TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

This is an extremely urgent program and MA should engage at the 25% level. As cars become more efficient at mpg, folks will not notice the added charge, especially since it will be done at the supplier level. We need to cut the transportation emissions and this is a great way to do it!

In Massachusetts today, because of our reduction of coal and oil fuels in power plants, the largest source of CO2 is transportation. I am encouraged and excited that there is a regional and bipartisan effort to deal with this issue. My particular interest is to replace diesel buses with electric ones, especially school buses. Here, in western Massachusetts, where public transportation is relatively scarce ( a whole other issue), having diesel school buses pouring particulates as well as CO2 into the atmosphere and into kids lungs is truly undesirable, as the forests of this area should be a major source of clean oxygen locally and for the larger region as well. In addition, funds are desperately needed to increase clean public transportation here. Clean trains and buses are needed for both urban and rural populations as well as electric charging stations along roadways and in urban housing districts. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts should join the twelve state Transportation and Climate Initiative with the intention of swiftly acting to reduce the burning of fossil fuels and biomass in this region of our nation.

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 reduce carbon emissions from trucks and cars.

I enthusiastically 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 hubs. Some of the transit hubs we have are neglected and in critical need of repair and improvement.

We should not be investing in expanding the interstate highway system. 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.

I write to you as a dedicated bike/ped and public transit commuter in southeastern Connecticut with asthma. Thank you for your careful consideration of this extremely important issue. We must act now.

Sincerely,
Andrew Lopez
286 Montauk Ave.
New London, CT 06320

There is no "Climate Crisis" or "Climate Emergency"! Stop the fear mongering. Vermont has an "Affordability Crisis" that needs attention. It's time to address what matters most to Vermonters such as lowering the cost of living by eliminating the state pension shortfall and lowering high property taxes and healthcare premiums.

Your TCI is intended to make purchasing transportation fuels so painfully expensive that the astronomically high price discourages people from buying it. In short, consumers will have to pay more at the pump to fund increased government spending. Make no mistake, this is a tax. More precisely, it is a carbon dioxide tax being implemented through a gas tax.

But, unlike motor fuel taxes levied to pay for roads, bridges, and transportation infrastructure (a reasonable fee for use), the TCI would be the equivalent of a “sin tax” – a penalty for engaging in bad behavior. I do not believe that driving to and for work, transporting children to school, transporting goods, going to the grocery store, and all the other necessary activities that generally require a vehicle should be treated by governments as a sin. These are not activities people can, or should be forced to, avoid.

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.

To Whom It May Concern:

I fully support this plan. We need a transportation plan that will work to reduce transportation related emissions; focus funds on improving existing roads, rails, and other infrastructure; and fosters use of alternative means of transportation such as walking, biking, and mass transport.

While these efforts may not reduce global warming, they can reduce local greenhouse emissions and greatly improve air quality and health.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Laurie P Gorham
Gales Ferry, CT

Vermont, having one of the lowest carbon footprint in the United States, does not need to participate in this program in anyway. This will only increase the cost of living for Vermonters. We can no longer afford any more increased taxation in any method. This will only seriously increase the cost of living and negatively impact low and moderate income Vermonters. We cannot afford this. And there is no need. I respectfully request that Vermont not participate in this initiative whatsoever!

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.

The structure of a program like TCI is highly targeted on the actual problem - carbon emissions -- while also providing resources for policies and programs to mediate the problem at a root cause level. TCI will need to be in force over many years, with consistent and predictable changes in its cost impacts in order to modify market behavior in a non-disruptive way. I believe the market will be receptive to the spirit and financial incentives of TCI.

As an EV owner and rider of public transit I support the MOU as a way evolve our transportation system from carbon-emitting single-rider vehicles to electrified multimodal options.