Bridging the Communications Gap in Understanding Road Usage Charges

Chapter 1. Introduction

Federal and State gas taxes have been effective transportation infrastructure funding mechanisms for decades. However, improved vehicle fuel efficiency), consumer demand, and the increasing percentage of electric and hybrid fleet vehicles are reducing motor vehicle fuel tax yields. Road usage charge (RUC) strategies represent a potential method of collecting revenues to fund transportation improvements. Because the Federal and most State gas taxes are not adjusted for inflation (either the price of the fuel or the costs to be covered in the funded program), the Federal gas tax has lost more than 40 percent of its purchasing power in the last 20 years (Varn 2019). In contrast to the gasoline or diesel tax (which tax the amount of vehicle fuel consumed), a RUC is based on the number of miles driven. Motor vehicle fuel taxes are a rough approximation of a user fee, whereas an RUC assesses directly for the use of the roadways. Two national commissions created by the surface transportation reauthorization bill, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-59), were tasked with assessing current revenue options.¹ Both recommended replacing the gas tax with an RUC.

To determine the feasibility and acceptance of an RUC fee strategy as a replacement or supplement for a gas tax, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is administering a Federal grant program that funds State run pilot tests. Pilots allow a variety of new concepts to be tested on a smaller group that is representative of the population. By bringing in different stakeholders, pilots can provide first-hand experience to participants that helps dispel myths and brings potential concerns to decisionmakers to determine whether and how these concerns might be mitigated. The lessons learned from smaller scale approaches have had great impacts on past revenue practices. For example, beginning with Oregon in 1919, States were the first political jurisdictions to implement a gas tax. Within 10 years, all 48 States had implemented a gas tax. The Federal Government did not implement a gas tax to fund transportation until 1956 by increasing an existing excise tax and dedicating it to the Federal Highway Trust Fund to pay for the interstate highway program.

To encourage States to pilot RUCs, the 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act included Section 6020 that directs the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) to provide… "grants to States or groups of States to demonstrate user-based alternative revenue mechanisms that utilize a user fee structure to maintain the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund."

The authorizing law from the FAST Act states:

"The Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives Program (STSFA) objectives are to test the design, acceptance, and implementation of two or more future user-based alternative mechanisms; improve the functionality of the user-based alternative revenue mechanisms; conduct outreach to increase public awareness regarding the need for alternative funding sources for surface transportation programs and to provide information on possible approaches; provide recommendations regarding adoption and implementation of user-based alternative revenue mechanisms; and minimize the administrative cost of any potential user-based alternative revenue mechanisms."²

Since 2016, FHWA has funded research in the amount of $40 million to States to study RUCs under the STSFA program (table 1).

Table 1. Description and award amounts of the Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives Program grants to States.

Recipient State and Partners	Project/Increment of funding	Project Description	Funding	Year
California	1a	Examine pay-at-the-pump charging stations.	$0.750M	2016
California	1b	Revenue from pay-at-the-pump charging stations.	$1.750M	2017
California	2	Exploration of Project with usage-based insurance, transportation network companies, and automated vehicles.	$2.030M	2018
Colorado	3	Data collection mechanisms.	$0.50M	2017
Delaware (I-95 Corridor Coalition)	4a	Explore mileage-based user fee in a multi-State environment (e.g., managing out-of-State mileage).	$1.49M	2016
Delaware (I-95 Corridor Coalition)	4b	Examine RUCs from the perspective of the general public and motor carriers.	$0.975M	2017
Delaware (I-95 Corridor Coalition)	4c	Expand RUC exploration in additional States, assess variable pricing, and conduct a national truck pilot.	$3.028M	2018
Hawaii	5	User fee collection based on existing odometer readings and three other methods.	$3.998M	2016
Minnesota	6a	Mobility as a service as a revenue collection mechanism.	$0.3M	2016
Minnesota	6b	Shared mobility model.	$1.0M	2018
Missouri	7a	Innovative strategies, such as a vehicle registration fee.	$1.783M	2018
Missouri	7b	Implement new registration fee based on estimated miles per gallon.	$0.25M	2016
Missouri	7c	Public outreach equity and data security.	$2.773M	2017
Oregon	8a	Improvements to Oregon's existing program, including enforcement models, communications, and new technologies.	$2.1M	2016
Oregon	8b	Improvements to Oregon's existing program looking at local area RUCs.	$2.315M	2017
Oregon (RUC West)	9a	Establish requirements for a regional system.	$1.5M	2016
Oregon (RUC West)	9b	Pilot connecting California and Oregon road usage charging systems.	$2.590M	2017
Oregon (RUC West)	9c	RUC and automated vehicles (AV) at State and regional levels.	$0.95M	2018
Utah	10	RUC for alternative vehicles including hybrids and electric vehicles (EV).	$1.25M	2018
Washington	11a	Designing and developing an interoperable revenue collection system.	$3.85M	2016
Washington	11b	Live pilot test, evaluate, and report public acceptance.	$4.6M	2017

(Source: FHWA 2016, 2017, and 2018.)

Focus on Communication and Outreach

This paper reviews the outreach, education, and public awareness of RUCs in State pilot projects. This study analysis focuses specifically on the communications and outreach efforts, not on the pilots themselves. The study is designed to serve as an overview that details observations of systems, highlights "best" practices and highlights communication and outreach efforts that were successful. Given the range of communication methods (which included some successes and some failures), any future pilots would benefit from communication and outreach effectiveness awareness.

Data Collection

The study's first task included a three-person team interviewing the State pilot administrators. The questions were developed by the project researchers. Advance information was sent to each of the pilot program administrators approximately one week before the interviews. The administrators were encouraged to consult with internal and external staff and include multiple participants in phone interviews.

The goal of the interview was to, at minimum, solicit insights on the following questions:

• Does the project's description, current status, and related material posted on your agency's Web page accurately summarize your project?
• Has your approach with your project deviated from initial plans in any significant way? Have there been any major surprises?
• Did you encounter issues related to RUC outreach and education? If so, were there any efforts or programs you undertook around outreach and communications on that issue and what lessons would you say you learned?
• Have you taken different approaches to outreach and communication with various audiences?
• Has general public and/or stakeholder group perception of RUCs changed as a result of your project? If so, how?
• Is your agency or State legislature considering future RUC outreach or education, planning or preparation, etc. beyond the scope of the STSFA deployment project?
• If you could share any other important lessons learned on outreach and communications with new States starting a RUC pilot, what would they be?

Appendix B contains more detail on the interview questions. Because of this data collection, this report goes beyond the compilation of the attributes of communications activities undertaken during these pilots to extract common themes, cross-cutting issues, strengths, and weaknesses. The identified best practices are organized by feature in the following chapters and conclude with lessons learned and recommendations on public/outreach and education for future RUC deployments.

Limitations of the Study

As the team prepared this report, several limitations were acknowledged that may influence the findings:

• Political challenges—Perceived revenue, privacy, and security concerns made their direct discussion with pilot sponsors policy-sensitive. Findings are therefore difficult to generalize.
• Focus on communications not RUC overall—While the focus of this research is on the communications aspect, broader pilot issues such as the overall program implementation and revenue capacity overshadowed the communication aspects.
• Consistency and scope—Each of the State pilots differ significantly. Further, the grant program did not require extensive treatment of the communication function. Therefore, causality is difficult to demonstrate.

Report Organization

Chapter 1 provides background information and an overview of the technical findings. Chapter 2 provides the big picture communication engagement approaches, message components, and the communications media. Chapter 3 focuses on identifying the audience and targeting best practices and recommendations for that audience. Chapter 4 describes the message content, including why the pilots are needed and what they hope to address. Chapter 5 discusses communication media and which approaches are most successful. Finally, chapter 6 provides a conclusion with recommended policy actions.

The report includes the following appendices:

• Appendix A. Project Lead Contact Information and Project Summaries for State Pilots Funded by Surface Transportation System Funding Alternative Grants.
• Appendix B. Methodology and Data Collection Questions Used in State Pilot Interviews.