Increased Municipal Burden, Disproportionate Impact on Low-Income Drivers Among Possible Effects of Highway Tolls, Report Finds
/If Connecticut opts to introduce a system of tolls on the state’s roads to help fund a significant expansion of transportation infrastructure projects in the years ahead, the toll system instituted could run the risk of causing an increased use of local roadways that “could shift the burden of maintenance and congestion to municipalities,” and lower income residents in the state could be faced with “a higher burden relative to their incomes than wealthier Connecticut residents.”
Those warnings to policy makers are included in an Issue Brief by Inform CT that reviews the various tolling options and respective challenges posed. Connecticut eliminated tolls more than 30 years ago in the aftermath of a horrific accident at the Stratford toll plaza, and state leaders have been in a “perpetual debate about whether to reinstate them ever since,” the paper points out.
With overhauling the state’s transportation system is a leading element in Governor Malloy’s agenda to boost the state’s economy, renewed attention is being paid to methods of generating sufficient revenue to support those initiatives, and to issues raised in the 2015 policy brief. Spurred by advances in technology, the possibility of imposing a system of electronic tolls, such as those in use in other states, are among the considerations, with border tolling, distance tolling and congestion pricing among the options.
The issue brief indicated that a disadvantage of a distance toll system on all limited access highways in Connecticut would be that it “could create an incentive for people to use alternative roadways. The increased use of these roadways could shift the burden of maintenance and congestion to municipalities.” The advantage would be that distance tolls “could help to more efficiently allocate the cost of these roadways to drivers who use them the most.”
In analyzing the potential impact of tolls placed at Connecticut’s borders, the policy paper notes that while such an approach would “help to ensure that out-of-state residents driving through Connecticut pay for their use of Connecticut’s roadways,” border tolls “place a disproportionate burden on residents of Connecticut who commute out-of-state to work. This burden is further amplified if we believe that, on average, these out-of-state commuters use a smaller share of the roadways than their in-state commuting counterparts.”
Congestion pricing, which provides for higher toll charges at peak traffic times, “helps to limit traffic on major roadways and create an incentive for people to use more environmentally friendly forms of public transportation,” the policy paper indicates. However, a congestion pricing system “could polarize roadway use by displacing low income commuters during peak driving hours. Congestion pricing could also create displacement effects whereby the increased use of local roadways could shift the burden of maintenance and congestion to municipalities.”
The report suggests that “congestion pricing and distance tolls could become more affordable for low income residents if electronic payment systems were implemented that allow for income-based rate reductions.”
Earlier this year, a study panel recommended installing tolls and raising taxes in order to pay for Malloy's 30-year, $100 billion transportation program. Legislators have said that any decision on the imposition of tolls is at least a year away, as attention focuses during the current session on establishing a method to assure that money allocated to transportation is not redirected to other areas of government.
The issue brief also stress that “a key consideration when trying to outweigh the benefits and costs of implementing tolling in Connecticut is how the revenue from the tax will be redistributed to the residents of the state.” It goes on to highlight that “as the bill stands, the monies raised would go into the Special Transportation Fund but allocation of the monies from there is not specified. The allocation of these funds is an important discussion that needs to take place before the impact of the legislation can be considered in earnest.”
InformCT is a public-private partnership that currently includes staff from the Connecticut Economic Resource Center and the Connecticut Data Collaborative. The mission of InformCT is to provide independent, non-partisan research, analysis, and public outreach focused on issues in Connecticut, and to act as the convener for fact-based dialogue and action.


In Connecticut, a person is guilty of trafficking in persons when such person compels or induces another person to engage in sexual contact or provide labor or services by means of force, threat of force, fraud or coercion. Anyone under the age of 18 engaged in commercial sexual exploitation is deemed a victim of domestic minor sex trafficking irrespective of the use of force, threat of force, fraud or coercion.
The need for stronger action is underscored by recent statistics. In Connecticut, one of every three kindergartners is overweight or obese, as is one of every three low-income children. Children who are overweight or obese are more likely, according to the policy brief, to have:
A number of the proposals have been successfully implemented in other jurisdictions, including states and cities. Marlene Schwartz, Director of UConn's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, noted that Connecticut has long been a leader in providing nutritional lunches in schools, and said that now the state’s attention needs to move to the earlier years of childhood. “The field has realized that we need to start even earlier,” she said. Rudd also indicated that determining "policy changes that might help reduce the disparities" in Connecticut, which are apparent in race, ethnicity and socioeconomic data, is also essential.
The recommendations, described as “affordable, achievable, common sense measures,” were prepared for CHDI as part of a grant to the UConn Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, funded by the Children’s Fund of Connecticut. The author was public health policy consultant Roberta R. Friedman, ScM.
IMPACT “Preventing Childhood Obesity: Maternal-Child Life Course Approach” in 2014. The report reviewed scientific research on the causes of obesity and explored implications for prevention and early intervention. In 2015, the Children’s Fund of Connecticut funded four obesity prevention projects in Connecticut that addressed health messaging, data development, policy development and baby-friendly hospitals.


ucation systems positively, the lowest percentages in the country, in a
State residents were asked “how would you rate the quality of public education provided in grades K-12” on a scale including excellent, good, fair and poor. The top 10 states after North Dakota, Minnesota and Nebraska are Iowa, New Hampshire and Massachusetts (80%), Wyoming (79%), South Dakota (78%) and Vermont and Virginia (75%).

r of unsheltered individuals in those cities went up 10.5 percent and the number of unsheltered people in homeless families grew by 18.8 percent, Governing revealed.
The new network would dramatically extend televised and online coverage and “on-demand access” to all legislative hearings and debates, as well as public policy conferences, regulatory hearings, executive agency meetings, and state Supreme Court and Appellate judicial proceedings.
Giguere pointed out that “there are 10 hearing rooms, but CT¬N’s physical plant limits us to covering only two events concurrently. That means up to 80% of the Legislative committee process at any given time goes unseen. Our capacity to cover the Executive and Judicial Branches is even more limited.”
currently funded, CFOG notes, “the new entity would be monitored and accountable to the public, but independent from government itself.”
Callahan’s extensive touring, public speaking, and teaching make her a natural fit for the position. “
When asked to think about overall business conditions in Connecticut versus 6 months ago, respondents – for the first time in three quarters – said conditions are better now than 6 months ago. The margin was narrow - with 27 percent saying “better” and 25 percent saying “worse”, but that’s a reversal from the past two quarters, when more people were of the view that business conditions has worsened (22%-24% and 24%-28% in the two previous quarters).