State Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem says no, no, no. Her S2246 bill (“An Act Aligning the Commonwealth’s Transportation Plan with its Mandates and Goals for Reducing Emissions and Vehicle Miles Traveled”) is not about taxes or fees, she says. But it sure looks like the state is inching toward a “Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax” that they’re starting to experiment with in other parts of the U.S. and in Europe, etc. Some have even discussed a new national tax on miles driven by individual motorists. This recent Herald piece on Creem’s legislation doesn’t dive into the tax implications of her bill, focusing instead on legitimate privacy concerns tied to the collection of VMT data by the state and concerns about how reducing the miles driven by motorists would unfairly impact rural drivers. CBS Boston was focusing on the same policy concerns last year.

But Axios Boston’s Mike Deehan was rightly making the connection to taxes (“The long, long road to taxing mileage in Mass”) when he wrote last year that “factoring miles driven into state policy — and possibly taxing them down the road — would be a sea change in the way Bay Staters move around the commonwealth.” The fact is that many environmental and progressive types have long privately discussed and embraced the idea of a VMT tax – but they deny they want it in public.

But now we have S2246, with Creem saying it’s only intended to align Massachusetts with its carbon-reduction goals and allow the state to analyze VMT stats in order to expand walking, biking, or train options accordingly, as she told CBS Boston last year. … Yeah, right. As if new walking and bike paths and train and bus infrastructure improvements can be easily and quickly implemented after VMT stats stream into MassDOT offices, giving technocrats precise data on exactly what and where critical infrastructure improvements are needed, from Pittsfield to Provincetown, in order to hit annual incremental carbon-reduction goals. … As I said: yeah, right.

Bottom line: this is another one of those dubious deep-blue ideas, similar to ill-thought-out congestion pricing plans, that a handful of college-grad elites love and everyone else hates – and a policy idea that flies in the face of current attempts by Dems to portray themselves as the party of affordability.