Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
More Turnpikes
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JxxxOxxxE" data-source="post: 2859190" data-attributes="member: 388"><p>Just a little FYI, the OTA has already been approved by your legislature for 25+ more projects granted some are just on/off ramps. </p><p></p><p>Here's the current website for this round of projects, <a href="http://www.drivingforwardok.com" target="_blank">http://www.drivingforwardok.com</a>, there are 6 projects listed there...</p><p></p><p></p><p>Oklahoma ranks 2nd in the nation in miles of toll roads...We may hop to 1st after this round of projects....Don't forget we're 48th in education....</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>From my experience, 102 north from 62 is in pretty bad shape. 177 on the other hand is extremely nice compared to most roads around here. I think the speed limit is even 65 mph...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The OTA has kind of changed their stance a few times already on why we need this eastern loop. Economic Development, then Safety somehow with rural road accident stats, and now they are pushing I35 traffic relief as the reason for it. </p><p></p><p>Without looking back for their specific answer, I believe OTA said 177 was too far east to provide the I35 traffic relief. They also cant convert an existing road to a turnpike for some reason, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me since they can convert my farmland to a turnpike.....?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Even though I'm obviously biased now that its planned to pass through my property, I've been against it since it was announced and was to be 1.5 miles west of me....The more info that I come across about the OTA, the shadier they seem. Taking land, manipulating numbers, changing info, never being paid off, appointed members, the list goes on....</p><p></p><p></p><p>I've even gone as far to file to run for my ward city council seat. Ive been attending the meetings for years as a citizen so I figure I may as well try to sit on the other side of the tables. Our council has thrown the citizens under the bus on this deal. They all voted for the resolution to the OTA, but after talking to 2 of them personally in the last month, I had 1 say they weren't in support of the turnpike, and another admit there was no discussion about passing the resolution, just a quick vote....</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JxxxOxxxE, post: 2859190, member: 388"] Just a little FYI, the OTA has already been approved by your legislature for 25+ more projects granted some are just on/off ramps. Here's the current website for this round of projects, [url]http://www.drivingforwardok.com[/url], there are 6 projects listed there... Oklahoma ranks 2nd in the nation in miles of toll roads...We may hop to 1st after this round of projects....Don't forget we're 48th in education.... From my experience, 102 north from 62 is in pretty bad shape. 177 on the other hand is extremely nice compared to most roads around here. I think the speed limit is even 65 mph... The OTA has kind of changed their stance a few times already on why we need this eastern loop. Economic Development, then Safety somehow with rural road accident stats, and now they are pushing I35 traffic relief as the reason for it. Without looking back for their specific answer, I believe OTA said 177 was too far east to provide the I35 traffic relief. They also cant convert an existing road to a turnpike for some reason, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me since they can convert my farmland to a turnpike.....? Even though I'm obviously biased now that its planned to pass through my property, I've been against it since it was announced and was to be 1.5 miles west of me....The more info that I come across about the OTA, the shadier they seem. Taking land, manipulating numbers, changing info, never being paid off, appointed members, the list goes on.... I've even gone as far to file to run for my ward city council seat. Ive been attending the meetings for years as a citizen so I figure I may as well try to sit on the other side of the tables. Our council has thrown the citizens under the bus on this deal. They all voted for the resolution to the OTA, but after talking to 2 of them personally in the last month, I had 1 say they weren't in support of the turnpike, and another admit there was no discussion about passing the resolution, just a quick vote.... [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
More Turnpikes
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom