National Evaluation of a Mileage-Based

Road User Charge

Final Report

Submitted by
Public Policy Center
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242

Submitted to
Office of Transportation Policy Studies
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
Washington, DC
December 31, 2010
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 4
STUDY BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................................................... 4
STUDY DESIGN AND STRUCTURE............................................................................................................................................. 4
RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5
CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY .............................................................................................................................. 9
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
RATIONAL FOR MILEAGE-BASED CHARGING STUDY .................................................................................................................. 11
OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................................................................................... 11
OVERVIEW OF PARTICIPANTS .................................................................................................................................... 12
EVALUATION SITES............................................................................................................................................................. 12
PARTICIPANTS .................................................................................................................................................................. 14
REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE PARTICIPANTS .......................................................................................................................... 15
OVERVIEW OF SYSTEM AND LOGISTICS ..................................................................................................................... 18
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE AND OPERATION ................................................................................................................................ 18
EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES .................................................................................................... 20
BILLING AND INVOICING PROCEDURES ................................................................................................................................... 21
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................................................................ 24
OBU INSTALLATION ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................. 24
GPS AND DATA COLLECTION PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................................................... 24
EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE AND MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................... 25
VMT REVENUE ........................................................................................................................................................... 30
SIMULATED VMT REVENUE ................................................................................................................................................ 30
COMPARISON OF VMT REVENUE VERSUS GAS TAX REVENUE ...................................................................................................... 32
ASSESSMENT OF PARTICIPANT ATTITUDES ................................................................................................................ 33
INITIAL OPINION ON THE USE OF A MILEAGE-BASED CHARGE ....................................................................................................... 33
FINAL OPINION ON THE USE OF A MILEAGE CHARGE .................................................................................................................. 34
CHANGING OF OVERALL OPINION OF A MILEAGE-BASE CHARGING SYSTEM .................................................................................. 34
Participant Characteristics relative to the Overall Opinion of a Mileage-based Charging System .......................... 35
PRIVACY VERSUS AUDITABILITY ............................................................................................................................................ 37
Opinions on invoice level of details (privacy versus auditability) ............................................................................. 38
Initial opinion on the direct trade-off between privacy and auditability ................................................................. 41
Final opinion on the direct trade-off between privacy and auditability................................................................... 42
Changing of Attitudes towards privacy and auditability ......................................................................................... 43
Participant Characteristics relative to Privacy ......................................................................................................... 44
PRIVACY VERSUS OVERALL OPINION OF A MILEAGE-BASED CHARGING SYSTEM ............................................................................. 45
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 47
CONCLUSION 1: PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF MILEAGE-BASED CHARGING IS POSITIVELY IMPACTED BY EXPERIENCE AND EXPOSURE ................ 47
CONCLUSION 2: PRIVACY CONCERNS ARE A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE BUT ARE NOT AN INSURMOUNTABLE BARRIER TO PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF
MILEAGE-BASED CHARGING ................................................................................................................................................. 47

2
 CONCLUSION 3: THE ABILITY TO AUDIT THE ACCURACY OF CHARGES OUTWEIGHS PRIVACY CONCERNS ................................................ 48
CONCLUSION 4: MILEAGE-BASED ROAD-USER CHARGING IS TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE USING CURRENTLY MATURE TECHNOLOGIES ............. 48
CONCLUSION 5: INSTALLATION OF ROAD USER CHARGING EQUIPMENT INTO EXISTING VEHICLES MAY POSE A DAUNTING CHALLENGE ....... 48
CONCLUSION 6: THE COST OF INCORPORATING MILEAGE-BASED CHARGING TECHNOLOGY INTO NEWLY MANUFACTURED VEHICLES WOULD BE
LOW ............................................................................................................................................................................... 49

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY .............................................................................................................. 49

RECOMMENDATION 1: FURTHER INVESTIGATE “BACK OFFICE” COSTS AND ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS/COSTS FOR MILEAGE-BASED
CHARGING .......................................................................................................................................................................
49
RECOMMENDATION 2: FURTHER STUDY DATA COMMUNICATION COSTS AND ALTERNATIVES FOR MILEAGE-BASED CHARGING ................. 49
RECOMMENDATION 3: FURTHER STUDY HOW PROVIDING THE VEHICLE OWNER LIMITED CHOICE ON THE OPERATION OF A MILEAGE-BASED
CHARGING SYSTEM AFFECTS ACCEPTANCE ............................................................................................................................... 50

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................. 51

3
Executive Summary
This report provides results and analysis from the two years of field operations and data collection for the
National Evaluation of a Mileage-based Road User Charge. The report analyzes both the performance of the
prototype road user charging system used in the study and the attitudes and opinions of study participants
as assessed by a battery of questionnaires administered throughout the term of the study.

Study Background and Objectives

The National Evaluation of a Mileage-based Road User Charge was established and funded under sections
1919 and 1934 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU). The objective of the study is to assess the technical feasibility and user acceptance of
mileage-based charging as a possible highway revenue option.

Study Design and Structure

The study involved deployment of a prototype mileage-based charging system in the vehicles of
approximately 2600 volunteer participants over a two-year period. The charging system utilized an on-
board unit (OBU) that was temporarily installed in each participant’s vehicle for a period of ten months.
The OBU computed hypothetical mileage-based user charges for federal, state, and, where applicable, local
jurisdictions and periodically uploaded accrued charges over a cellular communications link to a billing
center. The billing center, in turn, created monthly mileage charge invoices that were sent to participants
to simulate operation of a mileage-based charging system. Although the OBU used a Global Positioning
System (GPS) receiver to determine the jurisdiction in which travel occurred for purposes of assessing state
and local charges, the system did not retain or transmit any GPS coordinates or other specific information
regarding vehicle location or routes travelled.

Vehicle miles driven were calculated by two independent methods, one from the OBU’s Global Positioning
System (GPS) receiver and the other from electronic speedometer/odometer data obtained via a
connection to the vehicle’s On-board Diagnostic Bus (OBD-II). Mileage data obtained from the OBD-II port
was used as the primary indicator of miles driven. The GPS receiver was used only to determine the
jurisdiction in which miles were accrued, for calculation of State/local user charges, and as a redundant
system for verifying OBD-II derived mileage.

The mileage-based charge rate employed by the study was based on achieving revenue neutrality vis a vis
the motor fuel tax on both an aggregate and individual vehicle basis. To achieve this, the mileage charge
rate employed was differentiated according to the vehicles’ estimated fuel efficiency to provide a mileage
charge comparable to the amount of tax currently paid on the fuel consumed by that vehicle for the same
travel.

Vehicles employed in the study ranged from model years 1998 through 2010 with the mean and median
model year being 2004. (Most vehicles older than the 2000 model year were excluded from the study for
technical reasons relating to OBU compatibility.) EPA fuel efficiencies of study vehicles ranged from less
than 10 MPG to nearly 50 MPG with a mean efficiency of slightly under 20 MPG. Ninety-seven percent of
the vehicles enrolled in the study had EPA fuel efficiencies in the range from 13 to 32 MPG.

In addition to evaluating the performance of the mileage based process and equipment, the study also
obtained information on the attitudes and opinions of study participants. Throughout the term of their
participation in the study participants were given a series of questionnaires to assess their acceptance of

4
the mileage-based charging concept versus the fuel tax, level of concern about privacy issues and
preferences regarding tradeoffs between protection of privacy and auditability of billing statements.

During the first year of field operations, comprising the period from mid-October, 2008 through mid-
August, 2009, the study had approximately 1,200 participants, divided among six geographic regions
throughout the U.S. These regions were: Baltimore, MD; Research Triangle region, NC; Eastern Iowa;
Austin, TX; Boise, ID; and San Diego, CA. The second year of field operations comprised the period from
September, 2009 through June, 2010. This phase of the study involved approximately 1,400 participants
divided among the following sites: Portland, ME; Miami, FL; Chicago, IL; Wichita, KS; Billings, MT; and
Albuquerque, NM.

Participants were chosen from a pool of approximately 81,000 eligible candidates. During the first year
approximately 200 participants were selected for each of the six study regions. During the second year
approximately 230 participants were selected for each study region. Participants were selected to match,
as closely as possible, the overall demographic profile of each region with respect to age, gender, and level
of education. Within each demographic cell, participants were selected randomly. This resulted in an
overall participant pool with the following characteristics:
• 52% female; 48% male
• 7% less than high-school educated; 34% high-school educated; 32% some college; 27% Bachelors
degree or above
• 18% age 18-24; 38% age 25-44; 32% age 45-64; 12% age over 64

Participant political views and opinions on social issues matched well with the national norms as measured
by several independent national surveys. Overall, the participants’ self-assessment of political viewpoint
was slightly less conservative (31% versus 33%) than the national norm as measured by the General Social
Survey.

Results
Participant Attitudes: As shown by the charts below, questionnaires administered during the study
indicate a general trend toward increased acceptance of the mileage-based charging concept over time.

Very Very
negative negative Somewhat
5% 7% negative
Very Somewhat 10%
positive negative Very
16% 14% positive
30%
Neutral
Somewhat 12%
positive
Some-
26% Neutral what
39% positive
41%

Baseline survey-- participant views End of study survey—participant

views of mileage-based charging views of mileage-based charging

5
 A baseline questionnaire, administered at the beginning of the study, before any participant exposure to
the system being evaluated, indicated that 42% of the participants held a highly positive, or somewhat
positive, view of the idea replacing the gas tax with a mileage-based road user fee, while 19% had a highly
or somewhat negative view, and 39% were neutral. At the end of the study, a subsequent questionnaire
indicated an increase in highly or somewhat positive views to 71% and a 2% decrease in somewhat or highly
negative views to 17%. Most importantly, the majority of participants with neutral views at the onset of the
study developed a positive attitude towards mileage based charging after participation in the pilot.

In addition, participants were asked to assess the tradeoff between privacy protection and auditability of
mileage charges by stating their preference for the level of detail provided on simulated mileage charge
invoices. Two different invoice styles were presented to users at different points in the study. One invoice
stated only the amount of federal and state road use charges accrued for the month with no detail
regarding when or where the travel on which the charges are based occurred. The other provided a day-
by-day summary of the number of miles driven in each state and the amount of associated state and
federal road use charge resulting from the travel. The detailed invoice did not reveal any specific locations
of travel within a state or specific times of travel, only miles by jurisdiction level. Participants were
informed that the level of detail provided on the invoices would directly correspond to the amount of
travel-related information that would need to be collected and uploaded by the OBU in an actual mileage-
based charging system. Seventy-nine percent of participants expressed a preference for the detailed
invoice while 21 percent preferred to have less detail for privacy reasons. In other survey questions relating
to privacy versus auditability, participants consistently, but to varying degrees, professed a preference for
auditability (detailed charge summary) over maximum privacy protection.

Other opinions of note expressed by participants include:

Fairness of mileage-based charging system: A large majority of the participants, 78% stated that they
believe a mileage-based charging system is a fair way to pay for roads. Furthermore, 77% of the
participants believe that a mileage charge is fairer than road tolls because everyone would be paying for
using all roads.

Limits on use of driving information by others: The participants were asked if strict laws on the use of their
driving information collected by a VMT fee system are needed. Ninety percent of the participants agree
that whoever collects VMT fee data must be regulated by strict laws with 60% of them indicating that they
worry about government using the VMT information to track them.

Flat versus variable VMT rates: The participants stated the strength of their opinion regarding variable VMT
rates that are tied to the fuel efficiency of their vehicle. Sixty-nine percent like the idea that a mileage-
based charging system can have lower VMT rates for fuel-efficient vehicles. However, more than half the
participants, 54%, believe fuel-efficient vehicles should be charged the same tax as others.

Double taxation: When first asked about VMT fee system implementation, 76% of the participants believed
that they will be required to pay both the fuel tax and VMT fee. When asked in the final questionnaire
about double payment the percentage decreased to 65% despite the inclusion of a statement that the
government will remove the fuel tax for vehicles paying the VMT fee.

Technology Performance: Participants drove a total of more than 22 million miles with the average
participant accruing approximately 9,000 miles during the 10 month enrollment period. Approximately
92.5% of all miles driven were successfully measured using both GPS and OBD-II. The remaining miles could
not be directly assigned to a jurisdiction via GPS due to temporary, localized GPS outages experienced by
participant vehicles. Of these, most could be reliably assigned to jurisdictions using straightforward
6
interpolation techniques to compensate for the short- term GPS outages. Approximately 0.6% of total
miles driven could not be reliably assigned to a state/local jurisdiction. GPS outage rates were not observed
to be significantly different for urban versus rural areas.

Approximately 24% of participants experienced at least one study-related problem with their vehicle
and/or the installed equipment. Over the 2 years of the study a total of 618 incidents were logged that
required at least one shop visit to correct. Of these, 79% were due to a problem with performance of
installed OBU equipment. There were 410 cases of OBC equipment failure requiring replacement or
reconfiguration of the OBU, its associated wiring harness, or antennas, affecting about 15% of all
participants. A significant number of these were due to a single design issue affecting GPS performance
that required replacement of approximately 100 OBUs. There were 151 OBU issues traced to installation
problems such as faulty wiring.

A total of 132 incidents were logged that related to the either the performance or condition of the
participant’s vehicle. Approximately 5% of all participants experienced at least one such problem. Three
quarters of vehicle-related issues were attributed to problems resulting from the OBU installation or
removal process—e.g. damage to the vehicle’s electrical system, blown or dislodged fuses, or physical
damage to the vehicle—with physical damage being the most prevalent.

There were 33 identified instances of vehicle incompatibility with the installed on-board unit, affecting
approximately 1% of all participant vehicles. Of these, 27 were classified as incompatibilities with original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) vehicle systems while four were traced to incompatibilities with other
aftermarket devices installed on the vehicle. The remaining two could not be classified.

Conclusions
Conclusion 1: Public perception of mileage-based charging is positively impacted by experience and
exposure: The general public requires more than a verbal description of a mileage-based charging system
and the negative consequences of reduced transportation funding in order to accept a change from the
current fuel tax system. Participants entered this study with little information regarding the mileage-based
charging concept, other than a brief description found on the study’s website or provided to candidates
who telephoned the study call center, or information provided by general news sources. At time of
enrollment, those who qualified based on demographic characteristics, geographical location, and vehicle
type were asked their opinion regarding the concept of a mileage charge. Forty-two percent of the
participants stated they were favorable toward the mileage-based charging concept with almost an equal
number stating they were neutral and the remaining 19% stating a negative opinion. After the 10 month
participation in the mileage-based charge study, a strong shift from a neutral to a positive attitude
occurred. At the end of the study, 70% of the participants had positive attitudes towards mileage-based
charging. Of the 70%, 36% of the participants began the study with a neutral or negative attitude. The
percent of participants with negative opinions at the close of the study had dropped to 17%. It should be
noted that this reflects only the change in participant attitudes toward the concept of mileage-based
charging over the course of the study, and not a comparison of preference for mileage-based charging
versus the fuel tax.

This result suggests that the public needs more exposure to mileage-based charging than simple
descriptions and justifications of the concept in order to become comfortable with the paradigm. It may be
necessary for the public to experience (live with) a mileage charging system prior to its full acceptance.

Conclusion 2: Privacy concerns are a significant issue but are not an insurmountable barrier to public
acceptance of mileage-based charging: Personal privacy concerns need to be addressed prior to
7
implementing a mileage-based charging system. Participants expressed privacy concerns as they enrolled
into the study. Upon completion of their participation, 34% of the participants desired protection of their
privacy by reducing the amount of travel detail collected and provided on invoices and 60% were concerned
that government will use collected road usage information to track their travel. Even with these expressed
concerns, a large majority (over 70%) believes a mileage-based system is a fair replacement of the fuel tax
and trusted the system being tested as fair and reliable.

Although, privacy concerns remain as issues for the implementation of a mileage-based charge system, the
concerns are not insurmountable. Personal privacy issues were raised as barriers to acceptance when the
respondents did not have experience or deep knowledge of a mileage charge. Additionally, even after
exposure to a mileage-based charging system, concerns for personal privacy were not eliminated. In some
aspects their concerns strengthened. However, privacy concerns did not dramatically decrease the
acceptance of an accurate and fair system. The participants saw the tested system as reliable, accurate, and
fair with the option to limit the amount of data required to operate a mileage-based charge system, which
may have suppressed their resistance based on fears of “big brother” tracking their travel.

Conclusion 3: The ability to audit the accuracy of charges outweighs privacy concerns: It is not necessary to
provide a daily log of travel to assure acceptance a mileage-based charging system. The participants were
asked to select the invoice style most preferred with varying levels of travel detail. The invoices reflected
the minimum and maximum amount of data required for a functioning mileage charge system. The
minimum data (maximum privacy protection) used the total miles traveled and total amount owed
whereas, the maximum data (minimum privacy) provided mileage by jurisdiction. In the first year,
participants overwhelmingly selected the full detail invoice over the maximum privacy protection. In the
second year, a third level of detail was provided that fell between the maximum privacy and maximum
auditability invoices. The second year participants least preferred the maximum privacy protection option
and had no strong preference between the maximum auditability and the intermediate level of detail
options. In the end, two-thirds of all the participants favored the invoicing option offering the maximum
amount of detail. The participants attended training sessions held prior to their enrollment in the study
where they were told of the trade-off between privacy and auditability and that the measurement of this
trade-off was one of the study’s objectives. This information was also included in the Participant Manual
given to each participant during the training sessions.

Providing the means for people to audit the system is important for the acceptance of a mileage-based
charging system. However, the level of detail can be below that of a daily log of travel and certainly below
individual trip data.

Conclusion 4: Mileage-based Road-user Charging is technically feasible using currently mature

technologies: The prototype mileage-based road user charging system employed in this study was able to
reliably measure and report over 22 million miles of travel by study participants and to reliably assign 99.4%
of accrued mileage to appropriate state and local charging jurisdictions. It should be noted that the OBU
used in this study was designed and manufactured in the 2005-06 timeframe. Newer generation GPS
modules would likely eliminate most of the short-term GPS outages that prevented assignment of a small
fraction of mileage to charging jurisdictions. Although the study sites included urban, mountainous, and
rural areas, no significant issues were observed with “urban canyon” effects, lack of cellular data coverage,
or any other environmental factors. No significant problems were encountered with the use of commercial
cellular data services to upload charge data to the simulated billing center and no data was lost due to
communication failures or outages. Based upon this experience, it appears that a road-user charging
system employing GPS, a connection to the vehicle’s diagnostic bus, and cellular communications for data
upload, can achieve sufficient reliability and accuracy to serve as the basis for a production road user
charging system.
8
Conclusion 5: Installation of Road user charging equipment into existing vehicles may pose a daunting
challenge: Installing a road-user charge system into an existing vehicle, requiring connection to the
vehicle’s electrical system and on-board diagnostic bus, can be a complex process. For this study,
installations, performed by trained, professional installers, required an average of 90 minutes to complete,
with some requiring considerably longer. Following installation, approximately one-quarter of all
participants experienced some form of problem requiring a service visit to the installation shop or other
service facility. Over one-third of these were attributed to installation-related issues. Another 33
participants encountered some form of vehicle incompatibility issue. Any future large-scale
implementation of mileage-based charging that contemplates installation of on-board units into exiting
vehicles will need to very carefully consider the costs, complexities, and robustness of such installations.
An alternative concept of phasing in the implementation of mileage-based charging via technology
integrated into new vehicles at the time of manufacture would provide one way to avoid the challenges of
retrofitting.

Conclusion 6: The cost of incorporating mileage-based charging technology into newly manufactured
vehicles would be low: While the specially designed units used in this study would be prohibitively
expensive to use in a large scale deployment of mileage-based charging, it should be noted that the
components used in the prototype OBU—GPS module, processor, solid state memory, and cellular
transceiver —are identical to those found in many modern cell-phones and other low-cost consumer
devices. All of these components are currently manufactured on the scale of hundreds of millions of units
per year or higher. Therefore it is likely that such the necessary OBU equipment for a large-scale
deployment of mileage-based charging could be produced very inexpensively, particularly after leveraging
the economies-of-scale available for such a high-volume endeavor. In many cases the required
components would already be present in the vehicle for other purposes such as navigation and on-line
vehicle information systems, and could easily be adapted to also provide the necessary mileage-based
charging functionality.

Recommendations for Further Study

Recommendation 1: Further investigate “back office” costs and enforcement mechanisms/costs for
mileage-based charging: Due to the limited size of this study and other constraints, it was not possible to
reliably approximate the costs, and overheads of an actual large-scale implementation of mileage-based
charging or the cost-effectiveness of mechanisms for detecting evasion and enforcing payment. The
overhead costs of collecting and disseminating mileage-based charges will be critical to the successful
implementation of an operational mileage-based charging system, especially given the low operational
overhead of the current motor fuel tax. Assuming charge rates similar to current motor fuel tax rates a
typical user would pay mileage-charges on the order of $20 per month (federal + state). In order to achieve
a back-office overhead of 2% (still much higher than that of the motor fuel tax) the total administrative cost
of processing a monthly charge could not exceed about 40 cents. Whether or not it is possible to create an
administrative framework for mileage-based charging that can operate at this level of efficiency remains an
open question.

These issues can most effectively be addressed by a much larger study that collects and apportions real
user-charges on a scale large enough to accurately gauge administrative and enforcement costs.

Recommendation 2: Further study data communication costs and alternatives for mileage-based charging:
This study used commercial cellular data services for uploading road user charge data from participant
vehicles to the billing center and downloading updates to vehicle OBUs. At regular, prevailing rates, the
9
cost of cellular data services would be prohibitively high for an actual implementation of mileage-based
charging. Therefore, successful implementation of a large-scale mileage-based charging system would
require either negotiation of a greatly reduced service rate from one or more commercial providers or
establishment of an alternative, lower cost mechanism for data communication between the vehicle and
the back office. While other data communication mechanisms have been proposed, such as providing
designated wireless network access points for data upload/download via the internet, the infrastructure
costs of such alternatives are not fully known. The cost and robustness of data communications will be a
key issue in any large-scale implementation of mileage-based charging.

Recommendation 3: Further study how providing the vehicle owner with options, in terms of the level of
detail in the information collected and included on the invoice, affects acceptance: The expressed
participant opinions regarding the acceptance of the mileage-based charging system were influenced by the
amount of information provided on their monthly invoices. In this study, the amount and type of travel
data was determined by the study team without the active involvement of the participants. In a future
study, the provision of a limited amount of user choice should be explored. The choices should involve the
amount and type of travel data, as well as opting into other related travel services from second-parties.
However, providing too many choices or integrating other taxing schemes should be avoided to prevent the
confounded measurement of the acceptance of a mileage-based charging system as a replacement for the
fuel tax.

10
Introduction

Rational for Mileage-based Charging Study

At both the federal and state levels in the United States, the primary method for funding the transportation
system is the motor fuel tax. In many ways this tax has served quite well. Road users are charged roughly
based on the amount they travel on the public road system. As such, motor fuel taxes have the desirable
attribute of being a “pay-as-you-go” form of user charge.

Unfortunately, the revenue-generating capacity of the motor fuel tax in future years is at best problematic.
The average fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles has risen steadily for the past several decades. In an effort
to help the U.S. become more energy independent and to improve the air quality in larger cities, the
Obama administration has announced a program to further improve average new vehicle fuel efficiency by
5 percent per year between 2012 and 2016, culminating in an average efficiency of 35.5 miles per gallon.
The auto industry and the federal government are working cooperatively to design a new generation of
vehicles that are either hybrid—a combination of electric and conventional internal combustion power—or
are powered by hydrogen fuel cells. Various prototype fuel-cell vehicles have performed favorably (1), and
hybrid vehicles are already selling at a brisk pace (2- 4). According to J.D. Power and Associates, hybrid sales
are expected to climb to 780,000 in 2011 (5).

A recent report of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission predicted that
between 2008 and 2035 current-law fuel tax revenue will increase, at best, by an average of less than 1%
per year and perhaps even decrease in absolute dollars, translating into a reduction in purchasing power of
between 26 percent and 42 percent, after adjusting for inflation (6). Thus, this is a propitious time to
explore a new approach to assessing road user charges—one that is insensitive to improvements in fuel
efficiency and capable of accommodating vehicles with alternative propulsion technologies, and could allow
a variety of public policies related to road pricing to be implemented.

Any move away from state and federal motor fuel taxes must be approached with great care. Currently,
motor fuel taxes contribute nearly 90 percent of the revenue for the Federal Highway Trust Fund.
Combined, the federal and state fuel taxes account for almost two-thirds of all road user charges. A
substantial amount of road funding capability is at stake; there are few viable funding options to which
policy makers can turn. Placing greater emphasis on vehicle registration fees may not be a fair alternative
since such fees have no relationship to amount of road use or the cost of serving the traveler. Property
taxes, which are a major source of revenue to finance local streets and roads, also have no relationship to
road use. Visitors to a jurisdiction—especially through travelers—pay no property taxes directly, and
indirect payments through patronizing local businesses are limited. Sub-state jurisdictions are moving to
local option sales taxes. Although sales tax increases have more popular support than raising fuel taxes it is
a move away from “pay-as-you-go” user fees. In recent years, the US Congress has had to make transfers
from the General Fund of the US Treasury into the Highway Trust Fund to keep it solvent. Transfers from
General Fund sources serve to further undermine the underlying principal of the Highway Trust Fund that
the cost of surface transportation infrastructure should be largely born by the users of surface
transportation infrastructure. If the user-pay principle is to be restored, then a new method for assessing
road user charges may be required. There is growing consensus that the most promising new approach is
one directly based on actual miles traveled (6, 7).

Objectives
The National Evaluation of a Mileage-based Road User Charge was established and funded under sections
1919 and 1934 of the transportation reauthorization act: Safe Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient
11
Transportation Equity Act of 2005-A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The objective of the study is to assess
the technical feasibility and user acceptance of mileage-based charging as a possible alternative to the
current motor-fuel tax.

The first objective is testing the appropriateness of the technology. Implementers must be absolutely
certain that the technology ultimately used is:

• Reliable. An alternative system must provide a reliable revenue stream that is not jeopardized by
system outages and one that the public knows accurately assesses fees.
• User friendly. A replacement system must be as convenient to the driving public as the fuel tax
while ideally providing more transparency to drivers regarding the amount of assessed charges.
• Flexible. Unlike the fuel tax, a replacement system should allow for the support of other national
environmental and energy policy objectives.
• Secure. Any replacement system must decrease user evasion beyond the current rate seen with the
fuel tax system. A replacement system must be secure from internal and external threats to its
stability.
• Usable nationwide. An alternative system must be nationwide and able to accommodate the
disparate taxing structures of all 50 states and, in some cases, counties and cities with
comprehensive unity.

The second and related objective is user acceptance. Gaining a clear sense of the variables that influence
user acceptance is an important single objective of this national evaluation. Assessing acceptability involves
more than acquainting a cross section of the road user population with the new approach and seeing how
they react. For policy makers who may consider adopting a mileage-based road user charge, knowing how
the motoring public may feel about this major change in road finance would be of great value. Willingness
to support the adoption of a mileage-based road user charge approach is bound to vary among segments of
the motoring public. The characteristics being accounted for include:

• Demographics. Measures include age, gender, education, and region of the country.
• Driving behavior. This includes driving a large or small number of miles annually, having long or short
commute, and various levels of vehicle fuel efficiency.
• Attitudinal profile. It is likely that acceptability of the new approach will depend to a large extent on
perceptions regarding privacy. Profiles of the participants will allow for the controlled analysis of
privacy concerns and system acceptability.

Overview of Participants

Evaluation sites
The field test involved twelve sites located throughout the US. Data collection in the first phase of the
evaluation began in November 2008 and concluded at the end of August 2009. The second phase began in
October 2009 and concluded at the end of July 2010. The twelve sites were selected to assess the effects
of:

• Regional differences. Participants living in different regions of the country may vary in comfort with a
mileage-based road user charge and in preferences regarding features that might be incorporated into
this approach to assessing user fees.

12
• Familiarity with electronic tolling. Motorists in cities that currently employ tolling, especially electronic
tolling, have experience with paying for their road use beyond motor fuel taxes, often through
automated payment systems. These motorists may have different perspectives than those living in
areas that do not employ much tolling.
• The nature of vehicular travel. Travel patterns tend to vary with city size. Larger metropolitan areas
typically are beset with congestion, while travel in smaller communities and surrounding rural areas
often involves less congested travel and longer trips.

The twelve sites were (as shown in Figure 1):

• Albuquerque, NM. The counties of Bernalillo, Sandoval, Torrance, and Valencia were the participant
recruitment area for Albuquerque. This site represents a moderate size metropolitan area that did not
have electronic tolled roads at the time of this study.
• Austin, TX. Austin is a medium-sized metro area with no electronic tolling. The participants represented
a five county area around Austin. The counties were Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson.
• Baltimore, MD. I-95 and I-895 (Harbor Tunnel), both of which are major commuter routes, are EZPass
facilities, so Baltimore residents are likely familiar with electronic toll collection. If this is the case, the
concept of a mileage-based road user charge that involves electronic equipment on-board vehicles may
seem a reasonable next step. The recruitment area was the City of Baltimore as well as Baltimore and
Anne Arundel counties.
• Billings, MT. Participants were selected from Yellowstone and Carbon counties. The metropolitan area
does not have electronic tolling.
• Boise, ID. Boise is a smaller metro area that is spatially independent from the major metro areas of the
region. The two county area of Ada and Canyon, which includes the City of Boise was selected. The site
did not have electronically tolled roads at the time of this study.
• Chicago, IL. The five county area including the City of Chicago was selected as a large metropolitan
region that has electronic tolling. The five counties were Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, and Will. The region
was also selected for the multiple sub-state jurisdictions with differing fuel tax rates.
• Eastern Iowa Region. There are several small metro areas in this 9 county region—Cedar Rapids,
Dubuque, and the Quad Cities (Bettendorf and Davenport, IA, and Rock Island and Moline, IL). Also in
this region are several small, independent communities. This provides the opportunity to take into
account rural areas and small communities, as well as small metro areas. This area also involves a high
degree of travel between two states and multiple jurisdictions. The counties from which participants
were recruited included Cedar, Clinton, Delaware, Dubuque, Jackson, Jones, Linn, Muscatine, and Scott.
(No one acquainted with members of the study team was included.) The site did not have electronically
tolled roads at the time of this study.
• Miami, FL. This is one of the large metropolitan areas that encompassed the Broward, Miami-Dade, and
Palm Beach counties within southern Florida. The participants were not exposed to electronic tolling
during the time of this study.
• Research Triangle Region, NC. By including a three-city region that includes Chatham, Durham,
Franklin, Johnston, Orange, and Wake counties, we are able to include smaller metro areas (Chapel Hill,
Raleigh, and Durham) yet still draw a good sample in terms of the three criteria (demographic
characteristics, travel behavior, and attitudes). There is considerable travel between local jurisdictions
in the Research Triangle region. The site did not have electronically tolled roads at the time of this
study.
• San Diego, CA. The participants for this large metro area were selected from San Diego County. Like
Baltimore, there is a facility with electronic tolling (I-15) in the San Diego metro area. I-15 is a major
commuting route with high-occupancy and tolled (HOT) lane provisions (FasTrak). Since electronic
tolling began in 1998, this facility has been the focus of considerable national attention. It is likely that
electronic user charges are widely understood in this metro area.

13
• Portland, ME. Portland, Maine was selected to represent a smaller sized combined metro and rural
area. The participants were selected from three counties that surround the City of Portland. The
counties were Cumberland, Sagadahoc, and York. The Portland area is served by EZPass system on the
Maine Turnpike.
• Wichita, KS. Wichita is a moderate sized metropolitan area with nearby rural areas. The area from
which participants were recruited included Butler, Harvey, Sedgwick, and Sumner counties. The Kansas
Turnpike Authority operates an electronic tolling system called K-Tag.

Figure 1 Sites of the national evaluation of a mileage-based road user charge approach

Participants
The study participants were chosen from a pool of 28,759 eligible candidates in the first year and 48,914 in
the second year. Two-hundred candidates in the first year and 240 candidates in the second year from
each location were selected to match the local demographic profiles and then called and invited to attend a
training session. A total of 3,062 candidates were invited to join a training session. Of those initially invited,
467 candidates did not formally enroll in the study by signing an informed consent form or did not have the
OBU installed leaving a total of 2,595 participants. The distribution of those beginning the study is shown in
Table 1.

14
 Table 1 Total Participants Enrolled into Study

Education

People People People People

without with with some with a
HS HS/GED college or Bachelor’s
diplomas diplomas an or
associate’s Graduate
degree degree
Total
Female Age 18 – 24 12 81 84 54 231
25 – 44 31 150 169 173 523
45 – 64 34 158 138 102 432
65+ 9 69 51 28 157
Total 86 458 442 357 1343

Male Age 18 – 24 16 87 77 46 226

25 – 44 40 170 133 132 475
45 – 64 26 132 128 103 389
65+ 14 55 53 40 162
Total 96 444 391 321 1252

Representativeness of the Participants

Obtaining a representative pool of participants was constrained by restrictions of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS code 45 CFR 46.103(a)) and The University of Iowa Institutional Review
Board that prohibited employing a randomized strategy at the initial recruitment stage. The study team was
prevented from making direct initial contact with candidates. Therefore, it was required that the candidates
identify themselves to the study team first. Once the candidates contacted the study team and completed a
screening questionnaire, a random selection process was followed to fill the demographic profiles for each
site. Three demographic characteristics that influence driving behavior were the basis for selecting the
potential candidates. To further assess the representativeness, other socio-economic and attitudinal
characteristics were asked of each candidate. Table 2 contains a general comparison of the participants to
the estimates for the entire U.S. (8). Review of the table reveals a close match between the study sample
and the U.S. as a whole.

Table 2 Study Sample Characteristics (N=2,595)

Characteristic Study U.S.

Gender (%)
Male 48.2 48.6
Female 51.8 51.4
Age
Median age (population over 18) 47 falls between 35 - 44
Education Level (%)
High school graduate or higher 93 85
15
 Bachelor's degree or higher 26 27
Race (%)
White 88.3 76.2
Black or African American 4.9 13.1
American Indian and Alaska Native 2.2 1.5
Asian 1.3 4.9
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.4 0.3
Two or more races 3.5 6.3
Travel Time
Mean travel time to work in minutes (workers) falls between 20 - 24 25.3
Income
Median family income ( 2007 inflation-adjusted dollars) falls between 25 to 75K 50,007

16
17
Overview of System and Logistics
System architecture and operation
The basic system architecture is shown in Figure 2. The primary component of the system is an on-board
computer that contains several data files. The on-board computer multiplies the number of miles traveled
in a jurisdiction times the per-mile rate set by that jurisdiction for the particular type of vehicle. The on-
board computer then stores the resulting user charges to be paid to the respective jurisdictions. The overall
structure of the mileage-based road user charge system and the on-board unit design is contained in
Appendix A.

GPS receiver
GIS database
• Latitude & longitude
• Data polygons
coordinates

Vehicle on-board computer

Odometer feed • Vehicle ID and category
• Per-mile rate schedule
• Miles traveled per polygon
• Odometer reading
• Amount owed per jurisdiction

Rate schedule updates GIS file updates

Network operating center

• Vehicle ID
• Per-mile rates for jurisdictions
• GIS file editions
• Total user charge due
• Odometer reading
• User charge apportionment

Billing and dispersal center

• Bills to users
• Revenue to jurisdictions
• Check for data discrepancies

Figure 2 Overview of the mileage-base user charge approach

18
Location within jurisdictions
A global positioning system (GPS) receiver determines the vehicle’s position. The computer reconciles this
position with a geographic information system (GIS) file. GPS satellites broadcasts signals that the onboard
receiver processes to determine its position on the face of the earth. It is important to stress that the
satellites are incapable of receiving any form of signal from earth. This means the GPS satellites cannot
track a vehicle that has a GPS receiver. The GIS file contains polygons that define the boundaries of state,
county, and municipal jurisdictions enabling the on-board computer to determine and record where travel
has occurred on the state, county and municipal levels. A file with the per-mile rates for participating
jurisdictions also is stored in the on-board computer. The number of miles traveled within a jurisdiction is
used to compute user charges owed to the jurisdiction.

An example of sub-state jurisdictions is shown in Figure 3. The latter figure highlights the capacity to assess
a mileage-based user charge at the state level and then to supplement it with local charges at the county or
municipal level.

Figure 3 Sub-state polygons for a county and municipality

Obtaining Miles Traveled

The GPS input to the on-board computer is accompanied by an electronic odometer and speedometer feed
from the vehicle’s OBDII (On-board Diagnostic System) bus. The odometer feed is the most accurate
indicator of distance travelled and serves as the primary source of VMT data for per-mile charge
calculation. The speedometer (which can be integrated over time to provide an estimate of distance) and
GPS provide redundant estimates of distance travelled to ensure robustness. Nominally, GPS is used only to
determine the location of the vehicle with respect to jurisdictions represented in the GIS database. In the
event of temporary GPS signal loss—e.g.to signal occlusion or interference—vehicle location can be
interpolated between known data points. Only if the GPS signal is degraded at a time when travel is
occurring near the boundary of two or more jurisdictions would interpolation inaccuracy be a cause for
concern. Even in this unusual circumstance, the mileage-based road user charge will be better able to
assign travel to the appropriate jurisdiction than the current motor fuel tax.

Vehicle Communications
Periodically, the vehicle needs to communicate with a network operations center (NOC) to transmit the
calculated assessed mileage charge total. This communication utilizes standard commercial cellular data
services. The NOC in turn transmits data to a billing and dispersal center (BDC), which bills the vehicle
owner and disperses funds to the states, counties, and municipalities operating the roads on which the
vehicle has traveled. The NOC also transmit updates to the GIS and per-mile pricing files to the vehicle.

Calculation of Road User Charges

Calculation of road user charges is done entirely in the OBU and data is uploaded from the vehicle in units
of dollars. The vehicle location cannot be determined beyond the general jurisdiction level; no GPS
coordinate data or other information that could reveal the location of the vehicle is uploaded from the

19
vehicle or retained within the OBU. The data are transferred periodically, following a predetermined upload
frequency without any involvement from the vehicle operator. The OBU is designed to be able to hold data
for an extended period of time (several months) and upload on an opportunistic basis to accommodate
vehicles that travel outside of cellular data coverage zones for extended periods.

For a mileage-based road user charging system, it is possible to define a wide range of charge-rate policy
options. Several such options are discussed in detail in (9). The charging policy selected for this study seeks
to establish approximate user cost neutrality with the current motor fuel tax—i.e. a study participant
should experience a total road user charge (federal + state + local) approximately equivalent to the total
amount that that the participant pays in motor fuel tax for the same amount of travel.

To implement this charging policy, 20 vehicle classes were established based upon ranges of EPA-rated
vehicle fuel efficiency (combined city and highway). The vehicle class definitions are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Vehicle Class Designations for the National Evaluation of a Mileage-based Road User Charge.

Class Range of Miles per Gallon Rated Miles per Gallon

01 8.0 to 8.8 8.40
02 8.8 to 9.7 9.25
03 9.7 to 10.7 10.20
04 10.7 to 11.8 11.25
05 11.8 to 13.0 12.40
06 13.0 to 14.4 13.70
07 14.4 to 15.9 15.15
08 15.9 to 17.6 16.75
09 17.6 to 19.5 18.55
10 19.5 to 21.6 20.55
11 21.6 to 23.9 22.75
12 23.9 to 26.4 25.15
13 26.4 to 29.2 27.80
14 29.2 to 32.3 30.75
15 32.3 to 35.7 34.00
16 35.7 to 39.5 37.60
17 39.5 to 43.7 41.60
18 43.7 to 48.3 46.00
19 48.3 to 53.4 50.85
20 53.4 to 59.0 56.20

Road use charge rates are computed based upon current state fuel tax rate data maintained by the
American Petroleum Institute (api.org/statistics/fueltaxes). Road use charge rates are updated monthly, as
needed, and, following any changes, new rate tables are uploaded to OBUs. During the first year of the
study, four rate table updates were uploaded to OBUs to reflect changes in state motor fuel tax rates.

Equipment installation and maintenance procedures

Installation, maintenance, and removal of in-vehicle equipment were performed by professional installers
at contracted facilities in each of the six study regions. These facilities were chosen for location
20
convenience to study participants and for their experience and expertise in aftermarket vehicle electronics
installation.

Installation
Installation appointments were scheduled at the time of initial participant training. Installers received
training on proper installation and testing procedures for the OBU, display unit, and associated antennas
and a technical representative from the OBU supplier visited each site at the beginning of the installation
process to assist installers with any problems and insure that correct procedures were being followed. The
on-board units were installed out-of-view, typically under the dash, center console, or driver’s seat. A small
cellular communications antenna was mounted on the inside base of the windshield and a small GPS
antenna was mounted on the roof of the vehicles. The display unit was mounted either using a special clip
to attach it to a heating/air conditioning vent, or a special adapter plugged into the vehicle’s cigarette
lighter. All wiring was hidden to the extent possible. The process of installing, configuring, and verifying
correct operation of the OBU required approximately 90 minutes per vehicle.

Monitoring and maintenance procedures

Maintenance and repair of on-board equipment was performed by the same shops that carried out initial
equipment installation. The study data collection system, described in Appendix A, monitors potential
trouble events including OBU communication outages, extended GPS outages, and other anomalous
conditions indicative of potential problems with on-board equipment. In addition, participants were
instructed during training to immediately contact the study Call Center if they observed any potential issues
with the on-board equipment such as dangling wires, loose antennas, etc. Following identification of any
potential problem with in-vehicle equipment, the Call Center contacted the participant to schedule a
service appointment at the earliest opportunity. If the participant was unable to go to the service location,
a mobile service call was arranged.

Billing and invoicing procedures

Process
The billing process begins when records of VMT are uploaded to the billing and dispersal center
anonymously and securely. The data transfer uses a one-time encryption key to facilitate secure uploading.

An issue of interest to the study is the trade-off between preserving participant privacy and the ability to
audit road use and charges. To investigate this trade-off, monthly invoices were generated based on the
VMT at two different levels of detail in the first year and three levels in the second. For the invoices with
the maximum privacy protection, the uploaded data included the only the cumulative miles driven between
billing periods and the total dollar amount owed in road user charges.

The second level of invoice detail allowed the participant to audit the road user charges. To do so, the OBU
stored the cumulative miles traveled and amount of road use charges accrued by jurisdiction, which was
used to provide the participant with a detailed record of user charges. This record enabled the vehicle
owner to understand the exact basis for the user charges. Within the course of their participation, each
participant experienced both the privacy- protection and audit modes. Participants were asked to express
their preference for low versus high level of detail invoice format.

In the second year, a third invoice style was tested. The third level of detail provided the monthly totals by
jurisdiction. This allowed the participants to express opinions regarding their trade-off between travel
details and privacy. During the training sessions, each participant was told to evaluate the level of detail
provided on the invoice as the maximum level of detail obtained and recorded by the on-board unit.
21
Invoice formats
Participants received monthly invoices similar to the ones shown in Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 that
included as a minimum the total miles driven and total road user charges accrued.

Figure 4 Invoice generated in the maximum-privacy configuration

22
Figure 5 Invoice generated in the auditability configuration

23
 Figure 6 Invoice generated in the intermediate configuration

System Performance
OBU installation issues
Installation of the on-board equipment was challenging since each vehicle make/model presented unique
issues with respect to OBU placement and wiring, GPS and cellular antenna placement and wiring, and
display unit location/mounting/wiring (first year only). Installation appointments were scheduled to last 90
minutes and, in some cases, it was difficult to complete the process in this time interval. Eighty percent of
the participants reported that they were highly or somewhat satisfied with the installation process while
just fewer than 12% were somewhat or highly dissatisfied. Most dissatisfaction was a result of the
installation process taking longer than expected or participant unhappiness with some aspect of the
condition of their vehicle following installation. As detailed below, a significant number of issues requiring
one or more return visits to the installation facility or other service facility were traced to installation issues.
One vehicle make, the Toyota Prius, exhibited incompatibilities with the OBU that were serious enough to
result in its exclusion from the study.

GPS and data collection performance

Table 4 shows GPS outage rates for each site as well as the overall GPS outage rate for each year of the field
study and for both years combined. These rates are calculated as the percentage of vehicle miles driven
during intervals when no GPS fix could be obtained by the OBU. The overall GPS outage rate for the entire
study period was 7.5%. However, the outage rate varied widely by site, ranging from a high of over 17% for
the Boise site to a low of less than 4% for the San Diego site. The cause of the variation in GPS performance
cannot be determined with certainty but is believed to be related to installation issues, specifically

24
differences in GPS antenna placement practices among installation facilities. There is also evidence of
substandard GPS performance for a relatively small subset of OBUs that substantially impacted the overall
averages. The best-performing 80% of OBUs (in terms of GPS outage rates) had an average outage rate of
approximately 2% and a maximum outage interval averaging about 14 miles while the poorest performing
20% of OBUs had a GPS outage rate of over 32% an average maximum outage interval of nearly 127 miles.
Although OBUs were extensively tested prior to installation, the testing procedures may not have
sufficiently identified GPS sensitivity issues that led to poor in-field performance of some units. The data
strongly suggests that more effective testing of GPS sensitivity prior to installing OBUs could have resulted
in substantially better overall GPS performance.

Table 4 GPS Outage and interpolated versus uninterpolated miles as a percentage of total miles driven

Site GPS outage (%) Interpolated Miles Uninterpolated Miles

(%) (%)
Austin, TX 5.86 5.38 0.48
Baltimore, MD 3.74 3.57 0.17
Boise, ID 17.33 15.79 1.54
Eastern Iowa 7.91 7.52 0.39
Research Triangle, NC 4.67 4.29 0.38
San Diego, CA 3.65 3.56 0.09
Year 1, All Sites 6.96 6.47 0.49

Albuquerque, NM 10.28 9.57 0.74

Billings, MT 4.65 3.95 0.70
Chicago. IL 8.61 7.43 1.18
Miami, FL 8.26 7.72 0.54
Portland, ME 9.11 8.48 0.63
Wichita, KS 6.91 5.98 0.93
Year 2, All Sites 8.04 7.24 0.80

Years 1 & 2, All Sites 7.54 6.90 0.64

Since OBUs utilized data from their connection to the vehicle’s OBD-II port to compute mileage, the OBU
could, in most cases, continue to calculate miles driven during GPS outage intervals. The OBU was designed
to begin interpolation of vehicle location following any GPS outage that persisted for an interval of at least
one mile. If a GPS update was obtained before the vehicle had traveled 100 miles from beginning of the
outage interval, mileage travelled during the outage was allocated to jurisdictions using a simple straight-
line interpolation between the GPS coordinates that bounded the outage interval. If a GPS outage persisted
for more than 100 miles, no interpolation was performed and the mileage was reported as
“uninterpolated”. These miles could not be assigned to a charging jurisdiction for computation of
state/local mileage-based charges. As shown in Table 4, over the entire study period 0.64% of total miles
driven were reported as uninterpolated. For the best performing 80% of OBU’s (in terms of GPS outage
rates) the uninterpolated mileage rate was 0.03%.

Equipment performance and maintenance

As shown in Figure 7, over the course of the field study 26% of participants experienced at least one
problem with either the performance of the OBU or the performance/physical condition of their vehicle

25
requiring one or more visits to the installation facility or another service facility. This number excludes
service visits related to the display unit, which was utilized only in the first year of the study and was not
integral to the functionality of the mileage-based charging system being evaluated. Of those participants
experiencing at least one problem, 10% (2% of all participants) experienced more than one issue.

Total
Participants
w/ TT
24%

Participants
w/ no TT
76%

Figure 7 Participant trouble tickets

Each problem instance resulted in creation of a unique “Trouble Ticket” that was used to track the problem
through to its ultimate resolution. A total of 712 Trouble Tickets were generated for problems related to
OBU performance and/or vehicle performance/condition issues. Figure 8 provides a breakdown of Trouble
Tickets according to the type of problem: OBU/antenna problems, vehicle performance/condition
problems, and other miscellaneous problems. Seventy-nine percent of all Trouble Tickets were for
problems affecting performance of the OBU and its associated antennas, while 24% were for problems
affecting the performance or appearance of the participant’s vehicle.

26
 Other
Problems
3%

Vehicle
Problems
18%

OBC/
Antenna
Problems
79%

Figure 8 Classification of trouble tickets by type of problem

Figure 9 below further breaks down OBU/antenna problems as installation-related or hardware-related.

The former are issues that can be traced back to faulty installation of the on-board equipment. Examples of
problems in this category include faulty OBU wiring, loose connectors, or failure to properly secure the OBU
to the vehicle. Twenty-seven percent of all OBU/antenna issues fell in this category. Figure 10 provides a
more detailed classification of the cause of installation-related OBU problems, showing that the majority of
such problems were due to wiring of the OBU for connection to the vehicle electrical system and OBD-II.
The remaining 73% of OBU/antenna issues were caused by failure of OBU equipment subsequent to
installation. Such problems affected approximately 15% of all installed units. Figure 11 provides a further
breakdown of OBU failures. The figure shows that nearly three-quarters of such problems were due to a
hardware failure of the OBU.

27
 Install
Related
27%

Hardware
Related
73%

Figure 9 Classification of OBU-related trouble tickets as install-related versus equipment failure

Emission/
Diagnostic
19% N/A
7%

Fuse Wiring
12% 62%

Figure 10 Sources of installation-related problems

28
 Weak Signal
6%
Configuration N/A
11% 10%

Bad Unit
73%

Figure 11 Sources of hardware related problems

Figure 12, below, classifies vehicle-related problems as either due to an installation-related issue—e.g.
loose or dislodged fuse, short circuit of vehicle electrical system, cosmetic damage to vehicle—or due to an
incompatibility between the OBU and either some OEM vehicle system or an aftermarket device installed
on the vehicle—e.g. remote starter, alarm, etc. Three-quarters of such issues were determined to be
install-related. Figure 13 shows the breakdown of vehicle-related installation problems as functional—i.e.
problems affecting vehicle operation/performance—versus physical—i.e. cosmetic or mechanical damage
to the vehicle, including nicks and scratches, cracked or broken panels, damaged trim, etc. Slightly less than
two-thirds of installation-related vehicle problems involved physical damage to the vehicle. There were 60
trouble tickets in this category, affecting approximately 2% of all participants. Figure 14 further breaks
down vehicle incompatibility problems, showing that over 80% of such problems, affecting a total of 27
participant vehicles (1% of all participants), and involved interference with the vehicle itself while a small
percentage involved interference with aftermarket devices.

Incompat-
ibility
25%

Install
Related
75%

Figure 12 Classification of vehicle problems

29
 Functional
39%

Physical
61%

Figure 13 Classification of installation problems affecting participant’s vehicle

N/A
6%
After-
Market
12%

OEM
82%

Figure 14 Classification of vehicle incompatibility problems

Across all categories there were 250 installation-related problems affecting 9% of participant vehicles, 410
cases of equipment/hardware failure affecting approximately 15% of participants, and 33 instances of
vehicle/OBU incompatibility affecting slightly over 1% of participant vehicles.

VMT Revenue
Simulated VMT Revenue
The summary of the total vehicle miles traveled, total mileage charges and monthly averages by vehicle
class are presented in Table 5. The average monthly invoice total is $22.90 and ranges from below $1.00 to
$154.00 for the participants.

30
 Table 5 Mileage and Road User Fees by Vehicle Class

Vehicle Total Total Miles % of Federal State Combined % of

Class Vehicles Total VMT Fee $ VMT Fee $ Fee Total
1 1 12,816 0.06 141 152 293 0.06
2 1 5,360 0.02 107 171 278 0.06
4 3 19,778 0.09 323 504 827 0.16
5 10 73,349 0.34 1,067 1,425 2,492 0.50
6 142 1,232,402 5.71 16,325 23,450 39,775 7.92
7 268 2,148,208 9.96 25,713 38,316 64,029 12.74
8 263 2,241,912 10.40 24,431 36,729 61,160 12.17
9 418 3,517,006 16.31 34,400 52,702 87,102 17.34
10 593 4,742,855 21.99 42,413 63,889 106,303 21.16
11 376 3,277,435 15.20 26,259 41,724 67,984 13.53
12 260 2,040,546 9.46 14,674 23,149 37,823 7.53
13 119 1,002,491 4.65 6,533 9,905 16,439 3.27
14 111 914,025 4.24 5,342 8,593 13,935 2.77
15 13 117,609 0.55 616 965 1,582 0.31
16 1 11,527 0.05 57 92 148 0.03
17 13 126,361 0.59 544 826 1,370 0.27
18 12 75,946 0.35 304 490 794 0.16
19 1 6,837 0.03 25 40 65 0.01
Totals 21,566,460 199,274 303,123 502,397

The participants accumulated 21,566,460 vehicle miles of travel (VMT) over an interval from December
2008 through the end of July 2010 with a mean of 8,435 miles per vehicle (totals and averages were
obtained from the invoices N=2,476). Over that period of time, the participants visited all of the 48
contiguous states. Figure 15 illustrates the total VMT with the states driven by the study participants. The
interstate travel the participants completed allows for the testing of the mileage-fee system nationwide.
The national breadth of this field test is in contrast to the single state study completed by the Oregon
Department of Transportation (10).

31
 Figure 15 Cumulative VMT with the states driven in by study participants December 2008 through July 2010

Comparison of VMT revenue versus gas tax revenue

As described earlier, the road use charging policy employed in this study is aimed at providing revenue
neutrality with the current motor fuel tax, both in terms of total revenue generation and the amount paid
by an individual driver. It is not possible to precisely assess the degree to which the chosen mileage rate
structure achieves this goal. To do so would require a complete and accurate record of the amount and
location of fuel purchases by all participants throughout the study, in order to compute the amount of fuel
tax paid. However, it is possible to construct a reasonable estimate of the comparative revenue generated
by the mileage charge versus the fuel tax.

During the first year of field operations, participant vehicles were outfitted with a simple display and data
entry unit (described in more detail in Appendix A) and participants were instructed to use this device to
record the number of gallons purchased at each refueling event. Due to the manual nature of this process,
few participants entered a reliable history of fuel purchase over the duration of the study. A subset of the
vehicle types included in the study were able to electronically provide refueling information via their OBD-II
port. Where available, this data provided a more compete history of fuel purchase. However, less than
one-third of participant vehicles were able to provide the electronic refueling data. Furthermore, the
accuracy of OBD-II supplied refueling data was unknown.

Using the available data described above, a two-step process was used to construct an estimate of the
simulated revenue generated versus the mileage charge versus the amount of fuel tax paid by participants.
The first step in this process used available matching sets of refueling event data from display entry and
OBD-II reporting to construct a linear regression model of OBD-II refuel data (based upon the assumption
that display entered refueling data, where available is generally accurate). The second step was to use the
OBD-II refueling data from the subset of participant vehicles that provided a reliable data stream to
32
compute fuel tax totals for those vehicles. The regression model from step one was used to correct for
possible OBD-II biases. Comparison of estimated fuel tax payments versus accrued mileage charges for this
subset of vehicles indicates that the mileage charge accrued approximately 6% less total revenue than the
fuel tax. The most likely cause of this discrepancy is rarity of vehicles to perform on road at their EPA fuel
efficiency ratings, which were used to establish the mileage-based charge rates.

The comparative data set is not robust enough to permit a reliable analysis of whether mileage-based
charging had any substantive impact on the apportionment of revenues at the state level due to
assessment of charges based upon jurisdiction of travel rather than jurisdiction of fuel purchase.

Assessment of Participant Attitudes

Initial opinion on the use of a mileage-based charge
An attitudinal baseline was established by the participants prior to the commencement of the training
sessions. One of the baseline questions asked, “How do you feel about the idea of replacing the gas tax with
a mileage-based road user fee?” The summary of their responses is presented in Figure 16. Forty-two
percent of the participants had a positive view on system. Nearly the same percentage, 39% of the
participants expressed neutral views. Nineteen percent responded with a negative view.

Very negative,
137, 5%

Very positive,
390, 16% Somewhat
negative, 352,
14%

Somewhat
positive, 638,
26%

Neutral, 959,
39%

Figure 16 Initial Attitude Towards a Mileage-based Fee

33
Final opinion on the use of a mileage charge
The same question, “How do you feel about the idea of replacing the gas tax with a mileage-based road
user fee?” was asked in the exit questionnaire. The results are shown in Figure 17. A comparison of the
initial to final stated attitudes shows substantial changes in all categories. Over the course of the 10
months, there were shifts in attitudes, participants expressing very positive and somewhat positive
attitudes increased by 14 and 15 percent, respectively from the baseline. There was a decrease in the
percentage of participants expressing neutral and somewhat negative attitudes by 27 and 4 percent,
respectively. Finally, there was a slight increase of participants expressing very negative attitude toward the
mileage-based fee system increased from 5 to 7 percent. Overall, 71% of the participants left the study with
a positive attitude towards a mileage-based fee.

Very
negative,
176, 7%
Somewhat
negative, 244,
Very positive, 10%
730, 30%

Neutral, 305,
12%

Somewhat
positive, 1021,
41%

Figure 17 Final Attitude towards a Mileage-based Fee

Changing of Overall Opinion of a Mileage-base Charging System

The dynamics of who altered their opinion are not visible when comparing Figure 16 to Figure 17. What is
hidden is that many participants expressed changing opinions about the mileage-based fee concept
between the beginning of their period of enrollment in the study and the end of their participation.. For
example, 190 participants switched to very positive from less favorable opinions: of the 390 participants
who began with a very positive opinion, 200 began and ended very positive, 129 began very positive
switched to somewhat positive, 31 switched to neutral and 20 and 10 participants switched to somewhat
negative and very negative, respectively. Of the original 137 participants expressing a very negative attitude
towards the concept 13 participants switched to very positive, 38 somewhat positive, 21 neutral and 42
remained very negative. Figure 18 shows the dynamics of those switching attitudes towards the concept of
a mileage-based charging system.

34
 Figure 18 Dynamics of Switching Overall Opinion on a Mileage-based Charging System

Participant Characteristics relative to the Overall Opinion of a Mileage-based Charging System

An employed male with self-expressed moderate political views was used as a base to help identify strong
associations between participant characteristics and expressed attitude. A multinomial logistic regression
was run using composite attitudinal scale that measured the overall opinion of a mileage-based charging
system as the dependent variable and age, sex, employment, self-expressed political view, education,
income, student status, study site location, total number of problems related to the study, total number of
visits for a service appointment, total number of miles traveled, total state and federal fees charged, and
fifteen attitudinal factors (listed in Table 6). The attitudinal factors were derived from the participants’
responses to a battery of opinion questions. An abbreviated table of results is shown in Table 7 with
somewhat positive as the reference attitude.

35
 Table 6 Attitudinal Factors

Attitudinal Factors Higher the score

Billing frequency + longer duration
Confidence in banks and corporations + more positive
Confidence in general science + more positive
Confidence in the system being tested + confident
Confidence in science and medicine + more positive
Confidence in the military and defense spending + more positive
Driving intensity + more intense
Environmentally friendly transport + more positive
Equipment performance + more positive
Future road conditions + willing to pay more
Invoice detail + more desirable
Level of general policy knowledge + knowledgeable
Overall opinion of a mileage-based charging system + favorable
Political attitude towards spending + too much
Privacy concerns + less protection desired
Tying mileage charge to fuel efficiency + more positive

Table 7 Attitudes towards the Mileage-based Road User Fee System

Attitude Characteristic Change in odds

ratio
Negative Age * 1.016
Cumulative Milesx1000 * 1.101
Confidence in the system being tested (+ confident) ** .272
Level of general policy knowledge (+ knowledgeable) ** 2.084
Tie mileage charge to fuel efficiency (+ more positive) ** .484
Privacy concerns (+ less privacy protection) ** .264
Equipment performance (+ more positive) * .718
Invoice detail (+ more desirable) * .768
Future road conditions (+ willing to pay more) ** .405
Female * 1.567
High School Degree * .443
Self-identified as conservative * .568
Neutral Confidence in the system being tested (+ confident) ** .455
Billing frequency (+ longer duration) * 1.135
Environmentally friendly transport (+ more positive) ** .773
Privacy concerns (+ less privacy protection) ** .510
Invoice detail (+ more desirable) * .869
Future road conditions (+ willing to pay more) ** .598
[High School Degree ** .678
Wichita * .610

36
 Very Positive Confidence in the system being tested (+ confident) ** 2.936
Tie mileage charge to fuel efficiency (+ more positive) * .629
Privacy concerns (+ less privacy protection) ** 2.015
Equipment performance (+ more positive) * 1.546
Female ** .535
Less than High School * 2.564

*p < 0.1
**p < 0.05
A change in odds ratio > 1.00 means there is an increased likelihood of belonging to the listed
attitude than being in the Positive attitude group.
A change in odds ratio < 1.00 means there is an increased likelihood of belonging to the Positive
attitude group than being in the listed attitude.

Participants with somewhat positive overall opinions regarding a mileage-based charging system are the
reference group. Because of the small number of participants with very negative opinions, the somewhat
and very negative groups were merged into one and labeled negative. Base on the analysis, age is a
significant factor in distinguishing a person with a negative overall opinion of a mileage-based charging
system. It indicates that as age increases the likelihood that a person will be negative increases over being
somewhat positive. The same holds as a person drives more, it is more likely they have a negative opinion
of a mileage-based charging system. Sex is significant distinguishing characteristic. A female is more likely to
have a negative rather than a somewhat positive opinion. Holding a high school degree increases the
likelihood a person has a positive opinion. However, employment and student status are not significant
factors. As far as self-expressed political views, it is more likely a person holds a negative opinion if the
person self-identifies as a conservative. In addition to the demographic characteristics, several attitudinal
factors help distinguish participants. As a person’s level of confidence in the system being tested, interest in
the ability to tie the mileage charge to fuel efficiency, rating of equipment performance, worry about future
road conditions, desire for detailed travel data, lower privacy concerns, and desire more environmentally
friendly transportation, increase so does the likelihood that person will be more positive towards a mileage-
based charging system.

Privacy versus Auditability

It was thought that acceptability of the mileage-based charging system being tested would depend
substantially on perceptions regarding privacy. To help assess the privacy issue, two extremes were tested
in the first year field test, a maximum-privacy configuration and a user auditable configuration (Figure 4 is
an example of an invoice produced in the maximum-privacy configuration; Figure 5 shows an invoice under
the auditability configuration). In the second year a third option was added, which provided details at a
level between the two extremes (Figure 6 shows the intermediate detail invoice). In the maximum-privacy
configuration, the only data that can be tied to a particular vehicle is a single dollar amount for total user
charges and total miles traveled (11). When data are transferred from the vehicle it would be only the sum
of user charges for each jurisdiction that was calculated by the OBU; all that is required is the amount to be
apportioned to each of the jurisdictions. In every case, the total amount for all jurisdictions added together
equals the single value uploaded in the initial contact made by the vehicle. This approach maximizes user
privacy and ensures a fair distribution of revenue.

There remains an issue of auditability. The OBU can be configured to provide the user with a detailed
record of charges. While this record would enable the vehicle’s owner to understand the exact basis for the
user charges in billing statements, it is possible that the detailed record could be perceived as infringing on

37
the sense of personal privacy. The trade-off between privacy protection and auditability is one of the key
issues addressed in this study.

Opinions on invoice level of details (privacy versus auditability)

During the length of participation, each person was switched three between the maximum-privacy and
auditability configuration. In the second year, the third invoice style was introduced. Because of the level of
detail switched for the participants during the course of the field-testing, the study divided the participants
into mutually exclusive groups. In the first year, two groups were created with one group first receiving the
full detail invoice and the other the invoice with no detail. In the second year, three groups were defined
and participants randomly assigned to begin with one of the three invoice styles. The random assignment
into the groups was done to control for anchoring bias created by the first revealed style.

The participants were asked after each switch “What Level of Detail is Preferred?” This question is an
important aspect of the study for the comparison of the participant’s views on privacy and the general
acceptance of the road user charge. The results are presented by year due to the change in the number of
invoice styles were different between years.

The percentage of response for the no detail and full detail invoices in the first year are summarized in
Figure 19 and Figure 20. The responses reveal that after being exposed to both configurations, more
participants viewed the no-detail invoice as becoming less desirable. There were also more participants
expressing dissatisfaction with the full-detail invoice, though not as much as the no-detail. By the final
questionnaire when asked to choose between the full and no detailed invoice, 71% of the participants
selected the full-detail invoice.

For participants in the second year, Figure 21, Figure 22 and Figure 23 show how their opinions differed
after examining the invoices. In Figure 21, row one contains the results when a participant first invoice style
was the maximum privacy invoice, whereas the second row holds the responses from the participants when
they evaluated the invoice after they evaluated either the maximum auditability or intermediate invoice.
From the figure, 9% more participants thought the maximum privacy invoice was undesirable with little
change in those desiring this level of detail. Seventy-six percent of the participants expressed a desirable
opinion regarding the maximum auditability invoice (Figure 22). A similar percentage of participants
expressed that the intermediate level of detail was desirable as they did for the maximum auditability
invoice (Figure 23). The participants evaluated the maximum auditability and the intermediate level
similarly, thereby indicating that it is not critical to provide highly detailed (daily vehicle miles traveled by
jurisdiction) for the acceptance of the system. It appears that the intermediate level is sufficient for
auditing a mileage-based charging system from the consumers’ perspective.

38
 Figure 19 Evaluation of Maximum Privacy Invoice, Year 1

Figure 20 Evaluation of Maximum Auditability Invoice, Year 1

39
 Maximum Privacy, Year 2
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Somewhat Somewhat Highly
Highly desirable Neutral
desirable undesirable undesirable
First 5% 13% 32% 31% 19%
Subsequent 6% 13% 22% 33% 26%
Figure 21 Evaluation of Maximum Privacy Invoice, Year 2

Maximum Auditability, Year 2

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Somewhat Somewhat Highly
Highly desirable Neutral
desirable undesirable undesirable
First 33% 40% 21% 5% 1%
Subsequent 40% 36% 18% 4% 1%
Figure 22 Evaluation of Maximum Auditability Invoice, Year 2

40
 Intermediate, Year 2
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Somewhat Somewhat Highly
Highly desirable Neutral
desirable undesirable undesirable
First 30% 39% 20% 10% 0%
Subsequent 36% 36% 17% 8% 3%
Figure 23 Evaluation of the Intermediate Invoice, Year 2

The comparison between years is limited to the maximum privacy versus the maximum auditability invoice.
When comparing the first and second year, the trend is for the second year participant desiring the
maximum auditability invoice over the privacy (desirability increased by 6% and undesirability decreased by
8%). However, more of the second year participants desire the maximum privacy invoice (desirability
increased by 4% and undesirability decrease by 8%). This is not a large change, but is indicative of a trend
towards a higher desire for privacy protection. This trend is supported when the trade-off between privacy
and auditability was accessed, as described below.

Initial opinion on the direct trade-off between privacy and auditability

An attitudinal baseline was established by asking, “With road-user charge statements, a detailed
breakdown of charges is more important than ensuring the highest level of privacy protection.” The
summary of their responses is presented in Figure 24. Fifty-six percent of the participants agreed that it is
more important to provide detail travel data over privacy. Eighteen percent indicated that they prefer
maximum privacy and the remaining 26% expressed a neutral opinion.

41
 Strongly
disagree, 165,
7%

Somewhat
Strongly agree,
disagree, 283,
524, 21%
11%

Neutral, 631,
26%
Somewhat
agree, 873,
35%

Figure 24 Initial Opinion: A detailed breakdown is more important than the highest level of privacy protection

Final opinion on the direct trade-off between privacy and auditability

The same question, “With road-user charge statements, a detailed breakdown of charges is more important
than ensuring the highest level of privacy protection” was asked in the exit questionnaire. The results are
shown in Figure 25. A comparison of the initial to final stated attitudes shows an increase in those desiring
more privacy over more detailed travel data. The percentage increased by 16 (34% from 18%). Over the
course of the 10 months, other shifts in attitudes occurred, participants strongly or somewhat agreeing to
more travel details decreased to 53%, only a 3% change from the baseline. The second largest shift was
from those expressing a neutral opinion dropping by 13%.

42
 Strongly disagree,
Strongly agree, 371, 15%
438, 18%

Somewhat
disagree, 476, 19%
Somewhat agree,
863, 35%

Neutral, 328, 13%

Figure 25 Final Opinion: A detailed breakdown is more important than the highest level of privacy protection

Changing of Attitudes towards privacy and auditability

Similar to the dynamic overall opinion of a mileage-based charging system, many participants expressed
changing opinions over time as they became exposed to the different invoice styles and the system in
general. For example, 199 participants switched to strongly agreeing to a high level of detailed travel data
to a neutral or disagreeable opinion. Of the original 165 participants strongly disagreeing to a high level of
travel detail 19 participants switched to very positive of high detail, 38 somewhat positive, 11 neutral, 34
who somewhat disagreed to high level of travel details and 63 remained very strongly against high level of
details. Figure 26 shows the dynamics of those switching between privacy concerns and desire for a highly
detailed travel data.

43
 Figure 26 Dynamics of Switching between Privacy and Auditability

Participant Characteristics relative to Privacy

A multinomial logistic regression was run using composite attitudinal scale that measured the desire for
privacy (protect one’s travel behavior) as the dependent variable and age, sex, employment, political view,
education, income, student status, study site location, total number of problems related to the study, total
number of visits for a service appointment, total number of miles traveled, total state and federal fees
charged, and fifteen attitudinal factors (listed in Table 6). An abbreviated table of results is shown in Table 8
with neutral as the reference attitude.

44
 Table 8 Attitudes towards Privacy

Attitude Characteristics Change

in odds
ratio
Most Political attitude towards spending (+ too much) * 1.752
Privacy Level of general policy knowledge (+ knowledgeable) ** 1.874
Sensitive Billing frequency (+ longer duration) * 1.342
Environmentally friendly transport (+ more positive) * .688
Overall opinion of a mileage-based charging system (+ favorable) ** .251
Chicago * .214
East Iowa * .259
Wichita * .373
Non-student * 2.850
Privacy Confidence in the military and defense spending * .808
Sensitive Confidence in banks and corporations ** .769
Overall opinion of a mileage-based charging system (+ favorable) ** .482
Privacy Age ** 1.018
Insensitive Political attitude towards spending (+ too much) ** 1.824
Confidence in the system being tested (+ confident) ** 1.512
Level of general policy knowledge (+ knowledgeable) ** 1.577
Billing frequency (+ longer duration) ** .707

*p < 0.1
**p < 0.05
A change in odds ratio > 1.00 means there is an increased likelihood of belonging to the listed
attitude than being in the neutral attitude group.
A change in odds ratio < 1.00 means there is an increased likelihood of belonging to the neutral
attitude group than being in the listed attitude.

As the age of the participant increases, it is more likely that the person will be privacy insensitive, as
defined as someone who has low concern for privacy of their driving behavior. In addition, people with a
higher level of confidence in the system being tested and a higher level of general knowledge regarding
public policy tend to be more likely in the privacy insensitive group compared to being neutral. A person
who is more confident in the military and defense spending, more confidence in banks and corporations,
and those with a more favorable overall opinion of a mileage-based charging system will tend to be within
the neutral group rather than the privacy sensitive group. If a person is not a student, desires long periods
between billing cycles (yearly), believes the government is spending too much, and has a higher level of
general knowledge of policy, that person is more likely to be in the most privacy sensitive group compared
to being neutral. Lastly, if the person seeks more environmentally friendly transportation, has a more
favorable overall opinion of a mileage-based charging system, and is from the Chicago, Eastern Iowa or
Wichita study site is more likely to be neutral than in the most privacy sensitive group.

Privacy versus Overall Opinion of a Mileage-based Charging System

The trend that appears from the above analysis is a large majority favor a mileage-based charging system
(70% favorable), although privacy concerns are present. The high favorable opinion is despite 60% of the
45
participants believe that once everyone has an OBU, the government will want to use the system to keep
track of people’s movements. Even with these expressed concerns, 78% of the participants believe mileage-
based charging is fair and 77% think it is more (?) fair than general tolling. The accuracy of the tested
mileage-based charging system was evaluated quite positively with 83% stating they believe in the integrity
of the reported data and over 75% stating they believe the technology and invoicing was accurate providing
them confidence in the system. Overall, 63% believe that a transition to a mileage system will be smooth.

The analysis of the participant’s characteristics and attitudinal profiles also indicate that privacy is a concern
and helps distinguish between those who are a more likely to be favorable from those who are not.
However, there are more influential factors than privacy, such as the age, gender, total miles driven, level
of general policy knowledge, and desire for longer billing cycles. The factors of age, total miles driven and
level of general policy knowledge are the top three indicators of participants who were very negative
towards a mileage-based charging system.

Overall, the finding suggests that the participants were influenced more by their experience with a working
system than by their stated privacy concerns.

46
Conclusions
This section presents the major conclusions reached by the Study Team based upon the analyses presented
in this report.

Conclusion 1: Public perception of mileage-based charging is positively

impacted by experience and exposure
The general public requires more than a verbal description of a mileage-based charging system and the
negative consequences of reduced transportation funding in order to accept a change from the current fuel
tax system. Participants entered this study with little information regarding the mileage-based charging
concept, other than a brief description found on the study’s website or provided to candidates who
telephoned the study call center, or information provided by general news sources. At time of enrollment,
those who qualified based on demographic characteristics, geographical location, and vehicle type were
asked their opinion regarding the concept of a mileage charge. Forty-two percent of the participants stated
they were favorable toward the mileage-based charging concept with almost an equal number stating they
were neutral and the remaining 17% stating a negative opinion. After each of the participants lived with the
operational mileage-based charging system for 10 months, a strong shift from a neutral to a positive
attitude occurred. At the end of the study, the 70% of the participants had positive attitudes.

This result suggests that the public needs more exposure to mileage-based charging than simple
descriptions and justifications of the concept in order to become comfortable with the paradigm. It may be
necessary for the public to experience (live with) a mileage-based charging system prior to its full
acceptance.

Conclusion 2: Privacy concerns are a significant issue but are not an

insurmountable barrier to public acceptance of mileage-based charging
Personal privacy concerns certainly need to be addressed prior to implementing a mileage-based charging
system. Participants expressed privacy concerns as they enrolled into the study. Upon completion of their
participation, 34% of the participants desired protection of their privacy by reducing the amount of travel
detail collected and provided on invoices and 60% were concerned that government will use collected road
usage information to track their travel. Even with these expressed concerns, a large majority (over 70%)
believes a mileage-based system is a fair replacement of the fuel tax and trusted the system being tested as
fair and reliable.

Although privacy concerns remain as issues for the implementation of a mileage-based charge system, the
concerns are not insurmountable. Personal privacy issues were raised as barriers to acceptance when the
respondents did not have experience or deep knowledge of a mileage charge. Additionally, even after
exposure to a mileage-based charging system, concerns for personal privacy were not eliminated. In some
aspects their concerns strengthened. However, privacy concerns did not dramatically decrease the
acceptance of an accurate and fair system. The participants saw the tested system as reliable, accurate, and
fair with the possibility to limit the amount of data required to operate a mileage-based charge system,
which may have suppressed their resistance based on fears of “big brother” tracking their travel.

47
Conclusion 3: The ability to audit the accuracy of charges outweighs privacy
concerns
It is not necessary to provide a daily log of travel to assure acceptance a mileage-based charging system.
The participants were asked to select the invoice style most preferred with varying levels of travel detail.
The invoices reflected the minimum and maximum amount of data required for a functioning mileage
charge system. The minimum data (maximum privacy protection) used the total miles traveled and total
amount owed whereas, the maximum data (minimum privacy) provided the maximum ability to audit the
system. First year participants experienced on the two extremes and overwhelmingly selected the full detail
invoice over the maximum privacy protection. In the second year, a third level of detail was provided that
fell between the maximum privacy and maximum auditability invoices. The second year participants least
preferred the maximum privacy protection option and had no strong preference between the maximum
auditability and the intermediate level of detail options. In the end, two-thirds of all the participants
favored the invoicing option offering the maximum amount of detail.

Providing the means for people to audit the system is important for the acceptance of a mileage-based
charging system. However, the level of detail can be below that of a daily log of travel and certainly below
individual trip data.

Conclusion 4: Mileage-based Road-user Charging is technically feasible using

currently mature technologies
The prototype mileage-based road user charging system employed in this study was able to reliably
measure and report over 22 million miles of travel by study participants and to reliably assign 99.4% of
accrued mileage to appropriate state and local charging jurisdictions. It should be noted that the OBC used
in this study was designed and manufactured in the 2005-06 timeframe. Newer generation GPS modules
would likely eliminate most of the short-term GPS outages that prevented assignment of a small fraction of
mileage to charging jurisdictions. Although the study sites included urban, mountainous, and rural areas, no
significant issues were observed with “urban canyon” effects, lack of cellular data coverage, or any other
environmental factors. No significant problems were encountered with the use of commercial cellular data
services to upload charge data to the simulated billing center and no data was lost due to communication
failures or outages. Based upon this experience, it appears that a road-user charging system employing
GPS, a connection to the vehicle’s diagnostic bus, and cellular communications for data upload, can achieve
sufficient reliability and accuracy to serve as the basis for a production road user charging system.

Conclusion 5: Installation of Road user charging equipment into existing

vehicles may pose a daunting challenge
Installing a road-user charge system into an existing vehicle, requiring connection to the vehicle’s electrical
system and on-board diagnostic bus, can be a complex process. For this study, installations, performed by
trained, professional installers, required an average of 90 minutes to complete, with some requiring
considerably longer. Following installation, approximately one-quarter of all participants experienced some
form of problem requiring a service visit to the installation shop or other service facility. Over one-third of
these were attributed to installation-related issues. Another 33 participants (1.3% of all participants)
encountered some form of vehicle incompatibility issue. Any future large-scale implementation of mileage-
based charging that contemplates installation of on-board equipment into exiting vehicles will need to very
carefully consider the costs, complexities, and robustness of such installations. An alternative concept of
phasing in the implementation of mileage-based charging via technology integrated into new vehicles at
the time of manufacture would provide one way to avoid the challenges of retrofitting.

48
Conclusion 6: The cost of incorporating mileage-based charging technology into
newly manufactured vehicles would be low
While the specially designed units used in this study would be prohibitively expensive to use in a large scale
deployment of mileage-based charging, it should be noted that the components used in the prototype
OBU-GPS module, processor, solid state memory, and cellular transceiver —are identical to those found in
many modern cell-phones and other low-cost consumer devices. All of these components are currently
manufactured on the scale of hundreds of millions of units per year or higher. Therefore it is likely that such
the necessary OBU equipment for a large-scale deployment of mileage-based charging could be produced
very inexpensively, particularly after leveraging the economies-of-scale available for such a high-volume
endeavor. In many cases the required components would already be present in the vehicle for other
purposes such as navigation and on-line vehicle information systems, and could easily be adapted to also
provide the necessary mileage-based charging functionality.

Recommendations for Further Study

Although this study has conducted the most extensive field test to date regarding the feasibility and public
acceptance of mileage-based road user charging, the scope and scale of the study is too limited to fully
evaluate all of the important issues surrounding the mileage-based charging concept. Below we list several
recommendations for further study.

Recommendation 1: Further investigate “back office” costs and enforcement

mechanisms/costs for mileage-based charging
Due to the limited size of this study and other constraints, it was not possible to reliably approximate the
costs, and overheads of an actual large-scale implementation of mileage-based charging or the cost-
effectiveness of mechanisms for detecting evasion and enforcing payment. The overhead costs of collecting
and disseminating mileage charges will be critical to the successful implementation of an operational
mileage-based charging system, especially given the low operational overhead of the current motor fuel
tax. Assuming charge rates similar to current motor fuel tax rates a typical user would pay mileage-charges
on the order of $20 per month (federal + state). In order to achieve a back-office overhead of 2% (still
much higher than that of the motor fuel tax) the total administrative cost of processing a monthly charge
could not exceed about 40 cents. Whether or not it is possible to create an administrative framework for
mileage-based charging that can operate at this level of efficiency remains an open question.

These issues can most effectively be addressed by a much larger study that collects and apportions real
user-charges on a scale large enough to accurately gauge administrative and enforcement costs.

Recommendation 2: Further study data communication costs and alternatives

for mileage-based charging
This study used commercial cellular data services for uploading road user charge data from participant
vehicles to the billing center and downloading updates to vehicle OBUs. At regular, prevailing rates, the
cost of cellular data services would be prohibitively high for an actual implementation of mileage-based
charging. Therefore, successful implementation of a large-scale mileage-based charging system would
require either negotiation of a greatly reduced service rate from one or more commercial providers or
establishment of an alternative, lower cost mechanism for data communication between the vehicle and
the back office. While other data communication mechanisms have been proposed, such as providing

49
designated wireless network access points for data upload/download via the internet, the infrastructure
costs of such alternatives are not fully known. The cost and robustness of data communications will be a
key issue in any large-scale implementation of mileage-based charging.

Recommendation 3: Further study how providing the vehicle owner limited

choice on the operation of a mileage-based charging system affects acceptance
The expressed participant opinions regarding the acceptance of the mileage-based charging system were
influenced by the amount of information provided on their monthly invoices. In this study, the amount and
type of travel data was determined by the study team without the active involvement of the participants. In
a future study, the provision of a limited amount of user choice should be explored. The choices should
involve the amount and type of travel data, as well as opting into other related travel services from second-
parties. However, providing too many choices or integrating other taxing schemes should be avoided to
prevent the confounded measurement of the acceptance of a mileage-based charging system as a
replacement for the fuel tax.

50
References
(1) DaimlerChrysler. 2004. DaimlerChrysler Delivers the First Fuel Cell Cars to Customers in Berlin. Available
at http://www.germancarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2040621.002/mercedes/1.html

(2) Koenig, Bill. 2005. Ford expands lineup of gas-electric hybrid vehicles. Bloomberg.com News and
Commentary: Top Worldwide. Available at
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aLuh3Hf.Gfuo&refer=home

(3) Tierney, Christine. 2004. Honda Sets Lofty Hybrid Sales Target. Detroit News, October 8.

(4) Porretto, John. 2004. Toyota says sales of hybrid vehicles growing fast. The State.com. August 5.
Available at
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/business/9322934.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.
jsp

(5) ConsumerAffairs.com. 2006. Hybrid Sales Expected to Grow 268 Percent by 2012. Available at
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/01/hybrid_sales.html

(6) National Surface Transportation Financing Commission (NSTFC). 2009. Paying Our Way--A New
Framework for Transportation Finance. March. Available at
http://FinanceCommission.dot.gov/Documents/NSTIF_Commission_Final_Report_Mar09FNL.pdf

(7) Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2006. The Fuel Tax and Alternatives for Transportation Funding.
Special Report 285. Washington, DC: National Research Council, Transportation Research Board.

(8) U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. 2005-2007 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates: United States Fact
Sheets. Available at
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&
_county=usa&_cityTown=usa&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010

(9) Forkenbrock, David J., Policy Options for Varying Mileage-based Road User Charges, National Evaluation
of a Mileage-based Road User Charge, Technical Report 4, Public Policy Center, The University of Iowa,
October, 2007.

(10) Whitty, James M. 2007. Oregon’s Mileage Fee Concept and Road User Fee Pilot Program: Final Report.
Oregon Department of Transportation. Available at
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/RUFPP/docs/RUFPP_finalreport.pdf

(11) Forkenbrock, David J. 2005. Implementing a Mileage-Based Road User Charge. Journal of Public Works
Management and Policy, Vol. 10, No. 2 (October 2005), pp. 87–100.

(12) Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) Code of Federal Regulations, Public Welfare, Part 46:
Protection of Human Subjects, available at:
www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm#46.103

(13) U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2007 American Community Survey, 3 Year Estimates: United States Fact
Sheets.

51
(14) Davis, James Allen and Smith, Tom W., General Social Surveys, 1972-2008 (machine readable data file),
National Opinion Research Center [producer]; The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University
of Connecticut [distributor], 2009.

(15) National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2008, National Science Foundation,
Arlington, VA, 2010

52
National Evaluation of a Mileage-Based
Road User Charge

Final Report—Appendices

Submitted by
Public Policy Center
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242

Submitted to
Office of Transportation Policy Studies
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
Washington, DC
December 31, 2010
 Appendices

Contents
APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
SYSTEM DESIGN .............................................................................................................................................................5
PARTICIPANT MANAGEMENT SUBSYSTEM ...........................................................................................................................6
OPERATIONS SUBSYSTEM.................................................................................................................................................7
THE FIELD-DATA COLLECTION SUBSYSTEM...........................................................................................................................7
ON-BOARD UNIT DETAILS................................................................................................................................................8
DISPLAY UNIT ..............................................................................................................................................................10
PROTECTION OF PARTICIPANT PRIVACY .............................................................................................................................10
DATA PROTECTION AND SYSTEM ROBUSTNESS ...................................................................................................................11
APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
SETTING OF MILEAGE-BASED ROAD USER CHARGE RATES ....................................................................................................14
CALCULATION OF RATES BY VEHICLE CLASS........................................................................................................................15
APPENDIX C ......................................................................................................................................................... 19
PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION .....................................................................................................................20
PARTICIPANT SELECTION PROCESS DESIGN ........................................................................................................................20
PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT ...........................................................................................................................................20
MEDIA CAMPAIGNS ......................................................................................................................................................20
PARTICIPANT SCREENING PROCESS ..................................................................................................................................21
PARTICIPANT SELECTION ................................................................................................................................................21
PARTICIPANT RESPONSIBILITIES .......................................................................................................................................28
PARTICIPANT COMPENSATION ........................................................................................................................................28
APPENDIX D ......................................................................................................................................................... 29
MILEAGE-BASED ROAD USER CHARGE BASELINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS.............................................................................32
MILEAGE-BASED ROAD USER CHARGE QUESTIONNAIRE 1 RESPONSES ...................................................................................48
MILEAGE-BASED ROAD USER CHARGE QUESTIONNAIRE 2 RESPONSES ...................................................................................74
MILEAGE-BASED ROAD USER CHARGE QUESTIONNAIRE 3 RESPONSES .................................................................................102
MILEAGE-BASED ROAD USER CHARGE QUESTIONNAIRE 4 RESPONSES .................................................................................129
MILEAGE-BASED ROAD USER CHARGE QUESTIONNAIRE 5 RESPONSES .................................................................................181
MILEAGE-BASED ROAD USER CHARGE QUESTIONNAIRE 6 RESPONSES .................................................................................205
APPENDIX E ....................................................................................................................................................... 242
SUMMARY INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................................243
TRAINING QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY REPORT ................................................................................................................243
QUESTIONNAIRE 1 SUMMARY REPORT ...........................................................................................................................243
QUESTIONNAIRE 2 SUMMARY REPORT ...........................................................................................................................244
QUESTIONNAIRE 3 SUMMARY REPORT ...........................................................................................................................245
QUESTIONNAIRE 4 SUMMARY REPORT ...........................................................................................................................246
QUESTIONNAIRE 5 SUMMARY REPORT ...........................................................................................................................246
QUESTIONNAIRE 6 SUMMARY REPORT ...........................................................................................................................246

2
APPENDIX F ....................................................................................................................................................... 248
THEMATIC SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANTS RESPONSES TO QUANTITATIVE QUESTIONS ................................................................249
CONTACTING THE STUDY TEAM WITH ON-BOARD UNIT PROBLEMS/QUESTIONS.....................................................................249
ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS ON BILLING FOR A MILEAGE-BASED CHARGING FEE ..................................................................250
ATTITUDE TOWARDS PRIVACY IN A MILEAGE-BASED FEE SYSTEM .........................................................................................251
REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF A MILEAGE-BASED FEE SYSTEM.......................................................................................251
ATTITUDE TOWARD MILEAGE-BASED FEE ........................................................................................................................253
THEMES TO CREATE ATTITUDINAL PROFILES .....................................................................................................................253
APPENDIX G ....................................................................................................................................................... 258
QUALITATIVE THEMATIC SUMMARIES .............................................................................................................................259
OVERALL ATTITUDE REGARDING MILEAGE-BASED CHARGE .................................................................................................259
COMMENTS ON THE MILEAGE-BASED ROAD USER CHARGE STATEMENTS ..............................................................................260
TRAINING SESSION COMMENTS ....................................................................................................................................261
COMMENTS ON THE ON-BOARD UNIT INSTALLATION PROCESS ...........................................................................................261
COMMENTS ON CONTACTING THE STUDY TEAM ...............................................................................................................262
HOW THE PARTICIPANTS GATHERED INFORMATION ..........................................................................................................262
ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDE COMMENTS ........................................................................................................................263
OPINION ON PUBLIC’S RESPONSE TO RISING GAS PRICES ...................................................................................................263

3
Appendix A

4
System Design
The overall structure of the mileage-based road user charge system is shown in Figures A1 and A2,
below. Figure A - 1 details the system configuration that supports the participant recruitment process
and Figure A - 2 shows the system configuration for data collection and participant management during
field operations. As shown in the figures, the system is comprised of three major components: i) the
Participant Management Subsystem (shown in yellow); ii) the Operations Subsystem (shown in orange);
and iii) the Field-data Collection Subsystem (shown in light blue).

Figure A - 1 System Configuration for Participant Recruitment Process

5
 Figure A - 2 System Schematic for Field Operations

Participant Management Subsystem

The Study Server can be accessed only from a specific, limited set of workstations of The Participant
Management Subsystem is made up of two components: The WebSurvey Server and the Study Server.
The Participant Management Subsystem is developed, located, administered and operated internally to
the University of Iowa. This subsystem is used to screen prospective study participants and to facilitate

6
preparation and distribution of invoices for accrued mileage charge and financial remuneration for study
participants. This subsystem is the only point in the overall system where any participant-identifying
information is collected or stored.
The WebSurvey Server is used to administer screening surveys to prospective study participants. The
Web Survey utilizes a commercial application called WebSurveyor. Participant information collected
during the screening process is removed from the server to the Study Server on a weekly basis after data
has been downloaded.
The overall system design provides stringent measures to insure that no information that can be tied to
a participant’s identity is maintained anywhere outside of the Participant Management Subsystem.
Because access to the Participant Management Subsystem is tightly controlled and restricted to the
smallest possible subset of study personnel, a high degree of security and protection is maintained for
personal information of study participants.

Operations Subsystem
The Operations Subsystem consists of an Operations Server and associated Oracle database. The
Operations Subsystem is responsible for storing and processing field-data collected by the study. Two
types of data are handled by the Operations Subsystem. The first is road-user charge data collected
from participant vehicles by the Field-data Collection Subsystem. The second is participant survey data.
Road-user charge data collected by the Field-data Collection Subsystem is transferred to the Operations
Subsystem over a secure Internet connection. As described in more detail below, data stored in the
Operations Server is identified only by a randomly-assigned eight-digit Participant-ID. The mapping of
the Participant-ID to a specific participant identity can only be done within the Participant Management
Subsystem. Participants can access the Operations Subsystem via the Participant Web Interface to
complete required periodic surveys and access their current road-user charge invoice. To gain access to
this interface, participants identify themselves only by Participant-ID. The Participant Web Interface
only provides the capability to complete participant surveys and view the participant’s own user-charge
invoice information. Participants who prefer not to, or are unable to, use the web interface may
complete their surveys over the telephone by phoning the Call Center at the University of Iowa Public
Policy Center. Call Center personnel will use the web interface to enter survey responses elicited from
these participants. All call Center personnel are certified by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and
have completed FHWA background investigations.
The Operations Subsystem also provides a separate web interface for use by the study’s investigators.
Authorized study investigators can use this interface to configure and control operation aspects of the
study and request various types of summary reports.
At periodic intervals, the Operations Subsystem generates a file containing participant road-usage
charge invoice data (identified only by Participant-IDs). This file is downloaded by study staff, via the
Study Team Interface, to the Study Server within the Participant Management Subsystem where the
Participant-IDs are matched to Participant identities in order to prepare invoices for mailing to
participants.

The Field-data Collection Subsystem

This subsystem is responsible for the collection of road-user charge data from participant vehicles and
its transfer to the Operations Server. This portion of the system is owned and operated by an external
contractor, Snap-On, Inc. and utilizes commercial telecommunications infrastructure operated by Sprint,
and QUALCOMM. No information that can reveal the personal identity of study participants is collected

7
or maintained, or communicated by this infrastructure and study participants and study personnel have
no access to this portion of the system.
Road-user charges are calculated by an on-board unit (OBU) within the participant’s vehicle that uses
GPS data to compute the number of miles traveled within each jurisdiction and tabulate the
jurisdictional road usage charges from a stored charge rate table. Accrued charges are periodically
uploaded from the vehicle and transferred to the Operations Subsystem. This is accomplished in several
steps. First, the data is transferred via a wireless CDMA data link, Specifically Sprint’s IS-95/1xRTT CDMA
data network service, to a commercial Network Operations Center (NOC) operated by QUALCOMM, Inc.
and from there by a dedicated private Frame Relay link to the eTech server facility owned and
maintained by Snap-On, Inc. During this transfer, the data is identified only by a unique Device-ID that is
permanently assigned to the vehicle’s on-board unit. Upon reaching the Snap-On eTech server, the
Device-ID is mapped to a distinct Vehicle-ID and the data is then transferred to the Operations
Subsystem over where the Vehicle-ID is mapped to a Participant-ID before the data is stored into the
Operations Subsystem database.

On-Board Unit Details

The On-Board Unit (OBU) used in this study is based on the SnapOn/NEXIQ eTechnician/xVDS (Prism III)
architecture. The OBU is shown in Figure A - 3, below:

Figure A - 3 The OBU used in the National Evaluation of a Mileage-based road User Charge

The OBU architecture was designed for use in commercial vehicle telematics applications. The OBU
contains:
• a microprocessor with RAM, FLASH, and EE-PROM memory.
• a 16-channel GPS receiver.

8
 • a vehicle communication interface, supporting connections to OBD-II, CAN/J1939, and
J1587/J1708 vehicle buses.
• a CDMA cellular data communication transceiver.
• an RS-232 serial interface.
The OBU’s software has been customized for this study to provide the mileage-based road use charging
and reporting functionality described in the main body of this report, including a polygonal GIS database
defining the geographic boundaries of relevant road-use charge jurisdictions, and a charge rate table
containing the current per-jurisdiction charges for each vehicle class. The OBU connects to the vehicle’s
data bus (OBD-11, CAN, or J1587/J1708) and monitors vehicle odometer, velocity, and refueling-events
(amount of fuel added, date/time of purchase, and jurisdiction in which purchase was made.
The OBU also monitors potential tampering/failure situations, including:
• Extended GPS outages
• Abnormal jumps in odometer reading

• Negative change in odometer reading

• Extended wireless outages

• Unusual fuel-level readings—i.e. abnormally high or low fuel economy

The OBU reports the following data at each update period:
• Total per-mile charge due since last update
• Per-mile charge due per jurisdiction since last update
• Total per-gallon tax paid since last update (provided that refueling events are available on
vehicle’s OBD-II bus)
• Per-gallon tax paid per jurisdiction since last update (provided that refueling events are
available on vehicle’s OBD-II bus)
• Interpolated miles driven with no GPS reading since last update

• Uninterpolated miles driven with no GPS since last update

• Detailed per-jurisdiction miles travelled (configurable: can be enabled or disabled depending on
desired billing statement detail)
• Detailed fuel purchase log (provided that refueling events are available on vehicle’s OBD-II bus)
(configurable: can be enabled or disabled)
• System malfunction alerts:
o software crash
o odometer jump detected
o GPS outage

9
 o software/configuration change
o unexpected login
o extended wireless outage
The OBU is designed to be updatable and reconfigurable via the wireless link while installed in a
participant vehicle. The following in-field updates are supported:
• Configuration changes; alert monitoring thresholds, enabled features, vehicle-specific
information (fuel tank size, OBD-II parameters, vehicle class designation)
• Reporting parameter changes: reporting interval, reporting detail level

• Rate-table updates
• GIS database updates

• Software updates

Display Unit
During the first year of field operations, a small display unit, shown in Figure A - 4, was installed in each
participant vehicle. The display unit consists of a LED display and three buttons. The display unit
connects to the OBU via its RS-232 port. The purpose of the display unit is to permit participants to
enter the amount of gasoline purchased as each refueling event. This information can be compared to
refueling data obtained from the OBD-II bus to assess the accuracy of the OBD-II data. This information
may be useful to assess the feasibility of using fuel purchase information from the vehicle bus to
calculate motor fuel tax rebate amounts as part of a possible long-term phase in of a mileage-based
charging system. The display unit was not utilized during the second year of field testing.

Figure A - 4 Display Unit used during first year of field study

Protection of Participant Privacy

The system is designed to protect participant identity and personal information to a very high degree.
This section briefly reviews and summarizes these provisions.
1) Participant names and limited personal information (address, phone number, etc) are collected and
stored only within the Participant Management Subsystem, which is entirely internal to the

10
 University of Iowa. Once collected, this information resides only on the Study Server, which is a
physically secured, dedicated computer. Access to the Study Server is limited to a small set of
authorized study personnel. All data on the Study Server is encrypted.
2) Within the Participant Management Subsystem, each study participant is assigned a unique,
randomized eight-digit Participant-ID. The mapping of Participant-IDs to participant identities is
maintained only within the Study Server.
3) The Operations Subsystem is housed in a separate secure facility on the University of Iowa campus.
All information in the Operations Subsystem is identified only by the Participant-ID.
4) Road user charge data transferred from the eTech Operations Center to the Operations Subsystem
is transmitted over an encrypted connection and is identified only by a randomly assigned Vehicle-
ID. Vehicle-ID to Participant-ID mappings are maintained only within the Operations Subsystem.
5) Road-use data is uploaded from the vehicle to the NOC over a commercial CDMA data network
connection (Sprint Enterprise Data Link Network), which is effectively immune to eavesdropping
(even with sophisticated eavesdropping equipment, the odds of guessing the correct spreading code
to successfully demodulate a long-code CSMA transmission are approximately 1 in 4.4 trillion.).
Uploaded data is identified only by a unique Device-ID embedded in the vehicle’s on-board unit. The
on-board units are configured to send and receive data only to/from a fixed IP address. The
message format is encrypted with a proprietary compact binary protocol that does not identify the
fields in any human-readable format. The message format employs multiple check-sums to verify
that data has not been modified or corrupted during transmission.
6) From the NOC to the eTech Server within the Field-data Collection Subsystem, data is transmitted
over a dedicated, private Frame Relay circuit. This link is not visible or accessible from the Internet.

Data Protection and System Robustness

The system design incorporates a number of measures to protect against the accidental or malicious loss
of study data, and to insure system robustness in the presence of hardware failures or disasters. These
measures are briefly reviewed and summarized below:
1) The Study Server, Web Survey Server and the Operations Server are located in a locked, climate-
controlled facility with an uninterruptible power system (UPS) and automatic generator backup
power. Server room access is controlled by a key-card lock/PIN that logs all entries and attempted
entries to the room. The server room is monitored by security camera and has a fire-control system.
The facility has temperature and water-intrusion alarms that notify staff by cell-phone of anomalous
conditions.
2) Daily data backups are done on the Study Server, Operations Server, and WebSurveyor Server, with
backup data retained both on-site and at a separate off-site facility. Backups are retained for a
minimum of three months.
3) A copy of collected vehicle data is retained on the SnapOn eTech servers for at least 30 days
following transfer to the Operations Server. Thus, even in the event of loss of up a month's worth of

11
 primary and backup Operations Server data, the state of road user data on the Operations Server
could be reconstituted by re-download from the eTech Servers.
4) The SnapOn e-Tech servers are housed in a climate-controlled and secure industrial Data Center at
the Auburn Hills Snap-On facility. The data Center is monitored 7/24. Physical access is limited by
keycard to authorized Snap-on Diagnostics IT personnel.
5) SnapOn e-Tech server backups are performed to a dedicated backup server located in the SnapOn
data center. Full Backups are preformed weekly and incremental backups are performed daily.
Database backups are performed hourly and are sent to tape daily. Weekly backups are sent to tape
and stored off site in a secure storage facility for disaster recovery.
6) QUALCOMM and Sprint networks and data centers are fully redundant systems that have fail safe
procedures and multiple mirrored data centers that are separated geographically and provide fall-
back capabilities between each data center. This provides the ability to re-route messaging traffic
between the data centers in the event that one data center becomes inoperable. This is
accomplished without any noticeable disruption to the messaging services for the users of the
service.
7) Vehicle On-board Units are capable of retaining collected user-charge data for a period of at least 30
days if Sprint network service is not available. Thus, even in the event of a long-term network (up to
one month) outage affecting one or more of the test sites, study data would not be lost.

12
Appendix B

13
Setting of Mileage-based Road User Charge Rates
Calculation of road user charges is done entirely in the OBU and data is uploaded from the vehicle in
units of dollars. The vehicle location cannot be determined beyond the general jurisdiction level; no GPS
coordinate data or other information that could reveal the location of the vehicle is uploaded from the
vehicle or retained within the OBU. The data are transferred periodically, following a predetermined
upload frequency without any involvement from the vehicle operator. The OBU is designed to be able to
hold data for an extended period of time (several months) and upload on an opportunistic basis to
accommodate vehicles that travel outside of cellular data coverage zones for extended periods.

For a mileage-based road user charging system, it is possible to define a wide range of charge-rate policy
options. Several such options are discussed in detail in (9). The charging policy selected for this study
seeks to establish approximate user cost neutrality with the current motor fuel tax—i.e. a study
participant should experience a total road user charge (federal + state + local) approximately equivalent
to the total amount that that the participant pays in motor fuel tax for the same amount of travel.

To implement this charging policy, 20 vehicle classes were established based upon ranges of EPA-rated
vehicle fuel efficiency (combined city and highway). The vehicle class definitions are shown in Table B -
1.

Table B - 1 Vehicle Class Designations for the National Evaluation of a Mileage-based Road User Charge

Class Range of Miles per Gallon Rated Miles per Gallon

01 8.0 to 8.8 8.40
02 8.8 to 9.7 9.25
03 9.7 to 10.7 10.20
04 10.7 to 11.8 11.25
05 11.8 to 13.0 12.40
06 13.0 to 14.4 13.70
07 14.4 to 15.9 15.15
08 15.9 to 17.6 16.75
09 17.6 to 19.5 18.55
10 19.5 to 21.6 20.55
11 21.6 to 23.9 22.75
12 23.9 to 26.4 25.15
13 26.4 to 29.2 27.80
14 29.2 to 32.3 30.75
15 32.3 to 35.7 34.00
16 35.7 to 39.5 37.60
17 39.5 to 43.7 41.60
18 43.7 to 48.3 46.00
19 48.3 to 53.4 50.85
20 53.4 to 59.0 56.20

14
Calculation of Rates by Vehicle Class
For each vehicle class, state and federal per-mile charge rates are established by calculating motor fuel
tax paid on the amount of fuel consumed per mile of travel for a vehicle with fuel economy at the
middle of the class’ range. For instance, a class 10 vehicle (19.5 MPG to 21.6 MPG) is assigned a federal
per-mile charge rate of:
(1/20.55)*18.4 = 0.895 cents (rounded up to 0.90 cents)

and an Iowa (22 cents per gallon state fuel tax) per-mile rate of:
(1/20.55) * 22 = 1.07 cents

By contrast, for a Class 1 vehicle (8.0 MPG – 8.8 MPG) the corresponding federal and Iowa per mile rates
would be 2.19 cents and 2.62 cents, respectively, while a Class 20 vehicle (53.4 MPG to 59 MPG) would
have corresponding federal and Iowa per-mile rates of 0.33 cents and 0.39 cents, respectively.

Road use charge rates are computed based upon current state fuel tax rate data maintained by the
American Petroleum Institute (api.org/statistics/fueltaxes). Road use charge rates are updated monthly,
as needed, and, following any changes, new rate tables are uploaded to OBUs. During the study, eight
rate table updates, four per year, were uploaded to OBUs to reflect changes in state motor fuel tax
rates. For illustration, Table B - 2 below shows state and federal fuel tax rates as of April, 2009 and Table
B - 3 shows the corresponding per-mile charge table.

Table B - 2 Fuel tax Rates as of April, 2009

Jurisdiction Tax Rate ($/gal) Jurisdiction Tax Rate ($/gal)

USA 0.184 Montana 0.278
Alabama 0.209 Nebraska 0.273
Arizona 0.190 Nevada 0.331
Arkansas 0.218 New Hampshire 0.196
California 0.399 New Jersey 0.145
Colorado 0.220 New Mexico 0.188
Connecticut 0.364 New York 0.425
DC 0.200 North Carolina 0.302
Delaware 0.230 North Dakota 0.230
Florida 0.345 Ohio 0.280
Georgia 0.124 Oklahoma 0.170
Idaho 0.250 Oregon 0.250
Illinois 0.338 Pennsylvania 0.323
Indiana 0.297 Rhode Island 0.310
Iowa 0.220 South Carolina 0.168
Kansas 0.250 South Dakota 0.240
Kentucky 0.225 Tennessee 0.214
Louisiana 0.200 Texas 0.200
Maine 0.299 Utah 0.245

15
Maryland 0.235 Vermont 0.200
Massachusetts 0.235 Virginia 0.191
Michigan 0.309 Washington 0.375
Minnesota 0.256 West Virginia 0.322
Mississippi 0.188 Wisconsin 0.329
Missouri 0.173 Wyoming 0.140

16
 Table B - 3 Per-mile charge rates (cent/mile) by jurisdiction and vehicle class (April, 2009)

Vehicle Class
Jurisdiction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
USA 2.19 1.99 1.80 1.64 1.48 1.34 1.21 1.10 0.99 0.90 0.81 0.73 0.66 0.60 0.54 0.49 0.44 0.40 0.36 0.33
Alabama 2.52 2.29 2.08 1.88 1.71 1.55 1.40 1.27 1.14 1.03 0.93 0.84 0.76 0.69 0.62 0.56 0.51 0.46 0.42 0.38
Arizona 2.26 2.05 1.86 1.69 1.53 1.39 1.25 1.13 1.02 0.92 0.84 0.76 0.68 0.62 0.56 0.51 0.46 0.41 0.37 0.34
Arkansas 2.59 2.36 2.14 1.94 1.76 1.59 1.44 1.30 1.18 1.06 0.96 0.87 0.78 0.71 0.64 0.58 0.52 0.47 0.43 0.39
California 6.73 6.11 5.54 5.02 4.56 4.12 3.73 3.37 3.05 2.75 2.48 2.25 2.03 1.84 1.66 1.50 1.36 1.23 1.11 1.01
Colorado 2.62 2.38 2.16 1.96 1.77 1.61 1.45 1.31 1.19 1.07 0.97 0.87 0.79 0.72 0.65 0.59 0.53 0.48 0.43 0.39
Connecticut 6.24 5.66 5.14 4.66 4.23 3.83 3.46 3.13 2.82 2.55 2.30 2.08 1.88 1.70 1.54 1.39 1.26 1.14 1.03 0.93
DC 2.38 2.16 1.96 1.78 1.61 1.46 1.32 1.19 1.08 0.97 0.88 0.80 0.72 0.65 0.59 0.53 0.48 0.43 0.39 0.36
Delaware 2.74 2.49 2.25 2.04 1.85 1.68 1.52 1.37 1.24 1.12 1.01 0.91 0.83 0.75 0.68 0.61 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.41
Florida 3.95 3.59 3.25 2.95 2.68 2.42 2.19 1.98 1.79 1.62 1.46 1.32 1.19 1.08 0.98 0.88 0.80 0.72 0.65 0.59
Georgia 3.33 3.03 2.74 2.49 2.26 2.04 1.85 1.67 1.51 1.36 1.23 1.11 1.01 0.91 0.82 0.74 0.67 0.61 0.55 0.50
Idaho 2.98 2.70 2.45 2.22 2.02 1.82 1.65 1.49 1.35 1.22 1.10 0.99 0.90 0.81 0.74 0.66 0.60 0.54 0.49 0.44
Illinois 5.74 5.21 4.73 4.28 3.89 3.52 3.18 2.88 2.60 2.35 2.12 1.92 1.73 1.57 1.42 1.28 1.16 1.05 0.95 0.86
Indiana 4.58 4.16 3.77 3.42 3.10 2.81 2.54 2.30 2.08 1.87 1.69 1.53 1.38 1.25 1.13 1.02 0.93 0.84 0.76 0.69
Iowa 2.62 2.38 2.16 1.96 1.77 1.61 1.45 1.31 1.19 1.07 0.97 0.87 0.79 0.72 0.65 0.59 0.53 0.48 0.43 0.39
Kansas 2.98 2.70 2.45 2.22 2.02 1.82 1.65 1.49 1.35 1.22 1.10 0.99 0.90 0.81 0.74 0.66 0.60 0.54 0.49 0.44
Kentucky 2.68 2.43 2.21 2.00 1.81 1.64 1.49 1.34 1.21 1.09 0.99 0.89 0.81 0.73 0.66 0.60 0.54 0.49 0.44 0.40
Louisiana 2.38 2.16 1.96 1.78 1.61 1.46 1.32 1.19 1.08 0.97 0.88 0.80 0.72 0.65 0.59 0.53 0.48 0.43 0.39 0.36
Maine 3.56 3.23 2.93 2.66 2.41 2.18 1.97 1.79 1.61 1.46 1.31 1.19 1.08 0.97 0.88 0.80 0.72 0.65 0.59 0.53
Maryland 2.80 2.54 2.30 2.09 1.90 1.72 1.55 1.40 1.27 1.14 1.03 0.93 0.85 0.76 0.69 0.63 0.56 0.51 0.46 0.42
Massachusetts 2.80 2.54 2.30 2.09 1.90 1.72 1.55 1.40 1.27 1.14 1.03 0.93 0.85 0.76 0.69 0.63 0.56 0.51 0.46 0.42
Michigan 5.04 4.57 4.15 3.76 3.41 3.09 2.79 2.53 2.28 2.06 1.86 1.68 1.52 1.38 1.24 1.13 1.02 0.92 0.83 0.75
Minnesota 2.86 2.59 2.35 2.13 1.94 1.75 1.58 1.43 1.29 1.17 1.05 0.95 0.86 0.78 0.71 0.64 0.58 0.52 0.47 0.43
Mississippi 2.24 2.03 1.84 1.67 1.52 1.37 1.24 1.12 1.01 0.91 0.83 0.75 0.68 0.61 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.41 0.37 0.33
Missouri 2.09 1.90 1.73 1.56 1.42 1.28 1.16 1.05 0.95 0.86 0.77 0.70 0.63 0.57 0.52 0.47 0.42 0.38 0.35 0.31
Montana 3.31 3.01 2.73 2.47 2.24 2.03 1.83 1.66 1.50 1.35 1.22 1.11 1.00 0.90 0.82 0.74 0.67 0.60 0.55 0.49
Nebraska 3.20 2.91 2.64 2.39 2.17 1.96 1.78 1.61 1.45 1.31 1.18 1.07 0.97 0.87 0.79 0.72 0.65 0.58 0.53 0.48
Nevada 3.88 3.52 3.20 2.90 2.63 2.38 2.15 1.95 1.76 1.59 1.43 1.30 1.17 1.06 0.96 0.87 0.78 0.71 0.64 0.58
New Hampshire. 2.33 2.12 1.92 1.74 1.58 1.43 1.29 1.17 1.06 0.95 0.86 0.78 0.71 0.64 0.58 0.52 0.47 0.43 0.39 0.35
New Jersey 1.73 1.57 1.42 1.29 1.17 1.06 0.96 0.87 0.78 0.71 0.64 0.58 0.52 0.47 0.43 0.39 0.35 0.32 0.29 0.26
New Mexico 2.14 1.95 1.76 1.60 1.45 1.31 1.19 1.07 0.97 0.88 0.79 0.72 0.65 0.59 0.53 0.48 0.43 0.39 0.35 0.32
New York 5.23 4.75 4.30 3.90 3.54 3.20 2.90 2.62 2.37 2.14 1.93 1.75 1.58 1.43 1.29 1.17 1.06 0.95 0.86 0.78
North Carolina. 3.59 3.26 2.96 2.68 2.44 2.20 1.99 1.80 1.63 1.47 1.33 1.20 1.09 0.98 0.89 0.80 0.73 0.66 0.59 0.54
North Dakota 2.74 2.49 2.25 2.04 1.85 1.68 1.52 1.37 1.24 1.12 1.01 0.91 0.83 0.75 0.68 0.61 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.41
Ohio 3.33 3.03 2.74 2.49 2.26 2.04 1.85 1.67 1.51 1.36 1.23 1.11 1.01 0.91 0.82 0.74 0.67 0.61 0.55 0.50
Oklahoma 2.02 1.84 1.67 1.51 1.37 1.24 1.12 1.01 0.92 0.83 0.75 0.68 0.61 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.41 0.37 0.33 0.30
Oregon 2.98 2.70 2.45 2.22 2.02 1.82 1.65 1.49 1.35 1.22 1.10 0.99 0.90 0.81 0.74 0.66 0.60 0.54 0.49 0.44
Pennsylvania 3.84 3.49 3.17 2.87 2.60 2.36 2.13 1.93 1.74 1.57 1.42 1.28 1.16 1.05 0.95 0.86 0.78 0.70 0.64 0.57
Rhode Island 3.69 3.35 3.04 2.76 2.50 2.26 2.05 1.85 1.67 1.51 1.36 1.23 1.12 1.01 0.91 0.82 0.75 0.67 0.61 0.55
South Carolina. 2.00 1.82 1.65 1.49 1.35 1.23 1.11 1.00 0.91 0.82 0.74 0.67 0.60 0.55 0.49 0.45 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.30

17
 Vehicle Class
Jurisdiction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
South Dakota 2.86 2.59 2.35 2.13 1.94 1.75 1.58 1.43 1.29 1.17 1.05 0.95 0.86 0.78 0.71 0.64 0.58 0.52 0.47 0.43
Tennessee 2.55 2.31 2.10 1.90 1.73 1.56 1.41 1.28 1.15 1.04 0.94 0.85 0.77 0.70 0.63 0.57 0.51 0.47 0.42 0.38
Texas 2.38 2.16 1.96 1.78 1.61 1.46 1.32 1.19 1.08 0.97 0.88 0.80 0.72 0.65 0.59 0.53 0.48 0.43 0.39 0.36
Utah 2.92 2.65 2.40 2.18 1.98 1.79 1.62 1.46 1.32 1.19 1.08 0.97 0.88 0.80 0.72 0.65 0.59 0.53 0.48 0.44
Vermont 2.38 2.16 1.96 1.78 1.61 1.46 1.32 1.19 1.08 0.97 0.88 0.80 0.72 0.65 0.59 0.53 0.48 0.43 0.39 0.36
Virginia 2.33 2.12 1.92 1.74 1.58 1.43 1.29 1.17 1.06 0.95 0.86 0.78 0.71 0.64 0.58 0.52 0.47 0.43 0.39 0.35
Washington 4.46 4.05 3.68 3.33 3.02 2.74 2.48 2.24 2.02 1.82 1.65 1.49 1.35 1.22 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.82 0.74 0.67
West Virginia 3.83 3.48 3.16 2.86 2.60 2.35 2.13 1.92 1.74 1.57 1.42 1.28 1.16 1.05 0.95 0.86 0.77 0.70 0.63 0.57
Wisconsin 3.92 3.56 3.23 2.92 2.65 2.40 2.17 1.96 1.77 1.60 1.45 1.31 1.18 1.07 0.97 0.88 0.79 0.72 0.65 0.59
Wyoming 1.67 1.51 1.37 1.24 1.13 1.02 0.92 0.84 0.75 0.68 0.62 0.56 0.50 0.46 0.41 0.37 0.34 0.30 0.28 0.25

18
Appendix C

19
Participant Recruitment and Selection
The field test is split into two phases that involve a sizable sample of motorists in different regions of the
nation. Over the two years of field-testing, approximately 2,600 vehicles will be equipped with an on-board
unit. Each participant has the on-board unit in his or her vehicle for 10 months.

Participant Selection Process Design

Selection of participants for the National Evaluation of Mileage-based Road User Charge study is critical to
ensuring success in the two phases of field-testing. The purpose of involving a diverse sample of
participants is to gain an understanding of:
• How participants who were in favor of a system of mileage-based road user charges differ from those
who are not in favor of the approach.
• The most and least acceptable features of the system to participants.

To ensure a representative participant pool, demographic profiles of each study area were constructed.
The stratifying demographic variables used were sex (female and male), age (four age groups: 18 to 25; 25
to 45; 45 to 65; and 65 and above), and education level (no high school diploma, high school diploma or
equivalent, some college, and Bachelor’s degree or higher). These characteristics were selected based on
their known, high correlation with driving behavior.

Participant Recruitment
The study was required by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ensure the
protection of human subjects (12). Participant recruitment followed strict guidelines and obtain official
approval and certification from the University of Iowa Institutional Review Board (IRB) pursuant to the
regulations of HHS code 45 CFR 46.103(a). One requirement was that candidates must be self-identified,
which prohibited the study team from directly soliciting individuals to participate.

The recruitment process began with a broad media campaign to initiate the first contact between
candidates and the study team. The study team issued a detailed request for proposals to marketing and
research companies in regions where the twelve sites are located to solicit interest on the part of firms to
assist with participant recruitment. Companies were selected based on their ability to develop and
implement an effective media campaign to inform the public about the project. This was a critical element
of the recruitment process, and companies were required to create a campaign that would generate
diverse demographic representation of the motoring public. The selected companies identified recruitment
strategies that would result in a large sample of candidates for the project. Because participant recruitment
was vital to the success of the project, several key indicators were evaluated: (1) recruitment strategy and
persuasiveness of the company’s argument that the selected strategy would result in the cross-
representation of participants necessary for the project, (2) experience of the project staff with similar
recruitment efforts, (3) skill level and size of the support staff, and (4) multiple strategies for recruiting
participants for the project.

Media Campaigns
The selected marketing and research companies crafted mass media campaigns consisting of paid radio
advertisements, public service announcements, news releases, press conferences, and strategic placement
of advertisements throughout the study sites. In eastern Iowa because of its affordability, television
commercials were aired on targeted cable stations.

20
Participant Screening Process
Once a candidate initiated contact with the study team either by the Internet or telephone, a screening
questionnaire was administered to determine the qualifications and characteristics of each candidate. This
screening process determined a candidate’s viability for participation after the person has responded to
advertisements.

To pass the initial screen, candidates had to be at least 18 years old, eligible for employment in the U.S.,
possess a valid driver’s license, have an available personal vehicle, and plan to reside in the community for
10 months (the duration of field-testing). Finally the make, model, and year of their personal automobile
had to conform to the technical specifications required for the on-board unit. Generally, vehicles
manufactured after 2000 have the necessary equipment, although some vehicle manufacturers restrict the
addition of aftermarket parts to their vehicles.

The participant recruitment campaigns resulted in 42,263 and 58,365 people completing the screening
questionnaire in years 1 and 2, respectively. Of the total, 22% of those completing the questionnaire did
not qualify because their vehicle that was older than model year 2000 and 15% in year 2. An incompatible
vehicle model disqualified approximately 5% in year 1. All other criteria disqualified an additional 5% in year
1 and 1% in year 2. The final pool of eligible candidates totaled 28,759 and 48,914 in years 1 and 2,
respectively. The demographic distributions for the eligible candidates are shown in Table C - 1.

Table C - 1 Eligible Candidates

People People People People Total

without with with some with a
HS HS/GED college or Bachelor’s
diplomas diplomas an or
associate’s Graduate
degree degree

Female 18 - 24 18 710 1967 1367 4062

25 - 44 99 2417 7320 11512 21348
45 - 64 120 2694 5670 6656 15140
65+ 38 449 559 624 1670
Total 275 6270 15516 20159 42220

Male 18 - 24 26 727 1650 965 3368

25 - 44 114 2098 5442 9123 16777
45 - 64 118 1895 3997 6440 12450
65+ 51 518 754 1535 2858
Total 309 5238 11843 18063 35453

Participant Selection
At the conclusion of the media campaigns, eligible candidates were grouped based on their age, gender,
and education level. Within each group, individuals were randomly drawn until the desired number of
participants was reached. The American Community Survey estimates were used to set the desired number
of participants within each demographic group, thus assuring the final pool reflects each evaluation site’s

21
demographic characteristics. Table C - 2 through Table C - 13 show the percent breakdown used to achieve
a representative pool of participants.

Table C - 2 Albuquerque, NM (Bernalillo, Sandoval, Torrance, and Valencia counties) Target Demographic (%)

People People People People Total

without with with some with a
diplomas diplomas college or B.A. or
an Graduate
associate’s degree
degree
Female 18 - 24 3 3 6 1 14
25 - 44 4 8 12 11 36
45 - 64 3 8 10 11 32
65+ 4 6 4 4 18
Total 14 25 33 28

Male 18 - 24 3 5 6 1 15
25 - 44 6 11 12 12 40
45 - 64 4 7 9 12 32
65+ 2 3 3 5 14
Total 15 25 30 29

Table C - 3 Austin-San Marcos MSA, TX (Williamson, Bastrop, Caldwell, Travis and Hays Counties) Target Demographics (%)

People People People People

without with with some with a
HS HS/GED college or Bachelor’s
diplomas diplomas an or
associate’s Graduate
degree degree
Total
Female 18-24 1 4 6 2 13
25-44 6 7 14 19 46
45-64 3 5 9 11 28
65+ 3 4 3 2 12
Total 13 20 32 34

Male 18-24 3 3 6 1 13
25-44 7 9 14 20 51
45-64 3 4 9 13 30
65+ 2 2 1 4 9
Total 15 18 31 39

22
 Table C - 4 Baltimore, MD (Baltimore City) Target Demographics (%)

People People People People

without with with some with a
HS HS/GED college or Bachelor’s
diplomas diplomas an or
associate’s Graduate
degree degree
Total
Female 18-24 3 3 4 3 13
25-44 6 13 8 11 38
45-64 8 9 8 7 32
65+ 8 6 2 2 18
Total 25 30 22 22

Male 18-24 3 6 3 1 12
25-44 9 13 5 14 36
45-64 7 13 7 7 30
65+ 7 2 2 2 12
Total 23 30 15 21

Table C - 5 Billings, MT (Yellowstone and Carbon counties) Target Demographics (%)

People People People People Total

without with with some with a
diplomas diplomas college or B.A. or
an Graduate
associate’s degree
degree
Female 18 - 24 2 5 6 1 13
25 - 44 2 8 13 10 33
45 - 64 1 9 12 10 32
65+ 4 9 5 4 22
Total 9 29 36 25

Male 18 - 24 2 6 4 1 13
25 - 44 4 11 11 10 36
45 - 64 2 9 11 12 34
65+ 3 5 4 5 16
Total 11 31 30 28

23
 Table C - 6 Boise City MSA, ID (Ada and Canyon Counties) Target Demographics (%)

People People People People

without with with some with a
HS HS/GED college or Bachelor’s
diplomas diplomas an or
associate’s Graduate
degree degree
Total
Female 18-24 2 4 6 1 13
25-44 4 10 15 12 41
45-64 3 10 11 8 32
65+ 2 5 4 3 14
Total 11 29 36 24

Male 18-24 2 6 6 1 15
25-44 5 11 12 14 42
45-64 4 6 11 12 33
65+ 2 3 3 2 10
Total 13 26 32 29

Table C - 7 Chicago, IL (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, and Will counties) Target Demographics (%)

People People People People Total

without with with some with a
diplomas diplomas college or B.A. or
an Graduate
associate’s degree
degree
Female 18 - 24 2 3 5 2 12
25 - 44 5 8 10 15 37
45 - 64 5 8 10 10 33
65+ 5 6 4 3 18
Total 16 26 28 30

Male 18 - 24 3 4 5 1 13
25 - 44 6 10 10 15 41
45 - 64 5 8 8 11 33
65+ 3 3 3 3 13
Total 18 26 25 31

24
Table C - 8 Eastern Iowa (9 Counties, 3 Metropolitan Areas – Cedar Rapids, Davenport, and Dubuque) Target Demographics (%)

People People People People

without with with some with a
HS HS/GED college or Bachelor’s
diplomas diplomas an or
associate’s Graduate
degree degree
Total
Female 18-24 2 3 5 2 12
25-44 4 10 14 9 37
45-64 3 12 12 8 34
65+ 3 9 4 3 18
Total 12 33 35 21

Male 18-24 1 4 5 2 12
25-44 3 14 11 8 36
45-64 3 10 13 10 36
65+ 3 5 3 3 14
Total 10 33 32 23

Table C - 9 Miami, FL (Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach counties) Target Demographics (%)

People People People People Total

without with with some with a
diplomas diplomas college or B.A. or
an Graduate
associate’s degree
degree
Female 18 - 24 2 4 4 1 11
25 - 44 4 9 10 11 34
25 - 44 5 9 9 9 32
65+ 7 8 4 4 23
Total 17 30 28 24

Male 18 - 24 3 4 4 1 12
25 - 44 6 11 10 10 37
25 - 44 5 9 8 11 33
65+ 5 5 3 5 18
Total 19 29 25 27

25
Table C - 10 Raleigh – Durham – Chapel Hill MSA, NC (Chatham, Orange, Johnston, Durham, Wake and Franklin Counties) Target
Demographics (%)

People People People People

without with with some with a
HS HS/GED college or Bachelor’s
diplomas diplomas an or
associate’s Graduate
degree degree
Total
Female 18-24 1 3 3 3 10
25-44 5 8 11 22 46
45-64 3 7 10 13 32
65+ 4 4 2 3 13
Total 13 21 25 41

Male 18-24 3 3 4 1 11
25-44 7 9 12 20 48
45-64 3 5 7 15 31
65+ 2 2 2 3 9
Total 15 19 26 39

Table C - 11 San Diego, CA (San Diego County) Target Demographics (%)

People People People People

without with with some with a
HS HS/GED college or Bachelor’s
diplomas diplomas an or
associate’s Graduate
degree degree
Total
Female 18-24 2 3 6 1 12
25-44 6 8 13 14 40
45-64 5 6 11 10 31
65+ 4 5 5 3 17
Total 17 22 34 27

Male 18-24 2 5 4 1 12
25-44 6 10 13 14 44
45-64 3 5 9 12 30
65+ 3 3 3 5 14
Total 14 23 30 33

26
 Table C - 12 Portland, ME (Cumberland, Sagadahoc, and York counties) Target Demographics (%)

People People People People Total

without with with some with a
diplomas diplomas college or B.A. or
an Graduate
associate’s degree
degree
Female 18 - 24 1 3 5 1 10
25 - 44 1 9 10 13 33
45 - 64 2 12 10 13 37
65+ 4 7 4 4 20
Total 9 31 29 31

Male 18 - 24 2 4 4 1 11
25 - 44 2 12 10 11 35
45 - 64 3 11 11 14 38
65+ 3 4 3 5 16
Total 10 32 27 30

Table C - 13 Wichita, KS (Butler, Harvey, Sedwick and Sumner counties) Target Demographics (%)

People People People People Total

without with with some with a
diplomas diplomas college or B.A. or
an Graduate
associate’s degree
degree
Female 18 - 24 2 4 5 1 13
25 - 44 4 10 12 11 37
25 - 44 4 11 9 9 32
65+ 4 7 4 3 18
Total 14 32 30 23

Male 18 - 24 3 5 5 1 14
25 - 44 6 11 12 10 39
25 - 44 4 10 10 10 33
65+ 3 4 3 4 13
15 29 30 25

Initially, 2,640 candidates were selected using the site-specific demographics (1,200 in the first year and
1,440 in the second). Each candidate was telephoned by a call center operator to confirm their willingness
to participate and scheduled for a training session. When a candidate declined another candidate was
randomly selected from the appropriate demographic group. The human subjects restrictions prevented
the over recruitment of candidates, therefore the selection process stopped when the target number of
candidates were confirmed for each site.

27
The inability to recruit more than the target number of candidates per site meant that when candidates
failed to attend a training session or did not sign an informed consent document, new candidates were
selected to fill out the demographic profiles. They were confirmed and scheduled for a second round of
training sessions.

Participant Responsibilities
The candidates were required to attend a 90 minute training session. The training session was designed to
provide background on the study, describe the responsibilities of their participation, and obtain their
explicit informed consent to be included in the study. After the informed consent document was signed,
the candidate was an officially considered a study participant. Additional study requirements were:

• Allow the temporary installation of the on-board unit

• Completion of questionnaires every 6 weeks over the 10 month study period
• Contact Study staff,
o If equipment problems are experienced so the problem may be corrected
o When selling or replacing their vehicle
• Have the on-board unit removed from vehicle at the end of participation
• Agree not to disable the equipment

Participant Compensation
Since participants are involved in field-testing for 10 months, an incentive-based model of compensation
has been designed rather than a one-time stipend paid at the beginning or end of their participation. This
form of compensation keeps participants aware of their involvement in the study and reduces the
likelihood that they will drop out in the initial months of field-testing.

As a partial basis for designing an incentive-based approach, the study team conducted two focus group
meetings in suburban Chicago. The group membership varied in terms of age, educational attainment, and
sex. Members of the focus groups were told about participant responsibilities and then were asked to
indicate the amount of financial compensation they would require to become a participant. The
compensation amounts were based on the results of focus group participants as reasonable and
appropriate for involvement in this study. The total compensation was $895 and the payment schedule is
shown in Table C - 14.
Table C - 14 Participant Compensation

Duties Amount
Attend a training session and have the on-board $300
equipment installed
Complete each of the 6 questionnaires when scheduled $40/month ($40 x 8 months = $320)
Have the on-board equipment removed and complete all $275.00
questionnaires.

28
Appendix D

29
 National Evaluation of a Mileage-Based Road User Charge
Training Baseline Questionnaire
PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
This collection of information is voluntary, and will be used to assess your acceptance of the National
Evaluation of a Mileage-Based Road User Charge. Public reporting burden for this questionnaire is
estimated to average between 25-45 minutes. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing
and reviewing the collection of information. Your responses will be kept confidential to the extent
permitted by law. The OMB control number for this collection is 2125-XXXX (state OMB #). Send comments
regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions
for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Highway Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

For each of the following questions, please choose the statement that MOST accurately expresses your
opinion.

1. Will there be a problem with paying for roads in future years?

 Yes, a big problem
 Possibly a problem in the near future
 Maybe a problem, but not for a long time
 No, not a problem
 Don’t know

2. I am concerned about the deterioration of the nation’s road system.

 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

Continue to the next page

30
3. With road-user charge statements for road use, it will be more important to get a detailed
breakdown of the charges than to ensure the highest level of privacy protection.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

4. Please rank the following in terms of how much you think they contribute to paying for local streets
and roads (1 = biggest contributor and 4 = smallest contributor)
_____Federal funds
_____State funds
_____Local property and sales taxes
_____Land developer fees

5. How comfortable are you with the idea of a mileage-based road user system?
 Absolutely comfortable
 Mostly comfortable
 Somewhat comfortable
 Not so comfortable
 Not comfortable at all

6. Any other comments about the Road Use Study:

VERY IMPORTANT
PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR PARTICIPANT ID NUMBER
BELOW. For assistance please call 866-363-1975.

PARTICIPANT ID # __________________________________________________

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.

Please return your survey to the training instructor before you leave the training session today.

31
Mileage-Based Road User Charge Baseline Questionnaire Results

32
 Training 1 Will there be a problem with paying for roads in future years?
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Possibly a Maybe a
Yes, a big No, not a
problem in the problem, but not Don't know
problem problem
near future for a long time
Percentages 27% 42% 8% 4% 7%

TS.1 Will there be a problem with paying for roads in future years?
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Possibly a Maybe a
Yes, a big No, not a
problem in the problem, but not Don't know
problem problem
near future for a long time
Percentages 23% 50% 11% 6% 9%
 Training 2 I am concerned about the deterioration of the nation’s road system.
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Somewhat agree
nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 37% 38% 9% 2% 0%

TS.2 I am concerned about the deterioration of the nation's road system.

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
nor disagree disagree
Percentages 41% 44% 12% 3% 1%

34
 Training 3 With road-user charge statements for road use, it will be more important to get
a detailed breakdown of the charges than to ensure the highest level of privacy
protection.
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Somewhat agree
nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 17% 30% 24% 10% 6%

TS.3 With road-user charge statements for road use, it will be more important to
get a detailed breakdown of the charges than to ensure the highest level of
privacy protection.
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
nor disagree disagree
Percentages 23% 35% 24% 11% 7%

35
 Training 4 Please rank the following in terms of how much you think they contribute to
paying for local streets and roads --Federal funds
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Second largest Third largest
Largest contributor Smallest contributor
contributor contributor
Percentages 28% 28% 16% 15%

TS.4.01 Please rank the following in terms of how much you think they contribute
to paying for local streets and roads (1 = biggest contributor and 4 = smallest
contributor): Federal Funds
45.00%

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%
Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4
% 42.25% 28.84% 17.08% 11.83%

36
 Training 4 Please rank the following in terms of how much you think they contribute to
paying for local streets and roads --State funds
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Second largest Third largest
Largest contributor Smallest contributor
contributor contributor
Percentages 38% 39% 9% 2%

TS.4.02 Please rank the following in terms of how much you think they contribute
to paying for local streets and roads (1 = biggest contributor and 4 = smallest
contributor): State Funds
60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4
% 37.41% 48.48% 11.27% 2.84%

37
 Training 4 Please rank the following in terms of how much you think they contribute to
paying for local streets and roads --Property taxes
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Second largest Third largest
Largest contributor Smallest contributor
contributor contributor
Percentages 17% 14% 41% 16%

TS.4.03 Please rank the following in terms of how much you think they contribute
to paying for local streets and roads (1 = biggest contributor and 4 = smallest
contributor): Local property and sales taxes
60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4
% 15.08% 16.25% 50.83% 17.84%

38
 Training 4 Please rank the following in terms of how much you think they contribute to
paying for local streets and roads --Land developer fees
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Second largest Third largest
Largest contributor Smallest contributor
contributor contributor
Percentages 5% 7% 21% 54%

TS.4.04 Please rank the following in terms of how much you think they contribute
to paying for local streets and roads (1 = biggest contributor and 4 = smallest
contributor): Land developer fees
80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4
% 5.26% 6.43% 20.82% 67.50%

39
 Training 5 How comfortable are you with the idea of a mileage-based road user system?
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Absolutely Mostly Somewhat Not so Not comfortable
comfortable comfortable comfortable comfortable at all
Percentages 15% 23% 33% 11% 4%

TS. 5 How comfortable are you with the idea of a mileage-based road user
system?
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Absolutely Mostly Somewhat Not so Not comfortable
comfortable comfortable comfortable comfortable at all
Percentages 15% 24% 39% 15% 6%

40
Appendix D – Questionnaire 1
 National Evaluation of a Mileage-Based Road User Charge
Questionnaire 1

PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE

This collection of information is voluntary, and will be used to assess your acceptance of the National
Evaluation of a Mileage-Based Road User Charge. Public reporting burden for this questionnaire is
estimated to average 15 minutes. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Your responses will be kept confidential to the extent permitted
by law The OMB control number for this collection is 2125-XXXX (state OMB #). Send comments
regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Highway
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

Please pick the answer that best reflects your feelings about the following questions:

1. How do you feel about the idea of replacing the gas tax with a mileage-based road user fee?
 Very positive
 Somewhat positive
 Neither positive nor negative
 Somewhat negative
 Very negative

2. Please give us some reasons why you answered question 1 the way you did.

Continue to the next page

The following questions are about the training session for the Road Use Study. Please tell us how
satisfied or dissatisfied you were with the following:

3. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the way information was presented at the training
session?
 Highly satisfied
 Somewhat satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Somewhat dissatisfied
 Highly dissatisfied

4. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how long the training session was?
 Highly satisfied
 Somewhat satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Somewhat dissatisfied
 Highly dissatisfied

5. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the time you had to review the Informed Consent
Document?
 Highly satisfied
 Somewhat satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Somewhat dissatisfied
 Highly dissatisfied

6. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the time it took to register for the study (including
the signing the Informed Consent Document)?
 Highly satisfied
 Somewhat satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Somewhat dissatisfied
 Highly dissatisfied

7. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the meeting room at the training session?
 Highly satisfied
 Somewhat satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Somewhat dissatisfied
 Highly dissatisfied

Continue to the next page

43
 8. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the training session?
 Highly satisfied
 Somewhat satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Somewhat dissatisfied
 Highly dissatisfied

9. Comments about the training session:

The next questions ask about having the on-board computer installed in your vehicle. Please tell us how
satisfied or dissatisfied you were with each of the following:

10. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the installation sites (i.e., were they easy to get to?)
 Highly satisfied
 Somewhat satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Somewhat dissatisfied
 Highly dissatisfied

11. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the choice of installation times?
 Highly satisfied
 Somewhat satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Somewhat dissatisfied
 Highly dissatisfied

12. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the time it took to have the on-board computer
installed?
 Highly satisfied
 Somewhat satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Somewhat dissatisfied
 Highly dissatisfied
Continue to the next page

44
 13. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the how well the on-board computer was installed in
your vehicle?
 Highly satisfied
 Somewhat satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Somewhat dissatisfied
 Highly dissatisfied

14. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the installation process?
 Highly satisfied
 Somewhat satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Somewhat dissatisfied
 Highly dissatisfied

15. Comments about the on-board computer installation:

The next question is about the on-board display. Please tell us how satisfied or dissatisfied you were
with the following:

16. How much of a problem is it to enter the number of gallons you buy in the on-board display?
 Not a problem
Some what of a problem
 Big problem
17. Comments about the on-board-display:

Continue to the next page

45
The following questions are about contacting the study team at the Public Policy Center.

18. Have you had any problems with the on-board computer so that you had to contact the study
team at the Public Policy Center?
 Yes
 No

19. Have you had other questions where you had to contact the study team at the Public Policy
Center?
 Yes
 No

If you answered yes to question 18 or 19, please answer the following two questions.

20. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how easy it was to contact the study team at the
Public Policy Center?
 Highly satisfied
 Somewhat satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Somewhat dissatisfied
 Highly dissatisfied

21. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the response of the study team at the Public Policy
Center?
 Highly satisfied
 Somewhat satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Somewhat dissatisfied
 Highly dissatisfied

22. Comments about the study team at the Public Policy Center:

Continue to the next page

46
23. How did you learn about the Road User Study?
 Radio advertisement
 Radio public service announcement
 Newspaper advertisement
 Newspaper article
 Magazine article
 Billboard advertisement
 Internet
 A friend/family member
 Other ______________________ (please specify)

VERY IMPORTANT
PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR PARTICIPANT ID NUMBER
BELOW TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN MAIL YOU YOUR
COMPENSATION PAYMENT PROMPTLY.
For assistance please call 866-363-1975.

PARTICIPANT ID # ________________________________________________

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.

Please return your survey in the enclosed envelope to:

The University of Iowa

Public Policy Center
227 South Quad
Iowa City, IA 52242-1192

47
Mileage-Based Road User Charge Questionnaire 1 Responses

48
 1.1How do you feel about the idea of replacing the gas tax with a mileage-
based road user fee?
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither positive Somewhat
Very positive Very negative
positive nor negative negative
Percentages 17% 39% 27% 13% 4%

1.1 How do you feel about the idea of replacing the gas tax with a mileage-based
road user fee?
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither positive Somewhat
Very positive Somewhat positive Very negative
nor negative negative
% 14% 37% 31% 14% 5%

49
 1.3 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the way information was
presented at the training session?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly
satisfied nor
satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
dissatisfied
Percentages 72% 23% 4% 1% 0%

1.3 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the way the information was
presented at the training session?
90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat
Highly satisfied Very dissatisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied
% 77% 20% 3% 1% 0%

50
 70%
1.4 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how long the training
session was?
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat Highly
Highly satisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
Percentages 60% 29% 7% 4% 0%

1.4 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how long the trainging session
was?

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Neither
Highly Somewhat Somewhat Very
satisfied nor
satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
dissatisfied
% 70% 23% 5% 2% 0%

51
 1.5 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the time you had to review
the Informed Consent Document?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat Highly
Highly satisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
Percentages 71% 22% 7% 1% 0%

1.5 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the time you had to review the
Informed Consent Document?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat
Highly satisfied Very dissatisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied
% 73% 21% 5% 1% 0%

52
 1.6 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the time it took to register
for the study (including the signing of the Informed Consent Document)?
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat Highly
Highly satisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
Percentages 60% 27% 7% 5% 1%

1.6 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the time it took to register for the
study (including signing the Informed Consent Document)?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat
Highly satisfied Very dissatisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied
% 70% 24% 4% 1% 0%

53
 1.7 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the meeting room at the
training session?
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat Highly
Highly satisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
Percentages 72% 19% 6% 2% 0%

1.7 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the meeting room at the training
session?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat
Highly satisfied Very dissatisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied
% 68% 20% 5% 6% 1%

54
 1.8 Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the training
session?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat Highly
Highly satisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
Percentages 69% 26% 4% 2% 0%

1.8 Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the training session?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat
Highly satisfied Very dissatisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied
% 74% 22% 3% 1% 0%

55
 1.10 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the installation sites (i.e.,
were they easy to get to?)
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat Highly
Highly satisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
Percentages 49% 30% 7% 10% 4%

1.10 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the installation sites (i.e., were
they easy to get to)?
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat
Highly satisfied Very dissatisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied
% 62% 26% 5% 6% 1%

56
 1.11 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the choice of installation
times?

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat Highly
Highly satisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
Percentages 58% 27% 9% 5% 2%

1.11 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the choie of installation times?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat
Highly satisfied Very dissatisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied
% 70% 20% 5% 4% 1%

57
 1.12 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the time it took to have
the on-board computer installed?
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat Highly
Highly satisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
Percentages 32% 25% 10% 21% 12%

1.12 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the time it took to have the on-
board computer installed?
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat
Highly satisfied Very dissatisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied
% 59% 24% 6% 8% 3%

58
 1.13 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the how well the on-board
computer was installed in your vehicle?
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat Highly
Highly satisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
Percentages 43% 28% 11% 13% 6%

1.13 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the how well the on-board
computer was installed in your vehicle?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat
Highly satisfied Very dissatisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied
% 70% 18% 6% 5% 1%

59
 1.14 Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the installation
process?
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat Highly
Highly satisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
Percentages 34% 33% 13% 14% 6%

1.14 Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the installation process?
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither satisfied Somewhat
Highly satisfied Very dissatisfied
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied
% 62% 23% 7% 6% 2%

60
 1.16 How much of a problem is it to enter the number of gallons you buy
in the on-board display?
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Not a problem Some what of a problem Big problem
Percentages 89% 8% 3%

61
 1.18 Have you had any problems with the on-board computer so that you
had to contact the study team at the Public Policy Center?
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Yes No
Percentages 14% 86%

1.16 Have you had any problems with the on-board computer so that you
had to contact the study team at the Public Policy Center?
120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Yes No
% 4% 96%

62
 1.19 Have you had other questions where you had to contact the study
team at the Public Policy Center?
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Yes No
Percentages 42% 58%

1.17 Have you had other questions where you had to contact the study team at
the Public Policy Center?
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Yes No
% 36% 64%

63
 1.20 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how easy it was to contact the study
team at the Public Policy Center?
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Do not apply Highly satisfied
Somewhat
Neither
satisfied
satisfied norSomewhat
dissatisfied
dissatisfied
Highly dissatisfied
Percentages 50% 40% 6% 2% 1% 1%

1.18 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how easy it was to contact the
study team at the Public Policy Center?
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Somewhat Somewhat Very
Not applicable Highly satisfied satisfied nor
satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
dissatisfied
% 62% 33% 4% 1% 1% 0%

64
 1.21 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the response of the study
team at the Public Policy Center?
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly
Do not apply satisfied nor
satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
dissatisfied
Percentages 50% 38% 7% 2% 2% 1%

1.19 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the response of the study team at
the Public Policy Center?
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Somewhat Somewhat Very
Not applicable Highly satisfied satisfied nor
satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
dissatisfied
% 62% 31% 4% 1% 1% 1%

65
 1

1.23 How did you learn about the Road User Study?
Frequency Percentages
Did not reply 694 58.7%
Radio advertisement 491 41.4%
Radio public service announcement 67 5.6%
Newspaper advertisement 129 10.9%
Newspaper article 168 14.2%
Magazine article 8 0.7%
Billboard advertisement 16 1.3%
Internet 106 8.9%
A friend/family member 241 20.3%

Other 134 11.3%

1.23 How did you learn about the Road User Study?
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Radio
Newspape A
Radio public Billboard
r Newspape Magazine friend/fa
advertise service advertise Internet Other
advertise r article article mily
ment announce ment
ment member
ment
% 56% 6% 5% 7% 0% 0% 5% 15% 6%

66
Appendix D – Questionnaire 2

67
 National Evaluation of a Mileage-Based Road User Charge
Questionnaire 2
PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
This collection of information is voluntary, and will be used to assess your acceptance of the National
Evaluation of a Mileage-Based Road User Charge. Public reporting burden for this questionnaire is
estimated to average 15 minutes. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Your responses will be kept confidential to the extent permitted
by law The OMB control number for this collection is 2125-XXXX (state OMB #). Send comments
regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Highway
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

These questions are about the motor fuel tax and the mileage-based road user charge. Please tell us
how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

1. If the mileage-based road user charge were implemented, my main concern would be that I will
not have to pay both the gas tax and the mileage fee.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

2. I like the idea that with the mileage-based road user charge you could charge less for fuel-
efficient vehicles.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

Continue to the next page

68
3. I am not worried about whether the gas tax will raise enough money to pay for roads in the
future.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

4. I would rather get a monthly road-user charge statement that explained the charges in detail
than have my on-board computer store only the total amount due to each jurisdiction (i.e., city,
state).
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

5. If the government were to switch from the gas tax to a mileage-based road user fee that raised
the same amount of money I would not change the number of miles I drive each month.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

6. I think very fuel-efficient vehicles or things like hydrogen-powered cars are too far in the future
to influence the way we collect road user charges.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

7. The gas tax is included in the price of a gallon of gas.

 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know
Continue to the next page

69
8. The mileage charge gives me a better sense than the gas tax of how much I am actually paying
for using public roads.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

9. I don’t think the mileage fee should vary much according to the size and weight of vehicles.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

10. Entering the number of gallons of gas I buy for this study is a serious hassle.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

11. Getting a road-user charge statement for my use of public roads is not very different from
getting a bill for electricity or water use.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

12. I would rather have the Billing and Dispersal Center that gets information from my vehicle and
sends me a road-user charge statement be run by a private company than by the government.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

Continue to the next page

70
 13. There must be strict laws about what the Billing and Dispersal Center can do with the data it
acquires from motorists like me.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

14. Please include any other opinions about the gas tax and/or the mileage-based road user
charge:

In order to understand how much detail you would like to see in your road-user charge statement, we
have been sending you monthly road-user charge statements. By now, you should have received several
statements. Please refer to them when answering the following questions.

15. How often would you prefer to receive road-user charge statements?
 Monthly
 Every 2 months
 Every 3 months
 Every 6 months
 Every 12 months

16. How desirable or undesirable was the level of detail in the road-user charge statement?
 Highly desirable
 Somewhat desirable
 Neither desirable nor undesirable
 Somewhat undesirable
 Highly undesirable
17. Please tell us the reasons behind your last 2 answers.

Continue to the next page

71
The following questions are about contacting the study team at the Public Policy Center.

18. Have you had any problems with the on-board computer so that you had to contact the study
team at the Public Policy Center?
 Yes
 No

19. Have you had other questions where you had to contact the study team at the Public Policy
Center?
 Yes
 No

If you answered yes to question 18 or 19, please answer the following two questions.

20. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how easy it was to contact the study team at the
Public Policy Center?
 Highly satisfied
 Somewhat satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Somewhat dissatisfied
 Highly dissatisfied
 Don’t know

21. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the response of the study team at the Public Policy
Center?
 Highly satisfied
 Somewhat satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Somewhat dissatisfied
 Highly dissatisfied
 Don’t know

22. Comments about the study team at the Public Policy Center:

72
 VERY IMPORTANT
PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR PARTICIPANT ID NUMBER
BELOW TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN MAIL YOU YOUR
COMPENSATION PAYMENT PROMPTLY.
For assistance please call 866-363-1975.

PARTICIPANT ID # ___________________________________________________

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.

Please return your survey in the enclosed envelope to:

The University of Iowa

Public Policy Center
227 South Quad
Iowa City, IA 52242-1192

73
Mileage-Based Road User Charge Questionnaire 2 Responses

74
 2.1 If the mileage-based road user charge were implemented, my main concern
would be that I will not have to pay both the gas tax and the mileage fee.

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Neither agree Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
nor disagree disagree
Valid Percent 47% 27% 13% 6% 6%

2.1 If the mileage-based road user charge were implemented, my main concern
would be that I will not have to pay both the gas tax and the mileage fee.
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 53% 24% 11% 6% 5%

75
 2.2 I like the idea that with the mileage-based road user charge you could
45% charge less for fuel-efficient vehicles.
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
nor disagree disagree
Percentages 39% 29% 8% 12% 12%

2.2 I like the idea that with the mileage-based road user charge you could charge
less for fuel-efficient vehicles .
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 38% 31% 10% 10% 10%

76
 2.3 I am not worried about whether the gas tax will raise enough money to pay

40% for roads in the future.

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
nor disagree disagree
Valid Percent 9% 17% 20% 34% 20%

2.3 I am not worried about whether the gas tax will raise enough money to pay
for roads in the future.
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 9% 19% 18% 32% 21%

77
 2.4 I would rather get a monthly road-user charge statement that explained the
charges in detail than have my on-board computer store only the total amount due
to each jurisdiction (i.e., city, state).
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 42% 31% 16% 7% 4%

2.4 I would rather get a monthly road-user charge statement that explained the
charges in detail than have my on-board computer store only the total amount
due to each jurisdiction (i.e., city, state).
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 41% 32% 16% 7% 4%

78
 2.5 If the government were to switch from the gas tax to a mileage-based
road user fee that raised the same amount of money I would not change
the number of miles I drive each month.
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Neither
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
agree nor Don't know
agree agree disagree disagree
disagree
Valid Percent 53% 25% 8% 8% 4% 2%

2.5 If the government were to switch from the gas tax to a mileage-based road
user fee that raised the same amount of money I would not change the number of
miles I drive each month.
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 54% 25% 7% 7% 4% 3%

79
 2.6 I think very fuel-efficient vehicles or things like hydrogen-powered cars are
50% too far in the future to influence the way we collect road user charges.

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Valid Percent 10% 21% 10% 29% 29% 2%

2.6 I think very fuel-efficient vehicles or things like hydrogen-powered cars are
too far in the future to influence the way we collect road user charges.
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 12% 23% 13% 25% 25% 2%

80
 2.7 The gas tax is included in the price of a gallon of gas.
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 75% 17% 4% 1% 1% 2%

2.7 The gas tax is included in the price of a gallon of gas.

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 72% 17% 6% 1% 1% 3%

81
 2.8 The mileage charge gives me a better sense than the gas tax of how much I
am actually paying for using public roads.
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Somewhat agree
nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 53% 34% 9% 3% 1%

2.8 The mileage charge gives me a better sense than the gas tax of how much I
am actually paying for using public roads.
60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 53.7% 31.6% 8.4% 4.3% 2.0%

82
 2.9 I don’t think the mileage fee should vary much according to the size and
weight of vehicles.
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Somewhat agree
nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 14% 17% 8% 30% 31%

2.9 I don't think the mileage fee should vary much according to the size and
weight of vehicles.
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 18% 18% 8% 28% 29%

83
 2.10 Entering the number of gallons of gas I buy for this study is a serious hassle.
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Somewhat agree
nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 2% 5% 9% 17% 67%

84
 2.11 Getting a road-user charge statement for my use of public roads is not very
different from getting a bill for electricity or water use.
50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Somewhat agree
nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 45% 38% 8% 6% 3%

2.10 Getting a road-user charge statement for my use of public roads is not very
different from getting a bill for electricity or water use.
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 39% 42% 7% 8% 5%

85
 2.12 I would rather have the Billing and Dispersal Center that gets information
from my vehicle and sends me a road-user charge statement be run by a private
company than by the government.
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Somewhat agree
nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 23% 18% 35% 13% 11%

2.11 I would rather have the Billing and Dispersal Center that gets information
from my vehicle and sends me a road-user charge statement be run by a private
company than by the government.
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 28% 23% 27% 10% 12%

86
 2.13 There must be strict laws about what the Billing and Dispersal Center can do
with the data it acquires from motorists like me.
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Somewhat agree
nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 72% 17% 9% 2% 1%

2.12 There must be strict laws about what the Billing and Dispersal Center can do
with the data it acquires from motorists like me.
90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 76% 14% 7% 1% 1%

87
 2.15 Did you receive the road-user charge statement and/or view it online?
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Yes No
Percentages 80% 20%

2.14 Did you receive the road-user charge statement and/or view it online?
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Yes No
% 91% 9%

88
 2.16 If yes, what was the letter in the upper right hand corner of the road-user
50% charge statement?

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
0 A B C D E
Percentages 20% 36% 42% 1% 0% 0%

2.15 If yes, what was the letter in the upper right hand corner of the road-user
charge statement?
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
A B C D E
% 30% 37% 31% 0% 1%

89
 2.17 How often would you prefer to receive or view road-user charge
statements?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Every 2 Every 3 Every 6 Every 12
Monthly
months months months months
Percentages 70% 7% 17% 4% 2%

2.16 How often would you prefer to receive or view road-user charge
statements?
90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Monthly Every 2 months Every 3 months Every 6 months Every 12 months
% 78% 5% 13% 3% 2%

90
 2.18 How desirable or undesirable was the level of detail in the road-user charge
50% statement?

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Somewhat Somewhat Highly
Highly desirable desirable nor
desirable undesirable undesirable
undesirable
Percentages 26% 33% 30% 9% 3%

2.17 How desirable or undesirable was the level of detail in the road-user charge
statement?
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Somewhat Neither desirable Somewhat
Highly desirable Highly undesirable
desirable nor undesirable undesirable
% 29% 38% 23% 8% 2%

91
 2.20 Have you had any problems with the on-board computer so that you had to
contact the study team at the Public Policy Center?
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Yes No
Percentages 22% 78%

2.19 Have you had any problems with the on-board computer so that you had to
contact the study team at the Public Policy Center?
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Yes No
% 8% 92%

92
 2.21 Have you had other questions where you had to contact the study team at
80% the Public Policy Center?

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Yes No
Percentages 42% 58%

2.20 Have you had other questions where you had to contact the study team at
the Public Policy Center?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Yes No
% 30% 70%

93
 2.22 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how easy it was to contact
the study team at the Public Policy Center?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Do not Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly
satisfied nor
apply satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
dissatisfied
Percentages 47% 44% 7% 1% 1% 1%

2.21 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how easy it was to contact the
study team at the Public Policy Center?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Neither
Somewhat Somewhat Highly
Highly satisfied satisfied nor Don't know
satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
dissatisfied
% 86% 11% 1% 1% 0% 0%

94
 2.23 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the response of the study
team at the Public Policy Center?
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Do not Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly
satisfied nor Don't know
apply satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
dissatisfied
Percentages 47% 41% 7% 2% 3% 1% 0%

2.22 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the response of the study team
at the Public Policy Center?
90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Somewhat Somewhat Highly
Highly satisfied satisfied nor Don't know
satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
dissatisfied
% 84% 11% 1% 2% 1% 0%

95
Appendix D – Questionnaire 3

96
 National Evaluation of a Mileage-Based Road User Charge
Questionnaire 3
PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
This collection of information is voluntary, and will be used to assess your acceptance of the National
Evaluation of a Mileage-Based Road User Charge. Public reporting burden for this questionnaire is
estimated to average 15 minutes. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Your responses will be kept confidential to the extent permitted
by law. The OMB control number for this collection is 2125-XXXX (state OMB #). Send comments
regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Highway
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

We would like to get an idea of your opinions about environmental issues. Please indicate the extent to
which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

1. All living beings (micro-organisms, plants, animals, and humans) are interdependent.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

2. The world climate will change drastically if carbon dioxidecontinues to be released into the
atmosphere at the rate it is now.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

Continue to the next page

97
3. The speed limits on freeways should be 65 mph.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

4. I prefer to drive only if absolutely necessary (i.e., if no other mode of transportation is available).
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

5. My next automobile will be as small and environmentally friendly as possible.

 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

6. I believe it is important to recycle paper.

 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

7. In winter I keep the heat high so that I do not have to wear a sweater.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

Continue to the next page

98
 8. I believe it is important to be a member of an environmental organization.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

We would like to ask you a few more environmental questions. Please indicate the frequency to which
you do the following statements:

9. When possible I use public transportation or ride a bike.

 Always
 Most of the time
 Sometimes
 Hardly ever
 Never

10. Please include anything else that you would like to share about the environment that was not
included above:

In order to understand how much detail you would like to see in your road- user charge statement, we
have been sending you monthly road-user charge statements. By now, you should have received several
statements. Please refer to them when answering the following questions.

11. How often would you prefer to receive road-user charge statements?
 Monthly
 Every 2 months
 Every 3 months
 Every 6 months
 Every 12 months
Continue to the next page

99
 12. How desirable or undesirable was the level of detail in the road-user charge statement?
 Highly desirable
 Desirable
 Neither desirable nor undesirable
 Undesirable
 Highly undesirable
 Don’t know

13. Please tell us the reasons behind your last 2 answers.

The following questions are about contacting the study team at the Public Policy Center.

14. Have you had any problems with the on-board computer so that you had to contact the study
team at the Public Policy Center?
 Yes
 No

15. Have you had other questions where you had to contact the study team at the Public Policy
Center?
 Yes
 No

If you answered yes to question 14 or 15, please answer the following two questions.

16. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how easy it was to contact the study team at the
Public Policy Center?
 Highly satisfied
 Satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Dissatisfied
 Highly dissatisfied
 Don’t know

Continue to the next page

100
17. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the response of the study team at the Public Policy
Center?
 Highly satisfied
 Satisfied
 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
 Dissatisfied
 Highly dissatisfied
 Don’t know

18. Please include any additional comments about the study team at the Public Policy Center:

VERY IMPORTANT
PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR PARTICIPANT ID NUMBER
BELOW TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN MAIL YOU YOUR
COMPENSATION PAYMENT PROMPTLY.
For assistance please call 866-363-1975.

PARTICIPANT ID # ___________________________________________________

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.

Please return your survey in the enclosed envelope to:

The University of Iowa

Public Policy Center
227 South Quad
Iowa City, IA 52242-1192

101
Mileage-Based Road User Charge Questionnaire 3 Responses

102
 3.1 All living beings (micro-organisms, plants, animals, and humans) are
80% interdependent.

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 55% 32% 8% 3% 3%

3.1 All living beings (micro-organisms, plants, animals, and humans) are
interdependent.
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
agree nor
agree agree disagree disagree
disagree
Percentages 53% 32% 9% 3% 3%

103
 3.2 The world climate will change drastically if carbon dioxide continues to be
50% released into the atmosphere at the rate it is now.

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
agree nor Don't know
agree agree disagree disagree
disagree
Valid Percent 42% 33% 10% 6% 7% 2%

3.2 The world climate will change drastically if carbon dioxide continues to be
released into the atmosphere at the rate it is now.
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 40% 33% 9% 8% 8% 2%

104
 3.3 The speed limits on freeways should be 65 mph.
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
agree nor Don't know
agree agree disagree disagree
disagree
Percentages 20% 29% 17% 18% 16% 1%

3.3 The speed limits on freeways should be 65 mph.

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 23% 25% 12% 18% 21% 1%

105
 3.4 I prefer to drive only if absolutely necessary (i.e., if no other mode of
transportation is available).

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 8% 20% 15% 30% 27%

3.4 I prefer to drive only if absolutely necessary (i.e., if no other mode of

transportation is available).
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
nor disagree disagree
Percentages 8% 19% 14% 29% 29%

106
 3.5 My next automobile will be as small and environmentally friendly as possible.
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
agree nor Don't know
agree agree disagree disagree
disagree
Percentages 17% 25% 21% 17% 14% 6%

3.5 My next automobile will be as small and environmentally friendly as possible .

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 17% 26% 20% 18% 13% 6%

107
 3.6 I believe it is important to recycle paper.
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 67% 24% 6% 1% 1%

3.6 I believe it is important to recycle paper.

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
nor disagree disagree
Percentages 69% 23% 5% 1% 1%

108
 3.7 In winter I keep the heat high so that I do not have to wear a sweater.
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
agree nor Don't know
agree agree disagree disagree
disagree
Percentages 2% 8% 8% 26% 56% 0%

3.7 In winter I keep the heat high so that I do not have to wear a sweater.
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 2% 9% 7% 26% 56% 0%

109
 3.8 When possible I use public transportation or ride a bike.
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Most of the
Always Sometimes Hardly ever Never
time
Percentages 1% 4% 20% 39% 36%

3.8 When possible I use public transportation or ride a bike.

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Always Most of the time Sometimes Hardly ever Never
Percentages 1% 4% 18% 41% 36%

110
 3.10 Did you receive the road-user charge statement and/or view it online?

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Yes No
Percentages 88% 12%

3.10 Did you receive the road-user charge statement and/or view it online?
120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Yes No
Percentages 97% 3%

111
 3.11 If yes, what was the letter in the upper right hand corner of the most
recent road-user charge statement?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 A B C D E
Percentages 12% 38% 47% 1% 1% 1%

3.11 If yes, what was the letter in the upper right hand corner of the most recent
road-user charge statement?
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
No answer A B C D E
Percentages 3% 32% 32% 32% 1% 1%

112
 3.12 How often would you prefer to receive or view road-user charge
100% statements?
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Every 2 Every 3 Every 6 Every 12
Monthly
months months months months
Percentages 70% 8% 17% 3% 2%

3.12 How often would you prefer to receive or view road-user charge
statements?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Monthly Every 2 months Every 3 months Every 6 months Every 12 months
Percentages 75% 8% 13% 3% 1%

113
 3.13 How desirable or undesirable was the level of detail in the road-user
charge statement?
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly
desirable nor
desirable desirable undesirable undesirable
undesirable
Percentages 30% 34% 23% 10% 3%

3.13 How desirable or undesirable was the level of detail in the road-user charge
statement?
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Somewhat Neither desirable Somewhat Highly
Highly desirable
desirable nor undesirable undesirable undesirable
Percentages 35% 37% 19% 7% 2%

114
 3.15 Have you had any problems with the on-board computer so that you
had to contact the study team at the Public Policy Center?
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Yes No
Percentages 19% 81%

3.15 Have you had any problems with the on-board computer so that you had to
contact the study team at the Public Policy Center?
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Yes No
Percentages 9% 91%

115
 3.16 Have you had other questions where you had to contact the study
team at the Public Policy Center?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Yes No
Percentages 33% 67%

3.16 Have you had other questions where you had to contact the study team at
the Public Policy Center?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Yes No
Percentages 29% 71%

116
 3.17 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how easy it was to contact
the study team at the Public Policy Center?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly
Do not apply satisfied nor
satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
dissatisfied
Percentages 57% 35% 5% 1% 1% 1%

3.17 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how easy it was to contact the
study team at the Public Policy Center?
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly
No answer satisfied nor Don't know
satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
dissatisfied
Percentages 65% 30% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0%

117
 3.18 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the response of the study

80% team at the Public Policy Center?

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Do not Highly Somewhat satisfied Somewhat Highly
Don't know
apply satisfied satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied
dissatisfied
Percentages 57% 34% 5% 2% 1% 1% 0%

3.18 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the response of the study team at
the Public Policy Center?
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly
No answer satisfied nor Don't know
satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
dissatisfied
Percentages 65% 30% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0%

118
Appendix D – Questionnaire 4

119
 National Evaluation of a Mileage-Based Road User Charge
Questionnaire 4

PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE

This collection of information is voluntary, and will be used to assess your acceptance of the National
Evaluation of a Mileage-Based Road User Charge. Public reporting burden for this questionnaire is
estimated to average 15 minutes. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Your responses will be kept confidential to the extent permitted
by law. The OMB control number for this collection is 2125-0618. Send comments regarding this burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW, Washington, DC20590.

We are interested in how people get information about events in the news.

1. Where do you get most of your information about current events? Please select all that apply.
 Newspaper
 Magazine
 Internet
 Books/other print
 Television
 Radio
 Government agency
 Family
 Friends/colleague
 Other __________________ (please specify)

Continue to the next page

120
It is hard to keep up with all the issues in the news. For the following issues, please indicate if you are
very well informed, moderately well informed, not well informed, or not at all informed in the issue.

2. Agriculture and farming

 Very well informed
 Moderately well informed
 Not well informed
 Not at all informed

3. Economic and business conditions

 Very well informed
 Moderately well informed
 Not well informed
 Not at all informed

4. Environmental pollution
 Very well informed
 Moderately well informed
 Not well informed
 Not at all informed

5. International and foreign policy

 Very well informed
 Moderately well informed
 Not well informed
 Not at all informed

6. Local schools
 Very well informed
 Moderately well informed
 Not well informed
 Not at all informed

7. Military and defense policy

 Very well informed
 Moderately well informed
 Not well informed
 Not at all informed

Continue to the next page

121
8. New inventions and technologies
 Very well informed
 Moderately well informed
 Not well informed
 Not at all informed

For the following list of statements, please indicate if you strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor
disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree.

9. Science and technology are making our liveshealthier, easier, and more comfortable.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

10. Most scientists strive to work on things thatwill make life better for the average person.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

11. Because of science and technology, there will bemore opportunities for the next generation.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

12. It is not important for me to know aboutscience in my daily life.

 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

Continue to the next page

122
13. Science makes our way of lifechange too fast.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

We face many challenges in this country. Please tell us if you think the government is spending too little,
about the right amount, or too much money on the following:

14. Exploring space

 Too little
 About the right amount
 Too much
 Don’t know

15. Reducing pollution

 Too little
 About the right amount
 Too much
 Don’t know

16. Improving health care

 Too little
 About the right amount
 Too much
 Don’t know

17. Supporting scientific research

 Too little
 About the right amount
 Too much
 Don’t know

18. Improving education

 Too little
 About the right amount
 Too much
 Don’t know

Continue to the next page

123
19. Helping older people
 Too little
 About the right amount
 Too much
 Don’t know

20. Spending for Social Security

 Too little
 About the right amount
 Too much
 Don’t know

21. National defense

 Too little
 About the right amount
 Too much
 Don’t know

22. Helping low-income people

 Too little
 About the right amount
 Too much
 Don’t know

Would you say that you have a lot of confidence, some confidence or hardly any confidence in the
people in charge of the following?

23. Medicine
 A lot of confidence
 Some confidence
 Hardly any confidence

24. Scientific community

 A lot of confidence
 Some confidence
 Hardly any confidence

25. Military
 A lot of confidence
 Some confidence
 Hardly any confidence

Continue to the next page

124
26. Banks and financial institutions
 A lot of confidence
 Some confidence
 Hardly any confidence

27. Major corporations

 A lot of confidence
 Some confidence
 Hardly any confidence

28. Organized religion

 A lot of confidence
 Some confidence
 Hardly any confidence

29. Education
 A lot of confidence
 Some confidence
 Hardly any confidence

30. Executive branch of federal government

 A lot of confidence
 Some confidence
 Hardly any confidence

31. State Department of Transportation (D.O.T.)

 A lot of confidence
 Some confidence
 Hardly any confidence

32. Congress
 A lot of confidence
 Some confidence
 Hardly any confidence

33. The press

 A lot of confidence
 Some confidence
 Hardly any confidence

Continue to the next page

125
34. Television news
 A lot of confidence
 Some confidence
 Hardly any confidence

In order to understand how much detail you would like to see in your road-user charge statement, we
have been sending you monthly road-user charge statements or making them available for you online.
By now, you should have received or viewed several statements. Please refer to them when answering
the following questions.

35. Did you receive the road-user charge statement and/or view it online?
 Yes
 No

36. If yes, what was the letter in the upper right hand corner of the most recent road-user charge
statement?
A
B
C
D
E

37. How often would you prefer to receive or view road-user charge statements?
 Monthly
 Every 2 months
 Every 3 months
 Every 6 months
 Every 12 months

38. How desirable or undesirable was the level of detail in the road-user charge statement?
 Highly desirable
 Somewhat desirable
 Neither desirable nor undesirable
 Somewhat undesirable
 Highly undesirable

39. Please tell us the reasons behind your last 2 answers.

Continue to the next page

126
40. You have been using the on-board equipment and the billing data upload system for several months
now. How well has the equipment performed so far?
 No problems have been encountered
 My vehicle had to be taken to a diagnostic/repair facility once or twice
 There have been multiple or continuous serious problems needing more than two visits

41. How accurate would you say your road-user charge statements were?
 At least once, I was charged a little bit more than I know I should have been
 At least once, I was charged a lot more than I know I should have been
The road-user charge statements appeared to be correct
 At least once, I was charged a little bit less than I know I should have been
 At least once, I was charged a lot less than I know I should have been

42. In setting the per-mile road user charge rate for different classes of vehicles, which one of the
following would you most like to see applied?
 Vehicles that burn more fuel should pay more
 Vehicles that weigh more should pay more
 All vehicles should pay essentially the same amount per mile
 Don’t know

Based on your experience as a participant in the Road User Study, please respond to questions 43 to 47.

43. How confident are you that this technology would perform well if this system were implemented?
 Very confident
 Somewhat confident
 Neither confident nor doubtful
 Somewhat doubtful
 Very doubtful
 Don’t know

44. How confident are you that this technology will be capable of providing accurate and reliable
information on miles traveled?
 Very confident
 Somewhat confident
 Neither confident nor doubtful
 Somewhat doubtful
 Very doubtful
 Don’t know

Continue to the next page

127
45. Based on your review of the monthly road-user charge statements, how confident are you that the
data transfer will be accurate?
 Very confident
 Somewhat confident
 Neither confident nor doubtful
 Somewhat doubtful
 Very doubtful
 Don’t know

46. How confident are you that the Billing and DispersalCenter will process the uploaded data accurately
and thereby provide vehicle owners with proper road-user charge statements?
 Very confident
 Somewhat confident
 Neither confident nor doubtful
 Somewhat doubtful
 Very doubtful
 Don’t know

47. How confident are you that road user revenue will accurately be paid to the state in which travel
occurred?
 Very confident
 Somewhat confident
 Neither confident nor doubtful
 Somewhat doubtful
 Very doubtful
 Don’t know
VERY IMPORTANT
PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR PARTICIPANT ID NUMBER BELOW
TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN MAIL YOU YOUR
COMPENSATION PAYMENT PROMPTLY. For assistance
please call 866-363-1975.

PARTICIPANT ID # ________________________________________________

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.

Please return your survey in the enclosed envelope to:
The University of Iowa
PublicPolicyCenter
227 South Quad
Iowa City, IA52242-1192

128
Mileage-Based Road User Charge Questionnaire 4 Responses

129
 2

Where do you get most of your information about current events? Please select all that apply.
Frequency Percentage
Did not reply 572 49%
Newspaper 586 51%
Books/other print 70 6%
Magazine 182 16%
Internet 796 69%
Radio 653 56%
Television 825 71%
Government agency 43 4%
Friends/colleague 319 28%
Family 257 22%
Other 10 1%

4.1 Where do you get most of your information about current event? Please
select all the apply.
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Governm
Newspap Magazin Books/ot Televisio Friends/C
Internet Radio ent Family Other
er e her print n olleagues
Agency
% 52% 16% 67% 7% 76% 56% 3% 25% 28% 1%

2
Results shown above are not mutually exclusive and do not depend on one another.

130
 4.2 Agriculture and farming
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Very well Moderately well Not well Not at all
informed informed informed informed
Percentages 6% 36% 48% 11%

4.2 Agriculture and farming

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Moderately well
Very well informed Not well informed Not at all informed
informed
% 5% 36% 45% 14%

131
 4.3 Economic and business conditions
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Very well Moderately well Not well Not at all
informed informed informed informed
Percentages 26% 67% 7% 1%

4.3 Economic and business conditions

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Moderately well
Very well informed Not well informed Not at all informed
informed
% 20% 69% 11% 1%

132
 4.4 Environmental pollution
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Very well Moderately well Not well Not at all
informed informed informed informed
Percentages 14% 64% 20% 2%

4.4 Environmental pollution

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Moderately well
Very well informed Not well informed Not at all informed
informed
% 12% 63% 23% 2%

133
 4.5 International and foreign policy

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Very well Moderately well Not well Not at all
informed informed informed informed
Percentages 12% 49% 33% 6%

4.5 International and foreign policy

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Moderately well
Very well informed Not well informed Not at all informed
informed
% 10% 45% 37% 8%

134
 4.6 Local schools
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Very well Moderately well Not well Not at all
informed informed informed informed
Percentages 21% 47% 26% 6%

4.6 Local schools

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Moderately well
Very well informed Not well informed Not at all informed
informed
% 25% 48% 23% 5%

135
 4.7 Military and defense policy
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Very well Moderately well Not well Not at all
informed informed informed informed
Percentages 13% 51% 33% 4%

60%
4.7 Military and defense policy
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Moderately well
Very well informed Not well informed Not at all informed
informed
% 12% 50% 34% 5%

136
 4.8 New inventions and technologies
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

-10%
Very well Moderately well Not well Not at all
informed informed informed informed
Valid Percent 14% 49% 32% 5%

4.8 New inventions and technologies

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Moderately well
Very well informed Not well informed Not at all informed
informed
% 12% 50% 33% 5%

137
 4.9 Science and technology are making our lives healthier, easier, and more
60% comfortable.

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 37% 50% 9% 4% 0%

4.9 Science and technology are making out lives healthier, easier, and more
comfortable
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 32% 52% 10% 4% 1%

138
 4.10 Most scientists strive to work on things that will make life better for
the average person.
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 25% 50% 17% 7% 1%

4.10 Most scientists strive to work on things that will make life better for the
average person
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 23% 52% 19% 5% 1%

139
 4.11 Because of science and technology, there will be more opportunities
80% for the next generation.
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 40% 43% 12% 5% 1%

4.11 Because of science and technology, there will be more opportunities for the
next generation
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 37% 43% 12% 7% 1%

140
 4.12 It is not important for me to know about science in my daily life.
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 5% 11% 13% 31% 39%

4.12 It is not important for me to know about science in my daily life.

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 4% 13% 14% 30% 38%

141
 4.13 Science makes our way of life change too fast.
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 5% 23% 30% 24% 18%

4.13 Science makes our way of life change too fast.

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 6% 27% 29% 23% 15%

142
 4.14 Exploring space

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
About the right
Too little Too much Don't know
amount
Percentages 16% 34% 36% 14%

4.14 Exploring space

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Too little About the right amount Too much Don't know
% 17% 29% 43% 11%

143
 4.15 Reducing pollution

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
About the right
Too little Too much Don't know
amount
Percentages 58% 24% 12% 6%

4.15 Reducing pollution

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Too little About the right amount Too much Don't know
% 53% 29% 10% 7%

144
 4.16 Improving health care

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
About the right
Too little Too much Don't know
amount
Percentages 67% 17% 12% 4%

4.16 Improving healthcare

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Too little About the right amount Too much Don't know
% 62% 15% 18% 5%

145
 4.17 Supporting scientific research

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
About the right
Too little Too much Don't know
amount
Percentages 39% 38% 10% 13%

4.17 Supporting scientific research

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Too little About the right amount Too much Don't know
% 37% 40% 8% 15%

146
 4.18 Improving education

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
About the right
Too little Too much Don't know
amount
Percentages 67% 19% 10% 3%

4.18 Improving education

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Too little About the right amount Too much Don't know
% 72% 18% 7% 3%

147
 4.19 Helping older people

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
About the right
Too little Too much Don't know
amount
Percentages 54% 30% 7% 8%

4.19 Helping older people

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Too little About the right amount Too much Don't know
% 58% 30% 5% 6%

148
 4.20 Spending for Social Security

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
About the right
Too little Too much Don't know
amount
Percentages 45% 29% 13% 13%

4.20 Spending for Social Security

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Too little About the right amount Too much Don't know
% 52% 25% 11% 12%

149
 4.21 National defense

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
About the right
Too little Too much Don't know
amount
Percentages 21% 35% 34% 10%

4.21 National defense

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Too little About the right amount Too much Don't know
% 18% 36% 36% 9%

150
 4.22 Helping low-income people

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
About the right
Too little Too much Don't know
amount
Percentages 34% 30% 29% 7%

4.22 Helping low-income people

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Too little About the right amount Too much Don't know
% 39% 27% 26% 8%

151
 4.23 Medicine

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
Percentages 25% 63% 12%

4.23 Medicine
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
% 20% 64% 16%

152
 4.24 Scientific community

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
Percentages 27% 67% 7%

4.24 Scientific community

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
% 23% 69% 7%

153
 4.25 Military

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
Percentages 37% 50% 13%

4.25 Military
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
% 35% 53% 13%

154
 4.26 Banks and financial institutions

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
Percentages 4% 36% 60%

4.26 Banks and financial institutions

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
% 4% 36% 60%

155
 4.27 Major corporations

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
Percentages 4% 42% 54%

4.27 Major corporations

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
% 4% 42% 55%

156
 4.28 Organized religion

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
Series1 14% 48% 38%

4.28 Organized religion

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
% 14% 48% 38%

157
 4.29 Education

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
Percentages 10% 68% 22%

4.29 Education
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
% 11% 66% 23%

158
 4.30 Executive branch of federal government
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
Percentages 19% 47% 34%

4.30 Executive branch of federal government

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
% 11% 45% 43%

159
 4.31 State Department of transportation (D.O.T.)

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
Valid Percent 9% 69% 22%

4.31 State Department of Transportation (D.O.T.)

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
% 10% 70% 20%

160
 4.32 Congress

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
Percentages 4% 48% 49%

4.32 Congress
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
% 2% 38% 60%

161
 4.33 The press

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
Percentages 5% 44% 51%

4.33 The press

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
% 4% 46% 50%

162
 4.34 Television news

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
Percentages 7% 52% 41%

4.34 Television news

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of confidence Some confidence Hardly any confidence
% 8% 57% 35%

163
 4.35 Did you receive the road-user charge statement and/or view it online?

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Yes No
Percentages 92% 8%

4.35 Did you receive the road-user charge statement and/or view it online?
120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Yes No
% 97% 3%

164
 4.36 If yes, what was the letter in the upper right hand corner of the most
recent road-user charge statement?

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 A B C D E
Percentages 8% 47% 42% 1% 0% 2%

4.36 If yes, what was the letter in the upper right hand corner of the most recent
road-user charge statement?
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
A B C D E
% 33% 31% 34% 1% 0%

165
 4.37 How often would you prefer to receive or view road-user charge
statements?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Every 2 Every 3 Every 6 Every 12
Montly
months months months months
Percentages 68% 9% 17% 4% 2%

4.37 How often would you prefer to receive or view road-user charge statements?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Monthly Every 2 months Every 3 months Every 6 months Every 12 months
% 72% 10% 14% 3% 1%

166
 4.38 How desirable or undesirable was the level of detail in the road-user
charge statement?
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly
desirable or
desirable desirable undesirable undesirable
undesirable
Percentages 33% 33% 19% 9% 5%

4.38 How desirable or undesirable was the level of detail in the road-user charge
statement?
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Somewhat Neither desirable Somewhat
Highly desirable Highly undesirable
desirable nor undesirable undesirable
% 36% 35% 18% 8% 4%

167
 4.40 You have been using the on-board equipment and the billing data
upload system for several months now. How well has the equipment
performed so far?
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
There have been
My vehicle had to be
multiple or continuous
No problems have taken to a
serious problems
been encountered diagnostic/repair
needing more than two
facility once or twice
visits
Percentages 74% 23% 3%

4.40 You have been using the on-board equipment and the billing data upload
system for several months now. How well has the equipment performed so far?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
My vehicle had to be taken to a There have been multiple or
No problems have been
diagnostic/repair facility once continuous serious problems
encountered
or twice needing more than two visits
% 87% 12% 1%

168
 4.41 How accurate would you say your road-user charge statements were?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
At least once, At least once, At least once, At least once,
The road-user
I was charged I was charged I was charged I was charged
charge
a little bit a lot more a little bit less a lot less than
statements
more than I than I know I than I know I I know I
appeared to
know I should should have should have should have
be correct
have been been been been
Percentages 2% 1% 91% 3% 2%

4.41 How accurate would you say your road-user charge statements were?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
At least once, I At least once, I
At least once, I The road-user At least once, I
was charged a was charged a
was charged a lot charge statements was charged a lot
little bit more than little bit less than I
more than I know I appeared to be less than I know I
I know I should know I should
should have been correct should have been
have been have been
% 2% 2% 93% 2% 2%

169
 4.42 In setting the per-mile road user charge rate for different classes of
vehicles, which one of the following would you most like to see applied?
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
All vehicles
Vehicles that Vehicles that should pay
burn more fuel weigh more essentially the Don't know
should pay more should pay more same amount per
mile
Percentages 27% 34% 29% 10%

4.42 In setting the per-mile road user charge rate for different classes of vehicles,
which one of the following would you most like to see applied?
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Vehicles that burn All vehicles should pay
Vehicles that weigh
more fuel should pay essentially the same Don't know
more should pay more
more amount per mile
% 30% 33% 26% 12%

170
 4.43 How confident are you that this technology would perform well if this
system were implemented?
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Very Somewhat confident Somewhat Very
Don't know
confident confidnet nor doubtful doubtful
doubtful
Percentages 26% 46% 12% 9% 5% 2%

4.43 How confident are you that this technology would perform well if this system
were implemented?
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Neither
Somewhat Somewhat
Very confident confident nor Very doubtful Don't know
confident doubtful
doubtful
% 30% 47% 11% 6% 3% 2%

171
 4.44 How confident are you that this technology will be capable of
providing accurate and reliable information on miles traveled?
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Very Somewhat confident Somewhat Very
Don't know
confident confidnet nor doubtful doubtful
doubtful
Percentages 36% 45% 9% 6% 2% 2%

4.44 How confident are you that this technology will be capable of providing
accurate and reliable information on miles traveled?
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Neither
Somewhat Somewhat
Very confident confident nor Very doubtful Don't know
confident doubtful
doubtful
% 39% 47% 8% 4% 1% 1%

172
 4.45 Based on your review of the monthly road-user charge statements,
how confident are you that the data transfer will be accurate?
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Very Somewhat confident Somewhat Very
Don't know
confident confidnet nor doubtful doubtful
doubtful
Percentages 34% 47% 10% 4% 2% 2%

4.45 Based on your review of the monthly road-user charge statements, how
confident are you that the data transfer will be accurate?
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Neither
Somewhat Somewhat
Very confident confident nor Very doubtful Don't know
confident doubtful
doubtful
% 37% 48% 9% 4% 1% 2%

173
 4.46 How confident are you that the Billing and Dispersal Center will
process the uploaded data accurately and thereby provide vehicle owners
with proper road-user charge statements?
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Very Somewhat confident Somewhat Very
Don't know
confident confidnet nor doubtful doubtful
doubtful
Percentages 28% 48% 13% 7% 2% 3%

4.46 How confident are you that the Billing and Dispersal Center will process the
uploaded data accurately and thereby provide vehicle owners with proper road-
user charge statements?
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Neither
Somewhat Somewhat
Very confident confident nor Very doubtful Don't know
confident doubtful
doubtful
% 32% 44% 15% 5% 2% 2%

174
 4.47 How confident are you that road user revenue will accurately be paid
to the state in which travel occurred?
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Neither
Very Somewhat confident Somewhat Very
Don't know
confident confidnet nor doubtful doubtful
doubtful
Percentages 23% 38% 17% 12% 6% 4%

4.47 How confident are you that the road user revenue will accurately be paid to
the state in which travel occurred?
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither
Somewhat Somewhat
Very confident confident nor Very doubtful Don't know
confident doubtful
doubtful
% 22% 37% 19% 12% 5% 5%

175
Appendix D – Questionnaire 5

176
 National Evaluation of a Mileage-Based Road User Charge
Questionnaire 5
PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
This collection of information is voluntary, and will be used to assess your acceptance of the National
Evaluation of a Mileage-Based Road User Charge. Public reporting burden for this questionnaire is
estimated to average 15 minutes. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Your responses will be kept confidential to the extent permitted
by law. The OMB control number for this collection is 2125-XXXX (state OMB #). Send comments
regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Highway
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

The following questions are about energy security. Please choose one answer from the list.

1. The U.S. economy depends on being able to obtain affordable fuel and other energy sources at all
times.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

2. How long do you think our current oil reserves will last under the current production levels and
costs?
 Less than 15 years
 15 years or more, but less than 50 years
 50 years or more, but less than 75 years
 75 years or more, but less than 100 years
 100 years or more
 Indefinitely
 Don’t know

Continue to the next page

177
3. How high will gas prices have to get before you decide to look for an alternative fuel or hybrid
vehicle?
 $3.50 per gallon
 $4.00 per gallon
 $4.50 per gallon
 $5.00 per gallon
 $5.50 per gallon
 $6.00 per gallon
 $6.50 per gallon
 $7.00 per gallon
 $7.50 per gallon
 Drive a hybrid vehicle
 Don’t know

4. In general, do you feel that gas prices are:

 Much too high
 Somewhat high
 About right
 Somewhat low
 Much too low

If you selected “Much too high” as your answer to question number 4 above, please answer question
number 5 below.

5. If you believe gas prices are much too high, why do you think they are so high? Please check all that
apply.
 Oil producing companies setting high prices
 High taxes on gas
 Americans use too much gas
 Market speculation
 Terrorism
 International politics
 Higher production costs
 Higher transporting costs
 Other__________________________(please specify)

Continue to the next page

178
6. If gas prices continue to rise in coming years, how do you think the U.S. driving public will respond?
Please rank the following in terms of how likely you think they are, with 1 being the most likely and
4 being the least likely.
_____ People will use public transportation more
_____ People will move to areas where everything they need is close by
_____ People will buy vehicles that use less gas, such as hybrids and hydrogen or electric cars
_____ People will simply pay the higher price
_____ Other ____________________________ (please specify)

7. In atypical month, about how much does your total household spend on gas for personal vehicles?
 Less than $25
 $25 - $49
 $50 - $74
 $75 - $99
 $100 or more

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

8. Some people feel that dependence on other countries for oil and other energy is a threat to the
country’s security.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

9. With road-user charge statements, a detailed breakdown of charges is more important than
ensuring the highest level of privacy protection.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

10. How much do you worry that problems in other countries will affect the price of oil here?
 A lot
 Some
 Very little
 Not at all

Continue to the next page

179
11. Next month you will receive the final comprehensive survey for the Road User Study. You will also
need to schedule a date and time to have the on-board computer removed from your vehicle. The
dates and times available in your area are listed below. Please pick three and rank them 1 (most
desirable) to 3 (least desirable). Your final compensation of $250 will be mailed to you as soon as
the final comprehensive survey is completed and the OBC is removed.

Dates Times Location Preference

xxx xxx xxx
xxxx xxx xxx
xxxx xxx xxx
xxxx xxx xxx
xxxx xxx xxx

VERY IMPORTANT
PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR PARTICIPANT ID NUMBER
BELOW TO ENSURE THAT YOUR COMPENSATION
PAYMENT IS PROCESSED PROMPTLY.
For assistance please call 866-363-1975.

PARTICIPANT ID # ______________________________________________

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.

Please return your survey in the enclosed envelope to:

The University of Iowa

Public Policy Center
227 South Quad
Iowa City, IA 52242-1192

180
Mileage-Based Road User Charge Questionnaire 5 Responses

181
 5.1 The U.S. economy depends on being able to obtain affordable fuel and other energy
sources at all times.
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 50% 25% 4% 3% 1% 1%

5.1 The U.S. economy depends on being able to obtain affordable fuel and other
energy sources at all times.
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Srongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 59% 32% 5% 3% 1% 1%

182
 5.2 How long do you think our current oil reserves will last under the current production
levels and costs?
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
50 years or 75 years or
15 years or
Less than more, but more, but 100 years
more, but Indefinitely Don't know
15 years less than 75 less than or more
less than 50
years 100 years
Percentages 12% 30% 12% 4% 4% 2% 19%

5.2 How long do you think our current oil reserves will last under the current
production levels and costs?
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
15 years or 50 years or 75 years or
Less than 15 more, but more, but more, but 100 years or
Indefinitely Don't know
years less that 50 less than 75 less than 100 more
years years years
% 14% 34% 15% 6% 6% 2% 23%

183
 5.3 How high will gas prices have to get before you decide to look for an alternative fuel
or hybrid vehicle?
25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
$3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $6.00 $6.50 $7.00 $7.50 Drive a
Don't
per per per per per per per per per hybrid
know
gallon gallon gallon gallon gallon gallon gallon gallon gallon vehicle
Percentages 13% 11% 8% 19% 2% 5% 0% 1% 2% 2% 18%

5.3 How high will gas prices have to get before you decide to look for an
alternative fuel or hybrid vehicle?
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
$3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $6.00 $6.50 $7.00 $7.50 Drive a
Don't
per per per per per per per per per hybrid
know
gallon gallon gallon gallon gallon gallon gallon gallon gallon vehicle
% 12% 19% 10% 22% 2% 5% 1% 1% 2% 2% 24%

184
 5.4 In general, do you feel that gas prices are:
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Much too high Somewhat high About right Somewhat low Much too low
Percentages 34% 35% 10% 3% 1%

5.4 In general, do you feel that gas prices are:

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Much too high Somewhat high About right Somewhat low Much too low
% 48% 40% 9% 2% 1%

185
 5.5 If you believe gas prices are much too high, why do you think they are so high? Please
check all that apply.
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Oil
producin
g America
High Market Internati Higher Higher
compani ns use Terroris
taxes on speculati onal producti transport Other
es too m
gas on Politics on costs ing costs
setting much gas
high
prices
Percentages 26% 12% 7% 17% 5% 17% 5% 6% 5%

5.5 If you believe gas prices are much too high, why do you think they are so high?
Please check all that apply.
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Oil
producing
Americans Market Higher Higher
companie High taxes Internatio
use too speculatio Terrorism productio transporti Other
s setting on gas nal politics
much gas n n costs ng costs
high
prices
% 75% 44% 28% 42% 15% 46% 18% 20% 12%

186
 5.6 If gas prices continue to rise in coming years, how do you think the U.S. driving public
will respond? Please rank the following in terms of how likely you think they are -- People
will use transportation more
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Most Likely Second most likely Third most likely Least likely
Percentages 17% 23% 25% 16%

5.6 If gas prices continue to rise in coming years, how do you think the U.S. driving public
will respond? Please rank the following in terms of how likely you think they are -- People
will move to areas where everything they need is close by
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Most Likely Second most likely Third most likely Least likely
Percentages 7% 12% 24% 38%

187
 5.6 If gas prices continue to rise in coming years, how do you think the U.S. driving public
will respond? Please rank the following in terms of how likely you think they are -- People
will buy vehicles that use less gas, such as hybrids and hydrogen or
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Most Likely Second most likely Third most likely Least likely
Percentages 31% 27% 18% 7%

5.6 If gas prices continue to rise in coming years, how do you think the U.S. driving public
will respond? Please rank the following in terms of how likely you think they are -- People
will simply pay the higher price
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Most Likely Second most likely Third most likely Least likely
Percentages 26% 20% 15% 21%

188
 5.6 If gas prices continue to rise in the coming years, how do you think the U.S.
driving public will respond?
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
People will buy
People will use People will move vehicles that use
People will simply
public to areas where less gas, such as
pay the higher Don’t know
transportation everything they hybrids and
price
more need is close by hydrogen or
electric cars
% 20% 8% 39% 30% 2%

189
 5.7 In a typical month, about how much does your total household spend on gas for
personal vehicles?
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Less than $25 $25-$49 $50-$74 $75-$99 $100 or more
Percentages 1% 5% 14% 14% 50%

5.7 In a typical month, about how much does yout total household spend on gas
for personal vehicles?
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Less than $25 $25-$49 $50-$74 $75-$99 $100 or more
% 0% 7% 17% 17% 59%

190
 5.8 Some people feel that dependence on other countries for oil and other energy is a
threat to the country’s security.
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 35% 36% 7% 3% 1% 1%

5.8 Some people feel that dependence on other countries for oil and other energy
is a threat to the country's security.
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Srongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 41% 41% 9% 6% 2% 2%

191
 5.9 With road-user charge statements, a detailed breakdown of charges is more important
than ensuring the highest level of privacy protection.
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Somewhat agree
nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 13% 25% 18% 14% 12%

5.9 With road-user charge statements, a detailed breakdown of charges is more

important that ensuring the highest level of privacy protection .
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Srongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 16% 31% 24% 16% 14%

192
 5.10 How much do you worry that problems in other countries will affect the price of oil
here?
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
A lot Some Very little Not at all
Percentages 37% 38% 6% 3%

5.10 How much do you worry that problems in other countries will affect the price
of oil here?
50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
A lot Some A little Not at all
% 46% 45% 8% 1%

193
Appendix D – Questionnaire 6

194
 National Evaluation of a Mileage-Based Road User Charge
Questionnaire 6

PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE

This collection of information is voluntary, and will be used to assess your acceptance of the National
Evaluation of a Mileage-Based Road User Charge. Public reporting burden for this questionnaire is
estimated to average 30 minutes. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Your responses will be kept confidential to the extent permitted
by law. The OMB control number for this collection is 2125-XXXX (state OMB #). Send comments
regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Highway
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

The mileage-based road user charge approach could be used in many ways. We would like to know your
views about the following.

1. When driven the same distance, how much should fuel-efficient vehicles be charged compared to
vehicles that use more gas?
 The same amount
 About half as much
 No more than a quarter as much

2. Local governments should pay for streets and roads with a mileage charge instead of with property
taxes.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

Continue to the next page

195
3. How much detail should be stored in the on-board computer and uploaded to the Billing and
Dispersal Center? (Remember that less detail means less data about your travel is stored; more
detail means you will have a clearer understanding of why you were charged what you were
charged.)
 No detail—only the amount owed to each jurisdiction (i.e., state, county) in which travel has
occurred
 Some detail—the miles traveled by jurisdiction and the amount of user charge due
 A lot of detail—the number of miles traveled within each jurisdiction by date and the
amount due by jurisdiction for each date

Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

4. With road-user charge statements, a detailed breakdown of charges is more important than
ensuring the highest level of privacy protection.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

5. Political leaders are likely to keep the gas tax and charge the mileage-based road user charge on top
of it.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

6. Vehicles that burn a lot of gas should be charged higher mileage fees.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

Continue to the next page

196
7. Charging more for vehicles that pollute more would not improve peoples’ health in U.S. cities.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

8. I’m for charging a higher per-mile rate on roads that have a lot of traffic jams to encourage people
to look for other ways to travel.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

9. In most states, vehicle registration fees are an important part of road finance. They generally are
paid once a year and so have little relationship to how much one actually uses roads. Some say that
we should lower them and rely on a mileage charge.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

10. Some say that mileage-based road user charges are fairer than tolls because everyone would pay
the mileage charge no matter what road they are using.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

Continue to the next page

197
11. I don’t think state departments of transportation would use the money collected from a mileage-
based road user charge wisely.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

12. Having an on-board computer that keeps track of how much you owe for using the roads is similar
to having a meter on the side of your house that measures how much water or electricity you use.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

13. I worry that once everyone has an on-board computer, the government will want to use them to
keep track of people’s movements.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

14. As I have learned about the mileage-based road user charge approach, I have come to believe that it
is a fair way to collect funds to pay for our roads.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

Continue to the next page

198
15. Because it would be difficult to install the equipment needed for the mileage-based road user
charge system in existing vehicles, it is best to approach the change from a gas tax to a road user
charge gradually as old vehicles are replaced with new ones that already have the equipment
installed.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

16. I think that if the amount of money raised by the gas tax goes down in the coming years, we should
just spend less on roads.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

17. I am concerned about the deterioration of the nation’s road system.

 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

18. I believe the mileage-based road user charge system will credit me for any gas taxes that I pay, so
that I will not pay twice for using roads.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

Continue to the next page

199
19. Having my current odometer reading to compare with that on my road-user charge statement gives
me enough information to double check that my charges make sense.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

20. One feature I like about the gas tax is that it is included in the price of a gallon of fuel.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree

For each of the following questions, please choose the statement that MOST accurately expresses your
opinion.

21. How would you feel about paying for your use of the roads by getting and paying road-user charge
statements like the ones you’ve received in the study?
 I think it would be a good thing
 I think it would be alright
 I wouldn’t like it or dislike it
 I would dislike it a little
 I would dislike it a lot

22. How do you feel about the idea of replacing the gas tax with a mileage-based road user fee?
 Very positive
 Somewhat positive
 Neither positive nor negative
 Somewhat negative
 Very negative

23. Currently road charges include gas taxes, registration fees, and tolls. If I had to choose between
lower road charges with less well-maintained roads and higher charges with better maintained
roads, I would pick:
 Much lower charges and much less maintenance
 A little lower charges and a little less maintenance
 Do not change road user charge levels or the amount of road maintenance
 A little higher charges and a little more maintenance
 Much higher charges and much more maintenance
Continue to the next page

200
24. Please include any other thoughts about the gas tax and/or the mileage-based road user charge.

25. Which of the following best describes your experience with the on-board equipment that was
installed in your vehicle for this study?
 No problems
 A few minor problems
 Multiple minor problems
 Stopped working at least once
 Stopped working several times

26. Based on your experience in the study, how confident are you that the mileage-based charge system
would work smoothly if it were put into effect at the state and federal level?
 Absolutely confident
 Quite confident
 Not so confident
 Not confident at all
 Don’t know

27. Which of the three types of road-user charge statements do you prefer?
 No detail (only the amount owed to each jurisdiction in which travel has occurred)
 Some detail (the miles traveled by jurisdiction and the amount of user charge due)
 A lot of detail (the number of miles traveled within each jurisdiction by date and the user
charge due by jurisdiction for each date)

28. Please tell us why you liked the road-user charge billing statement that you preferred.

Continue to the next page

201
29. If you would end up paying the same whether we had a gas tax or a mileage-based road user tax,
overall how comfortable would you be with the possibility of mileage-based road user charge
system being widely adopted?’
 Absolutely comfortable
 Quite comfortable
 Somewhat comfortable
 Not so comfortable
 Not comfortable at all
 Don’t know

30. About how many miles did you drive the vehicle equipped with the on-board computer during the
road user study?
 Less than 3,000
 Between 3,000 and 5,999
 Between 6,000 and 9,999
 Between 10,000 and 14,999
 More than 15,000
 Don’t know

31. About how many of those miles were driven more than 100 miles from where you live?
 Almost none
 Some but less than half
 More than half
 Almost all
 Don’t know

32. Do you think the number of miles you drove was different because you were in the study?
 Yes, drove a lot less
 Yes, drove a little less
 No, drove about the same
 Yes, drove a little more
 Yes, drove a lot more
 Don’t know

33. During the study, about how much of your driving was on major freeways and expressways?
 Less than one-quarter
 Between one-quarter and half
 Between half and three-quarters
 Almost all

202
 Continue to the next page

34. How many of your trips combined several purposes (e.g., commuting, shopping, and picking up
children in a single trip)?
 Less than one-quarter
 Between one-quarter and half
 Between half and three-quarters
 Almost all

35. How many miles do you get to a gallon of gas with your vehicle?
 Less than 8 miles per gallon
 About 9 to 15 miles per gallon
 About 16 to 22 miles per gallon
 About 23 to 30 miles per gallon
 More than 30 miles per gallon

36. Please rank the following in terms of how much you think they contribute to paying for local streets
and roads (1 = biggest contributor and 4 = smallest contributor)
_____ Federal funds
_____ State funds
_____ Local property and sales taxes
_____ Land developer fees
_____ Don’t know

37. Please tell us whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: Global Positioning
System (GPS) satellites cannot receive signals from vehicles with GPS receivers and so cannot track
movements.
 Strongly agree
 Somewhat agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

38. How much do you think it would cost to put the on-board equipment for the mileage-based charge
system in every vehicle coming off the assembly line?
 Under $30 (between $1 and $29.99)
 Between $30 and $49.99
 Between $50 and $74.99
 More than $75
 Don’t know

203
 Continue to the next page

39. One of the issues with the gas tax is evasion, where fuel sold for off-road use, such as farming, is
used in vehicles operating on public roads. How big of a problem do you think this is?
 Not a problem
 A small problem
 A big problem
 Don’t know

VERY IMPORTANT
Please provide your participant ID number below to ensure that you receive
your compensation payment promptly. Also if you have not scheduled an
appointment to have the on-board computer removed from your vehicle
please do so TODAY! For assistance please call 866-363-1975.

PARTICIPANT ID # ___________________________________________________________

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.

Please return your questionnaire in the enclosed envelope to:

The University of Iowa

Public Policy Center
227 South Quad
Iowa City, IA 52242-1192

204
Mileage-Based Road User Charge Questionnaire 6 Responses

205
 6.1 When driven the same distance, how much should fuel-efficient vehicles be charged
compared to vehicles that use more gas?
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
No more than a quarter as
The same amount About half as much
much
Percentages 46% 29% 8%

6.1 When driven the same distance, how much should fuel-efficient vehicles be
charged compared to vehicles that use more gas?
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
No more than a quarter as
The same amount About half as much
much
% 52% 37% 10%

206
 6.2 Local governments should pay for streets and roads with a mileage charge instead of
with property taxes.
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 24% 32% 13% 8% 5% 2%

6.2 Local governments should pay for streets and roads with a mileage charge
instead of with property taxes.
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 27% 41% 14% 9% 6% 3%

207
 6.3 How much detail should be stored in the on-board computer and uploaded to the
Billing and Dispersal Center? (Remember that less detail means less data about your travel
is stored; more detail means you will have a clearer understanding of why you were
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
No detail A lot of detail
Percentages 22% 61%

6.3 How much detail should be stored in the on-board computer and uploaded to
the Billing and Dispersal Center? (Remember that less detail means less data
about your travel is stored; more detail means you will have a clearer
understanding of why you were
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
No detail - only the amount owed to each A lot of detail - the number of miles traveled
jurisdiction (i.e., state, county) in which travel within each jurisdiction by date and the amount
has occurred due by jurisdiction for each date
% 27% 73%

208
 6.4 With road-user charge statements, a detailed breakdown of charges is more important
than ensuring the highest level of privacy protection.
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Somewhat agree
nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 15% 29% 10% 16% 13%

6.4 With road-user charge statements, a detailed breakdown of charges is more

important than ensuring the highest level of privacy protection.
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 18% 35% 14% 19% 15%

209
 6.5 Political leaders are likely to keep the gas tax and charge the mileage-based road user
charge on top of it.
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 25% 29% 11% 5% 9% 5%

6.5 Political leaders are likely to keep the gas tax and charge the mileage-based
road user charge on top of it.
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 34% 31% 11% 8% 12% 5%

210
 6.6 Vehicles that burn a lot of gas should be charged higher mileage fees.
25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 17% 23% 10% 15% 18% 1%

6.6 Vehicles that burn a lot of gas should be charged higher mileage fees.
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 22% 29% 11% 17% 21% 1%

211
 6.7 Charging more for vehicles that pollute more would not improve peoples’ health in
U.S. cities.
25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 17% 21% 9% 21% 15% 2%

6.7 Charging more for vehicles that pollute more would not improve peoples'
health in U.S. cities.
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 21% 25% 13% 21% 17% 2%

212
 6.8 I’m for charging a higher per-mile rate on roads that have a lot of traffic jams to
encourage people to look for other ways to travel.
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 8% 21% 14% 16% 24% 1%

6.8 I'm for charging a higher per-mile rate on roads that have a lot of traffic jams
to encourage people to look for other ways to travel.
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 9% 26% 17% 20% 26% 1%

213
 6.9 In most states, vehicle registration fees are an important part of road finance. They
generally are paid once a year and so have little relationship to how much one actually
uses roads. Some say that we should lower them and rely on a mileage charge
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 14% 33% 14% 11% 9% 1%

6.9 In most states, vehicle registration fees are an important part of road finance.
They generally are paid once a year and so have little relationship to how much
one actually uses roads. Some say that we should lower them and rely on a
mileage charge.
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 21% 39% 16% 12% 9% 2%

214
 6.10 Some say that mileage-based road user charges are fairer than tolls because
everyone would pay the mileage charge no matter what road they are using.
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 26% 36% 8% 6% 5% 1%

6.10 Some say that mileage-based road user charges are fairer than tolls because
everyone would pay the mileage charge no matter what road they are using.
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 33% 44% 10% 8% 4% 2%

215
 6.11 I don’t think state departments of transportation would use the money collected
from a mileage-based road user charge wisely.
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 19% 27% 16% 13% 5% 3%

6.11 I don't think state departments of transportation would use the money
collected from a mileage-based road user charge wisely.
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 24% 32% 19% 14% 5% 4%

216
 6.12 Having an on-board computer that keeps track of how much you owe for using the
roads is similar to having a meter on the side of your house that measures how much
water or electricity you use.
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 37% 35% 4% 4% 4% 0%

6.12 Having an on-board computer that keeps track of how much you owe for
using the roads is similar to having a meter on the side of your house that
measures how much water or electricity you use.
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 48% 40% 4% 4% 4% 1%

217
 6.13 I worry that once everyone has an on-board computer, the government will want to
use them to keep track of people’s movements.
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 23% 26% 12% 10% 11% 1%

6.13 I worry that once everyone has an on-board computer, the government will
want to use them to keep track of people's movements.
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 31% 32% 13% 11% 12% 2%

218
 6.14 As I have learned about the mileage-based road user charge approach, I have come
to believe that it is a fair way to collect funds to pay for our roads.
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Somewhat agree
nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 28% 37% 9% 5% 4%

6.14 As I have learned about the mileage-based road user charge approach, I have
come to believe that it is a fair way to collect funds to pay for our roads.
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 32% 45% 11% 6% 5%

219
 6.15 Because it would be difficult to install the equipment needed for the mileage-based
road user charge system in existing vehicles, it is best to approach the change from a gas
tax to a road user charge gradually as old vehicles are replaced with new o
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 22% 36% 10% 7% 6% 2%

6.15 Because it would be difficult to install the equipment needed for the mileage-
based road user charge system in existing vehicles, it is best to approach the
change from a gas tax to a road user charge gradually as old vehicles are replaced
with new o
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 25% 41% 14% 10% 7% 3%

220
 6.16 I think that if the amount of money raised by the gas tax goes down in the coming
years, we should just spend less on roads.
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 2% 6% 10% 25% 39% 1%

6.16 I think that if the amount of money raised by the gas tax goes down in the
coming years, we should just spend less on roads.
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 4% 9% 12% 27% 47% 1%

221
 6.17 I am concerned about the deterioration of the nation’s road system.
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Somewhat agree
nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 35% 33% 10% 4% 1%

6.17 I am concerned about the deterioration of the nation's road system.

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 43% 38% 14% 5% 1%

222
 6.18 I believe the mileage-based road user charge system will credit me for any gas taxes
that I pay, so that I will not pay twice for using roads.
25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Somewhat agree
nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 14% 22% 23% 15% 10%

6.18 I believe the mileage-based road user charge system will credit me for any
gas taxes that I pay, so that I will not pay twice for using roads.

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 17% 27% 27% 17% 11%

223
 6.19 Having my current odometer reading to compare with that on my road-user charge
statement gives me enough information to double check that my charges make sense.
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 23% 41% 9% 6% 2% 2%

6.19 Having my current odometer reading to compare with that on my road-user

charge statement gives me enough information to double check that my charges
make sense.
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 28% 48% 11% 7% 3% 4%

224
 6.20 One feature I like about the gas tax is that it is included in the price of a gallon of fuel.
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Somewhat agree
nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 24% 31% 14% 8% 5%

6.20 One feature I like about the gas tax is that it is included in the price of a
gallon of fuel.
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Neither agree nor Somewhat
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Strongly disagree
disagree disagree
% 28% 35% 18% 10% 9%

225
 6.21 How would you feel about paying for your use of the roads by getting and paying
road-user charge statements like the ones you’ve received in the study?
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
I think it would I think it would I wouldn't like it I would dislike it I would dislike it
be a good thing be alright or dislike it a little a lot
Percentages 23% 34% 10% 8% 8%

6.21 How would you feel about paying for your use of the roads by getting and
paying road-user charge statements like the ones you've received in the study?
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
I think it would be I think it would be I wouldn't like it or I would dislike it a I would dislike it a
a good thing alright dislike it little lot
% 29% 41% 12% 10% 9%

226
 6.22 How do you feel about the idea of replacing the gas tax with a mileage-based road
user fee?
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Somewhat Neither positive Somewhat
Very positive Very negative
positive nor negative negative
Percentages 24% 34% 10% 7% 7%

6.22 How do you feel about the idea of replacing the gas tax with a mileage-based
road user fee?
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Neither positive Somewhat
Very positive Somewhat positive Very negative
nor negative negative
% 30% 41% 13% 11% 6%

227
 6.23 Currently road charges include gas taxes, registration fees, and tolls. If I had to
choose between lower road charges with less well-maintained roads and higher charges
with better maintained roads, I would pick:
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Do not change
Much lower A little lower A little higher Much higher
user charge
charges and charges and a charges and a charges and
levels or the
much less little less little more much more
amount of road
maintenance maintenance maintenance maintenance
maintenance
Percentages 2% 9% 25% 40% 6%

6.23 Currently road charges include gas taxes, registration fees, and tolls. If I had
to choose between lower road charges with less well-maintained roads and
higher charges with better maintained roads, I would pick:
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Do not change
Much lower A little lower road user charge A little higher Much higher
charges and much charges and a little levels or the charges and a little charges and much
less maintenance less maintenance amount of road more maintenance more maintenance
maintenance
% 2% 11% 32% 47% 8%

228
 6.25 Which of the following best describes your experience with the on-board equipment
that was installed in your vehicle for this study?
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
A few minor Multiple minor Stopped working Stopped working
No problems
problems problems at least once several times
Percentages 46% 26% 2% 6% 3%

6.25 Which of the following best describes your experience with the on-board
equipment that was installed in your vehicle for this study?
90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A few minor Multiple minor Stopped working Stopped working
No problems
problems problems at least once several times
% 81% 12% 1% 5% 1%

229
 6.26 Based on your experience in the study, how confident are you that the mileage-
based charge system would work smoothly if it were put into effect at the state and
federal level?
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Absolutely Not confident at
Quite confident Not so confident Don't know
confident all
Percentages 9% 42% 18% 9% 6%

6.26 Based on your experience in the study, how confident are you that the
mileage-based charge system would work smoothly if it were put into effect at the
state and federal level?
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Absolutely
Quite confident Not so confident Not confident at all Don't know
confident
% 14% 50% 19% 8% 8%

230
 6.27 Which of the two types of road-user charge statements do you prefer?
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
No detail A lot of detail
Percentages 17% 66%

6.27 Which of the two types of road-user charge statements do you prefer?
90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A lot of detail (the number of miles traveled
No detail (only the amount owed to each
within each jurisdiction by date and the user
jurisdiction in which travel has occurred)
charge due by jurisdiction for each date)
% 22% 78%

231
 6.29 If you would end up paying the same whether we had a gas tax or a mileage-based
road user tax, overall how comfortable would you be with the possibility of mileage-based
road user charge system being widely adopted?
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Not
Absolutely Quite Somewhat Not so
comfortable Don't know
comfortable comfortable comfortable comfortable
at all
Percentages 16% 28% 22% 7% 7% 2%

6.29 If you would end up paying the same whether we had a gas tax or a mileage-
based road user tax, overall how comfortable would you be with the possibility of
mileage-based road user charge system being widely adopted?
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Not
Absolutely Quite Somewhat Not so
comfortable at Don't know
comfortable comfortable comfortable comfortable
all
% 16% 37% 27% 11% 7% 3%

232
 6.30 About how many miles did you drive the vehicle equipped with the on-board
computer during the road user study?
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Between Between Between
Less than More than
3,000 and 6,000 and 10,000 and Don't know
3,000 15,000
5,999 9,999 14,999
Percentages 9% 21% 24% 10% 4% 14%

6.30 About how many miles did you drive the vehicle equipped with the on-board
computer during the road user study?
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Between
Between 3,000 Between 6,000 More than
Less than 3,000 10,000 and Don't know
and 5,999 and 9,999 15,000
14,999
% 15% 26% 26% 11% 6% 17%

233
 6.31 About how many of those miles were driven more than 100 miles from where you
live?
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Some but less
Almost none More than half Almost all Don't know
than half
Percentages 32% 38% 5% 3% 4%

6.31 About how many of those miles were driven more than 100 miles from
where you live?
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Some but less than
Almost none More than half Almost all Don't know
half
% 45% 38% 8% 3% 6%

234
 6.32 Do you think the number of miles you drove was different because you were in the
study?
90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Yes, drove a No, drove about Yes, drove a Yes, drove a lot
Don't Know
little less the same little more more
Percentages 1% 81% 1% 0% 1%

6.32 Do you think the number of miles you drove was different because you were
in the study?
120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Yes, drove a lot Yes, drove a No, drove Yes, drove a Yes, drove a lot
Don't know
less little less about the same little more more
% 0% 1% 98% 1% 0% 1%

235
 6.33 During the study, about how much of your driving was on major freeways and
expressways?
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Less than one- Between one- Between half and
Almost all
quarter quarter and half three quarters
Percentages 21% 28% 26% 9%

6.33 During the study, about how much of your driving was on major freeways
and expressways?
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Between one-quarter Between half and
Less than one-quarter Almost all
and half three-quarters
% 32% 35% 24% 9%

236
 6.34 How many of your trips combined several purposes (e.g., commuting, shopping, and
picking up children in a single trip)?
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Less than one- Between one- Between half and
Almost all
quarter quarter and half three-quarters
Percentages 16% 26% 24% 17%

6.34 How many of your trips combined several purposes (e.g., commuting,
shopping, and picking up children in a single trip)?
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Between one-quarter Between half and
Less than one-quarter Almost all
and half three-quarters
% 22% 31% 26% 21%

237
 6.35 How many miles do you get to a gallon of gas with your vehicle?
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Less than 8 miles About 9 to 15 About 16 to 22 About 23 to 30 More than 30
per gallon miles per gallon miles per gallon miles per gallon miles per gallon
Percentages 0% 11% 40% 26% 6%

6.35 How many miles do you get to a gallon of gas with your vehicle?
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Less than 8 miles About 9 to 15 About 16 to 22 About 23 to 30 More than 30
per gallon miles per gallon miles per gallon miles per gallon miles per gallon
% 0% 13% 48% 31% 8%

238
 6.37 Please tell us whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: Global
Positioning System (GPS) satellites cannot receive signals from vehicles with GPS receivers
and so cannot track movements.
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Don't know
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree
Percentages 6% 5% 8% 11% 39% 15%

6.37 Please tell us whether you agree or disagree with the following statement:
Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites cannot receive signals from vehicles
with GPS receivers and so cannot track movements.
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
Strongly agree Don't know
agree nor disagree disagree disagree
% 6% 6% 11% 13% 41% 22%

239
 6.38 How much do you think it would cost to put the on-board equipment for the
mileage-based charge system in every vehicle coming off the assembly line?
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Under $30
Between $30 Between $50
(between $1 and More than $75 Don't know
and $49.99 and $74.99
$29.99
Percentages 11% 14% 18% 26% 14%

6.38 How much do you think it would cost to put the on-board equipment for the
mileage-based charge system in every vehicle coming off the assembly line?
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Under $30
Between $30 and Between $50 and
(between $1 and More than $75 Don't know
$49.99 $74.99
$29.99)
% 13% 19% 20% 30% 17%

240
 6.39 One of the issues with the gas tax is evasion, where fuel sold for off-road use, such as
farming, is used in vehicles operating on public roads. How big of a problem do you think
this is?
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Not a problem A small problem A big problem Don't know
Percentages 13% 45% 10% 15%

6.39 One of the issues with the gas tax is evasion, where fuel sold for off-road use,
such as farming, is used in vehicles operating on public roads. How big of a
problem do you think this is?
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Not a problem A small problem A big problem Don't know
% 13% 53% 14% 20%

241
Appendix E

242
Summary Introduction
The study questionnaires were not limited to quantitative response, but additionally included qualitative
questions (open-ended). These open-ended questions were asked to determine participant motivation
behind responses to multiple choice questions.

Training Questionnaire Summary Report

The baseline questionnaire was completed by each of the participants at the training sessions which
were held in October 2008 in year 1 and August 2009 in year 2. It was meant to determine attitudes and
opinions toward a road user charge before becoming familiar with the concept behind the Road User
Study

Question 6 on the training questionnaire asked if the participants had any other comments about the
Road User Study. This follow multiple choice questions on the topics of financing and maintenance of
roads in the future, privacy concerns and initially assessing the comfort level of a mileage-based road
user system. Several participants reported they were happy to be in the study. They reported support
for the general concept, interest in the outcome and understanding for a need for a new system for road
finance as some of the reasons they were happy to participate in the study. Participants also expressed
that the mileage-based road user system was a positive concept and a fair way of collecting road user
charges. Most of these participants who held an opinion expressed their concern for how a real system
would be administered. However, this early in the process, few participants had strong opinions about
the study, and most did not comment at all.

Questionnaire 1 Summary Report

Questionnaire 1 was completed by each participant after they had their OBU installed, ranging from
days after their appointment to two months later. This questionnaire was available to participants on
December 26, 2008 in year 1 and October 16, 2009 in year 2. In year 1 the data was taken from 1,187
completed questionnaires and in year 2 from 1,409 completed questionnaires.

Question 2 of questionnaire 1 asked participants about their feelings toward a mileage-based road user
fee. The purpose of asking this question was to allow participants to voice their initial feedback about
the proposed idea, including concerns, assumptions, expectations, and hopes about the concept. In both
year 1 and 2, participants generally felt positive, stating it was a good concept and a fair way of
collecting money for road use. Some participants were pleased with the idea of the system because
they thought it would save them money over the current gas tax. Many participants at this point
expressed mixed feelings, or felt impartial because they did not know enough about the system.

In both years, for participants that expressed negative opinions mentioned they did not like the concept
simply because they did not want to receive another bill. In year 1, some participants were also
concerned about privacy, how the transition to a system like this would occur and that a mileage-based
charge would be unfair for people who drive a lot. Participants in the second year were more concerned
about being taxed both at the pump and from a mileage-based system. Participants in both years
expressed a desire for the statement to compare costs for the proposed mileage-based fee to the
current gas tax.

Question 9 of questionnaire 1 asked the participants to express their written opinions regarding the
training session they attended. This question was intended to receive feedback about the training

243
session since participant experience at the training session may influence opinions about the idea of a
road user charge. It also allowed the study team to revise the sessions in year 2 if needed. Additionally,
this was an opportunity to have face-to-face interaction between participants. Overwhelmingly,
participants reported that the training session was informative, and efficient.

“Comments about the on board Unit installation” was the fifteenth question asked on the first
questionnaire. This question was posed in order to gauge what types of experiences had occurred with
the installation process. It was important for study team to note how participants responded to having
this equipment installed into their personal vehicles. Feedback about technicians and installers
gathered from year 1 helped influence the decision to eliminate displays and change the contractors
responsible for the equipment and installations for year 2.

The participants’ feedback concerning the installation was overall satisfaction with the installation
process and the technicians at the shop. Adversely, participants expressed dissatisfaction with the
dealerships or shops where the work was performed because of the facility’s physical location (noting
neighborhood or distance from their home) and amenity limitations of the shop. Several participants in
year 1 complained about how long the installation lasted. Fewer participants complained about this in
year 2, likely because trainers were able to more accurately estimate how long installations would take.
Year 2 participants often reported that the installation time was adequate or even shorter than
expected.

Question 17 requested comments on the on-board-display. Year 1 equipment included a display screen
to enter gallons of gas purchased. Generally, participants reported this equipment was easy to use and
worked fine, but there were some complaints about the display not working and being placed
inconveniently within the vehicle.

The final question on questionnaire 22, requested the participants’ feedback regarding the study team
at the Public Policy Center call center. This question helped the study team identify patterns of strengths
and weaknesses in customer service in order to better provide for the participants in the study.
Recurrent themes were very positive, noting representatives were friendly, helpful, professional, and
responded promptly. Other themes coded were problems with contacting or being contacted by the
study team, and inadequate responses or disorganization from representatives. It is worth noting that
looking at year 1 versus year 2, complaints about the customer service went down in frequency, possibly
due to a more experienced call center staff.

Questionnaire 2 Summary Report

Questionnaire 2 was completed about six weeks after the OBU installation. In year 1 the data was taken
from 1,175 completed questionnaires and in year 2 from 1,394 completed questionnaires. This
questionnaire was available to participants on February 5, 2009 in year 1 and November 27, 2009 in year
2 of the study. Questionnaire 2 asks questions about the implementation and administration of a road
user fee.

“Please include any other opinions about the gas tax and/or mileage-based road user charge” was
question 14. Previous multiple choice questions pertained to fairness of implementing a mileage-based
charge, costs to consumers, existing taxes, and preferences for administration of the potential system.
The purpose of this question was to give participants an opportunity to comment on any aspects of the
mileage-based road user charge system.

244
In both years, participants reported that they liked to see their driving habits through details in the
statement. Participants also felt that rates for different vehicles should be different based on weight,
fuel efficiency, or other factors. In this early questionnaire, many participants raised negative concerns.
These concerns were primarily about privacy, the ability of government to enforce the billing and
prevent tampering with the system, and that the mileage-based charge would be assessed in addition
to, not instead of the existing fuel tax. Some participants disliked the system simply because they did
not want another bill. In the first year of the study, concern about the transition to the mileage system
was raised often; this concern was voiced less often by participants in year 2. Instead, the second year
participants were concerned about how the system would actually be administered and go into effect; a
concern scarcely mentioned in the first year of the study. Second year participants also spoke out about
their distrust of the government or gas companies while first year participants were less vocal.

Question 17 in questionnaire 2 followed two quantitative questions on invoicing frequency and level of
detail. In both years, most participants indicated that the detail was adequate or that they would rather
have more detail than provided. Few participants reported that they would prefer less detail than
provided. The most desired frequency for the statements was monthly. Participants indicated this
preference for several reasons including: it was easier to budget monthly, other bills come monthly,
monthly means that charges did not accumulate, and that it was easier to recall just one month of travel
activity while checking the statement for accuracy. Some participants preferred to receive the
statement quarterly instead. They believed it was a waste of resources to send the bill more frequently
or preferred to see their driving behaviors seasonally.

The final question, number 22 asked about participant interaction with the Public Policy Center call
center staff. In both years of the study, most participants felt the call center representatives were
professional and helpful. Very few participants reported having any problems at all with the Public
Policy Center.

Questionnaire 3 Summary Report

Questionnaire 3 had an environmental theme that was used to build an attitudinal profile of the
participants. Environmental attitudes were selected based on the possible conflicting concerns
regarding reduced driving to benefit the environment but having the benefit low fuel tax obligation due
to reduced fuel consumption being off-set by a mileage-based charge.

Question 10 requested that the participants “Please include anything else that you would like to share
about the environment that was not included above.” The previous eight questions on questionnaire 3
asked about participants’ views and perceptions of the environment. Most took the opportunity to give
the study team a personal account of their recycling habits and other ‘green’ efforts. Some expressed
the overall need of the country to conserve energy and reduce waste. Others lamented the minimal
availability of public transportation in their area.

Question 13 in questionnaire 3 followed two quantitative questions on invoicing frequency and level of
detail. On the third questionnaire, participants were overwhelmingly positive about the system. Just as
in questionnaire 2, many participants commented on questionnaire 3 that they enjoyed reviewing
statements and prefer to receive statements once a month because that is how they get their other
bills, it is easier to budget, the charges do not build up and it is easier to check for accuracy. Some
participants wanted to receive statements quarterly to give charges time to build up, making each

245
payment a worthwhile sum rather than a few dollars each month. Participants felt the statement was
easy to understand and the detail provided was adequate. Many participants indicated they would like
to see more detail on their statements. Very few people voiced a privacy concern in this questionnaire.
The biggest reason indicated in questionnaire 3 that people did not like the system is that they did not
want the hassle of receiving another bill, although this complaint was mentioned by very few
participants.

The final question, number 18 asked about participant interaction with the Public Policy Center call
center staff. Most participants who chose to comment felt the study team was helpful, friendly and
professional.

Questionnaire 4 Summary Report

Questionnaire 4 was completed by each participant after they had been actively engaged in the
study for approximately four to five months.

Question 45 in questionnaire 4 followed two quantitative questions on invoicing frequency and level of
detail and was identical in wording and placement as in questionnaires 2 and 3. As seen in previous
questionnaires, participants would still like to see more detail in their statements; they wanted
to understand why they were being charged what they were being charged instead of being
presented a simple bill with no explanatory information. Other participants reported detail
provided in the charge statements was adequate for their needs and the statements were easy
to understand. In year 1, few people indicated that they would prefer less detail, though this
opinion was expressed more in year 2.

Participants overwhelmingly preferred to receive statements once a month because that is how they
get their other bills, it is easier to budget, the charges do not build up and it is easier to check for
accuracy. As in previous questionnaires, some participants expressed a desire to receive the statement
quarterly instead, citing that it was a waste of resources to send the bill more frequently or that they
preferred to see their driving behaviors seasonally. These reasons were mentioned in other
questionnaires, but less often than the preference for monthly bills. Year 2 participants often
reported that they liked reviewing the statements because it allowed them to see their driving
habits and possibly take steps to decrease unnecessary driving. This was mentioned by year 1
participants too, but much less often.

Questionnaire 5 Summary Report

Only in question 6 were the participants given the opportunity to state an opinion regarding how they
think the public will react to increasing fuel prices. This was an optional “other” response if they did not
find an adequate stated response. Of those how responded most participants thought that the public
response to price increases would be to drive less. They blamed rising prices on politics, greed and
dependence on foreign oil.

Questionnaire 6 Summary Report

Questionnaire 6 was available to participants on July 23, 2009 in year 1, and May 28, 2010 in year 2.
Both this questionnaire and equipment removal had to be completed before participants were issued
their final payment. In year 1, 1,151 completed this questionnaire and 1,366 completed it in year 2. By

246
the sixth questionnaire, participants were familiar with the system and the types of questions that
would be asked. The responses to open-ended questions given in both years were quite similar.

Question 24 in questionnaire 6, the exit questionnaire requested the participants to include any other
thoughts about the gas tax and/or the mileage-based road user charge. Overall, participants felt that a
mileage-based charge was a good, fair concept; this expressed appreciation for the system grew
substantially since the beginning of the study. The most common concern raised was that the system
could be considered an invasion of privacy. Some participants were also concerned about the logistics
of transitioning to a mileage-based system, and that if the system were implemented the system would
be in addition to, not instead of the existing gas tax.

Similar to responses on previous questionnaires, participants were asked to state why they preferred
the invoice they selected. They overwhelmingly preferred more detail and appreciated the ability to
verify their statements. Others felt the detail given was adequate. A smaller subset of participants
would have liked the statement to contain less detail usually because they did not want to take the time
to review many details or were concerned about privacy. In both years and across all questionnaires,
many participants found the statements easy to comprehend and enjoyed reviewing them to see their
driving habits.

247
Appendix F

248
Thematic Summary of Participants Responses to Quantitative Questions
Participants were asked thematic questions throughout the study to gauge changes in participants’
opinions. This section provides a summary based on the common themes of; 1) contacting the study
team with on-board equipment problems or questions, 2) attitudes and perceptions on billing for a
mileage-based charge, 3) attitude toward privacy in a mileage-based system, 4) implementation of a
mileage-based charging system, 5) driving attitude and behavior, and 5) general attitude toward the
mileage-based fee system.

Contacting the Study Team with On-board Unit Problems/Questions

During both years, up to the point of the first questionnaire, most participants did not needed to contact
the study team. After the training and OBU installation appointment, in the first year, 11% of
participants had problems with their on-board units compared to only 4% in year 2. This is mostly
attributed to the exclusion of the in-car displays in the second year. Forty-two percent of participants
contacted the study team with miscellaneous questions during the first year versus 36% during the
second year. Of the participants that needed to contact the study team, in both years, over 90% of the
applicable participants were satisfied with how easy it was to contact the study team at The University
of Iowa. Also, in both years, over 90% of those that contacted the study team felt satisfied to some
extent with the response of the study team at the Public Policy Center. The results for these questions
can be seen in Appendix D - Figures 1.16 through 1.19.

By questionnaire 2, in the first year, 7% of participants said entering the number of gallons of gas they
bought into the on-board unit was a serious hassle. The purpose of the display was to verify refueling
events and the amount of fuel purchased. The display was not an integral element of the mileage-based
system and was not included in the protocol for the second year of the study.

For both years, by questionnaire 2, most participants did not contact the study team for any reason. In
the first year, problems with the on-board unit caused 22% of participants to contact the study team
compared to 8% during the second year. Forty-one percent of participants in the first year and 30% in
the second year contacted the study team with questions. Among those participants who needed to
contact the study team prior to this questionnaire, nearly all of the participants were satisfied with how
easy it was to contact the study team as well as with the response of the study team, as can be seen in
Appendix D - Figures 2.19 through 2.22.

By questionnaire 3, 19% had problems with the on-board unit that required them to contact the study
team in the first year versus 9% in the second year. Thirty-four percent, in the first year, contacted the
study team with questions, and that number dropped to 29% in the second year. These percentages can
be seen in Appendix D - Figures 3.15 and 3.16.

For those participants that needed to contact the study team at the Public Policy Center, over 90% were
satisfied in both years with both how easy it was to contact the study team as well as with the response
of the study team as seen Appendix D - in Figures 3.17 and 3.18.

By questionnaire number 4, in both years, the number of participants who needed to contact the study
team with problems from the on-board unit rose. Still, most participants (74% in year one and 87% in
year two) encountered no problems with their on-board unit. In the first year, display issues accounted

249
for 26% of the reported conflicts. Of those participants with problems on 3% in year one and 1% in year
two encountered more than two problems requiring shop visits.

In questionnaire number 6 (the exit questionnaire), participants were asked about their cumulative
problems with their on-board equipment throughout the duration of the study. In year one, 46% of
participants stated that they did not experience any problems with their on-board equipment. In year
two the number of trouble-free participants rose to 81%. Twenty-eight percent in year one had minor
problems while only 13% had minor problems in year two. Nine percent of participants saw their
equipment stop working at least once in year one, and in year two that number dropped to 6%.

Attitudes and Perceptions on Billing for a Mileage-based Charging Fee

Conceptual questions about billing for the mileage-based charging fee were asked in the second
questionnaire to gain an understanding of participants’ initial views. Receiving a road-user charge
statement for the use of public roads was seen as similar to getting a bill for electricity or water use by
83% of year one participants and 81% of year two participants. When asked the question of whether the
Billing and Dispersal Center should be run by a private company of government agency, 41% of year one
and 51% of year two participants said they would prefer a private company, 24% and 22% preferred
government, and 35% and 27% were indifferent to the notion. Regardless of who runs the Billing and
Dispersal Center nearly all (89% of year one and 91% of year two) of the participants responded they
agreed there must be strict laws about what the billing and dispersal center can do with the data it
acquires from road usage.

Throughout the duration of both years of the study, over 70% of participants selected that they would
prefer to receive road user charge statements monthly. Quarterly statements were always the second-
most common answer.

Of the participants who received their road-user charge statements 67% found the level of detail of the
statement desirable with 23% finding it neither desirable nor undesirable. Participants generally agreed,
73% in year one and 74% in year two, that they would rather receive a monthly road-user charge
statement that explained the charges in detail rather than having the on-board unit store only the total
amount due to each jurisdiction while 12% and 11% disagreed. Eighty-eight percent of participants in
year one agreed that the mileage-based charge gives them a better sense of how much they are actually
paying for using public roads as compared to the gas tax. This number fell marginally in year two to 85%.
The complete results for these questions can be seen in Appendix D - Figures 2.4, 2.8, and 2.17.

By questionnaire 3, 72% of the participants found that the level of detail in their road user charge
statement desirable. Nineteen percent of participants answered neutrally, finding the level of detail
neither desirable nor undesirable. The remaining participants found the level of detail in the statement
to be undesirable. See Appendix D - Figure 3.13.

Seventy-one percent of participants felt the level of detail in their charge statement was either highly
desirable or somewhat desirable while 12% felt the level of detail in their statement was undesirable to
some extent. Almost all, 93%, of participants felt their monthly road-user charge statements appeared
to be accurate. Four percent thought they were over-charged and 4% thought they had been under-
charged.

250
Attitude towards Privacy in a Mileage-based Fee System
The participants were asked to rate the tradeoff between privacy and audit ability of the system. Thirty-
eight percent of year one participants and 47% of year two participants believed that a detailed charge
summary is most important while 26% and 30% chose privacy protection as their priority.

Nearly half of year one participants (49%) and 63% of year two participants agreed that once everyone
had an on-board unit, the government would want to use them to keep track of people’s movements.
By the sixth questionnaire, in both years, it was evident that, overall, participants valued detail in their
charge statements. When asked whether they wanted a lot of detail stored in the on-board unit or just
the amount due 61% of year one participants and 73% of year two participants said they would like a
high level of detail to be stored in the on-board unit. When asked about detail versus privacy protection,
however, the number of detail advocates dropped slightly from 44% in year one and 53% in year two.
Interestingly, when asked which type of charge statement they preferred, 66% of year one participants
and 78% of those in year two said they would like to see a detailed breakdown of charges.

Regarding Implementation of a Mileage-based Fee System

Participants were asked questions regarding the implementation of the mileage-based road user fee
system throughout the course of the study in order to see how, if at all, their participation in the study
had changed their opinions on the subject.

By questionnaire number two most participants were not concerned that if a mileage-based road user
charge was implemented that they would have to pay both the gas tax and the mileage fee. Seventy-
four percent of first year participants and 77% of second year participants were not concerned.
Responses were more varied in their concern about the gas tax raising enough money to pay for roads in
the future as over half in both years (54% and 53%) were worried that it would not raise enough money.
These responses can be seen in Appendix D - Figures 2.1 and 2.3.

The attitudes towards charging fuel-efficient vehicles less were moderately positive, with 58% of year
one participants and 69% of year two participants responding in favor to the notion. The impact of very
fuel-efficient vehicles or vehicles powered by hydrogen-power were viewed by 31% of year one and 36%
of year two participants as too far in the future to influence the way we should collect road user
charges. About half the participants in both years (58% and 50%) said that those technologies are
relevant and should be considered in road financing determination. Including vehicle size and weight as
a factor in determining the fees applied to vehicles was agreed to by 62% of year one and 56% of year
two participants while 31 and 36% disagreed in the two years. These Figures can be compared in
Appendix D - Figures 2.4, 2.6, and 2.9.

By questionnaire number 4, participants had been in the study 6 months and so were well-acquainted
with the technology used to record their mileage. Overall, participants were confident in the Road User
Charge system and its technologies. Seventy-two percent of year one and 77% of year two participants
demonstrated confidence to some degree that the technology would perform well if the system were
implemented. The majority of participants in each year (64% and 76%) agreed that having their current
odometer reading to compare with their road-user charge statement was enough to double check for
accuracy. This opinion is back by the fact that over 80% of participants in each year were confident that
the technology would be capable of providing accurate and reliable information on miles traveled.
Based on their review of the monthly road-user charge statements 81% of year one and 85% of year two
participants were confident that the technology would be capable of accurate data transfer and 76% of

251
participants in both years felt confident that the Billing and Dispersal Center would handle that
information correctly. Finally, about 60% of participants in both years felt confident that the money
collected would be accurately paid to the jurisdiction in which the travel actually occurred.
Implementation questions in questionnaire 6 were aimed at gauging participant opinions on specific
facets of the mileage-based system. In both years 38% of participants believed that charging more for
less fuel-efficient vehicles would improve health while a nearly equal number of participants believed it
would not cause health to improve. Twenty-nine percent of year one and 35% of year two participants
agreed to some extent with the notion of charging higher per-mile rates on frequently congested roads
with 40 and 46% in the two years disagreeing to some degree. Forty seven percent of those in year one
and 60% of year two participants believe vehicle registration fees should be reduced in favor of a
mileage charge. Sixty-two percent of year one participants also believed a mileage charge to be fairer
than tolls. The number rose to 77% in year two. Sixty-five and 77%out of each year agreed the mileage
charge system to be fair overall. Almost half in each year (46% and 56%) agreed to some extent that
they did not think State DOTs would use the money collected wisely. A strong majority in each year (72%
and 88%) of participants agreed to some extent that having an on-board unit keeping track of miles
driven is similar to having a meter on the side of your house keeping track of your water or electricity
use.

Rather than retrofitting existing cars, the majority of participants (58% in year one and 66% in year two)
agreed that it would be best to implement the mileage-based fee system gradually with the highest
percentage in each year (26% and 30%) thinking it would cost over $75 to install the equipment in new
vehicles. Sixty-eight percent in year one and 81% in year two were concerned about the deterioration of
the nation’s road system, and 64 and 74% of participants believe it would be a mistake to reduce road
expenditures in light of the decreasing amount of money collected by the gas tax. A little under half of
the participants in each year would prefer to pay a little more in taxes in exchange for a little more
maintenance. The convenience of the gas tax being included in the price of fuel was appreciated in the
two years by 55 and 63% of participants, and its inclusion was recognized by 92% of year one and 89% of
year two participants. Fifty-three percent of participants view gas tax evasion as a small problem. Fifty-
eight percent of year one participants and 71% of year two participants said they would be receptive to
replacing the gas tax with the mileage-based fee, and 36 and 44 percent believed they would be
credited for any gas taxes paid so that they would not pay twice for using roads. Fifty-seven percent and
70% of participants would be willing to pay for the roads in the manner presented in the study.
However, 54% of year one and 64% of year two participants believed political leaders would implement
the mileage-based charge in addition to the gas tax. The numbers can be compared in Appendix D -
Figured 6.30 through 6.35.

Driving Attitude and Behavior

Over 70% of participants in each year agreed that if the government switched to a mileage-based road
user fee that raised the same amount of money as the fuel tax, they were not likely to change the
number of miles they drove each month as shown in Appendix D - Figure 2.5.

As seen in Appendix D - Figure 3.4, most participants (57% and 58%) disagreed with the notion that they
prefer to drive only if absolutely necessary and their attitudes were more or less split on the idea of
speed limits being 65 mph on freeways. A little under half of the participants in each year agreed that
the speed limits on freeways should be 65 mph with 33 and 39% of participants disagreeing as shown in
Appendix D - Figure 3.3.

252
In the final questionnaire, participants were asked questions regarding their driving behavior during the
study Almost all (81% of first year and 98% of second year) of participants said they thought that the
study did not affect the number of miles they regularly drove. The number of miles claimed driven by
the participants during the study varied greatly with some being less than the national average, some
equal to, and some more than. Sixty-three percent of year one participants and 68% of year two
participants reported doing between a quarter and all of their driving on the expressway, though 70%
and 83% reported that less than half their miles were driven more than 100 miles from home. Regarding
these miles driven, 41% of year one and 47% of year two participants claimed that most of their trips
combined more than one purpose. The highest percentage in each year (40% and 48%) stated getting
between 16 and 22 miles per gallon with their study vehicle.

Attitude toward Mileage-based Fee

At the beginning of the study, 56% of year one and 51% of year two participants felt positively about
replacing the gas tax with the mileage-based road user fee. By questionnaire number 6, if the amount
charged remained the same, 66% of year one and 80% of year two participants would be comfortable to
some extent with the mileage system being widely adopted. Fifty-six percent of year one and 68% of
year two participants also agreed to some extent that local governments should pay for roads with a
mileage-based charge instead of with property taxes.

Equal percentages (6%) agreed to some extent with the notion that GPS system satellites cannot receive
signals from vehicles and so cannot track movements. Eleven percent neither agreed nor disagreed.
Fifty-four percent disagreed to some degree. The final 22% did not know.

Themes to create Attitudinal Profiles

The following themes were used as a basis to create attitudinal profiles of each participant. These
profiles were combined into attitudinal factors that provide a greater level of stability and validity of
distinguishing participants’ opinions about mileage-based charging. The final factors were created after
a confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the grouping of questions by theme.

Questionnaire 1
Evaluation of the Training Sessions
Questions were asked about the training sessions in order to gauge participants’ initial attitudes after
dealing with Road User Study personnel face-to-face. As can be seen in Appendix D - Figures 1.3
through 1.8 in both years, participants were, by a large majority, satisfied to some degree with all
aspects questioned of the training session.

Evaluation of the On-Board Unit Installation Process

The biggest difference between the first and second year results can be seen in the opinions of the
participants about the installation process. Although more positive than not in both years, year two
earned remarkably higher praises in all parts. In the first year when asked how satisfied participants
were with the overall installation process 67% were satisfied compared to 85%in the second year.
Satisfaction with the choice of installation sites improved 9% the second year going from 79% to 88%.
Satisfaction with the choices of installation times was relatively close the two years with 85% and 90%,
respectively. Seen in both years, participation satisfaction with the duration of the installation earned
the least praise of all installation-related questions and also saw the biggest change from year one to

253
year two with 57% of year one participants being satisfied and 83% of year two participants. Participants
in both years felt satisfied overall with how well their on-board unit was installed with 71% of year one
and 88% of year two participants being satisfied. These percentages can be seen in Appendix D - Figures
1.10 through 1.14.

Medium through which participants learned of the Road User Study

Radio advertisements were by far the most successful both years in contacting potential participants.
The second most common response in both years was through a friend or family remembers which
brought 15% and 20% of total responses. Other possible options in descending order of marks received
were newspaper articles, radio public service announcement, “other,” newspaper advertisement,
internet, magazine article, and billboard advertisement, respectively. These results can be seen in
Appendix D - Figure 1.21.

Questionnaire 3
Environmental Attitude and Ecological Behavior
Participants were asked the following questions to better understand their attitudes and perspectives
on environmental issues. The responses these questions will allow the assessment of the
representativeness of the participant pool to the nation as a whole. Overall, participants supported the
statement that all living beings are interdependent with 87% of year one and 85% of year two
participants agreeing. Roughly three-quarters of the participants in each year (75% and 73%) agreed
that the world climate would drastically change if carbon dioxide continues to be released into the
atmosphere at the rate it is now as well as 91% and 92% of both years agreeing that it is important to
recycle paper. Forty-two percent of year one and 43% of year two participants agreed that their next
vehicle will be as small and environmentally friendly as possible while 30 and 31% disagreed. Most of
the participants, 82%, in each year disagreed that they keep the heat high during the winter so they do
not have to wear a sweater.

Most of the participants (76% of year one and 77% of year two) responded they hardly ever or never use
public transportation or ride a bike instead of driving as seen in Appendix D - Figure 3.8.

Questionnaire 4
Source and Level of Knowledge about Current Events
When asked where they obtained most of their information about current events, television applied to
the highest percentage of participants. Trailing closely behind was internet, and in descending order of
answer frequency, radio, newspaper, friends/colleagues, family, magazines, books/other print, and
government agency.

On all topics, the answers with the most frequency were the moderate areas: “moderately well-
informed” and “not well-informed.” Results for these questions were based on the combination of the
extreme stances (“very well-informed” and “not at all informed”) with their respective moderate
counterparts. The results for these questions can be seen in Appendix D - Figures 4.2 – 4.8.

On the majority of topics questioned, most participants felt they were either moderately well informed
or very well informed. These topics include economic and business conditions, environmental pollution,
international and foreign policy, local schools, military and defense policy, and new inventions and
technologies.

254
The only topic in which the majority of participants felt they were either not well informed or not at all
informed in both years was agriculture and farming.

Attitude toward Science and Technology

The next series of questions were asked in order to get a better understanding of where the participants
stood on the topic of science and how it affects our daily lives as reflected in Appendix D - Figures 4.9
through 4.13. Seventy percent of year one and 68% of year two participants felt that science was an
important in our daily lives. When asked if the participants thought science and technology was making
our lives healthier, easier, and more comfortable 87% of year one and 84% of year two participants
agreed. The participants’ positive view of science is reinforced further with 75% of the participants in
both years agreeing that most scientists strive to work on things that will make life better for the
average person. While participants in both years were widely split on the topic of science making our
way of life change too fast, 83% of year one and 80% of year two participants agreed that because of
science, there will be more opportunities for the next generation.

Thoughts on Government Spending

For the benefit of understanding political viewpoints, participants were asked a series of questions
about government spending on certain social programs. Possible answers to these questions were “Too
little,” “About the right amount,” “Too much,” or “Don’t know.” The responses for these questions can
be seen in Appendix D - Figures 4.14 – 4.22.

On most issues, participants felt the government was spending too little money. These issues include:
reducing pollution, improving healthcare, improving education, helping older people, spending for Social
Security, and helping low-income people.

On the issue of supporting scientific research, a comparable percentage of participants felt that the
government was spending too little money or about the right amount.

To the questions of military defense spending answers were spread evenly over two of the answers,
“about the right amount” and “too much.”

The only issue on which most participants thought the government was spending too much money was
exploring space.

Confidence in Social Institutions

In order to gain a better understanding of how participants felt about various social topics, participants
were asked questions gauging confidence on social institutions. The possible answers for these
questions were “A lot of confidence,” “some confidence,” or “hardly any confidence.” The results for the
following questions can be seen in Appendix D - Figures 4.23 – 4.34.

In both years there was no topic in which participants predominantly felt a lot of confidence. The most
common answer throughout most of the topics was that participants felt “some confidence” in the
respective institutional leaders. Topics in which participants mainly claimed hardly any confidence were
leaders of banks and financial institutions, major corporations, Congress, and the press.

Attitudes toward the Operation of a Mileage-based User Fee

Twenty-seven percent of first year and 30% of second year participants held that vehicles that burn
more fuel should pay a higher per-mile rate. Roughly one-third in each year maintained that vehicles

255
that weighed more should pay the higher rate. Still, 29% of year one and 26% of year two said all
vehicles should pay the same per-mile rate. The remaining participants were unsure of their stance on
the issue.

Questionnaire 5
Perspectives on Energy Dependency and Supply
Questionnaire 5 investigated opinions on energy use and energy security. The intended use is to help
categorize participants’ attitudes and perceptions with their evaluations of the mileage-based fee
system being tested.

Questions were asked to the participants to gauge how important they felt energy was to the United
States’ economy and security. By a large majority, participants agreed that the health of the U.S
economy depended on being able to obtain affordable energy and that dependence on other countries
for oil was a threat to national security. In addition to most participants thinking foreign oil dependence
is a threat, 75% of year one and 90% of year two participants claimed they worried at least some that
foreign problems would affect the price of oil here. The results for these questions can be seen in
Appendix D - Figures 5.1, 5.8, and 5.10.

When asked how long current oil reserves would last, 12% of first year and 14% of second year
participants thought less than 15 years. The highest percentage in both years (30% of year one and 34%
of year two) thought we would run out of oil between 15 and 50 years from now. The rest thought more
than 50 years as shown in Appendix D - Figure 5.2.

Attitude and Behavior to Raising Fuel Prices

In order to understand how participants felt about prices of gasoline they were asked as series of
questions pertaining to the current gasoline price situation. Fifty percent of participants in year one and
59 % of participants in year two said their households spent more than one hundred dollars per month
on gasoline. Accordingly, 69% of year one and 88% of year two participants felt gas prices were too high.
Of those that thought the current prices were “much too high,” the majority blamed oil companies
setting high prices. Other prominent reasons for the high prices were high gas taxes, market speculation,
and international politics. Results for these questions can be seen in Appendix D - Figures 5.4, 5.5, and
5.7.

Participants were also asked questions about the gas prices continuing to rise in the future and the likely
outcomes. Earning the highest percentage of marks out of the four possible answers was that people
would buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. Participants confirmed this stance in another question which
shows that by the time fuel prices hit just $5.00 per gallon, 51% of year one and 63% of year two
participants would consider purchasing a hybrid vehicle as shown in Appendix D - Figures 5.3 and 5.6.
Other possible reasons to high gas prices were that people would simply pay the higher price, people
would use public transportation more, and people would relocate to more convenient areas.

Questionnaire 6
Attitude and Perceptions on Mileage-based Fee Structure
Slightly under half of year one and a little over half of year two participants agreed that fuel efficiency
should not affect road-user charge rates. Twenty-nine percent of first year and 37% of second year
participants said fuel-efficient vehicles should be charged about half as much as vehicles that use more
gas. Ten percent said efficient vehicles should be charged no more than a quarter as much. Forty
percent of year one and 51% of year two participants agreed to some point than vehicles that burn a lot

256
of gas should be charged higher mileage fees while 33 and 38% disagreed to some with the statement to
some extent.

257
Appendix G

258
Qualitative Thematic Summaries
The study questionnaires were not limited to quantitative response, but additionally included qualitative
questions (open-ended). These open-ended questions were designed to determine the motivation(s)
behind participant responses to multiple-choice questions. The participants’ comments, grouped based
on reoccurring themes, are briefly discussed in the following summaries. Both positive and negative
themes are included throughout the summaries

Overall Attitude Regarding Mileage-based Charge

Questionnaire 1: Participants were asked about their feelings toward a mileage-based road user fee.
The purpose of asking this question was to allow participants to voice their initial feedback about the
proposed idea, including concerns, assumptions, expectations, and hopes about the concept.
In both year 1 and 2, participants generally felt positive, stating it was a good concept and a fair way of
collecting money for road use. Some participants were pleased with the idea of the system because
they thought it would save them money over the current gas tax. Many participants at this point in time
expressed mixed feelings, or felt impartial because they did not know enough about the system. This
theme was discussed less as the study progressed and participants developed stronger opinions as they
learned more about the system.
In both years, participants mentioned that they did not like the concept simply because they did not
want to receive another bill. In year 1, some participants were also concerned about privacy, how the
transition to a system like this would occur, and that a mileage-based user charge would be unfair for
people who drive a lot. Participants in the second year were more concerned about being taxed both at
the pump and from a mileage-based system. Participants in both years expressed a desire for the
statement to compare costs for the proposed mileage-based fee to the current gas tax.

Questionnaire 2: Participants were asked questions pertaining to the fairness of implementing a

mileage-based charge, costs to consumers, existing taxes, and preferences for administration of the
potential system. The purpose of these questions was to give participants an opportunity to comment
on any aspects of the mileage-based road user charge system.

In both years, participants reported that they liked to see their driving habits through details in the
statement. Participants also felt that rates for different vehicles should be different based on weight,
fuel efficiency, or other factors. In this early questionnaire, many participants raised negative concerns.
These concerns were primarily about privacy, the ability of government to enforce the billing and
prevent tampering with the system, and that the mileage-based charge would be assessed in addition
to, not instead of the existing fuel tax. Some participants disliked the system simply because they did
not want another bill. In the first year of the study, concern about the transition to the mileage system
was raised often; this concern was voiced less often by participants in year 2. Instead, the second year
participants were concerned about how the system would actually be administered and go into effect; a
concern scarcely mentioned in the first year of the study. Second year participants also spoke out about
their distrust of the government or gas companies while first year participants were less vocal.

Questionnaire 6: Overall, participants felt that a mileage-based charge was a good, fair concept; this
expressed appreciation for the system grew substantially since the beginning of the study. The most
common concern raised was that the system could be considered an invasion of privacy. Some
participants were also concerned about the logistics of transitioning to a mileage-based system, and that
if the system were implemented; it would be in addition to, not instead of the existing gas tax.

259
Comments on the Mileage-based Road User Charge Statements
Questionnaire 2: The preceding two questions asked how often participants would prefer to receive
statements and the level of detail that should be included. The purpose of this question was to assess
the desired level of detail and desired frequency for administering the mileage-based road user charge
statements.

In both years, most participants indicated that the detail was adequate or that they would rather have
more detail than provided. Few participants reported that they would prefer less detail than provided.
The most desired frequency for the statements was monthly. Participants indicated this preference for
several reasons including: it was easier to budget monthly, other bills come monthly, monthly means
that charges did not accumulate, and that it was easier to recall just one month of travel activity while
checking the statement for accuracy. Some participants preferred to receive the statement quarterly
instead. They believed it was a waste of resources to send the bill more frequently or preferred to see
their driving behaviors seasonally.

Questionnaire 3: Please tell us the reasons behind your last 2 answers. The previous two questions
asked how often participants prefer to receive their statements and their preferred level of detail. The
purpose of this question was to assess the desired level of detail and desired frequency for
administering the mileage-based road user charge statements.

On the third questionnaire, participants were overwhelmingly positive about the system. Just as in
questionnaire 2, many participants commented on questionnaire 3 that they enjoyed reviewing
statements and prefer to receive statements once a month because that is how they get their other
bills, it is easier to budget, the charges do not build up and it is easier to check for accuracy. Some
participants wanted to receive statements quarterly to give charges time to build up, making each
payment a worthwhile sum rather than a few dollars each month. Participants felt the statement was
easy to understand and the detail provided was adequate. Many participants indicated they would like
to see more detail on their statements. Very few people voiced a privacy concern in this questionnaire.
The biggest reason indicated in questionnaire 3 that people did not like the system is that they did not
want the hassle of receiving another bill, although this complaint was mentioned by very few
participants.

Questionnaire 4: Please tell us the reasons behind your last 2 answers. The previous two questions
asked how often participants prefer to receive their statements and their preferred level of detail. This
exact question was also posed in questionnaires 2 and 3 as well as a slightly different version asked in
Questionnaire 6. The purpose of this question was to assess the desired level of detail and desired
frequency for administering the mileage-based road user charge statements.

As seen in previous questionnaires, participants would still like to see more detail in their statements;
they wanted to understand why they were being charged what they were being charged instead of
being presented a simple bill with no explanatory information. Other participants reported detail
provided in the charge statements was adequate for their needs and the statements were easy to
understand. In year 1, few people indicated that they would prefer less detail, though this opinion was
expressed more in year 2.

Participants overwhelmingly preferred to receive statements once a month because that is how they get
their other bills, it is easier to budget, the charges do not build up and it is easier to check for accuracy.
As in previous questionnaires, some participants expressed a desire to receive the statement quarterly

260
instead, citing that it was a waste of resources to send the bill more frequently or that they preferred to
see their driving behaviors seasonally. These reasons were mentioned in other questionnaires, but less
often than the preference for monthly bills.

Year 2 participants often reported that they liked reviewing the statements because it allowed them to
see their driving habits and possibly take steps to decrease unnecessary driving. This was mentioned by
year 1 participants too, but much less often.

Questionnaire 6: Please tell us why you liked the road user charge billing statement that you preferred.
Similar to responses on previous questionnaires, participants overwhelmingly preferred more detail and
appreciated the ability to verify their statements. Others felt the detail given was adequate. A smaller
subset of participants would have liked the statement to contain less detail usually because they did not
want to take the time to review many details or were concerned about privacy. In both years and across
all questionnaires, many participants found the statements easy to comprehend and enjoyed reviewing
them to see their driving habits.

Training Session Comments

Questionnaire 1: This question was intended to receive feedback about the training session since
participant experience at the training session may influence opinions about the idea of a road user
charge. Additionally, this was the only face to face interaction between participants and researchers.
Overwhelmingly, participants reported that the training session was informative, and efficient. In year
1, some participants reported that the training seemed disorganized. This complaint was addressed in
year 2 and those participants specifically reported that their training session was well organized. Year 2
participants also stated that they felt the room set-up was bad.

Training: Previous multiple choice questions pertained to concerns for financing and maintenance of
roads in the future, privacy concerns and initially assessing the comfort level of a mileage-based road
user system.

Several participants reported they were happy to be in the study. They reported support for the general
concept, interest in the outcome and understanding for a need for a new system for road finance as
some of the reasons they were happy to participate in the study. Participants also expressed that the
mileage-based road user system was a positive concept and a fair way of collecting road user charges.
Most of these participants who held an opinion expressed their concern for how a real system would be
administered. However, this early in the process, few participants had strong opinions about the study,
and most did not comment at all.

Comments on the On-Board Unit Installation Process

Questionnaire 1: This question was posed in order to assess participant experiences during the
installation process. It was important for researchers to note how participants responded to having this
equipment installed into their personal vehicles. Feedback about technicians and installers gathered
from year 1 helped influence the decision to eliminate the displays and change the contractors
responsible for the equipment and installations for year 2.

Year 1 equipment included a display screen to enter gallons of gas purchased. Generally, participants
reported this equipment was easy to use and worked fine, but there were some complaints about the
display not working and being placed inconveniently within the vehicle.

261
Participants expressed overall satisfaction with the installation process and the technicians at the shop.
Some participants expressed dissatisfaction with the dealerships or shops where the work was
performed because of the facility’s physical location (noting neighborhood or distance from their home)
and amenity limitations of the shop.

Several participants in year 1 complained about how long the installation lasted. Fewer participants
complained about this in year 2, likely because trainers were able to more accurately estimate how long
installations would take. Year 2 participants often reported that the installation time was adequate or
even shorter than expected.

Comments on Contacting the Study Team

Questionnaire 1: Throughout the first three questionnaires the participants were asked to comment on
their experiences’ contacting the study team. This question was used to help the study team identify
patterns of strengths and weaknesses in customer service skills in order to better serve the participants
in the study.

Recurrent themes were overall very positive through all of the questionnaires, noting representatives
were friendly, helpful, professional, and responded promptly. Other themes coded were problems with
contacting or being contacted by the study team, and inadequate responses or disorganization from
representatives. It is worth noting that looking at year 1 versus year 2, complaints about the research
team went down in frequency, possibly due to a more experienced staff.

How the Participants Gathered Information

Questionnaire 1: How did you learn about the Road User Study? This question was asked so that the
study team could identify which communication methods were effective in reaching and recruiting
participants.

Since this question was fairly direct, most participants were able to express themselves fully through the
multiple choice question that preceded it. Possible choices included radio advertisement, radio public
service announcement, newspaper advertisement, newspaper article, magazine article, billboard
advertisement, internet, a friend or family member or “other.” Most participants who chose “other”
reported having learned about the study through television news. Of the remaining few participants
who responded “other” most chose to provide a specific radio station, or website, such as Craigslist, but
there was not a significant amount of additional information that had not already been gathered
through the multiple choice responses.

Questionnaire 4: Where do you get most of your information about current events? This question
sought to understand how the participants receive news. This was asked to determine if there was a
difference in attitudes toward the road user system based on where the participant receives news. This
multiple choice question provided the choice of newspaper, magazine, internet, books/other print,
television, radio, government agency, family, friends/colleague or other.

This question was asked directly in year 2, but not in year 1 as it was one of the small revisions made to
the questionnaire. In year 1, a very small number of participants did indicate other options in the space
for the only open-ended question on that questionnaire. Across both years the question was primarily
answered through the multiple choice options, and the written in responses were often more
specifically defined sources, i.e. the name of a radio station instead of just selecting “radio.”

262
Environmental Attitude Comments
Questionnaire 3: The previous eight questions on questionnaire 3 asked about participants’ views and
perceptions of the environment. Most took the opportunity to give the study team a personal account
of their recycling habits and other ‘green’ efforts. Some expressed the overall need of the country to
conserve energy and reduce waste. Others lamented the minimal availability of public transportation in
their area.

Opinion on Public’s Response to Rising Gas Prices

Questionnaire 5: If gas prices continue to rise in coming years, how do you think the U.S. driving public
will respond? Four “check box” answers were given, along with a choice to indicate “other.”
Less than 10% of participants responded by choosing “other.” Of these responses, most participants
thought that the public response to price increases would be to drive less. They blamed rising prices on
politics, greed and dependence on foreign oil.

263