Oklahoma Turnpike Authority Votes for 17% Toll Increase

[Bobby5280]

http://www.kswo.com/story/33263831/oklahoma-turnpike-authority-votes-for-17-percent-toll-hikes

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has voted to increase the costs on Oklahoma tollways by 17 percent to help expand and renovate the state's turnpike system, including the construction of new toll roads in Tulsa and Oklahoma City.

OTA spokesman Jack Damrill says the rate hikes approved on Tuesday are contingent upon the resolution of a lawsuit challenging the use of toll revenue to finance the new construction. That lawsuit is pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Once it is settled and the bonds are sold, Damrill says tolls will increase by 12 percent on Jan. 1, with additional 2.5 percent increases the following two years.

State officials launched an ambitious four-year roads plan last year that calls for about $900 million in bonds to pay for the new toll roads.

Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

I'm not surprised at all by this news, considering how road construction and maintenance costs have flared upward and our funding mechanisms have done little to keep up with the rate of that cost inflation. I'm getting a pretty good laugh at self appointed experts on social media forums claiming the OTA is lining their pockets with cash or the state is spending all that toll revenue on welfare or some other made up crap. They want the toll gates removed and the road made "free" -even though there really is no such thing as a free road. You're going to pay to drive on it one way or another.

I don't know if the OTA is being a perfect steward with toll revenue either. But it might not hurt for the OTA to try to inform the general public in Oklahoma just how expensive it has become to build and maintain roads. The average person probably thinks the gasoline tax he pays at the pump should be more than enough to cover all those costs. Never mind the fact the federal rate of 18.4¢ per gallon has been at that rate since 1993. Oklahoma's fuel tax, if I recall correctly is 16¢. I'm not sure how long it has been at that level, but I'm guessing it has been there since the early 1990's as well.

[Scott5114]

I wonder how much money could be saved by merging OkDOT and OTA. There has to be a decent amount of administrative duplication between the two agencies. It seems to have worked pretty well for MassDOT.

[Bobby5280]

There could be some significant savings there. I wonder what kind of legal hurdles could stand in the way of a merger.

What I'm wishing for the most is technological advances that can actually lower construction costs. It seems like every innovation that comes along only balloons the costs higher and higher. Same thing goes for regulations. The whole road building process just gets slower and much more expensive. If serious changes can't be made to bring down these insane costs then the road construction industry will get into a bubble economy with the bubble just asking to be popped. At some point the federal and state governments will slam the brakes on this stuff because it's just not affordable. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. The whole roads thing has become very hoggy.

[jeffandnicole]

There could be some significant savings there. I wonder what kind of legal hurdles could stand in the way of a merger.

What I'm wishing for the most is technological advances that can actually lower construction costs. It seems like every innovation that comes along only balloons the costs higher and higher. Same thing goes for regulations. The whole road building process just gets slower and much more expensive. If serious changes can't be made to bring down these insane costs then the road construction industry will get into a bubble economy with the bubble just asking to be popped. At some point the federal and state governments will slam the brakes on this stuff because it's just not affordable. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. The whole roads thing has become very hoggy.

All construction costs are higher, regardless if it's roads, buildings, houses, playground equipment, etc.  There's a lot more regulation and safety stuff that occurs today.  50 years ago there was no OSHA, for example.  EPA?  Ha.  People are also much more willing to sue if a proposed highway or widening affects their property and they're not compensated fairly...or don't want to provide the land to the agency at all.  Even little things...guardrails have to be stronger...paint has to be more reflective...VMS and traffic cameras are utilized...stuff like this goes a long way into increasing the overall budgets of these projects.

[rte66man]

I wonder how much money could be saved by merging OkDOT and OTA. There has to be a decent amount of administrative duplication between the two agencies. It seems to have worked pretty well for MassDOT.

Not as much as you might think.  ODOT does a lot of the engineering and design for roads and bridges under a contract with OTA.  I used to have some real $$$ figures somewhere.  I'll post them when I can find them.

[Scott5114]

I wonder how much money could be saved by merging OkDOT and OTA. There has to be a decent amount of administrative duplication between the two agencies. It seems to have worked pretty well for MassDOT.

Not as much as you might think.  ODOT does a lot of the engineering and design for roads and bridges under a contract with OTA.  I used to have some real $$$ figures somewhere.  I'll post them when I can find them.

I'd be interested in seeing that. I was thinking more along the lines of unnecessary duplication of supervisors, work crews, etc. (Why pay a guy to work just on the Cimarron Turnpike when you could have the OkDOT Division Four crews handle it?) And, of course, OkDOT and OTA often (but not always have different chief executives.) Even if it's only, say, $10 million, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the projects OTA is pursuing, $10 million is still enough to replace an extra bridge per year somewhere.

[J N Winkler]

I wonder how much money could be saved by merging OkDOT and OTA. There has to be a decent amount of administrative duplication between the two agencies. It seems to have worked pretty well for MassDOT.

Not as much as you might think.  ODOT does a lot of the engineering and design for roads and bridges under a contract with OTA.  I used to have some real $$$ figures somewhere.  I'll post them when I can find them.

I'd be interested in seeing that. I was thinking more along the lines of unnecessary duplication of supervisors, work crews, etc. (Why pay a guy to work just on the Cimarron Turnpike when you could have the OkDOT Division Four crews handle it?) And, of course, OkDOT and OTA often (but not always have different chief executives.) Even if it's only, say, $10 million, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the projects OTA is pursuing, $10 million is still enough to replace an extra bridge per year somewhere.

Based on the experience in Kansas, I would expect the savings to be minimal.  Governor Brownback forced the KTA to merge into KDOT (while retaining a separate turnpike board) because he apparently visited the Emporia area and saw two salt domes, one for free I-35 and one for the Turnpike.  (It says much about Brownback's approach to public policy, and the extent to which he has people running scared, that he was able to push a merger through on the basis of such a superficial observation, which does not by itself even prove inefficiency.)  It took a lot of huffing and puffing for KDOT to come up with an estimate of $30 million one-time savings and there has been no follow-up to evaluate whether these have actually been realized.  $30 million may seem like a lot, but KDOT's annual budget for construction alone is at least ten times that, and it is also a small fraction of the state's cumulative monthly revenue shortfalls, which many suspected was the real destination of any savings (not additional highway construction or maintenance).

[dfwmapper]

Sounds like a really stupid thing for a politician to push for, because all you're doing is eliminating a bunch of jobs that probably pay a pretty decent wage. If your opponent in the next election can't beat you to death over it then they don't deserve the office.

[Plutonic Panda]

Anyone have any idea when the lawsuit will be over and the can begin construction(which I hope ends in a way where they can begin).