OPM: Tolling Study Comments
CT.GOV
Office of Policy and Management
/opm Website
{Advanced Search}
Office of Transportation Policy Home
Office Staff Directory
Office Structure
Reports
Transportation Strategy Board
{ }

Office of Policy 
and Management
450 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106-1379
 
(860) 418-6200
(800) 286-2214
 
E-mail Us
 

{e-Alerts}
Receive OPM news updates by e-mail.
Subscribe now or update your e-Alerts

{Login}

Electronic Tolling and Congestion Pricing Comments
  • Norwalk - Tolls in Ct. Is a terrible and dangerous idea. Please review the Stratford toll crash of 1981. I believe 7 or 8 people died. Michael Koskoff was the Plantiffs lead Atty. he has the pictures. It happened, and could happen again. Congestion pricing is another tax when we are taxed to death in this state. NO WAY, NO How.
  • Shelton - I agree that tolls in CT should become a reality. When people think of tolls they think of the old style toll booths we once had, with the long lines and delays. With the new technology, there won't be the same problems as in the past. The people actually using the highways would be the ones helping to pay for them. It isn't fair to raise gas taxes for everyone. Many people only drive locally, and having them pay higher gas taxes to help maintain highways is not fair. The motorists and truckers just 'passing through' CT from New York to Massachussettes or Rhode Island, should also contribute. They are also causing wear and tear on our highways.
  • Torrington -  Do not keep pursuing the idea of bringing tolls back to Connecticut roads. There are other taxing methods that do not have the overhead costs of any tolling system. Tolling has high initial and on-going overhead costs that reduce net income. Tolling also requires establishing a new bureaucracy to administer. If there is truly a need to raise taxes, use a method that already exists without adding to overhead costs and creating a new bureaucracy. That's just common sense.
  • Southport - I am strongly in favor of tolls on I-95.  I believe they will cause more people to use public transportation and to carpool.  We need to reduce congestion in order to have a chance of attracting businesses to our region.  Additionally it will be a plus for our environment. I am also in favor of making the left lane of I-95 a 2-person carpool lane.  At a minimum it should be during the 6-9am and 4-7pm rush hour.  Some may be concerned that having one lane dedicated to 2 or more people/car would cause excessive traffic in the remaining two.  I hear them, but don’t believe it will happen beyond a short initial period.  People will “wise up” and begin to carpool.  This is what happened in Silicon Valley, CA on US-101.  Now it works very well, both speeding filled cars along and encouraging everyone to carpool. If this is so successful that it causes overcrowding of our parking facilities, well then we’ll just have to build more or make some multi-tier lots.  I’d love to have that become a problem, as it will show that we are successful in reducing congestion and encouraging mass transit.  Ultimately, we’ll be making our State more attractive to live in and for business to locate in.
  • Riverside - Dear Sir:  The McCalleys join many others in Fairfield County to implore you and your colleagues to help pass an electronic tolling system for congestion relief at high-volume times on I-95 and other major CT highways.  It is killing business down here to have such horrendous traffic congestion and giving incentives to drivers of cars and trucks to travel at safer speeds and less congested times is long overdue.Economic incentives are the way to go!
  • I totally support electronic tolling in Connecticut.  I travel w/regularity to Boston once a month and have used my NY Speed Pass since the system was created in Massachusetts.  I am aware of my lanes - Massachusetts is still behind NY in the number of lanes providing the Speed Pass usage.  I hope CT - if implimented - doesn't make that mistake.
  • West Haven - I am 58 years old and a Democrat. I have lived in West Haven when the tolls were here. I did not realize how bad it was until the summer after the tolls were gone. It was as if a great weight was lifted off my chest (I have asthma). Imagine how the toll-takers were affected (more than the workers in the casinos by smoke). My brother and I had to get off and walk the bicycles near the I-95 overpass since the air was so heavy. Tolls are a health hazard. I notice that all the legislators proposing this are from towns and cities that did not have the tolls and would not be considered. And they want to exempt Harford. I have EZPASS to visit my aunt on Long Island. The traffic on the Whitestone and Trogs Neck bridges back up far back to the 2 lane sections before the plazas causing jams. EZPASS will not work on I-95 as there is too many exits. If the tolls are instituted then exempt ALL towns and location that had them for a period of 20 years. These tolls were supposed to be used to pay for the construction and use of the roads but were always raided for the General Funds. I have already paid  my share. On a side note the diesel tax should be lowered or eliminated to stimulate the business that service truckers and lower the cost of goods delivered but require a CDL for the exemption - not for cars. Companies have re-routed to avoid passing thru Connecticut. My sister works for the Mayflower Motel in Milford and the tax kills their business.
  • New Hartford - Bringing tolls back to our Ct roads is bad idea being promoted with half truths about the virtues of electronic tolling.  Electronic tolling is not the wonderful solution it's advocates say. There are high costs to establish the hardware and software and recurring maintenance costs that go on forever. Added to that is the need for a new bureaucracy and its costs to administer the system. These structural and administrative costs will reduce the revenue that is collected. Other means of collecting money have little or no overhead costs.  Another element not discussed by electronic tolling advocates are the problems with the billing procedures. Not only do they have periodic errors, poor customer service staff, but they can open up everyone's credit card and personal information to the hackers and identity thiefs that are getting more clever every day.  Everyone who spoke at the hearing in Waterbury was opposed. The Quinnipiac poll found a majority of our citizens are opposed.
  • Berlin - I do not support restoring tolls on CT highways. Interstate highways were built with 90% Federal funds, and I believe it is illegal to add tolls to them. Border tolls impede interstate commerce, violating the US Constitution. If transponders are required, what will those without them do? It will make CT less hospitable to visitors. Cut state spending. Why are we so heavily taxed compared to Southern states? We spend too much on State agencies we don't need. (Examples: Do we NEED a Transportation Strategy Board? Do we NEED an Office of Consumer Council when the DPUC also considers the public in setting utility rates? The Attorney General and his big staff act like a fourth branch of government. Isn't three enough?) I recall that 50% of the tolls collected were used for the collection activity itself! Adding tolls - in general, it's a bad idea.
  • Riverside - I am very concerned about the traffic divertion that will occur in our neighborhoods as a result of tolling I-95. We recently moved our business to Greenwich from NYC, in part due to lack of train parking and lack of seats on the train. With about 75% of our staff now "reverse commuting" from the city, it will be quite popular to move. The character of our town will change, it will be dangerous to walk, and riding my bike to the office will be out of the question. The idea of spending $2.8 B in taxpayer money to set up this program which will destroy the most attractive parts of Fairfield County is short-sighted political vision. The flexibility of so many of the high paying jobs here will enable an exodus of one of the few real industries succeeding in the state.
  • Waterbury - I for one am tired of paying tolls in every other state that I drive through and having out of state residents pay anything to use our roads. The Department of Transportation should look at the Garden State Tpk. and the Chicago highway system for ideas on having tolls without disrupting the flow of traffic.
  • New Hartford - The idea of installing & supporting tolling in Connecticut is ridiculous. Anything requiring spending millions to build & support in these times is short sited & obviously fulfilling personal agenda & short term financial gains. It will take years to recoup the costs of building the facilities, infrastructure and support systems. It will take the first 4 months of each year to collect enough money to offset the annual costs of support the tolling system. The number of jobs created are not enough to justify the negative impact of this superfluous way of raising tax revenues. Building a tolling system, that will cost more than anyone expects (every government project is always over budget) & disrupt traffic for years & create an infrastructure (with limited earning potential) to remain in place indefinitely, should die. It's an expensive, ineffecient, unnecessary system. Bag it and find something better, there are a plethora of best practices all over the country.
  • Manchester - Hello, I heard a report on the tv that stated it was a possibility that you may place tolls in the HOV lanes in and around Hartford. I just wanted to voice my unhappiness about that. I travel the HOV lane every day with my husband, into and out of work in Hartford. We are already doing a good thing by carpooling together and helping the environment. Why would you punish us for that? If anything, the regular lanes should be tolled. There are too many drivers to count who use the regular lanes and are traveling solo. They are not doing service to our environment that way. Lastly, if you were to toll the HOV lanes, I would imagine you would find less drivers in those lanes. It's just as easy to drive in the regular lanes and save some money.  Thank you for your time.
  • Rocky Hill - I think this is a very bad idea. Every time I drive to Boston I thank God that CT doesn't have to deal with the back-ups that tolls cause. If increasing tax revenues is the idea, we're better off increasing sales tax, or some other tax, where the infrastructure and collection channel is already established and would essentially add no incremental costs. The costs of establishing and maintaining a new infrastructure necessary for tolls will surely negate much of the revenue it generates.
  • Southbury - I am a resident of Southbury CT with an office in Greenwich. Please note that I am against the addition of tolls on major highways. Despite the addition of modern toll technology many drivers will leave go off the highway to avoid tolls creating traffic jams and pollution. In addition, I feel tolls are a strike against freedom of movement which are country currently enjoys!!! Finally, the addition of tolls could be a factor in preventing new businesses from moving into our State.
  • Cheshire - I think it is a great idea. We have subscribed to ezpass, so that when we travel we do not have to stop and pay the tolls. You can keep doing 55 mph when paying the toll. It would be a great way for the state to collect revenue for the much needed road repair. All the surrounding states have tolls, why not connecticut.
  • Middletown - Tolls are the last thing that Connecticut highways need. Instead of trying to come up with increased revenue, it is long overdue that the DOT and state infrastructure units streamline to reduce the present bloated headcounts.
  • Rocky Hill - Please! Please! Please! NO Tolls in CT!!!! I moved to CT from MA partly because of the traffic congestion caused by toll booths -- yes, even the EZPass method -- and the amount of frustration and time it was taking me to get to work!!! Remember, it's not only the incredible congestion, but the valuable time lost just waiting in line trying to get from one place to another!! I'm sorry, but I don't believe enough $money$ is made from having tolls in our State to warrant all of the negatives -- and yes, added expenses -- involved with setting up a toll system. I believe that CT learned a valuable lesson years ago when they removed tolls after a terrbile accident (I was not in the State at the time). Do we need to "learn that lesson the hard way" another time down the road?!?! I sure hope not! Please -- there are other ways to find the money you need to run the State without putting all of its residents at risk in more ways than one! Please!! NO TOLLS IN CT!!!!! Thank you!
  • Avon - with tolls all you are doing is transfering costs to the users, adding traffic jams (ever driven the garden state turnpike in n j) using more fuel, poluting the environment, wasting time for users, and adding more expense for the state. it is obvious that common sense is not prevaling here.
  • Winsted - According to someone from Cheshire: "All the surrounding states have tolls, why not connecticut." This is one of the half truths tolling advocates keep spouting.  First, when your kid tells you they want to do something because "all the other kids do it" any parent with common sense knows that far from a good reason to do anything.  Second, there are no tolls on in our surrounding states I-91, I84, I 684, I90 west of Springfield, I-384, much of I-95, and other roads. Let's stick to the full truth, not half truths.
  • Hartford - Out-of -State Truckers Pay Connecticut Taxes Now.  Automobiles which fuel up in other states can avoid paying fuel taxes to Connecticut. That is not the case with trucks. Every large truck that operates in Connecticut, pays Connecticut the fuel taxes on every gallon of fuel it consumes in this state. Regardless of where they buy fuel, truckers pay every state, within which they operate, that state's fuel tax. The International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA)is an interstate compact mandated by congress. All states, Canada and Mexico participate in the compact. Each 1/4, truckers report miles driven in each state, and where they have purchased fuel. IFTA provides a mechanism whereby truckers reconcile their tax obligation to each state where they travel. It is inaccurate to claim that trucks from other states don’t pay their fair share for the use of Connecticut’s highways. Currently Connecticut’s Diesel Fuel Tax is 43¢ per gallon.
  • Ashford - I think that ALL TOOLS should be abolished...They create a traffic hazard, wasted time amounting to billions per year, congestion, and a parasitic group of employees that collect tolls. Most people commute when they do because their work rules require they be there at a certain time. This is probably true more for blue collar and non-professional workers, and they are on the lower end of the pay scale, so a congestion based tax would be regressive. What about placing congestion tax on TRUCKS and other large vehicles that cause the congestion in the first place!
  • Willington - My wife and I commute every day together in our hybrid vehicle from Willington to Hartford using the HOV lanes. We feel rewarded each day with a relatively fast commute by doing our part in not only helping the environment, but by helping to reduce congestion. Appallingly, the State may be on the verge of considering a toll system in which the HOV lanes would be for sale for non-HOV vehicle use. This seems contrary to the goal of encouraging commuters to help reduce congestion by using HOV lanes as intended. Furthermore, a HOV toll system(HOT lanes) would be contrary to the purpose the state originally spent millions of taxpayer dollars to build such lanes. Recently a study, completed for Transportation Strategy Board concluded "there was not enough sustained congestion to cover operating costs". In fact, life cycle shortfalls were projected. In this time of budgetary restrain, this option seems to hardly to make sense. This report as presented to the Board is on this web site.
  • Willington - I would like to offer a viable suggestion that was not considered in our "million dollar" analysis. Why not continue to use the HOV lanes as they were intended to be used while encouraging the root problem (single occupancy vehicles) to change their commuting habits. I propose electronic tolls be implemented for all lanes other than HOV lanes during hours of high congestion. As toll dollars are collected and traffic pattern of commuters change to non-tolled HOV lane use, improvements could be made to increase capacity in the HOV lanes and naturally improve congestion issues dramatically.
  • Norwalk - I support electronic tolls. The revenue is needed, and appropriate rates would reduce trucks and shift cars to off-peak hours. This could encourage barge/rail transport of goods, & commuters to use mass transit.Electronic tolls don’t require booths or collectors and there’s no stopping. Except for signage and electronic reader arms, motorists would hardly notice they’re in a toll area. Residents & commuters would use EZ-Pass type systems, while visitors and infrequent users get their license plates scanned and a monthly bill.  Consider the option of leasing the highway toll systems to a highway authority, similar to the Texas program. This could result in a multi-billion dollar cash infusion, and would eliminate additional headcount on the state payroll. The authority would manage installation & maintenance and collections & administration. We must reduce truck traffic; ease congestion; and generate revenues for proper maintenance. I believe electronic tolls are the best option.
  • Bethel - I guess nobody remembers the carnage at the toll booths back in the 80's, I was there when the truck hit all those cars,and killed all those people, it wasn't pretty, with today's higher speeds and distractions, cell phones, texting, GPS etc. It would be an accident just looking for a place. As a Ct resident, I would rather see an increase in registration fees or gasoline taxes this way EVERYONE pays, not just the interstate users. Tolls: eliminated years ago for safety reasons, let it stay that way!
  • Brooklyn CT - Bringing back highway tolls only provides another tax base for lawmakers to increase revenues, not all to be spent on highways and transportation. Present fuel and transportation related taxes are not all spent on highway and transportation. Don't think for a minute tolls would cause lawmakers to lower existing taxes.
  • New Hartford - TOLLS CAUSED ME TO EXCESSIVELY POLLUTE YESTERDAY!  Yes, that's right, I was a polluter yesterday. While driving home from a Mother's Day visit with relatives in New Jersey, I was stuck in a massive, miles long traffic jam caused by the toll at the George Washington Bridge. Although I was not going to use that bridge, it was backed up far enough to interfere with getting to other routes. Bear in mind, this toll facility includes electronic tolling via EZ-Pass, yet the traffic was still backed up all the way through Ft. Lee, Leonia, and into the next town.  Electronic tolling and EZ-Pass systems are NOT the answer tolling supporters claim them to be. The TSB and our legislators need to listen to the citizens views on this forum those expressed at the public hearings, and in the Quinipiac Univ. poll. Bringing tolls back to Conn. roads does not have public support.
  • Naugatuck - I am in favor of putting tolls back along the boarders of Ct, this would generate income for the state which is needed. We pay tolls in other states why not here.
  • Winsted - The Ct.legislator is looking @ the option of tolling our highways. This is not a viable or practical option. Connecticut already has some of the highest fuel taxes in the nation, and we do not apply all of that revenue to our road. The state has seen more company's leave here to go to other states where it is more cost effective to doing business.  Now you are looking at adding another tax, i.e. tolls, to further drive business from Ct. In todays economic times it is inconceivable to add another tax, yes a toll is a tax, to the backs of struggling business and people trying to make ends meet.  Please look to cut spending and to direct all of our transportation resources to our infrastructure. Thank you
  • Meriden - We don't need tolls. We had them in the past and they were a disaster. Between the traffic jams, noise, and pollution of start and stop driving, we would go back to the stone age. Large trucks destroy our roads, not automobiles. If you must, charge a fee for overweight trucks and tandem trailers, but don't penalize commuters any more than they are now.
  • Tolland - #1. Installing hway tolls would slow traffic, increase pollution and fuel consumption. #2. It would double tax drivers. Truckers pay for every mile driven in CT both through IFTA and IRP and the Fed Highway Use Tax. CT IFTA charges - highest in the US @ 43.3%/gal. of diesel used in CT (5 mpg): gets CT truckers as well as interstate truckers traveling into CT, compared to only 25%/gal. for gas powered cars (20mpg) who don't pay these. Truckers are seen as cash cows when states want more money. Many CT trucks cross our borders several times in a day - tolls would be a killer! #3. A fiery crash that killed people when a truck couldn't slow down at a toll plaza pushed removal of tolls. #4. We could lose Federal funding if we reinstalled tolls. #5. We cannot afford the costs up front now to install tolls. How about raising the gas tax and the (graduated) tax on earned income over $30,000? Install tolls on roads that enter/exit casinos? Stop subsidizing Amtrack which only benefits a few?
  • Norfolk -  I own a trucking firm in Connecticut and as we all know Connecticut already is not truck friendly. I would highly support tolls, but for all out of state vehicles only. We already have people not stopping in Connecticut for gas and diesel due to the prices. You don't need to do million dollar investigation just ask around. Tell me what you find out. YOU DO THE MATH, IT ISN'T PRETTY
  • North Branford - In this bad economy,the last thing we need is tolls.How about this,Give Truckers a rebate every time thay are stuck in traffic because they are still using fuel.
  • Fairfield - I question the constitutionality of such a proposal and also believe it will create new traffic problems in border towns. First, only the Congress may regulate interstate commerce. How does a toll aimed only at those entering the state not violate that principle? If CT installed tolls throughout the state, *including* at the state line, that would be even-handed and not likely a violation of the Commerce Clause. But this proposal amounts essentially to an additional tax on interstate, and not intrastate, commerce. Just imagine a Rye, NY, company suing CT for denying it the equal protection the 14th amendment guarantees it, by unfairly targeting them and not their Greenwich, CT competitor.  Second, this will create new traffic problems in border towns. Why wouldn't people just hop off the highway and pass through town to cross the state line?
  • Norwalk - After reading many of the comments here I am convinced that the public is misinformed regarding electronic tolling. There are still folks referencing traffic jams and the Stratford accident, when in fact, the technology today eliminates the need for any physical toll booths or toll collectors! Everything is electronic and video related.  Additionally, as noted above and elsewhere, the state could actually lease or sell the tolled highway to private firms or quasi-governmental authorities (like in Texas) and get BILLIONS of dollars instantly.
  • Enfield -  My wife and I own and operate a tractor trailer, we are on the road over 300 days a year. Tolling the interstates is another for of double taxation. We pay road taxes for every mile that we drive in every state from the tax on fuel. In addition, we also pay a portion of the registration fees for the truck along with a $550 federal highway tax. My suggestion is to stop using the highway funding to pay for mass transit, flowers, sound barriers, and bike paths. The trucking industry pays alot more than they deserve. In this economy, we have scaled back, time for the state to do the same, we, in the trucking industry, are not rolling piggybanks.
  • Stamford - Tolls are a terrible idea. One need only look at the tolls anywhere throughout the New York metropolitan area to see that EZ-Pass does not adequately alleviate traffic congestion. Lanes will always be needed for those who do not possess the EZP and must pay cash, hence there will be significant backlogs to an almost unbearable traffic problem which exists at the present time. Furthermore, businesses and employees will see this as yet another tax imposed in a notoriously business unfriendly state. It is doubtful that employers will increase their worker's compensation to accomodate this additional cost. The result will be a less attractive work environment for everyone. The governmental leaders must learn to do more with less, cut the state's overhead, cut benefits, cut unneccessary functions which residents neither asked for nor need, otherwise employers, aside from those who are the beneficiaries of governmental largesse in the form of tax abatements, will be forced to go elsewhere.
  • Greenwich -  Members of the Board: I have been a resident of Greenwich for 62 years. When the tolls were in place in Greenwich, they were right between exit 2 and exit 3. I lived at exit 2. My elderly mother lived off exit 4. When I needed to get to her quickly, I had to pay a toll to go two exits within my own Town. Please, please if you put these in, make sure that they do not divide any town..... not fair!! And they certainly caused more backup than was worth the tolls. If you put up tolls, charge the truckers a whopping amount and then they may not hide from the weigh station as they do now.
  • Norwalk - I support Tolls on major highways through CT as a revenue stream to compensate the growing budget deficits. All Interstate autombiles that contribute to the traffic congestion need to pay for the use of CT highways. The CT residents should be given the benefit by reducing the automobile property tax they pay. The tolls should accomodate Express lanes for electronic tag (ez-pass) users and discourage cash payment by providing minimal automated cash booths.
  • Ridgefield - I find it impossible and impractical to attempt to offer a cogent letter to your Board with only 1000 letters and spaces allowed. You should offer a better system to allow public input. I find it ridiculous that you would attempt to make decisions based on such an antiquated and restrictive system.  The plan to implement tolling only at the gateways to the state should not go forward.
  • Enfield - I SAY NO TO ANY TOLL ROADS IN CT . IT IS MORE THAN DOUBLE TAXATION , AS TAXES ARE PAID THROUGH FUEL AND IFTA . THERE ARE SO MANY TRUCKING COMPANIES GOING OUT OF BUSINESS EVERY DAY AS EVERY STATE WANTS TO USE THE TRUCKER AS THERE WAY OUT OF FINANCIAL STRESS .ALL WE DO IS PAY TOLLS AND TAXES . WHEN WILL AUTHORITIES DO THINGS TO MAKE LIFE EASIER FOR THE TRUCKER , INSTED OF ALWAYS HAMMERING THEM . YOU SEEM TO FORGET THAT EVERYTHING YOU OWN OR EAT COMES FROM A TRUCK , AND WE ARE HARD WORKERS .IF ANYTHING YOU SHOULD LOOK AT WHERE ALL THE WASTED TAX DOLLARS GO THERE SHOULD BE PLENTY OF INCOME FOR THE STATE , WHO AND WHERE IS IT BEING WASTED . WE TRUCKERS ALREADY DO FAR MORE THAN OUR SHARE , LOOK AT DIFFERENT AVENUES.
  • Pomfret Center - When tolls were discontinued in the 1980's, I was surprised to find that gross receipts were approximately $58 million per year but costs were approximately $29 million. What an inefficient way to collect revenue!!! An incremental increase in the sales tax would have yielded the same revenue without any increase in costs. If tolls are needed to enhance revenues, I would suggest that they be placed on major highway entrances to the state only. This would insure collection from those using Connecticut as a pass-through route, such as Boston to NYC. Every day users and freight haulers could use discounted electronic passes. This would be similar to Deleware that collects toll revenue for the privilege of using their highways as a convenience travel route.
  • Ashford - It would be unfair to add yet another tax for Connecticut residents. We have one of the highest fuel taxes in the country and our registration fees are also high. Property taxes are way to high. How about taxing vehicles that are from other states that use our state roads and making CT tag holders exempt.
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico - Consider leasing some of the state's major highways to the private sector, where a firm would take over maintenance of a highway and collect tolls to cover the cost of those operations in exchange for an up-front lump-sum payment to the state. Such an arrangement has already been implemented successfully in Indiana, where that state received $3.8 billion up front. The interest generated from the windfall amounts to $500,000 per day or $180 million per year. The Indiana lease deal also required the company to perform certain capital improvements beyond routine maintenance.
 

 



Content Last Modified on 5/20/2009 2:01:53 PM
Home | CT.gov Home | Send Feedback

State of Connecticut Disclaimer and Privacy Policy  Copyright © 2002 - 2009 State of Connecticut