Four New York State legislators representing the communities surrounding Interstate 684 in Westchester County have sent a letter to Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont protesting his proposed toll for a 1.4-mile stretch of I-684.
As previously reported, although that portion of 684 runs by Greenwich, there are no Greenwich exits from the highway, resulting in consternation among some New Yorkers.
Many Connecticut residents have also balked at Lamont”™s CT2030 plan, which calls for 13 highway tolls in addition to the one on 684; in fact, Senate Democrats told the governor that they could not support its tolling component. House Democrats have since put forward another proposal that would limit tolls to trucks only on 12 highways, including 684. Connecticut Republicans have remained adamantly opposed to tolls of any kind, with senators pushing a plan called FASTR CT and house members promising yet another proposal that would not include tolls.
In their letter to Lamont, State Sens. Shelley Mayer, D-37th and Peter Harckham, D-40th, as well as Assemblymen David Buchwald, D-93rd and Kevin Byrne, R-94th, wrote to the Democratic governor that the 684 component “would create a ”˜New York”™ tax on our constituents who must transverse this small section of Connecticut in their drive within New York State.
“We share your commitment to improving road and rail infrastructure, including the section of I-684 running through Connecticut,” the letter adds. “However, this plan clearly targets New York drivers and taxpayers and will increase traffic on New York and Connecticut”™s secondary roads. Imposing a toll on a small section of roadway running through Connecticut within a one-mile section between two New York roadway sections creates a regressive tax on New York drivers, particularly burdensome for low-income commuters who have little choice in their daily travels.
“In addition,” the letter continues, “this proposed toll encourages drivers to avoid the toll by taking detours off of I-684 onto secondary roads through Connecticut and New York, resulting in increased local maintenance and road repair costs.”
Lamont has yet to respond to the letter, which can be read in its entirety here.
