Future highway or interstate expansion?

[LakeEffect]

I love toll roads. Pay for the road you use. Oklahoma is a very conservative state, but bring up toll roads and everyone becomes socialist. Make it free to all! (never mind that now we won't be able to fund them properly.)

[Snowman]

Well we are the #1 toll road state after all. And especially fun since they were supposed to have ALL converted back to non-toll 30 years ago. I understand the argument that the current budget can't fund them, fine. But when the toll folks say they continue to have budget problems, that one pisses me off. With the amount of traffic and the number of cars that go through those things, any shortfall is because someone is being paid too much. There should be better oversight on the tolls roads to ensure the public isn't getting screwed over.

While it was before my time so I do not know how heavily promoted or if it is was worded to favor passing, people voted for cross-payment and expansion over going free many years ago, probably most turnpikes since that vote have lower volume, which makes for a slower overall collection rate and so less likely to ever to paying off again like we had with some of the individual ones. Even today there is at least some interest in a south Kirkpatrick loop, Tulsa might have some interested in a northern half to the semi loop turnpike they have and we could probably find others willing to make a case for something else (like a loop around Norman, Lawton, Shawnee or Muskogee).

[BoulderSooner]

Well we are the #1 toll road state after all. And especially fun since they were supposed to have ALL converted back to non-toll 30 years ago. I understand the argument that the current budget can't fund them, fine. But when the toll folks say they continue to have budget problems, that one pisses me off. With the amount of traffic and the number of cars that go through those things, any shortfall is because someone is being paid too much. There should be better oversight on the tolls roads to ensure the public isn't getting screwed over.

What i'd REALLY like to see, is that 5cent per gallon use tax put in place. It's so very minimal on your cost to fill up, but it makes such a big different when pooled together. That really needs to be shoved into ODOT's bank so we can get some things done....heck maybe even convert some tolls back. But that only works, if the legislature doesn't pull the crap they're known for, and just remove allocated dollars from ODOT and let the tax replace them. The use tax seems very fair to me though....the more you use, the more you pay....just like in any other aspect of life.

We take our roads for granted...that they'll be there, but we dont ever want to pay to have them maintained. Somehow some magic road fairy is supposed to come down and help out. If people only realized how much a gallon of gas costs in Europe!

the toll roads are not supposed to be converted over ....

the turner was when it was paid off ..... but we voted as a State to not turn in back into a non toll road and instead pooled its debt with the entire system ..

[Buffalo Bill]

the toll roads are not supposed to be converted over ....

the turner was when it was paid off ..... but we voted as a State to not turn in back into a non toll road and instead pooled its debt with the entire system ..

That and Florida has more toll mileage than Oklahoma.

[Just the facts]

That and Florida has more toll mileage than Oklahoma.

Every new freeway or added lane in Florida will be tolled from here on out. No more 'free'ways in Florida. The east loop of I-295 has only been open for a couple of years and traffic is already at a stand still during morning and evening rush hours.

Toll lanes on I-295 by 2017|Action News - Jacksonville News, Weather & Sports - ActionNewsJax.com

[bombermwc]

the toll roads are not supposed to be converted over ....

the turner was when it was paid off ..... but we voted as a State to not turn in back into a non toll road and instead pooled its debt with the entire system ..

If you go back and read the charter for turnpikes, they are all supposed to come back to the state after they are paid for. Your first statement is totally inaccurate.

In Turner's case (as with others) we voted to maintain as it is....because we can't afford them. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still a flawed system. The roads could be MUCH more efficiently paid for by funding through the state. That small increase in tax across the whole state's population, would allow every one of them to be absorbed without losing quality. Not only do you remove administrative overhead, but a lot of extra costs in maintaining the relationship/hardware/services that the rolls require. There's a long list of why it would be better to be public again (not counting the obvious "free ride" argument). But you can't make a simple sentence blanket statement like that and leave out the entire history of why behind it.

[catch22]

If the state can barely afford the current levels of highways..why would we even want to add a 75 mile stretch of interstate highway maintenance to our budget. It's better off remaining tolled.

[Plutonic Panda]

That is one instane where I completely agree with you. I do think they should continue being tolled. I don't think every new highway should be tolled, i.e. anything like I-35 or I-40.

[Urban Pioneer]

If the state can barely afford the current levels of highways..why would we even want to add a 75 mile stretch of interstate highway maintenance to our budget. It's better off remaining tolled.

They don't care about the maintenance or the actual need. This is all about keeping the contractor lobby fat and happy. Specifically, a very powerful road building lobby.

[Dubya61]

That is one instane where I completely agree with you. I do think they should continue being tolled. I don't think every new highway should be tolled, i.e. anything like I-35 or I-40.

Either I misunderstand you or don't agree (or both). I think that the highways that provide basic interstate transport from border to border and are paid for with federal funds should not be toll roads. On the other hand, if the state is responsible to maintain them, the cost of their maintenance could be the basis for the tolls, but it should be set up so that the tolls only fund the maintenance, nothing more.

... and personally, I think the toll should be reduced during the times that the capability of the road is reduced. Why am I paying the full toll when the road is under construction / maintenance and I can't go the normal speed limit? Whinge, piss, moan ... I'm done.

[Plutonic Panda]

Either I misunderstand you or don't agree (or both). I think that the highways that provide basic interstate transport from border to border and are paid for with federal funds should not be toll roads. On the other hand, if the state is responsible to maintain them, the cost of their maintenance could be the basis for the tolls, but it should be set up so that the tolls only fund the maintenance, nothing more.

... and personally, I think the toll should be reduced during the times that the capability of the road is reduced. Why am I paying the full toll when the road is under construction / maintenance and I can't go the normal speed limit? Whinge, piss, moan ... I'm done.

I like what Dallas has done with building new highways and adding an express toll lane to it. It pays for itself and the other highway fairly quick and the same thing is being done with 635. I agree that tolls should be for maintenance and toll cost set accordingly. Any city highway arteries are free and the special bypass highways are toll highway along with express lanes on every highway. If they widen I-35 to Norman, they could make it 8 lanes, build an additional 4 lanes though it and toll those 4 lanes so the entire highway is 12 lanes and have 4 service lanes the entire highway. Do that, and I guarantee you, all of this induced demand crap and this "we can't afford it" will be proven wrong right here in OKC.

I believe 635 is going to have 16-20 lanes total through parts of it. We will see how that works out. Do we need to widen I-35 to Norman 12 lanes right now, of course not. OKC hasn't hit that critical mass yet and likely won't for a long time, but that's what my idea of a good toll road is. If the money is already there for Kilpatrick to be widened then they should stop tolling it unless we can't pay for it's maintenance. So I think we might be on the same page.

Also, I wish we would go with Texas and charge the license plate instead of having toll tags. Also, the Texas tolls look better

[catch22]

I like what Dallas has done with building new highways and adding an express toll lane to it. It pays for itself and the other highway fairly quick and the same thing is being done with 635. I agree that tolls should be for maintenance and toll cost set accordingly. Any city highway arteries are free and the special bypass highways are toll highway along with express lanes on every highway. If they widen I-35 to Norman, they could make it 8 lanes, build an additional 4 lanes though it and toll those 4 lanes so the entire highway is 12 lanes and have 4 service lanes the entire highway. Do that, and I guarantee you, all of this induced demand crap and this "we can't afford it" will be proven wrong right here in OKC.

I believe 635 is going to have 16-20 lanes total through parts of it. We will see how that works out. Do we need to widen I-35 to Norman 12 lanes right now, of course not. OKC hasn't hit that critical mass yet and likely won't for a long time, but that's what my idea of a good toll road is. If the money is already there for Kilpatrick to be widened then they should stop tolling it unless we can't pay for it's maintenance. So I think we might be on the same page.

Also, I wish we would go with Texas and charge the license plate instead of having toll tags. Also, the Texas tolls look better

Induced demand crap???

Of course induced demand wouldn't have an effect if you build 400% of current capacity. That argument is crap.

Induced demand basically says...if you have a road at capacity (or nearing it) adding an additional lane will be meaningless longterm. As the demand from the 3 lanes will spread quickly to the 4th lane. If you have 4 at capacity, adding a 5th won't solve the issue longterm.

If you have 6 very underutilized lanes, adding 1 in each way won't do anything to induce much demand at all. (See EKG -- you could widen it to 8 lanes and wouldn't stir up much more traffic than is currently handles)

Expand 19th street in Moore even more and induced demand will fill that extra lane as demand for lanes is bursting at the seams.

Adding 9 lanes overnight would take forever to fill, if ever. So by going to an extreme (an improbable one at that) to prove a point (or counter one), is fairly childish.

[Plutonic Panda]

I disagree with you. We'll see when Dallas completes 635 and even if it is near capacity still, Dallas is the fastest growing metro area in the US, so yeah. I'm sorry, but I'm not sold on induced demand. The city planners can find a way to work and predict future traffic counts so they build and expand our highways accordingly. You can do it smart and not waste a ton of money by adding things like raising gas tax a bit, adding a mileage tax, adding additional express tolls.

OKC needs to have a light-rail and an extensive bus network and then we can look at our ridership and then accurately gather our traffic counts and have a study done about the traffic counts on I-35 from downtown to Norman for a possible widening of the highway. If all 6 lanes are at capacity, then instead of making 8 lanes, add a lane to the existing highway and add four adjunct toll lanes and I guarantee you that will fix the problem for a LONG time. Again, I'm not trying to suggest lets go out and make every highway 20 lanes or something like that, we just need to make sure we build our highways smart and not just do the "add a lane" thing thinking that will solve it. That's what I'm trying to say with the "induced demand crap", which probably wasn't the best choice of words.

If the majority of people choose to drive cars, then we should have massive highways. . . if the majority of people ride buses, then we have a huge bus network with four lane highways and a two bus lanes and a bus lane on every street. . . if the majority rides light-rail, we should an expansive light-rail system with stations all over. . . if the majority walks and rides bikes, we should have 30 ft. sidewalks and 4 lane bike lanes. . . A great city, would balance it out and have the best of both worlds. If there was no traffic to support the widening of I-35, I wouldn't be asking to widen it. The people decide what they want, and OUR government builds for us, we just have to make sure it is finically responsible.

As technology improves, roads and tracks will last much longer than they used to. Also, if you see the cities with the worst traffic in world, the cities in Europe that recorded in increase in traffic and gridlock, were also the cities that were the best economically performing as well. Sorry if I sound or sounded childish in this post or my last, and again, I'm not advocating for building 20 lane highways, I would just want balance, as every great city has. I understand pedestrians will and should come first in the core areas of city and urban environments and I'm not trying to argue against that.

[catch22]

I disagree with you. We'll see when Dallas completes 635 and even if it is near capacity still, Dallas is the fastest growing metro area in the US, so yeah. I'm sorry, but I'm not sold on induced demand. The city planners can find a way to work and predict future traffic counts so they build and expand our highways accordingly. You can do it smart and not waste a ton of money by adding things like raising gas tax a bit, adding a mileage tax, adding additional express tolls.

OKC needs to have a light-rail and an extensive bus network and then we can look at our ridership and then accurately gather our traffic counts and have a study done about the traffic counts on I-35 from downtown to Norman for a possible widening of the highway. If all 6 lanes are at capacity, then instead of making 8 lanes, add a lane to the existing highway and add four adjunct toll lanes and I guarantee you that will fix the problem for a LONG time. Again, I'm not trying to suggest lets go out and make every highway 20 lanes or something like that, we just need to make sure we build our highways smart and not just do the "add a lane" thing thinking that will solve it. That's what I'm trying to say with the "induced demand crap", which probably wasn't the best choice of words.

If the majority of people choose to drive cars, then we should have massive highways. . . if the majority of people ride buses, then we have a huge bus network with four lane highways and a two bus lanes and a bus lane on every street. . . if the majority rides light-rail, we should an expansive light-rail system with stations all over. . . if the majority walks and rides bikes, we should have 30 ft. sidewalks and 4 lane bike lanes. . . A great city, would balance it out and have the best of both worlds. If there was no traffic to support the widening of I-35, I wouldn't be asking to widen it. The people decide what they want, and OUR government builds for us, we just have to make sure it is finically responsible.

As technology improves, roads and tracks will last much longer than they used to. Also, if you see the cities with the worst traffic in world, the cities in Europe that recorded in increase in traffic and gridlock, were also the cities that were the best economically performing as well. Sorry if I sound or sounded childish in this post or my last, and again, I'm not advocating for building 20 lane highways, I would just want balance, as every great city has. I understand pedestrians will and should come first in the core areas of city and urban environments and I'm not trying to argue against that.

Unfortunately adding 4 toll lanes in addition to the current 6 lanes to I-35 would cost around $200,000,000 a mile. That won't happen so I'm not even going to continue the argument.

[Plutonic Panda]

I doubt it will happen as well. That's okay, OKC just needs planners that will do things right and create balance and be able to accurately predict where our city is going, that's all.

[Just the facts]

I doubt it will happen as well. That's okay, OKC just needs planners that will do things right and create balance and be able to accurately predict where our city is going, that's all.

Create a balance? If the OKC built environment was the path of a pendulum with auto-centric on the far left and walkability on the far right where do you think the pendulum has been stuck for the last 60 years and how far to the right do you think it needs to swing to be in balance? The State spent $600 million rebuilding 4 miles of interstate. Can we get $600 million for walkability? Can we go to war to ensure the free flow of bicycles at market prices?

[BoulderSooner]

Create a balance? If the OKC built environment was the path of a pendulum with auto-centric on the far left and walkability on the far right where do you think the pendulum has been stuck for the last 60 years and how far to the right do you think it needs to swing to be in balance? The State spent $600 million rebuilding 4 miles of interstate. Can we get $600 million for walkability? Can we go to war to ensure the free flow of bicycles at market prices?

did that 600 mil come from the state?? interesting

[Plutonic Panda]

Create a balance? If the OKC built environment was the path of a pendulum with auto-centric on the far left and walkability on the far right where do you think the pendulum has been stuck for the last 60 years and how far to the right do you think it needs to swing to be in balance? The State spent $600 million rebuilding 4 miles of interstate. Can we get $600 million for walkability? Can we go to war to ensure the free flow of bicycles at market prices?

So you don't want balance? You want a system that is favored towards mass transit and walking? We'll get to cars. . . . whenever we get to them? I don't understand what exactly you're saying. I know it cost a crapton of money building interstates, <<<I UNDERSTAND THAT. Walking and biking is better for you, I know, I bike miles everyday through Edmond and walk A LOT, I love it!!!!! 600 million for new trails and sidewalks in OKC, I'd be all in for that.

Highways are not made to walk on, they're for cars. Urban roads should geared towards lower speed limits and designed with pedestrian safety specifically in mind. Bike lanes, wide sidewalks, low speed limits, ect. Suburban roads should be built with automobiles in mind with wide sidewalks and bike paths, off of the roads. A bike network if you will. I'll snap a pic of the new Covell and get the specs of it, because I think that is a great road for a suburban city like Edmond. There are a few things I don't like about it, but other than that, I think it's great. Also, I would love to have something like Deep Deuce in Downtown Edmond really, I wish the entire city core, inside the ring of 235, 44, 40 would be entirely urban and model off of Deep Deuce with 5-10 story buildings filling the entire area. That would be awesome, with some nice shiny mystery towers of course .

You say a great city can't have balance(if I understand correctly), I disagree. Keep in mind, I'm talking about the CMSA, not just the Oklahoma City limits.

Oh and do you not think, that if we raised gas tax, add a mileage tax, and incorporate express tollways, that we still couldn't fund our highways?

[Just the facts]

did that 600 mil come from the state?? interesting

Of course ODOT paid for it. They might have gotten the money from the feds (which is a reimbursement of the gasoline tax collected by the state and sent to the Federal government), but ODOT spent the money.

[Just the facts]

So you don't want balance? You want a system that is favored towards mass transit and walking?

No, I am trying to figure out what you mean by "balance".

[BoulderSooner]

No, I am trying to figure out what you mean by "balance".

balance the people that want to drive can drive those that don't want to drive having other options ... ie commuter rail/street car/bike trails .. ect

[Just the facts]

balance the people that want to drive can drive those that don't want to drive having other options ... ie commuter rail/street car/bike trails .. ect

So how does that manifest itself. If the City spends $3 million repaving 1 mile of road, what is 'balance'; 1 mile of sidewalk or $3 million?

[BoulderSooner]

Balance isn't a factor of spending, it is a factor of two things

1) Accessibility
2) Comfort

this

[Just the facts]

I guess I just don't get it then. The two options complete for the same space and dollars and for the last 60 years the automobile has been winning in a landslide. This story was in our local paper on Sunday. Maybe this is what we are talking about needing to happen.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2...k-street-plans

Jacksonville changes a lot from Maxville to San Marco, but the city’s rules for building roads are pretty much the same, mile after mile.

The City Council is ready for that to change.

The council voted Tuesday to create a new city board to look into setting new rules for roadwork that could help streets fit better with the neighborhoods around them.

Abstract as it sounds, backers say changing the rules can make real differences in people’s lives by making thoroughfares safer and more inviting to walk, run or bike as well as drive by car.


Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2...#ixzz2RxaKuWLS

[Plutonic Panda]

No, I am trying to figure out what you mean by "balance".

Ok so, obviously in Downtown OKC, pedestrians are prioritized and come first. Downtown OKC is a vibrant area with life and whether you drive there or live right by it like Sid Burgess, you walk more when you're there. In a place like Edmond, you have malls, strip malls, lifestyle centers, box stores, ect. You drive to these places in a car, so cars come first in city like Edmond. Doesn't mean it's a bad city, in a prefer living in a suburb like this, but it's part of the greater OKC metro area, so in an urban environment, like Deep Deuce, you want people and bicyclist to have the benefit of the doubt, and still want people that live in suburbs like Edmond and Norman to be able to access downtown, so how do you make that happen? You can transport them efficiently on a world class highway and a light-rail and/or commuter rail system.

Here's my look on it.

*Widen I-35 to Norman 8 lanes on the highway and add a 4 lane express tollway. Redesign the service roads to 2 lanes in each direction, one way, texas turn arounds and dual left turn lanes and a dedicated right turn lane all the way to Norman.

*Widen I-240 to add 1 HOV lane in each direction and do the same thing as I said with the service roads.

*Redesign our interchanges to flyovers

*Widen I-40 to six lanes and 1 HOV lane each direction all the way through the city including through Midwest city

*Build a new 4 lane highway (2 lanes in each direction) to loop around Edmond extending from Hefner park way.

*as far as the loop from Norman, I'm not familiar with how bad traffic is there so I wouldn't know to do that or not

Do that, and I promise you, we should be good on highways for a decade or two.

Onto mass transit

*Build regional HSR (that hopefully will one day connect to a national HSR and in my dream land international HSR)

*Build and incorporate a light-system along our highways and connecting to the convention center, airport, Santa Fe station???, connect it to Moore, Norman, Yukon, Midwest City, Edmond, Nichols Hills, and make sure you make it feasible expand it in the future to cities like New Castle, Jones, Guthrie, maybe even Stillwater. Provided OKC keeps growing

*Build commuter rail connecting cities like OKC, Edmond, Norman, Guthrie, Jones, El Reno, Stillwater, Shawnee, New Castle ect. Keep in mind some of these smaller cities are growing fairly fast and as long as OKC keeps it momentum, I think it could work, as long as population and projected ridership counts justify doing so.

*Create an expansive bus network

*Build and extend a street car route throughout the OKC city limits

Some other things like

*Build a world class bike trail network similar to Milwaukee's

*Add 12 ft. sidewalks and bike lanes to nearly every street in the city

*Build more ped bridges and/or tunnels over/under highways and a couple over the river

*Redesign and rebuild city streets in concrete and add landscaping. I also would bury every utility line, except the main power lines.

I understand that ALL of this would cost way too much to be economically feasible and likely won't happen. But, that would be amazing if we could do that. If OKC'S core would fill up completely with mixed use developments 4-10 stories high, that would be great!!!!! That is what I mean when talking about balance. Is that good?