Oklahoma Turnpike Authority

[Plutonic Panda]

Arizona has 1,168.64 "free" miles of interstate

Oklahoma has 930.16 "free" miles of interstate ...

so again what are you talking about ..

How many miles of toll roads does Arizona have in a state with a population double that of Oklahoma’s.

Also, you’re referring to only interstates. Though I am against intestate tolling in general, Arizona has tons of state highways that are freeways. You’re also leaving out lane miles with is awfully convenient given many of Arizona’s urban freeways are wider than those in Oklahoma.

[BoulderSooner]

How many miles of toll roads does Arizona have in a state with a population double that of Oklahoma’s.

Also, you’re referring to only interstates. Though I am against intestate tolling in general, Arizona has tons of state highways that are freeways. You’re also leaving out lane miles with is awfully convenient given many of Arizona’s urban freeways are wider than those in Oklahoma.

arizona has 0 toll roads ..

[BoulderSooner]

How many miles of toll roads does Arizona have in a state with a population double that of Oklahoma’s.

Also, you’re referring to only interstates. Though I am against intestate tolling in general, Arizona has tons of state highways that are freeways. You’re also leaving out lane miles with is awfully convenient given many of Arizona’s urban freeways are wider than those in Oklahoma.

Rural

interstate lane miles Arizona 3,942 Oklahoma 2,735

other "principal Arterial" Arizona 3,121 Oklahoma 6,759

Urban

Interstate Lane Miles Arizona 1,017 Oklahoma 1,204 Freeway and Expressway Arizona 1,213 Oklahoma 880


total lane miles in each state Arizona 131,356 Oklahoma 235,004 ...

in short . Arizona has a much bigger pop/tax base .. but also they have much more density but way way fewer roads ..

only 18 % of land in arizona is privately owned the rest is tribal 27.1 State 12.7 and federal owned 42.1

[Plutonic Panda]

arizona has 0 toll roads ..

That’s exactly my point.

[Plutonic Panda]

Rural

interstate lane miles Arizona 3,942 Oklahoma 2,735

other "principal Arterial" Arizona 3,121 Oklahoma 6,759

Urban

Interstate Lane Miles Arizona 1,017 Oklahoma 1,204 Freeway and Expressway Arizona 1,213 Oklahoma 880


total lane miles in each state Arizona 131,356 Oklahoma 235,004 ...

in short . Arizona has a much bigger pop/tax base .. but also they have much more density but way way fewer roads ..

only 18 % of land in arizona is privately owned the rest is tribal 27.1 State 12.7 and federal owned 42.1

And California, Utah, Texas etc can all build expansive interstates or freeways connecting their cities somehow without toll roads. There’s just no way for Oklahoma to do it. Well I don’t agree with that and I’ve made that point several times.

Comparing Oklahoma’s farm roads to Arizona’s makes zero sense. I’m referring to roads that connect cities to each other specifically freeways. Yes I know having more rural roads affects OkDOTs base but Texas can do it and they have many more cities than we do. We can’t even do it with our two cities? Please.

[BoulderSooner]

And California, Utah, Texas etc can all build expansive interstates or freeways connecting their cities somehow without toll roads. There’s just no way for Oklahoma to do it. Well I don’t agree with that and I’ve made that point several times.

Comparing Oklahoma’s farm roads to Arizona’s makes zero sense. I’m referring to roads that connect cities to each other specifically freeways. Yes I know having more rural roads affects OkDOTs base but Texas can do it and they have many more cities than we do. We can’t even do it with our two cities? Please.

did you even read the post you quoted ..... Urban lane miles .??

clearly not

[Plutonic Panda]

did you even read the post you quoted ..... Urban lane miles .??

clearly not

Yes I did but you also brought into the equation the additional load ODOT has to deal with factoring in with their preservation requirements. Arizona has more “unusable” lane than Oklahoma so it’s understandable. I understand why Oklahoma has toll roads and I’m saying we can do without them like some other states do. I’d prefer that and I’m going to rant about it time to time. So be it.

So versus increasing fuel and transportation taxes in substitution of tolls you’d be in favor of keeping tolls I’m guessing?

[BoulderSooner]

Yes I did but you also brought into the equation the additional load ODOT has to deal with factoring in with their preservation requirements. Arizona has more “unusable” lane than Oklahoma so it’s understandable. I understand why Oklahoma has toll roads and I’m saying we can do without them like some other states do. I’d prefer that and I’m going to rant about it time to time. So be it.

So versus increasing fuel and transportation taxes in substitution of tolls you’d be in favor of keeping tolls I’m guessing?

with out question ....

[HangryHippo]

It seems like OK has way more miles than actually necessary. A little better planning, giving up some of the miles, and more targeted investment would make a huge difference.

[Jersey Boss]

It seems like OK has way more miles than actually necessary. A little better planning, giving up some of the miles, and more targeted investment would make a huge difference.

All that needs to be done is to remove the legislature from the process and make it an up or down vote like the BRAC does for military base closures. Have the OTA make the non changeable list for a vote. The way it is now there will always be a price paid to the rural legislators to get approval for anything.

[jn1780]

Years ago, Oklahoma voters nixed a proposal to raise gas tax for better roads. Other states, like California have better highways, because the people there are willing to pay higher taxes for them. Ironic how a few years ago, Oklahoma raised gas tax by 3 cents not to fix the roads, but rather to pay teachers more. But it shows to me how many Oklahomans, including state legislators, aren't all that unhappy with the state highway system.

A gas tax would be a regression tax on the poor and a lot of them don't care about a interstate/road that is in the middle of the nowhere or only really useful to people who live in higher income areas. Plus, if we continue to move towards electric vehicles, we will eventually need to replace it with something else.

The Kilpatrick being made into an interstate would make sense along with some of the Tulsa toll roads. The other toll roads makes sense to stay tolls though.

[Plutonic Panda]

But freeways that price people out with tolls aren’t regressive. Riiiiight

[bombermwc]

A gas tax would be a regression tax on the poor and a lot of them don't care about a interstate/road that is in the middle of the nowhere or only really useful to people who live in higher income areas. Plus, if we continue to move towards electric vehicles, we will eventually need to replace it with something else.

The Kilpatrick being made into an interstate would make sense along with some of the Tulsa toll roads. The other toll roads makes sense to stay tolls though.

How is a use tax a regression tax? If you're paying for each gallon you buy, then the more you drive, the more you use the roads, the more you pay. There can/should be a split of the tax between city/state to cover your point of if they don't drive on the highway. But the reverse of that could also be true in that not everyone has kids in school, but we all pay for it because its all for the betterment of everyone. More people paying in, means the cost is less......widen the base, lower the rate.

I signed up for a PikePass a few weeks ago but still haven't received it in the mail. Anyone know how long they're taking to ship right now?

[Zuplar]

What are they going to do with all the places you used to pay on the Kilpatrick now that there is plate pay? I drove on it this weekend and interesting how much wasted money they spent on the new portion just completed last year where they added all the places to stop and pay that are now obsolete. They put cones to block it all off and it really does look tacky. I hope that's not permanent.

[bombermwc]

If they take lead from NTTA, then they will put up concrete barriers for the exit ramps, and leave it all as-is forever.

[Plutonic Panda]

If they take lead from NTTA, then they will put up concrete barriers for the exit ramps, and leave it all as-is forever.

Per the Oklahoman article they plan to address the toll booths but not in the near future. NYSDOT started destroying the Thruway Toll booths as soon as they were finished with the new gantries and automated toll system. I believe the NTTA also plans to dismantle their toll booths at some point as well.

[HOT ROD]

A gas tax would be a regression tax on the poor and a lot of them don't care about a interstate/road that is in the middle of the nowhere or only really useful to people who live in higher income areas. Plus, if we continue to move towards electric vehicles, we will eventually need to replace it with something else.

The Kilpatrick being made into an interstate would make sense along with some of the Tulsa toll roads. The other toll roads makes sense to stay tolls though.

Can you please explain the bold? How is an increase to the gas tax regressive on the poor, particularly when the poor are the most likely to use public transit and therefore not even pay a gas tax at all?

I'm just wondering why this argument is always thrown around by those who don't want to increase the already far lowest gas tax in the region, if not country. ... We could increase the gas tax significantly and it would STILL be the lowest in the region yet would help cover transit and rail programs. Just seems like people like to throw around the "poor this" or "that" to try to justify their case when at least in the case of gas tax, it's actually fairly mutually exclusive.

I do agree, however, with those who state that grocery tax is regressive on the poor yet this still exists in Oklahoma and NOBODY is making an active effort to change this very much regressive, very much impact to the poor. ...

[Scott5114]

Because the gas tax is a flat number of cents per gallon, it is regressive, because that number of cents per gallon makes up a greater proportion of a poor person's wealth than a rich person's. Also, I believe there are more low-income people who drive their own cars in Oklahoma than there are in other states, simply because it is a lot more difficult to get around without a car in OK than elsewhere (less bus/transit service, things are more spread out, less bike/ped infrastructre, etc.)

I do agree, though, that it makes more sense to raise the tax in order to fund transportation improvements and seek to mitigate the impact to lower-income drivers by doing things like exempting groceries from sales tax.

[Jeremy Martin]

They are a cash maker (l'm not sure they are quite the "cash cow" you describe. What l want to know is exactly why you have such a problem with them? In reality, what's the difference between a toll and a gasoline tax (which l might remind you ok's is one of the lowest in the country). Money just doesn't appear, as it seems to now at the Federal level, from the swish and flick of a magic wand.

Exactly how are the citizens being taken advantage of?

Sorry Mug, I just saw this reply . My issue is that when this was first proposed once the road was paid for it was supposed to be turned over to the state. Times have changed and I get that but it should not cost as much as it does to drive to Tulsa. The only reason it does is so they can continue to build roads that don't come close to paying for themselves.

[mugofbeer]

True, but they also help pay for roads that, otherwise, might have never been built. They also collect tolls from out of state users and they may also pay for widening l44 to Missouri to 6 lane. It's all a trade-off. OK has very low gas taxes. New freeways were built in the Phoenix area using an excise (sales) tax voted on by county residents. Texas has borrowed in the neighborhood of $30 billion for their massive projects (with "tolls"/payments made by all Texans, not just users). Other states have state gas taxes as high as $0.67/gal.

[Scott5114]

Sorry Mug, I just saw this reply . My issue is that when this was first proposed once the road was paid for it was supposed to be turned over to the state. Times have changed and I get that but it should not cost as much as it does to drive to Tulsa. The only reason it does is so they can continue to build roads that don't come close to paying for themselves.

OTA is the state. If you mean the tolls were supposed to be removed on the Turner Turnpike, then yes, that was part of the authorizing legislation passed in 1947, but the concept of keeping the tolls on and cross-pledging them to build other toll roads was approved in a State Question in 1954. So you're taking issue with a decision that was made 67 years ago by a vote of the people, and for every toll road built since then, there was never any proposal at all to remove the tolls.

[Jeremy Martin]

I am taking a bit of an issue with that vote 67 years ago. I feel like if the citizens understood what that vote would mean that we would still be paying for turnpikes in perpetuity the vote would not have been passed. Do we ever foresee a time where the OTA does not have a debt that needs paid? That hasn't happened in 67 years and looking at the OTA's plans for new roads I don't see it happening for another 67 years.
The one thing I think we can all agree on is that in the past OK has not done the greatest job in planning and funding our infrastructure.
With the rise of electric vehicles I think we'll eventually start seeing a tax based on miles driven or something similar once the gas taxes start shrinking.

[Scott5114]

I am taking a bit of an issue with that vote 67 years ago. I feel like if the citizens understood what that vote would mean that we would still be paying for turnpikes in perpetuity the vote would not have been passed.

What is your evidence that they didn't understand it? The votes were 57-43 in favor of SQ 359 and 56-44 in favor of SQ 360. Not exactly margins that seem to indicate people were unsure of their choice. And it's not like the Legislature was able to whitewash over the downsides of the arrangement. Even as early as the Turner Turnpike's proposal, there were vocal toll opponents saying "Oklahomans will be shackled with tolls for the rest of their lives" (state Sen. Boyd Cowden, Chandler, in 1947) and at least one legislator voting to name the turnpike after Gov. Turner said he was doing so because then drivers would "know who to blame".

The Will Rogers and H.E. Bailey turnpikes were proposed as a part of these two SQs. (See text of SQ 360.) There was also a third proposed turnpike that was never constructed, but the plans were turned over to the Department of Highways, and it became I-35 between OKC and the Kansas state line. The people of Oklahoma clearly seemed to want these turnpikes, and paying for them with Turner Turnpike money was the most obvious and cost-effective way to get them.

[Jersey Boss]

I am taking a bit of an issue with that vote 67 years ago. I feel like if the citizens understood what that vote would mean that we would still be paying for turnpikes in perpetuity the vote would not have been passed. Do we ever foresee a time where the OTA does not have a debt that needs paid? That hasn't happened in 67 years and looking at the OTA's plans for new roads I don't see it happening for another 67 years.
The one thing I think we can all agree on is that in the past OK has not done the greatest job in planning and funding our infrastructure.
With the rise of electric vehicles I think we'll eventually start seeing a tax based on miles driven or something similar once the gas taxes start shrinking.

I am of the opinion that the weight of a vehicle should also be added into the calculation of taxation for road maintaince. The heavier the vehicle the higher the tax.

[HangryHippo]

I am of the opinion that the weight of a vehicle should also be added into the calculation of taxation for road maintaince. The heavier the vehicle the higher the tax.

Agreed. But they’ve can’t even get all the border weigh stations built and operating.