TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

I support the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) and the need for Maine to move away from outdated single-car and single-driver models of transportation. Our outdated transportation system is Maine’s largest source of climate pollution—and it doesn’t even meet the needs of Maine people. We deserve clean, modern, affordable transportation options that deliver economic, health, and climate benefits to local communities.
It makes sense for Maine to work with neighboring states through TCI’s bipartisan, proven policy model to design and implement modern mass transit systems throughout our state and throughout New England. Imagine what a bullet train moving the people of Maine to and from work (in Portland, Boston, etc.) might look like. We could be the model of the future for the United States and the world.

This is an amazing thing. Some things that will make it more amazing:
-Expansion to other states. There is only one passenger rail line in Oklahoma, and it only connects OKC to Texas.
-An expansion of the cap-and-trade, and perhaps the implementation of a carbon tax instead of cap-and-trade.

We need to take dramatic, significant action to address climate change and reducing pollution caused by transportation is one of the major actions we can take. There is no time to wait. In addition, there are positive socioeconomic impacts to creating and expanding public transportation and the use of electric vehicles and light rail systems throughout both rural and urban areas. I support this and can envision cleaner, more efficient modes of transportation that benefit the earth and our communities. Please move forward with these bold initiatives!

As currently proposed, TCI would result in a potentially significant effective tax on highway gasoline and diesel. This would increase costs for manufacturers, retailers, dairy, forestry, mineral, and other businesses dependent on highway transportation for moving supplies and goods, as well as construction and other contractors dependent on vehicles, both through direct costs and the cost of transportation service providers.

Unlike residential drivers, who might respond to higher costs by adjusting driving habits and potentially converting to more efficient vehicles, and for whom states could fund programs supporting such changes with revenues allocated from TCI, the commercial transportation noted above is already driven to be as efficient as possible in terms of both logistical planning and transportation technology owing to regulatory requirements and the high costs of transportation generally, compounded by the competitive pressures businesses already face.

Without meaningful options to reduce exposure to the effective tax impact of TCI through behavioral or technology changes, or options for states to fund programs supporting such changes with revenues allocated from TCI, this cost impact could only be mitigated by moving production or operations out of the impacted region, or businesses would be left facing the consequences of trying to absorb or pass on costs to consumers.

TCI would therefore appear to promise little if any change in commercial transportation carbon emissions unless produced by reduced business operations, with resulting loss of employment and economic activity. This would be both fundamentally inequitable and highly cost ineffective.

The most efficient way to address the concerns outlined above while proceeding with TCI would be to exclude diesel from the program and focus on highway gasoline and related transportation issues and opportunities. This would protect the overwhelming majority of commercial transportation, and states could still work to assist businesses with smaller, gasoline fueled vehicle options.

Nevertheless, even focusing on highway gasoline could still lead to other economic and social consequences, particularly in rural areas. These potential consequences should be fully explored, explained, and opened to public review and comment before states take formal steps forward on the TCI proposal.

Clean and affordable energy and transportation through an increased and appropriate level of new federal investment in zero-emissions transportation options for all community members in both rural and urban areas must be a priority. This includes programs to scale up investment in public transit; zero-emissions transit buses, diesel trucks, and school buses; and accessible and affordable adoption of electric cars. We also must assure that communities impacted the most are included in decision making from the very beginning.

As a City & Regional Planner, formerly with the NYCDOT, I strongly support TCI's regional planning efforts to reduce the transportation sector's impact in the New England region. Regarding the first question: What factors should TCI jurisdictions consider when setting the starting level and the trajectory for a regional cap on carbon dioxide emissions from transportation fuels?

Please consider planning and implementing VMT reduction initiatives before setting an arbitrary level for a regional cap. We must see if Americans can and are willing to make this big step, before we commit to capping at the status quo. Plans can be designed for each transect of communities: the urban core, suburban and rural. There are many examples of cities taking these measures across the globe. While places like London and Beijing have made extensive transportation investments, many of these ideas can be implemented in conjunction with smaller, cheaper projects such as Bus Rapid Transit for priority corridors, bicycle infrastructure, and ride sharing with micromodes.

Some ideas include:
1. Tolling all roads based on Average Daily Travel and vehicular type
2. Congestion pricing for all urban cores
3. Surge pricing for parking in urban cores and downtowns, to adjust to fluctuations in regional tourism
4. VMT taxes or Pay By Mile Tax combined with incentives for switching to EVs
5. Car free streets, to discourage driving and encourage other travel modes
6. License plate lotteries or a vehicle-permit lottery, to actually cap the number of private vehicles can be put on the road
7. Employer or tax incentives for using EVs, carpooling or using alternative travel modes for commuting.

Thank you so much for these regional planning efforts.

Absolutely not! TCI is a gas tax and Gov. Baker should be ashamed of himself for trying to bypass the legislature. This tax will hurt all the hard working people who have to commute to work on a daily basis. It's about time that the hard working people of Massachusetts finally get the break.

Maryland needs to act based on scientific findings. Those show clearly the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the transportation sector, say at least 40% reduction by 2030 would be entirely appropriate. One major way to do that equitably is making public transit more convenient, a boon especially to the families now underserved by our transportation system. But encouraging more Marylanders to take public transit, rather than drive, will lead to a better environment for all of us. Nearly three-quarters of us express support, in a bipartisan way, for limiting our transportation pollution.