TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

I fully support New Jersey's participation in the Transportation and Climate Initiative. I am hoping the initiative will provide more frequent, faster, and cheaper trains, expand bus lanes and electric bus capacity, encourage the use of mass transit, and make sure there is affordable housing near train stations and bus stations.
Let me take a minute to explain my situation as an example. I commute to New York City for work. My house is 27 miles from the city. It takes me an HOUR AND FORTY FIVE minutes to get to work on an average day. I drive for about 45 minutes (in my electric vehicle, by the way) to the North Bergen Park and ride. It takes me another half hour or so to get through the Lincoln Tunnel into Port Authority, and from there I need to take the subway and then walk a few blocks. I tried using the train, but it was too expensive ($460 per month I believe, and I only make $17.00 an hour) and stopped so frequently that it did not save me any time. Even taking the bus and subway is costly, it costs me $16 per day. Not only does my commute cost me money, but the traffic and drivers cause me a lot of stress and aggravation and put me in danger, and the whole commute costs me 3 hours each day. Now, I know it is my choice to work in New York City, but let me reiterate again that my job is only TWENTY SEVEN miles away. Twenty seven. There is a train that goes from London to Paris in only 2 1/2 hours, and that goes under the English Channel. Clearly, our transportation system is lacking. I could be more than halfway from London to Paris in the same time it takes me to get to work. I would like to move closer, but towns with good transit hubs are either very expensive (like Summit) or unsafe (like Newark).

So, please take this opportunity to invest in faster and more affordable train service, electric buses with more bus lanes, and affordable housing near transit hubs. Thank you!

Our children are going to endure the consequences if our indifference to the climate crisis. Everyone, including oil companies, must do their part to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Putting profits ahead of our future existence is shortsighted and ethically wrong.

We must reduce pollution from transportation, which is our largest source of global warming emissions (regionally and nationally).
I request that NY state formally join the plan to reduce emissions.
The policy should also have a strong component of equity by prioritizing clean investments in areas overburdened by pollution and/or for those who don't have access.
thank you for the bipartisan nature of this project, moving us forward while the federal government takes us backward

A low carbon transportation policy needs specific parameters to not worsen pollution in EJ communities. They could add an explicit mention of altering transportation plans to meet the needs of the communities they are located in, not just accepting comments and input but a review process with members of the community. We've learned from cap-and-trade policies (i.e. California) that areas that can't afford to upgrade and pollute less buy the permits and tend to be located in EJ communities. Explicit mentions of emissions reductions plans in toxic hot spots to make up for this outcome would be helpful.

The feedback from communities has been that groups and representatives of the communities must be at the table at each step of the policy development process in order for the process to be democratic and suit the people's needs. Take this suggestion seriously, so much of the feedback is that people want more direct participation in the policies that affect them and their environment.

I support this initiative! I got rid of my car and take public transportation to work, both out of concern for climate change and because bumper-to-bumper traffic is an infuriating way to start a work day. I think our entire region would benefit from this

I support TCI because I am a bike commuter that needs improved public transit options to expand my transportation options. I especially would benefit from commuter rail weekend service from Wickford Junction.

Increasing taxes on gas in Maine does nothing to help the people of Maine. The cost of electric cars means that they are not an option for the majority of the states population. Since so many people travel from rural areas it makes electric cars that much more a burden due to charging and the cost of maintenance. Replacement batteries for electric cars are very pricey. There are very few mechanics in the state equipped to work on electric cars or that have the knowledge to do so. Then there’s the condition of the roads in Maine. Most electric cars are smaller and will be damaged by the horrible road conditions here. Not to mention rural drivers trying to get to and from work/errands during the winter months. It’s time Governor Mills starts to actually listen to the people of Maine instead of those lining her pockets. No to the gas tax. No to more tax breaks for electric vehicles.

I'm writing to encourage a thoughtful approach to equity and transportation in the TCI. In particular, I ask that you include a cap on carbon emissions of at least 25% by 2032, an increase in the minimum investment in overburdened and underserved communities (>35%), and that investments be put towards active transportation like better sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, and high quality public transit. Thank you for taking action to support healthier and more sustainable communities for the future.

As a senior Conservation Biology major at Middlebury College, this semester I am taking a class that focuses on transportation in Vermont. Over my time in college, I have learned from an array of courses the dangers that vehicle pollution poses on human and non-human ecosystems. Fortunately for Vermonters, we have some of the best air quality in the country, with the American Lung Association ranking Burlington as one of the cleanest cities for year-round particle pollution.

Yet, we’ve all had a moment rolling down the window of a car, walking down the street in town, or just sitting peacefully outside, when we get a big mouthful of vehicle exhaust and think to ourselves, Ooh, that might not have been great for my lungs. And although we don’t always have these upsetting realizations each time a car goes by, every day we are exposed to some level of unavoidable air pollution. Tailpipe emissions, from passenger cars to 18-wheelers, send a variety of pollutants into the air that we all breath - nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter, to name a few.

Study after study shows that air pollution caused by motor vehicle exhaust has been directly linked to a variety of human health issues, including asthma, bronchitis, stunted lung development, and in more serious cases, premature death. Furthermore, this increased risk of health issues drags with it an increased medical bill for millions of Americans. With transportation responsible for emitting about 40% of Vermont’s GHGs and, as a result, impacting human health, it’s about time that the industry takes a look at what it is costing all of us, and takes action to change that for everyone.

In short, the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) seems to be proposing two things, both of which could improve our air quality, and thus our health. The first is to decrease motor vehicle emissions, and the second is to change behavior and incentivizing a move toward low-carbon / electric vehicles. In the Draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the TCI recognizes that “accelerating the transition to cleaner, more efficient transportation sector will improve public health… for all communities.” (p.3). This last piece is a necessary component of the TCI - that the “public” whose health will be improved is not solely the young, healthy, middle and upper class, but it is the low-income, disadvantaged, and disproportionately afflicted citizens as well.

Therefore, it is important to address where the TCI has room to improve. The Draft MOU resolves that Signatory Jurisdictions will be enabled to, “strategically invest in programs to help their residents transition to affordable, low-carbon transportation options that provide substantial public health benefits, reduce congestion, and increase economic and job opportunities.” The pursuit of a cap-and-invest program, rather than a cap-and-trade program, is promising (despite the quite blurry lines on buying offsets). However, the section that speaks to these investments, Appendix 3A, is upsettingly unclear. Wording such as, “invest the proceeds from the auction of allowances as determined appropriate by each Participating Jurisdiction to achieve TCI Program goals” and “to achieve CO2 emission reductions and other related TCI Program goals” (Appendix 3A), does not provide citizens much insight into what these investments might be. Citizens should be able to understand the investment process, as we are the ones electing the legislature that will then decide how the revenue from allowances will be invested.

In order to have a more robust TCI, it is necessary for the document to outline what investment options look like. As the TCI is pushing a movement towards electric vehicles, it must be responsible for supporting this movement. Therefore, investments should be made in infrastructure that provides charging stations to make the use of EVs feasible for Vermonters. Another solution is for the TCI jurisdiction to provide subsidies on electric vehicles in order to help and incentivize all citizens, particularly lower-income and disadvantaged community members, to transition to cleaner transportation alternatives.

The current TCI, however vague, does recognize the impact that it could have on improving public health of all Vermonters, yet it has much room to grow in defining a solution to get to that endpoint. What is important is that the TCI has the potential to be a step in the right direction towards stronger human and environmental health, as a future electric transportation sector would eliminate the tailpipe and GHG emissions that negatively impact our communities and the non-human entities that inhabit our ecosystems.


Sources:

Draft Memorandum of Understanding of the Transportation and Climate Initiative. (2019).

Brugge D, Durant JL, Rioux C. Near-highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: a review of epidemiologic evidence of cardiac and pulmonary health risks. Environ Health 2007; 6: 23.

Gauderman WJ, Vora H, McConnell R, Berhane K, Gilliland F, Thomas D, Lurmann F, Avol E, Kunzli N, Jerrett M, Peters J. Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age: a cohort study. Lancet 2007; 369: 571-577.

Meo, S. A., et al. Effect of motor vehicle pollution on lung function, fractional exhaled nitric oxide and cognitive function among school adolescents. European review for medical and pharmacological sciences 2019; 23: 8678-8686.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/vehicles-air-pollution-human-health