Seize chance to lock up transportation funds

W ant to assure that state money set aside for fixing Connecticut’s woeful transportation infrastructure is spent for that purpose? If the answer is yes, then it is critical to vote in favor of Question 1 on the Nov. 6 ballot. It reads: Shall the Constitution of the State be amended to ensure (1) that all moneys contained in the Special Transportation Fund be used solely for transportation purposes, including the payment of debts of the state incurred for transportation purposes, and (2) that sources of funds deposited in the Special Transportation Fund be deposited in said fund so long as such sources are authorized by statute to be received by the state?

That Connecticut needs to do a far better job when it comes to transportation is beyond argument.

A report released in November 2015 by TRIP, a nonprofit organization that researches, evaluates and distributes economic and technical data on transportation needs, took a hard look at Connecticut. It concluded the state’s inadequate transportation system costs motorists $5.1 billion annually due to additional vehicle operating costs, congestion-related delays and crashes.

Poor pavement accelerates vehicle depreciation and adds repair expense. Congestion causes lost work time and increased fuel costs. Inadequate safety features mean added and more serious accidents.

At that time, TRIP found one-third of Connecticut’s major roads and 25 percent of Connecticut’s local and rural roads had pavements in poor condition.

“A lack of sufficient funding at all levels — local, state and federal — will make it difficult to adequately maintain and improve the existing transportation systems,” states the TRIP report. Little has changed since. A CNBC study released this past summer concluded Connecticut has the fourth worst infrastructure in the United States. The website gave the state a D grade. According to the study’s findings, Connecticut, at 73 percent, has the second highest percentage of roads considered poor or mediocre.

Just last month came another report from TRIP, which concluded that 7 percent of the state’s bridges — 308 out of 4,254 — were structurally deficient because of significant deterioration to the decks and supports and need replacement.

In addition, mass transit needs to be expanded and improved to make Connecticut’s cities more attractive.

Connecticut must have a serious debate about how best to meet and pay for its transportation needs. Both the Democratic candidate for governor, Ned Lamont, and independent candidate Oz Griebel, former chairman of the now defunct state Transportation Strategy Board, support constructing electronic tolling on state highways to raise needed revenue. (Though Lamont has backed off to support a more politically palatable trucks only tolling policy.)

Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Stefanowski opposes tolls, as do most top GOP leaders. Republicans insist they can find the money elsewhere to maintain and improve transportation, but we don’t see how, especially given Stefanowski’s stated desire to roll back and eventually eliminate the income tax.

While The Day sees electronic tolling as the only way to raise the necessary revenues — and to begin collecting money from the millions of out-of-state drivers who pass through the state — that is not what the constitutional question is about. The amendment is meant to assure that money directed into the Special Transportation Fund is used for transportation, regardless of how that money is raised and where it comes from.

The amendment is not foolproof. It only locks up for transportation use money placed into the TSF. The legislature could still redirect gas tax or future toll revenues to other uses before they are locked up safe. But having the amendment in place would provide greater transparency and accountability. Moves to circumvent the intent of the lockbox would be obvious and those involved in the chicanery would pay a heavy political price.

It is certainly better than having no lockbox and continuing with the current system that allows for all types of fiscal sleight of hand. The group Securing Connecticut’s Future, which advocates in favor of Question 1, estimates that over the last 10 years $500 million has been taken out of the transportation fund.

Approval of the amendment should also lead to lower interest on transportation bond issues because it will provide better repayment security, the group’s Co-Chair Michael Cacace said in an interview with The Day.

Improving the Connecticut transportation system is also critical to economic growth. Forty-two percent of businesses surveyed by the Connecticut Business and Industry Association believe road congestion limits the territory of their market, while 15 percent have considered relocation.

The choice appears obvious. Vote “yes” on Question 1.