US Hwy 75 from downtown to Jenks

[bacjz00]

At what point does this stretch of highway get the same treatment as other "rural" highways headed out of Tulsa?  Currently it's 4 lanes, tight shoulders, and delapidated asphalt and interchanges all the way to 71st street south.     Time for this stretch of highway out of downtown to get the royal treatment.   How can this not have been done already?    The folks in Owasso have enjoyed a significantly rehabilitated and widened highway for many years now and are getting ready to enjoy even more expansion.  What about this stretch IN TOWN which has nearly the same traffic count and experiences major slowdowns and safety hazards at the I-44 interchange each and every day?   It's time something gets done with this stretch of highway up to and including the I-44 interchange.   How has this project not already made it to the top of the list?

[LandArchPoke]

At what point does this stretch of highway get the same treatment as other "rural" highways headed out of Tulsa?  Currently it's 4 lanes, tight shoulders, and delapidated asphalt and interchanges all the way to 71st street south.     Time for this stretch of highway out of downtown to get the royal treatment.   How can this not have been done already?    The folks in Owasso have enjoyed a significantly rehabilitated and widened highway for many years now and are getting ready to enjoy even more expansion.  What about this stretch IN TOWN which has nearly the same traffic count and experiences major slowdowns and safety hazards at the I-44 interchange each and every day?   It's time something gets done with this stretch of highway up to and including the I-44 interchange.   How has this project not already made it to the top of the list?

Because we already have to many highways. When this stretch of highway has significant congestion outside of 45 minutes in the morning and evening is when it's time to widen the highway. Just because you have to drive 60 mph on this highway instead of 80 mph on 169 isn't an excuse to spend $2 billion or more to widen this highway. It serves it's purpose just fine right now. Are there potholes that need to be fixed? Yes. Join the club of all the other sh***y highway we have... because NO NEW TAXES is Oklahoma's way. You get what you pay for. Plus it doesn't help the federal gas tax hasn't been raised in a couple decades while we continue to build more and more roads. It's like continuing to get a bigger limit on your credit card and maxing it out while never getting a raise... not very fiscally responsible.

[Weatherdemon]

Because we already have to many highways. When this stretch of highway has significant congestion outside of 45 minutes in the morning and evening is when it's time to widen the highway. Just because you have to drive 60 mph on this highway instead of 80 mph on 169 isn't an excuse to spend $2 billion or more to widen this highway. It serves it's purpose just fine right now. Are there potholes that need to be fixed? Yes. Join the club of all the other sh***y highway we have... because NO NEW TAXES is Oklahoma's way. You get what you pay for. Plus it doesn't help the federal gas tax hasn't been raised in a couple decades while we continue to build more and more roads. It's like continuing to get a bigger limit on your credit card and maxing it out while never getting a raise... not very fiscally responsible.

They should raise the gas tax .1 of a cent so we can get get away from 2.49 9/10 for a gallon and just be a flat 2.50.
Dump that into roads. I don't know how much that would raise but I think it would be significant.

[Ed W]

The Federal Highway Trust Fund may run out of money this year. It's main function is funding interstate highways but it also funds mass transit and storage tank remediation.

[Red Arrow]

They should raise the gas tax .1 of a cent so we can get get away from 2.49 9/10 for a gallon and just be a flat 2.50.
Dump that into roads. I don't know how much that would raise but I think it would be significant.

We are unlikely to get an even number of cents per gallon.  Marketing dictates the 0.9 cents as most people ignore the 0.9 and just see the whole number of dollars/cents.

[Conan71]

Well, there's been a nice surprise driving southbound from the BA interchange with 75/244 the last two mornings.  Just south of the river bridge the left two lanes have gotten fresh asphalt to about the 244/75 split.  I'm assuming the right lane will be done by tomorrow morning.  Appears they are coming in at night, grinding out the old layer and laying in a new one.  It's needed that for a few years.

[carltonplace]

A better way to spend our money would be a park and ride from Jenks to Downtown to divert people from their cars to a mass transit option.

[DowntownDan]

We just passed a $900 million package to improve streets after decades of neglect.  I don't know if this highway is on tap for repavement, but it certainly doesn't need widening.  Tulsans need to live a month commuting in a major city like Dallas or Houston, then complain about being delayed 10 or 15 minutes by a slowdown during rush hour.  Try an hour drive to go ten miles some day in a bigger city and then complain about Tulsa highway traffic.

[DowntownDan]

A better way to spend our money would be a park and ride from Jenks to Downtown to divert people from their cars to a mass transit option.

That would be nice, especially if a train were involved like DART, but Tulsan's won't use it, and especially people who choose to live in South Tulsa or Jenks.  They love to complain about traffic and commuting, but somewhere inside they know it's not that bad and are too addicted to their cars to have to wait for a bus or train.  We are a car-centric city, and it's not going to change too much, though some strides can be made.  

In my opinion, the starting point to improving public transit around here is a downtown circular and the express routes planned for Peoria (and hopefully, eventually, 11th street.)  I think you can convince some people who want to live in the city and along dense corridores to use more public transit if it is more frequent and user friendly, but you're not going to convince many people who choose to live in suburbs to use public transit.  The very fact that they choose to live that far from the core shows that they either don't care to go into the city often or have a proud fleet of Range Rovers they'll use get into town.  

It's the nature of sprawl that's the problem.  I've read some trends that younger people are moving back to cities and that's encouraging.  We need to convince people to move back into the core, not try to convince suburbanites to use public transportation.  The former is must more plausible and meaningful.  This, of course, is just my opinion and open for debate.  It's an interesting topic.

[swake]

A better way to spend our money would be a park and ride from Jenks to Downtown to divert people from their cars to a mass transit option.

The train tracks to downtown Jenks already exist and are barely used. The tracks even go to the Jenks site for the outlet mall. 

[sgrizzle]

It was widened at 71st, with the idea that it would continue north.

[Weatherdemon]

We are unlikely to get an even number of cents per gallon.  Marketing dictates the 0.9 cents as most people ignore the 0.9 and just see the whole number of dollars/cents.

People aren't going to stop buying gas because it is $2.50 vs $2.49 9/10.
Heck, it didn't stop them when it was $4.29 9/10.

I understand the marketing aspect but for gas it's really an irrelevant factor.

[DowntownDan]

People aren't going to stop buying gas because it is $2.50 vs $2.49 9/10.
Heck, it didn't stop them when it was $4.29 9/10.

I understand the marketing aspect but for gas it's really an irrelevant factor.

I agree.  The tax needs to increase a whole bunch and used to fix bad roads.  It makes sense that people who use a lot of gas use the roads a lot and should be paying for maintenance.  One side of our society's addition to its cars is that gas is pretty inelastic and people will pay.  Like you say, when it was over $4, people still bought it.  If you add 10, 15, 20 cents per gallon, people will still pay.  It also rewards people who use transit or bikes who don't have to pay the tax.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

I have to disagree slightly as there are states near Oklahoma with just slightly higher gas taxes that have much better roads. Arizona, Texas and New Mexico are only a couple of cents higher.

http://www.api.org/~/media/files/statistics/gasoline-tax-map.pdf

[Townsend]

I agree.  The tax needs to increase a whole bunch and used to fix bad roads.  It makes sense that people who use a lot of gas use the roads a lot and should be paying for maintenance.  One side of our society's addition to its cars is that gas is pretty inelastic and people will pay.  Like you say, when it was over $4, people still bought it.  If you add 10, 15, 20 cents per gallon, people will still pay.  It also rewards people who use transit or bikes who don't have to pay the tax.

Yes, people will pay.  People, however, won't vote for the guy known for raising taxes.