[Stylo]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

I don't think people understand that if we implement tolls we are just taxing ourselves. The majority of traffic on the roads are CT residents. I have read CT only has 30% of out of state traffic, but that number isn't accurate either due to all the people who register their cars in other states (especially FL) to dodge property taxes.

Trying to catch all the out of state "free loaders" is a sorry excuse for putting up tolls.

The one side benefit i could see with tolls is it would stop every one from believing that roads are "free" when you have to drop 2 bucks to go from Stamford to New Haven each way or Hartford to Springfield.

Half the cars I see on 95 are out of state during the summer.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Stylo

Half the cars I see on 95 are out of state during the summer.

Exactly this.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Stylo

Half the cars I see on 95 are out of state during the summer.

I don't know if it is half but there certainly are a lot of out of state cars on our major highways. It is also clear that the current gas tax is no longer sufficient to support the cost of transportation. We have a choice, either we increase the gas tax, begin implementing tolls or we cut back on transportation spending. Connecticut is the only state on the east coast that does not have tolls. Our transportation network is in sore need of improvements so I don't think cuts are good. Many states are raising their gas taxes, even though some already have tolls. I believe New Jersey doubled their gas tax.

That said I believe the state should implement tolling but only on major highways in conjunction with significant reconstruction projects. This would include I-95 from New Haven to New York; I-95 from Guilford to Rhode Island; I-84 in Danbury, Waterbury and Hartford. These highways are all in line for major reconstruction projects so tolling them to help pay for those improvements would not be difficult. I believe that this would be the most acceptable way to fund major highway construction and better support transportation in our state. Jay

[Matrix2791]

Again how secure is that transportation lockbox gonna be if we collect toll revenue????? I seriously doubt the state will use all that money for roads. Malloy will shoot that lock right off the box if need be.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Matrix2791

Again how secure is that transportation lockbox gonna be if we collect toll revenue????? I seriously doubt the state will use all that money for roads. Malloy will shoot that lock right off the box if need be.

Except that it was Malloy who wanted it and the legislature that rejected it. Just saying. Jay

[in_newengland]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I don't know if it is half but there certainly are a lot of out of state cars on our major highways. It is also clear that the current gas tax is no longer sufficient to support the cost of transportation. We have a choice, either we increase the gas tax, begin implementing tolls or we cut back on transportation spending. Connecticut is the only state on the east coast that does not have tolls. Our transportation network is in sore need of improvements so I don't think cuts are good. Many states are raising their gas taxes, even though some already have tolls. I believe New Jersey doubled their gas tax.

That said I believe the state should implement tolling but only on major highways in conjunction with significant reconstruction projects. This would include I-95 from New Haven to New York; I-95 from Guilford to Rhode Island; I-84 in Danbury, Waterbury and Hartford. These highways are all in line for major reconstruction projects so tolling them to help pay for those improvements would not be difficult. I believe that this would be the most acceptable way to fund major highway construction and better support transportation in our state. Jay

Lots of out of state cars fly right through CT on their way to somewhere else. If you raise the gas tax, you're mostly taxing yourselves but with the E-Z electronic tolls, you're snagging those out of staters too.

When I take the Mass Pike there's always a line of cars waiting to turn off at I-84. Cars with NY license plates. Cars that could be paying CT to use the roads instead of flying right through for free.

Those highways mentioned above would be the ones.

[BPt111]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I don't know if it is half but there certainly are a lot of out of state cars on our major highways. It is also clear that the current gas tax is no longer sufficient to support the cost of transportation. We have a choice, either we increase the gas tax, begin implementing tolls or we cut back on transportation spending. Connecticut is the only state on the east coast that does not have tolls. Our transportation network is in sore need of improvements so I don't think cuts are good. Many states are raising their gas taxes, even though some already have tolls. I believe New Jersey doubled their gas tax.

That said I believe the state should implement tolling but only on major highways in conjunction with significant reconstruction projects. This would include I-95 from New Haven to New York; I-95 from Guilford to Rhode Island; I-84 in Danbury, Waterbury and Hartford. These highways are all in line for major reconstruction projects so tolling them to help pay for those improvements would not be difficult. I believe that this would be the most acceptable way to fund major highway construction and better support transportation in our state. Jay

Alot of CT residents register their car out of state to avoid state taxes

[Matrix2791]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Except that it was Malloy who wanted it and the legislature that rejected it. Just saying. Jay

Yeah and during his campaign malloy said he wasn't gonna raise taxes, but smarter people new better. It's amazing how many gullible people take malloy, and many other politicians at face value.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by Matrix2791

Again how secure is that transportation lockbox gonna be if we collect toll revenue????? I seriously doubt the state will use all that money for roads. Malloy will shoot that lock right off the box if need be.

We don't need a lock box. The solution is to create a "revenue bond" or perhaps it's called a "toll bond". It's structured in a way that all toll revenue is used to make coupon payments and or pay down the principle at the same time. If the principle is not paid down simultaneously then the bond is paid off at maturity. This is very similar to how a traditional mortgage works.

I'm not sure how popular revenue bonds are nowadays.

Also, under this structure if toll collection is higher than expected the bond can be paid down / paid off earlier, thus saving on interest payments (a.k.a. coupon payments).

I know in an earlier story Malloy et al were talking about getting some type of up front financing from a bank to do the same thing a revenue bond would accomplish. That is a very bad idea since investment banks always structure agreements to favor themselves first. The state doesn't need their help, although they do need an underwriter to issue the bond and sell to potential customers.

It should also be possible since CT has so many hedge funds and wall street type people located/living here the state could market these revenue bonds to them directly. Revenue bonds most likely are tax exempt at the Fed and State level. It would take a well connected person to market to these types of people and Malloy isn't that person, but I don't know who else to choose.

[hvexpatinct]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

We don't need a lock box. The solution is to create a "revenue bond" or perhaps it's called a "toll bond". It's structured in a way that all toll revenue is used to make coupon payments and or pay down the principle at the same time. If the principle is not paid down simultaneously then the bond is paid off at maturity. This is very similar to how a traditional mortgage works.

I'm not sure how popular revenue bonds are nowadays.

Also, under this structure if toll collection is higher than expected the bond can be paid down / paid off earlier, thus saving on interest payments (a.k.a. coupon payments).

I know in an earlier story Malloy et al were talking about getting some type of up front financing from a bank to do the same thing a revenue bond would accomplish. That is a very bad idea since investment banks always structure agreements to favor themselves first. The state doesn't need their help, although they do need an underwriter to issue the bond and sell to potential customers.

It should also be possible since CT has so many hedge funds and wall street type people located/living here the state could market these revenue bonds to them directly. Revenue bonds most likely are tax exempt at the Fed and State level. It would take a well connected person to market to these types of people and Malloy isn't that person, but I don't know who else to choose.

I don't think it would be that difficult to market them - the question is whether they could make them attractive enough to get the necessary levels of investment. If I were to invest in state specific bonds my investments would have to be safe from state tax and more advantageous than one of Vanguard's miscellaneous fund packages. I net between 3-4% off of one of the existing VG Muni bundled funds, and would need to get a higher net rate off of CT to be compelled to switch.