Office of Operations
21st Century Operations Using 21st Century Technologies
Table of Contents

Bridging the Communications Gap in Understanding Road Usage Charges

Chapter 3. Communications Strategy and Approach

As a result of compressed schedules and limited resources, most of the pilots were unable to adopt a comprehensive communication strategy. Most pilots focused on a limited subset of the population while others focused on communications after a problem developed.

To determine the communications strategy, the study examined the target audience, why the pilot was being conducted, and the pilot's priorities. The study identified six types of strategies that represent the approach that pilot managers adopted in the course of their pilot development and implementation:

  1. Communications Strategy 1: Limited Focus.
  2. Communications Strategy 2: Stakeholder Focus.
  3. Communications Strategy 3: General Public Focus.
  4. Communications Strategy 4: Advisory Group.
  5. Communications Strategy 5: Reactive Communications.
  6. Communications Strategy 6: Comprehensive Communications.

Limited Focus

Pilot managers placed in this category generally did not develop a specific communications approach. Some took a more limited approach due to a limited focus or to resource constraints. In this approach pilot managers commonly targeted communications only to pilot and potential pilot participants not the legislature and the media. The focus may have been limited due to lack of time, lack of resources, political wariness, or pilot organization.

Some pilots had a deliberate, limited focus such as those targeting electric vehicle owners only. For example, while still in the planning stages, Utah has focused on potential pilot members, internal department of transportation (DOT) stakeholders and, to a limited sense, the media. The State is employing a gradual process. At the start, it is not reaching out to the general public due to the cost and the concern it may create confusion as to who could enroll in the program and the rationale for the program.

Advantages of limited focus include simplicity and cost. Disadvantages include limited public communication and education to build public awareness of the challenges to transportation funding and the option of road usage charges (RUC).

Communications Program: Utah

Utah had a limited focus communications plan. While a section of the DOT website is dedicated to RUC there is no public advertising of this site. The Web page includes a 106-slide presentation examining the history of the gas tax, declining fuel efficiency, other State pilots, growth of electric vehicles, legislative actions, rate-setting, advisory committee members, implementation efforts, alternative vehicle fees, the enrollment process, commercial vehicles, revenue and public opinion. The Web page includes links to various codes and other materials. The Web page indicates RUC may be an option for all vehicles in the long-term. Since the current focus is on electric vehicle owners, the State used the task force to target the audience who can enroll in the program. Because the program is opt-in, the State focused on the lower potential cost to most electric vehicle owners, the chance to be part of an innovative process and the importance of having all vehicles pay their fair share for their use and maintenance of the roadway.

Stakeholder Focus

In contrast to a so-called "limited focus," a stakeholder focus (pilot members, political leaders, internal DOT staff, advocacy groups, the media) deliberately reaches out to each of these groups (both those who support and oppose the concept). This approach can serve to improve understanding of the issue, reduce opposition based on lack of information, or even create advocates. While most communication strategies include public outreach, States using stakeholder focus created a comprehensive list of stakeholders and explained to them why their message is important. For example, Hawaii reached out to business interests, tourism interests, newspapers on all the major islands, State legislators, and the media. Each of the Hawaiian Islands had a slightly different concern. Hawaii officials would reach out to Maui residents who were concerned about tourism and explain how RUC would affect tourists. They also asked for feedback from island officials. The advantage of stakeholder focus is that the focus is on influencers, each with their own outreach and communication capabilities. In targeting stakeholders and specific groups who are active with constituents and political leaders, there is an indirect impact on decisionmakers. The disadvantages are that not all groups receive RUC communications and the coverage may be so targeted to one issue that other minor issues may not be addressed.

The Washington State Transportation Commission and its private communications firm handled all communications surrounding the RUC pilot. The Washington RUC Steering Committee had a comprehensive message suite and strategy that was shared with all its members, including speaking notes and presentation packets that Steering Committee members could take to meetings. Each of the Steering Committee members reached out to their constituents. The automakers educated auto enthusiasts and car dealers. The business roundtable communicated with Fortune 500 companies in Seattle. The Consumers Union reached out to safety groups and employee unions. The Spokane commissioner spoke to eastern Washington residents. The Washington Trucking Association reached out to freight interests.

Communications Program: Washington

Washington deployed one of the more comprehensive pilots. The State used a private consultant to conduct the messaging. Its messaging points were structured to be short and to-the-point. Washington answered the question "why an RUC pilot?" by explaining that electric vehicles and increasing fuel efficiency make the gas tax an ineffective long-term funding mechanism. The State positioned RUC as a potential solution but did not address the transition from gas taxes. Washington computed the current State and Federal gas tax (49.4 cents) and showed how it is the State's primary road funding mechanism but did not place this number in context. For privacy, the State explained that anonymized data was collected and that there was limited information collected (miles driven only without the details that would identify the driver). Washington, like all States/regions, included security protections. However, along with other States, it is developing additional anti-hacking measures. Washington discussed the eventual transition from gas taxes to RUC but did not provide a timetable.

The perception of double taxation was a concern of some pilot participants. Washington's pilot invoices provided a line item that reflected a State fuel tax credit, in order to reflect that participants did not pay twice. Like other States, Washington detailed how the initial administrative costs are higher for RUC than the gas tax but will decrease with scale and technology. Washington detailed how its smartphone app (which they discovered to have some glitches) could have lower costs over the long-term than plug-in devices. Administrative costs were not a concern for pilot participants. Higher RUC costs for rural residents were a major concern. Washington made a deliberate attempt to sign up rural residents so participants could explain to their neighbors that they paid less than with a gas tax. For example, Eastern Washington had 9 percent of the population but 13 percent of the program participants. The Web page included a graph showing how pickup trucks (popular in rural areas) would pay less. Washington did its own study of urban versus rural impacts of RUC and shared studies from Oregon showing rural residents paid less. Washington highlighted pilots underway in California, Oregon, and RUC West to show RUC are successful in other western States. Finally, the State emphasized the voluntary nature of the program and the five RUC participation options, the most of any State: global positioning system (GPS) plug-in, non-GPS plug-in, odometer reading, smartphone app, and mileage permit.

General Public Focus

Some pilot managers targeted the general public through Web pages, email, advertisements, and commercials. This communication method reaches the widest public audience and can be an effective educational tool. Both coalitions, the I-95 Corridor Coalition and RUC West, used a general public focus due to the large geographic regions and widespread diversity of potential members. The advantages of this method are the ability to communicate with a large potential audience and educating the public at-large. Potential pilot members may be unaware of RUC trials. For example, the public may not understand why there is a funding problem and the role of RUC in solving it. The disadvantages are communications that are not targeted to any particular group.

Communications Program: Oregon/Western Road Usage Charge Consortium

RUC West is a regional coalition of 16 States studying RUC. Given that the agency is focused on promoting communication among State officials and not the public at large, RUC West uses fewer outward-facing communications media and includes more shared content. RUC West's Web page includes a detailed program overview of RUC and rationale as well as full program details, a list of frequently asked questions (FAQ), and a mileage calculator. Individual pilot States often use this information to provide presentation material for State legislators.

Reactive Communications

Where pilot management did not take steps to frame the message or actions in advance, they limited their public statements and only engaged when they felt it necessary to defend the concept. Reasons given for this situation were lack of time, resources and politics. For some, the communication function was not a priority. Few States planned to have a reactive message, but it became the de facto strategy once negative feedback emerged. Missouri, for example, did not engage in public outreach because they did not want to engage in lobbying activities. Some residents became concerned about privacy issues accusing the DOT of trying to track their activities. Missouri DOT relied on its general website and in newspaper articles, but opponents controlled the narrative. This might work in some situations because it requires little planning and resources. The disadvantage is it limits program support and allows opponents to frame the message, which could lead to a misleading program narrative.

Comprehensive Communications Plan

A comprehensive plan is proactive and broad. It includes different elements such as a Web page, an email list, advertisements, commercials, and identifies a consistent message to stakeholders. States adopting this approach generally dedicated resources to a communications budget, but this was not necessarily universal. For example, Oregon's Road User Fee Tax Force helped develop their plan, reaching out to their constituents (e.g., American Automobile Association (AAA) reached out to its members). The Oregon electric vehicle advocacy group, Go Electric Oregon, reached out to electric vehicle (EV) and hybrid (such as Toyota® Prius) drivers. Legislators reached out to their colleagues while county representatives explained the idea to the Association of Oregon Counties. In addition to addressing stakeholder interests, a comprehensive communications plan also had a more general explanation for the public.

Communications Program: Oregon

Oregon had the most extensive communications plan. For its 5,000-slot permanent RUC program, the State analyzed which recruitment strategies are most effective. The first part targeted 1,000 members: early-adopters, low mileage vehicle owners, and techies. To recruit this group, the State used partnerships (allied groups on the task force including an EV advocacy group and legislators) and the media to increase interest. The second part targeted an additional 1,000 members and included an interest list of volunteers consisting of the public and legislators who could serve as ambassadors to the program. The third part targeted an additional 2,000 members. It engaged the public at local fairs, festivals, on social media, with sponsorship opportunities, and using task force member relationships.

Oregon's 4-phase, 19-month plan included defining and developing the plan, educating and building awareness, going live, growth, and monitoring. Phase 1 (Defining and Developing) is an internal process of constructing a timeline and overall strategy. Phase 2 (Educate and Build Awareness) is focused on finding interested participants and included building account manager relationships, securing third-party endorsements, social media engagement, internal training, and building the Web page. The plan stressed consistent messaging, public education and minimizing opposition through business recruitment. Phase 3 (Go Live) prepared, promoted, and engaged pilot members. It included a launch event, social media monitoring, and earned media outreach. Once the pilot was live, the State focused on supporting a user experience. The State also plans to promote successes and third-party endorsements. Phase 4 (Growing and Monitoring the Plan) includes four goals:

  1. Maintain Established Contacts and Provide Continual Updates.
  2. Maintain Involvement with Pilot Participants.
  3. Grow and Recruit for the Interest Group and Volunteers.
  4. Analyze Rollout and Impact.

Oregon has a brand guide that consists of a project logo and details how that logo can be used. The State hired a contractor to fine tune potential messages for public support.

They conducted detailed surveys examining awareness, acceptance and favorability of the concept that resulted in three conclusions. First, people have a limited understanding of how much they pay in road taxes and fees. Second, there are numerous myths, such as the program is unfair to rural drivers. Third, information and experience equal acceptance. A separate dissenter focus group was created to better understand their opposition. They found that maintaining roads is important to all residents but that opponents prefer a different funding mechanism, distrust Government, and are concerned about fairness and how complicated the program will be.

Oregon has recently launched a new campaign focused on increasing public awareness which was part of its 2016 FAST Act Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives (STSFA) grant. The message included in the redesigned Web page resulted from a longitudinal (represents one group of people studied over a period of time), focus group conducted by its contractor. The new campaign recognizes the importance of making information available in communities, so the State is training its communications staff to present information using the newly formatted materials.

Lessons Learned

Determining the most effective target audience can be challenging. Is the audience limited to the pilot participants or is it the general public as a whole? How much influence do the decisionmakers, who will interpret the results, have? Choosing an effective target audience can determine whether the pilot is supported by stakeholders and in determining the feasibility and policy implications of the funding mechanism (see appendix B).

Comprehensive communication plans are perceived as adding value for States with expansive programs such as California, Oregon, and Washington. Agency staff expressed frustration with reactive communications that ultimately required more time than using a comprehensive approach that had front-end planning demands. The former was interpreted as ultimately leading to lower levels of public support.

Hawaii, the I-95 Corridor Coalition and RUC West focused on the general public. They tended to have a more general message intended for an audience less familiar with RUC than other pilot members. This question of scope (matching the plan target audience with a greater degree of preparation and sophistication) will be increasingly important should the STSFA pilots expand the target audience. No States planned for limited focus or reactive communications, but a few were forced to take a narrower approach due to lack of time or financial resources.

Communication plans that target a narrower audience could benefit from being comprehensive. The plan's scope and comprehensiveness are not mutually exclusive. Deciding to narrow the audience is highly situational. For example, vehicle owners benefited from a stakeholder focus centered around opinion leaders and legislators in those States needing legislative approval (such as New Hampshire) or with pilot programs more limited in scope (such as Utah's program that exclusively deals with electric vehicles and hybrids—both gas and plug-ins). With a narrower focus, a smaller budget and staff was adequate to accomplish the communication goals.

Delegating communications to an advisory group or steering committee can facilitate the access to, and education of, stakeholders but it is not a substitute for planning the communication actions. Furthermore, even though it can contribute to increased support throughout the State, as was the case in Washington State, coordination and consistency of message become more complex, especially with larger groups.