A Toll on Trucks is a Toll on Everyone
Opinion by State Rep. Brian Lanoue
This week, Connecticut House and Senate Democrats announced that they likely have the votes to pass Governor Lamont’s CT2030 transportation plan, which will be funded in large part by trucks-only tolls. While we are still waiting for more details, here’s what we do know. If approved, the plan will take about 18 months to implement and will also rely on federal loans for additional funding using toll revenue as leverage. The plan itself includes twelve gantries to be placed across the state on major highways. Unfortunately, one of these locations will be on I-395 in Plainfield.
As a result, trucks will attempt to avoid I-395 by going through our district. This will cause addition damage to our infrastructure for which trucks will not be held accountable. That financial burden will fall on our towns. It will also increase congestion on our roads and will make local routes less safe, which is already happening in Voluntown where trucks utilize Routes 165/138. This has become a major issue for local residents where homes and schools have been affected by increased traffic.
I do not say any of this to offend the trucking industry as they provide an invaluable service to residents and businesses in our district, and around the state. Rather, I hold Democratic leadership accountable for not finding an alternative way to address Connecticut’s transportation problems that does not present fiscal, logistical, and public safety issues for Griswold, Lisbon, Plainfield, Sterling, and Voluntown.
Another problem with this plan is the ongoing litigation in Rhode Island where trucking companies are challenging the state’s trucks-only toll law. If the case does not go in Rhode Island’s favor, the state may choose to expand tolls to all motor vehicle. This could be a glimpse into Connecticut’s future if we also go down this path.
Lastly, we must keep in mind that the cost of tolls on trucks will reach our pockets as well. Trucks deliver all kinds of good across the state – fuel, food, basic household supplies, etc. The financial burden will be passed on to the consumers.
Despite now having the votes, support across the aisle for tolls is lukewarm at best, and that’s because they know most Connecticut residents are weary of tolls, and they know why. In 2018, as part of the short session budget fix, the General Assembly came together to direct more money to the Special Transportation Fund (STF) – the account used to pay for major infrastructure projects – using revenue from the new car sales tax. This was a bipartisan effort to avoid tolls.
Months later, during the midterm elections, Connecticut voters approved the constitutional lockbox on the STF, but there was a caveat. The lockbox only protected money once it was in the account. It did not ensure that money would actually reach it. Using this loophole, Democratic legislators in the majority passed a new budget in 2019 that rerouted the new car sales tax revenue (about $171 million) from the STF to the general fund to address the deficit and help alleviate years of wasteful spending.
I was elected by the great people of our district to hold Hartford accountable, address wasteful spending, and fight tax and fee increases. Unfortunately, the majority party has mishandled state finances for years, and because of that, residents and businesses are hesitant to trust them with more of their hard-earned money. The people of this state are being crushed by burdensome taxes and fees, not to mention a relatively high cost of living. I refuse to support another measure that will make things worse for residents and businesses in this district, or any other. I remain opposed to tolls in any form.
Republicans and Democrats are in agreement – our bridges, highways, and rail system are in urgent need of repair, and delay will only turn the issue of transportation into a matter of public safety. However, that does not mean tolls are the only solution available. Our legislature came together once before to deal with this issue, and it can do so again, but we need to be mindful of Connecticut’s economic situation and the implications of any decision we make on the state as a whole.
As always, I welcome your input and hope we can reach consensus in the very near future.