Do you think Connecticut needs to reinstate tolls to maintain its roads?

Yes

Often there is a simple answer to questions like these. All too often governments seem to select the "answer" that is simplest for them. Yes, by selecting the simple answer, it makes the role of government that much easier. By selecting the simple answer, they distribute the cost among taxpayers across the state. When done so, the 3.5 million residents of the state begin to pay for something, which many do not or will never use. Thus the problem that stems from this plan.

What makes this plan easiest, however, is the government will seldom hear a complaint about the issue. The hit on each individual's taxes is not enough to get upset over; it's not enough to write your representative about. What it is, on the other hand, is a glaring inefficiency.

Let's build a little scenario that will help show how utterly ridiculous policies such as these are. Assume that there is only one grocery store in the town you live and that everyone in that town does their shopping there. That sounds ok, right? Now let's take the scenario a step further. Everyone in that town, after the government policy is enacted, pays a set fee to shop at the grocery store (remember this fee is mandatory). Now everyone in the town pays the fee, in the form of a tax, and can use the grocery store freely, selecting whatever they need from the store and leaving without "paying", as the tax will take care of everything.

Uh-oh, now the problems start. It begins costing more and more to restock the store (no incentive to take only what is needed), some people require more than others, and even worse some people take all the good stuff. But wait, can it get any worse? Well sure it can. The way the store is set up, anyone can shop there regardless of whether they live in the town and pay the fee. Now more people use the store than normally would and the people using it get more groceries than the normally would. Can you begin to see how this is unfair?

Now of course this is a highly exaggerated scenario, a government would never commit to a policy such as this. The correlation from this scenario and the topic of road usage is far too similar, though. The entire population pays for roads while very few use them. The incentives that state supported roads create are often quite the opposite from what is wished and outsiders receive most of the benefit using the roads without ever paying anything for them.

"How is this fair," many will ask. The only response to that question is, quite simply, that it isn't. The issue isn't whether it is fair, but rather is it easy. Not creating toll roads is easy. The state won't have to deal with the citizens that frequently use the road(s) and it is quite unlikely for them to ever hear from a constituent that does not use the roads. Easy. As the proverbs say, the easiest way is the easiest for a reason.

The problem with easy is that it's not user-friendly, eco-friendly or budget-friendly. It's easy to show why it isn't user-friendly, why pay for something that you don't use. I feel many agree with me there, since we don't have a bunch of grocery stores from my example above. The eco-friendly and the budget-friendly aspects will be a little more difficult to explain. Each deals with the incentives people have and their decisions that stem from these incentives. Explaining these examples is best left to practice rather than theory which means another scenario is in order. This time I'll try to keep it a little more on topic.

Suppose Connecticut were to make all of its highways toll roads. Each time you choose to drive on the highway you had to pay the toll. Now instead of automatically taking the highway every time you need to go somewhere, you must make a decision. Should I take the highway and pay the toll? Should I use public transport to get me where I'm going? Do I even need to go where ever I was planning? Most likely people are going to begin to select all three of the options. Sometime they will drive, sometimes take the bus and others not go at all. But this is certainly different from what it would have been, simply to just drive.

Now the eco-friendly argument is starting to shape up. With toll roads created the incentive to just get in the car and go is decreased. When this incentive to drive is decreased, so too is the amount of emissions created and the amount of oil consumed; even taking the bus will help in these areas. Two hot button issues addressed with one reform, sounds like a good day at the office. But wait, can more good come from a toll road policy?

Why sure there can and with it comes the budget friendly aspect of the argument. With the roads being used less, they are less likely to incur maintenance expenses. Lowered expenses, but not only that, a method to pay for these expenses. With tolls being collected, the maintenance costs for toll roads should be paid for and not only that, these roads, if established properly, could even make a profit. Now the profit is less likely to happen, but it is a major advantage that could occur under a toll road strategy that would never happen otherwise.

Quickly I would like to underline the pros and cons, just to remind you of everything I have outlined.

Pros

Citizens pay for what they use, no more paying for roads when you don't drive on them. Citizens don't pay for road use from out-of-state drivers. Driving incentives cause lower emissions and lower oil consumption. Incentives will cause a raise in public transport usage. Jobs will be created along the toll road. State budgets will decline as roads will pay for themselves. Taxes could go down as budgets drop.

Cons

Drivers must pay tolls and Government must deal with complaints.

For me it is easy to see what will benefit the state most but for the rest of us, we must decide what we want from our government. Do we want easy or do we want fair?

Learn more about this author, Jonathon Scott.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.