TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

This is a terrible idea. There is no tax more regressive then one on energy and transportation. Burdening the working poor and the middle class without proof it will work or a truly accurate climate model that proves the goals will work is unconscionable. If the political pressure is so strong that you must "do something " then adopt this proposal but use monopoly money until you have a base line. In a few years scientists should have a working climate model that will prove the whole scheme worthless. Or science could prove me wrong. You might be reluctant to shelve this initiative on my theories but probably not as reluctant as I am to support this on your theories.

I am pleased that my Republican Governor Baker has signed on to this initiative and congratulate him for taking this position.
It is disheartening to read in the Boston Globe that Republican Governor Sununu of neighboring New Hampshire has taken a negative position and will not sign on. That is very unfortunate for New Hampshire residents and the whole east coast states.

Everyday another scientific article comes out stating how URGENT the climate crisis is - essentially the entire ecosystem is unraveling. Even if you do as much as you can as fast as you it, it won't be enough - and yet, you must do your part to help mitigate the impending catastrophes until more aggressive policy steps are taken.

To whom it may concern:

For the TCI program, please institute the following:
1. A cap on carbon emissions of at least 25% by 2032
2. An increase in the minimum investment in overburdened and underserved communities (>35%)
3. Request that investments be put towards active transportation like better sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, and high quality public transit

Thank you,
Ari Meyer

Extra tax on gas to support biking and public transportation is really needed. We don't have neither bike lanes not public transportation. We deserve to breathe clean air. I wholeheartedly support any gas tax as long as its revenue is spent on independence from passenger cars, especially those powered by internal combination engines.
Also, spend some of that tax revenue on ev insentives and don't charge electric cars with the proposed 250$ annual registration fee. Ev owners already pay tax on their expensive car and their electric bill. I am planning to purchase an ev in 2020 but won't do so if I have to if you force me to pay an extra 250$ registration tax every year. Ev owners should be motivated, not punished.

The Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI), is nothing more than a dishonest, fraudulent or deceptive act/scheme, to pick the peoples pockets, and try to control use. The Communist party is a vanguard of the proletariat and clams to represents the long-term interests of the people, drastic change in economy is the most important principal of communism. The government controls economy and businesses. They nationalize all industries and factories. Government planning organizations decide what kind of products should be produced and how they are to be distributed. Prices are defined by the government and do not depend on supply and demand, as in Capitalist societies.
Workers earn the same, regardless of their position. There are not very many differences between the highest and lowest wages. This is just another step to taking away our freedom.

Modeling greenhouse gas reduction from the adoption of electric vehicles without including in that model the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions due to the production (raw materials, manufacturing, shipping to end user, and eventual disposal/recycling) of those EV's is an incomplete model. The first model presented in Aug 2018 only showed GHG reduction from on-road emissions, without presenting the significant GHG emissions from the production of those new EV's. Accounting for and modeling only on-road emissions reductions will also bias the investments toward EV's when other investments may be more effective interventions.

Another concern that I have with bookkeeping of (car-like) EV emissions reductions is that the concept of a low occupancy motor vehicle supports several system level inefficiencies that increase GHG emissions. For example, EV's (with lower operating and fuel costs) are likely to support and perhaps expand sprawling single family housing development, increasing that type of GHG heavy development while also wiping out more GHG absorption due to development of forests and open space. If there was a way to model VMT-increase (or decrease) and the correlation to sprawling development and associated emissions, the model could more completely capture the GHG impacts of low-occupancy vehicle trips.

Keep up the great work!

The Transport Hartford Academy has been sharing a statewide survey on the topic of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector with those that live and/or work in Connecticut. The survey began on Oct 1st and will close on Oct 29th. The survey is being shared well beyond the network of environmental advocates. For example, AAA will be sharing the survey with Connecticut members. The survey has also been shared widely across city and town social media discussion groups. The survey includes home and work zip code information, and intentional outreach is being focused on areas of the state that do not have many responses. The survey currently underrepresents low-income, younger age groups, and people of color relative to their share of the state’s demographic. Intentional outreach is being focused on those groups and their responses could be considered separately to home in on equity issues.

Halfway through the survey, the results are quite interesting. There are clear preferences in Connecticut for which TCI revenue investments and complementary policies have the most support. Here are a few overall responses pulled from a 10/15 snapshot  65% Strongly Support and 18% Support a TCI cap-and-invest program in Connecticut. There was also a super-majority of support for dedicating a percentage of TCI revenue to overburdened and underserved communities and environmental justice projects.

Connecticut Survey Link – www.tinyurl.com/tci19survey

Live, Snapshot of Survey Results (these results update automatically until the survey closes on Oct 29th)
- Demographics, awareness, and support of TCI – https://centerlatino.wufoo.com/reports/transportation-climate-initiative-report-1/
- Support for potential TCI investments - https://centerlatino.wufoo.com/reports/transportation-climate-initiative-report-2/
- Support for potential complementary policies - https://centerlatino.wufoo.com/reports/transportation-climate-initiative-report-3/
- Survey comments on revenue investment and complementary policies - https://centerlatino.wufoo.com/reports/transportation-climate-initiative-report-4/

We believe strongly that these survey results (after the survey closes on Oct 29th) should be used to help shape Connecticut's approach to a politically viable and publicly supported state framework to the Transportation Climate Initiative. If similar or identical surveys were delivered in partner states, their results could be combined to set the most successful regional framework for TCI and the complementary policies.

Beyond the information gathered from the survey, sharing the survey widely across the state has a civic engagement and educational benefit. In the 10/15 snapshot 50% of respondents knew nothing at all about the Transportation Climate Initiative. 40% or respondents didn't know that the transportation sector was the state (and the region's) largest contributor to emissions.