TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

Transportation is so critical to the cumulative problems that we face that it is imperative that we do the many initiatives to correct the threats to the climate now. Therefore we need a low carbon response.

While I fully understand the good intentions of the TCI, economists like myself view the TCI as a form of gas tax that would disproportionally affect low-income drivers. In Maryland’s case, TCI would hurt the poor rural Maryland residents who depend on cars more than the wealthy residents of D.C. suburbs with plenty of public transit options.

Furthermore, TCI revenue would fund programs that would benefit the rich, such as programs to build more electric vehicle stations. But since electric cars cost up to $22,000 more than gasoline cars, over 80 percent of Maryland’s EV owners are affluent individuals with household incomes over $100,000.

Asides from the problem of fairness, I do not believe that TCI is the most effect way to fight climate change. TCI’s own estimates show that it would yield just a 5 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2032. Another study shows that TCI would result in a maximum temperature reduction of just 0.25 degrees by year 2100.

Therefore, I ask that our leaders carefully reconsider the TCI and weigh its huge economic costs against meager environmental benefits. Thank you for considering my viewpoint.

I strongly support the development and implementation of policies to reduce transportation pollution in our region. The resulting improvements in air quality are essential for public health, including for my own family members who have medical conditions affecting their lungs. Furthermore, it is imperative that we act now to curb the effects of climate change so that future generations of Marylanders can live healthy, productive lives. Please enact policies like the proposed cap and invest program to limit pollution and carbon emissions and to invest in a better future for Marylanders.

I am writing to express my support for the Transportation and Climate Initiative. It has the potential to generate the funds Maryland needs to create an expanded network of public transportation and other public utilities that can lead us to a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. I'm sure you know that the transportation sector is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, so that is where it is urgently necessary to target government's effort. The majority of Maryland's citizens support it, so it should be easy to vote in favor of it.

Thank you for your attention to this vital issue.

Yesterday I saw a two-year old boy with his third asthma attack in three months. After he failed to improve with treatment in my office I sent him to the Emergency Department, where he was started on his third course of oral steroids in twelve weeks. He was placed on strong preventative medication to continue indefinitely. In a single clinic day earlier this week I treated three children with Attention Deficit Disorder and one child with a learning disability.
We know from decades of research that air pollution from the combustion of oil and gas for transportation directly harms the health of our children. Air pollution from fossil fuel combustion harms children's lungs, causing asthma attacks and bronchitis, as well as potentially life-long reduced lung capacity. Air pollution also affects our brains, contributing to cognitive and behavioral disorders in children and Alzheimer's disease in adults. Reducing these pollutants is vital to protecting the health and future of our children and all members of our communities.
That is why I strongly support this policy to reduce air pollution from the transportation sector. This policy would have tremendous health benefits through reduced air pollution. By 2032, the public health benefits of the proposed program could reach as much as $10 billion, and reduce as many as 1,000 fewer premature deaths, and over 1,300 fewer asthma symptoms annually.
As a pediatrician, I strongly support the proposed policy.

I strongly support the Transportation and Climate Initiative. Consideration should be given to a 'fee and dividend' program that would return at least some of the money generated to individuals. That approach may be less regressive and more politically popular than a 'cap-and-invest' program.

I travel 60 miles a day just to go to work and I can’t afford any more taxes on gasoline! An electric vehicle is not economical for me !