Evaluation of Oregon DOT Road Usage Charging Pilot Program for CSG Transportation Policy Academy, Portland, OR 19 July 2013 Steve Morello D Artagnan Consulting LLP
Road Usage Charge Pilot Program Introduction System design goals User choice No technology mandate / GPS requirement Open system Private industry participation Pilot Goals Political acceptance Public education Technical lessons learned Roles Oversight/Management: ODOT System Testing, Coordination, & Help Desk: CH2M Hill Evaluation & Mileage Tax Accounting: D Artagnan Account Management System: Sanef Mileage Reporting Devices: IMS, Raytheon Live Nov 1 2012 Feb 28 2013 19 July 2013 D Artagnan Consulting LLP 2
Mileage Reporting Plans Offered RUCPP Plan Miles Reported Invoice ODOT Basic Plan ODOT Flat Rate Plan Sanef Basic Plan Sanef Advanced Plan Sanef Smartphone Plan Payment Method All Mailed Monthly Check No Online account management Uses GPS? No, does not report where miles are driven N/A Once, at start Check No No device All Public roads in Oregon only With application running, only roads in Oregon; without application running, all roads Emailed Monthly Emailed Monthly Emailed Monthly Credit/debit card Credit/debit card Credit/debit card Yes Yes Yes No, does not report where miles are driven Yes Yes, when the application is running Basic (No Location Technology) Provided by IMS Advanced (GPS included) Provided by IMS Smartphone (Bluetooth to user s phone) Provided by Raytheon 19 July 2013 D Artagnan Consulting LLP 3
Summary of Pilot Participants 88 total active participants (44 OR, 21 WA, 23 NV) Participants invited, most connected to state legislatures, DOTs Vehicles: 76 gasoline, 1 diesel, 9 hybrid, 2 electric Plans managed by Sanef 46 advanced (location-based) mileage reporting devices 30 basic (non-location-based) mileage reporting devices 4 smartphone mileage recording devices managed Plans managed by ODOT 7 basic mileage reporting devices 1 flat rate plan 19 July 2013 D Artagnan Consulting LLP 4
RUCPP Evaluation Methodology Legislative goals translated into metrics in four areas: Policy Technology Operations Cost Data collected to evaluate metrics included: Participant surveys Vendor Interviews Financial data Analysis of anonymized data from MRDs For each metric, use the relevant data to evaluate whether legislative goals were met 19 July 2013 D Artagnan Consulting LLP 5
Survey Methodology and Participation Surveys of OR and WA participants Web-based surveys distributed to participants before, during, and after the conduct of the Road Usage Charging Pilot Program Some questions repeated across all three surveys; others unique to each survey Combination of multiple choice and open response questions Response rate (out of 44 OR, 21 WA participants): Survey Oregon Washington Total Response Rate Pre-Pilot 26 12 38 58% Mid-Pilot 19 15 34 52% Post-Pilot 24 15 39 60% 19 July 2013 D Artagnan Consulting LLP 6
Pre-pilot Participant Attitudes Participants generally supportive for various reasons, for example: Source of revenues for transportation systems Fairness of charging for direct use of roads Concerns centered on administration Participants were most interested in three key features: Refunds for gas tax and off road use Choice in service plan Account security 19 July 2013 D Artagnan Consulting LLP 7
Importance of Road Usage Charge Choice Important / very important Not very important /not important / neutral 19 July 2013 D Artagnan Consulting LLP 8
Average Time Devoted to Pilot Minutes Per Respondent How much time did you need to complete the following tasks in minutes: Avg. response (minutes) Signing the Participant Agreement 6 Selecting my account type and features 10 Setting up my account 7 Installation of Mileage Reporting Device 6 Troubleshooting problems with the Mileage Reporting Device 0.3 Reading, understanding, and paying the bill 5 Troubleshooting problems with my account 1 Other administrative tasks related to the pilot, including evaluation surveys 8 19 July 2013 D Artagnan Consulting LLP 9
Pilot Success Concept proven No malfunctioning mileage recording devices No missing miles identified No missing invoices identified Nearly all participants thought it was quick and easy to use Most participants said that their impression of RUC improved during the pilot 19 July 2013 D Artagnan Consulting LLP 10
Pilot Technical Issues Minor Issues with mileage reporting devices OBDII port hard to find on some vehicles Device not compatible with pre-2000 vehicles Status indicator light: simplify and standardize Difficult for participants to verify accuracy of statements, privacy, and account security Biggest issue Interface to electric and hybrid vehicles 19 July 2013 D Artagnan Consulting LLP 11
Post-pilot Participant Issues Multi-state issues Whether to and how to charge out of state residents? How to exchange funds when both states have charges? Understanding of fuel tax credits Acceptance of per-mile rates 19 July 2013 D Artagnan Consulting LLP 12
Thank you! Steve Morello (571) 535 0600 Steve.Morello@dartagnan.co 19 July 2013