Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram
Pay tolls to stop paying car taxes. That’s the trade proposed by the Connecticut Citizens’ Assembly, but drivers could end up paying both. The promised tax relief depends on clearing legal obstacles and counts on money reaching towns despite the state’s own transportation shortfalls.
The assembly consists of 98 residents brought together through a collaboration among the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM), Yale’s Institution for Social and Policy Studies and UConn’s political science department to study property tax reform. Its report includes a proposal for interstate tolls to help reduce property taxes, including potentially eliminating the highly unpopular motor vehicle tax.
Connecticut drivers have seen this film before.
In 2019, No Tolls CT delivered approximately 100,000 petition signatures opposing tolls to Gov. Ned Lamont’s office as he pushed lawmakers to approve them. That July, a Morning Consult survey put his approval rating at just 32%, making him the nation’s third most unpopular governor. Tolls were a major priority for Lamont, but he couldn’t get them through the legislature. A narrower truck-only proposal failed the following year.
For Pat Sasser of No Tolls CT, attaching property tax relief to the proposal does not resolve the concern that helped drive that opposition.
“Until taxpayers can trust their state government with their money any new tax proposals are just another burden on the already struggling middle class and working class families,” Sasser said in a statement to Yankee Institute. He warned that state government would treat tolls as “ATM’s” and “will continue to increase the rates year after year after year.”
The assembly’s own report supplies reasons to question the bargain. It estimates approximately $950 million in annual toll revenue with roughly 40% coming from out-of-state drivers. It says that the total is comparable to what municipalities collect through the car tax.
That leaves the state’s motorists forking over most of the money. The report acknowledges that frequent highway users could face higher costs, while people who drive less or avoid tolled roads could benefit more. Eliminating a car tax would offer little comfort to someone paying more to get to work.
State Comptroller Sean Scanlon has assisted the assembly and, according to a statement on his office’s website, will urge lawmakers to give its recommendations “a designated public hearing and bipartisan consideration.” CT Mirror reported in September that Scanlon expected the report to spur debate during the 2027 legislative session, though he said, “I can’t say that I will personally agree with everything they come up with.”
Lawmakers considering this recommendation would first have to establish how the promised relief could legally reach taxpayers.
Federal requirements restrict toll revenue to eligible transportation purposes. The assembly proposes paying eligible Department of Transportation expenses with tolls, then directing an equivalent amount of other state revenue toward property tax relief.
Connecticut’s transportation lockbox presents another legal hurdle. Approved by voters in 2018, the constitutional amendment protects both the Special Transportation Fund’s resources and its dedicated revenue sources. Adding toll receipts would not simply permit lawmakers to withdraw existing fuel or sales tax revenue for unrelated purposes.
Asked about that obstacle during the assembly’s Oct. 26 presentation, member Elliot Weiler acknowledged that “all of what you said, I think we have considered, but not necessarily solved for.”
Even if lawmakers found a lawful route, towns would have to compete with roads, buses and rail for the money.
At a Dec. 4, 2025, fiscal accountability meeting of the Appropriations and Finance committees, Sen. Christine Cohen questioned plans to reduce future transportation borrowing, warning about deferred maintenance and reduced investment.
“We don’t want to relax on investment in terms of bus and rail,” Cohen said. She also asked whether officials were “giving thought to future revenues, because I really think that is incredibly important to make sure that we continue investment in our roadways across the state.”
Cohen did not call for tolls. But her remarks expose the competition awaiting any new revenue.
In November 2025, the Office of Policy and Management’s fiscal accountability report projected annual transportation fund shortfalls reaching $392.6 million by fiscal 2030. It warned that maintaining solvency would require additional revenue or reduced transportation investment. Proponents need to explain how the proposed tax swap would work alongside those demands.
The toll system itself would eat up funds before any could go toward tax relief.
The assembly acknowledges substantial upfront and ongoing costs for equipment, technology, administration and enforcement. Resident discounts, credits or reduced rates for frequent users would affect how much remained for tax relief. Toll locations could also disproportionately burden particular communities, commuters and businesses.
Yankee Institute raised the collection-cost problem during the earlier debate. In April 2018, it reported that one statewide proposal would cost $157 million a year — roughly $430,000 a day — in annual operating costs.
That is not a current estimate for the assembly’s proposal, but it illustrates the expense of building and running another system to charge drivers.
The car tax is unpopular because people are tired of paying it. That is not an argument for charging them every time they drive to work. The assembly has proposed a new way to collect money without showing that the people paying it would be better off.
Lawmakers should leave tolls where Connecticut drivers helped put them in 2020: off the table.
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
