TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

Of course reduction in GHG and related emissions is a worthwhile effort, however, I think this tax and trade policy will reduce the competitiveness of the states involved and result in more businesses moving from the area. Already many of these states are losing population and is jobs leave the area, residents will soon follow. This could have the impact of reducing GHG emissions by having less people on the highways, but the goal should not be to do anything to leave the states.

In addition I feel this does not address the high polluting older vehicles that are on the road by focusing on the GHGs. Technology could be developed to identify the extremely high polluting vehicles and getting them off the road. Perhaps high polluting vehicles could be targeted for purchase or removal from the states by some other method. Many times these are low MPG vehicles as well which results in more carbon generation than more efficient vehicles.

Lastly, the efforts to improve the traffic flow such as improved traffic light timing using developing AI could increase quality of life as well as reduce GHG emissions. This could be a technology that would bring high tech jobs and engineers to the area. Using other modern technology e.g. through Waze or other apps, employers could be enticed to stagger their employee commute to minimize traffic delays due to rush hour. The technology today lends itself much more today than in the time of the old Employee Trip Reduction Program. Besides flex hours, employers could be encouraged to let employees work from home.

In summary, I am against the GHG tax and trade program because I believe it will make these states an even less attractive place to establish a business.

Connecticut’s transportation sector is the biggest single emitter of greenhouse gas emissions in the state at 38% of the total. This is a climate crisis, and we must immediately work to address the greatest challenge of our generation.

· I support a transportation plan that is focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and pollution while investing in sustainable transportation modes. Bus transit, rail, walking, and biking must be improved across the state, especially in cities and town centers.
· This transportation plan is also a land use plan, and we must stop investing in a sprawling, unsustainable development model. Future development in the state must be in cities, town centers, and near transit stations.
· We should not be investing in expanding interstates. Expanding our interstates in Connecticut both increases emissions in the long term from induced demand and increased driving while putting development pressure on the state’s dwindling forests and farms.
· Many cities and towns in the region have shovel-ready plans to improve transit, rail, and active transportation. We must invest in a future with more people on buses, trains, on foot, and riding bicycles. That future includes more transit-oriented development in walkable communities.
· Addressing greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles also means immediate health benefits for our most overburdened populations as a result of improved air quality and fewer emissions of localized pollutants responsible for cancer and respiratory and cardiovascular ailments, among other adverse health impacts.

This proposed policy for low-carbon transportation is a blatant effort to disguise a gas tax increase. It’s a very deceitful attempt by TCI to institute a carbon tax without a vote by our lawmakers. As I understand it they plan to carry out their policy design through a “cap-and trade” system for motor fuel carbon emissions, more honestly referred to as a gas tax. Some in the Massachusetts government prefer to think of TCI as a regulation and not a tax, thus not requiring legislative approval. Call it what you will - we will all be paying more for gas just to support more wasteful and inefficient government spending.

To implement this policy without the support of the elected representatives of my state government is grossly irresponsible. If and when my elected representatives have the opportunity to consider and vote on it, I want the opportunity to hold them accountable for this tax. I consider the intent of this initiative to be fundamentally flawed and the likelihood of government spending to have any meaningful effect to be highly unlikely.

Pollution is making it harder to live on earth. With more & more species extinct every year soon it will be hard for humans to live on earth.
Gov Baker please support and accelerate this Climate & Transportation Initiative.
I would suggest more clean investments in areas with the most pollution and helping folks who have less access to transportation choices.

As a long-time resident commuter and driver in Maryland, I believe it is imperative that our state makes a make a firm commitment to adopt a regional transportation policy that achieves a minimum 40 percent reduction in transportation sector climate
pollution by 2030, to keep us on track to meet the climate goals updated by the General Assembly in 2016.
Investment and policy decisions should be made based on pollution reduction and
equity goals, as well as robust engagement opportunities from the public‒particularly
those most overburdened by transportation pollution and undeserved by our current
transportation system.

This is something Maine can not afford. Our cost of living vs income is extremely unbalanced, especially in coastal towns. Our property taxes are going up regularly, while our property values remain stagnant. Mainers cannot afford to fund this or any other programs until our economy improves. This will cripple us as prices for everything will rise as a result. This needs to be reconsidered for Maine.

The gas tax is a use tax. We need a way to get use taxes from electric and hybrid vehicles that use the transportation system but do not pay their share. We do not need to increase the tax on those that are paying their share. The Bond Issue for $105,000,000 coming up in November is one way to keep roads, etc. in good shape but taxing gasoline is not an answer.

I do not support participation in TCI. Maine is a rural state and has many lower income earners that can not afford an increase to the cost of transportation. The proposed gas taxes or fees would not benefit those in rural Maine and would cause a hardship for minimal gain. I am 100% against TCI and feel Maine needs to focus on our budget and our people.