Future highway or interstate expansion?

[Snowman]

Since only a very tiny fraction of the population rides a bike for any distance shouldn’t they require bike riders over a certain age to have a license to drive and also a license tag on the bicycle? And shouldn’t the price of these licenses be high enough to subsanually cover the cost of these new bicycle lanes.
While we at it I guess we should start charging people to walk on our trails and sidewalks too.

The city use to require either licenses or plates for the bikes bikes but eventually decided it was not worth the cost to run the administration. Anyway why should the bike licenses have to support all the infrastructure when car, commercial vehicle, plane, train and boat licenses do not come close to covering the related infrastructure costs?

[Mississippi Blues]

^^ *like*, +1, bingo, we have a winner, amen.

[Just the facts]

Well, according to the sources in Seattle, the City of Seattle actually SAVES money when a person rides a bike vs. that same person driving - so maybe the City of Seattle should pay people to ride a bike.

My son will be old enough to drive in a few years. That means he will need a car, insurance, gas money, etc... I could pay for that OR I could move us to an area where he can be transportation self-sufficent via a bicycle/mass transit and pay him $400 a month NOT to drive. Which one makes more financial sense?

[CaptDave]

When bikes or pedestrians require trillions and trillions of dollars of infrastructure, require several hundred square feet to land use (parking in multiple places + roadway + safe distance, etc), contribute massively and negatively to local pollution and respiratory health, contribute to the urban heat island, and kill 40k+ people a year... then yeah, I think they'd be one of those things we should regulate and tax more.

FTW.... pretty well sums it up.

[1972ford]

Is be happy with another highway creates job security for m. Sidewalks all over the city would as well. 200 feet of sidewalk cost $1000 in concrete alone. The same $1000 in concrete will get you 27 square feet of highway or 81 square feet of driveway does not matter to me I get paid by the hour to deliver the concrete. As for the turns in the highway they definantly need to be straightened up a bit cause I got to slow way down going through them when I'm driving the concrete truck or ill roll over and it takes me a few miles to get back up to speed

I live in warr acres and drive to 44 and sw 134 every day to get to work the only real traffic issues I see when I drive anywhere rather in my car or the concrete truck in the end of the hefner parkway and between sw 44th where 240 and 44 meet seems to me a lot of that congestion could be resolved by giving 152 direct access to 240 without having to get onto 44 and crossing multiple lanes in a short distance. 40 44 interchange does need to be widened to 3 through lanes sooner rather than later as do most of our interchanges need to be fixed

[Snowman]

Is be happy with another highway creates job security for m. Sidewalks all over the city would as well. 200 feet of sidewalk cost $1000 in concrete alone. The same $1000 in concrete will get you 27 square feet of highway or 81 square feet of driveway does not matter to me I get paid by the hour to deliver the concrete. As for the turns in the highway they definantly need to be straightened up a bit cause I got to slow way down going through them when I'm driving the concrete truck or ill roll over and it takes me a few miles to get back up to speed

Given our highway and city streets need as much work as the state/fed and city can allocate money to them, job security should hardly be an issue.

[1972ford]

Given our highway and city streets need as much work as the state/fed and city can allocate money to them, job security should hardly be an issue.

The problem is they seem more interested in using asphalt which saves 40% upfront but only has 30% the lifespan of concrete in our climate. Look at south council had that road been paved in concrete there wouldn't be ruts so deep I can't drive my car on it cause it sets too low I got high centered on council just north of 44th just driving down the street lol. The city would be better off paving all main roads in concrete and side roads in asphalt instead of visaversa it would save the city billions over time.

[rezman]

I live in a rural part of OKC. I don't get this idea that because I don't live in urban OKC, I don't deserve good roads in my area? ..But it's ok that MY tax dollars pay for urban reconstruction, repaving, bike lanes and side walks, etc.

Okla county uses chip & seal on a lot of rural roadways with good results. Where I live is right on the border of Okc and Edmond. Between those two citys, and the county, hardly anything gets done. so I guess, in a way, that works to save money.

[BoulderSooner]

Well, according to the sources in Seattle, the City of Seattle actually SAVES money when a person rides a bike vs. that same person driving - so maybe the City of Seattle should pay people to ride a bike.

My son will be old enough to drive in a few years. That means he will need a car, insurance, gas money, etc... I could pay for that OR I could move us to an area where he can be transportation self-sufficent via a bicycle/mass transit and pay him $400 a month NOT to drive. Which one makes more financial sense?

or you have your son get a job and pay for his car and insurance him self

[coov23]

Lol, Boulder. How is a newly turned 16 year old going to come up with money, randomly, for a car and insurance. If the kid plays sports, or is in any extracurricular activity, while in school, they have absolutely no time to work. I'm a last decade high school and college grad. I can tell you that my sports kept me bust from 6am to sometimes 7 or 8 at night( just practice and strength and conditioning/film study) Monday thru Friday. You must be an older man/woman. Where that stuff wasn't as pushed on you to be good in your choice of hobby/sport.

[NoOkie]

I live in a rural part of OKC. I don't get this idea that because I don't live in urban OKC, I don't deserve good roads in my area? ..But it's ok that MY tax dollars pay for urban reconstruction, repaving, bike lanes and side walks, etc.

Okla county uses chip & seal on a lot of rural roadways with good results. Where I live is right on the border of Okc and Edmond. Between those two citys, and the county, hardly anything gets done. so I guess, in a way, that works to save money.

As I understand the argument, it boils down to cost per person. Your rural road may cost X to maintain for 1,000 people. A more urban road could cost 4X to maintain, but for 10,000 people. It's a not who deserves what issue, it's a what's the most cost effective in terms of return on investment.

[ou48A]

When bikes or pedestrians require trillions and trillions of dollars of infrastructure, require several hundred square feet to land use (parking in multiple places + roadway + safe distance, etc), contribute massively and negatively to local pollution and respiratory health, contribute to the urban heat island, and kill 40k+ people a year... then yeah, I think they'd be one of those things we should regulate and tax more.

When Bike paths are very seldom used for true transportation as is overwhelmingly the case in most situations bike paths become nothing more than a very expensive subsidy for a form of recreation that very, very few people utilize.

Even if it’s a comparatively (to roads) small amount of money it’s not hard to see that there are far better returns on investment with our borrowed money that would benefit far more people.

[ou48A]

Lol, Boulder. How is a newly turned 16 year old going to come up with money, randomly, for a car and insurance. If the kid plays sports, or is in any extracurricular activity, while in school, they have absolutely no time to work. I'm a last decade high school and college grad. I can tell you that my sports kept me bust from 6am to sometimes 7 or 8 at night( just practice and strength and conditioning/film study) Monday thru Friday. You must be an older man/woman. Where that stuff wasn't as pushed on you to be good in your choice of hobby/sport.

I had no problem saving enough of my own money to pay cash for an adequate vehicle when I turned 16. When there is a will there is a way….making it happen is largely a matter of priorities. The average teenage has no excuses.

[Bellaboo]

I had no problem saving enough of my own money to pay cash for an adequate vehicle when I turned 16. When there is a will there is a way….making it happen is largely a matter of priorities. The average teenage has no excuses.

You must not realize how many hours a week todays kids spend on video games.....lol they don't have time to work..

[rezman]

No one here suggested you shouldn't have good roads.

...In rural areas and have taxpayer dollars pay for it. Go back and look. In this tread and in others. There are those who think that way. Maybe not in those exact words, but definately the mentality.

[OKCTalker]

When Bike paths are very seldom used for true transportation as is overwhelmingly the case in most situations bike paths become nothing more than a very expensive subsidy for a form of recreation that very, very few people utilize.

OU48A - Although dedicated bike lane are primarily to be used by cyclists, at other times these lanes provide a safety barrier for cars turning onto adjacent streets, when it's necessary to swerve and avoid an accident, even to pull over in an emergency. A wider road makes for a safer road, and bike lanes result in wider roads.

[ou48A]

OU48A - Although dedicated bike lane are primarily to be used by cyclists, at other times these lanes provide a safety barrier for cars turning onto adjacent streets, when it's necessary to swerve and avoid an accident, even to pull over in an emergency. A wider road makes for a safer road, and bike lanes result in wider roads.

Sure they do, but wide streets without cyclist are even safer for all and come without the additional cost of signage and road markings…. The least cyclists could do pay a little extra for having extra signage and road markings that’s there to keep a very tiny number of people safer….It’s in their own self interest.

[ou48A]

Given our highway and city streets need as much work as the state/fed and city can allocate money to them, job security should hardly be an issue.

I have always believed that more timely seal and slurry would be money well spent.

The other thing I see as a problem is how we build our roads from the very start.
Roads in the Texas panhandle that see a lot of very heavy oil field traffic often hold up a lot longer than do roads in Oklahoma…..
To a certain extent it’s we are getting what we paid for along with some poor decisions.

[ou48A]

I think rural roads are actually an easy concept. Section-line roads should be maintained by state and counties.

That’s the way it should be but I have seen several examples where oil companies at their own expense have hauled in massive amounts of gravel to spread on county section line dirt roads. Over the years some counties have many miles of graveled roads done in this way.
It was once very common to use heavy raw oil on county dirt roads….maintainers mixed it in with the dirt and sometimes sand. This was a cheap fix that made roads passable in wet conditions. It also reduced the dust pollution that the EPA complains about today.

[ou48A]

There is too much rural prosperity that OKC depends on via agriculture and energy to let our Oklahoma rural roads go unmaintained to some extent.
The EPA wants us to reduce our road dust pollution. That means more pavement.

[traxx]

I had no problem saving enough of my own money to pay cash for an adequate vehicle when I turned 16. When there is a will there is a way….making it happen is largely a matter of priorities. The average teenage has no excuses.

Well yeah, but a model T was only about 500 bucks when you were 16.

[ou48A]

Well yeah, but a model T was only about 500 bucks when you were 16.

LOL
Granted the dollar bought a lot more than in the 1970’s than now but starting at age 13 I did work hard with plenty of sweat involved doing things that most city kids today and many of their parent would turn their nose up at. I took advantage of my opportunities and didn’t waste much money on things I didn’t need. In high school my JR & SR year and in college I didn’t take spring break trips or trips in the summer, I worked heavy large DIA pipeline construction. I bought a brand new car while in college. I left college debt free and had enough money left over to make some small investments. I’m not brilliant by any stretch, but like I said, when there is a will there is a way!

[ou48A]

If you think the EPA has absolutely anything to do with rural road construction, you sir are funny.

I challenge you to cite me one, single moment in history where this happened. Show me a transfer of money from the EPA to a contract for the construction of a road for the purpose of mitigating dust.

You've mentioned this in rapid-fire in two posts now.


When/if you reply, do it in the Politics section.



Back to building roads.

Fact…The EPA regulates some types of dust pollution…. They have at least talked about how to reduce dust pollution on rural roads. How far along this is, I’m not sure. But I did not say that the EPA had anything to do with actual rural road construction…. just that EPA regulations might cause more roads to be paved to reduce dust pollution. Their decisions could impact our road building?

[heyerdahl]

Where I come from (rural Oklahoma county) we didn't want our section line roads to go from gravel to asphalt. As soon as a road was paved, you could bet that within 24 months you would have subdivisions sprouting up like weeds.

[ou48A]

Some types of dust? That's like saying the EPA regulates some types of air.

Dust is a layman way of saying particulates. If you mean dust like the kind of dust clouds coming off of a factory, then yes.

If you mean dust like the kind your truck makes while driving a dirt road, then no.

A couple senators made up the whole story about them regulating 'common' dust and the EPA has done nothing but very publicly say it isn't true -- at least not in the blatant over-generalization that it was presented.

Our dirt roads are not influenced by the EPA.

While road dust may be regulated differently to say that the EPA has had nothing to say or do with road dust pollution has just not been true.

This is from the EPA site.

It says……..” Unpaved rural roads are a source of pollution”….

“The type of equipment used by agricultural producers in rural areas causes particulate matter pollution from unpaved roads to be a concern”

“Control of these emissions, where possible at all, may involve such techniques as paving with asphalt or concrete or stabilization of dirt roads.”

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency have helped fund a manual of standard procedures that describes and illustrates cost-effective techniques and practices that can be used to enhance stability and maintenance of unpaved roadways while reducing sedimentation and improving the quality of surface waters”

“EPA has developed a federal implementation plan (FIP) to control dust from unpaved roads, unpaved parking lots, and vacant lots in the Phoenix area (Maricopa County, Arizona). The FIP supplements current local regulations and requires the owners and operators of certain unpaved parking lots, unpaved roads, and disturbed vacant lots to control dust.”

“EPA is not requiring the control of dust from every unpaved road. In fact, unpaved roads do not need to be stabilized unless vehicles drive on them 250 times a day or more.”
Rural Roads | Agriculture | US EPA

As can be clearly seen Road dust has been an EPA issue……If they can develop a road dust+ plan for the Phoenix area they can probably do it elsewhere. In the above it says the EPA CAN REQUIRE…. It appears this could impact some of our road paving decisions?