TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

Dear Governor Baker:
I applaud your initiative to take aggressive action to reduce transportation emissions. Scientists say that we do in the next 10 years will make the difference between a liveable and an unimaginably bad climate. There is great urgency to bring down emissions, because we've waited so long to get serious about tackling the problem. This isn't a reason to give up, it's a call to get more aggressive.

We must build modern, fast, affordable public transportation to and from Boston from semi-rural areas like Plymouth in order to get people out of cars. I used to live in Newton and work in Cambridge. A year or two before I retired, we moved to Plymouth in search of affordable retirement housing. Commuting from Plymouth to Cambridge was a nightmare, 2 hours each way when travel to the Kingston train station is included. I found the commuter rail an overall pleasant if costly experience. Including parking and MBTA to Cambridge, it was about $29/day. How many workers can afford $145/week for commuting? No wonder the parking lot never filled up. We need more trains and cheaper fares, and you'll see train ridership spike up to capacity.

I also strongly support dedicated bus lanes on route 3 for the Plymouth & Brockton bus company. How about electric buses? Adding buses requires a lot less capital than enhancing rail lines -- though we need to do both. The bus is another attractive way to get to Boston from the Cape and South Shore, but buses clogged in route 3 traffic degrade the experience. If you drive alone, there isn't any of the thrill of the open road you see in car commercials. Commuters would gladly ditch cars if they could have fast, affordable buses that get them to a South Station that has fast, reliable service to Boston locations. It is absurd to expect the MBTA to fix existing problems and make capital improvements while being saddled with the debt of the Big Dig. The MBTA should be subsidized by the state to make it better. Long term, maybe the MBTA is unsustainable, but it's the way I got around in Boston the 6 years I lived there without a car.

We also need to encourage EV vehicles, with more charging stations and better incentives. The $7500 fed tax credit is gone for the most popular EV cars - this sends absolutely the wrong message. EV vehicles could be allowed to use the fast bus lanes.

I know the south shore best, but such transport improvements are needed in the entire state. Fast train from Boston to Worcester? Outstanding! Congestion pricing on the Pike? Yes!

So I support TCI and more. Thank you for showing leadership.

Sincerely, Linda Lancaster
South Shore & Cape Chapter, Citizens' Climate Lobby

My name is Jennifer Kleindienst, a resident of Middletown, CT, a community activist, and volunteer with Citizens' Climate Lobby. I believe that climate change is the most important issue of our planet, country, and region, and that we must do all we can to reduce its effects and mitigate its impacts. As transportation accounts for the largest portion of greenhouse gas emissions nationally and locally, developing a strong transportation and climate initiative is essential.

When developing this policy, I make two strong requests to improve effectiveness and equity:
1. The price on carbon must be high enough to effectively reduce emissions according to the latest available scientific projections.
2. The policy must include a strong component of social equity so that it does not disproportionately negatively impact rural residents or low/moderate income people.

I am grateful that this process is bipartisan - this is essential to making the initiative have lasting effectiveness.
Thank you for welcoming public comment and I look forward to seeing the finalized strong policy.

It is imperative that all people of this world do their share to mitigate climate change. Those of us in the developed world have done the most to destroy the world's climate so it is our responsibility to rectify this issue. I would impose a carbon tax through higher gasoline taxes, and taxes on emissions. In order to not unduly affect the poor, there should be an unearned income credit. Those who earn more should pay the tax.
In rural states, the tax on gasoline could be imposed in the more highly populated areas of the state.

Transportation is the largest source of air pollution in the region, and we need to build a modern, clean, safe, and accessible transportation system for the 21st century. The more we limit pollution from motor fuels, the more jobs we create, the more the economy grows, the healthier our air becomes, and the more lives we save. Pennsylvania should join TCI to fund better transportation infrastructure, reduce traffic, and make my community a cleaner, safer place to live.

It is another ill-defined, pie-in-the-sky political boondoggle. It’s all about handing over more money to a bloated bureaucracy and generating more hack jobs. You are not fooling anybody.

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.

Having recently seen The Human Element, I am even more aware of the chemicals our atmosphere is infused with at our hands. Little kids are breathing through face masks made to look like elephant faces multiple times a day at home and in school to stay alive. They explain that it feels like drowning when their damaged lungs fail to deliver adequate oxygen due to the pollution from the convenience of using fossil fuels. Our definition of fossil fuel necessity has been smothered by the scientific data that shows how we are destroying our life support systems. Shame on us for complaining that we don't like an additional gas tax. Our first responsibility is to life. We have lost our way as we minimize its fragility and our necessary stewardship. All around us we see the consequences accrue and the death of species; plants, animals and loved ones. My concern is that this legislation is as vetted and as extreme in its effectiveness as is humanly possible. I believe the team assembled and the sponsors behind this initiative are taking their moral role as shapers of our children's futures seriously. I thank you. Sign. Enact. Better our futures.

My name is Jim Whalen and I live in Hudson, MA. I am an avid cross country skier so I KNOW that climate change is real. I also see violent weather all over the place and I read the science. We must do something and soon. So thank you for this initiative. Market or economic based solutions are needed. A tax on carbon simply makes sense. When gas was over $4 a gallon we all drove less and we looked for fuel efficient vehicles. No more. Gas is cheap and we drive more and huge pickups are popular once again. But let’s avoid the problems we saw in France and be cognizant of people who would suffer under a carbon tax. We should return some of the tax revenue to those who would need it.

Please support transportation policy that 1) imposes a carbon price high enough to be effective at reducing carbon emissions and 2) is crafted to avoid imposing a burden on low and moderate income people.