Legislators look to tolls as gas tax revenue declines

State officials were joined Friday by those from Massachusetts to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of bringing electronic tolls to the state’s highways during an informational hearing held by the legislature’s Transportation Committee.

Garret Ecualitto, the undersecretary for transportation policy for the Office of Policy and Management, said that the special transportation fund next year is projected to have more than $1.6 billion in revenue and $1.525 billion in expenditures.

Revenue is expected to drop steadily for the next few years, leading to a deficit, he said, adding that OPM’s estimates are optimistic.

Rep. Antonio Guerrera, D-Rocky Hill, the House chairman of the committee, said that is part of the reason he supports the proposal.

“We’re in a crisis,” he said, adding that in four years the special transportation fund will be “an empty bucket.”

Ecualitto said the state’s 0.5 percent sales tax contribution is keeping the fund afloat, adding that the amount the fund receives from the state’s fuel tax continues to decline due to more-efficient vehicles.

Falling revenues from fuel taxes contributed to other states’ decisions to implement tolls, he said, leaving Connecticut as the only state on the East Coast without them.

“If we’re relying on the gas tax, we know we’re in trouble,” Sen. Stephen T. Cassano, D-Manchester, and committee vice chairman, said.

The growing number of electric vehicles on the road is contributing to the decrease in fuel tax revenue, Brian Tassinari, a budget analyst for OPM, said.

And that number is expected to dramatically increase in the coming decades, according to Ed Regan, senior vice president of CDM Smith, a transportation consulting firm.

Due to the state’s location between Boston and New York, Guerrera said, Connecticut highways are used by out-of-state traffic drivers who “don’t pay their fair share” for the upkeep of the states roads.

Roughly 20 to 30 percent of the revenue the state would receive through electronic tolls would be from out-of-state drivers, Ecualitto said.

“To me, this is the fairest way,” Guerrera said.

Emil Frankel, former Connecticut transportation commissioner and former U.S. Department of Transportation assistant secretary, said that the state’s highway system is “not only deteriorating and aging, but is severely congested in many places.”

Where exactly the tolls would be placed is still in question since the Federal Highway Administration would have to approve the location.

Ecualitto said that the federal government doesn’t allow placing them at the state’s borders and they must be constructed throughout the course of the state’s highways or on bridges.

When asked if the state would have to pay back the federal government for transportation grants that were increased when the state removed tolls in the 1990s, Ecualitto said: “Not a dime.”

Massachusetts officials spoke to committee members about their recent switch to electronic toll collection.

Thomas Tinlin, the commonwealth’s Department of Transportation highway administrator, said Massachusetts began discussions in 2010, conducted a feasibility study in 2012, and converted a bridge to all electronic tolls in 2014.

The three most beneficial aspects, he said, have been improved safety, less traffic, and improved air quality.

“We are absolutely making the air cleaner,” he said.

Contracts for the construction and maintenance of the gantry system, combined with operation costs for vehicles without transponders, cost hundreds of millions of dollars, Tinlin said.

Guerrera, who routinely travels to Boston, said that the electronic tolls in Massachusetts have made the ride “pretty smooth.”

“It is great just driving 60, 65 miles per hour and not worrying abut pulling over,” he said.

Sen. Toni Boucher, R-Wilton, the committee’s Republican Senate co-chairwoman, said that she has not been supportive of the proposal in the past, citing rising toll prices and the additional cost to Connecticut drivers.

Proponents of tolls argued in favor of paying more to spend less time in traffic.