Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 02/02/2026 7:33:04 AM PST by Twotone
A bill advancing through the Massachusetts Senate would make reducing how much people drive an explicit goal of state transportation policy. It is called the Freedom to Move Act.
The bill, SB 2246, does not impose mileage caps on individual drivers. There is no odometer check, no per-driver limit, and no new fines or taxes written into the legislation. Instead it directs the state to set targets for reducing total vehicle miles traveled statewide — targets that would be incorporated into transportation planning, infrastructure investment, and long-term emissions policy.
Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts, as it is in many states. From that perspective, lawmakers argue the bill simply aligns transportation policy with existing climate mandates. The state already has legally binding emissions reduction goals, and supporters say those goals cannot be met without addressing how much people drive. SB 2246, they argue, is about planning — not punishment — and about expanding alternatives rather than restricting choices.
The bill also establishes advisory councils and requires state agencies, including the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, to factor VMT reduction into project development and funding decisions. In theory, this means greater emphasis on public transit, transit-oriented development, walking and biking infrastructure, and land-use policies designed to shorten commutes. Supporters emphasize that the legislation does not ban cars, restrict ownership, or mandate lifestyle changes. It simply provides a framework for offering residents more options.
The practical implications, however, deserve closer scrutiny — especially outside the state’s urban core. In greater Boston, where transit access is relatively dense, reducing car trips may be feasible for some commuters. In suburban and rural areas, the reality is very different. Many residents drive long distances to work because there are no viable alternatives. Families juggle school, child care, medical appointments, sports, and jobs across multiple towns. Small businesses rely on vehicles for deliveries, service calls, and daily operations. For these drivers, “driving less” is not a preference — it’s a constraint imposed by geography.
Critics also worry that while SB 2246 does not cap individual mileage today, it lays the groundwork for future restrictions. Once statewide VMT reduction targets are established, pressure will mount to meet them. That pressure could influence everything from road funding and parking availability to congestion pricing, zoning decisions, and the collection of driving data. Even without explicit mandates, policy signals matter. When reducing driving becomes a formal state objective, personal mobility inevitably becomes something to be managed.
There is also the issue of trust and execution. Massachusetts has struggled for years to maintain and modernize its public transportation system. The MBTA’s well-documented reliability problems have eroded confidence among riders and taxpayers alike. Promising expanded transit options while existing systems remain fragile leaves many residents skeptical that alternatives to driving will arrive quickly — or equitably.
From a broader policy standpoint, SB 2246 reflects a national trend. States and cities across the country are experimenting with VMT reduction as a climate strategy, encouraged by federal guidance and funding priorities. The premise is that cleaner vehicles alone are not enough and that total driving must decline to meet emissions targets. Whether that assumption holds as vehicle technology evolves — including hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and increasingly efficient internal combustion engines — remains an open question.
Supporters argue that thoughtful planning now can prevent more disruptive measures later. By gradually reshaping transportation and development patterns, they believe emissions can be reduced without dramatic lifestyle changes. Opponents counter that history suggests incremental planning often leads to more intrusive policies — especially when initial targets prove difficult to meet.
What makes SB 2246 significant is not what it does immediately, but what it signals about the future of transportation policy. It reframes driving not simply as a personal choice or economic necessity, but as a behavior the state has an interest in reducing.
As the bill moves to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, lawmakers will have to weigh climate goals against economic realities, regional disparities, and personal freedom.
Massachusetts residents should pay close attention. SB 2246 may not tell you how many miles you can drive today — but it helps define who gets to decide how transportation works tomorrow.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
We are all marxists now
It doesn't get much more Orwellian than that.
Ok. Pull all federal highway funding. Interstate Commerce is specifically called out in the US Constitution as a federal responsibility.
Not yet.
That will come next. Count on it. These tyrants never stop.
California too:
"California Democrats are looking at taxing drivers per mile driven, regardless of whether they drive a gas-powered car or an electric vehicle (EV).
Last week, the State Assembly voted to pass AB 1421, with over 40 Democrats backing a commission to study the 'mileage tax.' The bill now goes to the Senate, where it is likely to face easy passage on a party-line vote."
California is already working on a pay-by-the-mile system, so if that goes through, Mass won’t be far behind.
Freedom to move- OUT of Massachusetts!
largest source of greenhouse gas emissions
That issue needs to be addressed.
ILLEGALS get a pass. Nothing to see here.
Not yet.
This is just, The Camel's Nose.
I’ve learned that leftists consistently give their laws names that are the exact opposite of their intent.
This exposes the true goal of the progressives
They are not trying to solve “climate change “ they are using climate change as a pretext for their ultimate goal which is to limit people’s mobility or abilities to travel. Presumably so they can better enforce coercion measures on the population
Enjoy the warm suck/embrace of Collectivism, Massholes.
Marxism, the new Democracy. 😏
What would Vlad Tepes do once the state legislature is back in session? New lawn ornaments across the street on Boston Common, or simply seal the doors and windows, and, well, you know...
Soon your allowed mileage will be tied to a social credit system just like in China
Freedom to Move Act is like the Affordable Care Act. The goal is to restrict movement in the first and to make healthcare unaffordable for many in the second.
This is typical leftist democrat bullshit. Name the bills the polar opposite of the bill’s intent.
Dumb people fall for it too.
Clickbait headline
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.