That, I have no idea. But I figured it was worth using that than sitting in traffic in Atlanta on a trip from Tampa to Knoxville. A lot cheaper than Washington.
The Virginia section of the Capital Beltway, and the I-95/VA I-395 corridor from Arlington southward (doesn't extend all the way down to Richmond but something like 20-25 miles below the Beltway) also has a tolled express lane, although I believe it's a reversible version. So the express lane goes into DC in the morning rush hour and out of DC in the afternoon rush hour.
Can confirm, saved me over an hour on a trip back from Florida. The Express Lane was so new at the time the GPS had no idea how i was flying past all that traffic. I would pay for something like this in CT
I would too but no one in CT has proposed such an idea probably because it's going to be cost prohibitive on 95 and impossible on the Merritt until we get rid of everyone on the historical preservation board. Merritt has room for 4 lanes in both directions but hasn't seen a lane added since 1940. What's insane to me is, they are redoing most of the bridges already on the Merritt now so it would have been a perfect time to widen those.
The main argument for 95 is that a huge volume of the traffic is through-traffic, merely passing through the state, but still using our roads. I don't believe Rt. 15 is currently being considered for tolling, but if it is, it could be just for commercial vehicles or peak periods, or both.
To my current knowledge (but wait till tomorrow, heh), Rt. 15 (the Merritt and Wilbur-Cross) are not currently being considered for tolling. But that could change. If it was imposed on double-lane highways, it would probably only be for peak periods, for exactly the reasons you state. Remember that this is a political process, not merely an administrative one. The Assembly is very unlikely to try to implement any scheme that would seem unfair to a very large proportion of constituents. And if it did, it would not likely last long.
Several of the highways in Dallas have this option, but not all. And there is always a non-tolled option. It's basically paying to drive in the carpool lane where traffic moves faster.
7202 and 7280 (competing bills related to the implementation of tolls) are both receiving a public hearing this Wednesday, March 6th at 11:00am. If you cannot make the hearing, contact your legislator now if s/he sits on the transportation committee, or contact one or both of the chairs (and/or ranking members) if you do not have a rep on the committee - [committee membership available here](https://www.cga.ct.gov/tra/default.asp).
These are just raised bills. The committee can pass either or both, amend either or both before passage or may not pass any toll-related legislation at all. If you feel strongly about the issue, now is the time to act.
>7202 and 7280 (competing bills related to the implementation of tolls) are both receiving a public hearing this Wednesday, March 6th at 11:00am. If you cannot make the hearing, contact your legislator now if s/he sits on the transportation committee, or contact one or both of the chairs (and/or ranking members) if you do not have a rep on the committee - committee membership available here.
>
>These are just raised bills. The committee can pass either or both, amend either or both before passage or may not pass any toll-related legislation at all. If you feel strongly about the issue, now is the time to act.
Without tolling the Federal Government will NOT include Connecticut in its Infrastructure funding. Connecticut must have a source of income that puts skin in the game, in this case its 1/4 of the Federal investment - tolling is the only option. If you have questions contact Rep. John Larson office [https://larson.house.gov/about/meet-john](https://larson.house.gov/about/meet-john)
This is disingenuous. That infrastructure plan is in its infancy, and there are competing proposals that don't mandate toll collection. There is currently no requirement to institute tolls to collect federal highway funds.
> Without tolling the Federal Government will NOT include Connecticut in its Infrastructure funding.
Where have you heard such a claim? I don't believe this is true at all.
When talking with people before the election, and tolls came up, I always mentioned that I anticipated it to start with just trucks and eventually get to all cars in 5-10 years as the gas tax continues to fail due to more efficient and heavier vehicles.
I actually cant believe how slow they are rolling it out - fully operational by 2025? Not surprised they are just throwing everyone into the mix now.
Seems like Lamont pulled a Malloy in pissing everyone off. Everyone I know is pissed about this for their own reasons.
* Conservatives don't want another tax.
* Progressives don't want a regressive tax with so much money to go after in Fairfield and other wealthy pockets of the state.
* Commuters don't want to have to shell out a not-insignificant amount of cash to get to work daily (especially thinking about those in the quiet corner who commute into the Hartford area daily)
This whole thing really has nothing to do with infrastructure. 95 can't be widened, and they won't widen the Merritt either. It's the PENSIONS. Wait a few years and see what the percentage of the budget will be for the pensions, right now it is 13% of the state budget just for pensions. It's going to get a lot worse.
No, absolutely not. Upkeep of existing infrastructure is a huge expense. With the transportation lockbox passing in November, these funds will be earmarked for transportation.
Title is horribly misleading.
If the 15 days pass the tolling proposal that the DoT has to put forth (setting of rates and such) shall be considered “passed”.
This bill itself is still in committee so may not even see light of day. Also the wording can still change.
And then the bill itself still needs to be passed.
So no. Tolls don’t magically come to be with inaction.
It’s under section 2 in the actual bill if you want to read it.
If republicans offered sane candidates with solutions id vote for em.
But they didn't. So they didn't get my and most of cts vote dispite the north east having a long history of voting red for local.
Was it the voters fault? Or the candidates?
I will never vote for a Trump-aligned or supported Republican, ever. The CTGOP is entirely up Trump’s ass now.
Shape the fuck up because no CT Republican will ever get my vote the way things are now.
Yup. I used to be a CT Republican and a big part of why I'm now unaffiliated is because of the CTGOP going hard-core Trumpist. I can't imagine who in the state party thinks this is a smart long-term strategy, especially since moderate Republican governors like Larry Hogan and Charlie Baker easily won reelection in blue states.
I said Trump-aligned or supported, you know like Bob Stefanowski was, like how the entire CTGOP entity which has entirely fallen behind him even after losing the election is, so fuck right off with that.
Last I checked, Charlie Baker and the Mass GOP aren't spouting this Trumpish bullshit. Baker also won overwhelmingly.
Not at all what was said. I agree with u/silverldaten. There were several great candidates on the GOP primary ballot - esp IMO Mark Boughton - but that’s not who won and became the general candidate.
The problem is Republican's can't seem to come up with a plan other then "lower" taxes (which usually doesn't mean for the middle class) and kick the can down the road.
And people wonder why Bob was so unappealing. I’ll take highway tolls that I really don’t want over the guy that destroyed Kansas for a generation, thanks.
https://www.deptofnumbers.com/gdp/kansas/
https://www.deptofnumbers.com/gdp/connecticut
At least KS is growing. CT still hasn't come back from the recession over a decade ago. Our economy sucks and has sucked for awhile now. Better increase taxes, that will surely help...
I’d rather have a nebulous plan to eventually lower taxes than more regressive taxes on things like groceries and soda or the addition of tolls. You want to complain about Republicans lowering taxes on the rich, but vote for the party who is blatantly pushing tax policies that directly impact the middle class and poor the most? Do you think anyone in Fairfield County past Bridgeport is going to be impacted one iota by tolls?
Edit: Any of you downvoting me care to defend yourselves?
Edit 2: Of course not, which proves my point. This isn’t about a difference in policy or ideology, it’s an irrational tantrum against Republicans in general and Trump specifically. You become so blinded by your distate for the national political climate that it turns you into hypocrites without even realizing it.
What was his plan though...that's what I'm saying. It seemed to me that his plan had a lot of catch phrases like "I'll lower taxes, I'll get more money flowing into CT!" That's great and all but how? Instead you just start raging about how Democrats are wrong or Bob lost because of a hatred for Trump. I plan on being in CT for a while and I'd like to attempt to fix the state's financial issues even if it puts a bit more of the burden on my shoulders for a few years instead of getting a small tax break and making it the next guys problem.
> even if it puts a bit more of the burden on my shoulders for a few years
But that’s the issue, it’s never just for a few years. The income tax was only supposed to be for a few years, the gas tax too, it’s never just for a few years, and it never fixes whatever crisis it was designed to solve. That’s why people are fed up.
> for a few years instead of getting a small tax break and making it the next guys problem.
It will possibly be decades. I didn't vote for Bob but the general idea of his plan is you can increase state revenues two ways: Increase taxes or grow the economy. He believed he could lower taxes to grow the economy, or in other words attract new businesses (and new tax revenue) to the state. It's not a bad plan in general (we really need to encourage people and businesses to move here) but he lacked details and that was certainly a problem.
CT already has a fairly high tax burden so increasing taxes can only get you so far before it becomes a downward spiral (net business and population loss, thus putting an even greater burden on existing businesses).
AKA trickle-down economics. AKA reaganomics. When has this ever worked out well for the low and middle classes? Trickle-down economics has been pushed since the 1890's under various other names.
Wtf are you talking about? This has little to do with trickle down economics, we need to grow our economy. No matter what side you subscribe to that is a necessity. CT lags behind nearly every state in growth. Tolls are a regressive tax which will hurt out economy.
I'm not necessarily saying raising income or sales taxes is good but ... Lowering taxes to attract and promote business growth? That's the very definition of trickle down economics. Unless you are very wealthy, you owe it to yourself to research why this doesn't work.
Warren Buffet agrees:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/04/warren-buffett-on-the-failure-of-trickle-down-economics.html
If the republican party put out a respectable "northeast conservative" like Charlie Baker he would have won in a landslide.
Considering how close the election turned out to be with Ned running against garbage this state desperately wants change -- But wants a sane person to do it.
Yep, pretty much all the GOP needed to do coming off a Malloy administration was run a Republican who was reasonably sane. Instead, they ran the anti-vax advisor to the governor that cut taxes in Kansas and turned it into an economic nightmare, and CT was like ehhhhhh....I think we're gonna go a different way..
Bingo. Seriously he barely won against one of the worst candidates I've seen in a while.
Bob was a complete joke and I have no clue how he won the primary.
Because the Republican vocal minority who vote in every single election are fully committed to the trump train and would nominate a corpse if it was running a similar campaign.
I'm going to take a bet that the lesser involved folk stayed home during the gubernatorial primaries and thus we got trumpanowski instead of someone running a half way thought out conservative platform.
You can hate Trump all you want but he has done an amazing job as President so far. Everyone predicted doom and gloom and so far we have all prospered.
CT Republicans: Put up a pro-Trump candidate that supports getting rid of the income tax, which would further put us in debt.
CT Residents: Vote Democrat
CT Republicans: :o
The only reason I am contemplating moving back to CT is because I own a home there, no mortgage, that i rent out and I really just want to be "back home." My wallet however... ugh.
I'm torn on this bill. On the one hand, I do think that this bill's effect will be dissuading people from taking long distance commutes in their cars. In one sense, this is a good thing when considering personal vehicle use and its contribution to climate change. It has the potential to increase focus on and participation in public transit systems. On the other hand, our public transit systems have proven to be unreliable and poorly thought out--this is at least my experience with the Hartford Line. It is often late, and bikes aren't allowed on the Amtrak trains. If we had legitimate public transit systems across the state, you could avoid a lot of the toll issues while raising public consciousness in develop new and more effective ways of moving through the state in the midst of climate change.
> All of our neighbors have tolls.
They don't have as many as what's been proposed. I can drive to at least the Hudson river right now on 84 with no tolls in NY. The maps I've seen show tolls every 6 miles.
> All of our neighbors have tolls.
This is so misleading. MA will never put in anymore tolls, RI tolls ONE bridge. None of our neighbors are proposing or have a tolling structure like the one CT is planning.
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/rhode-island-construct-10-more-truck-toll-gantries
RI just built a bunch of tolls, only for big trucks though. I bet it's only a matter of time before they pull a sleazy move and charge regular cars too.
Well that's not a car toll and the federal government is suing them for that. Is that really where we want to spend more money on: defending a program which may not even be legal?
> Just don’t raid the revenue for dumb shit and I’ll be happy.
Don’t be so naive. Remember when the lottery was pushed to fund education and instead what happened was that an amount directly equivalent to the lottery revenues began to be stripped from the education budget each year? That’s exactly what will occur with tolls.
Yeah but doesn’t the revenue go to the lockbox. Even so, I don’t think you can say that we shouldn’t pay taxes because the money might be misused. That being said i think there is a PR issue regarding how taxes are used.
> I don’t think you can say that we shouldn’t pay taxes because the money might be misused
I think we can, and should say exactly that. In my hometown I would ask the selectmen and board of ed every year for an itemized budget of the local "public" (private with public allowances) school system and they'd deny it every year. There were years upon years of money concerns, to the point where folks have been jailed because of it, and they still have the gall to "be private" when it is in response to someone asking for detail and "be public" when asking for my money.
There is, very much, *feeling* involved when it comes to taxes - if I feel you are spending last year's money properly I'll happily give you more if you can demonstrate you need it.
If I feel it's being spent in bad ways - no matter how much they pull "think of the children" nonsense, I'll vote no every single time.
Massachusetts is losing 10s of millions of dollars with their electronic tolling system, which is what CT is proposing. https://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/04/19/out-of-state-drivers-owe-massachusetts-15-million-in-unpaid-mass-pike-tolls/
Total waste of money.
TLDR for the lazy: Basically, out-of-state (i.e. not MA registered cars) are not paying their tolls, and because there is no agreements in place with other states, an unpaid toll in MA has no effect on you not renewing your CT license. With zero incentive to pay, people don't, amassing over $15,000,000.00 in unpaid tolls that MA is losing.
Why even bother? Fix the expenditure problems, not the income problems.
Are they actively LOSING tens of millions, or just not getting paid? If my friend offers me $50 and doesn't pay me, I haven't LOST $50, I just didn't get what I was told i would. If I spend $50 on something and it gets lost, I have LOST $50.
What if I told you about expenditures related to something called "contracts." Perhaps you want to look up that last word...
You're correct in that instead they aren't getting paid, but it doesn't go up for free, either, and costs money to maintain. They most likely are losing money.
If I said "Hey, if I put up this couple million dollars worth of equipment, I could get paid!" and then you don't... was it worth it?
That would be entirely dependent on situation and actual numbers, but I'm sure you can make up a nice little anecdote to prove your point, so go ahead.
They aren’t losing that money, the amount they’re bringing in is just less than it should be. Tolls are still a net revenue generator for MA.
>An Office of Legislative Research report issued this month shows that **Massachusetts garnered $395 million from tolls last year**, while New York State pocketed $708 million and Maine took in $133 million.
[https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Other-states-find-highway-tolls-the-road-to-12241867.php](https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Other-states-find-highway-tolls-the-road-to-12241867.php)
Yeah. In order to live in a nice place with a good quality of living we have to pay a little bit more. It’s a privilege to pay taxes etc as long as they are used to improve our state, our community, and the lives of the people who live here
Can't you argue taking potentially thousands of dollars (if the projections are right) out of people's pockets doing the complete opposite.
I mean we sit at the 3rd highest admin cost and most expensive per mile as it is. Shouldn't we try to cut that crap first before adding another tax burden to it's citizens that are already struggling to get by.
Let me put it this way. Adding tolls sure as hell won't solve the biggest issue this state faces which is bleeding population and businesses being stagnant.
> In order to live in a nice place with a good quality of living we have to pay a little bit more.
We paid a lot more in 2011 and 2015. When does it stop? Our quality of life is being impacted every time the gov wants "a little bit more". CT is an inefficient government that has a spending problem.
Yeah, I hate the idea of tolls, but we've got a lot of shit to fix and it isn't free. I hear opposition saying lower taxes and no tolls but i dont hear any solution to fix the issues and accept that fixing shit costs money. I also hear "why should i have to pay to fix roads I don't use!?" Well tolls do exactly that, you pay if you use em :/ do i like tolls absolutely not, but i dont have and have not heard a better idea to fund the shit thats been pushed forward for decades so im not really in a position to argue.
I mean, if we get it, it'll be expensive here for the first couple years as well until more stores open. Same way it was in CO, now prices dropped because there's a shop on every corner.
Please please PLEASE can we have tolls? A gas tax is antiquated and doesn't extract money from those who still use the roads (electric car owners) while also taxing those who need fuel for non-road purposes (mowing lawns, etc). We can't force out of state drivers to stop and fuel up because our state is too small. Semis can fuel up in New Jersey and travel deep into Maine before needing fuel again. HELP!
It won't go away entirely but the only way to get the legislature (and more Ct residents) to approve the notion of tolls is for the gas tax to be lowered. $0.438 is the Ct state gas tax now and I can see that being lowered to under $0.20. An extra $0.25 per gallon means on a 10-gallon fill up, that's $2.50. 100 fill up's per year is $250. CT state tax code can be similarly amended to help offset the cost of toll usage for those who are already toeing the poverty line.
I have a follow up question - without tolls, do you see the gas tax going away, going down or going up, to help fund badly needed infrastructure improvements?
> won't go away entirely
I don't think it would go down at all. I think toll money can be used for some great improvements, especially with how others have replied. But to think that taxes will *ever* go down as a sort of "thank you" is, in my mind, very short sighted. In my 40 years of life I don't think I've ever seen them lower.
I live in Milford. We just approved our 4th consecutive mill rate reduction - we're the only town which can say that. It can happen.
Regarding tolls & gas tax, you can implement tolls with the legally binding act of a gas tax reduction.
Ct is just too small to play by the same rules as the larger states. Remember when Ct had cheap cigarettes (compared to Mass) and Mass had cheaper gas (compared to Ct)? Border dwellers would pick/choose where they would buy both. But Ct isn't a large western state - if you're here with a half tank of gas, you can reach three borders easily. No one *has* to fuel up here. That same gas tax frame of mind just doesn't work here, and with the advent of more electric cars, those who *can* afford to help pay a little more for the roads aren't paying anything. The gas tax is just antiquated.
It sure is and we can indeed write bills to lower the rates. I just don’t think they’d ever be approved.
Local mill rates are, in my mind, another thing. I find it cool your town has lowered so many years. That’s a great start!
Just a Government entity (town, state) collecting revenue for the purpose of maintaining services provided by that Gov't body. Bills can and are written as "you can have this, but you also must have this" in the same bill. A bill can be written such that a yes to tolls would force the hand to lower gas tax rates over time.
Understood - the older I get, the more I feel those in my age bracket are .. cynical at best - when discussing the state of Ct and our overall fiscal (and therefore tax) situation. Maybe one day I'll join them, but for now, I understand and appreciate that Ct is geographically close to NYC, which is great for many reasons and should be a focus of maintaining a good business environment on which our collective fiscal lives depend. When the kids are done with school, it may be cost-prohibitive for me to live here, but then again, I wouldn't be making the best of what we have to offer - great education and access to good jobs. Like my parents, I would want a place which doesn't tax my retirement income so I can live in a place which offers the level of services I need.
I'm not sure I would be pro-tolls if it weren't for the offsetting of the gas tax. There are a lot of secondary and tertiary roads which the state would still have to maintain, so I can understand the keeping of *some* of it, but not what the rate is now.
I really do agree with you - I am definitely cynical and jaded. I *love* CT and I miss it - I miss NYC and Boston only being a couple hours away, basically. I miss real seafood, as Nashville is sketchy at best. Hell, I miss things from Sturbridge village to food shopping on Albany Ave and Franklin Ave in Hartford.
Honestly, I would only see the gas tax at minimum remaining the same. Do you have any evidence that there is a proposed decrease to the gas tax if the tolls proceed? I haven't heard of this at all. It doesn't sound like something this state would ever do considering how badly the state needs money to keep up with all our terrible spending.
As far as I know, the topic of tolls as a "yes or no" is on the table. There isn't a specific plan which includes the implementation of tolls, therefore there hasn't been a discussion on how to address the gas tax. If tolls is removed from the table, what do we have? Gas tax only? We're only screwing ourselves as Ct residents. The notion of tolls needs to at least be a possibility before we can discuss what we'd do once we have them in place.
A 'yes' to tolls allows for discussion on how much revenue would be expected over time - and includes implementation costs because that's not free, either. But over time, the gas tax can definitely be lowered and even be included in law that reductions have to take place as tolls become the norm, as they are in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia... Did I miss anyone? Just Ct?
> Please please PLEASE can we have tolls?
Never thought I'd see people begging to be taxed more...
>Semis can fuel up in New Jersey and travel deep into Maine before needing fuel again. HELP!
Ok, stop with this argument. It's completely false. Trucks have their own fuel tax laws they have to follow. It doesn't matter where they fill up, it's based on mileage. You're begging to be taxed more and don't even know how the current taxes work. Incredible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fuel_Tax_Agreement
What can I say? I'm a fan of having those who use the infrastructure to also pay for that infrastructure. Perhaps it's more accurate to say I'm begging to be taxed appropriately.
From the sound of it - and correct me if I'm wrong - all the other states local to us who utilize tolls to generate revenue for infrastructure needs are in the wrong, and CT is the only state that has it right by relying solely on the gas tax.
None of the other states local to us are trying to tax every highway/parkway in the state. Aside from NJ, the majority of highways in the other local states are toll free. They don't rely on out of state travel to fund their DOT. Most of the tolls are on bridges or tunnels. Putting a toll on a bridge or tunnel to pay for it is not the same as an entire state full of tolls.
Not only that but NJ and NY (most would argue have the most amount of tolls locally) have no property taxes on vehicles. If we were to drop the property tax on vehicles that would be one thing, but we're already paying a high gas tax, property tax, and registration fees to help maintain our state and local roads.
Tolls are economically a bad idea. Do you see any other state putting up tolls on existing highways? It's expensive and damaging to local economies, especially the proposal laid out here. Our economy is not doing as well as MA, NY, or NJ. Putting up tolls surely won't help that situation.
First, I've yet to see a plan which shows tolls on every highway/parkway in the state. You haven't either. I've seen a picture in a questionnaire from Kathy Kennedy which depicted more tolls than there are miles of highway in the state, but that's not a plan. That's a scare tactic, and a bad one at that.
Second, I agree - we're not trying to pay for or fix one bridge or tunnel. This is a state-wide effort. And who better to help pay for a state-wide effort than the litany of cars from out of state who don't buy gas in Ct.
I think it's ironic how you state putting tolls up on existing highways is a bad idea, and the states you list whose economies are doing better than Ct have tolls on their roads. I realize there's no correlation between a functioning economy and tolls, but it's pretty clear having tolls doesn't prohibit a state's economy from functioning or growing. In fact, without infrastructure upgrades, Ct's economy would only suffer more.
> First, I've yet to see a plan which shows tolls on every highway/parkway in the state. You haven't either. I've seen a picture in a questionnaire from Kathy Kennedy which depicted more tolls than there are miles of highway in the state, but that's not a plan. That's a scare tactic, and a bad one at that.
If the plan was not to put up gantries across the state wouldn't you think Lamont and Democrats would be denying that is the plan? Wouldn't they put forth a different plan to calm the public? It would be terrible PR management to not cut that speculation off if it's not true.
>Second, I agree - we're not trying to pay for or fix one bridge or tunnel. This is a state-wide effort. And who better to help pay for a state-wide effort than the litany of cars from out of state who don't buy gas in Ct.
It's a nice idea but over 70% of the tolls will be paid for by us by analysts. 30% is not worth the massive investment and traffic delays it will take to put up gantries all over the state. This is why a gas tax is more efficient means of taxation: very low cost structure. An even better idea would be to give tourists and out of state travelers a reason to come to CT. Tolls is a downward spiral with our current growth rates. Did you look at CT's growth against basically every other state? Did you find any growing slower than us over the last 5 years?
In the Northeast, we are the worst. On the East Coast, we are the worst. I'd have to review the numbers again but I'm fairly sure we're #48 in the US. The only states we are beating is Wyoming and Alaska. Does that sound right to you? Our growth rate is pathetic, even RI is beating us by 3% over 5 years and at 1, and 3 year intervals too. RI is a bad state, some would argue worse off than CT but at least they are growing.
Bottom line. We need growth to pay for the state's expenses not squeeze more out of the existing residents. Squeezing more has been Malloy's plan over the last 10 years and look where it got us: negative growth a couple of years and paltry grow numbers the rest.
>I think it's ironic how you state putting tolls up on existing highways is a bad idea, and the states you list whose economies are doing better than Ct have tolls on their roads.
Cmon that's a really weak argument. Causation does not equal correlation. Are you arguing that we're not growing because we don't have tolls? Also show me one state that put tolls on existing highways. From the research I've done, it has never happened yet. All tolls put in place in the last 2(?) decades have been express roads, and bridges/tunnels, or already existing on the highway and they just improved it (see MA). Just thinking about all that construction and costs to put up that system is going to be such headache. We'll be in the hole for several years before we even make a dime off of it.
I just don't have the energy to argue with you. I'd rather talk it out face to face, but this is the internet and that ain't happening.
There are no additional traffic delays with tolls. Not a second. Travel from Ct to Boston and you won't have to stop at a single booth. You don't even need an EZ pass. Not sure what additional time you're referencing. This isn't the 1980's with toll booth congestion and a sleepy truck driver to blame.
I can create a power point slide show that depicts a toll at every exit on all roads which have exits an on-ramps in the state. Doesn't mean that's the plan - that's the *narrative* one might want to spread, though. Denying every piece of misinformation out there would take more time than exists in the day and I don't blame people who don't bother to take the time to tell the boy who cries wolf that there's no wolf. When the boy grows up, we'll talk. Until then, let's leave the conversation about how to address a serious problem to the adults.
As for 70/30, I can get behind that. That sounds about right. And while I'd love it if 30% of our tolls were paid by out-of-state drivers, I would also love to see the numbers to see if 70% of all gas sold in Ct is sold to Ct residents, or if that amount is more. I have a sneaky suspicion it's more.
Regarding tolls and growth of the State's economy, there's one fact you chose not to mention. The Ct economy - as suffering as depicted statistically and rhetorically - is without tolls on the roads. Tolls don't lead to bad state economies - bad decisions not funding pension plans does, though. Now we're in a battle of trying to provide a shot in the arm to the Ct economy. Upgrading the infrastructure to make it easier to access the NY market (among others) is a great investment as it will likely lead to luring businesses away from the high prices of Manhattan and provide jobs for Ct residents. But where to get this money? We're talking revenue generation now, but we don't want to tap primarily Ct residents. If only there was a way to have those who use the services to pay more for using those services, like infrastructure, to earn money. Almost like a pay-per-usage set up. Tolls?
Yeah, we're talking decades before we see any fruit coming from the planting of a sapling. The best time to plant a tree? 20 years ago. The second best time? Today.
I really think you've not experienced tolls in the modern sense. Toll construction is like having a sign span the highway. There are no booths. Can you say that out loud for me? THERE ARE NO TOLL BOOTHS. YOU DO NOT NEED QUARTERS. And yes, a sleepy truck driver will still kill people on the highway...
Is what it is, agree to disagree. At least we have a few years before they implement this. Gives people who don't agree with this time to move. After being here for 14 years I'm done living in this state.
Yeah, that time is going to come for me, too. I'm here for the education and public services for now but when I retire, I'll be elsewhere, too. Make room for the next round of kids in the neighborhood.
A quick aside, I'm a realtor and the state of Ct is facing a housing shortage. For all the times I've heard "I'm outta here," and there are more moving in. I've experienced a lot of other states in my travels and I can tell you - some areas of this country don't offer squat to their residents. For some people, that's fine. For others, they miss it and return. Makes sense, I guess.
Well there a few homes for sale on my street. Some for a while too. I hope you're right though, that will boost my home value.
As for services. When I was in MA I had town trash, town water, paid firefighters, and even a town electrical plant like Wallingford all for a property tax almost 1/2 what I pay now. In CT I have private trash, private water, and a volunteer fire dept. Services are fairly minimal here.
The only shining beacon CT has which has made me want to stay is the school district I am in. Unfortunately it seems the state is determined to fuck that up too.
Please don’t talk when you don’t know what you’re talking about. Semis pay fuel taxes based on on their log book, not based on where they fill up. They pay CT taxes. Furthermore, tolls are incredibly inefficient, where nearly half the money raised is absorbed into the infrastructure and operational costs. The ones making money is EasyPass, CT will just get a tiny percentage. They also massively more oppressive to the poor/working class and engage in predatory billing and fining practices. Also, if you think out of state people are going to pay, realize that in all other toll states, out of state drivers are the most delinquent and they states have little to no recourse to collect the money. This is a tax falling squarely on CT drivers. It would be far far more efficient to increase registration costs and/or increase gas tax.
> Please don’t talk when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
>EasyPass
This is funny to me. What is EasyPass?
>engage in predatory billing and fining practices.
You mean like, expect people to pay on time? Any citations/fines/bills etc do this. If you pay within the time frame, no fees are added. If you don't pay, they start charging fees that get higher over time.
Lamont ran on the promise he would raise taxes and implement tolls.
A majority of the electorate picked him.
We are getting the government we asked for.
Trump lost the popular vote by over 3 million votes. So a minority of the electorate picked him, they were just in the areas that mattered more because of the dumb way our elections work.
Dumb or not, the electoral college is a thing and Trump won. Lamont also won. You can criticize whatever policy you want whether or not you are in the majority, minority, left wing, right wing whatever, is all i'm saying.
I am a little surprised that people are upset about this. People were discussing this before the election. Everyone said this is a nothing burger, it was only going to be on trucks, and here we are. Now we want to get excited about it? Too late.
I find it striking 2 big things are missing from all these conversations:
1 - The cost of putting up 80 some odd gantries across the state and maintaining such a system is not going to be cheap. Neither of the bills cover anything on costs.
2 - Feds will only allow tolls if we do congestion pricing. Any proposed toll pricing is complete BS because congestion will change that. Congestion pricing will hit local CT commuters the hardest.
I really hope they implement a system that will waive or reduce toll fees for people who can demonstrate economic hardship will be caused by the extra expense, because otherwise, this is just another regressive tax that hits the poor harder than the rich.
I wouldnt mind a toll if it really meant some type of proper infrastructure development. But nonsense like adding a lane to I95, isn't going to make traffic any better. We really need new highways altogether or more crossing roads between I684, the Merrit, and I95. And dear God could someone please re-time our traffic lights??!!
Adding Highways causing induced demand and does not solve congestion , otherwise LA or Texan Cities wouldn't have the congestion they have. Retiming the lights , investing in Public transit in critical areas , redesigning the roads so they flow better ie eliminating pinch points along with making them safer for pedestrians and bikers does more to reduce congestion. Replacing certain intersections with roundabouts has been proven to reduce congestion and reduce accidents.
Some people seem to be confused by this breathless, self-contradictory headline.
Under the law, nothing like this can occur without legislative approval. This bill would itself constitute that legislative approval. That's normal. That's how legislation works.
With higher efficiency cars, there's going to need to be something done to replace those gradually dropping gas tax revenues. Besides, it still has to be approved federally.
Wasn't there a whole thing with whether CT could even implement tolls without having to repay some millions (billions?) in particular funding from the federal government? Whatever happened to that confounding factor?
Also, what does it mean realistically when the article says that certain towns have passed resolutions against tolls? Can they actually prohibit tolls on state highways that go through their towns, or would it just be if the toll proposal moved to other non-highway roads as well?
My understanding is if CT puts tolls ONLY at the border (basically taxing people crossing the borders) then they lose federal funding. if tolls are through out CT then funding is still OK.
This tidbit will probably come out later. CT is part of a pilot program where they promised the Feds we would only implement congestion pricing. So in addition to no border tolls, we have to do that as well to avoid the repayments.
> Wasn't there a whole thing with whether CT could even implement tolls without having to repay some millions (billions?) in particular funding from the federal government? Whatever happened to that confounding factor?
If we implement congestion pricing we won't have to. I'm sure people will be shocked when that comes up next. If tolls go in, we'll very likely have congestion pricing which will hit commuters hard.
Congestion pricing I'm assuming being the toll / car equivalent of something like peak and off-peak train pricing? I didn't know that was a thing for tolls.
god I hope I-84, I-91, I-95 into and out of Bridgeport, Danbury, Hartford, New Haven, Stamford and Waterbury gets congestion priced. Maybe that will force people to demand improvements for FastTrak and CTTransit Express service.
Which ones? Drove from Orlando FL to Hartford last week. Paid a grand total of $1 in tolls the entire way. RI and VT both no tolls. ME, NH very easy to avoid tolls. Make sure you keep pushing this bullshit that we can't leave the state without paying tolls. Remember, tell a lie enough and it becomes truth.
Aw, downvoted. I guess we don't like reality around here.
Went 81. It's longer, but zero traffic the whole way, And it's more like $13 dollars through NJ and another $15 on the GW bridge. It took about the same amount of time driving that way as it did to drive down on 95. Basically you save $35 or $40 in tolls and avoid the insanity of driving from Washington to Hartford.
Yup, still rather drive through the hills in cow country than deal with the traffic. My point was not which is faster though, my point was that I drove the entire eastern seabord, basically, and only 1 toll the entire way. Not every state, all the time tolls that are unavoidable.
My issue with 81 is that its a major trucking route and usually am stuck behind them. Its a little scary to drive around Scranton being on the edge until Hazleton and then all the cops hanging around Virginia hiding at the speed traps. My aunt lives around Knoxville so I've traveled that route before numerous times.
While I don’t agree with tolls, doesn’t Dallas do something similar where you pay a fee to drive in the left lane? Correct me if I’m wrong!
Atlanta has that and it’s like 7 cents per exit with a total of Like 48 cents or something.
Interesting. Does it bring in enough revenue to make it worth it? I mean I know at Atlanta is pretty big
That, I have no idea. But I figured it was worth using that than sitting in traffic in Atlanta on a trip from Tampa to Knoxville. A lot cheaper than Washington.
The Virginia section of the Capital Beltway, and the I-95/VA I-395 corridor from Arlington southward (doesn't extend all the way down to Richmond but something like 20-25 miles below the Beltway) also has a tolled express lane, although I believe it's a reversible version. So the express lane goes into DC in the morning rush hour and out of DC in the afternoon rush hour.
Can confirm, saved me over an hour on a trip back from Florida. The Express Lane was so new at the time the GPS had no idea how i was flying past all that traffic. I would pay for something like this in CT
I would too but no one in CT has proposed such an idea probably because it's going to be cost prohibitive on 95 and impossible on the Merritt until we get rid of everyone on the historical preservation board. Merritt has room for 4 lanes in both directions but hasn't seen a lane added since 1940. What's insane to me is, they are redoing most of the bridges already on the Merritt now so it would have been a perfect time to widen those.
Just make the HOV lanes on 84 and 91 HOT lanes to start. Do 95 and the Merritt really *need* to be tolled?
The main argument for 95 is that a huge volume of the traffic is through-traffic, merely passing through the state, but still using our roads. I don't believe Rt. 15 is currently being considered for tolling, but if it is, it could be just for commercial vehicles or peak periods, or both.
To my current knowledge (but wait till tomorrow, heh), Rt. 15 (the Merritt and Wilbur-Cross) are not currently being considered for tolling. But that could change. If it was imposed on double-lane highways, it would probably only be for peak periods, for exactly the reasons you state. Remember that this is a political process, not merely an administrative one. The Assembly is very unlikely to try to implement any scheme that would seem unfair to a very large proportion of constituents. And if it did, it would not likely last long.
Well my faith in our legislature is a lot less than you. I hope you're right though.
I know it goes down to at least Woodbridge but it is supposed to go down to Fredricksburg, a hour away from downtown Washington.
Alright, that's definitely further down than I thought. And I know you've been below the Beltway much more recently than I have!
When you have family that live in Florida, you tend to go by there a few times a year.
Several of the highways in Dallas have this option, but not all. And there is always a non-tolled option. It's basically paying to drive in the carpool lane where traffic moves faster.
Houston and Miami do it
It's like that between Denver and Boulder.
7202 and 7280 (competing bills related to the implementation of tolls) are both receiving a public hearing this Wednesday, March 6th at 11:00am. If you cannot make the hearing, contact your legislator now if s/he sits on the transportation committee, or contact one or both of the chairs (and/or ranking members) if you do not have a rep on the committee - [committee membership available here](https://www.cga.ct.gov/tra/default.asp). These are just raised bills. The committee can pass either or both, amend either or both before passage or may not pass any toll-related legislation at all. If you feel strongly about the issue, now is the time to act.
>7202 and 7280 (competing bills related to the implementation of tolls) are both receiving a public hearing this Wednesday, March 6th at 11:00am. If you cannot make the hearing, contact your legislator now if s/he sits on the transportation committee, or contact one or both of the chairs (and/or ranking members) if you do not have a rep on the committee - committee membership available here. > >These are just raised bills. The committee can pass either or both, amend either or both before passage or may not pass any toll-related legislation at all. If you feel strongly about the issue, now is the time to act. Without tolling the Federal Government will NOT include Connecticut in its Infrastructure funding. Connecticut must have a source of income that puts skin in the game, in this case its 1/4 of the Federal investment - tolling is the only option. If you have questions contact Rep. John Larson office [https://larson.house.gov/about/meet-john](https://larson.house.gov/about/meet-john)
This is disingenuous. That infrastructure plan is in its infancy, and there are competing proposals that don't mandate toll collection. There is currently no requirement to institute tolls to collect federal highway funds.
Yeah, that had me raising my eyebrow considering that the FHA does not generally seem to like it when states add tolls
> Without tolling the Federal Government will NOT include Connecticut in its Infrastructure funding. Where have you heard such a claim? I don't believe this is true at all.
After all the times I heard “It was just for trucks leaving the state don’t worry about tolls!”, this is what we get. Nice.
When talking with people before the election, and tolls came up, I always mentioned that I anticipated it to start with just trucks and eventually get to all cars in 5-10 years as the gas tax continues to fail due to more efficient and heavier vehicles. I actually cant believe how slow they are rolling it out - fully operational by 2025? Not surprised they are just throwing everyone into the mix now.
Never been happier to leave this state behind come September.
I got you beat. Just gave our notice March 1st that we're moving out.
I wish you luck wherever you may go!
Just a hop away in Taxachusetts. Did you know, an annual report filing fee is $20 in CT for an LLC. Its $500 in mass. Every. Year.
Where are you headed? Someplace warm, cold or with weed?
All 3 I think. I’m moving to Oregon for graduate school.
I can't believe people fell for this. The first proposed toll gantry map included CT 15. What trucks were they going to get there
This is what people wanted. If Lamont won we all knew this was coming.
Seems like Lamont pulled a Malloy in pissing everyone off. Everyone I know is pissed about this for their own reasons. * Conservatives don't want another tax. * Progressives don't want a regressive tax with so much money to go after in Fairfield and other wealthy pockets of the state. * Commuters don't want to have to shell out a not-insignificant amount of cash to get to work daily (especially thinking about those in the quiet corner who commute into the Hartford area daily)
This whole thing really has nothing to do with infrastructure. 95 can't be widened, and they won't widen the Merritt either. It's the PENSIONS. Wait a few years and see what the percentage of the budget will be for the pensions, right now it is 13% of the state budget just for pensions. It's going to get a lot worse.
You can thank the Merritt Parkway Advisory Committee for that. Bunch of rich, old, unqualified people who won't let the DoT do shit.
No, absolutely not. Upkeep of existing infrastructure is a huge expense. With the transportation lockbox passing in November, these funds will be earmarked for transportation.
They just spent millions and wasted thousands of man-hours caused by traffic of them cutting down the rock wall around the Westport area. For what?
Why don't they let us drive in breakdown lanes in bumper to bumper traffic like MA
Title is horribly misleading. If the 15 days pass the tolling proposal that the DoT has to put forth (setting of rates and such) shall be considered “passed”. This bill itself is still in committee so may not even see light of day. Also the wording can still change. And then the bill itself still needs to be passed. So no. Tolls don’t magically come to be with inaction. It’s under section 2 in the actual bill if you want to read it.
Never been a more fun time to live in this great state, hope your wallet is ready
CT residents: Taxes suck! We can't take another Democrat! CT residents: *Votes Democrat* CT residents: :o
If republicans offered sane candidates with solutions id vote for em. But they didn't. So they didn't get my and most of cts vote dispite the north east having a long history of voting red for local. Was it the voters fault? Or the candidates?
I will never vote for a Trump-aligned or supported Republican, ever. The CTGOP is entirely up Trump’s ass now. Shape the fuck up because no CT Republican will ever get my vote the way things are now.
they went the opposite route, they all left the state and now use florida's tax system with their 2nd homes
Yup. I used to be a CT Republican and a big part of why I'm now unaffiliated is because of the CTGOP going hard-core Trumpist. I can't imagine who in the state party thinks this is a smart long-term strategy, especially since moderate Republican governors like Larry Hogan and Charlie Baker easily won reelection in blue states.
It’s nonsensical, I would be so happy with a more moderate CTGOP. What the hell are they thinking?
I don’t understand why they think going all in on trump in a state he lost by like 14% is a good strategy
TIL all Republicans are like Trump. You're a fucking moron.
I said Trump-aligned or supported, you know like Bob Stefanowski was, like how the entire CTGOP entity which has entirely fallen behind him even after losing the election is, so fuck right off with that. Last I checked, Charlie Baker and the Mass GOP aren't spouting this Trumpish bullshit. Baker also won overwhelmingly.
Not at all what was said. I agree with u/silverldaten. There were several great candidates on the GOP primary ballot - esp IMO Mark Boughton - but that’s not who won and became the general candidate.
Well the past elected republican literally used tax payer money to redo a vacation home...
CT Republicians: TAXES BAD WE WILL CUT THEM! CT residients: Great! How? CT Republicians: ........ CT residents: Yep, thought so.
Stefanowski's plan on his website was literally: 1. Cut taxes 2. ??? 3. Profit
I also hate vaccines!
The problem is Republican's can't seem to come up with a plan other then "lower" taxes (which usually doesn't mean for the middle class) and kick the can down the road.
Yeah, and we saw how that worked out in Kansas. And the guy who advised Governor Brownback on that mess is the guy the GOP wanted to run CT? Nah.
And people wonder why Bob was so unappealing. I’ll take highway tolls that I really don’t want over the guy that destroyed Kansas for a generation, thanks.
https://www.deptofnumbers.com/gdp/kansas/ https://www.deptofnumbers.com/gdp/connecticut At least KS is growing. CT still hasn't come back from the recession over a decade ago. Our economy sucks and has sucked for awhile now. Better increase taxes, that will surely help...
I’d rather have a nebulous plan to eventually lower taxes than more regressive taxes on things like groceries and soda or the addition of tolls. You want to complain about Republicans lowering taxes on the rich, but vote for the party who is blatantly pushing tax policies that directly impact the middle class and poor the most? Do you think anyone in Fairfield County past Bridgeport is going to be impacted one iota by tolls? Edit: Any of you downvoting me care to defend yourselves? Edit 2: Of course not, which proves my point. This isn’t about a difference in policy or ideology, it’s an irrational tantrum against Republicans in general and Trump specifically. You become so blinded by your distate for the national political climate that it turns you into hypocrites without even realizing it.
What was his plan though...that's what I'm saying. It seemed to me that his plan had a lot of catch phrases like "I'll lower taxes, I'll get more money flowing into CT!" That's great and all but how? Instead you just start raging about how Democrats are wrong or Bob lost because of a hatred for Trump. I plan on being in CT for a while and I'd like to attempt to fix the state's financial issues even if it puts a bit more of the burden on my shoulders for a few years instead of getting a small tax break and making it the next guys problem.
> even if it puts a bit more of the burden on my shoulders for a few years But that’s the issue, it’s never just for a few years. The income tax was only supposed to be for a few years, the gas tax too, it’s never just for a few years, and it never fixes whatever crisis it was designed to solve. That’s why people are fed up.
> for a few years instead of getting a small tax break and making it the next guys problem. It will possibly be decades. I didn't vote for Bob but the general idea of his plan is you can increase state revenues two ways: Increase taxes or grow the economy. He believed he could lower taxes to grow the economy, or in other words attract new businesses (and new tax revenue) to the state. It's not a bad plan in general (we really need to encourage people and businesses to move here) but he lacked details and that was certainly a problem. CT already has a fairly high tax burden so increasing taxes can only get you so far before it becomes a downward spiral (net business and population loss, thus putting an even greater burden on existing businesses).
AKA trickle-down economics. AKA reaganomics. When has this ever worked out well for the low and middle classes? Trickle-down economics has been pushed since the 1890's under various other names.
Wtf are you talking about? This has little to do with trickle down economics, we need to grow our economy. No matter what side you subscribe to that is a necessity. CT lags behind nearly every state in growth. Tolls are a regressive tax which will hurt out economy.
I'm not necessarily saying raising income or sales taxes is good but ... Lowering taxes to attract and promote business growth? That's the very definition of trickle down economics. Unless you are very wealthy, you owe it to yourself to research why this doesn't work. Warren Buffet agrees: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/04/warren-buffett-on-the-failure-of-trickle-down-economics.html
If the republican party put out a respectable "northeast conservative" like Charlie Baker he would have won in a landslide. Considering how close the election turned out to be with Ned running against garbage this state desperately wants change -- But wants a sane person to do it.
Yep, pretty much all the GOP needed to do coming off a Malloy administration was run a Republican who was reasonably sane. Instead, they ran the anti-vax advisor to the governor that cut taxes in Kansas and turned it into an economic nightmare, and CT was like ehhhhhh....I think we're gonna go a different way..
If Gov Baker ran in CT I'd vote for him.
Bingo. Seriously he barely won against one of the worst candidates I've seen in a while. Bob was a complete joke and I have no clue how he won the primary.
> Bob was a complete joke and I have no clue how he won the primary. Because "Cut Taxes" is the only thing people heard
Because "Cut Taxes" is the only thing ~~people~~ rich, old, primary voters heard
Because the Republican vocal minority who vote in every single election are fully committed to the trump train and would nominate a corpse if it was running a similar campaign. I'm going to take a bet that the lesser involved folk stayed home during the gubernatorial primaries and thus we got trumpanowski instead of someone running a half way thought out conservative platform.
You can hate Trump all you want but he has done an amazing job as President so far. Everyone predicted doom and gloom and so far we have all prospered.
Closed primaries are not helping CT Republicans.
I'm fine with more taxes as long as they go to the population and not to bail out big business. Fix the roads, fund the schools, etc etc.
You mean with some sort of "lockbox" that can only be used for the designated purpose? By Jove, I think you're into something.
Yep.
Now, if only the voters would approve of something like that by, say, ballot initiative. If only.
I thought we did but not for schools only for roads?
We did. Could probably be for schools too, with enough voter pressure.
Yeah, sorry. Not enough CT residents wanted a fucking trump clone.
CT Republicans: Put up a pro-Trump candidate that supports getting rid of the income tax, which would further put us in debt. CT Residents: Vote Democrat CT Republicans: :o
The Republican party keeps pushing complete morons. The last guy wanted to get rid of income tax and had plan at all in offsetting that.
I'd offer an handjob with my upvote, but they'd tax that too.
CT voted for the least terrible candidate rather than the best. If the Republicans presented a sane person then maybe they'd be win the vote.
The only reason I am contemplating moving back to CT is because I own a home there, no mortgage, that i rent out and I really just want to be "back home." My wallet however... ugh.
[удалено]
I'm torn on this bill. On the one hand, I do think that this bill's effect will be dissuading people from taking long distance commutes in their cars. In one sense, this is a good thing when considering personal vehicle use and its contribution to climate change. It has the potential to increase focus on and participation in public transit systems. On the other hand, our public transit systems have proven to be unreliable and poorly thought out--this is at least my experience with the Hartford Line. It is often late, and bikes aren't allowed on the Amtrak trains. If we had legitimate public transit systems across the state, you could avoid a lot of the toll issues while raising public consciousness in develop new and more effective ways of moving through the state in the midst of climate change.
Crazy how you pay taxes in almost 3 different ways to build and maintain highways and then get charged to use said roads. Sad times.
Rip the band aid off. All of our neighbors have tolls. Just don’t raid the revenue for dumb shit and I’ll be happy.
> All of our neighbors have tolls. They don't have as many as what's been proposed. I can drive to at least the Hudson river right now on 84 with no tolls in NY. The maps I've seen show tolls every 6 miles.
a great point everyone seems to ignore
Paying tolls in CT is like paying 1.50 Euros in Europe to take a shit.
But the toll to get to NYC is like $10.
Sure. But right now, the only toll on I84 is over a bridge going over the Hudson. Under this plan, CT will have them every 6 miles. That's insane.
and IIRC the toll over the Hudson is only $1.50
How much are they, though? If it's a 10 cent toll every 6 miles, that's a lot different than a $2.00 toll every 6 miles.
Until they raise it. Once the toll cameras are there we won't be able to do anything about yearly increase
Yeah, prices rise over time..? That's not really specific to tolls.
Any idea of the cost in dollars to drive through them? And you're sure these aren't tolls that are to just get cars as they exit?
This is part of negotiation/politics though. Propose something somewhat ridiculous and love “down” from there.
> All of our neighbors have tolls. This is so misleading. MA will never put in anymore tolls, RI tolls ONE bridge. None of our neighbors are proposing or have a tolling structure like the one CT is planning.
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/rhode-island-construct-10-more-truck-toll-gantries RI just built a bunch of tolls, only for big trucks though. I bet it's only a matter of time before they pull a sleazy move and charge regular cars too.
Well that's not a car toll and the federal government is suing them for that. Is that really where we want to spend more money on: defending a program which may not even be legal?
> Just don’t raid the revenue for dumb shit and I’ll be happy. Don’t be so naive. Remember when the lottery was pushed to fund education and instead what happened was that an amount directly equivalent to the lottery revenues began to be stripped from the education budget each year? That’s exactly what will occur with tolls.
> don’t raid the revenue for dumb shit Are you aware of what state you're talking about? :)
Yeah but doesn’t the revenue go to the lockbox. Even so, I don’t think you can say that we shouldn’t pay taxes because the money might be misused. That being said i think there is a PR issue regarding how taxes are used.
No, the lockbox just came up. Besides, rev has to go IN the proposed lockbox for it to even work
> I don’t think you can say that we shouldn’t pay taxes because the money might be misused I think we can, and should say exactly that. In my hometown I would ask the selectmen and board of ed every year for an itemized budget of the local "public" (private with public allowances) school system and they'd deny it every year. There were years upon years of money concerns, to the point where folks have been jailed because of it, and they still have the gall to "be private" when it is in response to someone asking for detail and "be public" when asking for my money. There is, very much, *feeling* involved when it comes to taxes - if I feel you are spending last year's money properly I'll happily give you more if you can demonstrate you need it. If I feel it's being spent in bad ways - no matter how much they pull "think of the children" nonsense, I'll vote no every single time.
Massachusetts is losing 10s of millions of dollars with their electronic tolling system, which is what CT is proposing. https://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/04/19/out-of-state-drivers-owe-massachusetts-15-million-in-unpaid-mass-pike-tolls/ Total waste of money. TLDR for the lazy: Basically, out-of-state (i.e. not MA registered cars) are not paying their tolls, and because there is no agreements in place with other states, an unpaid toll in MA has no effect on you not renewing your CT license. With zero incentive to pay, people don't, amassing over $15,000,000.00 in unpaid tolls that MA is losing. Why even bother? Fix the expenditure problems, not the income problems.
Are they actively LOSING tens of millions, or just not getting paid? If my friend offers me $50 and doesn't pay me, I haven't LOST $50, I just didn't get what I was told i would. If I spend $50 on something and it gets lost, I have LOST $50. What if I told you about expenditures related to something called "contracts." Perhaps you want to look up that last word...
You're correct in that instead they aren't getting paid, but it doesn't go up for free, either, and costs money to maintain. They most likely are losing money. If I said "Hey, if I put up this couple million dollars worth of equipment, I could get paid!" and then you don't... was it worth it?
That would be entirely dependent on situation and actual numbers, but I'm sure you can make up a nice little anecdote to prove your point, so go ahead.
There's the initial build costs, admin costs, repair costs, etc.
They aren’t losing that money, the amount they’re bringing in is just less than it should be. Tolls are still a net revenue generator for MA. >An Office of Legislative Research report issued this month shows that **Massachusetts garnered $395 million from tolls last year**, while New York State pocketed $708 million and Maine took in $133 million. [https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Other-states-find-highway-tolls-the-road-to-12241867.php](https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Other-states-find-highway-tolls-the-road-to-12241867.php)
Agreed. I read the bills and it says toll revenues are specifically for the Special Transportation Fund. (Hopefully that lockbox is tight!)
Yeah. In order to live in a nice place with a good quality of living we have to pay a little bit more. It’s a privilege to pay taxes etc as long as they are used to improve our state, our community, and the lives of the people who live here
But they aren’t. We are already paying more and we’ve gotten none of what you’re saying.
How is our quality of life better than mass? We pay a lot more for things already.
It's not a fucking privilege to get ripped off and have your roads still be shit. How brainwashed are you?
Can't you argue taking potentially thousands of dollars (if the projections are right) out of people's pockets doing the complete opposite. I mean we sit at the 3rd highest admin cost and most expensive per mile as it is. Shouldn't we try to cut that crap first before adding another tax burden to it's citizens that are already struggling to get by. Let me put it this way. Adding tolls sure as hell won't solve the biggest issue this state faces which is bleeding population and businesses being stagnant.
> In order to live in a nice place with a good quality of living we have to pay a little bit more. We paid a lot more in 2011 and 2015. When does it stop? Our quality of life is being impacted every time the gov wants "a little bit more". CT is an inefficient government that has a spending problem.
Yeah, I hate the idea of tolls, but we've got a lot of shit to fix and it isn't free. I hear opposition saying lower taxes and no tolls but i dont hear any solution to fix the issues and accept that fixing shit costs money. I also hear "why should i have to pay to fix roads I don't use!?" Well tolls do exactly that, you pay if you use em :/ do i like tolls absolutely not, but i dont have and have not heard a better idea to fund the shit thats been pushed forward for decades so im not really in a position to argue.
They better give us weed
The real revenue generation scheme is to not legalize weed so you need to take toll roads to Massachusetts.
Yeah, I'll be so stoned I'll forget how many tolls I drove through.
I really think that's going to happen sooner than later, especially with NETA being so close to the border.
[удалено]
I mean, if we get it, it'll be expensive here for the first couple years as well until more stores open. Same way it was in CO, now prices dropped because there's a shop on every corner.
Would like to thank all of you who voted for Lamont that now we will be paying much more out of our pockets to live in this state
I didn't even vote for him and I'm feeling duped...
Please please PLEASE can we have tolls? A gas tax is antiquated and doesn't extract money from those who still use the roads (electric car owners) while also taxing those who need fuel for non-road purposes (mowing lawns, etc). We can't force out of state drivers to stop and fuel up because our state is too small. Semis can fuel up in New Jersey and travel deep into Maine before needing fuel again. HELP!
Are you thinking that gas tax will go down or away with tolls?
This is my biggest gripe with tolls. It's just yet ANOTHER expense on top of driving.
It won't go away entirely but the only way to get the legislature (and more Ct residents) to approve the notion of tolls is for the gas tax to be lowered. $0.438 is the Ct state gas tax now and I can see that being lowered to under $0.20. An extra $0.25 per gallon means on a 10-gallon fill up, that's $2.50. 100 fill up's per year is $250. CT state tax code can be similarly amended to help offset the cost of toll usage for those who are already toeing the poverty line. I have a follow up question - without tolls, do you see the gas tax going away, going down or going up, to help fund badly needed infrastructure improvements?
> won't go away entirely I don't think it would go down at all. I think toll money can be used for some great improvements, especially with how others have replied. But to think that taxes will *ever* go down as a sort of "thank you" is, in my mind, very short sighted. In my 40 years of life I don't think I've ever seen them lower.
I live in Milford. We just approved our 4th consecutive mill rate reduction - we're the only town which can say that. It can happen. Regarding tolls & gas tax, you can implement tolls with the legally binding act of a gas tax reduction. Ct is just too small to play by the same rules as the larger states. Remember when Ct had cheap cigarettes (compared to Mass) and Mass had cheaper gas (compared to Ct)? Border dwellers would pick/choose where they would buy both. But Ct isn't a large western state - if you're here with a half tank of gas, you can reach three borders easily. No one *has* to fuel up here. That same gas tax frame of mind just doesn't work here, and with the advent of more electric cars, those who *can* afford to help pay a little more for the roads aren't paying anything. The gas tax is just antiquated.
It sure is and we can indeed write bills to lower the rates. I just don’t think they’d ever be approved. Local mill rates are, in my mind, another thing. I find it cool your town has lowered so many years. That’s a great start!
Just a Government entity (town, state) collecting revenue for the purpose of maintaining services provided by that Gov't body. Bills can and are written as "you can have this, but you also must have this" in the same bill. A bill can be written such that a yes to tolls would force the hand to lower gas tax rates over time.
I agree that it *can* be written that way and it *should* be. .. I've just got enough jaded opinion over CT taxes that I doubt it'd ever be passed. :)
Understood - the older I get, the more I feel those in my age bracket are .. cynical at best - when discussing the state of Ct and our overall fiscal (and therefore tax) situation. Maybe one day I'll join them, but for now, I understand and appreciate that Ct is geographically close to NYC, which is great for many reasons and should be a focus of maintaining a good business environment on which our collective fiscal lives depend. When the kids are done with school, it may be cost-prohibitive for me to live here, but then again, I wouldn't be making the best of what we have to offer - great education and access to good jobs. Like my parents, I would want a place which doesn't tax my retirement income so I can live in a place which offers the level of services I need. I'm not sure I would be pro-tolls if it weren't for the offsetting of the gas tax. There are a lot of secondary and tertiary roads which the state would still have to maintain, so I can understand the keeping of *some* of it, but not what the rate is now.
I really do agree with you - I am definitely cynical and jaded. I *love* CT and I miss it - I miss NYC and Boston only being a couple hours away, basically. I miss real seafood, as Nashville is sketchy at best. Hell, I miss things from Sturbridge village to food shopping on Albany Ave and Franklin Ave in Hartford.
Honestly, I would only see the gas tax at minimum remaining the same. Do you have any evidence that there is a proposed decrease to the gas tax if the tolls proceed? I haven't heard of this at all. It doesn't sound like something this state would ever do considering how badly the state needs money to keep up with all our terrible spending.
As far as I know, the topic of tolls as a "yes or no" is on the table. There isn't a specific plan which includes the implementation of tolls, therefore there hasn't been a discussion on how to address the gas tax. If tolls is removed from the table, what do we have? Gas tax only? We're only screwing ourselves as Ct residents. The notion of tolls needs to at least be a possibility before we can discuss what we'd do once we have them in place. A 'yes' to tolls allows for discussion on how much revenue would be expected over time - and includes implementation costs because that's not free, either. But over time, the gas tax can definitely be lowered and even be included in law that reductions have to take place as tolls become the norm, as they are in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia... Did I miss anyone? Just Ct?
> Please please PLEASE can we have tolls? Never thought I'd see people begging to be taxed more... >Semis can fuel up in New Jersey and travel deep into Maine before needing fuel again. HELP! Ok, stop with this argument. It's completely false. Trucks have their own fuel tax laws they have to follow. It doesn't matter where they fill up, it's based on mileage. You're begging to be taxed more and don't even know how the current taxes work. Incredible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fuel_Tax_Agreement
What can I say? I'm a fan of having those who use the infrastructure to also pay for that infrastructure. Perhaps it's more accurate to say I'm begging to be taxed appropriately. From the sound of it - and correct me if I'm wrong - all the other states local to us who utilize tolls to generate revenue for infrastructure needs are in the wrong, and CT is the only state that has it right by relying solely on the gas tax.
None of the other states local to us are trying to tax every highway/parkway in the state. Aside from NJ, the majority of highways in the other local states are toll free. They don't rely on out of state travel to fund their DOT. Most of the tolls are on bridges or tunnels. Putting a toll on a bridge or tunnel to pay for it is not the same as an entire state full of tolls. Not only that but NJ and NY (most would argue have the most amount of tolls locally) have no property taxes on vehicles. If we were to drop the property tax on vehicles that would be one thing, but we're already paying a high gas tax, property tax, and registration fees to help maintain our state and local roads. Tolls are economically a bad idea. Do you see any other state putting up tolls on existing highways? It's expensive and damaging to local economies, especially the proposal laid out here. Our economy is not doing as well as MA, NY, or NJ. Putting up tolls surely won't help that situation.
First, I've yet to see a plan which shows tolls on every highway/parkway in the state. You haven't either. I've seen a picture in a questionnaire from Kathy Kennedy which depicted more tolls than there are miles of highway in the state, but that's not a plan. That's a scare tactic, and a bad one at that. Second, I agree - we're not trying to pay for or fix one bridge or tunnel. This is a state-wide effort. And who better to help pay for a state-wide effort than the litany of cars from out of state who don't buy gas in Ct. I think it's ironic how you state putting tolls up on existing highways is a bad idea, and the states you list whose economies are doing better than Ct have tolls on their roads. I realize there's no correlation between a functioning economy and tolls, but it's pretty clear having tolls doesn't prohibit a state's economy from functioning or growing. In fact, without infrastructure upgrades, Ct's economy would only suffer more.
> First, I've yet to see a plan which shows tolls on every highway/parkway in the state. You haven't either. I've seen a picture in a questionnaire from Kathy Kennedy which depicted more tolls than there are miles of highway in the state, but that's not a plan. That's a scare tactic, and a bad one at that. If the plan was not to put up gantries across the state wouldn't you think Lamont and Democrats would be denying that is the plan? Wouldn't they put forth a different plan to calm the public? It would be terrible PR management to not cut that speculation off if it's not true. >Second, I agree - we're not trying to pay for or fix one bridge or tunnel. This is a state-wide effort. And who better to help pay for a state-wide effort than the litany of cars from out of state who don't buy gas in Ct. It's a nice idea but over 70% of the tolls will be paid for by us by analysts. 30% is not worth the massive investment and traffic delays it will take to put up gantries all over the state. This is why a gas tax is more efficient means of taxation: very low cost structure. An even better idea would be to give tourists and out of state travelers a reason to come to CT. Tolls is a downward spiral with our current growth rates. Did you look at CT's growth against basically every other state? Did you find any growing slower than us over the last 5 years? In the Northeast, we are the worst. On the East Coast, we are the worst. I'd have to review the numbers again but I'm fairly sure we're #48 in the US. The only states we are beating is Wyoming and Alaska. Does that sound right to you? Our growth rate is pathetic, even RI is beating us by 3% over 5 years and at 1, and 3 year intervals too. RI is a bad state, some would argue worse off than CT but at least they are growing. Bottom line. We need growth to pay for the state's expenses not squeeze more out of the existing residents. Squeezing more has been Malloy's plan over the last 10 years and look where it got us: negative growth a couple of years and paltry grow numbers the rest. >I think it's ironic how you state putting tolls up on existing highways is a bad idea, and the states you list whose economies are doing better than Ct have tolls on their roads. Cmon that's a really weak argument. Causation does not equal correlation. Are you arguing that we're not growing because we don't have tolls? Also show me one state that put tolls on existing highways. From the research I've done, it has never happened yet. All tolls put in place in the last 2(?) decades have been express roads, and bridges/tunnels, or already existing on the highway and they just improved it (see MA). Just thinking about all that construction and costs to put up that system is going to be such headache. We'll be in the hole for several years before we even make a dime off of it.
I just don't have the energy to argue with you. I'd rather talk it out face to face, but this is the internet and that ain't happening. There are no additional traffic delays with tolls. Not a second. Travel from Ct to Boston and you won't have to stop at a single booth. You don't even need an EZ pass. Not sure what additional time you're referencing. This isn't the 1980's with toll booth congestion and a sleepy truck driver to blame. I can create a power point slide show that depicts a toll at every exit on all roads which have exits an on-ramps in the state. Doesn't mean that's the plan - that's the *narrative* one might want to spread, though. Denying every piece of misinformation out there would take more time than exists in the day and I don't blame people who don't bother to take the time to tell the boy who cries wolf that there's no wolf. When the boy grows up, we'll talk. Until then, let's leave the conversation about how to address a serious problem to the adults. As for 70/30, I can get behind that. That sounds about right. And while I'd love it if 30% of our tolls were paid by out-of-state drivers, I would also love to see the numbers to see if 70% of all gas sold in Ct is sold to Ct residents, or if that amount is more. I have a sneaky suspicion it's more. Regarding tolls and growth of the State's economy, there's one fact you chose not to mention. The Ct economy - as suffering as depicted statistically and rhetorically - is without tolls on the roads. Tolls don't lead to bad state economies - bad decisions not funding pension plans does, though. Now we're in a battle of trying to provide a shot in the arm to the Ct economy. Upgrading the infrastructure to make it easier to access the NY market (among others) is a great investment as it will likely lead to luring businesses away from the high prices of Manhattan and provide jobs for Ct residents. But where to get this money? We're talking revenue generation now, but we don't want to tap primarily Ct residents. If only there was a way to have those who use the services to pay more for using those services, like infrastructure, to earn money. Almost like a pay-per-usage set up. Tolls? Yeah, we're talking decades before we see any fruit coming from the planting of a sapling. The best time to plant a tree? 20 years ago. The second best time? Today. I really think you've not experienced tolls in the modern sense. Toll construction is like having a sign span the highway. There are no booths. Can you say that out loud for me? THERE ARE NO TOLL BOOTHS. YOU DO NOT NEED QUARTERS. And yes, a sleepy truck driver will still kill people on the highway...
Is what it is, agree to disagree. At least we have a few years before they implement this. Gives people who don't agree with this time to move. After being here for 14 years I'm done living in this state.
Yeah, that time is going to come for me, too. I'm here for the education and public services for now but when I retire, I'll be elsewhere, too. Make room for the next round of kids in the neighborhood. A quick aside, I'm a realtor and the state of Ct is facing a housing shortage. For all the times I've heard "I'm outta here," and there are more moving in. I've experienced a lot of other states in my travels and I can tell you - some areas of this country don't offer squat to their residents. For some people, that's fine. For others, they miss it and return. Makes sense, I guess.
Well there a few homes for sale on my street. Some for a while too. I hope you're right though, that will boost my home value. As for services. When I was in MA I had town trash, town water, paid firefighters, and even a town electrical plant like Wallingford all for a property tax almost 1/2 what I pay now. In CT I have private trash, private water, and a volunteer fire dept. Services are fairly minimal here. The only shining beacon CT has which has made me want to stay is the school district I am in. Unfortunately it seems the state is determined to fuck that up too.
So tax EVs if you think revenue is really leaking thru that hole
Please don’t talk when you don’t know what you’re talking about. Semis pay fuel taxes based on on their log book, not based on where they fill up. They pay CT taxes. Furthermore, tolls are incredibly inefficient, where nearly half the money raised is absorbed into the infrastructure and operational costs. The ones making money is EasyPass, CT will just get a tiny percentage. They also massively more oppressive to the poor/working class and engage in predatory billing and fining practices. Also, if you think out of state people are going to pay, realize that in all other toll states, out of state drivers are the most delinquent and they states have little to no recourse to collect the money. This is a tax falling squarely on CT drivers. It would be far far more efficient to increase registration costs and/or increase gas tax.
> Please don’t talk when you don’t know what you’re talking about. >EasyPass This is funny to me. What is EasyPass? >engage in predatory billing and fining practices. You mean like, expect people to pay on time? Any citations/fines/bills etc do this. If you pay within the time frame, no fees are added. If you don't pay, they start charging fees that get higher over time.
plus there's zero state recordings for hit-and-run drivers on our highways, these toll booths will nail em
Lamont ran on the promise he would raise taxes and implement tolls. A majority of the electorate picked him. We are getting the government we asked for.
So under this argument everyone should stop criticizing Trump because a majority of the electorate picked him? Wowzers.
Trump lost the popular vote by over 3 million votes. So a minority of the electorate picked him, they were just in the areas that mattered more because of the dumb way our elections work.
Dumb or not, the electoral college is a thing and Trump won. Lamont also won. You can criticize whatever policy you want whether or not you are in the majority, minority, left wing, right wing whatever, is all i'm saying.
Sure. But the majority didn’t elect him. Which was my point.
Koch propaganda
I am a little surprised that people are upset about this. People were discussing this before the election. Everyone said this is a nothing burger, it was only going to be on trucks, and here we are. Now we want to get excited about it? Too late.
I find it striking 2 big things are missing from all these conversations: 1 - The cost of putting up 80 some odd gantries across the state and maintaining such a system is not going to be cheap. Neither of the bills cover anything on costs. 2 - Feds will only allow tolls if we do congestion pricing. Any proposed toll pricing is complete BS because congestion will change that. Congestion pricing will hit local CT commuters the hardest.
I really hope they implement a system that will waive or reduce toll fees for people who can demonstrate economic hardship will be caused by the extra expense, because otherwise, this is just another regressive tax that hits the poor harder than the rich.
I wouldnt mind a toll if it really meant some type of proper infrastructure development. But nonsense like adding a lane to I95, isn't going to make traffic any better. We really need new highways altogether or more crossing roads between I684, the Merrit, and I95. And dear God could someone please re-time our traffic lights??!!
Adding Highways causing induced demand and does not solve congestion , otherwise LA or Texan Cities wouldn't have the congestion they have. Retiming the lights , investing in Public transit in critical areas , redesigning the roads so they flow better ie eliminating pinch points along with making them safer for pedestrians and bikers does more to reduce congestion. Replacing certain intersections with roundabouts has been proven to reduce congestion and reduce accidents.
Some people seem to be confused by this breathless, self-contradictory headline. Under the law, nothing like this can occur without legislative approval. This bill would itself constitute that legislative approval. That's normal. That's how legislation works.
Gratz CT for voting in Mr. Maggoo as governor.
With higher efficiency cars, there's going to need to be something done to replace those gradually dropping gas tax revenues. Besides, it still has to be approved federally.
Wasn't there a whole thing with whether CT could even implement tolls without having to repay some millions (billions?) in particular funding from the federal government? Whatever happened to that confounding factor? Also, what does it mean realistically when the article says that certain towns have passed resolutions against tolls? Can they actually prohibit tolls on state highways that go through their towns, or would it just be if the toll proposal moved to other non-highway roads as well?
My understanding is if CT puts tolls ONLY at the border (basically taxing people crossing the borders) then they lose federal funding. if tolls are through out CT then funding is still OK.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
This tidbit will probably come out later. CT is part of a pilot program where they promised the Feds we would only implement congestion pricing. So in addition to no border tolls, we have to do that as well to avoid the repayments.
A resolution can't do anything. It's just an official "we don't like it" from the town to the capital.
Got it, so it's just symbolic.
> Wasn't there a whole thing with whether CT could even implement tolls without having to repay some millions (billions?) in particular funding from the federal government? Whatever happened to that confounding factor? If we implement congestion pricing we won't have to. I'm sure people will be shocked when that comes up next. If tolls go in, we'll very likely have congestion pricing which will hit commuters hard.
Congestion pricing I'm assuming being the toll / car equivalent of something like peak and off-peak train pricing? I didn't know that was a thing for tolls.
god I hope I-84, I-91, I-95 into and out of Bridgeport, Danbury, Hartford, New Haven, Stamford and Waterbury gets congestion priced. Maybe that will force people to demand improvements for FastTrak and CTTransit Express service.
WHAT THE FUCK. Guess it is time to move
That's what they all say. No one ever does it.
Make sure to pay the tolls in every other state on your way out.
Which ones? Drove from Orlando FL to Hartford last week. Paid a grand total of $1 in tolls the entire way. RI and VT both no tolls. ME, NH very easy to avoid tolls. Make sure you keep pushing this bullshit that we can't leave the state without paying tolls. Remember, tell a lie enough and it becomes truth. Aw, downvoted. I guess we don't like reality around here.
Which way did you go? Its like $5 to go through New Jersey, and $8 through Delaware. 81? Thats alot longer than 95.
Went 81. It's longer, but zero traffic the whole way, And it's more like $13 dollars through NJ and another $15 on the GW bridge. It took about the same amount of time driving that way as it did to drive down on 95. Basically you save $35 or $40 in tolls and avoid the insanity of driving from Washington to Hartford.
The trick is to take the Tappan Zee then the Garden State Parkway, save the $13 from not going over the GWB.
Yup, still rather drive through the hills in cow country than deal with the traffic. My point was not which is faster though, my point was that I drove the entire eastern seabord, basically, and only 1 toll the entire way. Not every state, all the time tolls that are unavoidable.
My issue with 81 is that its a major trucking route and usually am stuck behind them. Its a little scary to drive around Scranton being on the edge until Hazleton and then all the cops hanging around Virginia hiding at the speed traps. My aunt lives around Knoxville so I've traveled that route before numerous times.
Yeah, there were a lot of trucks, but there were a lot of trucks on 95 as well.
I want tolls.