Trucksonly tolling back on table, lawmakers say

Unable to secure enough support to pass a plan for widespread tolling on the state’s major highways, top Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Ned Lamont are now discussing ideas they previously rejected: tolling trucks only and placing tolls only on bridges in need of repair.

“There has been discussion back and forth where the governor has indicated his support for a consensus compromise for transportation infrastructure that would include a more limited amount of tolling,” Senate President Martin Looney, DNew Haven, said Tuesday. “The concept is tolling on a certain number of bridges that have not been specified yet and possibly returning to an earlier version of his proposal of tolling on trucks only.”

Democrats’ goal is to devise a limited tolling proposal that will win some Republican votes, kick start transportation investment and pass legal muster.

Either proposal involving tolls or bridges would represent a significant retreat from Lamont’s proposal for numerous gantries on interstates 95, 91, 84 and the Merritt Parkway.

And neither idea is a clear winner: both concepts face some reservations from the governor’s office and within the Democratic caucus.

For Lamont, the specter of a fresh hit to his political trustworthiness arises. The resurfacing of the truckonly concept, which he championed on the campaign trail and then retreated from early in office, may bring fresh accusations of political flipflopping — even if the new suggestions are slightly different from last year’s.

But such blows may be necessary to secure passage of a major transportation investment bill, the firstterm governor’s top priority and the one that evaded him during the 2019 legislative session.

“Trying to have a limited approach that meets the very basic needs of the state might be the right approach at the moment,” said Rep. Roland Lemar, DNew Haven, cochair of the legislature’s Transportation Committee. “What is the magic formula for the political consideration on this?”

Trucksonly 2.0

House Majority Leader Matt Ritter, DHartford, said lawmakers are talking about a trucksonly tolling proposal be different from Rhode Islands’, which is now subject to legal challenges. They believe heavy 18wheelers do more damage to the roads than cars and want them to pay — how they would do that and avoid a lawsuit hasn’t been determined yet.

“I don’t know that anyone has agreed on the right mechanism to do that — or if one exists — but I think all sides agree there is answer in there if you can get to it legally,” said Ritter.

Lamont is “open” to a number of options to fund transportation, his senior adviser Colleen Flanagan Johnson said, but his administration has doubts about whether tolling trucks only could win federal approval.

“We don’t believe that will pass federal muster,” she said. “Most trucks have already altered their driving patterns, so it wouldn’t mean a substantial difference in congestion, which is necessary to prove through NEPA [the National Environmental Policy Act].”

On the campaign trail, Lamont championed trucksonly tolling. Then, in February, Lamont announced that he believed a better option was tolling trucks and passenger cars.

“The truckonly option provides too little revenue, too slowly and too piecemeal to make a meaningful difference,” he wrote in an oped announcing his new policy stance.

The firstterm Democrat has taken repeated heat, particularly from Republicans, for changing his position.

Asked why Lamont might consider a version of trucksonly tolling now, Looney said “The difference is being willing to commit additional bonding resources to make up the difference for what additional tolling would have brought it.”

He added, “I think it is a reasonable approach to devote more resources to our transportation infrastructure needs.”

But Lamont also supported a harder line on borrowing earlier, advocating for a “debt diet” for the state, a position that sometimes put him at loggerheads with other Democrats, who wanted more money for school construction and other projects.

Only recently has Lamont softened, supporting slightly more borrowing as compromise. He has offered to accept $300 million in additional borrowing in each of next two fiscal years, the CT Mirror reported.

Bridgeonly tolls

Lawmakers have also previously considered enacting projectspecific tolls — for example, gantries located near aging bridges to fund their repairs.

“We came to the conclusion it wasn’t viable,” said Sen. Carlo Leone, DStamford, cochair of the legislature’s Transportation Committee. “The financials didn’t add up for the needs of the state.”

Lemar also raised concerns that tolls to fund bridge repairs are likely to be more expensive than tolls spread out across the state’s highways and thus present higher risks of diversion onto local routes.

But now the idea is back, the governor’s office and lawmakers confirmed Tuesday.

“Projectspecific tolling is actually something that was proposed by Republicans in Washington back in 2017 and is what many states do,” said Ritter. “Instead of just having tolls forever, you look at major projects and you say ‘while we are doing this upgrade, they will be required.’ That could be bridges, that could be certain highway projects.”

There is not yet a short list of which bridges might be considered for tolling, Looney said.

The number of statemaintained roadway bridges in “poor condition” has declined since 2012, but still hovered over 200 in 2017, the Department of Transportation said in a report in June.

That said only select bridges that meet certain federal criteria could win approval for a toll gantry. Per federal rules, major repairs or a replacement must be planned and the project must get a federal okay before a gantry is erected.

Also, the toll revenue collected at the bridge would need to used be only on the bridge repair project, until the project was complete. After the project ended, the gantry could stay up and continue to gather revenue for other projects or lawmakers could decide to take it down.

“One thing that we have looked at is, when you apply to the federal govenment to put a toll on a bridge, can you lock yourself in by basically saying ‘we will remove the toll at the completion of the project,’ and does that give more comfort to people who are worried the tolls will remain indefinitely,” said Ritter.

Dreams of bipartisanship

Both limited trucksonly or projectspecific tolling ideas are significant departures from Lamont’s previous tolling of a maximum of 50 toll gantries spread out over interstates 95, 91 and 85 and the Merritt Parkway, with discounts for instate residents and commuters. Lamont’s administration predicted such a plan would generate roughly $800 million a year in revenue, with 40 percent from the pockets of outofstate drivers.

These new limited tolling proposals are buoyed by Democrats hopes of winning some Republican support for the transportation plan, however.

“Obviously I favor a bipartisan solution,” said Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, DNorwalk, on Tuesday. Ritter and Looney have also expressed hopes of winning Republican votes.

Republicans have remained steadfastly and vociferously antitoll.

“House Republicans remain resolute in our message to the people of Connecticut — we do not support tolls, nor have we ever,” said House Minority Leader Themis Klarides, RDerby, when asked about a bipartisan compromise last month. “We do not support more ways for state government to take money out of taxpayers’ pockets.”

Klarides was not immediately available for comment Tuesday evening.