AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma  (Read 11209 times)

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1002
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 11:19:25 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #125 on: August 13, 2019, 04:00:17 PM »


There are obnoxious bike riders who don't observe traffic rules and even do stupidly risky things. But with that being said there is a much far larger problem: car drivers with their heads embedded in their digital asses. That's the main reason why I refuse to ride my trail bike on any "shared" bike paths in Lawton also used by vehicles. Way too many motorists are looking at their phones or other distractions in the vehicle rather than keeping their eyes on the road. That's what truly makes it suicidal to ride a bicycle along city streets. Hell, it's even risky just being a pedestrian. If it was up to me I would make fines and other punishments for distracted driving (particularly from mobile phone use) far more severe.

Compounding the problem further, there is a fringe element of people who antagonize people on bicycles. I wonder if that's out of some politically-driven motivation, thinking anyone on a "10-speed" wearing a helmet is some kale-eating liberal. Here in Lawton a fair amount of the criminal element pedals around on bicycles (smaller dirt bicycles usually), some of them stolen. That brings even more trouble to law-abiding people on bikes who do follow traffic rules. You're riding your own bike home and have people in the neighborhood watch calling the cops or putting you on blast all over Facebook.
This is a reason I do not like to associate myself with other cyclists. If I ever manage to strike a conversation with one the convo almost always turns to a hatred for cars or whatever and I usually at that point will break away from further communication where possible. I got into a fist fight a couple weeks ago because another cyclist was riding erratically and he pissed off a dude in a truck who I'm guessing associated me with the other cyclist started talking shit and threw a bottle of water at me. Long story short I didn't care what caused I was the first to start throwing hands but I was doing nothing other than riding lawfully and some other asshat of a cyclist started shit.

In general I have a disdain for cyclists although I myself cycle quite often. I rarely have problems with drivers as I stay to the right as much as possible, I never take a full lane, and I yield to cars almost always. I have only been hit twice and both times the car drivers were very nice and we went on our ways with no issues. I can't understand why cyclists get into it with drivers as much as they do or claim to. Again, do to these reasons, I try and disassociate with the cycling crowd as much as possible. They are the reason car drivers treat cyclists like shit because they always start shit and to reiterate I say from the perspective as a cyclist.

Lawton's bike "network" is going nowhere and being used by hardly anyone because it's nothing more than a few disconnected segments in different parts of town. And most of the "network" is nothing more than a few signs posted saying bicycles can use a full traffic lane on a given city street. Um, no thanks.
Right but that is because Lawton has not built it out properly. Not that I think it should or shouldn't. In Tulsa's case they would need at a minimum a billion to build out a fully functioning bike network that would even begin to make sense for most to consider it and even at that how many would use it daily as a means for commuting? I am not talking about recreational use or 3-6 days out of the year "hey I haven't biked to work in awhile" types. I bike over 50 miles a week minimum but it is mainly for fun. I get sweaty and tired in LA weather in the 60-70s, I couldn't imagine the humidity and weather extremes in Oklahoma.

Given the spread out nature of American cities along with longer commuting patterns I just don't see a fully built out bike network making sense or worth the investment. I do support a network of trails that can be workable for those who wish to go out of their way to commute by bike, but if you do that, you can't expect everyone else to bow to your whim because you want to do something abnormal.

SoCal has bike lanes almost EVERYWHERE(!!!!) and they are hardly used.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 462
  • Last Login: August 22, 2019, 08:15:29 PM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #126 on: August 13, 2019, 08:48:33 PM »

Quote from: Baloo Uriza
Well, then what's our motivation to expand a highway ODOT didn't want in the first place or they'd have built it before the US Highway System did?  Seems like a weird double down.

ODOT didn't want US-69? What's your source for that claim? It's not exactly a road to nowhere, given it directly connects McAlester and Muskogee to the DFW metro, not to mention providing the most direct road route from Dallas to St Louis and points farther in the Northeast US.


When the US highway system was originally laid out, connectivity for major metros in their respective states were the priority.

Now that commerce support (read: trucks) tends to drive road funding, it would be natural for ODOT to gradually give it priority.

No one in ODOT could probably predict the amount of truck traffic that would originate from DFW let alone Mexico when they submitted their recommendations back in 1947 and 1952.

So when commerce began its upswing post NAFTA,  it was probably natural for ODOT to want everyone to use I-35 and I-44. That is where the fed dollars and toll bonds went way back in the day.

Today, its much different.  I-35 is congested, OKC Metro is busy and shippers are avoiding tollroads if possible to take cost out of their routes.

This is driving yet more traffic to US-69. You can clearly see that ODOT has been taking an incremental, measured approach to the improvements.

With only so many dollars to use and not wanting to build yet another tollroad, this makes sense.
Logged

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 258
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: Today at 04:07:09 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #127 on: August 14, 2019, 05:38:26 PM »

I can travel in more than every method, but I do not associate my self with any thing.

There is driving and the ability to carry every thing needed in any type of weather. Cars are my Home Away From Home.

There is Public Transit be cause I often get sick of cars and traffic.

Walking is also okay especially if it is nearby I will simply walk.

I really hate bicycles and people that ride them for some reason. Many are nosey little jerks. I could ride bikes; It is very good exercise. However, I would avoid the main roads be cause the cars are much larger than bikes. As for going through quieter residential streets could have dogs, even loose dogs. Bike Lanes are ludicrous. It is better to have dedicated Bike Trails. But this does not have much to do with transportation but instead to do more with recreation. There is not much recreation or even parks. Bike Trails would also double as such.

And as usual, keep the Bikes and Pedestrians and Cars and Trains completely separate from each other. No more at grade crossings.

It would be nice to see more motorcycles around also. but most of the United States is too cold to ride a bicycle and a motorcycle.

I still use Interstate 35 even if they routinely close parts of the highway for various road work.

My views on The Unfinished Corridor is that it is unlikely they will ever finish it correctly. Other corridors should be focused on instead.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5854
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:28:34 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #128 on: August 14, 2019, 07:01:31 PM »

Back in the pre-Interstate days (barely), ODOT had proposed a series of turnpikes; one of which more or less traced present-day I-35 from TX to OKC -- but there was a branch approximating the trajectory of today's Chickasaw Turnpike alignment, plus an extension north along what's now US 377/OK 99 to I-44/Turner Turnpike (this showed up on Gousha state/regional maps circa 1956-57).  It would have been interesting to see what might have happened if that alignment had been included in the original Interstate iteration; that would have, albeit admittedly along not the most direct pathway, assumed much of the through function of the US 69 corridor.  But it does indicate that the OK transportation arena did include, at least at one point, a somewhat more efficient way to get from Tulsa down to DFW than currently exists.  But like with most post-1968 potential Interstate corridors (legislated or not), the absence of that chargeable Federal funding pool means a lengthy and often sporadic approach to development.     
Logged

Baloo Uriza

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1799
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Last Login: Today at 07:37:19 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #129 on: August 14, 2019, 07:17:56 PM »

It would be nice to see more motorcycles around also. but most of the United States is too cold to ride a bicycle and a motorcycle.

Maybe motorcycle, but it gets too icy before it's too cold to ride a bicycle.  Moving keeps you warm.
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4829
  • Last Login: Today at 11:04:31 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #130 on: August 15, 2019, 06:50:27 AM »

Sparker, although certain metro areas certainly have a penchant for transit, I was responding to the assertion that they are robbing highway funds to pay for it.  As I pointed out, the eligibility of the bulk of the funding restricts their ability to do so.

The idea that MPOs do so through lobbying the state or somehow forcing local funds to pay for transit is also one I find unfounded.  Transit is typically funded through separate appropriations.

It really isn't a matter of transit robbing highway funding.  Have to also say that in urban areas, some prioritization of transit is wholly legitimate as well.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Baloo Uriza

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1799
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Last Login: Today at 07:37:19 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #131 on: August 15, 2019, 11:06:51 AM »

Sparker, although certain metro areas certainly have a penchant for transit, I was responding to the assertion that they are robbing highway funds to pay for it.  As I pointed out, the eligibility of the bulk of the funding restricts their ability to do so.

Usually it's highway projects robbing funds for other modes.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1758
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: August 22, 2019, 09:28:03 PM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #132 on: August 15, 2019, 11:46:59 AM »

Government funding for highways and plenty of other things ultimately all comes from the same finite pool of taxpayer money.

Few, if any mass transit systems at all in the United States are entirely self-sufficient at all (meaning their operations are fully sustained or even profitable based on money paid by riders to use the system). Just about any American mass transit system needs significant amounts of taxpayer funded subsidies, grants, etc to keep the system functional and employees of the transit systems paid. The same is likely true the systems running elsewhere in the world.

Money for roads or money for subway trains all ends up coming out of the same pockets. It's semantics for anyone to say gas taxes pay for the roads and some other separate fund does this for transit. Fuel tax revenue is routinely directed at other things, like boosting pay for badly paid public school teachers in Oklahoma. What's to stop a group wanting to build a overpriced subway line in Tulsa or OKC from attempting to do so via a big fuel tax increase?
Logged

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7152
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 06:25:24 AM
    • Flickr account
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #133 on: August 15, 2019, 11:49:33 AM »

From what I understand, Oklahoma City and Tulsa never get any denser than suburban. There is no point in a subway system, although buses might be helpful.

Few, if any mass transit systems at all in the United States are entirely self-sufficient at all (meaning their operations are fully sustained or even profitable based on money paid by riders to use the system).

Untolled highways aren't self-sufficient, either.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus
US ⒔50
MA ⒐2⒉40.9⒐10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚14⒈159
NH 27, 111A(E); NY 366; GA 42, 140; FL A1A; CT 32; VT 5A; QC 16⒉16⒌263

Flickr

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1758
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: August 22, 2019, 09:28:03 PM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #134 on: August 15, 2019, 12:08:45 PM »

Those "un-tolled" roads are tolled at the gasoline pump, and by other methods as well. There is no such thing as a "free" road.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1002
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 11:19:25 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #135 on: August 15, 2019, 12:13:07 PM »

From what I understand, Oklahoma City and Tulsa never get any denser than suburban. There is no point in a subway system, although buses might be helpful.

Few, if any mass transit systems at all in the United States are entirely self-sufficient at all (meaning their operations are fully sustained or even profitable based on money paid by riders to use the system).

Untolled highways aren't self-sufficient, either.
You are incorrect.
Logged

Baloo Uriza

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1799
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Last Login: Today at 07:37:19 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #136 on: August 15, 2019, 01:53:55 PM »

From what I understand, Oklahoma City and Tulsa never get any denser than suburban.

There's plenty of parts of both that exceed 1500 people per square mile.
Logged

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7152
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 06:25:24 AM
    • Flickr account
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #137 on: August 15, 2019, 01:59:08 PM »

From what I understand, Oklahoma City and Tulsa never get any denser than suburban.

There's plenty of parts of both that exceed 1500 people per square mile.

1500 is still suburban. I live in a suburban city/town that exceeds 1500 people per square mile.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus
US ⒔50
MA ⒐2⒉40.9⒐10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚14⒈159
NH 27, 111A(E); NY 366; GA 42, 140; FL A1A; CT 32; VT 5A; QC 16⒉16⒌263

Flickr

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5854
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:28:34 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #138 on: August 15, 2019, 05:08:44 PM »

Sparker, although certain metro areas certainly have a penchant for transit, I was responding to the assertion that they are robbing highway funds to pay for it.  As I pointed out, the eligibility of the bulk of the funding restricts their ability to do so.

Usually it's highway projects robbing funds for other modes.

The perception that this was indeed the case prompted the expansion of the CA STIP to include non-state-maintained facilities, including transit stations and stops as well as the streets on which transit operates.  The shift was more than just funding -- Caltrans district offices' engineering resources were intermingled with local equivalents; project design and/or vetting now involves Caltrans person-hours on virtually all transportation projects within the state.  By some measures that would be equitable -- but it was about the time this all happened that Caltrans' active concern with such niceties as route continuity and signing seemed to fall off the map.  Unfortunately, expanding the agency role into a functional partnership with local transit/transportation agencies appears to have had the effect of diluting the attention paid to their historic role as the maintainer and overseer of the state highway network.   So at least out here it's not just a redistribution of available funds -- it's internal reprioritization of agency functions as well.  Whether something similar is occurring in the OK arena is something posters from that state may wish to address.   
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6057
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: Today at 06:58:17 AM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #139 on: August 22, 2019, 08:36:49 AM »

One thing that is forgotten about this road is that some of the expressway is fairly recent. Some of it was built on new terrain while some of it was built by upgrading the old highway. It was 2 lanes until the late 1980s. The The 1988 ODOT map shows the highway as 4 lanes from I-44 near Big Cabin to the Red River. The last section of 2 lane highway was from Chockie to Atoka. This corridor was "completed" later than other major corridors in the state. It must have been hell when long parts were still 2 lanes. Was it as big of a truck route in 1987 than it is now?
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5854
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:28:34 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #140 on: August 22, 2019, 01:27:57 PM »

One thing that is forgotten about this road is that some of the expressway is fairly recent. Some of it was built on new terrain while some of it was built by upgrading the old highway. It was 2 lanes until the late 1980s. The The 1988 ODOT map shows the highway as 4 lanes from I-44 near Big Cabin to the Red River. The last section of 2 lane highway was from Chockie to Atoka. This corridor was "completed" later than other major corridors in the state. It must have been hell when long parts were still 2 lanes. Was it as big of a truck route in 1987 than it is now?

The traffic issues in OKC worsened in the '80's -- part of it likely due to the original substandard I-35/40 alignment through downtown as well as the fact that the I-44 bypass around the north side wasn't fully completed until later in the decade -- so it's quite likely that commercial traffic from the central Midwest to DFW and other southerly TX points that had simply stayed on I-44 to I-35 started looking for an alternative, and US 69 became the obvious choice because of its "straightline" characteristics, regardless of the various obstacles along the way (Muskogee, the speed traps further south, etc.)  Obviously someone in ODOT or with some political clout initiated the freeway upgrade between Muskogee and McAlester at some point -- so the value of the route was recognized decades ago -- but at some point regularized upgrades ceased -- more likely than not due to fiscal constraints -- and now the corridor is marked by "spot" upgrades such as the Durant bypass, the south McAlester freeway extension, and the Calera (casino?) development.  Whether a major project such as the Muskogee bypass ever reaches the implementation stage is yet to be determined;  there always seems to be one or another aggrieved party along the route seeking to maintain the status quo for mostly monetary reasons (some folks like effectively captive audiences!).  But with other parts of the state looking to snag whatever project money becomes available for their own priorities, the US 69 corridor -- as a whole -- will likely continue to be ODOT's "red-headed stepchild", with "spot" projects (although I understand Calera isn't going to come cheap!) being the rule rather than the exception.  A coordinated effort to upgrade the entire corridor from TX to Big Cabin just doesn't seem to be in the cards for the near term.   
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1758
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: August 22, 2019, 09:28:03 PM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #141 on: August 22, 2019, 02:25:01 PM »

US-69 between the Red River and Big Cabin won't be brought up fully to Interstate standards any time soon. At least it won't happen while the current political climate regarding roads at the state and federal level remains the same.

State lawmakers in Northeast Oklahoma, particularly around the Tulsa area, do have a lot of clout. If they really wanted to push for it hard they could get US-69 upgraded from the Red River up to McAlester as part of an effort to create a non-stop, high speed road link between the Tulsa and DFW metros. I would even go so far to say they could ram-rod the upgrades through or around Atoka and Stringtown. US-75 from Henryetta (I-40) up to the South side of Tulsa has its own issues. A new terrain bypass around Olkmulgee would be the biggest issue and expense there. Metro Tulsa has its own issues. The I-44/US-75 interchange is badly outdated and needs to be fully replaced. The same goes for I-44 between the I-244 interchange and the Arkansas River. It's just 2 lanes in each direction with features that look like they date back to the early 1960's. The traffic burden along that stretch will get a lot worse when the Gilcrease Expressway is completed down to the I-44/I-244 interchange.

I don't know the history of the US-69 freeway segment between McAlester and Muskogee. But it appears to me the route was upgraded to push a lot of long distance heavy truck traffic away from the US-75 corridor and Tulsa's surface streets.

In the past there has been a good bit of intra-state political squabbling over the US-69/75 corridors from other parts of the state. Back in the 1990's one group of lawmakers were pushing for new turnpikes to be built in really absurd locations as a means of competing for business with the growing US-75 corridor in the Eastern part of the state. One proposal was a turnpike from Clinton down to Snyder along the US-183 corridor (implying US-183 was the equal to US-75 in the Western half of Oklahoma). Another was a turnpike from Duncan to Davis. I'm glad neither materialized. Neither of those proposed routes would attract a lot of long distance traffic. OTOH US-75 is the direct connection between Tulsa and Dallas.

If Oklahoma could just get its act together on some key issues much broader areas of the state could be booming. There is a hell of a lot of growth potential just not being realized. Currently the climate is set to repel people, not attract them. Especially families. With the exception of parts of the OKC and Tulsa metros the rest of OK is fly-over or drive-thru country. If the federal government wasn't AWOL on this stuff it would see the national importance US-69 has with interstate commerce and push to get it upgraded to Interstate quality. Right now the feds prefer to leave such matters up to individual states to handle. Oklahoma is too cash-strapped to upgrade US-69 along with all the other road and bridge issues on its plate.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2019, 05:13:00 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5854
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:28:34 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #142 on: August 22, 2019, 03:37:58 PM »

^^^^^^^^^
Looks like we're in basic agreement about the near-term prospects for the US 69(75) corridor.  Of course, ideally, it would end up as an I-45 extension to Big Cabin, with a x45 on the INT and US 75 up into Tulsa.  But anything like that is decades off if at all in the cards.  OK has long elected to follow the "low-tax" idiom (did you know "idiom" and "idiot" derive from the same base source?) for better or worse (you be the judge), so they blithely skip from one fiscal hole to the next while publicly patting themselves on the back for "looking out for the taxpayers' interest".  Seems to be a never-ending cycle in a number of states, OK definitely included.

And my aunts, uncles, and cousins arrayed along US 70 from Durant to Broken Bow would bristle at being classified as denizens of "flyover" country (although after a few beers they'd probably grudgingly acknowledge it!).     
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1758
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: August 22, 2019, 09:28:03 PM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #143 on: August 22, 2019, 06:13:07 PM »

Us Okies bring it upon ourselves to make the state little more than fly-over country by being so cheap. Over the long term I worry the "culture" in this state will bring bigger consequences than just being limited in our ability to build infrastructure projects.

Oklahoma is shedding a great deal of its youth to other states near and far from here. In 10-20 years the United States as a whole will be struggling with serious issues of demographic imbalance due to birth rates that continue to fall. In other words: we'll have way too many retired people and not enough working age taxpayers to keep the system funded and operational. Oklahoma and other "fly over" states will be first to feel the effects of demographic imbalance. We haven't been doing squat to attract or even retain young adults in the state's work force. Combine that with plummeting fertility rates. The result: not enough working age people to keep everything running here.

It takes working age human beings to fill jobs as cops, fire fighters, teachers, nurses, etc. And you gotta offer enough pay to fill those positions. For all the talk about how AI and automation is going to replace a lot of jobs, plenty of other jobs will still require people with a pulse to do the work. If the supply of working age adult labor gets tight nationwide cities will get pitted against each other. Low tax/low income states like Oklahoma won't have the tax base and pay scales to compete with the richer cities on the coasts or down in Texas.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 462
  • Last Login: August 22, 2019, 08:15:29 PM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #144 on: August 22, 2019, 08:15:29 PM »

Us Okies bring it upon ourselves to make the state little more than fly-over country by being so cheap. Over the long term I worry the "culture" in this state will bring bigger consequences than just being limited in our ability to build infrastructure projects.

Oklahoma is shedding a great deal of its youth to other states near and far from here. In 10-20 years the United States as a whole will be struggling with serious issues of demographic imbalance due to birth rates that continue to fall. In other words: we'll have way too many retired people and not enough working age taxpayers to keep the system funded and operational. Oklahoma and other "fly over" states will be first to feel the effects of demographic imbalance. We haven't been doing squat to attract or even retain young adults in the state's work force. Combine that with plummeting fertility rates. The result: not enough working age people to keep everything running here.

It takes working age human beings to fill jobs as cops, fire fighters, teachers, nurses, etc. And you gotta offer enough pay to fill those positions. For all the talk about how AI and automation is going to replace a lot of jobs, plenty of other jobs will still require people with a pulse to do the work. If the supply of working age adult labor gets tight nationwide cities will get pitted against each other. Low tax/low income states like Oklahoma won't have the tax base and pay scales to compete with the richer cities on the coasts or down in Texas.

Oklahoma fracks a ton of oil. Where is the money going?
Logged

Baloo Uriza

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1799
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Last Login: Today at 07:37:19 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #145 on: August 22, 2019, 08:50:31 PM »

Us Okies bring it upon ourselves to make the state little more than fly-over country by being so cheap. Over the long term I worry the "culture" in this state will bring bigger consequences than just being limited in our ability to build infrastructure projects.

Oklahoma is shedding a great deal of its youth to other states near and far from here. In 10-20 years the United States as a whole will be struggling with serious issues of demographic imbalance due to birth rates that continue to fall. In other words: we'll have way too many retired people and not enough working age taxpayers to keep the system funded and operational. Oklahoma and other "fly over" states will be first to feel the effects of demographic imbalance. We haven't been doing squat to attract or even retain young adults in the state's work force. Combine that with plummeting fertility rates. The result: not enough working age people to keep everything running here.

It takes working age human beings to fill jobs as cops, fire fighters, teachers, nurses, etc. And you gotta offer enough pay to fill those positions. For all the talk about how AI and automation is going to replace a lot of jobs, plenty of other jobs will still require people with a pulse to do the work. If the supply of working age adult labor gets tight nationwide cities will get pitted against each other. Low tax/low income states like Oklahoma won't have the tax base and pay scales to compete with the richer cities on the coasts or down in Texas.

Oklahoma fracks a ton of oil. Where is the money going?

Our Republican leadership has determined to "temporarily" suspend the already ridiculously low 1% tax on oil extraction for about half a decade now.  So, name an oil executive and you're probably at least partly accurate.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1758
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: August 22, 2019, 09:28:03 PM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #146 on: August 22, 2019, 09:28:18 PM »

The recent bump in Oklahoma's fuel taxes (3˘ gasoline, 6˘ diesel) was the first increase in over 25 years. Yet the taxes we pay at the pump are still among the lowest in the nation. Most of the money from the fuel tax increase has been spent to fund teacher pay raises. Teacher pay is another category where Oklahoma pays among the least of all states. The state legislature dreamed up this fuel tax maneuver out of desperation. They couldn't dare raise state income tax rates or (God forbid) hike any property taxes. So they resorted to a funding source that hadn't been touched in decades. Teachers were leaving in the state in droves for far higher pay elsewhere. Reps from Texas school districts are still poaching teachers from Oklahoma, even with the pay raise in place. So, Oklahoma is now slightly more competitive in teacher pay, thanks to some misappropriation of funding. Our "free" roads are still effectively being funded at early 1990's levels.
Logged

dfwmapper

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 638
  • Location: DFW
  • Last Login: Today at 05:49:55 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #147 on: Today at 05:49:55 AM »

Looks like we're in basic agreement about the near-term prospects for the US 69(75) corridor.  Of course, ideally, it would end up as an I-45 extension to Big Cabin, with a x45 on the INT and US 75 up into Tulsa.  But anything like that is decades off if at all in the cards.
No matter what happens with US 69, I just can't see OTA being interested in spending any amount of money to slap a blue shield on the INT. As built it's sufficient for its function, and will be for the foreseeable future. The only work it needs it getting the cable barriers installed for the rest of the length (slowly happening) and the usual pavement projects. Interstate upgrades wouldn't improve the performance at all, while they do on US 69.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5854
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:28:34 AM
Re: US 69 Improvements in Oklahoma
« Reply #148 on: Today at 10:18:21 AM »

Looks like we're in basic agreement about the near-term prospects for the US 69(75) corridor.  Of course, ideally, it would end up as an I-45 extension to Big Cabin, with a x45 on the INT and US 75 up into Tulsa.  But anything like that is decades off if at all in the cards.
No matter what happens with US 69, I just can't see OTA being interested in spending any amount of money to slap a blue shield on the INT. As built it's sufficient for its function, and will be for the foreseeable future. The only work it needs it getting the cable barriers installed for the rest of the length (slowly happening) and the usual pavement projects. Interstate upgrades wouldn't improve the performance at all, while they do on US 69.

Even if US 69 itself is eventually signed as an Interstate (presumably a I-45 extension), any "branch" such as one utilizing the INT northwest of McAlester would not be likely to be included in an upgrade "package" unless there was substantial pressure from Tulsa interests to do so.  The "preapproved" Interstate designation for the corridor dating from 1991's ISTEA specifically notes I-40 at Checotah as the northern terminus for the segment, so shunting the concept over INT and US 75 wouldn't be possible without a legislative revisit.  Correspondingly, any Interstate extension along US 69 north of I-40 would need to be administratively addressed as a separate entity than that segment with federal preapproval.   On a side note, it wouldn't surprise me -- particularly if a Muskogee bypass gains traction -- that elevating the Muskogee Turnpike to Interstate status (I-340, anyone?) might function as a stopgap; even any "tweaking" of that facility to bring it up to snuff would certainly be more cost-effective than an upgrade of US 75 from I-40 north to Tulsa, and would only add about 18 additional miles to a Dallas-Tulsa trip. 
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.