There you go again, bursting people's balloons with the needle of reality...
Printable View
There you go again, bursting people's balloons with the needle of reality...
We could fix some of that with the 5 cent gas tax. Best to get it in now, while prices are low, so it's not as noticeable later when they rise again. By then, we'll have had a nice push into ODOT to help get some crap done.
It's a law that needs to be changed. Maybe next session, this years legislature wasn't terrified of debt like 2014's was.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoulderSooner
As a "veteran" (ahem) of the I-240 commute over the last 27 years....I'd offer it's more like 16 years ago :)Quote:
Originally Posted by baralheia
I may be entirely wrong on this, but I believe it may be a state constitutional issue. I know all the double-speak that's gone into the MAPS projects has been due to constitutional prohibitions on long-term municipal debt and logrolling. Said then, and I'll repeat - someone needs to attack that particular issue, although I certainly understand and laud the desire to keep the state and its cities free of long-term debt. We've saved ourselves from going down the ugly path trod by other cities not so cautious.Quote:
Originally Posted by gopokes88
The problem with that would be that it might not help ODOT's budget whatsoever. Current monies budgeted for ODOT could just dry up (like (IIRC) educational funding that was basically supplanted by the lottery). I also wouldn't be for ODOT getting ANY extra money until they showed a committment to something other than highways.Quote:
Originally Posted by bombermwc
You'll need debt controls that doesn't allow the debt to exceed a certain percentage of state GDP. Put a limit on it so it doesn't spiral out of control.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoonerDave
However, building highways and roads this way simply makes no sense. Maybe a temporary gas tax to fund specific highway improvements could get passed. Then sell off the rights to said tax dollars to investors to fund it immediately and start construction.
Well it's all in how your write the thing. The legislature failed with the lottery in that they allowed lottery to not be supplemental and tried to treat it as a replacement....which was the major thing we were all against happening. The same would need to be true here. The increase should be supplementary income to the budget, not a replacement for something already in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubya61
And im not sure what you think ODOT should be focusing on instead of highways. If you mean other modes like rail, wouldn't that need to be more of a city/state partnership or even be more city?
Why should rail be more of a city/state partnership or even more city thing than highways?Quote:
Originally Posted by bombermwc
Exactly. "Transportation" covers many modes - vehicles, rail, aircraft, and water - all of which were incorporated in ODOT's old logo. Though I know there is already some support there, it would be nice to see ODOT's rail programs division show more interest in inter-city passenger rail, or growing our freight rail network by offering assistance with rehabilitating a few derelict rail corridors (the state-owned former Rock Island line from Weatherford to Bridgeport comes to mind, as does the Union Pacific-owned former Rock Island line from Shawnee to McAlester).
That said, I'm getting a bit off topic here. I'm glad ODOT is putting money into rebuilding interchanges that have been broken for decades... I just wish they could do it faster. I'd definitely be in support of changing state law to allow ODOT to take on a limited amount of debt to fund projects in their entirety, instead of piecemeal like we do it now.
Has any concrete date been set for the start of construction on Phase I?
I see what you did there.Quote:
Originally Posted by baralheia
One problem ODOT has is many projects are put on hold pending funding for years after design plans are approved. Then by the time they are finally completed in phases that span a decade or longer, they are already out of date and in need of further expansion. For example, I35 between OKC and Moore was in need of yet a 4th lane on each side of traffic the moment crews finally opened the last segment of the 6-lane expansion!
Definitely agree on I35, but I'm not sure the state could have guessed how much the area south of 240 would grow. Moore saw unprecedented growth that basically doubled the city's population, not to mention the OKC area outside of the Moore lines. Norman's population has increased as well. Both of those have caused a lot more vehicles to need I35 than before and both city's growth came VERY quickly. There's FAR more traffic there than on Broadway Ext. because far North OKC has multiple access points to get there...Kilpatrick, 44, 35, Broad Ext. And on the south, we've got 35 and Sooner...that's it. And basically everything goes down 35. What would be helpful is to get that loop on both sides going so we can get some pressure off 35!!!
I dunno, bomber...Moore has been growing pretty rapidly since I was a kid growing up in SW OKC 40-some years ago...although, in fairness, a lot of that growth has been in the near-west/SW OKC part of town, not *Moore proper*, so maybe that's been the hesitancy on the development of better access points in the area. As an aside, I notice that the first section of the "New Portland" has opened up between SW 104th and SW74th, and it's REALLY nice!!Quote:
Originally Posted by bombermwc
I was just basing that off Moore's population growth numbers. It had a HUGE jump around 2000 compared to the steady growth it has always had.
A builder friend of mine says that Moore has slowed tremendously this year, and his target price is the 150 k range.
For the first time I can remember in a LONG time, many if not most of the elementary schools in Moore - particularly around tornado-affected areas - are either holding steady or *declining* in enrollment numbers, especially in the early grades. Now, in all fairness, that *might* be a misleading stat, because they're also ramping up full-day kindergarten, so perhaps there's at least a bit of a numbers shell-game going on. But a teacher acquaintance of mine indicates the elementary enrollment drop is real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellaboo
The last census estimates showed a respectable level of growth, but that was for last year.
Do you think people are too spooked from the perceived tornado threat to move Moore right now?
Moore has been hit by two smaller tornadoes since the big F5. The immediate Moore area also received some of the worst of this May's severe weather. I would say its more than just a perceived threat. While I understand scientifically its supposed to be random, over the past 20 years Moore has seen far more than its fair share of tornadoes.Quote:
Originally Posted by adaniel
Births have been down since 2007, so it is not surprising that is showing up in school enrollment. Nationally the reduced number is at least partially attributed to the economy, though it also seems to fall in line with the normal cycle of peaks which echo back to the post WW2 baby boom.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoonerDave
Is there anything new in that depiction that wasn't proposed previously?
It is a little odd they label every road Ultimate, I could maybe see Ultimately since that would more imply what it will be (plus they have the space for the addition letters) but it ends up looking like they are trying to sell a premium version of an interstate, realistically unless there are temporary roads on the map it probably should just be left off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazio85
More than likely there are going to be temp roads to keep traffic flowing. Just like they have done on the I-35 project in Norman. They built temp roads and are using the service roads to keep closures to a minimum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
In this case they are using ultimate as an adjective - which makes it a synonym for words like "final". What they're saying is that when it is finished, the interchange will conform to the drawing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman