Bridging the Communications Gap in Understanding Road Usage Charges

Chapter 2. Communication Framework

Based on early pilot results, good communications practice calls for project leadership to examine and understand the pilot goals and communications component objectives. From there, the audience, messengers, and which messengers communicate with which audiences can be determined. Combined, these are the nucleus of a "communications strategy" which also includes detailed message components and various methods of communication:

Audience

The study observed that pilot managers identified a variety of target audiences. Five distinct groups were identified across the pilots.

1. Political Leaders—These include the governor, legislative members (the majority and minority leaders, transportation committee leaders, legislative staff), department of transportation officials, transportation commission members, advisors, and city and county leaders and staff.
2. Governmental Groups and Agencies with a Transportation Focus—These include metropolitan planning organizations (MPO)/transportation planning organizations (TPO), departments of transportation (DOT), departments of motor vehicles (DMV), departments of tourism, revenue, and transit agencies.
3. News Media—These include print and broadcast media, particularly the daily newspapers in the largest metro areas, news/talk radio and major network affiliates (American Broadcasting Company (ABC), CBS, Fox, and National Broadcasating Company (NBC)).
4. Industry/Advocacy Groups—These include the National Conference of State Legislatures, National League of Cities, Sierra Club, American Automobile Association (AAA), State think tanks, Chambers of Commerce, social equity advocates, environmental advocates, fleet operators, the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association (IBTTA), the American Trucking Association (ATA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the American Farm Bureau Federation.
5. The General Public—These include pilot members and potential members such as electric vehicle (EV) owners, rural drivers, urban drivers, low-fuel efficiency vehicle owners, transportation interest leaders, drivers on private roads/lands and early technology adopters.

Messengers

The study observed that pilot managers employed a variety of resources to conduct their communication activities. Six different types of messengers were identified:

1. State DOT Engineers/Technical Experts—Technical experts communicate with other State DOT staff and researchers.
2. State DOT In-House Communication Staff—State DOT communications staff provide Web page content, organize town halls, organize focus groups, and draft press releases. They are the key part of any DOT/State organization communications approach.
3. Outside Communications Firms—Several States, including Oregon and Washington, used this resource. Like DOT staff, outside consultant firms provide Web page content, organize town halls, organize focus groups and draft press releases. Typically, because internal DOT community outreach staff do not have experience with road usage charges (RUC), outside consultants have more experience developing and implementing RUC-related communication strategies for explaining public sector challenges and research (including pilots), engaging and educating the public, and gathering and distilling input for decisionmakers.
4. Political Leaders—Elected officials were perceived as an overlooked, very effective communication resource. Once briefed by staff, political leaders can help influence other legislators and their constituents. Political leaders, because of the requirements of the job, are often strong and experienced communicators.
5. Industry/Advocacy Groups—Advocacy groups have more influence with the public on certain issues than the DOT. For example, several State DOTs wanted to enroll electric vehicle owners in RUC pilots. An environmental advocacy group may have more credibility with electric vehicle owners than the State DOT. The existing relationship between an advocacy group and the intended audience could be more effective. For example, a State in which it is argued that green-energy coastal elites are gaming the system will have challenges recruiting electric vehicles to pilots because they will feel unfairly targeted. However, an environmental group that argues electric vehicles need to pay their fair share may be more successful.
6. Business Partners—The business community, including chambers of commerce and regional coalitions, can help influence the public. Businesses engage in regular marketing and can help educate others on the purpose of a RUC pilot. For example, several States with steering committees included representatives of businesses, both large and small, on the committee. Business groups can reach a different audience than industry/advocacy groups.

Messaging Strategy

The study observed that State pilots varied from comprehensive road usage charge programs open to all vehicles to programs tailored to certain vehicles (electric only). Communication resources varied from a comprehensive Web page and external messaging partner to targeting communications messages to a limited audience. As a result, both message strategy and components varied significantly. The following were the major strategies identified through the study:

• Pilot Participant Only Focus—In this strategy, the pilot managers did not develop a specific communications approach. Instead, they targeted communications to particular stakeholders or types of vehicles. The focus may have been limited due to lack of time, resources, political wariness, or lack of a comprehensive plan. For example, some pilots targeted electric vehicle owners only. In these cases, reaching out to the public may have created confusion as to who could enroll in the program and the rationale for the program.
• Stakeholder Focus—In contrast to the other strategies, pilot managers deliberately reached out to legislators, opinion leaders (including the media, think tanks and community leaders), and advocacy groups (both those who support and those who oppose the concept). For example, one State made a strategic decision to brief selected stakeholders in detail but limit the information on the Web page available to the general public.
• General Public Focus—In this strategy, pilot managers targeted the general public through Web page, email, advertisements, and commercials.
• Advisory Group—In this strategy, the pilot managers tasked an advisory group with handling the communication aspects. Washington State's advisory group, which doubled as a steering committee, provided a significant part of the communications. Each of the advisory group members reached out to their constituents.
• Reactive Communications—In this strategy, pilot managers limited their public statements due to lack of time, resources, politics or planning but did engage when necessary to defend the concept. As a result, communications were generally not a high priority.
• Comprehensive Communications Plan (CCP)—The most successful States implemented a comprehensive plan that included a wide variety of communication channels, such as a Web page, email list, print advertisements, and television (TV) and radio commercials. Consistent messaging was an important tactic of their communications plans. These States included a dedicated communications budget. States provided tailored presentations to different audiences. For example, a presentation to a rural audience would address "…misperceptions about disproportionate impacts on rural residents."

Information Content

The following were common themes that were included to some degree in the messaging itself. Not all States/coalitions addressed all components:

• Why Are We Doing the Pilot? What is the problem being addressed? Some States/regions explained the long-term problem with the gas tax as the transportation funding mechanism. Both California's and Oregon's Web page detail how factors such as the increase in the number of hybrid/electric vehicles, and the failure of the gas tax to be linked to inflation negatively impact highway trust fund availability. States with more focused programs concentrated on one specific problem. In the case of the Utah pilot, the focus is on electric vehicle operators not paying gas taxes.
• Does the Pilot Explore a Policy Change or Is It Part of a Permanent Program? States are split in how they present RUCs. Oregon is the only State with a live program and Utah's program will become live in 2020. Other States are in earlier stages of RUC consideration. New Hampshire presents RUCs as an alternative that would replace the gas tax over time. Washington presents RUC as an eventual gas tax replacement that would enhance revenue. Minnesota's position is that the motor fuel tax will remain in place for a long time to come and will need to be adjusted. The RUC backfills revenue lost due to the adoption of highly efficient, electric and other alternative fuel vehicles. Oregon has taken the position that it is developing a sustainable funding source that over time will replace fuel taxes for some vehicles. (For the pilots, no State charges participants twice. All either simulate RUCs without collecting additional revenue or refund gas taxes. Oregon is the one State that collects RUCs and then refunds fuel taxes paid.)
• Source of Transportation Infrastructure Funding—Explaining the pilot context and the revenue sources, as well as educating the public about revenue, are an integral part of the communication process. Surveys have shown that American's have limited knowledge of their transportation expenditures. The I-95 Corridor Coalition detailed how the average American pays approximately $22 per month in gas taxes. Yet, in surveys many Americans believe they pay $100 or more. In studies, less than half of Americans knew that the gas tax was the primary roadway revenue source. Many believed sales taxes or property taxes are the main revenue source for transportation investment. Consequently, many Americans do not realize that improvements in fuel efficiency standards and the rate of inflation decrease transportation investments because of how those changes affect the gas tax.
• Privacy—States that have strong consumer protection laws, such as California, detailed how privacy is protected. States that used a vehicle registry approach detailed how the registry approach protects privacy. Some States also explained how the technology is a one-way collection mechanism in which program operators do not have access to the data collected.
• Security—As pilot participants became more knowledgeable about the technology, they became more concerned about security.
• Transition/Scalability—Early pilots typically did not focus on transition costs. Oregon, however, focused on the need for pilots to determine if RUCs were viable and provided a transition timeline of 10-15 years in which the gas tax and RUC were both collected. Several States, such as Minnesota, focused on scalability, including the costs and feasibility of expanding RUCs to all motorists.
• Administrative Costs/Collection Costs—Pilot States did not think that RUC program administrative costs were a major communications' focus. Oregon detailed how gas taxes today cost less to collect than RUCs. In the future, new technologies and increasing scale will reduce RUC collection costs. They are unlikely to ever rival the low cost of collection for fuel taxes, however, because they will necessarily have to interact with large numbers of transitory payers. Several States, including Minnesota, are focused on reducing administrative costs of RUCs as a part of their RUC pilot.
• Urban/Rural Equity Issues—Equity and fairness between urban and rural areas—as well as among gas-powered vehicles, electric vehicles and hybrids—was a major issue for most pilot States. Washington State's steering committee included members from rural Washington. In an early stage of Washington RUCs, the project team conducted a study of potential impacts to drivers based on their residency as rural, suburban or urban. The project team shared results with the steering committee showing that, in transitioning to RUCs on average, rural drivers are likely to pay less in RUCs than gas taxes due to the low-fuel efficiency of the rural vehicle fleet. Steering committee members used that information to explain to the rural community the advantage of RUCs. More nuanced conversations related to fuel efficiency and environmental impact are beginning to occur, including whether flat fees on electric vehicles (regardless of number of miles driven) is the best approach.
• What Other States Are Learning from the Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives (STSFA) Pilot States—The first RUC pilots established their own best practices. Later pilot States were able to learn from earlier States. For example, Utah used a summary of media articles on the Oregon pilot to learn how to write press releases. Some States pilots explained the advantage of a Federal pilot in expanding RUC participation to more States and solving interoperability challenges.
• Choice—Most pilots maintained that "choice" of mechanism is a key feature for some pilots. The choice aspect refers to different RUC options: global positioning system (GPS), odometer reading, and the voluntary nature of participating in most State pilots.

Communication Methods

The study observed that States used a variety of different communication media and methods to reach out to their audiences, including: Web pages, social media, advertising, town halls, traditional news media coverage and in-person contact. As the Internet and social media have become more common, State DOTs have switched from a purely meeting-based (public meetings and focus groups) communication strategy to one built primarily around a Web page and social media:

• Web pages—Most States developed Web pages about their pilots, which became the de facto communication vehicle. Some States made the strategic decision to include only certain information on the Web page. For example, Oregon included information that is most relevant to the public and potential users.
• Social Media—A small number of State pilots used a limited social media platform. Facebook was a popular communication tool. Many DOTs created RUCs or revenue/finance groups to target information to pilot members and potential members. California used other social media, including LinkedIn, Snapchat and Pinterest. In contrast, some pilot States were uncomfortable with social media because there was concern that social media communications may invite "trolls" causing staff to spend extra time responding to negative and misleading material.
• Paid Advertising—The Washington State Transportation Commission took out targeted advertising in newspapers, radio and television to inform the public. Such advertising was limited due to budget. Other pilots did not report doing any advertising.
• News Media—Pilot programs communicated with the media by issuing press releases stressing program details and proactively addressing concerns such as double taxation. In Washington State, the Project Team and Transportation Commissioners met with separate media outlets more than 12 months in advance to establish lines of communication. This included meeting with editorial boards, beat reporters, broadcast news programs and others which kept them briefed at every phase of the project. Hawaii conducted interviews with TV, radio and print media.
• Personal Contact—There were four in-person contact methods used:
  • Steering Committees—Many programs were administered by steering committees composed of DOTs, elected officials and stakeholder groups. While these committees oversaw the program, members were selected to increase support from various groups. For example, the Colorado steering committee included the ACLU due to concerns about privacy. The Washington steering committee included a county official from Spokane, Washington who reached out to rural residents in eastern Washington.
  • Focus Groups—Many States convened focus groups to explain RUCs to the public. Utah uses a focus group to determine initial public reaction to RUCs. Oregon used a longitudinal (represents one group of people studied over a period of time), online focus group to determine which messages resonated the most with the public.
  • Town Hall Meetings—Meetings are an effective communication tool for the public. Hawaii held town hall meetings on each of the major islands to explain RUCs and target customers for pilots.
  • One-on-One Conversations with Elected Officials—DOTs would have one-on-one conversations with elected officials to build support for the State pilot, educate them about RUCs, or answer specific questions. Minnesota and Utah reached out to State legislators before their pilots began. DOTs provided fact sheets to elected officials who were unable to attend one-on-one meetings or who requested more information. Missouri sent fact sheets to all interested legislators.