State Reps See Dangerous Precedent in Bill Allowing Tolls

Rummaging for crumpled bills isn’t something Connecticut drivers normally worry about; the death knell tolled for tolls in 1988.

But now the state is short on transportation funds and long on the need for better roads. So the General Assembly recently passed HB 6200 to allow tolls to pay for an 8.5-mile extension of Route 11 from Salem to Interstate 95 in Waterford. Viewed through a narrow prism, the bill’s language allows tolls to finance the construction of one road’s extension. But the problem is, the bill’s language actually allows for tolls everywhere, said area legislators.

“It sets a dangerous precedent,” said state Rep. Gail Lavielle, a member of the General Assembly's Transportation Committee. “It was a way of making policy on one road.”

And, it’s the first time the state decided to use tolls to build a road, said Lavielle a Republican representing Wilton and Norwalk in the 143rd state House District.

Tolls once punctuated the Connecticut Turnpike, or I-95 and 395, from Greenwich through Killingly. A spate of accidents led the state to abolish tolls. In 1983, a truck smashed four cars at the Stratford toll plaza killing 7 and injuring scores more.

According to the 2009 Connecticut Tolling Study, should the state ever reinstitute tolls, the majority would not be equipped with traditional “full stop” booths. Instead drivers could expect digital camera license plate readers.

But once tolls are allowed one road, they could be allowed anywhere in the state. That concerns border towns like Greenwich.

Greenwich First Selectman Peter Tesei and Town Planner Diane Fox both submitted testimony to Transportation Committee back in February.

“Tolls will generate increased traffic through local neighborhoods by motorists looking to avert payment. In Greenwich this will have a negative impact on the Byram neighborhood and its residential and business communities,” Tesei and Fox said in testimony. “Furthermore, this will also add traffic to the presently burdened US Route 1 in Greenwich.”

Already, rush hour means traffic jams and standstills at I-95 Exit 4 to the New York State line, Tesei and Fox said in their testimony. They said this turns off businesses thinking of relocating to Connecticut.

Ryan Lynch of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign opposed tolls, saying it puts the burden of financing transportation on border areas and adds to congestion.

That congestion leads to overburdened local roads as people try to avoid tolls, Michael J. Riley, president of the Motor Transport Association of Connecticut, said in testimony.

MTAC represents about 1,000 companies, including freight haulers and construction companies. Riley said tolls would simply add to the cost of living and doing business in the state.

Another Fairfield County legislator and Transportation Committee member, state Rep. Kim Fawcett also opposes tolls. The Democrat represents Fairfield and Westport in the 133rd state House District.

Still, Fawcett isn’t worried tolls will come south anytime soon.

“It doesn’t impact Fairfield County in any way, but I don’t like the bill because I don’t like the precedent it sets,” she said.

One, it isn’t good practice to finance roads with tolls, she said. Two, tolls change driver behavior and this one won’t get more people on mass transit.

As for HB 6200 paving the way for tolls in the region?

“The majority of Republicans and Democrats would have to say we want tolls,” Fawcett said. “That’s not going to happen.”