The Washington State Legislature is now considering several bills that will require local governments to limit the amount of miles that citizens drive each year. They are doing it in the name of “Climate Change” but if that was true they would be focusing on vehicle emissions instead of miles driven. After all, hybrids and electric cars can reduce or eliminate transportation pollution. They have even amended this Vehicle Miles Traveled mandate into the Governor's Climate Change bill, Senate Bill 5735, and the State Agency Climate Change Bill, Senate Bill 5560.
No surprise here, Climate Change is being used to push other agendas that have been around for decades. Yes, environmentalists and state planners want to (1) force higher density developments into existing neighborhoods, and (2) force more people into mass transit; in addition to (3) reducing the miles you drive 50% by 2050. And they want to do it by imposing ambiguous goals that will result in another decade of costly lawsuits for everyone. In fact they want to implement it before a study requested by the Legislature reports back on impacts to low income residents, small businesses and distressed counties.
Sooner or later it will lead to the next goal, (4) raise still more taxes for government with a vehicle miles tax. In fact in Oregon the legislature is debating just such a tax! But this tax goes even further, it will dictate your lifestyle:
While principally designed to replace the gas tax over time, the Oregon Mileage Fee Concept also provides an electronic platform for creative applications of congestion pricing to manage levels of traffic during peak periods of driving. In other words, the concept accommodates creation of multiple “zones” that allow not only local option but also various pricing methodologies. --- Oregon’s Mileage Fee Final Report 2007
So we would reduce the tax on carbon emissions and increase the tax on hybrids? And then use variable mileage pricing to reduce driving times for low income citizens? Even social activists are demanding more layers of regulation and cost-shifts to address these short-comings.
President Obama’s Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, recently had to distance himself from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who proposed a mileage tax. “It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration.”
Before we embark on any of this social engineering, there needs to be a more balanced discussion. We need to consider unintended consequences and alternatives. We need to develop more detailed guidance that will minimize adverse impacts, eliminate the need for expensive lawsuits, and protect our neighborhoods and the basic freedoms of our citizens. Finally, we must heed the ancient wisdom:
“Do not remove a fly from your friend's forehead with a hatchet.”
---Traditional Chinese Proverb
---Traditional Chinese Proverb
Congestion and vehicle emission problems may be bigger than a fly, but VMT is definitely a hatchet!
For more details and alternatives.
Comments On This Article
Subscribe to this comment thread
Second, provide the detail. Don't mandate with anbiguous gerneralities that will lead to litigation and abuse. This is why the legislature ask for a study to get a better understanding of the tradeoffs.
Third, one does not provide "choice" with government mandates.
People are clamoring for more transportation choices that allow them to get out of traffic and more housing choices within walking distance, or at least a shorter drive, to schools, parks, shopping and entertainment. The realtors polling and market trends show this but instead of working with advocates to constructively reduce unintended consequences of VMT reduction policy, you lie about their intentions so we can keep doing nothing about climate change AND about improving people's quality of lives.