Seen in the Courant:
The state Department of Transportation will begin holding public hearings this month on ways to improve traveler services on Connecticut highways, including possible construction of more than a dozen new rest and welcome areas and over-the-highway service plazas.
The initial findings of a two-year, $1.8 million DOT study call for construction of rest areas in Bozrah, Enfield, Haddam and Thompson; truck parking in Hartford, Waterford and Windsor Locks; and Connecticut-themed welcome centers in Enfield, Montville, Plainfield and Thompson.[...]
The study also calls for construction of over-the-highway buildings at service plazas on I-95 in Fairfield, Branford and Madison and I-395 in Montville and Plainfield to maximize the amount of parking available at these spots, cut costs and make a strong architectural statement.
The article mentions that truckers in the state complain about the lack of truck parking at rest areas and service areas. While I can certainly empathize, I can’t help but wonder if there shouldn’t be a bit of give-and-take here, given that Connecticut taxes tend to cause truckers to seek to avoid refueling in the state. Swap funding for additional stopping places for a little extra tax revenue, perhaps?
Or, perhaps the lack of facilities could be seen as additional disincentive for long-distance travelers to use the already overcrowded freeways in state. I can’t really see how some over-highway construction and additional on/off-ramps will help matters.
Still, having experienced once the rather unfortunate realization during a late-night drive home from Montréal that there are no 24-hour rest areas between Hartford and the Canadian border, I can certainly empathize with a perceived need to add a facility or two.
1 response so far ↓
1 Steve Verbil // 22 Aug 2007 at 7:05 pm
The statement about taxes is a popular misconception. Connecticut *does* receive funds from these truckers - it does not matter where the fuel is bought. Under the IFTA (the International Fuel Tax Agreement) to which all states except for Alaska and Hawaii are signatories (and all but three provinces of Canada as well) trucking companies must report mileage driven by each of their trucks in each of the state and provinces they drive in. Taxes are distributed among the states relative the the miles traveled in each state. You may remember the days when trucks had to display multiple permits from multiple states - covering any state they wished to travel through. IFTA has eliminated that requirement and made fuel use taxes - for that is what they are, taxes on the *use* of the fuel in our state - simpler for both the trucking companies and for the states to administer and audit.
Trucking companies that do not obtain IFTA permits must get permits on a trip-by-trip basis, and face serious penalities from our state and other states if they are caught without the permits.
“Shopping” for fuel prices by truckers does occur, but trucking companies (who tell their drivers where they expect them to fill up as a part of their trip plan) pick fuel based upon the base cost of the fuel less any bulk discounts they can get, but they do *not* figure in the taxes charged by that jurisdiction at all - since it is immaterial. So, for those of us with private cars who get a good deal when we’re in New Jersey, with their low taxes — those (relatively) low taxes are of no benefit to the truckers.
On the second comment, thinking of our inadequate rest areas as a “additional disincentive” to discourage use of “our” freeways… the interstate roadways are a federal system, tying our country together. Whether we like it or not, trucks are a n integral part of our transportation and delivery system, nationally, regionally, *and* locally. We have built our economy around trucks - including our Connecticut economy. Trucks are taxpayers on the road just like the cars and RVs, but they can be deadly when they are driven by someone who is overtired. The law recognizes that, and requires those drivers to park their truck after 11 hours on the road - period. No Town in this state wants the trucks parking on *their* roads, yet we all want to go to the store in the morning and buy our produce. We can’t have it both ways. The right thing to do is to provide adequate parking *on and along the freeways* so that the truck traffic doesn’t spill over and upset the Towns, but still allows the truckers to get the break time they are required to have.
For those homeowners who live alongside the freeway and would be affected by the changes, that is a shame. But the prices of their homes *when they bought them* had already been affected by the neighboring freeway unless we go back 50 years; and that is as unimpressive an argument as airport neighbors complaining about aircraft noise.