|
2/8/2020 |
Richard |
Lagro |
none |
Milton |
Vermont |
T.C.I. is a terrible plan for Vermont. T.C.I. for Vermont will have absolutely no impact on climate change. Vermont having just about the lowest carbon foot print in the nation, and at the... read more T.C.I. is a terrible plan for Vermont. T.C.I. for Vermont will have absolutely no impact on climate change. Vermont having just about the lowest carbon foot print in the nation, and at the same time one of the most heavily taxed states, we do not need another tax, furthering the cost of living burden. On top of the carbon tax of T.C.I., and be sure that's what it is, a carbon tax, T.C.I. will increase the cost of all goods and services purchased by Vermont residents. On top of the increase cost driven T.C.I., it will further increase government bureaucracy and cost. |
- |
|
2/8/2020 |
Bruce |
Lierman |
Bennington County Regional Commission |
Bennington |
Vermont |
Every living former Federal Reserve chair, dozens of Nobel laureates, and chief economists from both Democratic and Republican administrations, have all signed an open letter calling for taxes on... read more Every living former Federal Reserve chair, dozens of Nobel laureates, and chief economists from both Democratic and Republican administrations, have all signed an open letter calling for taxes on emissions of greenhouse gases. In my understanding, the Transportation and Climate Initiative's cap-and-invest strategy is an even more effective way to reduce the damage being caused to our economy and environment by our continued dependency on fossil fuels for transportation.
And why?
Because paying for the oil, and the subsidies we pay directly and indirectly to oil companies, costs us in Vermont over 2 Billion dollars a year that goes out of this economy. And the only return we get is in the form of earnings of stockholders in oil companies. If national averages on stock ownership are applied to Vermont, that means 80 percent of Vermonters get no return from the 649 Billion dollars we in the US have paid to oil companies in subsidies, to provide to us with a toxic product at an artificially low price.
One of the most common objections to the TCI is that it is seen as a regressive tax. If you're going to talk about regressive taxes, here is a regressive tax; the hidden taxes we all pay for fossil fuel production.
With TCI, we would at least be able to decide how the charges we add to fossil fuels can be progressively redistributed to help those most dependent on these fuels, those most impacted by their externalized costs.
As an economic issue, this is an action we can take to redress some of the absurd subsidies we pay to oil companies to pollute our air and soils, and to reverse Vermont’s dependency on these damaging products.
I share the caution expressed by some politicians concerning the explicit final details of the agreement. However, our response to these concerns must be to work now to make sure the agreement meets our energy goals. I urge our representatives in these discussions to stay engaged, and to focus on the highest objectives of the program, not short-term political expediency. The TCI represents our best opportunity to make real change and exert control over our energy future.
|
- |
|
2/8/2020 |
Kenneth |
Capron |
MagLev Maine |
Portland |
Maine |
If your are really concerned about reducing pollution etc. due to transportation then you should consider whether roads are even the best option going forward. I'm working on an elevated... read more If your are really concerned about reducing pollution etc. due to transportation then you should consider whether roads are even the best option going forward. I'm working on an elevated small rail-based mode of transportation using maglev drives. You can eliminate 75% of gasoline, oil and rubber usage, add in hundreds of other benefits and Voila you have zero transportation CO2 production. AND the system will be a complete replacement for the four passenger sedans and SUVs that are in use today for about one tenth the cost of electrics.
Think about how serious you really are. Then let's talk about getting MicroRail built. |
- |
|
2/7/2020 |
Steven |
Farnham |
US Citizen |
Plainfield |
Vermont |
My first observation (as an initiate) is the MOU is only partly a memorandum of understanding. When it comes to the description of the program design, this document appears to be more a memorandum... read more My first observation (as an initiate) is the MOU is only partly a memorandum of understanding. When it comes to the description of the program design, this document appears to be more a memorandum of obfuscation. While it may be necessary to be somewhat broad and unspecific, most everything in the paragraphs containing the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth appearances of the words "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED," is moderately to utterly incomprehensible. Given that these four paragraphs appear to be the "business end" of the proposal, it seemed important to make sense of them, so I referred to a video on the TCI website:
https://vimeo.com/331091117/defadf2a7f
The video was not particularly effective at translating the language in the aforementioned four paragraphs into meaningful understanding of any intended program design. This is not to say the program design won't work - it is only to say that the video does not explain the program design much better than the MOU itself.
That said, in the video, there is a slide which appears at 7:01, and remains frozen on the screen until 8:57 (a mind-numbing two minutes). It appears this slide is aimed at depicting the intended effect of TCI.
If, as shown in that slide, it takes TCI twenty years to effect a ≈60% reduction in carbon, then TCI is a failure. According to most climate science available today, we don't have twenty years. |
- |
|
2/7/2020 |
Robert |
Evans |
590003226438-001 |
Millbury |
Massachusetts |
No more taxes especially energy taxes of any kind,also no green deal No more taxes especially energy taxes of any kind,also no green deal |
- |
|
2/7/2020 |
Alan |
Atkinson |
Regional traveler |
Quincy |
Massachusetts |
What is the "cap" rate going to be? Or to put it in another way, what will be the schedule in the reduction of available
"carbon allowances" per year? And what will... read more What is the "cap" rate going to be? Or to put it in another way, what will be the schedule in the reduction of available
"carbon allowances" per year? And what will be done if this reduction in available fuel (due to an artificially-induced
scarcity aka the "cap") if transportation in the TCI jurisdiction is adversely affected? Will the "cap" be adjusted or will it be strictly adhered to?
For example, if electric and alternative-fuel vehicles are unavailable or, more likely, not affordable to the majority of residents and there are inadequate alternatives for public transportation such as exists in many of the communities and TCI jurisdictions, what is the proposed plan when (if) the "cap" reduces the amount of available fuel below what is needed by the fleet of vehicles at that time?
Additionally, what is the trigger level that activates additional carbon allowances from the cost containment reserve; that is, at what price of fuel will this occur?
From the TCI 101 video, you mention that the "computer models" understand what the impacts will be, but do they? What is the algorithm that takes into consideration citizens not being able to get to work or take children to school or daycare and how many allowances will be allowed and allocated? Is there transparency in these computer models? Another example is that someone close to me drives and delivers life-saving materials. Will this person and others like him be able to buy fuel for their vehicles in a few years or will they be forced to expend exorbitant amounts of money to upgrade to a newer mode of
transportation?
And the video also states that "if it costs more than we thought it would, we can only afford a lesser reduction, but if it turns out it's cheaper than we thought it was, we can actually afford more of a reduction. So these mechanisms allow the design to have a self-adjusting quality and also a risk management feature that doesn't allow the price to go higher than expected." Unfortunately, these mechanisms are NOT self-adjusting and, instead, they will require interaction at these
unknown and unexplored thresholds and this does not bode well for a far more complex economic and transportation system that will be perturbed significantly by the TCI design. This sounds reckless for something that will have serious and detrimental ramifications to millions of people.
I can only recommend abandonment of this initiative before irreversible damage is done to the Commonwealth, the states, and the public. |
- |
|
2/7/2020 |
Kathryn |
Gregor |
Citizen, cyclist, walker, transit user, BikePGH member and advocate |
PITTSBURGH |
Pennsylvania |
I did not get my license until I was 23, and have only owned and operated a car regularly for 3 of those years. We need to reduce our dependence on single occupancy vehicles for mobility in our... read more I did not get my license until I was 23, and have only owned and operated a car regularly for 3 of those years. We need to reduce our dependence on single occupancy vehicles for mobility in our cities, suburban and rural areas. The impact that these vehicles have on the pollution and destruction of our planet (re: sprawling new construction) is a price we cannot afford. We should encourage multimodal activities with the car as the lowest ranked priority. While single occupancy vehicles will not disappear from our society, we should encourage and provide free public transit for all so that the ownership and cost of motor vehicles is not a hindrance to jobs, school, self improvement and our planet's health. |
- |
|
2/7/2020 |
George |
Binns |
Independent tax payer |
Beverly |
Massachusetts |
If there isn't a problem, this TCI program will create one. Adding fees to the producers/distributor is just conscripting business to collect a tax on consumers.
I've listened... read more If there isn't a problem, this TCI program will create one. Adding fees to the producers/distributor is just conscripting business to collect a tax on consumers.
I've listened to all the hand wring and false claim of imminent disaster for the last 60 years (from "the Ice Ages is coming, to "the Oceans will flood the world" and "the hurricane will get worse"). None of it has happened. The whole thing is a fabrication based on extrapolations of a chaotic (in the mathematical sense) computer program trying to solve the Navier-Stokes equation for a turbulent boundary layer on a spinning sphere with gravity and variable heat input. The science isn't there yet!
Blaming every thing on the Industrial Revolution ignores the fact the the Little Ice Age ended about 1850 (the last winter carnival on the frozen Thames outside London was 1814). Anyone with a little history would expect the world to get warmer after that.
With out an atmosphere the Earth would have an average temperature like the Moon -- zero degrees F. (This can also be calculated from basic radiant heat transfer.) So we are getting ~60 degrees of global warming from the atmosphere. If CO2 was a major contributor, increasing from 280 ppm to 415ppm (an almost 50% increase) there should be more than a 0.8 Deg C increase.
There is no technical basic for the panic!
I'm all in favor of better, more efficient, safer public transportation! But that means for the most part catching up on all the deferred maintenance.
|
- |
|
2/7/2020 |
Chris |
Hall |
Greater Portland Council of Governments |
Portland |
Maine |
The Greater Portland Council of Governments (GPCOG) represents 25 municipalities in southern Maine from Sebago Lake to Casco Bay. GPCOG also staffs and supports the Portland Area Comprehensive... read more The Greater Portland Council of Governments (GPCOG) represents 25 municipalities in southern Maine from Sebago Lake to Casco Bay. GPCOG also staffs and supports the Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System (PACTS), a federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization representing 18 municipalities from Biddeford to Windham and Freeport Maine.
GPCOG and PACTS leadership have met and approved the following comments on the Transportation Climate Initiative. These comments will also be shared with Governor Mills and her administration.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our comments on TCI.
1. TCI needs to work. The benefits of TCI should be adequately articulated, as should the costs. TCI’s investments should successfully result in co-benefits, such as enhancing our residents’ access to economic opportunity or expanding mobility services for our aging population.
2. TCI must treat our region fairly. Our region must get enough benefit to justify the costs in our region.
3. TCI must meet the fairness test in both urban and rural communities. Both urban and rural communities should receive transportation investments tailored to a community’s social, economic and carbon emission profiles. Strategies in every community should be fair and cost effective.
4. TCI revenues should help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition the region to lower-carbon transportation, which will reduce costs to residents over time. Examples of these types of investments include improving intersection traffic flow, encouraging trade ins of less fuel-efficient vehicles and reducing the purchase price of electric vehicles, enhancing public transportation, encouraging compact development, and supporting mobility management for older adults and rural residents.
5. TCI revenues should also help the region shore up the resiliency of its infrastructure, which will reduce public expenditures over time. Examples of these types of investments include retrofitting culverts, reinforcing bridges, and preparing rails for overheating.
6. We should not get stuck in TCI. TCI should be periodically evaluated as to its effectiveness and its impacts. It should be flexible enough to respond to problems that arise during implementation.
Respectfully submitted by;
Belinda Ray, GPCOG President
Nat Tupper, GPCOG Vice President
Matthew Sturgis, PACTS Chair
Hope Cahan, PACTS Vice Chair
|
- |
|
2/7/2020 |
Lynn |
Wurzburg |
St.Johnsbury Town Energy Committee |
Saint Johnsbury |
Vermont |
We are working hard in the NEK ( Northeast Kingdom) to reduce carbon emissions- lots of driving in this rural area so we need the incentives that TCI would provide - can’t do much on a meaningful... read more We are working hard in the NEK ( Northeast Kingdom) to reduce carbon emissions- lots of driving in this rural area so we need the incentives that TCI would provide - can’t do much on a meaningful scale without it. As far as it amounting to another tax on fuel- the price of gas differs as much as 25 cents or more per gallon between St. Johnsbury and Lyndonville, the next town north. An added tax of 5 cents pales in comparison to these fluctuations. And the TCI takes seriously the impacts on rural and low income populations, which is a key strength. Vermont needs to be part of this initiative so we have a place at the table when decisions are made. |
- |
|
2/7/2020 |
Paul |
Brookes |
University of Rochester |
Rochester |
New York |
Lifelong cyclist here, never lived more than a couple of miles from work my entire life, so that I can get there by bike. I guess my main message is that something needs to be done on both the... read more Lifelong cyclist here, never lived more than a couple of miles from work my entire life, so that I can get there by bike. I guess my main message is that something needs to be done on both the PUSH and the PULL ends of the equation, to get people out of cars and into other modes of transporation... It's not enough to just build bike lanes (although lord knows we need more!). It's not enough to hold fancy galas and bike-to-work days and green-topia fests, and employee-fitness programs. We have to DISINCENTIVIZE DRIVING!
In my mind, the only way this happens is the same way the rest of the world (not the USA) does it - by making it more difficult to drive. We need to make driving NOT the default option. Instead of designing roads for convenience and speed, let drivers stagnate in traffic, let them realize the errors of their ways. Instead of providing a ridiculous federal mileage reimbursement rate (55c/mi, AYFKM?), let's cut it in half. Instead of whining when gas goes above $3 a gallon (it's more than double that in most of Europe) let's raise gas taxes and plow the money into infrastructure and climate projects. Instead of free on-street public parking, make drivers pay more. Of course, it goes without saying that the EPA needs to grow a pair (once Trump is out of the WhiteHouse) and start clamping down again on MPG expectations and pollution controls for vehicles. Making SUVs more expensive would be a good start - again disincentivize big cars and people will switch to smaller less polluting ones (this happens all over the world, especially in Europe, with tiered license/registration fees based on engine capacity and fuel economy).
Another critical issue very close to my own heart is DRIVER ACCOUNTABILITY for accidents and pedestrian/cyclist deaths. In my community as well as nationwide, there has been a recent uptic in these events, and in almost all cases the driver goes un-punished, no charges filed! Recently an 82 year old former colleague of mine was killed while out walking by a driver who didn't look when backing out of their driveway. At Thanksgiving, a babysitter and child were mown down on the sidewalk by a driver who fell asleep at the wheel. In both cases these "accidents" resulted in no charges. This is unacceptable. As long as drivers know there are ZERO consequneces for their careless actions, whey will continue to kill people. We need local police departments and other legislative bodies to start holding drivers accountable for their carelessness. There really is no such thing as a true "accident", and the vast majority are preventable by people just paying attention to the fact they're riding around in a 5000lb metal weapon. Federal or state laws to ensure that careless driving acts resulting in death means jail-time for the driver, would be a wake-up call for drivers to start treating other road users with the respect they command and deserve. We have to switch away from the "victim blaming" tropes, where throwaway statements such as "the biker was not wearing a reflective jacket" become untenable.
Thank-you for your time.
PSB
|
- |
|
2/7/2020 |
Andrew |
McLaughlin |
Retired |
Woodstock |
Vermont |
I believe it is essential thank Vermont adopt the TCI. The time is already past for us to avoid bad effects of our changing climate. Transportation is the hardest part of achieving carbon... read more I believe it is essential thank Vermont adopt the TCI. The time is already past for us to avoid bad effects of our changing climate. Transportation is the hardest part of achieving carbon reduction in Vermont. The TCI is a mild start on a difficult climb. Start we must! |
- |
|
2/7/2020 |
Charlotte |
McGray |
self |
Bristol |
Vermont |
https://www.zermatt.ch/en/arrival/Autofrei-GEX-MTT/Zermatt-is-car-free
Zermatt Switzerland has been car free for ages. It is a good plan and could be implemented in Burlington for a... read more https://www.zermatt.ch/en/arrival/Autofrei-GEX-MTT/Zermatt-is-car-free
Zermatt Switzerland has been car free for ages. It is a good plan and could be implemented in Burlington for a good start. See link.
Deliveries are made with electric trucks and traffic is not allowed into the city that is not electric. |
- |
|
2/7/2020 |
Anne |
Bordonaro |
Concerned citizen |
Moretown |
Vermont |
I strongly support Vermont joining the TCI because I support any mechanism that imposes an additional cost on transportation fuels (a "stick"). As we have seen in the past, only... read more I strongly support Vermont joining the TCI because I support any mechanism that imposes an additional cost on transportation fuels (a "stick"). As we have seen in the past, only increased costs will lead people to drive less and car manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles. I think a regional effort like this is essential because basic economics teaches that few businesses or states will do something (even something they know they should do) if it will put them at a competitive disadvantage. I believe the carbon emissions targets are too small and the time frame is actually too long in the TCI. I think more rapid progress toward reducing our greenhouse gas emissions is absolutely essential. Obviously, this effort is better than none, but I believe it should be more ambitious. Finally, I do worry about the impact on working class people including myself who must drive for work because there currently are no viable alternatives. VT's adoption of the TCI must be accompanied by 1) significant incentives (the "carrot") for people to purchase or lease electric or more fuel efficient vehicles and 2) legislation that mandates that the funds garnered from the program are put into public transportation infrastructure development, electric charging station infrastructure, and vehicle purchase/lease incentives to individuals. Such incentives must be high enough for lower income people to make a real difference in their purchasing options (which they currently are not) and should phase out as income rises. Having said all this, nothing in the initiative addresses the fundamental problem that we simply drive private vehicles too much, electric or otherwise. Public transportation must increase and is possible, even in rural areas like where I live. My final comment is that public information regarding the TCI has been inadequate. Even after reading all of the above and other literature, the actual mechanisms for how it will work are not clear to me. I believe this is a PR failing that must be addressed. Opponents will be successful if they can label it a "carbon tax" or unfair to the poor or whatever and proponents cannot respond effectively to these arguments if how it works isn't actually clear to the ordinary citizen. I was convinced by a conversation I had with my state senator that Vermonters will probably end up paying the additional costs regardless of whether we sign or not, without reaping any of the financial benefit. This is a huge argument for joining, especially for small markets like VT. Yet no where is this spelled out in the literature describing the program. |
- |
|
2/7/2020 |
Jared |
Oliver |
Concerned Citizen, 350.org member, Sunrise Movement member, etc. |
Newark |
Delaware |
Solar roadways should be implemented in the controlled testing area. Or considered for additional grants or funding: https://solarroadways.com/faq-solar-roadways/ Solar roadways should be implemented in the controlled testing area. Or considered for additional grants or funding: https://solarroadways.com/faq-solar-roadways/ |
- |
|
2/7/2020 |
Charlotte |
Baltus |
none |
Rochester |
New York |
Walking is becoming an increasingly dangerous activity in my city (Rochester NY) yet I see basically zero progress in addressing the safety issues. Walk/don't walk signalling is poorly... read more Walking is becoming an increasingly dangerous activity in my city (Rochester NY) yet I see basically zero progress in addressing the safety issues. Walk/don't walk signalling is poorly designed (in my city and elsewhere) and makes crossing intersections a lot more dangerous than it needs to be and encourages jaywalking. And of course snow/ice removal is another big barrier to safe walking. As far as winter walking, Rochester does do better than many by using sidewalk plows, but sweepers would work better in many conditions and use of the plows more frequently and ticketing delinquent property owners would help immensely. If we are going to have lousy public transit, can we at least make walking safer? |
- |
|
2/7/2020 |
MARY |
CHAFFEE |
Public Voice |
BURLINGTON |
Vermont |
Tailpipe exhaust is a major source of air pollution in Vermont. Auto ownership is a financial burden, and vehicle accidents have disrupted or ended too many lives. We need transportation choices,... read more Tailpipe exhaust is a major source of air pollution in Vermont. Auto ownership is a financial burden, and vehicle accidents have disrupted or ended too many lives. We need transportation choices, and development that coordinates with them! |
- |
|
2/6/2020 |
Glen |
Somes |
Somes Environmental Associates |
Millersville |
Maryland |
Attempting to limit fuel sales will have a disproportionate impact on poor to low income working families and retirees on fixed inncomes. They are the ones living paycheck to paycheck with barely... read more Attempting to limit fuel sales will have a disproportionate impact on poor to low income working families and retirees on fixed inncomes. They are the ones living paycheck to paycheck with barely enough money to pay their bills. There will be very little environmental benefit from the proposed actions as India and China are building coal fired power plants throughout east Asia at a pace that will wipe out any reduction in carbon emissions resulting from the reduction in fuel consumption. Thus, this proposed program is nothing more than a "feel good" initiative that will do irreparable harm to good hard working Americans for temporary benefit at best. |
- |
|
2/6/2020 |
Louis |
Campion |
Maryland Motor Truck Association |
Columbia |
Maryland |
|
TCI Comments 2.pdf |
|
2/6/2020 |
Bob |
Zerrillo |
New York Public Transit Association |
Albany |
New York |
The New York Public Transit Association (NYPTA), which represents more than 100 transit systems throughout New York State, supports the goals of the TCI effort. The development of a cap and... read more The New York Public Transit Association (NYPTA), which represents more than 100 transit systems throughout New York State, supports the goals of the TCI effort. The development of a cap and invest program is both consistent with the environmental and energy objectives of public transportation and is a way to increase funding for public transportation to transition to low emission transit vehicles and to expand transit service.
NYPTA offers the following comments on the TCI draft MOU:
• NYPTA supports the goals and objectives of the TCI cap and invest program proposal.
• NYPTA supports the intent to invest program proceeds in low carbon and clean mobility options in urban, suburban and rural communities, and specifically in public transportation.
• Greater investment to modernize and enhance public transportation throughout New York State supports the goals of the TCI program, particularly greater investment to support the transition to cleaner public transportation infrastructure and to increase public transportation services.
• In developing the program, TCI should consider the impact on transit systems in small communities and rural areas, which have fewer resources and where the transition to clean fuel vehicles may take much longer. The increased cost of diesel fuel and gasoline to transit systems in these areas that will result from the cap and invest program will be burdensome and could negatively impact the continuation of these essential transit services to customers who need them most. An exemption (or credit) from any increase in fuel prices for public transportation services resulting from a carbon cap should be considered in designing the program in order to mitigate any negative financial impacts.
• NYPTA strongly supports returning the proceeds generated from the cap and invest program to the state where they are generated or earned.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft MOU.
|
- |
