The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

This is in two parts.  First, there's the headline from KOTV:

Report: Oklahoma Roads Worsen To 37th In Nation
UNDATED -- Oklahoma's roads fell three more spots and now rank 37th in the nation in state highway performance and cost-effectiveness, according to Reason Foundation's new 19th Annual Highway Report.

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=13104996 (http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=13104996)

Next, there's this from the report itself:

We often hear the nation’s infrastructure is crumbling, but state highway conditions are the best they’ve been in 19 years, according to Reason Foundation’s 19th Annual Highway Report.  Unfortunately, the recession is partly responsible for the improvement in road conditions: people are driving less which has helped slow pavement deterioration and reduced traffic congestion and fatalities. 

http://reason.org/news/show/19th-annual-highway-report (http://reason.org/news/show/19th-annual-highway-report)

My 'seat of the pants' response to the latter is....bunk.  And that's merely being polite.  How many bridges have had pieces fall away in the last year or two?  Name a street that doesn't need some maintenance.  I've memorized the positions of all the potholes on my pre-dawn commute to work.  Seat of the pants, indeed.

It's true that road fatalities have decreased, and we should all be grateful for that. 

Graft, corruption, "it's all about NO", and "it's all about me".   Just to name a few.

Maybe Oklahoma will get some of the funding for the 150,000 miles of highway repair the Pres spoke about over the weekend. Or was it 150 miles of airport runways? Or is it a high speed rail line?

That's an interesting idea.  If we divided those highway miles up evenly between the states, Oklahoma would get 3,000.  Now, if that's lane miles, it would only be 1,500, less if 4 lane roads are mixed in.

What if it's apportioned by population?  Oklahoma comprises roughly 1% of the US population, so that would be only 1,500 miles. 

Or viewed in a truly cynical way, whatever amount of money it is and whatever the miles of highways it would pay for, none of it will get more Democratic votes in the next presidential election in this reddest of red states, so why bother spending any money here? 

Here's an idea. $50 billion, 50 states. Give each state $1Billion, and a two year time line. Most states alreaedy have projects lined up just no funding. After two years, the projects need to be 50% complete or better otherwise they have to refund the money. And to keep the contractors in line, give them hard dates for the project. Run over you lose money, get it done early keep the extra money as a bonus.

I seem to remember that road construction costs roughly $1 million per lane mile.  So a billion dollars amounts to only 1,000 lane miles, and that's with the assumption that nothing really expensive - like bridges - gets into the mix.  I don't know how that compares to road maintenance, but I'd suspect that resurfacing an existing road would be nearly as expensive as constructing a new one. 

A thousand miles of new road doesn't really account for much when it's spread out over the entire state.  Toss in the inevitable squabbling over whose district gets how much, and it could be a nasty game of political football.  County bridges are in bad repair, so that would be a good use for the funds, but then the rail fans want their share, the airport authorities insist on their's, and let's not forget the Port of Catoosa.

I think the state could go through a billion fairly quickly.  Some consideration must be given to the governor's race, however.  If Fallin wins and she follows through on some of her anti-tax rhetoric, there are slim chances of getting tax increases through the legislature in order to offset any cuts.  I think Fallin said she'd like to cut the income tax, and look into other taxes to offset it, but with the present Republican domination in the legislative branch and the super majority necessary to pass any increase, I'd doubt that would happen.  So we'd end up with a smaller amount of state money for roads. 

There's a bright side, of course.  I'll be back on my bicycle threading my way through pot hole infested roads.  That's one advantage to traveling on two wheels.  It's easier to avoid the bad stuff.  And the perverse benefit of bad road for cyclists is that those same road conditions slow motor vehicles down considerably.

And those pieces falling off bridges you hear about are just the tip of the iceberg. You can see big chunks that fell off the BA onto the sidewalk on Houston (south leg of the IDL), and other big chunks that will fall off someday soon. They just fell onto unoccupied sidewalk, so it didn't make the news. It's like that on the majority of our bridges and overpasses. I'm surprised when I walk under an overpass that doesn't have pieces of overpass littering the ground.

Just as an aside - for 2009 (annual report);
Your turnpike authority is $ 1.56 billion in debt.  With another $ 850 million that doesn't quite seem to appear in the final "Total" - my feeble mind just can't understand all those big numbers, I guess.

Another $ 340 million is held in cash and cash equivalents (Treasury bonds).  Why do they need 300 million hold back for yearly operating expenses of around 70 million?  Couldn't at least a couple hundred million of that pay off some bonds early and get the debt down some?  (Yeah, it could, but then political patronage would suffer.  The special ones holding those turnpike bonds would not get their interest and "paybacks" from the good buddies that they helped in government.  Special ones; not most of us.  Try to buy a turnpike bond sometime.)

But then a yearly cash flow of about 140 million could pay the expenses with some left over, couldn't it?  Like about another 65 million? 

How long would it take to actually pay off the turnpikes if there was an effort to do so?  With 200 million per year incoming, and round up to 100 million per year outgoing.  100 million left over every year -

After paying the 300 million here, about 12 years. 

But then, if we stopped charging, "everyone else" wouldn't be paying for our roads, would they??

I do believe the law requires that OTA turn over surpluses to ODOT. It also requires that gas tax funds go first to OTA and then pass through to ODOT if they are not needed to pay the bonds.

Also, last I checked, the coupon rate on OTA bonds is very low after all their refinancing activity as interest rates have dropped. Paying them off early doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you're the least bit optimistic about the economic situation or if you believe that the inflation boogeyman is about to strike.

I fear for the holy Lord what the roads are like in those other 13 states.

Unpaved?

Don't think so.  Both 2009, 2008 had huge "retained earnings".  And yet, they still needed to increased fees by about 20% last year. 

This is the poster child (most visible example) of graft, corruption, political payola in the state.  There are many others (remember county commissioners?) but this is way up there.

I see from a News On 6 article that counties are now using gravel to repair paved roads until the money exists to properly repave them. My question is, did some county commisioner in NE Oklahoma tell his (insert relative here) in the construction business to sell the gravel/chat they are supposed to be hauling away from the Picher/Cardin OK and Treece KS area, to counties in other parts of the state?

I don't think that this would really happen, but with the shennanigans of the past I wouldn't be suprised if it didn't cross someones mind.

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13094256 (http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13094256)

Pity the other 13 states.

No to the county commissioners hauling gravel from Picher.  That area has been Jim Inhofe's for many years and he is still milking that one.  He has gotten two or three times the money "allocated" to the cleanup of the area than it ended up costing to just go ahead and buy everyone out.  But then, he has a buddy with a very large bulldozer and it does cost a lot to fuel that thing up....