In its editorial published on September 12, the Editorial Board of the Day made a series of assumptions about the Transportation and Climate Initiative that need to be corrected. For instance, the piece argues that the “focus (should be) on getting federal dollars, not TCI.”

In fact, the TCI is the most effective way for Connecticut to receive funding from the federal government. The reason is simple: federal funding is awarded via matching-funds schemes. In other words, in order to get those sweet federal dollars, the state has to make some investment first. This means that TCI’s revenues, which will go towards clean transportation investments, are going to be used by the Connecticut state as leverage for federal funding. Passing TCI is good budget strategy for our state.

The editorial also writes “a five-cent-per-gallon hike in the cost of gas…may seem like a small thing, but (it will hurt) those struggling financially.” Without minimizing the value of a 60 cents/gas tank increase, if all TCI costs are passed to the consumers, it is worth noting that most of those who cannot afford a five cents/gallon raise do not have a car in the first place. The fact is that many cities in Connecticut have a very high level of households without car ownership such as Hartford (31%), New Haven (30%), Bridgeport (21%), and Waterbury (20%).

As all those cities are divided by highways, residents are victims of a high level of air pollution coming from transportation: those who are the least responsible for air pollution are also the ones who are the most likely victims of it. TCI is going to benefit first those low-income households with investments in clean transit systems, which will allow them to go to work, to church, to school, to get a COVID-19 test, and to do groceries in a reliable manner boosting the local economy.

The editorial also asserts that raising the cost of gasoline is an “incentive to use less gas.” Actually, with five cents/gallon, or 60 cents/tank of gas increase, if all costs are going to be passed on to the consumers, it’s unlikely to affect consumer behavior and that has never been the plan. The real impact will come from the investments in transportation systems which are environmentally sustainable (like electric school buses.)

In the end, we need to pass bold policies on climate as our state does not meet its own targets on emission reduction. There are no other policies in the pipeline that address climate. Meanwhile, TCI is set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26% within the next 10 years. Waiting for federal money to fall from the sky and to fix our climate emergency is not just wishful thinking, it’s climate delaying, an approach that has been plaguing environmental action for decades.

To conclude, it is worth reminding that TCI is a bipartisan program, first introduced in 2010 by Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell. In Rell’s own words: “While this effort will improve the air we breathe, it will also help Connecticut to grow a new state economy around electric vehicles and electric vehicle infrastructure. This is just as much a jobs initiative as it is an environmental initiative. Together we will clear the air and clear the way for a vibrant industry in alternative and renewable energy technology.”

Indeed, we need cleaner air, we need investments in our communities, and we need to keep furthering economic growth. This is why TCI is a good program for Connecticut.

Thomas Regan-Lefebvre is the Transport Hartford coordinator at the Center for Latino Progress. Lefebvre.t@gmail.com