TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

I am writing you today to as you not to sign the TCI Iniative for several reasons. We all receive.goods via truck and their higher cost of fuel will be.passed to all Maine consumers: those on Social Security, Welfare, Local and State Governments, etc., Secondly, We are own a Heating Service Company and see so many who can only afford.5 gallons of diesel at a time to heat their home through out.the coldest months now. What will become of them? We see so many deadly fires due to people trying to.keep.warm now that cannont afford adequate heating equipment or fuel. Please do not.burden Maine people with this inconsiderate TCI tax.

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.

Dear policy developers,

Thank you for all your work on this project thus far. It's exciting to see plans for improving transportation and public health and reducing our fossil fuel use.

My two concerns are with implementation. Firstly, how will you mitigate the the disproportional cost borne by lower income people and people who live in areas not well served by public transportation? How will you assure that they are not adversely affected in such a way that they are not feeling that they are bearing the brunt of the cost? The yellow vest folks in France reacted to this very issue.

Secondly, what accountability will there be for investments in infrastructure? It would be a shame to have delays or have projects that result in inefficient outcomes. I am thinking of the tent city disappointment in Boston, where urban renewal projects took away affordable housing and negatively affected pre-existing communities and promised replacement housing but did not follow through on the bargain.

The devil is in the details, isn't it? I applaud the aim of making the policy flexible. It is fantastic that states are working together to address the vital issue of our quality of life. We can't do this soon enough. I wish you all the best in your work.

Sincerely,
Christine O'Neill

TCI provides the opportunity to tackle the biggest problem of our day — climate change — by reducing emissions in our state’s most carbon-intensive sector, while diverting funds into much-needed transportation infrastructure that will benefit all.

We can either seize this opportunity to make monumental progress and have a chance to prosper in a clean energy future, or accept a status quo that is only becoming more and more difficult for Vermonters and more harmful to our environment.

I urge Vermont to formally join TCI so we can create a clean energy future that works better for everyone, especially our most vulnerable. Thank you for the work you’ve done so far to advance TCI across the region.