TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

Please work to create a TCI policy that brings more public transit to the northeast! Reducing climate damaging emissions from transportation should be a number one priority for Vermont. Currently the public transit options are severely lacking between Brattleboro/Keene/Greenfield/Amherst, and this is an area where many people would be able to use a bus instead of driving I-91.

I don't think this is a good idea for Maine. It's not in the best interest of industry or tourism,and the very job's we depend on. Maybe you people should stop trying to be like California and start working for the people of Maine.

This is a great policy development initiative by TCI (Transportation & Climate Initiative). This policy development initiative for the northeastern states helps in spreading awareness among sub regions. The goals of this initiative in reducing carbon foot print, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, would need support of local and regional entities. Having local regions adopt this policy (once it is developed) would help in multi-state regional goals. Measuring existing conditions is the key to this initiative. Your approach is commendable on to how to measure CO2 emissions. This measurement may also be accomplished perhaps by placing measuring instruments in various locations in region. These measuring instruments will help monitor over a period of time. Data on health is also a key to support monitoring the emissions. Validating existing data with measurements would help forecasts. Traffic counts, GPS data are also helpful in measuring VMT. Implementation strategies can be many: ranging from fuel technologies, to multi modal transportation system, land use density, preservation of farm land. VMT data combined with fuel technologies is a key variable in emissions reduction strategy. Complete streets policy implementation also helps in emissions reductions. Increased density of land use, with mixed land use development result in shorter daily commuting trip lengths, this in turn would help reduce emissions. Some of the MPO’s in the region already has VMT computed, as well as Ozone and PM 2.5 pollutants emissions are documented. Good to use these resources, that way consistency in the data is accomplished.

I'm ambivalent... While I believe we must do what it takes to reduce our carbon footprint and a regional (or national) solution is needed, I read the MOU and don't understand how this raises more money than could be raised from either increasing the existing taxes on fuels or instituting a production- or distributor- level tax on all fuels. It is complex, requires new bureaucracy (overhead), and introduces opportunities for profiteers to work the system. And... it won't start to fund clean energy projects for two years. Conclusion: If this is the only way to increase cost of fossil fuels and incentivize green initiatives, then I'm supportive, but I'd prefer a more direct and immediate solution.

I fully support Vermont's signing onto the TCI. I read the MOU and liked its main tenets. I wholeheartedly support the goal of reducing carbon emissions. I also attended a meeting where the TCI was explained to the audience and then time for Q&A. The one thing that came up is that as much as possible this must address economic inequities.

Transportation is very important for our cities and towns. Most transportation systems being used is outdated and not eco-friendly. As a country, we must replace our old transportation systems with low carbon emission vehicles, trains, planes, trucks, etc. This must be done now to prevent any more devastating effects to our climate. We must not wait to do this, everyone's lives depend on it.

An increase in gas taxes will in turn increase the cost of transportation and goods to the consumer. This will hurt those of us on a fixed or minimal income.

This has bad idea written all over it. From the behind the scenes scheming to keep this from public vote, to the massive economic toll it will take on everyone and everything in the state and beyond. Raising fuel costs increases the costs not just of the fuel itself, but of all items that must be grown, packed, shipped, kept warm or cold and so on. Further this 'plan' has no defined budget, goals or metrics, and as such it will just be another sink hole of money. Shame on you polititions!