If you commute across the state line, this is distressing news:
Congress nudged the door ajar for "gateway tolls" on Connecticut's borders.
Tucked into the 1,075-page transportation bill that recently cleared the House of Representatives are provisions that remove, under some circumstances, federal financial roadblocks that have stopped states like Connecticut from imposing new highway tolls. (Urban)
Great. I have nightmares of a toll booth on the Enfield/Longmeadow border, now.
This is a terrible idea for the following reasons:
1. There is a lot of cross-border economic activity, where people will drive from out of state to shop at malls and other retail establishments near the border. Enfield is a great example of this. I routinely see license plates from Massachusetts and Vermont in the parking lots of Enfield stores. The Danbury Fair Mall is another example, and the Crystal Mall in Waterford is a third. Tolls on the highways leading to these places will make out of state customers think twice.
2. Congestion will get much, much worse because of toll plazas. The border crossings are often very busy as it is, with the exception of I-395 and I-84 into Massachusetts. Fairfield County will suffer especially from this.
3. Commuters will start taking side roads unsuited to heavy traffic to avoid paying entry/exit tolls. This means more road repair for the state and for border towns.
I hope our elected representatives had the decency to stand against something so clearly counter to the interests of the state:
All five Connecticut representatives opposed the original amendment. But Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2, swam against the tide and voted in favor of the amendment.
"Rob felt it would be wrong to allow these tolls not to go to new construction only," "Whether you are a trucker or motorist, you already pay a toll in the form of a gas tax," said Todd Mitchell, Simmons' chief of staff.
Simmons is the only member of the delegation on the House Transportation Committee. (Urban)
Ugh.
Source: Urban, Peter. "Bill could take toll on roads." Connecticut Post 4 April 2005.
1 comment:
stomv, the point of the gas tax is not to snare commuters or long-distance travellers - the point is to harvest money from the local person, in exchange for road maintenance on the roads they as citizens use. It's unrealistic to expect a tax to be able to capture money from every person passing through the state, especially if, as you said, the state is "too short." When you pay a gas tax in MA (rather than CT's), you're not suckering CT by then using its roads to go from Boston to NYC, you're paying for your own local roads (assuming there is a gas tax in MA, I don't know).
Besides, people working in Boston aren't just sucking "consuming your resources and polluting your air" - they're also generating hospitality income, supporting parking garages, and the fact of their employment is allowing businesses to thrive in Boston and generating tax revenue for the state (whether the state chooses to give businesses tax breaks and move the cost back onto your shoulders is the state's business, and not the fault of the NH commuter). The benefits of increased and sustained business activity and Boston's prominence as a business center far outweigh for the state and defecits created by the presence of a commuter class.
Or, you could just pass laws like New York's, and see how long it takes the commuters to stay the hell out of Massachusetts!
I agree that border tolls are a terrible idea - the interconnection between states is built on the power of interstate commerce, and now it's possible to make that harder? Did anyone think of the trucking companies, or van lines, or airport shuttle services? This can only end poorly.
Post a Comment