We have long given up hope that Connecticut Democrats, in control of the state House and Senate, would do the politically difficult but right thing and approve a system that tolls all vehicles traveling across the state’s highways. That is really the only way of raising the revenues necessary to make the kind of investment in transportation Connecticut needs for a strong economy and to provide a system of roads and highways that are a convenience and not a burden.

Extensive electronic tolling of all vehicles is the only way to assess a user fee on the millions of cars that pass through the state but never contribute to the upkeep of a highway system or the mass transit alternatives that keep vehicles off those highways. Without tolls the burden falls almost exclusively on Connecticut taxpayers, except for those drivers who gas up when passing and contribute to the gas tax.

The steady and reliable revenue coming from tolls could reduce the amount of money that would have to be borrowed and the interest that substantially raises costs.

But politics prevail. Republicans remain in lockstep in opposition to any tolls. It is a political winner. GOP leaders recognize that after years of failing to honestly address the state’s fiscal needs, to set aside the money necessary to fund pensions or prioritize bonding for truly necessary projects, that the public is deeply skeptical about how toll money would be used. The approval of a state constitutional amendment prohibiting such revenues from being diverted from the State Transportation Fund has not allayed those fears.

And, face it, who wants the added burden of paying a toll?

Republicans know all this and know tolls present a dilemma for the Democrats who have long dominated state politics. If the Democrats approve tolls, Republicans can run against them for doing so. If they don’t approve tolls, Republicans can crow about blocking them and seek voter support to never let tolls happen.

But Republicans are not being true to their credo of fiscal prudency. Tolls would assess the cost of transportation on users, not on all taxpayers, and stop the history of kicking the can down the highway when it comes to repairing and upgrading infrastructure. It is an approach that should align with conservative values.

Heading into the 2020 election Senate Democrats, in particular, have not been willing to risk the political damage of approving a comprehensive toll plan. That has left legislative leaders and Gov. Ned Lamont with the fallback position of pushing for only 12 electronic gantries that would assess tolls strictly on tractor-trailer trucks. Rhode Island has been tolling only trucks for a couple of years and faces a court challenge about the constitutionality and legality of doing so.

Such a toll plan, projected to raise $150 million to $175 million annually, would at least reduce the borrowing and interest that would be necessary to fund the 10-year, $19.4 billion revitalization of the highway and mass transit systems that the Department of Transportation has concluded is necessary.

But meeting Tuesday in a closed caucus, Senate Democrats appeared reluctant to go even that far. According to accounts of the meeting, some seek to add some type of assurance that tolling will never be expanded beyond the truck plan. Others don’t like the gantries proposed in their districts.

It would be a mistake to offer the false promise of never employing a different and more extensive toll system. Who knows what the future will bring? Voters will see through such a political ploy. And if senators start arguing about gantry placement, certainly the deal will be dead.

Better not to pass any bill than one filled with gimmicks intended to provide political cover. If Lamont and legislative leaders cannot get this over the finish line, a true fix to the state’s transportation system may have to await the election in November 2020.

Maybe after that election the courage could be found to approve the toll system the state needs. Maybe.

The Day editorial board meets regularly with political, business and community leaders and convenes weekly to formulate editorial viewpoints. It is composed of President and Publisher Tim Dwyer, Editorial Page Editor Paul Choiniere, Managing Editor Tim Cotter, Staff Writer Julia Bergman and retired deputy managing editor Lisa McGinley. However, only the publisher and editorial page editor are responsible for developing the editorial opinions. The board operates independently from the Day newsroom.