From the Oklahoman:

By John Greiner
Capitol Bureau

State transportation commissioners delayed action today on more than $80 million in highway and bridge contracts, including one for Oklahoma City's Crosstown Expressway, because of pending cuts in federal highway money.

"It's grim news," said transportation director Gary Ridley, who asked commissioners to defer projects until a shortage of Federal Highway Trust Funds is resolved in the nation's Capitol.

Among contracts put on hold today was a $40.5 million project for the Crosstown Expressway, for grading, surfacing, and the building of three bridges on 2.64 miles of the new Interstate 40 expressway route east of Pennsylvania Avenue.

The delay will apparently not affect other Crosstown projects now under way.

Friday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters called Ridley and all other state highway directors, telling them the federal government would pay only a portion of federal highway construction contracts, based on the amount of money available in the Federal Highway Trust Fund.

She called on Congress to take immediate steps to protect the solvency of the federal Highway Trust Fund, which she said was a "long-predicted problem."

Other projects delayed include work on Interstate 44 reconstruction in Tulsa and an engineering contract that was part of a program to help children safely walk to school.

Besides delaying the awarding of this month's Oklahoma highway contracts, the state transportation department will take these steps:

--Delay work orders to start projects already awarded.

--Suspend right-of-way purchases on future projects.

Also, state transportation personnel will look for ways to stop construction on existing projects while maintaining public safety.

The problem is that motorists are buying less fuel because of higher fuel prices, Ridley said. Federal taxes on fuel purchases go into th e highway trust fund.

Oklahoma gets between $500 million and $600 million in federal highway money every year for state and federal highway and bridge projects.

State officials delay highway projects | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/state-officials-delay-highway-projects/article/3294787/?tm=1220896785)

Big Bummer.......I guess the new crosstown won't be done by 2012 now. Somehow I kinda expected this. All this while the oil companies are making record profits.....I hope noone dies while waiting for these projects to be completed.

Somewhere in Oklahoma Tom Elmore is doing back flips and tap dancing. I do not understand why the state does not combine ODOT and OTA. The turnpikes fees could help produce revenue for the free roads. Raise the speed limit on the city turnpikes to 75 or 80 and rename them speed routes.

Yeah, things seemed just seemed to be going along to smoothly. I guess it was just a matter of time.

I wish someone who cared so much about these projects would just win the Powerball and give the 40.5 million to the state for the Crosstown Expressway. Be a huge write off!

yeah, the feds need to keep some of that money to fix the housing crisis.

I know it might be apples to oranges but I can't help but think our taxes now have to be allocated differently to bail out foolish speculators and mortgage fraudsters. Makes me mad.. sometimes it's hard to do the right thing in life and watch all these people who screw up get bailed out again and again, while we have to drive on crappy unsafe roads. ugh.

TODAY'S OKLA. TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING JUST PART OF NATIONAL ROAD LOBBY CAMPAIGN?

From North American Transportation Institute, Tom Elmore, Executive Director, (405)794-7163:

Is ODOT really "ready" to pave its over-the-top, way-out-of-cost-estimate "New I-40 Crosstown" from Pennsylvania Avenue to Shartel Avenue? Or is that project - said today by ODOT Director Gary Ridley to be "the most expensive single contract ever let by ODOT" -- simply being used as a "chess piece" in a national highway lobby campaign to hammer congress for more "Highway Trust Fund Money?"

The "press release" below, from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), might well beg the question as to whether Gary Ridley -- former "chief lobbyist" for the Oklahoma Asphalt Paving Association -- is now simply "playing his role" in a concerted effort by the highway contracting lobby to wring more money out of U.S. taxpayers.

Sure -- let's "borrow more money from China" to help ODOT pay for its plan to destroy the center of the state's railway network -- making Oklahoma and the nation all-the-more dependent on foreign oil.

Not one word from Ridley -- or "ARTBA" -- about the real problem and its obvious answer: Bringing the commercial trucking industry, chief, overwhelming damager of US public roads, to accurately repay the massive, unrepaid costs it inflicts on America's roadway system.

A standard "18-wheeler" operating at its maximum legal weight inflicts pavement damage equivalent to 9,600 automobiles. Truck traffic growth on Oklahoma roads was still accelerating through the end of the 1990s and into the new decade at an average rate in excess of 45% per year. Even so the truck pays three-cents-per-gallon less state fuel tax than the auto pays in Oklahoma -- and the "diesel penny" produces only about one-third the revenue to the state produced by the "gasoline penny."

At the national level, trucking has long paid less than one-third of annual "contributions" comprising the much-vaunted Federal Highway Trust Fund. In short -- the Trust Fund is actually one more Washington, DC, "black, hocus-pocus curtain" behind which the unknowing taxpayers are forced to massively subsidize our elected officials' special-interest "buddies" -- in this case, commercial trucking. The public then gets to "pay again" to repair unrepaid road damage overwhelmingly inflicted by the trucks.

The answer is simple: Our highway network will not improve until each user accurately repays its road-use costs. But ODOT -- and ARTBA -- refuse to press that obvious answer -- in favor of "band aids" that will perpetuate the problem.

Is it possible ODOT doesn't want the problem solved? Is it possible ODOT's "pals" in the highway contracting lobby "like things the way they are?"

Meanwhile, railroads are a far, far better way to move heavy freight and are increasingly seen to hold powerful answers to efficient passenger mobility.

ODOT owns more railway -- over 850 miles -- than any other state DOT in the Union. However -- instead of utilizing that asset to maximum effect, ODOT is straining every nerve to destroy the OKC Union Station rail yard at 300 SW 7th -- the obvious center of the state's rail network.

Is there "something badly wrong here?"

You'd better believe there is.

Do Gary Ridley and his pals work for the people of Oklahoma -- or do they work for the highway and trucking lobbies?

It's time for this nonsense to stop. It's time for straight talk, real answers, and, for the first time in a long time, real accountability from ODOT.

__________________________________________________ _____



Statement of ARTBA President Pete Ruane Regarding the Bush Administration's Call for Congressional Action on Highway Trust Fund

Contact:
Jeff Solsby
ARTBA
202-289-4434


Print this page


Washington, D.C. [September 05, 2008]—

“We are encouraged the Bush Administration put politics aside today to address a very serious problem—the Highway Trust Fund’s solvency. We have been warning of the looming revenue shortfall for nearly two years.

“The House of Representatives overwhelming approved bipartisan legislation July 23 to fix the trust fund. We urge the Senate to act as quickly as possible to approve similar legislation so that important transportation improvement, safety and traffic congestion reduction projects can continue to move forward.”

Established in 1902, ARTBA (American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) (http://www.artba.org)) represents the U.S. transportation design and construction industry in the Nation’s Capital.

Yep - if only ODOT wasn't planning to pave over an abandoned rail line the Federal Highway Trust Fund would still be solvent. It is the straw that broke the camels back. Maybe the state could sell off some of those 850 miles of rail to raise the money for the crosstown.

okay... tom, you've told us over and over again about the 18 wheelers. why haven't they been using the rails to ship freight? i'm confused... are you advocating forcing the trucking companies to use rail lines? it seems they prefer to truck the stuff.

okay... tom, you've told us over and over again about the 18 wheelers. why haven't they been using the rails to ship freight? i'm confused... are you advocating forcing the trucking companies to use rail lines?

Ed, the answer to this is so easy. It's the Mormons. Haven't you been paying attention?

that's hilarious!!

but really... i'm trying to understand.

yeah, the feds need to keep some of that money to fix the housing crisis.

I know it might be apples to oranges but I can't help but think our taxes now have to be allocated differently to bail out foolish speculators and mortgage fraudsters. Makes me mad.. sometimes it's hard to do the right thing in life and watch all these people who screw up get bailed out again and again, while we have to drive on crappy unsafe roads. ugh.

I agree if only the lenders used a little common sense before they cut the checks for home loans that people clearly could not afford. Anyone with any common sense would know not to issue a $200,000 home loan to someone who barely clears 25K a year.

Yawn. The Federal Highway Trust Fund problem will likely be resolved within a matter of months, if not sooner, and the I-40 relocation will be built as planned.

Tom, do you have an obsession with double quotes? You're constant knocking of how ODOT handles things is counter-productive at best. You act as though ODOT's destroying the Union railyard is the end of humankind. We do have the ability and building materials to build more rail nearby.

Instead of harping in an endless loop about past mistakes, why not run for office and introduce some tangible solutions for the future. Otherwise, don't waste anyone's time.

Big Bummer.......I guess the new crosstown won't be done by 2012 now. Somehow I kinda expected this. All this while the oil companies are making record profits.....I hope noone dies while waiting for these projects to be completed.

How the heck does the oil companies have ANYTHING to do with this? Chesapeake, Devon, Sandridge, etc pay more taxes than you will ever believe. If the government is too damn stupid to spend the money correctly, that is not the oil company's problem. Stop whining and complaining and blaming the oil companies for the government's inability to appropriately spend money!

I already wrote all my senators/congressmen telling them i was pissed they even let this happen. That's actually the first time I've been so pissed as write every single one from Oklahoma. We know the crosstown project will be completed eventually whether this money comes in or not, but we will save money in the long run by not delaying. Every delay means a longer timeline, which means costs rise so the same product simply costs more.

Tom - your arguements are like running over an already flattened squirel. It's lost so much of the fluff that made it appear bigger than it was, that you don't even thud when you run over it anymore. Give it a rest.

It's very simple: We can't keep up roads if we don't retrieve a fair return from each road user.

If government is so hamstrung by special-interest influence that it is incapable of addressing that relatively simple task, why should it be trusted to tackle the more difficult jobs -- and why should it be allowed to destroy infrastructures of the only mode that has consistently proven it can pay its own way to build more unmaintainable highways?

It "makes no sense" -- unless we're willing to look at the sense it makes.

TOM ELMORE

Tom Elmore For Odot President! Lmao...

The problem is the Fed Gov needs to stop placing highway funds into the general fund and spending them on their over inflated ear marks.

Gas taxes need to go back into the Highway Trust Fund and used for that purpose only. Same with SSI.

What does this mean for the I-40 and the newly announced I 40 pedestrian bridge- does anyone know?

Seriously, I think Oklahomans are a heck of a lot more interested in electing this man for president, McCain, who spoke of staying up to 100 years in Iraq and all the trillion$ that would mean, than taking a serious interest in having a highway system that this state can feel proud.

So I wonder if the streets and highways are a lot nicer in Iraq than they are in Oklahoma? Can anyone who's been over there comment?

It's very simple: We can't keep up roads if we don't retrieve a fair return from each road user.

If government is so hamstrung by special-interest influence that it is incapable of addressing that relatively simple task, why should it be trusted to tackle the more difficult jobs -- and why should it be allowed to destroy infrastructures of the only mode that has consistently proven it can pay its own way to build more unmaintainable highways?

It "makes no sense" -- unless we're willing to look at the sense it makes.

TOM ELMORE

you need to understand .. (or maybe you do but it just doesn't fit into your agenda) that if we tax the trucking company's more .. our goods will cost more .. they are running or very thin margins as it is ..



the house already passed a measure to fix the trust fund ..and the senate is expected to pass their version in the next month or so ..

the new pedestrian bridge over the new I 40 was funded in the bond issue last dec ..

new crosstown should not be delayed

What does this mean for the I-40 and the newly announced I 40 pedestrian bridge- does anyone know?

The delay is just on one project of many that are needed to complete the rerouting. So whether this one delay ends up delaying the project as a whole is TBD. The Skydance Pedestrian Bridge is being funded by the city, and won't be affected.

So is the I40 reloc officially axed? or just delayed or still game on?

The delay is just on one project of many that are needed to complete the rerouting. So whether this one delay ends up delaying the project as a whole is TBD. The Skydance Pedestrian Bridge is being funded by the city, and won't be affected.

Instead of a bridge to nowhere, we can have a bridge over nowhere.

So is the I40 reloc officially axed? or just delayed or still game on?

No, not axed. Still game on, just the next segment has been slightly delayed until the federal highway budget numbers are crunched. If the government doesn't want to be liable for a bridge collapse, they'd be smart to allocate the $41 million needed for the next segment.

Seriously, I think Oklahomans are a heck of a lot more interested in electing this man for president, McCain, who spoke of staying up to 100 years in Iraq and all the trillion$ that would mean, than taking a serious interest in having a highway system that this state can feel proud.

So I wonder if the streets and highways are a lot nicer in Iraq than they are in Oklahoma? Can anyone who's been over there comment?

The roads weren't so bad over there; I was actually surprised. Of course, our dangers on a bridge are a little different than the dangers on a bridge in Iraq. We don't have exploding highways in Oklahoma. Anyways, to answer your question: I thought the highway in my particular area was pretty decent. The same couldn't be said for the usual roads in between. One thing was for sure, if we had Halliburton over here building our infrastructure, we wouldn't be complaining about our roads. You gotta love that military-industrial complex!

Boulder Sooner wrote:

"...you need to understand .. (or maybe you do but it just doesn't fit into your agenda) that if we tax the trucking company's more .. our goods will cost more .. they are running or very thin margins as it is ..."
________________

For those who missed out on "Freshman Economics," I offer the following:

If the market is to work, aren't all production costs -- including transportation -- supposed to be factored into the cost of goods?

If they're not, what happens to them? Perhaps "the cosmos just absorbs such costs if trucking doesn't want to pay them?"

So, instead of paying a few extra cents on the price of a loaf of bread or a carton of milk, it's better for the "consumers" to absorb -- or more accurately, pass down to their grandchildren -- the transportation costs of the goods they buy as "billions of dollars in unfunded highway maintenance debt" -- because the trucking industry's good pals in congress and our state legislatures "didn't have the heart to charge them what they ought to be paying for the use of the happy taxpayers' free roads?"

Isn't the only way to subject such costs to the efficiency-producing power of market competition to put them "in the market place?"

How much does market competition work on "unfunded highway maintenance debt" and "arbitrary taxation?" How about "bond debt service?"

Ridley's little announcement Monday is just a small hint of the fruits of 60-years of hiding the real costs of the politicians' favored mode.

...and you ain't seen nothin' yet.

TOM ELMORE

Ugh, here we go with more double quotes.

Boulder Sooner wrote:

"...you need to understand .. (or maybe you do but it just doesn't fit into your agenda) that if we tax the trucking company's more .. our goods will cost more .. they are running or very thin margins as it is ..."
____________

Let's talk about this a little further, since the "economics" conversation seems to be so lively.

If we "tax trucking companies more ...."

So what trucks pay to use public roads is "tax?"

Sort of like landlords "taxing" tenants each month for the rent?

Can't any of our very-bright-and-extremely-responsible state legislators tell the differerence?

How come the 17+ cents-per-mile trucks pay on state turnpikes is "a toll" -- while the roughly 3-cents-per-mile they pay on the "free roads" is "a tax?"

Isn't it about time to press the case with our elected officials on what's a tax and what's quite plainly and straight-away a user fee?

A good place to start would be definitively establishing what each class of road users now pay versus what they ought to be paying with something Oklahoma state government has never before (in its history) produced: a comprehensive Highway Cost Allocation Study -- based on the reliable equity-ratio model.

Oh -- but I'm listening to the erudite and impressive Gary Ridley -- the "PE without a dee-gree" -- on the radio right now telling congress, ODOT doesn't need more rules or more oversight on bridge inspections -- "what we need is more money...."

Makes yuh proud, don't it?

TOM ELMORE

Well in case you missed it Tom, the 8 Billion was approved so the projects are back on track. LOL nice pun for you huh?

ODOT DOES need more money. They're still working on a budget from the 80's and here we are almost 30 years later with MUCH higher costs in everything. How can you expect them to adequately even maintain what we have with a budget like that? Much less be proactive for the future.

I-35 between 40 and 44 is a perfect example. All they've ever done there is repave with a thin layer of asphalt that lasts a few years and then crumbles for the next 8 years. What needs to be done is complete the 6 lane project so that all of 35 is 6 lanes through OKC. The traffic warrants it, and that area has plenty space to do it with MINIMAL work. Compare that to the corridor south of 40. If they had the funding they should, that project would have been done 20 years ago. Instead, what we see is toll roads going in all over the state. So what do we do when we can't build a road, we let someone else make money off of it. So rather than building a road that could help reduce traffic on the main highways, we toll it so only a handful of people use it. I refuse to pay a toll in-town.

So that leads to another arguement. Increase the road tax on everyone like we should have done 20 years ago. Everyone pays a little and everyone benefits. Hell, why not make it a use tax and then just add it to gasoline if you're one of those "i don't ever use that road" people. Except everyone uses roads because even if you don't drive, your stuff drove a road to get to your house.

If it meant that we'd see some progress, I'd go for that 5c a gallon tax we keep voting down. We're stupid by not taking it. We'll pay 3.75 a gallon and won't take 5c more than would actually go toward our own benefits??? Seriously?!?!?! WTF

You know, if we rip up all those rails, we could take them to those scrap metal places on Reno and pay for the new Crosstown that way.

You know, if we rip up all those rails, we could take them to those scrap metal places on Reno and pay for the new Crosstown that way.
I'm for that.

AASHTO Journal News Alert: Senate Approves $8 Billion Highway Trust Fund Rescue


Breaking through a deadlock that had stalled action for months, the Senate tonight by voice vote approved the immediate transfer of $8.017 billion from the federal government's General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund to restore its solvency.

"State departments of transportation are breathing a collective sigh of relief across the country today," said AASHTO Executive Director John Horsley. "The Highway Trust Fund supports transportation projects that keep America working, relieve congestion, and save lives. This was the right thing to do, and the states are grateful."

States have been put on hold hundreds of millions of dollars of construction projects this week as a result of Friday's announcement by U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters that federal-aid payments would be rationed because of a shortage of federal funds. Peters said that distribution of federal highway funds to the states would be weekly, rather than twice daily. She also indicated that after the first weekly payment this Thursday, states would likely receive a reduced percentage of their claims, depending on the amount of revenue flowing into the trust fund.

Reversing the administration's previous opposition to a bill (HR 6532) already passed overwhelmingly by the House, Peters urged the Congress to enact a "clean bill" to resolve the crisis by Friday. She said the trust fund faces a zero balance sooner than originally expected because Americans have sharply reduced driving and gas purchases this year because of high prices at the pump. That in turn has led to a drop in gas-tax collections because the fee is assessed per gallon purchased.

Despite the administration's urging, efforts to move the legislation by unanimous consent were thwarted Monday when several Republican senators continued their objections to increasing the nation's budget deficit by sending $8 billion of general revenue to the Highway Trust Fund.

After behind-the-scenes negotiations, Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-CA, asked late this afternoon that the bill be brought up for immediate action with 90 minutes of debate. No objections were made to her request. The Senate proceeded with debate and then took a voice vote approving the bill and returning it to the House for consideration of an amendment by Sen. Max Baucus, D-MT and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which would make the transfer of funds effective upon enactment. The House bill would make funds available Sept. 30.

The bill returns $8.017 billion to the Highway Trust Fund that was removed and sent to the General Fund as part of a 1998 budget deal.

During debate, several senators expressed the urgency of acting to resolve the crisis, noting the hundreds of thousands of construction jobs that are dependent on federal highway funds flowing to the states.

"What we are doing is simply restoring the revenue that was shifted out of the trust fund 10 years ago," Boxer said during floor debate. "What we are saying to many working people out there is that we are not going to let them run the risk of being laid off, being fired, having to come home and tell their family that they just can't work."

Sen. James Inhofe, R-OK and ranking minority member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, said removing money from the Highway Trust Fund for general government spending in 1998 was "morally wrong" and urged his Republican colleagues to support the bill.

"The uncertainty over the federal government's ability to fulfill promises made in law substantially disrupts states' highway programs," Inhofe said.

Oklahoma Department of Transportation Director Gary Ridley testified to the committee Wednesday morning about the urgency of the Senate acting to prevent the Highway Trust Fund from running out of money to pay state reimbursement requests on a daily basis. Ridley told senators how Oklahoma delayed $73.7 million worth of contracts this week over the uncertainty of when it would it would receive federal payments for the work.

Sens. Jim DeMint, R-SC, and Judd Gregg, R-NH, who had previously blocked several attempts this year by senators to infuse more money into the Highway Trust Fund, dropped their objection Wednesday and allowed the bill to come up for a vote. But they both spoke at length regarding their opposition to increasing the federal budget deficit by sending general tax revenue to shore up the highway fund.

"Today's votes are creating tomorrow's fiscal disasters and this $8 billion Highway Trust Fund bailout is really just one example," DeMint said. "We're going to have to borrow this money from China or who knows where. We don't have that money."

The Congressional Budget Office released an estimate yesterday that this year's federal budget deficit will reach $407 billion -- very close to the record $413 billion deficit recorded in Fiscal Year 2004.

Gregg said the 2005 highway bill known as SAFETEA-LU contained more than 6,000 earmarked projects at a cost of $24 billion. Some of those pet projects should have been eliminated to make up for the coming deficit in the Highway Trust Fund, he argued, or the shortfall could be made up by borrowing from the trust fund's Mass Transit Account.

But supporters countered that the money should have never been taken out of the trust fund a decade ago or this problem wouldn't have happened.

"This is not a bailout," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA and chairwoman of the Senate's transportation appropriations subcommittee. "That $8 billion was collected in gas taxes for the purposes of being deposited in the Highway Trust Fund. At the time, the trust fund was flush with money. People didn't think we needed it. Clearly we need it back now."

The House is expected to act as soon as tomorrow on concurring with the Senate amendment.

"We particularly thank the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, the Senate Appropriations Committee, and the Senate leadership for their bipartisan cooperation in working to avert this crisis," Horsley said. "We encourage the House to act swiftly so that the president can sign this bill as soon as possible."

In a statement issued tonight, Peters commended the Senate for "acting swiftly to address the immediate needs of the trust fund" while continuing to emphasize the need to reform federal transportation taxing and spending in the future.

"The lesson is clear: It's time to embrace a new approach to transportation that does not rely on high fuel consumption and instead directs funds where they are actually needed," she said. "Congress must eliminate the billions in wasted spending, thousands of unneeded earmarks, and hundreds of conflicting and contradictory special-interest programs in order to make sure states don't face this situation again."

This news alert was sent by:
AASHTO Journal
444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249
Washington, D.C. 20001
USA
Copyright 2008

All this while the oil companies are making record profits.....I hope noone dies while waiting for these projects to be completed.


W. T. F. (!) Has ntohing to do with anything, but we can start another thread in the political arena if need be.

W. T. F. (!) Has ntohing to do with anything, but we can start another thread in the political arena if need be.

My thoughts exactly. So should all those out there whose businesses are making profits feel guilty about the state of the crosstown?

Tom you are missing something in your analysis of highway vs. rail. With the increase in rail traffic under your plan, wouldn't it just make the rails wear out faster. Railroad bed doesn't last forever and more trains with heavier loads traveling at higher speeds would just cause the national rail network to deteriorate even faster. Your plan wouldn't solve anything. For every problem we have today just substitute "rail" for "highway" and the same problems would exist.

Ever say something you wish you hadn't? Too many people jumped me on this one to quote or respond to all of you and you're right, I was wrong. I based my initial reponse on second hand information

"The problem is that motorists are buying less fuel because of higher fuel prices"

I'll try to be more informed before I follow my friends off the cliff next time. Forgive me for my frustration on this project, I drive the crosstown almost everyday and worry about it everytime I do. But I was wrong to fling sarcasm. ok?

Kerry, to answer your question -- Standard Interstate-class pavement life is 20 years. Compare that to the service specifications of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) rail system: 115 lb (per yard) welded rail on concrete crossties requiring no significant maintenance for 40 years; expected service life - 100 years.

The first phase of the DART rail system was built at a cost representing one-fifth that of creating the same amount of new carrying capacity with new highways.

This is a broad indication of the superiority of rail in construction and maintenance costs over its service life, and service life expectancy. Obviously, freight rail takes more of a beating -- but still significantly outperforms roadways.

As to AASHTO's official explanation of "returning money to the Federal Highway Trust Fund," consider that, since the fund's inception, the driving public has massively overpaid versus commercial trucking. The highway lobby and its facilitators nevertheless insist that every dime paid to the Trust Fund belongs to them.

Unfortunately, AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) has seemingly inevitably, inexorably fallen into advocacy and justification of highway lobby positions rather than riding herd on them for the benefit of the taxpayers.

This is perhaps one more justification of Justice Robert H. Jackson's concern / warning that "It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."

I think you can see that the assumption that "federal road money will flow freely forever" places states in a very vulnerable position -- even worse, perhaps, for Oklahoma, in that signficant portions of expected future federal road revenues has already been obligated to pay GARVEE bond debt.

ODOT's absolute determination to destroy existing, high-quality railway infrastructure in favor of "more highway maintenance expense" should raise a lot of red flags.

TOM ELMORE

Good news for some of us!

Fri September 19, 2008
Commission restores Oklahoma transportation projects
By John Greiner
Staff Writer
State transportation commissioners today approved nearly $70 million in contracts for highway projects, including Oklahoma City's new Crosstown Expressway, that were delayed earlier this month because of federal funding problems. The $40.5 million Crosstown project will be used for three bridges on the new Crosstown route. It is the largest project, money wise, ever awarded by the commission, according to Gary Ridley, director of the state Department of Transportation. Work on this project will begin probably in 45 days, Ridley said. He also said that the transportation department's next 8-year construction plan will include enough money to finish the remaining $180 to$185 million of the new Crosstown BY 2012. Money to tear down the current Crosstown Expressway, build a boulevard in its place and an interchange at Byers and Lincoln hasn't been found yet, Ridley said.

The Sept. 8 delay of action on these contracts was caused because of projected cuts in federal highway money to all states. The commission delayed close to $83 million worth of projects. Later that week, the U.S. Senate approved emergency funding and shifted $8 billion from general government spending into the federal highway trust fund that pays for America's highway programs.

President Bush signed the legislation later. The state transportation commission approved about $70 million for those projects delayed earlier this month and rejected about $13 million in contracts.

More, following up on Betts' post: Funding OK'd in Oklahoma City's Crosstown highway plan | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/funding-okd-in-oklahoma-citys-crosstown-highway-plan/article/3300390/?tm=1221885623)


Funding OK'd in Oklahoma City's Crosstown highway plan

By John Greiner
Capitol Bureau
A new project for Oklahoma City's Crosstown Expressway was among nearly $70 million in highway contracts approved Friday after being delayed earlier this month because of federal funding problems.

The Crosstown project is for $40.5 million, the largest amount ever awarded by the commission, according to Gary Ridley, director of the state Department of Transportation.

Sherwood Construction Co. Inc., of Catoosa, was awarded the contract with its low bid.

Ridley estimated work on the project will begin in 45 days.

The project includes the construction of three bridges on 2.64 miles of the new Crosstown route east of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Ridley also told transportation commissioners that the department's new eight-year construction plan should include enough money to finish the remaining $180 to $185 million of the new Crosstown by 2012.

The department hasn't found a source yet for about $100 million needed for tearing down the current Crosstown Expressway, building a boulevard in its place and an interchange at Byers and Lincoln Boulevard, Ridley said.

Sorry if this has been discussed...but how many lanes will the new Crosstown be? Where exactly will it "leave" the current route and "pick back up"? Also, wasn't the original plan to make the new freeway "depressed", or below ground level, and then that plan was scrapped? Does anyone know why?

Also...does anyone know when construction on the new proposed interchange of Broadway Extension/I-235 and I-44 will begin? I saw a rendering that showed multiple fly-overs...is this still the plan? The cloverleaf that it currently is seems to be dangerous and very outdated.

[QUOTE=OKC74;171316]Sorry if this has been discussed...but how many lanes will the new Crosstown be? Where exactly will it "leave" the current route and "pick back up"? Also, wasn't the original plan to make the new freeway "depressed", or below ground level, and then that plan was scrapped? Does anyone know why? QUOTE]

OKC74 most of the information your wanting can be found here OKC I-40 Crosstown (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i40-okc/index.htm)

It's still going to be depressed, OKC74.

Semi-depressed according to ODOT. I believe 6ft or so.

Right.

Sorry if this has been discussed...but how many lanes will the new Crosstown be? Where exactly will it "leave" the current route and "pick back up"? Also, wasn't the original plan to make the new freeway "depressed", or below ground level, and then that plan was scrapped? Does anyone know why?

Also...does anyone know when construction on the new proposed interchange of Broadway Extension/I-235 and I-44 will begin? I saw a rendering that showed multiple fly-overs...is this still the plan? The cloverleaf that it currently is seems to be dangerous and very outdated.

Ok, short answers, 10 lanes, will leave just west of Villa and reconnect just west if I-235, like previously discussed it will be semi-depressed.

I heard they are going to start that around the end of next year. I may be well off though.

Thanks for the info everyone. :)