First New York wants you to drive less. Then it wants to tax every mile.



On a recent episode of “The Drive,” my co-host Karl Brauer and I got into a discussion about a pair of bills being considered in my home state of New York.

One sets a goal of reducing driving across the entire state by 20%. The other would tax certain fuel-efficient vehicles by the mile and require an electronic device in the car to keep track.

To calculate the tax, qualifying vehicles would be required to have an onboard electronic unit installed when the vehicle is registered, re-registered, or renewed.

I had a fairly basic question: This might work for New York City, but how exactly are the rest of us supposed to drive 20% less?

Even a Californian like Karl saw the problem immediately.

“There's this whole area, the politicians might have heard of it,” he joked. “It's called Upstate New York.”

Exactly.

If you live in Brooklyn, you may have a subway station a few blocks away. Where I live near Buffalo, and across huge stretches of Upstate New York, your car isn't some luxury you can casually replace with a subway, bicycle, or comfortable pair of walking shoes.

You drive to work. You drive your kids to school. You drive to buy groceries or see family.

For millions of New Yorkers, driving isn't optional.

Miles to go

So what exactly is Albany proposing?

The Get Around NY Act, sponsored in the Senate by Brooklyn Democrat state Sen. Andrew Gounardes, would establish a goal of reducing the total number of vehicle miles traveled in New York state by 20% by 2050.

Now let's be precise about what the bill does, because it's important. Nobody is proposing that a police officer check your odometer on Dec. 31 and issue you a ticket because you drove 12,000 miles instead of 9,600. The 20% target applies statewide, not to individual drivers. The bill would instead use transportation policy to push the state's total mileage downward.

Under the legislation, state and local highway projects that expand road capacity would have to undergo a "vehicle miles traveled impact assessment." If a project doesn't align with the state's 20% reduction goal, officials would have to change the project or offset its effects through measures designed to reduce driving.

Those measures could include expanded public transportation, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, "micro-mobility" infrastructure, parking-demand management, transit-oriented development, and other land-use changes.

What are the alternatives?

Gounardes has been very clear about the idea behind it. "If we measure VMT, we can work to reduce it," he said while criticizing the state's transportation master plan. He added that this doesn't mean New Yorkers need to travel less because the state can create better ways for them to get to work, school, and everywhere else.

I'll bite. What exactly are these better options for people who don't live in New York City?

Even New York's own climate planners acknowledge the problem. State climate materials say many New Yorkers depend on single-occupancy vehicles because they have limited access to public transit.

Of course they do. New York is a huge state. Once you get beyond its dense urban centers, the transportation equation changes quickly. The state itself administers rural transit programs specifically to help people in smaller communities reach jobs, schools, health care, and stores.

That doesn't mean nobody should build better public transportation. Build it. If you can give somebody a faster, cheaper, and more convenient way to get where he needs to go, he'll probably use it.

But you can't create a subway by passing a mileage target.

Pay as you go

And this isn't the only vehicle-miles proposal Gounardes has introduced. A separate bill, S4196, would replace some of the gas-tax burden on fuel-efficient vehicles with something entirely different: a tax on every mile they travel on New York's public roads.

The proposal would apply to vehicles rated at least 30 miles per gallon or 30 MPGe. Owners would pay 1.9 cents for every taxable mile driven.

Drive 10,000 miles in New York and that's $190. Drive 15,000 and it's $285.

But here's the part that really caught my attention. To calculate the tax, qualifying vehicles would be required to have an onboard electronic unit installed when the vehicle is registered, re-registered, or renewed. The device would use GPS or comparable technology to determine how many miles the vehicle travels on New York public roads and regularly transmit the taxable mileage to the Department of Taxation and Finance.

The legislation includes privacy protections. It says the unit would report aggregate taxable mileage rather than your exact location, travel times, or individual trips. Drivers of fuel-efficient gasoline vehicles could also claim a credit for the gasoline taxes they continue to pay.

RELATED: Automakers were ready to kill the gas car. Buyers had other ideas.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Unwanted passenger

Good to know — but we're still talking about the state requiring a GPS-capable electronic device in your private vehicle so it can calculate a tax based on how much you drive.

And New York would make sure it's there. The bill would add the device to the equipment checked during the state's annual vehicle inspection. The inspector would record both your odometer mileage and the mileage reported by the onboard unit. Tampering with or disconnecting the device with the intent to evade the tax could bring penalties.

The rationale for a mileage tax isn't difficult to understand. Gasoline taxes help pay for roads. As vehicles become more efficient and EVs buy no gasoline at all, states collect less fuel-tax revenue even though those vehicles still use — and wear — the roads.

Look at the two proposals together. One bill establishes a state policy of reducing the number of miles New Yorkers drive by 20%. Another creates the infrastructure to measure the miles driven by a growing share of cars and charge their owners for every one.

They're separate bills with separate purposes. The Get Around NY Act is aimed at transportation planning and emissions. The mileage-tax bill is aimed at replacing declining gasoline-tax revenue. But if you're a driver, they meet at exactly the same place: your odometer.

And that brings me back to life outside New York City. What happens when you can't reduce your mileage?

Maybe your job is 30 miles away. Maybe the closest specialist your child needs is an hour away. Maybe you're caring for an elderly parent in another town. Maybe your kids play sports. Maybe you live somewhere where "take public transit" means arranging your entire day around a bus that comes a few times rather than every few minutes.

Those miles aren't indulgences. They're life.

There's an enormous difference between giving people alternatives to driving and designing policy around the assumption that they'll drive less.

Give me better public transportation. Give me roads that are safe. Give me communities where people who want to walk or bicycle can do it safely. Give consumers choices.

But before Albany decides New Yorkers should collectively drive 20% fewer miles, I'd like lawmakers to spend some time asking why we're driving those miles in the first place.

Because outside the five boroughs, the answer is often pretty simple. We have somewhere we need to be.

Illinois wants to track every mile its drivers drive — is your state next?



The next big fight over your car isn’t about gas prices, emissions, or electric vehicles. It’s about something bigger: who controls the road — and how much control they have over you while you’re on it.

What’s happening in Illinois should get drivers’ attentions. Lawmakers are advancing the Road Usage Charge Act, introduced by state Rep. Ram Villivalam (D), as a pilot program to study a mileage-based tax. On paper, it sounds routine. In reality, it’s the first step toward replacing the gas tax with a system that charges you for every mile you drive.

History shows that once a system like this exists, it rarely stays limited to its original purpose.

For decades, drivers have paid for roads through fuel taxes. You fill up, you pay your share. It’s simple, predictable, and largely invisible. But as more drivers move into electric vehicles and high-efficiency cars, gas tax revenue is declining. States like Illinois, which rely heavily on that revenue, are looking for alternatives.

Instead of cutting spending or rethinking how funds are used, they’re moving toward a system that expands oversight.

Double trouble

Illinois drivers are already paying for the road — heavily. Under Gov. JB Pritzker (D), the state doubled its gas tax in 2019, making it one of the highest in the country. Add tolls, registration fees, and local taxes, and drivers are already funding the system at a premium. Now comes the next step: charging not for fuel, but for movement itself.

A mileage-based tax — often called a vehicle miles traveled tax — sounds straightforward. Drive more, pay more. But the details matter. Some proposals rely on annual odometer reporting. Others involve installing tracking devices or using connected vehicle data.

This is where it stops being just a tax policy.

Once a system is in place to measure how far you drive, it can also measure when you drive, where you go, and how often you travel. Even groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have raised concerns about the risks that come with collecting that kind of data. And history shows that once a system like this exists, it rarely stays limited to its original purpose.

RELATED: FIRST LOOK New York International Auto Show: Cool cars, but drivers still face sticker shock

VIEW Press/Getty Images

Miles to go

Supporters argue this is about fairness. If electric vehicle owners aren’t paying gas taxes, they should still contribute to road funding. On its face, that argument makes sense. But this proposal doesn’t just target EVs. It applies to everyone — including drivers already paying high fuel taxes every time they fill up.

The result could be double taxation.

There’s also the cost of running the system itself. A mileage-based tax isn’t free to administer. It requires new technology, enforcement mechanisms, and ongoing oversight. Those costs don’t disappear — they get passed on to drivers, adding another layer of expense before you even get to the per-mile charge.

Before any of that happens, there’s a more basic question: Where is the current money going? States already collect billions through gas taxes, tolls, and vehicle fees. Before asking drivers to pay more — or pay differently — there should be clear accountability for how those funds are being used.

That question rarely gets answered.

What tends to grow instead is the system itself — more programs, more layers, more cost.

I spy

Illinois has already seen pushback on similar proposals. A 2019 effort was shelved after public backlash. Drivers understood what was at stake: not just higher costs, but more oversight and less control.

At its core, this is about how driving is changing. Driving in America has always meant a certain level of independence — the ability to go where you want, when you want, without someone tracking the details. A mileage-based system, especially one tied to data collection, begins to change that, turning driving into something that’s measured, recorded, and managed.

That’s a fundamental shift.

A better way

To be clear, declining gas tax revenue is a real issue. As vehicles become more efficient and electric adoption grows, states will need to adapt. But there are simpler ways to do it. If EVs aren’t contributing equally, adjust registration fees. Create transparent, targeted solutions. Keep the system straightforward and limited.

What’s being proposed goes further. It builds a framework that could apply to every driver, not just the segment creating the revenue gap. And once that framework exists, it won’t stay narrow — these systems tend to expand over time.

Illinois may be calling this a pilot program. But other states are watching closely.

Drivers should be asking a basic question: Is paying for the road one thing — and being tracked to use it something else entirely?

Because once the system is in place, it won’t be easy to roll back.

America built smart cars on dumb road funding



On Friday, in an open letter to the 119th Congress, I joined more than 100 economists and public policy experts from universities, think tanks, and businesses across the country urging practical reform of the Highway Trust Fund. Our message is straightforward: Congress can — and should — take incremental, bipartisan steps now to put the fund on a stable, sustainable path.

The Highway Trust Fund long embodied a simple user-fee compact: People who use the roads pay for them. That bargain delivered predictable funding and reinforced fiscal discipline.

Congress has repeatedly patched the shortfall with transfers from the general fund, which papers over the problem while weakening the principle that made the system durable.

Now the system is fraying. Fuel taxes have not kept pace with inflation, rising construction costs, or improved fuel efficiency. Electric and hybrid vehicles — a growing share of the fleet — often contribute little or nothing through fuel taxes. Congress has repeatedly patched the shortfall with transfers from the general fund, which papers over the problem while weakening the principle that made the system durable.

Congress does not need to solve every long-term challenge in one bill. It can make meaningful progress in the next surface transportation reauthorization, which lawmakers must pass by Sept. 30.

First, lawmakers should reinforce the user-pay principle by ensuring all road users — including drivers of electric and hybrid vehicles — contribute a fair share through transparent, enforceable mechanisms. Fairness demands no less. When some users effectively get an exemption, the burden shifts to everyone else or to taxpayers at large.

Second, Congress should improve price sensitivity. Heavy commercial vehicles impose disproportionate wear and tear on highways and bridges. User fees should better reflect vehicle weight and road impact. That change would improve fairness and send clearer economic signals about infrastructure costs. A system that reflects actual use and damage is more rational — and more defensible.

Third, legislators should evaluate a transition from per-gallon fuel taxes to mileage-based user fees. A well-designed road-usage charge would ensure payments reflect miles driven and vehicle characteristics.

Any transition must preserve the core user-pay principle while avoiding disproportionate burdens on low-income households, small businesses, and farmers. State pilot programs show mileage-based systems can protect privacy and maintain public trust. Congress should build on that experience rather than delay modernization.

Fourth, Washington should reduce reliance on general-fund bailouts and set clearer expectations for revenue reform in the next major reauthorization cycle. Temporary patches undermine fiscal responsibility and create uncertainty for state planners and private investors.

RELATED: Trump is getting the job done for American truckers

Photo by Chris Kleponis/Polaris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Revenue reform alone will not secure the system. Transportation infrastructure now depends on digital systems that guide vehicles and manage logistics. America’s economy relies heavily on GPS-enabled positioning and timing. Disruptions to systems overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation would ripple across freight networks, emergency services, and daily commutes.

China and Russia have shown the capability to interfere with satellite systems and GPS signals. A prolonged outage would cost billions of dollars per day. Vehicles sold in the U.S. should incorporate tested backup positioning technologies to guard against such threats.

Supply-chain security also demands attention. Chinese firms such as BYD and CATL dominate global battery production. The concentration of manufacturing — and embedded telematics — in companies subject to influence by the Chinese Communist Party raises legitimate concerns about espionage and strategic vulnerability.

The U.S. should expand domestic battery production and charging infrastructure, reducing dependence on foreign-controlled systems that can compromise data security and resilience.

Finally, Congress should pursue sensible federal deregulation to reduce the needlessly high cost of transportation projects — and require state and local partners to do the same. Streamlined permitting, faster reviews, and fewer duplicative requirements would stretch every Highway Trust Fund dollar and deliver projects faster.

These proposals are not partisan. They are practical steps rooted in fiscal responsibility and national security. A stable source of funding for roads is not merely a budget issue; it is essential to economic competitiveness, national mobility, and public safety. By reinforcing the user-pay principle, modernizing revenue mechanisms, protecting digital infrastructure, and strengthening supply chains, Congress can signal a shared commitment to safeguarding America’s transportation future.

The 119th Congress has an opportunity to restore the Highway Trust Fund’s integrity. Lawmakers should seize it.

Why states are quietly moving to restrict how much you drive



Do you spend too much time in your car?

Your local state authorities think you do — and they’re quietly pushing through laws that will give them the power to do something about it.

Don’t want to pay a mileage tax? Don’t drive. Need to commute to a job 40 miles away? That’s your problem. Visit family out of state too often? Expect to pay a premium.

Meet Massachusetts Senate Bill S.2246. Introduced by state Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Creem, it sets the stage for a future where the government tracks and potentially limits how many miles you drive each year. This isn’t a fringe proposal — it’s working its way through the legislature right now, and similar ideas are being tested in other states across the country.

Is this really about emissions — or is it about power and control?

What’s in the bill?

The Massachusetts legislation proposes the creation of a new government entity that would track vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, and implement policies to reduce them over time. While the bill doesn’t yet impose mileage caps, it does instruct state agencies to create a “reasonable pathway” to cut how much people drive annually.

Translation: A government-mandated limit on personal travel is no longer hypothetical — it’s being drafted right now.

Bill S.2246 also outlines coordination with automakers and the use of vehicle inspection data to monitor individual mileage. It even suggests changes to urban planning, encouraging the development of walkable neighborhoods and fewer parking options, all with the goal of getting you out of your car — whether you want to or not.

This bill didn’t come out of nowhere. It’s modeled on similar policies in places like Colorado and Minnesota, where pilot programs are already testing new ways to tax drivers based on how far they travel.

The new war on drivers

While Massachusetts leads this particular charge, it’s far from alone. A number of states are exploring ways to replace traditional gas taxes with per-mile taxes. They claim it’s about addressing the rise of electric vehicles and declining fuel tax revenue. But behind that talking point is a broader plan to monitor and manage how people use their personal vehicles.

States to watch include:

  • Minnesota: Testing mileage-based taxes and creating policies to “reduce vehicle use”;
  • Colorado: Committed to reducing VMT through state-level planning;
  • Oregon: A pioneer in per-mile taxation with the OReGO program;
  • New York and New Jersey: Both states are implementing congestion pricing in urban zones — a foot in the door for broader travel-based taxation; and
  • California and Washington: Actively developing road usage charges and congestion pricing models. Their VMT tax is well into the planning stages.

“Pilot project.” Sounds like an innocent trial run, doesn’t it? But pilot projects have a way of becoming law — slowly, quietly, and without voter input.

RELATED: A Look at Oregon's Program to Tax Drivers by the Mile

Image source: KTVL-TV

Moving violations

Supporters say these measures are about managing traffic or protecting the environment. But let’s be honest: This is about expanding state authority into private life.

It’s not just taxation. It’s surveillance. Think about it: If a government agency has the authority to track your mileage, it has the authority to restrict it. Combine that with modern vehicles equipped with GPS, connected services, and remote data-sharing, and we’re talking about a future where the state doesn’t just monitor your driving — it can penalize it.

Don’t want to pay a mileage tax? Don’t drive. Need to commute to a job 40 miles away? That’s your problem. Visit family out of state too often? Expect to pay a premium. This is a direct attack on working Americans, rural residents, and anyone who depends on their vehicle for daily life.

It’s no coincidence that many of these policies target personal liberty while funneling more money into government-approved programs — public transit, bike lanes, and urban planning initiatives that don’t serve the vast majority of residents.

Tax by another name

What’s being proposed isn’t a substitute for the gas tax. It’s an additional layer of taxation — one that disproportionately affects low-income Americans, small-business owners, and people who live outside city centers. People who can’t hop on a bus or ride a bike to work will end up paying the most.

It also opens the door to data collection on a scale we’ve never seen before. Once the government starts tracking your mileage, what’s next? Will your insurance rates be tied to state mileage thresholds? Will “excessive driving” be taxed as a form of noncompliance?

Creeping regulation

We’ve seen this approach before — quietly introduce “pilot” programs, sell them as innovative or necessary, and then expand them into mandates. It’s the same strategy used with toll lanes, emissions testing, and now digital IDs and connected vehicles.

The Massachusetts’ bill is especially troubling because the state has a reputation for pushing back on centralized control. It was one of the first states to pass a right-to-repair law and strengthen data privacy for consumers. But even in that context, this legislation is moving forward — slowly, with little attention, and under the radar of most residents.

The goal is simple: Shift transportation from a private activity to a regulated service. If that doesn’t concern you, it should.

What can you do?

Freedom of movement is a basic American right. If lawmakers are going to put a price tag on it — or worse, limit it — then every citizen should be aware and vocal.

Now is the time to contact your legislators and let them know you oppose mileage tracking and per-mile taxation.

Many of these programs are pushed by consulting firms and vendors who profit from tracking infrastructure. As I always say, follow the money.

These kinds of authoritarian initiatives don’t care if you’re Republican or Democrat. And once government control over your mobility is normalized, it won’t stop at driving. The same logic can be applied to where you shop, when you travel, or how often you leave your home.

What’s happening in Massachusetts is a test case. If this legislation moves forward, expect a wave of similar bills in other states — all claiming to modernize transportation while actually expanding government power over your everyday life.

Personal vehicles represent more than just transportation. They’re a symbol of independence, flexibility, and the freedom to move as you choose. That freedom is under attack — not with a bang, but with quiet legislation buried in statehouse committees.

Watch closely. Push back early. Because once this kind of control is codified into law, it doesn’t go away easily. We need to get in front of these laws before it’s too late.

Why state mileage taxes violate your constitutional rights



Does your state charge you for every mile you drive?

Oregon's been doing it since 2015. Utah since 2020. And more states are planning to follow suit.

There's just one problem: So-called mileage taxes are blatantly unconstitutional.

The right to travel freely is a fundamental right; as such, it is protected under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The $1.2 trillion "Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal" Sec. 13002 contains provisions that implement a federal per-mile user fee on drivers of passenger vehicles and requires carmakers to build driver monitoring technology.

How will the government check your mileage? Look no farther than your smartphone, which knows where you are and how fast you're going. Oh, and it listens to what you're saying, too.

Leave it to California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) to take such an Orwellian idea and run with it. He wants to install special GPS odometers in both gas and electric cars (as well as motorcycles) in order to charge Californians three cents for each mile driven.

Don't worry, these new tracking devices will stop charging you the minute you leave the state — honest!

Newsom claims the new by-the-mile system will let the state get rid of its gasoline tax — but don't hold your breath. At any rate, this mileage tax shouldn't be on the table at all — in any state.

In its 1868 decision Crandall v. State of Nevada, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot impose taxes or regulations that burden the right of individuals to travel freely, including the modes of travel they use. The case specifically addressed Nevada's attempt to tax individuals leaving the state by various means of conveyance, such as stagecoaches or steamboats.

The right to travel freely is a fundamental right; as such, it is protected under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Court's reasoning was grounded in the principle that such taxes would infringe upon a fundamental right and exceed the permissible scope of state taxation powers.

Since all citizens have the right to move around freely, a state cannot impose taxes that interfere with their ability to leave.

The bottom line is the government does not have the right to charge you by the mile, no matter what these legislators may think. But legal niceties are of little interest to budding authoritarians looking for more cash from their subjects.

Now is the time to fight back against these laws before our rights as drivers — and as citizens — are eroded any further.

The Biden Administration’s Mileage Tax Idea Is Not Just Stupid, It’s Elitist

Biking Buttigieg can get out of a mileage tax, but that's not how most of America works. If the administration cared about working families, they'd know that.

Pete Buttigieg says taxing folks for every mile they drive is option for funding infrastructure plan



Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg suggested Friday that implementing a mileage tax on American drivers could be a possibility as the Biden administration considers ways to pay for their anticipated multi-trillion-dollar "green" infrastructure plan.

What are the details?

Buttigieg is calling for "a generational investment in infrastructure," but has offered few details regarding how it might be financed, as the Associated Press noted earlier this week.

The former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, was asked about the possibility of a mileage tax as an option during an interview on CNBC, and he replied, "So, I think that shows a lot of promise," explaining:

"If we believe in that so-called 'user pays principle' — the idea that part of how we pay for roads is you pay based on how much you drive — the gas tax used to be the obvious way to do it, it's not anymore. So a so-called Vehicle Miles Traveled tax or mileage tax, whatever you want to call it, could be a way to do it."

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg says taxing drivers by the mile “shows a lot of promise” and could be a way… https://t.co/YYXxjujv3T
— The Recount (@The Recount)1616767467.0

Implementing a mileage tax would involve installing every vehicle on the roadway with a distance-tracking device, which raises both privacy and tampering concerns.

Proponents of such a plan argue that it is more fair than a fuel tax because even electric cars are taxed under the scheme. But such a tax hits the poor the hardest, and opponents from both right and left came out swinging against Buttigieg to make that point.

"Truly brilliant way to completely screw over lower income and middle class Americans!" Meghan McCain, co-host of "The View," tweeted. "And every single person living in a rural area who has to drive far to get places! Just brilliant Pete, truly."

Fox News host Laura Ingraham said of Buttigieg's comments, "Once again, Biden & Secretary 'Pete' hurting the poor and middle class most with 'miles travelled' tax."

Progressive journalist Walker Bragman tweeted, "We should be 'funding' public infrastructure by taxing the wealthiest Americans. Pete Buttigieg's first big idea as transportation secretary is funding it with a mileage tax, which basically means people who use the roads more pay more. Regressive McKinsey brain."

Someone else argued, "I don't think he's thought this out very well. Housing costs in Nashville is causing ppl to move miles away to find affordable housing. This would hit those who could ill afford it hard as there is NO public transportation to take advantage of. This would hit rural areas hard."

But the transportation secretary had some defenders. One person tweeted, "Excellent idea! The more you drive, the more you pay. Seems like a fair proposal to me. The haters don't have an alternative and they'd rather see China racing us by apparently..."