TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

With a 9.5 billion budget? NO NEW TAXES! RI Retirees are already hard enough hit! NO TO TCI! NO TO AUTO TOLLS, TOO!!!

It’s important that Pennsylvania take the steps to initiate this policy in the next few years. To effectively battle climate change, we need to take drastic measures in the next decade. This can be done through this policy for low carbon transportation options and enhancements to current multi-modal option. As a bicyclist, I often hear the reason for others not to ride is because they don’t feel safe on the roads. This policy would help build out a safer, connected bike infrastructure throughout the region. Furthermore, those don’t take the bus in Pittsburgh due to the lengthy ride or number of transfers. Again, building this infrastructure out will only make this form of transportation easier and more readily accessible for everyone. We need to cut down on single driver trips. We can do this and improve bike as well as mass transportation by passing this policy.

I’m great with this if we can get high-speed rail to Philadelphia from Pittsburgh to start. Honestly I should be able to get on a train and be to Buffalo, Cleveland, Columbus, DC and New York in a shorter amount of time than driving - but Pittsburgh to Philly will be a good start and the state would benefit greatly. The toll is literally almost $40 to go across the state DRIVING ONE WAY. We should also use it to extend the T to southpointe in washington county with a park and ride, and T line to the airport and East Liberty/Oakland.

STOP DESTROYING THE WORKING CLASS & BLUE COLLAR JOBS. These policies ride on the backs of those who can't afford it. You want to reduce carbon, sell one of your numerous homes/vacation properties, stop flying private jets, live in a house that's under 2,000 sq ft, stop making 5 runs a day to Starbucks. The working people are tired of paying for your guilt.

Weather and its relationship to long term Climate Change dynamics have always been a subject of professional interest and application for me during my active service with the United States Navy and in retirement in matters of communication with similarly interested colleagues and community members, including members of the Rhode Island House of Representative and Senate and local City Council members as it related to shoreline degradation and change and changes in the characteristics of our waterways. I am seriously concerned that much of the advocacy of persons with public administrative and political policy responsibilities have, too often identified with activities more focused on "consensus" rather than knowledge acquisition both directly and indirectly to the causes and effects of weather and long term climate results and trends and cycles. Unfortunately, for Rhode Island, the TCI Regional Policy design finds itself as completely unsatisfactory for the people of this state and needs to be rejected outright. Our Governor may have good intentions but she has been misled by the politicization of a topic which recommends a directions which may well rebound negatively to the economic and well being environment of RHode Island residents and visitors. Recent former NASA scientists and climate professionals have, in an macro set of analyses, that actions and directions as indicated by the TCI policy design begin to have a deleterious effect when about one third of the actions undertaken begin to have a negative macro effect on various carbon creation remediation activities, increasing rather than decreasing the overall carbon footprint based on the realistic need for reliable energy generation to support expansion of alternative energy activity. Additionally, this effect then expands to log kinds of trend proportions, meaning that attempts to reduce this effect until alternative energy balance is achieved costs even more than replacement benefit intended. The cost to taxpayers and ratepayers and mobile replacement remediation replacement would be enormous, again, even if only one third of the TCI policies were implemented. Recall, that tax benefit already exists to support commercial viability of alternative mobile and energy operations. The windmill experiment is supported by an infinite cost of operation escalator to keep viable. At the same time, climate claims about the albedo of the earth are being placed into doubt as the sun seems to have moved into its cooling posture and plate tectonic movements now are causing some scientists to indicated that waters are not rising in some costal venues. Rather subsidence of large portions of plates may be the cause of "deeper" waters. These conclusions need long term analysis and warn that consensus oriented policies regarding climate need much further studies before the first penny of added taxation or fees are dedicated to what in reality is consensus exaggeration. This is critical, in that, in Rhode Island, long term neglect of the infrastructure of the state has resulted in poor bridges, dams, public buildings and schools, not to mention health care facilities and the need for alternative rail and road access to places like Hartford, CT, which is going thru an economic renewal. The current TCI policy supporters have been luuled to sleep by some who claim that energy production needs from oil and natural gas are on their way out. tell that to the citizens of Middletown and Newport and some of Portsmouth. In 2019, we have a the smallest state in the union which does not have 100% residential access to natural gas lines or water lines that have been renewed or electric transmission lines that leak badly. Much need to be done now before RI decides to go on a radical "consensus" exploration. Very bad, Governor. Time to examine what benefit we get from regional committees who have done nothing for the state to have full flowing access to traditional energy, some of which leaks from Boston ports that get very cold or hot weather LNG from Russia. Time to stop this foolishness. The governor is on her way out and appears to be seeking camaraderie with public political endeavors that her party presidential candidates are highlighting to the public, it seems with not much success. Stop this endeavor. It is wrong.

silly left wing nonsense this state is expensive enough without this foolishness.....TRUMP2020

THIS IS A REGRESSIVE TAX THAT WILL NOT ACCOMPLISH YOUR GOAL. PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO USE GAS FOR THEIR DAILY NEEDS...INCLUDING WORK. IF AIR QUALITY IS REALLY IMPORTANT, TRUCK EMISSIONS ARE BY FAR A GREATER POLLUTER. THIS TAX FALLS ON THE SHOULDERS OF PEOPLE THAT CAN LEAST AFFORD IT IN A STATE THAT CAN'T CONTROL IT'S SPENDING!