The turnpike system and the money grabbers In the state

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GlockPride

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
5,492
Reaction score
7,109
Location
Unfixed Arrow
For those that don’t know OTA and ODOT are now one, under the state. They used to be two separate entities.

Also, last year when I looked it appeared that OTA was somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.7B in debt to bond holders.

I utilize and appreciate the toll roads. Almost every single day. But, my customers pay for it via buying products from company. So, therefore, financially, it’s a huge time savings for me as well as $. But I understand not everyone is in this enviable position so I get the other side too as I’ve been there as well.

A couple years back I sat next to a Toll Road consultation guy that was advising OTA. We were in the Texas Roadhouse off I-40 in W OKC. He mentioned that Oklahoma has the cheapest toll roads in the country and he was advising them to raise the rates several times over the next few years. And they’ve started just that. So, don’t look for the price to go down anytime soon. Jack wagon shoulda headed back to NJ or Chiraq or wherever he was from a bit sooner.
 

-Pjackso

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
878
Location
OKC
Fiction, they are owned by the state.

https://oklahoma.gov/ota/about-ota.html

From the website:
The (OTA) Authority must generate sufficient revenues to operate and maintain its roads at a high quality while covering the interest and principal payments owed to bondholders (investors) who have purchased its revenue bonds.

Where's our tolls (/taxes) going again?

...I know "tolls" are not "taxes", but it's not a far stretch. In a state hurting for revenue, it seems odd to 'sell' your revenue stream to investors.

Edit: Re-read the question, and you are correct the Turnpike is "owned" by the state, but the "Investors" reap the profits.
(Out-of-state investors?)
 
Last edited:

-Pjackso

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
878
Location
OKC
Next question is: *IF* the turnpike goes bankrupt and the (out-of-state?) investors press for collections - Then who potentially "owns" the turnpike?

I don't think we should be privatizing public infrastructure.
 

Dorkus

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
1,142
Reaction score
3,520
Location
Canadian County
From the website:
The (OTA) Authority must generate sufficient revenues to operate and maintain its roads at a high quality while covering the interest and principal payments owed to bondholders (investors) who have purchased its revenue bonds.

Where's our tolls (/taxes) going again?

...I know "tolls" are not "taxes", but it's not a far stretch. In a state hurting for revenue, it seems odd to 'sell' your revenue stream to investors.

Edit: Re-read the question, and you are correct the Turnpike is "owned" by the state, but the "Investors" reap the profits.
(Out-of-state investors?)
You are obviously looking for an argument. To be the devil's advocate, how do you know those bondholders are OOS investors?

Investors also own city bonds, do they own the cities too? So they "reap the profits" too from the cities?

My school district just sold bonds to build new schools. Those are primarily bought by out of state investment companies. How is that different?
 

SoonerP226

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
13,583
Reaction score
14,170
Location
Norman
From the website:
The (OTA) Authority must generate sufficient revenues to operate and maintain its roads at a high quality while covering the interest and principal payments owed to bondholders (investors) who have purchased its revenue bonds.

Where's our tolls (/taxes) going again?

...I know "tolls" are not "taxes", but it's not a far stretch. In a state hurting for revenue, it seems odd to 'sell' your revenue stream to investors.

Edit: Re-read the question, and you are correct the Turnpike is "owned" by the state, but the "Investors" reap the profits.
(Out-of-state investors?)
Bonds are a pretty standard means of financing gov't projects, particularly multi-year projects and capital improvements.
 

-Pjackso

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
878
Location
OKC
You are obviously looking for an argument. To be the devil's advocate, how do you know those bondholders are OOS investors?
"Looking for an argument"? My apologies if you took it as a pointed attack. I quoted you to provide context to the subject of my post.
It is OK to have cordial disagreements in discussion.

The investors (wherever they're located) are absorbing a portion of the state revenue. Revenue that the state desperately needs.

It rubs me wrong when the state 'sells' their revenue, and next year tries to raise taxes on citizens.

Bonds are a pretty standard means of financing gov't projects, particularly multi-year projects and capital improvements.

Valid point.
Although, Bonds are supposed to be paid-off and dissolve after time.

Somehow, the turnpike never seems to be able to 'pay-off' their debt, but somehow they proposes new roads (more debt), and the 'investors' continue to take revenue.

I agree Bonds, in general, are necessary for state financial functions. I think the Turnpike abuses this.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom