TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

I support this policy to prioritize climate change considerations when making infrastructure decisions.

Here are my concerns about TCI:
1. Please consider investing TCI funds in clean energy, energy efficiency, and more robust public transportation. This would expand career opportunities, and better public transportation would make jobs more accessible. Lastly, clean transportation will improve the health of our region and lower our related healthcare costs by reducing air pollution from fossil fuel vehicles.

2. Please ensure that low and moderate income residents do not bear the financial burden, by distributing TCI funds to cover added energy expenses in a manner that corresponds with the timing of higher costs. Also provide TCI funding to rural residents to cover the added gasoline costs incurred from longer driving distances and from extremely limited public transportation options (e.g. Franklin County, MA, has no evening and weekend buses).

3. Please allocate TCI funds to public transportation, municipal energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, EV charging stations in rural areas and urban areas with rental properties, rebates for electric vehicles, including used EVs, and higher EV rebates for low-income residents, to make EVs more accessible to residents of all income levels.

4.Please consider Targeting TCI funding for the development of community solar for moderate and low income residents.

Thank you for your consideration and serious work on this critical issue of climate change in our region.

Increasing tax on gas and diesel would be devastating for my family. I commute daily 30 miles to work and home. I cant drive any less from my rural home to work. My husband works 6 days a week installing satellite internet to rural Mainers that cant get internet through other providers. His day is spent with hours of driving. His company doesn't reimburse him for gas or mileage so if he drives two hours and the satellite can't go in, he doesn't get paid. With more taxes, he will not be able to afford to work. This is a horrible idea for the common peoples of Maine and would only hurt us. City living isn't what everyone does!!

I own and operate a small business in Maine. To service our customers we average about 200k miles per year on our fleet of vehicles. Maine is already at a competitive disadvantage due to our geographical make-up, high cost of electricity and one of the highest overall tax rates in the Union.

We have limited public transportation which require most folks from Maine to commute via vehicle to and from work. In addition, we have to rely on our vehicles to purchase groceries, visit local clothing stores, transport our children to school events, etc.. This list goes on and on. We can not simply park our vehicles and chose another mode of transportation.

To include Maine in this initiative will be catastrophic to our economy. As a business owner I will be forced to pass this cost on to my Customers. They in turn will have less disposable income to fuel the economy in Maine. I cannot speak to how this will impact other states, but I suspect outside of the large cities (Which already have large participation rates in public transportation) the rural areas will be in a similar situation as many of us in Maine.

I hope common sense will prevail.

I support clean transportation solutions that reduce carbon pollution and make it easier and more affordable to get to where we need to go.

Given the large proportion of greenhouse gases (GHG) generated from the transportation sector (40%) (Reference 1, page 17, Reference 2, page 1) and the slow projected growth of electric vehicles (EV) within total light duty vehicle (LDV) on-the-road population increasing to only 10% by 2025 and to 25% by 2030 (Reference 2, page 3), it is important to transition people from cars to public transit where the pollution per passenger mile is a small fraction of that from driving. The daily congestion and gridlock experienced on New York’s highways and the acres of environmentally damaging parking they demand, further illustrates the importance of moving to public transit.
Disincentives for driving and incentives for using energy efficient public transit are needed to achieve the shift to transit. Investments to improve public transportation infrastructure will be critical for: (1) attracting car commuters to transit; and (2) handling increased ridership on transit as more people leave their cars at home. Transit incentives and investments will be critical for meeting CLCPA GHG reduction goals.
We therefore ask that the Cap & Invest program of New York State’s Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) be structured in a way that discourages driving (especially in urban areas) and uses the Cap & Invest revenues along with NYS general budget funds, to make public transportation a viable alternative to driving. Much needs to be done. Both capital investments for expanding high capacity transit (e.g., Buffalo’s hydro-powered light rail) and making improvements to urban transit operations (e.g., increasing the frequency of buses) are needed. Improvements to public transportation are a precondition for meeting the carbon reduction goals of the NYS Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA).
Further, since science tells us that we have a very short window to act if we are to mitigate the effects of climate change, it is imperative that we move quickly to reduce GHG emissions. Since the transportation sector is the biggest source of the problem, it needs to be prioritized immediately!
The Transportation Sector is Key. Transportation is the largest GHG contributing sector, at 40%, compared to just 20% for the residential sector, the next largest (Reference 1, page 17). Since we need to further reduce GHG emissions another 16% by 2025 to meet Erie County goals for meeting Paris Climate Accord goals and another 32% by 2030 to meet the NYS CLCPA goals, reductions in the transportation sector will be critical.
“It’s the cars, stupid”. Within the transportation sector, light duty vehicles, including taxis and car share vehicles, contribute the largest portion, 60%, of GHG with public transit contributing the lowest, 3% (Reference 2, page 1 and 2). Clearly, the path to meeting the NYS GHG reduction goals must include substantially reducing vehicle miles traveled by car. This is most efficiently done by converting people from mostly car-based travel in urban areas to public transit, where per passenger mile GHG emissions are much lower than for light duty vehicles, especially when we move to electric-powered transit like Buffalo’s largely hydro-powered light rail and considering the NFTA’s commitment to convert to electric buses. Given the slow fleet replacement time for LDVs and the time urgency of reducing GHG generation, transition to electrically powered travel can be accomplished faster with transit.
Clean public transit will need to play a larger role for urban commutes and mobility. Since energy per passenger mile is much lower on transit, this will also reduce the electric load on the grid and minimize the need to use carbon-based sources.

High capacity transit is needed to handle increased ridership. High capacity transit like light rail will be needed to handle the increased ridership as people choose to leave their cars at home. A typical 4-car light rail train can move 560 people every 10 minutes in each direction of service. This removes between 140 and 560 cars from the roads (every 10 minutes). Since light rail uses dedicated rights-of-way, they move at 50 MPH between stops, much faster than cars on city streets or congested highways. Buses, by contrast can carry 70 people every 10 minutes. But because buses share lanes with cars and make frequent stops to pick up passengers, they move relatively few people compared to light rail. And their slow speed makes them unable to attract large numbers of choice riders. Bus rapid transit (BRT) solutions provide a middle ground using larger articulated buses carrying 100 people per bus on mostly dedicated lanes. This competes more strongly against car-based travel, moving faster than traffic but slower than light rail.
Investments in public transit are needed. But today’s transit systems are inadequate to handle the number of people who now commute by car. This makes it imperative that we invest in improving our transit infrastructure. We need to deploy and extend Buffalo’s light rail transit system and purchase additional buses, preferable electric buses that can use carbon-neutral sources. Improvements in our public transit infrastructure will also be critical for attracting people to public transit. The need is great because we have neglected to maintain and upgrade our transit systems for many decades. Buffalo’s light rail system is mostly powered (60%) by green hydropower and needs to play a larger role in transportation solutions in Buffalo-Niagara. But it needs to be expanded to serve the larger region as originally planned.
Buffalo’s light rail system provides the foundation. In Buffalo, we already have a light rail system worth over $1 billion (in today’s dollars) along with publicly owned and available rights-of-way that can be repurposed for very cost-effective expansion. In addition to the planned light rail extension to UB’s Amherst campus, rights-of-way through Buffalo’s Eastside to Larkinville, the Buffalo Niagara International Airport and Southtowns are available and should be the next investment. We need to leverage this resource to provide a viable network of light rail connectivity, beginning with the Amherst extension and ultimately including extensions to the Eastside/Airport and Southtowns.
The Cap and Trade mechanism needs to be structured to discourage driving and provide funding for transit. The ability to meet NYS’s commitment to GHG reductions will require investments in public transit along with incentives for mode shifting. Further, viable and sustainable funding mechanisms for transit operations will need to be put in place. The extent to which these funding mechanisms also reduce the attractiveness of car-based travel, which is causing the problem, will make the shift to green transit-based solutions achievable. For example, congestion pricing / tolling along city expressways entering cities like Buffalo’s Kensington Expressway should be considered as part of the cap and invest mechanism in addition to directly taxing carbon-based fuels.
References:

1. “Erie County Commits to Paris: How Erie Can Meet US Target Reductions for Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, Erie County Executive Mark Polencarz. Jan 2018.
2. “Transforming Transportation in New York: Roadmaps to a Transportation Climate Target for 2035”, Synapse Energy Economics prepared for the Sierra Club. September 2019.
3. “New York to Approve One of the World’s Most Ambitious Climate Plans.” Jesse McKinley and Brad Plumber. NY Times. June 18, 2019.

Transportation needs to be improved in this region to better serve residents and workers. Key infrastructure has been neglected for too long. It can help protect the environment if done in a green, sustainable manner, while also driving economic growth.

Maryland should make a make a firm commitment to adopt a regional transportation policy that achieves a minimum 40 percent reduction in transportation sector climate pollution by 2030, to keep us on track to meet the climate goals updated by the General Assembly in 2016.