By Brandon T. Bisceglia
“Well my position on electronic tolling is very clear. We are going to focus just on those big tractor-trailer trucks.”
That was candidate Ned Lamont in November, sounding a refrain that we heard from him over and over on the campaign trail: he was “very clear” back then that he was against tolling all cars in Connecticut.
In the past few weeks, the now-governor has reversed his position. In his Feb. 20 budget proposal to the General Assembly, Lamont included two tolling proposals, one of which would include tolling gantries on all the major highways across the state. He’s pitching reduced fees for state residents – but fees nonetheless.
Lamont has explained his flip-flop on tolls as a result of becoming governor and realizing that truck-only tolls simply won’t generate the kind of revenue the state needs.
That’s hard to believe. Despite Lamont’s affable, “aw shucks” persona, he’s an intelligent and savvy businessman. It’s not as if state of the Special Transportation Fund and the needs of infrastructure were a secret.
Tolls are probably inevitable. Anyone who has spent any time looking at the numbers knows that Connecticut desperately needs to generate more money for transportation and has few viable options.
Practically every other state in this heavily-traveled part of the country got on the toll bandwagon years ago. While Connecticut motorists are subsidizing the Tappan Zee bridge in New York and the I-90 in Massachusetts, drivers from other states can cruise through here without contributing a cent (unless they happen to stop for gas). Tolls could actually bring an element of fairness to our transportation funding.
But all of this was known for months, even years, prior to Lamont’s campaign pledges. It was a hotly debated and thoroughly discussed topic.
The problem with Lamont’s reversal is not that he’s necessarily wrong about the state needing tolls. It’s that he sacrificed his credibility over the issue.
If Lamont truly did not recognize how dire the transportation situation was after having multiple conversations and ample access to expert opinion on the matter for months, then he’s much more naïve then we were led to believe.
The alternative, though, is that Lamont didn’t intend to keep his campaign promise to voters even as he was telling them he was being “very clear” about his position.
Such a move has shades of former Gov. Dannell Malloy’s “there won’t be a deficit” campaign claims in 2014. These kinds of promises might help you get elected, but they damage the public trust.
Optics matter. Part of the reason Connecticut residents are so wary of tolls is because they already think political leaders are out to bilk them for every last penny. It’s a particularly vicious circle when it comes to transportation infrastructure, because everyone sees (and feels) the roads getting worse even as their taxes go up.
The average taxpayer does not care that the vast bulk of state revenue goes toward paying off fixed expenses like pensions and debt obligations that were ignored throughout the latter half of the twentieth century. The average taxpayer does not care that gas tax receipts are declining as an unintended effect of increased efficiency and greener cars.
What the average taxpayer sees are politicians making promises, breaking promises, and taking more of their money.
That is not the kind of perception Lamont – or any other leader – should be perpetuating. It’s basic courtesy: don’t make a promise unless you know you can keep it.