State lawmakers may hold a special session this fall to adopt funding mechanisms that will finance Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s ambitious $100 billion, 30-year transportation overhaul.
Get Instant Access to This Article
Subscribe to Hartford Business Journal and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
- Critical Hartford and Connecticut business news updated daily.
- Immediate access to all subscriber-only content on our website.
- Bi-weekly print or digital editions of our award-winning publication.
- Special bonus issues like the Hartford Book of Lists.
- Exclusive ticket prize draws for our in-person events.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article
State lawmakers may hold a special session this fall to adopt funding mechanisms that will finance Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's ambitious $100 billion, 30-year transportation overhaul.
Among the proposals that could be on the table is a mileage tax, which would tax residents based on how much they drive.
To put it plainly a mileage tax is a bad idea, particularly if the gas tax remains intact as well. A mileage tax, which hasn't yet been adopted by any state (for good reason), could take various forms but most likely would hit the pocketbooks of most or all Connecticut drivers. That would further increase the cost of living in a state already well-known as being one of the most high-cost states in the U.S.
We understand that if Malloy's transportation agenda — which includes investments in highways, rail, bicycle paths, airports and seaports — is going to come to fruition, the state will need to raise additional revenues, but there are better, more strategic ways to do it.
For example, instead of whacking all Connecticut drivers with a mileage tax, why not put tolls at our state's borders and transfer some of the tax burden to out-of-staters? Yes, we know tolls aren't popular among the electorate, but strategically, they could lessen the need for more wide-ranging tax hikes.
Another option more suitable than a mileage tax could be congestion pricing, which would charge drivers a fee for using express lanes on Connecticut thoroughfares burdened by major traffic problems. At least that would give drivers some added benefit for the extra costs they are paying. It could also ease rush-hour bottlenecks.
The Transportation Finance Panel has been asked to provide financing recommendations to state lawmakers by mid-October. We understand they have a very difficult task. Trying to generate an extra $100 billion in funding will be impossible without raising new revenues from somewhere. The fact that gas-tax receipts, which are a primary funding mechanism for transportation in Connecticut, are declining as more people purchase fuel-efficient cars makes the task even harder. But adopting a mileage tax seems to be more controversial than other options that will be considered.
In fact, that's a key reason no other state has gone down the path of fully embracing a mileage tax. Oregon is currently piloting a program that taxes drivers 1.5 cents per mile driven. The state is asking for 5,000 volunteers to join the program by installing in their vehicle a mileage recording device. So, not only are drivers burdened by higher costs to drive their vehicle, but they also have to bear Big Brother overlooking their odometer.
That rings of government intrusion of privacy.
Malloy's transportation agenda is laudable, but if it significantly adds to the already high-cost of living and doing business in the state, then lawmakers have a duty to determine if the ends truly justify the means. After all, what good are new roads and bridges if there aren't enough people living in the state to use them?
