TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

If we and most other species are to survive, we must stop burning fossil fuels ASAP and begin to remove atmospheric CO2 at a rapidly accelerating rate. The technologies exist to do these things; what is lacking thus far is the courage to confront entrenched, extremely well funded and insatiably greedy carbon extractors and merchants. We don’t have a year to come up with a plan, so please act quickly and courageously to design a transportation policy that will as rapidly as possible be low-carbon and ultimately result in no-carbon transportation. If you fail to do this, weather related disasters will only increase as we zoom past methane-release, ice-melt and ocean-acidification tipping points on our way to a gruesome end to our species. We are clearly in the midst of a climate crisis; please act accordingly. Thank you!

If we are to survive as a species, we need all of the following to be implemented as quickly as possible: (1) Subsides for the purchase of vehicle-to-vehicle cruise control and any similar technology that will safely allow higher vehicle densities on our limited access highways, instead of cutting down trees and bulldozing neighborhoods to build more roadway; (2) More public transit and electric vehicle infrastructure in all areas; (3) Expansion of commuter rail, electric vehicles, and streets in the suburbs that are safe, walkable, and bike-able; (4) Sustainable and equitable housing near transit and electric bus fleets in urban communities; (5) Changes in building codes to require all new construction to include maximum roof coverage with photovoltaic panels or shingles and all new parking lots and structures to be covered with photovoltaic arrays; (6) Financial incentives to retrofit existing parking lots with solar arrays.

There are several problems with this initiative as proposed:
1. Overall there is no mention made of how these initiatives this will affect global warming.
2. Because there is no Cost Benefit Analysis, there is no way to measure whether any of the policies will have any affect on the goals.
3. For example, how does the TCI proposal impact global temperatures as discussed by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, who found implementing the Paris accord would reduce global temperatures by 0.05°C in 2100? See https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.12295
It is not even possible to measure a change this small, given current technology.
Wouldn't it be prudent to wait and see what is actually happening? Is there any reason at all to formalize something which will certainly have no affect whatsoever on the climate, yet incur great costs on the low and middle income population?

I think the governor of Maine needs to think about the implications of joining this initiative. Maine is mostly a rural state and gasoline and heating oil prices are already one of the biggest expenses I have because I live 1 hour from where I work. Maine is becoming too expensive to live in.

I am proud that our Governor, Janet Mills, is in support of this low carbon transportation policy planning initiative. After working in the field of public health for over 25 years, 17 of which were in Maine's state public health agency, I've watched the evidence emerge that we must address the social determinants of health, i.e. the factors that protect and improvce population health, and not just focus on access to medical care. A sustainable low carbon transportation plan can help mitigate the impact of climate change, and improve regional air quality. It will support improved quality of life in our communities, and especially so for vulnerable populations such as those affected by low income, the very old and the very young, and those experiencing heath inequities. In our rural state, this policy process will extend to attracting a workforce that seeks to work and reside in liveable communities. It will contribute to economic development when more viable alternatives are available to all in our very rural state where the demand for access to affordable transportation is so huge. Public health also recognizes that while community health happens on the ground, strategically it is efficient to develop policies, especially those which are deployed at the regional level. As a member of the Maine Public Health Association, I'm proud that our organization representing over 700 public health professionals, recently won an award for environmental health advocacy; I am sure many of my colleagues would agree with me.

I completely disagree with this tax, and it IS a tax. Given that this state completely mismanages any money it gets (look at the MBTA), this tax is nothing but a money grab and will do ZERO to lower anyone's carbon footprint. Making people shell out even more money will hurt a lot of people commuting to work. There is no real plan in place that proves paying more money at the pump will do anything but fill some people's bank accounts. If the so-called plan is so great, put it to a vote of the people. Baker is out of his mind on this one.

(1) A nationwide database by which people could find car-pool partners to get them to work. Most commuters are one person in one car. It's wasteful. (2) Rebuild our railroads, especially for freight. One locomotive can pull 100 freight cars, each of which can carry 2-?? trucks' worth of stuff. Once upon a time, no town in the U.S. was more than a few hours from a rail station, and most items got where they were going by rail. Let's go back to that. (3) Subsidize public transportation.

We need clean transportation. This needs to be a cooperative approach. These states have developed a plan for the crisis. This is what we need.