]

Im glad to finally hear that you all see what your legislators are doing for you (as in nothing).

It is one thing to vote for someone who supports you and your concerns, it is another to just vote for someone so Oklahoma could continue to have someone on a committee.

I remember in the past, that people said that about Istook - that OK would continue to vote for him because he is on the appropriations committee. I said, so what - he hasnt ever done anything for Oklahoma.

And being the chairman of this committee!!!!!???? Oklahoma should have THE BEST ROADS, THE MOST EXPANSIVE Intercity rail system, and OKC should have one of the best transit system in the nation - busses, commuter rail, and intra-city rapid transit.

Because, the chairman of appropriations should look out for his own state, first.

It seems like all other senators know about this theory except those from Oklahoma (and other fiscal conservative states - mostly Southern). However, he had NO TROUBLE at all concluding that Salt Lake City deserved a rapid transit system from nowhere to nowhere!

And for those of you who have never been to Salt Lake, it is very similar to Tulsa in size (it just has a lot of suburbs). Its downtown area is more like downtown Lawton than with skyscrapers like ours.

So you have to wonder why OUR legislators would vote in favor of a system for them but turn the cheek on us - even for a freeway for us which he PROMISED (when we asked for funds to STUDY a light rail).

Like I said, Im glad to finally see (hear) that Oklahomans now want representation - not just bragging rights!

Thanks for being progressive! Continue that Renaissance!

[BG918]

This is absolutely crazy that we cannot get the funds for this project. Meanwhile other cities in other states have new highways, bridges, and rail projects paid for like it's pocket change. Why can't OKC have at least one highway, a FEDERAL interstate, rebuilt to replace one that is falling apart and is inhibiting downtown development? Why can't Tulsa have I-44 widened so it's not a traffic mess? I'm tired of these congressmen letting us down...

[Midtowner]

Im glad to finally hear that you all see what your legislators are doing for you (as in nothing).

It is one thing to vote for someone who supports you and your concerns, it is another to just vote for someone so Oklahoma could continue to have someone on a committee.

I remember in the past, that people said that about Istook - that OK would continue to vote for him because he is on the appropriations committee. I said, so what - he hasnt ever done anything for Oklahoma.

And being the chairman of this committee!!!!!???? Oklahoma should have THE BEST ROADS, THE MOST EXPANSIVE Intercity rail system, and OKC should have one of the best transit system in the nation - busses, commuter rail, and intra-city rapid transit.

Because, the chairman of appropriations should look out for his own state, first.

It seems like all other senators know about this theory except those from Oklahoma (and other fiscal conservative states - mostly Southern). However, he had NO TROUBLE at all concluding that Salt Lake City deserved a rapid transit system from nowhere to nowhere!

And for those of you who have never been to Salt Lake, it is very similar to Tulsa in size (it just has a lot of suburbs). Its downtown area is more like downtown Lawton than with skyscrapers like ours.

So you have to wonder why OUR legislators would vote in favor of a system for them but turn the cheek on us - even for a freeway for us which he PROMISED (when we asked for funds to STUDY a light rail).

Like I said, Im glad to finally see (hear) that Oklahomans now want representation - not just bragging rights!

Thanks for being progressive! Continue that Renaissance!

Actually, as far as rail, you can do the research, or just find the thread (now locked), but there are plenty of documents online that cite all the studies that were done through COPTA and other organizations re: a light rail system for OKC. They concluded that the cost simply wasn't justified for a city with our population density. Salt Lake was a different story though when it came to population density, residency downtown, etc. Our current trolley buses downtown get very little use. I'm more interested in spending our money (state and federal) on projects that will make a real difference -- or better yet, cutting taxes.

I've been to Salt Lake, even recently. They have a very nice airport that's fairly close to downtown, a booming tourist industry, a greater population density, the material is out there as to why the light rail was justified down there.

[Proactive Volunteer]

I would not be interested in having a bond issue to complete the I-40 Crosstown.

My business is off of the Crosstown, however I am still not interested in a bond issue. I personally have walked and photographed the entire underneath portion of the interstate and it is in terrible condition.

YES we need a new intersate before a car or truck falls through a hole in the interstate. However, this is a FEDERAL Interstate. It seems to me that we need to have our Oklahoma City and Oklahoma State lobbyists get to work in Washington DC and get the funding for this project!! We pay enough in federal taxes that our Oklahoma US Congressmen should be bringing this funding back to Oklahoma City for this project. This is not pork!! This is interstate trade!

[Midtowner]

I would not be interested in having a bond issue to complete the I-40 Crosstown.

My business is off of the Crosstown, however I am still not interested in a bond issue. I personally have walked and photographed the entire underneath portion of the interstate and it is in terrible condition.

YES we need a new intersate before a car or truck falls through a hole in the interstate. However, this is a FEDERAL Interstate. It seems to me that we need to have our Oklahoma City and Oklahoma State lobbyists get to work in Washington DC and get the funding for this project!! We pay enough in federal taxes that our Oklahoma US Congressmen should be bringing this funding back to Oklahoma City for this project. This is not pork!! This is interstate trade!

I concur with that. I-40 is a major artery of the U.S. I'm not sure I can think of another section of federal highway that I've driven on that is in such awful condition. Bonds are horrible ideas anyway. Not fair to make future generations pay for things to benefit present ones. Self-retiring bonds are one thing, but this would be another.

Hey, if the feds don't want to pony up, we can turn the new crosstown into a turnpike.

[Patrick]

I think it's interesting how Istook calls this a state problem. Come on...this is a FEDERAL highway. Proactive mentions getting our local lobbyists to lobby for funding for this...I don't think that should be necessary. Again, this is a FEDERAL highway, and the responsibility should rest with those lobbying for us in Washington...in other words, Ernest Istook!

I think Istook is just casting off the blame onto someone else...in all aspects it's his fault. He represents this district in Washington.....as Hot Rod mentions, he's on the appropriations committee, for crying out loud.

Why should we have to invest in a FEDERAL highway that's used mostly by OUT-OF-STATE, FEDERAL traffic. The majority of the damage on thqat highway is caused by large semi-trailer trucks, just PASSING THROUGH.

This highway is a mjor thoroughfare for the United States. If the Crosstown collapses, it's the federal government's loss!

I don't think we should have to invest over $100 million on this project, like Istook suggests. Maybe a little, but not half the cost. If it were a state highway, or local city road, I could see it, but it's a FEDERAL interstate.

[Patrick]

I know Tulsa keeps whining that Brodway Extn. is widened, but I-44 is not. Well, again, look at my last post. I-44 is a FEDERAl highway, Brodway Extn. is a STATE highway. The state should be responsible for projects on STATE highways, like Broadway Extn. and Broken Arrow Expressway. The Federal government should be resposible for projects on FEDERAL highways. I think it's unfair to blame our state legislature for delays in getting these FEDERAL highways expanded. We should be blaming those who represent us at the national level, namely our US Representatives and our US Senators. Tulsa, you can blame Sullivan up there in Tulsa. We can blame Istook here in OKC.

Now, if you have an issue of concern with a state road, thne you can complain to the state legislature.

For some reason, it takes the FEDS forever to complete federal projects. Just look at how long it's taken to expand I-35. I-35 north of I-40 is still just 4 lanes, very similar to I-44 in Tulsa. Again, we can blame our federal representatives for that.

[mranderson]

Here is a really bad thing. My parents moved from Oklahoma City, shortly after dad sold Anderson-Bryant & Co, to Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Ten years later, they built a large house in Safford, Arizona, then a year later, they built another in Sheridan, Wyoming. Here is the bad part. EVERY state they lived had better roads than all in Oklahoma. Especially Wyoming.

If a state that has a staewide population of less than Oklahoma City proper can build superior and very safe freeways, why is Oklahoma having a problem? It makes no sense.

We need to get "I took" to stop giving to other states like Utah and start supproting his own state. Either that, or... Congressman, resign your office and move to Utah!

[Patrick]

Amen mranderson!

[HOT ROD]

Actually, as far as rail, you can do the research, or just find the thread (now locked), but there are plenty of documents online that cite all the studies that were done through COPTA and other organizations re: a light rail system for OKC. They concluded that the cost simply wasn't justified for a city with our population density. Salt Lake was a different story though when it came to population density, residency downtown, etc. Our current trolley buses downtown get very little use. I'm more interested in spending our money (state and federal) on projects that will make a real difference -- or better yet, cutting taxes.

I've been to Salt Lake, even recently. They have a very nice airport that's fairly close to downtown, a booming tourist industry, a greater population density, the material is out there as to why the light rail was justified down there.

Im not sure if they were comparing apples to apples.

If you just look at city proper density, then OKC has roughly 900 per sq mi. If you consider our urbanized city area, then OKC has more than 2600 per sq mi.

I challenge anyone to show me figures where Salt Lake City has that much density in its urbanized area! I used to live there, and I tell you - SLC has less than 200,000 people PERIOD. It has lots of surrounding townes which make its metro area a little bigger than OKC's.

But OKC does have more mass of residents than SLC. Yes, there are more downtown residents in SLC than OKC but that will soon change!

Honestly, I think the people who did that Light Rail study only considered density based on city area instead of urbanized area. Our urbanized area is no different from any other major city! Im so tired of people saying otherwise!

They fudged the facts for SLC!

[Midtowner]

Im not sure if they were comparing apples to apples.

If you just look at city proper density, then OKC has roughly 900 per sq mi. If you consider our urbanized city area, then OKC has more than 2600 per sq mi.

I challenge anyone to show me figures where Salt Lake City has that much density in its urbanized area! I used to live there, and I tell you - SLC has less than 200,000 people PERIOD. It has lots of surrounding townes which make its metro area a little bigger than OKC's.

But OKC does have more mass of residents than SLC. Yes, there are more downtown residents in SLC than OKC but that will soon change!

Honestly, I think the people who did that Light Rail study only considered density based on city area instead of urbanized area. Our urbanized area is no different from any other major city! Im so tired of people saying otherwise!

They fudged the facts for SLC!

I've done the research, I've found the reports, they're out there. If you can find that old light rail thread, you can even find the links. COTPA I believe spent around 500K on this study.

[jt450]

I think it's interesting how Istook calls this a state problem. Come on...this is a FEDERAL highway. Proactive mentions getting our local lobbyists to lobby for funding for this...I don't think that should be necessary. Again, this is a FEDERAL highway, and the responsibility should rest with those lobbying for us in Washington...in other words, Ernest Istook!

I think Istook is just casting off the blame onto someone else...in all aspects it's his fault. He represents this district in Washington.....as Hot Rod mentions, he's on the appropriations committee, for crying out loud.

Why should we have to invest in a FEDERAL highway that's used mostly by OUT-OF-STATE, FEDERAL traffic. The majority of the damage on thqat highway is caused by large semi-trailer trucks, just PASSING THROUGH.

This highway is a mjor thoroughfare for the United States. If the Crosstown collapses, it's the federal government's loss!

I don't think we should have to invest over $100 million on this project, like Istook suggests. Maybe a little, but not half the cost. If it were a state highway, or local city road, I could see it, but it's a FEDERAL interstate.

Even if 60% of the I-40 traffic is interstate, that still leaves 40% that is local traffic. What's the traffic count, maybe 120,000 vehicles daily? That means 48,000 Oklahoma drivers on I-40 each day, and you expect the federal government to pay everything for this road?

Suppose I-40 wasn't there? Where would you put our local traffic, and who would pay for it?

You seem so focused on bashing Istook that you are ignoring the facts. (Including the fact that he's already gotten us more money for this project than any other comparable project in the country.)

[jt450]

Even if 60% of the I-40 traffic is interstate, that still leaves 40% that is local traffic. What's the traffic count, maybe 120,000 vehicles daily? That means 48,000 Oklahoma drivers on I-40 each day, and you expect the federal government to pay everything for this road?

Suppose I-40 wasn't there? Where would you put our local traffic, and who would pay for it?

You seem so focused on bashing Istook that you are ignoring the facts. (Including the fact that he's already gotten us more money for this project than any other comparable project in the country.)

Istook is accomplishing things while everyone else does nothing. So you criticize him and defend them? You are mixed-up!!

[Proactive Volunteer]

The Congressmen for Alaska lobby and bring back $4 for every $1 contributed to the federal governement.

Oklahoma is still a donor state who gives $1 and does not receive back even $1.

If Interstate 40 was not going through the middle of our central city carrying over 120,000 vehicles a day, we would not need this type of highway to move local traffic, thus making it to where the City and State should pay for the road. But since this is a federal highway, that the usage is strong for interstate trade....18 wheelers moving products from point A to point B, the feds should have to belly up.

Our US Congressmen do not always speak for us!!! That is why the City and State should not only be communicating to the State Delegation, but since they already hire lobbyists, they should be pushing them too for more federal money to pay for this project!

[Midtowner]

The Congressmen for Alaska lobby and bring back $4 for every $1 contributed to the federal governement.

Oklahoma is still a donor state who gives $1 and does not receive back even $1.

That has nothing to do with this. It is a problem unto itself. Alaska, clearly is an extreme example caused by a combination of factors including a high native population, a low general population, and great need for infrastructure. But again, the donor state argument is an issue apart from the I-40 crosstown.

If Interstate 40 was not going through the middle of our central city carrying over 120,000 vehicles a day, we would not need this type of highway to move local traffic, thus making it to where the City and State should pay for the road. But since this is a federal highway, that the usage is strong for interstate trade....18 wheelers moving products from point A to point B, the feds should have to belly up.

I believe the phrase is "pony up" -- belly up refers to something being dead, i.e., belly up. The federal government has ponied up 180 million dollars. Not chump change in the least! This is really the lion's share of the $274 million estimated to be needed for this project. The money should probably be a combination of both city and state money. I wouldn't even be opposed to a temporary diesel tax in Oklahoma to fund this project.

Our US Congressmen do not always speak for us!!! That is why the City and State should not only be communicating to the State Delegation, but since they already hire lobbyists, they should be pushing them too for more federal money to pay for this project!

I can see that being said on other issues, but this one, not really. $180 million is nothing to sneeze at.

[Midtowner]

Coburn, Carson and the New Crosstown
by Tom Elmore Thursday, Aug 26 2004, 1:16am

State highway lobby throws its weight at U.S. Senate candidates

The new I-40 Crosstown project in Oklahoma City is a perfect example of what's wrong with our national transportation policy.
Tom Elmore is an activist on transportation issues Recent articles in the DAILY OKLAHOMAN make it appear that US Senatorial candidates Tom Coburn and Brad Carson have gladly embraced not only funding the "New I-40 Crosstown" but also handing over as much money as possible to ODOT for the benefit of the state's highway contractors.

I spoke today to policy specialists at both to the Coburn and Carson offices about the Crosstown and the overall transportation situation in the state.

I'd say it's clear that both camps have been threatened by the highway contracting lobby - and that apparently no counterbalancing interest has offered the credible prospect of offsetting the considerable influence of that lobby. The citizenry needs to write and otherwise contact both camps urging and encouraging the campaigns not to give in to special interest threats or (especially) to the pressure of thoroughly compromised current office holders like Jim Inhofe (who, as chairman of the powerful US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has altogether avoided issues of needed fundamental reform).

Obviously, both camps understand that "they can't govern if they can't get elected."

The shameful fact is, Oklahoma highway contractors generally, overwhelmingly call the shots in state transportation policy. Lately, they're throwing their weight around with increasing boldness and impunity despite a world situation that more and more demands abandonment of their kind of "business as usual." Among other things, having failed against skyrocketing gasoline prices to force a fuel tax increase through the state legislature, they're now pushing an initiative petition to get a state fuel tax increase on the ballot.

It's time the citizenry brings them to heel.

Many now understand that the "New Crosstown project" would completely obliterate the irreplaceable Oklahoma City Union Station rail yard. From this yard - six blocks long and 12 track beds wide - existing rail lines link the beautiful station terminal building, purchased with a federal transit grant by OKC Transit in 1989 for the express purpose of development as a regional transit center, to strategic locations all over the region. The yard and its rail connections are arguably superior to those cost-effectively transformed into very successful rail transit systems in Dallas, Denver and other western cities. Still, the highway builders at ODOT never considered such use for the elegant Union Station complex. For them the rail yard is merely a convenient corridor for more concrete.

The "New Crosstown" project is very much a "pre-9-11-01 plan in the post 9-11-01 world." However, even prior to 9-11-01, the extravagant and destructive plan was profoundly troubling considering only its own merits as a highway project.

Some of my points to the Coburn and Carson folks were these:

1. You would not invest your family's money in this project! It may well require as much as $500 million up front - only to provide a funnel inviting every single truck on I-40 right through the heart of OKC, each truck paying as little as 20 cents on the dollar against the damage it inflicts on that new road. If you should be so foolish as to "invest," you would never see a dividend. What we will ALL see, however, is future demands for "more maintenance money" from ODOT.

2. ODOT leadership has no credibility. This is an agency whose policies have racked up $40 billion in unfunded highway maintenance liability -- that's $11,592.01 in such liability to every citizen of the state. Instead of fulfilling its obvious function as a responsible manager of state transport assets and reliable advisor to state elected officials and taxpayers, ODOT leadership has long been merely a mouthpiece for the aims and goals of the highway lobby. It is a truly shameful and transparently counterproductive situation.

3. The REAL problem with state roads was eloquently exposed by the late Bobby Green in a paper he wrote as ODOT Director in 1991: "As a result of the continual increases in truck sizes and weights, as well as the phenomenal growth in the numbers of heavy trucks using these major routes (a 38% increase between 1980 and 1990), Oklahoma's highway facilities are deteriorating at a rate which exceeds our financial capacity to replace or even repair them."

By the end of the 1990s, truck volume was growing on state roads at about 45% a year.

Interestingly, Oklahoma's unfunded highway maintenance liability is also apparently growing at about 45% a year under the wheels of trucks certainly paying three cents per gallon less state fuel tax than automobiles pay and probably paying only about three cents per mile against minimum damage recovery costs of fifteen cents per mile on the state's "free roads."

Despite these prodigious troubles, current ODOT leadership carefully avoids talking about the real trouble. Roads damaged by trucking feed the highway contractors and the taxpayers are caught in the unholy crossfire.

4. Today, in a state with 1,600 bad bridges and some of the worst highways in the nation, ODOT's chief priority for federal transportation funding is hundreds of millions of dollars for four miles of hyper-expensive, duplicate highway in downtown Oklahoma City -- at the behest of the same downtown developers and interests that brought us "Bass Pro." If this doesn't beg careful scrutiny, nothing does.

5. On a WKY radio talk show yesterday morning, Congressman Carson said, in effect, "no need to worry -- any and all moneys that go to the Crosstown will come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund..." However, far from the righteous instrument Istook and Inhofe claim it to be, the Federal Highway Trust Fund is actually a black curtain behind which the taxpayers are forced to massively subsidize the congress' "buddies," the commercial trucking industry. A superficial review reveals that two-thirds of the moneys comprising that trust fund come NOT from the chief source of highway damage, commercial trucking, but from the unknowing taxpayers. The single most pivotal, most meaningful issue -- calling trucking to accountability for the costs it imposes on public roadways -- is the issue congress refuses to touch.

6. Clearly, ODOT serves the highway contracting lobby -- not the interests of the taxpayers of the state. Over the last few years, the highway contractors, together with their buddies in the trucking industry, have consistently, boldly lied to the people of this state about available funding and who should pay. They flat lied in their expensive "Would you miss $500 million, your roads and bridges do..." media campaign. The money they were talking about is Motor vehicle tag and registration fees -- which were never designed to go to roads. They were levied in lieu of property taxation -- which goes to the general fund where it supports the general services of government, notably public schools.

7. In the "Would you miss $500 million" campaign, the state highway lobby abrogated any claim it might ever have had to being a credible source of information for the taxpayers. They should never be believed again.

8. As the highway lobby's "water boys," ODOT Director Gary Ridley and company also should never be believed again. Their lies about the existing Crosstown are many and very serious and, in fact, are fairly transparent. Despite their insistence that the existing Crosstown is "structurally deficient," it has never been placarded restricting or denying use to heavy trucks. Up to one-third of the traffic carried by The Crosstown is big trucks. Many truly structurally deficient bridges across the state ARE placarded limiting truck weights. Plenty of bypass capacity for through trucks headed any direction is available on I-44 and I-240.

When I asked one of ODOT's key bridge engineers to comment on what I'd recently heard on good authority -- that the existing Crosstown was, in fact, not only structurally sound, but could be redecked and modernized to serve indefinitely for about $25 million, he responded, "Tom, PLEASE don't ask me to comment on that. You have no idea how much pressure we're under in this department to help sell the new highway project."

Clearly, conscientious ODOT employees are being threatened by ODOT leadership. Those threats, however, are not limited to ODOT employees. Gary Ridley has boldly threatened elected bodies and officials such as the city council of Norman. The threat is clear - "attempt to call us to accountability and we will dock your highway money."

Ridley and his handlers should be put far away from public service of any kind.

[Midtowner]

9. The "New Crosstown" project is an obvious pork barrel deal driven by downtown OKC developers and by the highway contractors and truckers. It must be rejected. Any new funding for such projects comes out of a $7.34 TRILLION national debt. The money is not there. Funding already garnered for the "New Crosstown" is clearly at least $200 million short of ODOT's claimed "$350 million" project total. There is every reason to believe this project will actually cost in excess of $500 million. Will that stop ODOT from trying to lock Oklahomans into the project by starting construction anyhow? One look at the "Capitol Dome" fiasco should answer that question. ODOT and the contracting lobby it represents have long been allowed to practice "government by fait accompli." They will do that on the "New Crosstown" if they are allowed to get away with it. It must be stopped.

10. The "New Crosstown" project is a microcosm of what's wrong with national transportation policy. The big shot road contractors and truckers rule in Washington just as they do in Oklahoma while their policies feed foreign oil dependency and the nation's security and economic troubles. Business as usual is simply no longer acceptable. The roadway funding situation must be cleaned up -- and cleaned up NOW - both at the state and national levels.

[Midtowner]

Also, see: www.saveunionstation.org

This project will destroy the historic 1930 Oklahoma City Union Station which was the primary terminal used by rail travelers coming in and out of OKC.

[Sooner&RiceGrad]

You mentione dearlier that "donor state" is irrelevant to us not having enough money for I 40, when actually it is the source of Oklahoma's budget woes. We give more than we recieve, and are yet the most Pro American/Conservative state in the union, and we get screwed. States like Alaska are screwing us, states like that should give more. Unfortunately, we have no jurisdiction over that, and THAT is what IS irrelevant.