Bridging the Communications Gap in Understanding Road Usage Charges

Chapter 5. Communication Media

States used a variety of different communication media to interact with the public, participants, and other target audiences. Several of these media can take multiple forms. For example, depending on the intended audience, in-person contact can include focus groups, town hall meetings, or one-on one contact with elected officials. Table 3 shows which State pilots used the different communications media. The letter "Y" indicates yes, to the question and the letter "N" indicates, no. Figure 2 graphs the different communications media showing by frequency of use by each State pilot.

• Media 1: Web pages.
• Media 2: Social Media.
• Media 3: Paid Advertising.
• Media 4: News Media: Television (TV)/Radio/Newspapers.
• Media 5: Personal Contact.

Table 3. Communication media used by each Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives funded State pilot.

Medium	CA	CO	HI	DE/I-95 CC	MN	MO	NH	OR	UT	WA	OR/RUC WEST
Web page	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y
Social Media	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Advertising	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N
News Media	N	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N
Personal Contact: Steering Committee	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	N
Personal Contact: Focus Group	Y	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N
Personal Contact: Town Hall	Y	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N
Personal Contact: One-on-Ones Elected Officials	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Personal Contact: Talking Points for Elected Officials	N	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N

Web Page

The majority of the State pilots chose to develop a Web page uses as the primary source for disseminating information. Of the 11 State pilots, 9 have Web pages. Web pages ranged from relatively simple to more sophisticated. However, most pilot sponsors appear to strive for a balance between providing enough information about road usage charges (RUC), pilot rationale, program sign-up, and frequently asked questions (FAQ) and providing too much information which might confuse the public (table 4 and figure 3).

Oregon DOT provided the best explanation of the role of a Web page. According to the DOT, the Web page, "was the front door for the public, providing information that is most relevant to the public and potential users."

Some States used the Web page to provide reference information to the public. For example, Colorado included all the pilot material from their first phase on the Web page. Other States used the Web page to promote other communications and outreach methods. For example, Hawaii posted notices of town halls on the Web page. Table 4 shows which States used each Web pages feature. The letter "Y" indicates yes, to the question and the red letter "N" indicates, no. Figure 3 shows how frequently each Web page feature was used by the State pilots.

Web Page Features Used by Surface Transportation System Funding Alternative Grant Pilot States/Regions

From the State with the most experience with RUCs, Myorego, Oregon DOT's Web page, is an example of a comprehensive Web page. The page explains RUCs work and why a new funding mechanism is needed. The learn tab has seven sub-sections that include information on the program (per mile charge, mileage reporting options and program size), another link to enroll in the program, the six-step sign up and monitoring details, stories of pilot participants explaining the value of RUCs, a calculator that compares how much a driver would pay in gas tax compared to RUCs, program FAQs, and research Oregon has conducted on RUCs. The connect tab includes a DOT blog, an email list-serve to find more information about the program, and customer service links for Oregon DOT as well as private technology providers. The press room tab has videos, news releases and media information about the program. The Web page also has a search feature.

Washington State has a similar website with the homepage focusing on justification of the pilot and explanation of RUCs on its Web page.

Other States developed less extensive Web pages. Currently, Hawaii's Web page has a program overview, a rationale for the RUC pilot, an RUC calculator, FAQs, and a project timeline. As it expands and develops its program, Hawaii may include additional information including program details, participant interest responses, and additional research.

Two States currently do not use Web pages. For them, as they are developing their RUC pilots and focusing on legislative approval, a public Web page was perceived as a distraction which could provide misleading or out of date information to the public.

Social Media

States identified problems with relying on social media to communicate with stakeholders. California and Colorado, who had large social media presences, indicated that users responding to DOT social media threads were strongly opposed to RUCs. The pilot managers did not think this was representative of broader public opinion. Project participants largely support RUCs while the public has a mixed opinion of the concept. For example, one Facebook Live presentation generated a wave of red angry face emojis.

Paid Advertising

Most States did little or no general paid advertising. Washington, however, had a comprehensive advertising campaign that included messages on radio, newspapers, social media, and State Web platforms. Generally, print advertisements were limited to 100 words or less and radio commercials were limited to 15-30 seconds. Advertisements provided an overview of RUCs and a phone number, email, or link to members of the public wanting more information.

News Media

Many States performed targeted outreach to the media. State DOT would share key facts with newspaper, TV, and radio reporters such as the amount most people pay for transportation annually, the difference paid between the gas tax and an RUC, privacy concerns, and program details. Most DOT expressed a willingness to define the narrative instead of having those opposed to RUCs define the narrative first. Many increased their news media outreach due to social media coverage or inaccurate news coverage of the pilots. Utah DOT opened its weekly internal meetings to members of the press to increase knowledge of RUCs.

Personal Contact

States discovered that personal contact was a valuable medium for answering questions and providing detailed data. Like with communications outreach, there were five in-person contact methods used:

1. Steering or Advisory Committees—These groups helped develop a State's RUC rules and procedures. However, members of these steering committees were often political leaders or interest groups. As a result, the steering committees also served as a communications' tool. For example, the Washington State steering committee had legislators, county commissioners, Washington DOT employees, transit representatives, automakers, businesses, American Automobile Associations (AAA), the trucking association, and consumer groups. Many States chose advisory members who they thought would be opposed to RUCs as a way of hearing diverging viewpoints and generating support. The purpose of the communications aspect of the advisory group was to educate different stakeholders about the program, increase support among groups traditionally opposed to RUCs and have stakeholder groups pass along RUC information to their members. Often stakeholder groups had better communication channels than DOTs and could target messages to better influence their membership.
2. Focus Groups—Several States conducted detailed focus groups to provide insight on public perceptions of transportation funding and road usage. For Hawaii, the focus group included 17 members who represented different interests such as business, tourism, and legislators. For Utah the focus group was composed of random drivers who gave feedback. It was separate from an advisory committee that included 25 members from organizations as diverse as the State legislature, DOT/department of motor vehicles (DMV), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Tax Commission, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. The main purpose of the focus group and advisory group was to increase support and participation from State legislators, the executive branch and interest groups in the State.
3. Town Hall Meetings—Several States conducted town hall meetings to inform the public. For example, Hawaii had 14 town hall meetings. The town hall meetings had several common features. First, Hawaii discovered that residents of different geographies (in this case islands) have different priorities and concerns in a RUC program. For example, Maui residents are concerned about additional fees on tourists while Oahu residents are focused on double taxation. Big Island of Hawaii residents are concerned about an additional weight tax. Second, town halls reveal preferences of different demographic groups with income and age being significant factors. Third, like some other communication features, town halls attracted folks on the extremes (strongly supportive or opposed) to pilots. As a result, they are not always the best gauge of public support. The main purpose of the town hall meeting was to offer an in-person explanation of RUC pilots.
4. One-On-One Conversations with Elected Officials—Most States preferred direct one-on-one conversations with elected officials. In these meetings, pilot leaders would provide an overview of RUCs, including the why (sustainable funding source), the when (length of term of the pilot), and the who (groups able to participate). Pilot organizers also would proactively counter common objections such as the amount the public pays for transportation, differences between RUCs and gas taxes, and privacy concerns. Then they would answer any concerns the elected officials have. Many States offered priority slots in the pilot to elected officials, provided regular updates, and created an open-door policy. The main point of one-on-one conversations was to increase political support for the pilots.
5. Fact Sheets to Elected Officials—If a one-on-one meeting was not possible, many States also prepared talking points for elected officials. These points focused on the rationale for such a program, the amount of transportation revenue paid, privacy concerns, and how to enroll. The talking points encouraged elected officials to contact the DOT for more information in the hope that officials would agree to a one-on-one meeting. Several DOTs used talking points as supplementary material, sending them to officials after one-on-one meetings. Other DOTs sent talking points to the media or used them internally for accurate messaging. The main goal of talking points was to be a supplementary written document for the public and to keep agency messaging consistent.

Lessons Learned

Generally, States with more comprehensive communications and outreach campaigns with multiple communication media have had more ways to reach public audiences. Web pages are well suited to comprehensive strategies and are the most popular. Further, Web pages with more of the features and personalized content had higher participant support. Detailed information seems to be accepted when the pilot program features are limited and targeted (see appendix B).

Various communication techniques that take advantage of personal interactions with the target audiences were perceived as most effective by the pilot sponsors. These include one-on-ones with elected officials and providing talking points to spokespeople. At least six States reached out to the news media and formed an advisory group. Both were important in educating the public about the program and framing the relevant questions. Being proactive in these communications messages increased success of the pilot programs. Advertising, focus groups, and town halls also were successful. Due to limited resources, many States did not take advantage of these options. But each plays a crucial role. Focus groups allowed DOTs to target messages to certain audiences and to understand concerns of those audiences. Town halls provided an in-person communication option that many elderly and rural residents valued.

Communication that relied on social media was generally perceived by pilot sponsors as unsuccessful. This may have been because the responses received through this medium were negative and believed to represent a small fraction of public opinion. Further, responding to negative comments required significant time resources. None of the States who communicated via social media suggested that they would do so again.