Social Networks We Use

Facebook Twitter

CT Tech Junkie Feed

Connecticut E-Book Customers to Receive More Rebates
May 23, 2013 8:26 am
Attorney General George Jepsen announced that e-book publisher Penguin has agreed to a price fixing settlement that...more »
3rd Annual Connecticut-Israel Technology Summit Set for June 12
May 17, 2013 3:03 pm
The MetroHartford Alliance and the Jewish Federation of Greater Hartford have announced the third annual...more »
CTNext Launches Startup Map
May 5, 2013 12:29 pm
CTNext, a public/private partnership helping the high tech startup community in the state, launched an interactive map...more »

Tag List

OP-ED | For Whom The Tolls Help

by Terry D. Cowgill | Jan 25, 2013 6:30am
(7) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Opinion, Taxes, Transportation

Auto-login on future visits

Forgot your password?

After almost 30 years of free-and-clear sailing on its interstates, will Connecticut finally bury the ghosts of tragedies past and reinstate tolls on its freeways?

Rep. Pat Dillon of New Haven is introducing a bill during the current legislative session to do just that. And the state Department of Transportation is studying the possibility of putting tolls on interstates 84 and 95.

It would be terribly unpopular, to be sure. After all, through some of the highest fuel taxes in the nation, we Nutmeggers already pay handsomely for the privilege of driving. But, as cars become more fuel efficient, revenues from those gas taxes are declining, causing paroxysms of angst among the spending class in Hartford, most of whom urged us to drive those environmentally friendly cars in the first place. And you can be sure that road tolls take on added luster as lawmakers ponder the irresistible fact that a Prius would pay the same price to traverse the state as a Hummer.

Further constraining revenues is not only the state’s high unemployment rate and glacial job-growth, but the decline of casino gambling. As recently as 2010, the state raked in almost $345 million as its share of slot-machine revenues from Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, down 2 percent from the year before.

And it gets worse. After Gov. Deval Patrick signed legislation in 2011 allowing three casinos in the Bay State, a University of Massachusetts study predicted the eastern Connecticut resorts could lose 20 percent of their customers from increased competition over the next several years. That means not only lower slot revenues but lower sales-tax receipts from diners and hotel guests. So we must reinstate tolls, right?

Not so fast. A fiery tractor-trailer crash in 1983 killed seven people at the Stratford toll plaza on the Connecticut Turnpike. That tragic event, coupled with complicated formulas for federal highway funds the state received for the reconstruction of the collapsed Mianus River Bridge six months later, put enormous pressure on Connecticut to abolish road tolls, which it did during the O’Neill administration in 1985. At the time, the shuttering of the toll booths on I-95, the Wilbur Cross and Merritt parkways, and the Charter Oak Bridge cost the state $65 million a year in lost revenue.

And the reinstatement of tolls is hardly a fait accompli, either. Almost a year ago, when I was interviewing Gov. Dannel Malloy in his Capitol office with the rest of the CT News Junkie editorial board, we learned during the interview that federal officials had rejected Rhode Island’s plan to place toll booths on I-95 near the Connecticut line.

Like politicians everywhere, officials in Little Rhody no doubt concluded they would face less local opposition if they put collection booths on the fringes of their state. That way, they could soak out-of-state travelers who, conveniently, cannot vote in Rhode Island. But the Federal Highway Administration, which must approve state requests to place tolls on Interstate highways, balked.

“It was a single location at the border, which had an interesting look to the federal government,” said Malloy, who added that he would be open to bringing back tolls in his state as a way of paying for infrastructure improvements and bringing down the gasoline tax.

But in addition to regulatory concerns, there are popular barriers to putting tolls in our state. Not only would motorists strain to open their wallets, but putting a Rhode-Island-style toll booth at, say, I-84 at the New York state line, would surely discourage interstate commerce in Danbury, home to the state’s second largest shopping mall.

Then there also is the matter of short-term revenues needed to plug gaping holes in the budget. As the Norwich Bulletin pointed out in an editorial, it would take several years to put tolls into place. Yet the problem we face is far more immediate.

Even more troubling is the tendency of lawmakers to divert specific tax revenues away from the purposes for which they were intended. Take, for example, the “invisible tax” — the gross receipts charge on petroleum products imposed at the wholesale level but passed on to the consumer by retailers. Proceeds from that tax were supposed to fund transportation projects exclusively, but for several years, more than half those dollars were diverted into the general fund. Can we really trust lawmakers to rid themselves of that habit after the toll booths are built and the dollars start flying out of motorists’ windows?

As a resident of Connecticut’s far northwest corner, I’m all for more tolls if it means spending other people’s money. With the possible exception of Route 8, there simply are no limited access highways up here suitable for monetizing.

What Connecticut needs is an economic development policy that encourages business and rewards work. Maybe then we won’t have to bribe companies to come here. Maybe then corporations and workers won’t be fleeing to pro-growth states. Maybe then we’ll have enough people working and paying taxes to put the idea of tolls to rest.

But don’t hold your breath. It’s too damned cold here to do that anyway.

Terry Cowgill blogs at ctdevilsadvocate.com and was an editor and senior writer for The Lakeville Journal Company. He can be found on Twitter @terrycowgill.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share |

(7) Comments

posted by: Greg | January 25, 2013  4:56pm

Well said.  Other states (red ones at that) are managing to pass initiatives that allow for select tax increases that directly fund bridge/highway construction with protections in place so the money does not get misdirected to the general fund. If Arkansas can do it, and if Iowa can have a real proposal on the table to do it, why can’t CT?

Too bad nobody in the legislative office building will read this column…

posted by: CTRailCommuters | January 25, 2013  5:47pm

Tolls are inevitable.  There’s just no politician honest enough to face the issue and sell its value to drivers and commuters.

See more in my blog.

posted by: ocoandasoc | January 25, 2013  7:58pm

So it seems that all the vices that CT taxes are declining – cigarettes, gambling, liquor, gas guzzling cars and trucks – but the State’s voracious appetite for revenue is not.  Maybe CT should tax some things that are on the upswing?  Yoga? No, they’ve already done that.  The internet? No, they don’t know how to make that work.
If only they could figure out how to effectively tax mindless political grandstanding and rhetoric, then we’d be set for decades!
The threat to bring back highway and bridge tolls shows how desperate the State is becoming. About the ONLY positive accomplishment of Gov. O’Neill was to abolish them. Someone should dig out some of the toll facts and figures that were dug up when the issue was last studied in 1984. Back then I was crossing the Bissel Bridge (Windsor – South Windsor) twice a day and I was angered to find out that of every 25 cents I was paying, 24.3 cents was going to cover the cost of the toll collectors and toll collection equipment on the Bridge.

posted by: neil | January 25, 2013  10:16pm

Bringing back the driving tax (tolls) is a BAD idea that some people keep proposing. As OCOANDASOC pointede out, there are huge overhead costs that reduce the revenue of this driving tax. As one state rep told me “It is a very inefficient form of taxing.” Not only are there initial and on going facility costs, but a new state administrative bureaucracy would either be created or out sourced to a private, for-profit company. Added to that is the complication of losing or having to repay Federal highway funds.

If we really need more $$ for roads, and it will not be stolen for other purposes, it should be raised through increases to other tax systems so there are no new overhead costs or new beaurcracys.

I’m hoping Cowgill’s comment about living in the NW corner and being OK with other drivers paying more was not serious, otherwise he’s being quite selfish.

posted by: ctguyemail | January 26, 2013  4:57pm

Good article.

Let me knock down one more pro-toll argument: If you want a “Prius [to pay] the same price to traverse the state as a Hummer” then add a tax onto a car’s registration. That should cost an average one-time cost per car of 1 cent in programming salaries. That’s a lot less than spending hundreds of millions to construct from scratch new toll plazas, and tens of millions each year to pay administrators and collectors.  And it will not risk another tragedy!

posted by: Terry D. Cowgill | January 26, 2013  5:23pm

Terry D. Cowgill

Neil, I was indeed being facetious. grin

posted by: neil | January 27, 2013  12:43pm

Good point, CtGuy.
Another point: Don’t be fooled by those who say “All our neighboring states do it.” The truth is only some of our neighboring states do it, and on just some of their roads. EG: No driving tax (tolls)on I-87, I-684, I-84, the Saw Mill, the Taconic and other parkways in NYS, I-91, the Mass Pike west of Spfld., I-495, I-395, I-95 and others roads in Mass. All of Rhode Island highways. There’s more for VT & NH, but that’s enough to make the point. People who the false claim are knowingly not telling the truth or are poorly informed.