TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

Connecticut’s transportation sector is the biggest single emitter of greenhouse gas emissions in the state at 38% of the total. This is a climate crisis, and we must immediately work to address the greatest challenge of our generation.

I support a transportation plan that is focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and pollution while investing in sustainable transportation modes. Bus transit, rail, walking, and biking must be improved across the state, especially in cities and town centers.
This transportation plan is also a land use plan, and we must stop investing in a sprawling, unsustainable development model. Future development in the state must be in cities, town centers, and near transit stations.
We should not be investing in expanding interstates. Expanding our interstates in Connecticut both increases emissions in the long term from induced demand and increased driving while putting development pressure on the state’s dwindling forests and farms.
Many cities and towns in the region have shovel-ready plans to improve transit, rail, and active transportation. We must invest in a future with more people on buses, trains, on foot, and riding bicycles. That future includes more transit-oriented development in walkable communities.
Addressing greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles also means immediate health benefits for our most overburdened populations as a result of improved air quality and fewer emissions of localized pollutants responsible for cancer and respiratory and cardiovascular ailments, among other adverse health impacts.

This is a money grab for the greedy leaders of RI. Emissions standards in today's vehicles are highly advanced. RI is taxing WORKING residents right out of the state.

I support TCI, and would like to see a strong emphasis on using the revenues from TCI to support sustainable transportation options, particularly walking, biking, public transportation, carpooling, electric bicycles, and other non-single occupancy vehicle options. I would like to see as high a fee as possible to help shift behavior and raise revenues to support alternatives.

I am not an expert, but from what I have heard from the experts about TCI, TCI represents a good and appropriately aggressive step in the right direction (one of many steps needed). We must strive to have our economy reflect and support our ecology. Thank you.

We pay more than enough tax money. This will not solve or improve emission pollution or stave off changes in our climate. Any monies collected by the politicians will be ill spent. It will be all about pet projects (pork). Pay attention Richie Neal And Eric Lesser. People on a fixed income actually suffer with these corrupted mindset mentalities.

My family has only one car (a hybrid) and uses it relatively infrequently as we can walk, bike or bus most places in town. We would get rid of our vehicle altogether if it were possible to get bus or train service to various places in roughly 5 hrs driving distance (Portland, ME or Western Mass, for example). Currently our only public transit options depart Burlington at 3am (Greyhound) or 4pm (Megabus), both of which are disruptive to travel plans with small children. Our inability to get to and from other cities within Vermont (except by the commuter buses, which run so infrequently that they are not useful for errand running or partial day outings) is another factor. I would love to see the region develop a more robust public transit system between towns, preferably at hours that are convenient not just for those working a 9-5 job, but to accomodate tourists and traveling families.

As transportation is a primary emitter of fossil fuels, a focus on reducing that is imperative. Localizing economies is a start. Food is a good start to the start. Everyone needs to eat two or three times a day, and food has to get from farm to plate. Human beings do not need bananas from Ecuador or lettuce from California in order to survive! Re-educating people on how to get needed nutrients from things that grow locally can be of enormous help in reducing the hidden costs to the climate. Growing one's own food is best. Ten paces from garden to plate, freshness assured! Next would be a system of community gardens, then farmers markets, then grocery stores carrying local food at prices that reflect its true cost. Adding a carbon quotient to all transported foods would make local foods look a lot better.

Another educational effort could be put into edible weeds, seeds, flowers, and even insects. (80% of the world enjoys insect protein. Why can't we, in the West?) It might make people think twice about spraying dandelions with poison if they knew how nutritious they are. Unsprayed lawns abound in other foods and even medicines that are far more valuable than the aesthetics of a monoculture of Kentucky bluegrass. Think about how many homeowners rake up annoying acorns into garbage bags for the dump, when a couple hundred years ago acorns provided up to 50% of winter calories for some Native American populations. Going back to such useful local foodstuffs can eclipse the need for trucking in food from far away. This educational effort on local foods we already have could be enhanced and encouraged by having community based classes on cooking and preservation.

In Vermont, we have a lot of large lawns that are rarely used except from the seat of a riding mower on weekend afternoons. Grass, a perennial, grows on its own with little input needed. Put grazing animals on those lawns and they get fertilized nicely. Hoof action makes pockets that hold water rather than letting it run off. Hoof action also presses manure into the soil, sequestering that carbon. Grassland thus grows protein in the form of meat--a sustainable form. At the same time, any form of factory farming of animals should be transitioned as quickly as possible to grass-based. Grain is not a natural part of any ruminant's diet! They'll eat it, but it's bad for them in the long run. Valuable corn and soybean fields could then be converted to carbon-sequestering grasslands or some form of permaculture including fruit and nut trees, with some open land being kept for annual fruits and vegetables as needed.

Thanks for listening.

This is not only about cleaning up air pollution and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Both of these considerations are necessary but not sufficient, without taking into account the third. We are in an environment of worsening traffic gridlock. This bodes poorly for continued economic development.

Gov. Sunni of NH is correct when he describes this initiative as a boondoggle. It will have little to no effect on emissions and will impose an undue financial burden upon everyone by increasing the cost of everything. Everything moves by truck at some point in time. The increase in fuel will be passed on to consumers. Will it reduce the usage of fuel? I think not. People will still require goods and services, will still need to get to work and school, etc. Add to this the fact that it will be imposed upon us by government fiat without a vote by either citizens or legislative bodies it becomes intolerably insulting and horribly undemocratic. Isn't this one of the reasons we decided to separate from England? Given the history of government's inability to utilize our money wisely, this will undoubtedly result in just another immense, wasteful bureaucracy that will have a negligible affect on the environment. Just another power/money grab.