Talk About Tolls

If you look at the license plates on I-95 or I-84, it appears about 70 percent are from Connecticut.

[NJ Trucker]

I love Connecticut, it's free to drive in and make a living, it's small enough so I don't have to be ripped off by the high fuel taxes, I can easilly make it to another state to buy fuel. Come on suckers, keep the tolls off the road, we win, you lose. Or, you could do as New York does and have a toll at the border, this wouldn't affect instate drivers and the whole state would benefit. A toll at the New York and Rhode Island border would make a lot of income for state roads,

[wsm]

Andrew Roberts wrote:

If you look at the license plates on I-95 or I-84, it appears about 70 percent are from Connecticut.

You need to look at the percentage crossing the border. If the tolls are at the border, that should leave intrastate traffic toll free.
What about a pass for CT residents that waves most (if not all) of the toll.

[Jeff H]

The tolls were removed because people were getting killed. Is it now OK to start killing people again because the state needs (for dubious reasons) more revenue?

[NJ Trucker]

Jeff H wrote:

The tolls were removed because people were getting killed. Is it now OK to start killing people again because the state needs (for dubious reasons) more revenue?

There was one major accident at the toll booth, the people in Fairfield County used it as an excuse to have the tolls removed, they really felt it contributed to pollution in the area. Governor Bear fell into step with them and it was done. We need the revenue and we need it now.

[Marji]

Tolls take away the purpose of highways (non-stop, efficient travel) and waste time with vehicles waiting in line to pay tolls, especially on weekends when traffic is heavy. Traffic comes to a halt and many accidents are caused due to stopped vehicles. Any addit'l. funds for tolls will just be spent in a hapless manner by Connecticut, as all other revenue is spent. If anyone thinks the toll revenue will be spent on better roads, they're dreaming.

[Jeff H]

NJ Trucker wrote:

<quoted text>
There was one major accident at the toll booth, the people in Fairfield County used it as an excuse to have the tolls removed, they really felt it contributed to pollution in the area. Governor Bear fell into step with them and it was done. We need the revenue and we need it now.

Why not a reduction in expenses? As a trucker, you think tolls are a good idea? You KNOW they are dangerous. They are horribly inefficient. In CT, they'd be staffed by teamsters, like mass, where a typical toll-taker earns around $60,000 a year, not including benefits.

Tolls are a lousy idea all around.

[NJ Trucker]

Marji wrote:

Tolls take away the purpose of highways (non-stop, efficient travel) and waste time with vehicles waiting in line to pay tolls, especially on weekends when traffic is heavy. Traffic comes to a halt and many accidents are caused due to stopped vehicles. Any addit'l. funds for tolls will just be spent in a hapless manner by Connecticut, as all other revenue is spent. If anyone thinks the toll revenue will be spent on better roads, they're dreaming.

Any income from the tolls regardless of how the state spends it will come from out of state drivers who use Connecticut's roads not Connecticut residents. Many states have tolls, travelers laugh at us, they can drive free through Connecticut, they don't have to buy fuel here, just drive through from NY to Boston, and guess who pays to repair the roads and bridges, we do?

[DJH]

Tolls were removed not only because of one accident (a very bad and eye-opening one), but also because the toll plazas were parking-lots, with tons of cars idling at them for long stretches of time. Also, the overhead for running toll-collection operations (i.e. paying for toll collectors, maintaining toll plazas, etc.) was so high that the state was not making much money on tolls.

So given the many problems, the (small but real) risk to life and limb, and the low payoff, they were dispensed with.

What's really odd about this discussion is that "technology" is being trumpeted as the answer ... however, "technology" helps only so long as:

1) Every car going through has an appropriate emitter from the right company (EZ Pass or Fast Lane); and

2) Each car so equipped has an account with said toll company in good standing with funds available.

But not all cars going through CT will meet these criteria. This is so obvious that it hardly needs to be said ... yet, no one who's talking about tolls, has mentioned it. Anyone who doesn't drive toll roads often, definitely won't have an emitter since getting an emitter costs money in the first place and you have to use it often for it to be worthwhile.

What this means is that, despite the promise of "technology," a great many vehicles will have to go through toll booths and pay manually anyway. It's monumentally stupid not to take this into account ... and dishonest to promise everything will be so much better with "technology," when in fact that "technology" will NOT actually solve the problem completely.

Finally, the problem of a low payoff -- which helped encourage the removal of tolls long ago -- has not gone away. The EZ Pass and Fast Lane companies are highly profitable, and why? Because they charge the states that use them! A good chunk of toll revenues will be siphoned off to them, right off the top ... and there will STILL be SOME manual toll collection that will cost money to take care of, taken out of the remainder.

In other words, the state can expect to pull in as profit only a small percentage of toll revenues. What that percentage will be, I don't know -- nor does anyone else, which means no one can make any promises.

I don't begrudge companies the opportunity to make money this way; I'm pointing out that there WILL BE a cost involved, and any toll plan would have to account for it. The fact is that it still may not really pay to re-implement tolls. We have no way to know that it will, so anyone promising this, is being dishonest.

[Ren Stimpy Jr]

I think tolls are unconstituional.

They should let citizens travel between states for free.

But, if Jodi Rell wants them, we will get them. It's all about Jodi these days.

[wsm]

Ren Stimpy Jr wrote:

I think tolls are unconstituional.
They should let citizens travel between states for free.
But, if Jodi Rell wants them, we will get them. It's all about Jodi these days.

Who should pay the price for providing this path to travel?

[Ren Stimpy Jr]

wsm wrote:

<quoted text>
Who should pay the price for providing this path to travel?

Theres this thing that I pay called Federal Income taxes. Its usually taken out of your paycheck or any income you make. You should look into it.

Also, I get what is called state income tax taken out of my pay as well.

[wsm]

Ren Stimpy Jr wrote:

<quoted text>
Theres this thing that I pay called Federal Income taxes. Its usually taken out of your paycheck or any income you make. You should look into it.
Also, I get what is called state income tax taken out of my pay as well.

Being a sole proprietor, I have looked at taxes more than most people would be willing to.
I will agree with you that taxing the people of the state (and federal taxes) is ONE way to maintain the highways.
I am sorry if I appeared offensive in my last post. It was nothing personal against you. Just looking for opinions.

[Jeff H]

I much prefer users fees to taxes. I think fuel taxes are as about as equitable a distribution as you can get, as long as those user fees are collected based on need and not spread to other programs via any sort of general fund.

[FRANKFGSR]

Putting toll booths back in the state a very bad idea.Even with all the new influx of revenue from said tolls the average taxpayer in the state will not see one cent of tax relief from any of this money, the lawmakers will find more stupid ways to spend it &continue to tax the average taxpayer into oblivion!!!

[Anti- Sprawl]

Put the tolls in. Or rip the highways out. As a non-driver, I'm sickened that my tax money goes to fund this state's obsession with burning oil.

[Big]

I agree we should put tolls at the borders. And remember, too, that the Indian reservations are considered a separate nation, so it would be good to put tolls there too. Heck, if someone is going to drop $20 in quarters in 1/2 an hour, I'm sure they could pay a $3 toll each way.

[stop the madness]

Gaffey needs more money to give to his girlfriend at the CSU system.....Plus his GAF PAc must be running out of $ for him to buy final four tickets. What an inspiration GAffey is. He's the poster child for TERM LIMITS- Get a real job on your own Tom

[NW Corner]

stop the madness wrote:

Gaffey needs more money to give to his girlfriend at the CSU system.....Plus his GAF PAc must be running out of $ for him to buy final four tickets. What an inspiration GAffey is. He's the poster child for TERM LIMITS- Get a real job on your own Tom

Gaffey's "real job" is with the CRRA.'Nuff said.

[A real job]

Is this the same job that pays him a full time 100,000+ taxpayer funded salary while he takes 3 to 6 months off per year to draw another salary funded by the taxpayers as well. A salary that he went to court to have excluded from his child support obligations...

[Are you kidding]

gaffey did what? How does someone get to avoid their responsibility like that and how does the court support that.
It makes me sick. Well if he doesnt use his income to support his kids then he shouldnt miss it if we vote him out in November.

Term Limits!!