Without smart tolls, the only alternative is for the state to borrow the enormous sums needed to upgrade its out-of-date roads and bridges or take the money from other programs, probably both. One reason no-tolls advocates protest is because they see no tolls as a winning wedge issue in November. But robbing Peter to pay Paul won’t work.

Once the roads are improved with borrowed and raided money, how will they be maintained? Ongoing tolls will not only pay to repair our infrastructure but will go on to fix deterioration when it happens. 

Will Connecticut voters fall for the something-for-nothing pitch? We’ll see. The problem for no-tolls advocates is that voters can see what our neighboring states have successfully accomplished with their smart tolls. Voters know that 40 percent of the drivers on I-95 are from out-of-state and it’s those drivers who will absorb 40 percent of the cost of our road and rail improvements. 

Advocates who like to think of themselves as the adults in the room on financial issues may squirm when they are asked to reconcile their pro-borrowing position for state infrastructure with their staunch pay as you go restrictive borrowing policy that has been starving other programs, like public schools, for decades. 

Claire Matthews

Essex