By Keith M. Phaneuf
UPDATE Gov. Ned Lamont today reversed himself, announcing he will propose electronic tolling on cars as well as trucks when he unveils his first state budget Wednesday.
Lamont, who insisted frequently throughout the campaign he would only support tolls on trucks, conceded in a Saturday Op-Ed piece for Hearst Connecticut Media what transportation advocates had been saying for months: tolling on trucks would not produce sufficient revenue.
“Beyond an inconvenience, the crushing congestion we experience on I-95, I-91, I-84 and the Merritt Parkway, in particular, is a real challenge we must address and overcome if we are to maximize our economic development potential,” the governor wrote. “Our proximity in mileage to New York City means nothing if it takes 90 minutes to get there from Stamford on the road, and over an hour by train.
Tolling trucks alone “would provide at least some revenue to maintain our system, though not enough to upgrade it,” Lamont added.
Connecticut could mitigate toll costs on its residents by maximizing EZ-pass discounts, especially for frequent drivers, the governor wrote. Another option would be to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit within the state income tax system, but this credit only is available to poor, working households.
The governor opposes increasing state fuel taxes. “Gasoline tax revenues have been flat for 10 years and are expected to begin declining as cars become more efficient, and as the sales of electric vehicles increase,” he wrote.
A 2018 study by the Department of Transportation projected tolls could raise as much as $1 billion per year, though the state’s net gain also would depend on the level of discounts provided to Connecticut motorists.
Lamont tipped his hand on tolls earlier this week when he proposed a new “debt diet” to reduce annual state borrowing.
That “diet” pertained to general obligation bonds — which largely are issued to finance municipal school construction and capital projects at public colleges and universities.
Transportation infrastructure projects largely are paid for with a combination of federal grants and state bonding. And those state bonds usually are repaid using resources — such as gasoline tax receipts — from the budget’s Special Transportation Fund.
But over the past two fiscal years, as Connecticut officials have struggled to agree on new funding options for transportation, they’ve dedicated $250 million per year in G.O. bonding for transportation work.
Lamont’s new “debt diet” puts an end to using those G.O. bonds for transportation purposes.
“I cannot support this type of borrowing to pay for ongoing and continuous repairs and upgrades — it is not sustainable or wise,” he wrote.
Lamont’s Republican opponent in last November’s election, Bob Stefanowski, charged repeatedly throughout the campaign that Lamont would violate his pledge and recommend tolls on all types of vehicles.
“I’m saddened by the fact that there’s yet another politician who says one thing and does another,” said House Minority Leader Themis Klarides, R-Derby. “He either didn’t have enough information to speak about it in an intellectually honest way or he was just saying something to get elected. Either one is not good.”
Klarides said she believes the House Republican Caucus generally opposes tolls on any vehicles.
“Gov. Lamont’s announcement that he will be proposing tolls on all Connecticut residents is a disappointing step backward. It’s a false choice of tolls versus no tolls, when in fact other solutions to properly fund transportation do exist,” said Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven.
“In addition, telling people not to worry because residents will only have to pay ‘discounted’ tolls is a disingenuous attempt to curtail criticism. Currently, residents do not pay any tolls in Connecticut. So you can tout a ‘discount’ all you want, but the truth is families are going to be paying more than they already do today if tolls are installed.”
Don Shubert, president of the Connecticut Construction Industry Association, applauded Lamont’s decision on tolls.
“It’s well settled that Connecticut’s transportation infrastructure and congestion are among the worst in the nation,” Shubert said. “It’s going to take billions to correct the situation and this is the only way we can think of where the Connecticut taxpayers are not going to have to pay 100 percent of the bill.”
The DOT study estimated about 40 percent of toll receipts would come from out-of-state motorists.
A transportation policy study group appointed by Lamont just after the election recommended that he set aside this pledge and impose tolls on all vehicles.
The group, composed of transportation advocates, planners, state and municipal leaders, labor officials and others also recommended discount transit passes for all public college and university students, a new state program to leverage private investment in transportation upgrades, and a streamlined hiring process to improve an understaffed state Department of Transportation.
Lamont’s predecessor, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy advocated frequently for electronic tolling on all vehicles during his last two years in office.
Malloy warned repeatedly that unless Connecticut devotes more revenues to transportation, the state will be hard pressed to do anything more than maintain an aging, overcrowded transportation system that is hindering economic development.
Projects that would fall into limbo, he predicted, include: completing the rebuild of the “Mixmaster” junction of Interstate 84 and Route 8, replacing the elevated section of I-84 in Hartford, or widening Interstate 95 in the state’s southwestern corner.
Here is the text of Lamont’s column:
I recently announced a reinvigorated economic development team, whose mission it is to promote and champion Connecticut to businesses who wish to locate or grow here. On paper, we have it all — access to world-class talent; equidistant between Boston and New York without the exceptionally high cost of living; vibrant cultural and educational institutions. But our reputation in one area in particular precedes us, and not in a good way. Our economic development team must be prepared to answer the question that everyone who knows anything about Connecticut will ask: “What about the congestion on your highways?”
Beyond an inconvenience, the crushing congestion we experience on I-95, I-91, I-84 and the Merritt Parkway, in particular, is a real challenge we must address and overcome if we are to maximize our economic development potential. Our proximity in mileage to New York City means nothing if it takes 90 minutes to get there from Stamford on the road, and over an hour by train. We need to not only maintain our aging transportation infrastructure, but it’s high time that we upgrade it, too.
The gasoline tax simply does not provide the reliable revenue we need, period. Gasoline tax revenues have been flat for 10 years and are expected to begin declining as cars become more efficient, and as the sales of electric vehicles increase. As such, I do not support raising the gas tax, as it is already high compared to our peers. Some people have espoused “priority bonding,” where we further cut back on economic development and other bonding in favor of transportation. As I recently announced, Connecticut is in dire need of a “debt diet” and as such, I cannot support this type of borrowing to pay for ongoing and continuous repairs and upgrades — it is not sustainable or wise. The Legislature previously established a bond cap and I know they appreciate how important keeping to our debt discipline is.
I understand how controversial electronic tolling is. As I learned about the issue, I indicated my support for tolling only tractor trailer trucks, as they do in Rhode Island. This would provide at least some revenue to maintain our system, though not enough to upgrade it. While we are awaiting a ruling from the courts regarding truck-only tolling, our attorneys are pretty certain that if permitted, the tolling could only be done on specific bridges and the generated revenue would be reserved for those bridges, not for congestion pricing. Assuming our attorneys are correct, the truck-only option provides too little revenue, too slowly and too piecemeal to make a meaningful difference.
I know there are proposals in the Legislature that include tolling for cars and trucks. I would only consider this option if we maximized the discount for Connecticut EZ-Pass users and/or offered a “frequent driver” discount for those who are required to travel our major roadways on a frequent basis. We have been subsidizing our neighboring states’ road repairs by paying their tolls, and it’s estimated that out-of-state drivers would provide nearly 50 percent of our tolling revenue, as well. As needed, we could also consider an increase in the earned income tax credit or reduction in gas tax to mitigate the costs of tolling on the everyday user.
We have modeled out both options in the budget I will submit to the Legislature on Wednesday. As my coequal branch of government, I am open to a real discussion with them, as well as Connecticut’s residents, about the state of our transportation system and what will be needed going forward — not only to make repairs, but to truly put Connecticut in a position of strength when it comes to infrastructure upgrades and bold economic visioning. However, there is no doubt in my mind that our transportation fund will require additional strategic and recurring revenues in the very near future. In my opinion, there is no way around that hard fact.
Forward-thinking economic development demands that, among other transportation needs, we speed up our rail service from Hartford to New Haven, New Haven to Stamford and Stamford to New York City, with more frequent service to Waterbury and New London. These transportation upgrades are the building blocks of our economic future and we must formulate a real, sustainable plan to start now.
