TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

Finding efficient methods for increasing the environmental and public health is a critical goal. The well-being of Maryland constituents and beyond depend on developing new transportation initiatives and technologies that will increase productivity, safety, reduce pollutants as well as strengthen the economy for all.

I am a long time Geo Metro driver with my husband operating all electric cars for 10 years. I know poor people in Lewiston who want to work in Portland, but have no way to get there. I volunteer at the Gathering Place in Brunswick where many people need cheap transportation to Lewiston, via bus or train, but it's not available. The public needs regular bus routes between Lewiston and Brunswick so L/A residents have access to the major job source and services in Portland. Maine must reactivate the train line between Auburn and Portland to connect the two major urban areas of the state. Middle class workers will use this line, since it's much pleasanter, more affordable, and lower Carbon impact to ride instead of drive that distance.
I live in Topsham and support Governor Mills participation in the regional planning for greener public transportation in Maine. This plan must incorporate the most recent and best science on climate emissions from transportation. Transportation policy must be fair and inclusive for elderly, poor and handicapped people in Maine. This large group of Maine residents do not have private transportation and many need regular, affordable transport between Lewiston, Brunswick, and Portland to help meet their basic needs for essential services.
I am delighted and thankful that this policy planning includes both Republicans and Democrats, since it will work out compromises of cost, and practicality that will best serve Maine people and have support in the legislature to be enacted.
I am in the process of moving from 14 miles south of Bath to center of Topsham in order to reduce my driving time, climate impact, and costs. I am still able to walk the 1.4 miles to downtown Brunswick, yet will be working for cooperation between Topsham and Brunswick to extend Brunswick's good bus system to Topsham. This is one urban area which is only half connected via public transportation. Traffic congestion is moderate and growing both bypassing Brunswick and from Topsham to Brunswick and could be alleviated with an extended bus system. A regular bus system between Bath and Brunswick is greatly needed, since affordable housing in Brunswick is unavailable and very limited in Bath. Low income people who have no cars cannot get to work or housing between those two cities. The Brunswick Explorer bus has adapted and responded to need to transport students and refugees to and from the old Navy base at Cook's Corner.
Lanes for bicycle traffic should be established between urban areas and along scenic routes, as this can be both affordable transportation, good for people's health and reduce congestion, air pollution, and carbon emissions. Topsham has started this process of making a safe walking/biking path along the bypass connector between Rt 1 in Brunswick and Rt 196. When completed many Topsham residents will be able to walk and bike to the Topsham Fair Mall.
For decades I have wanted a dial in ride sharing system to be created using people's smart phones to schedule shared rides to work. The state and BIW have done this with vans for some of their workers. This concept could be applied to private vehicles with thought given to screening people in the system for criminal records. The state cannot guarantee safety of people using such a system, yet the potential to reduce gas miles driven is huge. Perhaps towns could create a register of screened drivers with insurance who are willing to share rides. Maine can build on our small town culture of looking after one another, and take better care of our isolated elderly and poor residents with such a service. I am part of a volunteer network of drivers with New Mainers who take non English speaking residents of Brunswick to their twice weekly English classes in Topsham. this involves scheduling about 15 drivers with 20 or more residents and setting up phone communication for cancelations. Such transportation is also provided, or connections to the bus systems, for people to attend essential meetings in Portland. BIcycles have also been given to every adult at Brunswick Landing who wants one, and training provided in bike safety and practice biking to the library.
Mostly I would like to see commuters sharing rides to minimize Carbon emissions, reduce traffic congestion and free up parking in urban areas. Thank you for this long needed subcommittee to design sensible transportation systems. Please look at European rail, and other public transport systems for adaptation to Maine's transport needs.

Thanks to the 11 states (plus DC) for addressing transportation emissions through the TCI. I worked for the US DOE back in the 1990's when we began the Clean Cities program, and am frustrated that more progress has not resulted with clean transportation. I believe the TCI will be successful similar as the RGGI initiative has been with the power sector, and will continue actively promoting it and encourage others to support it.

I want to thank Gov. Baker for his support to date in this area and urge that we formally join the regional initiative. I am a regular user of the bike trails around me, and wish there were one that connected my house and my studio. There are places however with much greater need in the state, where cars sit unmoving in traffic but there is no safe alternative for walking or biking. Think of how much you can improve the finances of a family if a car is not a necessity while also improving air quality and lessening detrimental environmental impacts. Every small step in the right direction is a good thing.

Tailpipe exhaust is a major source of air pollution in Vermont. Auto ownership is a financial burden, and vehicle accidents have disrupted or ended too many lives. We need transportation choices, and development that coordinates with them!

To Whom it May Concern,

I appreciate being given the chance to provide my own feedback to the TCI. My name is Will Cembalest and I am an environmental economics major at Middlebury College, spending this spring term assessing the environmental, social and economic dynamics of Vermont’s transportation systems. I am commenting on behalf of myself, and holding true to the best interests of the Addison County region. Vermont’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions is the transportation sector, so this program can effectively catalyze positive change in Vermont, and across the northeast region.

I would like to draw attention to MOU section I.3, Offsets, which addresses the regulations on the entity compliance and flexibility. The language used to discuss this directive is too tolerant of the state fuel suppliers. Engaging in carbon offset programs allows the state fuel suppliers to generally maintain their status quo operations, and fund alternative projects which may not most effectively support burdening low-income communities. This carbon offset procedure must set forth very stringent regulations to best support the rural communities in Vermont.

Carbon offset programs are very effective where certain carbon-mitigating, progressive projects are unable to attract the capital input necessary; the revenues from the offsets can decrease the technological and financial risk associated with the project. However, in many cases, fuel suppliers will engage in carbon offsets because they can be cheaper than using their own internal funds to invest in cutting their in-house greenhouse gas emissions. The largest issue with this scheme is that the carbon offset project would have been “implemented anyway”, which was found in a study conducted in 2010 looking at the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation in Alberta, Canada. In this case, a project such as switching fuels from diesel to natural gas, or installing energy efficient commercial heaters when the dilapidated burners needed replacement anyway, qualified as a GHG offset. This did not shift their emissions from their business as usual scenario, and failed to uphold the overall goal of the regulation: forcing polluters to make innovative changes to decrease emissions from the business as usual case.
If the program proves successful in the short run, it should eliminate the availability to purchase carbon offsets as an alternative, and make it an additional expenditure which state fuel providers can engage in if they wish. Under the RGGI program, which has proven successful by decreasing power plant emissions by 90% relative to the rest of the U.S, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire have all disbanded the ability to purchase offsets, described on the RGGI website. This indicates their intentions to decrease the polluter’s agency in dodging internal emissions reduction investments. For the time being, the offset program can exist only if the revenues from the project financially assist the residents within the TCI regions in transitioning towards a green fuel economy. Nowhere in the MOU is it specifically stated what kind of emissions offset projects they wish to engage in, nor the direct intention to positively impact low-income citizens. There must be several criteria for the offset project, recommended by the National Resource Defense Council. First, the offset project should be verified before the implementation of the project, not after a group collects the proceeds. Then, the project must be enforceable, where a third-party ensures its execution. Lastly, the offset must be permanent, guaranteeing that the positive impacts from project persist into the future.
Since it is the citizens of the states who are bearing the consequences of increased gas prices under the TCI and face future burdens of climate change in these regions, the proceeds are needed to support them in the transition towards a greener fuel economy. This would include initiatives like electric vehicle charging stations or subsidies for purchasing electric vehicles. Nowhere is it mentioned that the offset projects will remain within the premises of the states.

If this offset program were to exist, they must truly limit the amount of carbon offsets the state fuel supplier is able to purchase over the lifespan of the program, and additionally, the proceeds must be allocated towards specifically assisting in electrifying the fuel economy.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Will Cembalest

Asking the TCI to consider Two specific thematics:
1] IT is important to be wary of becoming isolated to one strategic domain: decarbonize the transportation sector through transitioning to an electric powered car bus system etc. This is an important part of the solution though it in effect adds to the GHG emission profile of those places where electric vehicles are manufacturing and transported and where the energy sources for our electric grid is produced. And for the foreseeable immediate future this still will be fossil-fueled.

A society governed by electric-powered vehicles does not automatically enhance smart growth/development, complete streets, dense development, safe pedestrian and bike modes nor will such a paradigm improve transportation equity for currently undeserved and economically marginalized populations. Nothing changes as well in the built environment that even as the GHG emission profile does indeed improve it will manifestly reinforce the mandate that produces more highways and parking lots, parking garages and transit numbing congestion and location and land use development that optimizes access to the single user vehicle.

2] Affected fuels and emission sources. TCI is excluding ocean and waterway shipping, and air transport were to be exempt. It might be timely to include water way shipping in that there is an emerging policy infrastructure emerging for this domain. To Wit:

90,000 ships carry 90% of global trade burning 2 billion barrels of the heaviest—and dirtiest crude. Fuels used in shipping have about 3500 times greater concentrations of sulphur dioxide SO(2) than automotive diesel. Though much shipping is seaborne in international waters much travels through harbors and waterways and ports in RI, NY, MASS, and other TCI signatories. Shipping contributes about 2-3% of global carbon dioxide CO(2). Currently the shipping sector must meet (beginning in 2020) limitations on SO (2) and Nitrogen Oxides NO and particulates as mandated by the UN International Maritime Agency. This is propelling the introduction of using lower sulphur fuels and scrubbers. In order to meet this mandate IMP’s marine environment protection committee proposed slow-steaming an approach that could collaterally cut 750 millions of tons of CO(2) or 2% of CO(2) emission by 2050, according to the International Council on Clean Transportation. Electric battery-powered ferries have operated on a small scale and wind assisted propulsion—(sailing) is an increasing option as well. And Hydrogen technologies are also being considered. Carbon Dioxide CO(2) levels will be the International Maritime Agency’s next focus as the SO(2), NO and PM regulations take hold. So it would be prudent to include this sector in the TCI deliberations.
In order to meet this mandate IMP’s marine environment protection committee.

Ships often use their own engines while they are docked: one study reported by the US EPA noted that a single cruise ship docked for one day emits as much diesel as 34,400 idling tractor trailers. Shore electric power stations were pioneered by the US Navy years ago. In 2007 California diesel emissions regulation requires 70%^ of ships to connect to shore electric power setups. (In 2018 a Swiss shipping firm was fined $650,000 for violations of this rule.) Seattle is allocating $30 mission to expand its shore power stations. China will require all cruise ships to hook up to shore power stations by 2021

Without clean air and water we are DOOMED as a society. Please don’t screw these basic necessities up forever!