[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6324317,"mediaKeyId","2338574-daaae46006a6625795cf91418614de9d","parentId",2338574,"title","TAC approves May 29 minutes and revises September meeting date to Sept. 16","audioSeconds",135,"startMs",717000,"endMs",852000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2338574-daaae46006a6625795cf91418614de9d&start=717&end=852","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2338574-daaae46006a6625795cf91418614de9d/thumbnail_717000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6324317/California/TAC-approves-May-29-minutes-and-revises-September-meeting-date-to-Sept-16","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6324317-d16056b89a4e1186f15cdff913b1b997/orig.mp4?Expires=1770956145&Signature=keycuSGHvwe4BjZRk9KScgfJfREB3A~dHvUTWajFIKL3Dfk3vC8cSsfwCGkzWXExFql7md1kujbULjM3hU-qn3aOu3BnBTnaNse9l7K1at~ZW9hmu2gcKajCRXMxNcNIiWQp2HInfGzbQT0hvtOftK3feoozcpYoc36zVvqHILO4LterGwH5XCL6Rv2qr5nP7wCrkSMH4pHr42yO~MvUkR~w6RoHSM2cQp4TtWdq1zQny0o2YwBjQlNkJ6NAa9XMTA0QvN532cNyAffYuIyWA45ygsriq35x5RqalJf~c73fdnzluUra~sDfTttyO8a16PHnpj7kP7v~fZM2O7DMiA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California Transportation Commission","date","2025-02-18T22:03:56Z","article","The Technical Advisory Committee unanimously approved minutes from the May 29 meeting and approved a schedule revision that sets the next September TAC meeting for Sept. 16, with the location to remain in the North State (staff exploring Eureka).

Professor Lee Wax moved to approve the May 29 minutes; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Later, staff recommended changing the September meeting date based on a member poll; the motion to adopt the revised schedule was made by Member Sauer and seconded by Councilmember Pam O’Connor and approved without opposition.

The committee directed staff to finalize logistics and post an updated meeting‑materials index, which staff said was distributed to members and available on the project website.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","June 26, 2015 Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee Meeting - Part 1","oneSentenceSummary","The California Road Charge TAC unanimously approved minutes from the May 29 meeting and approved a revised TAC meeting schedule that moves the September meeting to September 16 and seeks a North State location (Eureka).","taxTitle","Transportation Commission, Agencies under Office of the Governor, Executive, California","taxId",70065,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6324322,"TAC examines non‑mileage accommodations, time permits and equity concerns",1236,7159000,8395000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2338574-daaae46006a6625795cf91418614de9d&start=7159&end=8395","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2338574-daaae46006a6625795cf91418614de9d/thumbnail_7159000.jpg","/articles/6324322/California/TAC-examines-nonmileage-accommodations-time-permits-and-equity-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6324322-5039d5f222222850609b2b21668bd337/orig.mp4?Expires=1770956145&Signature=C8kqIXvRT4YPYEJXlIrQjdEXYYHvpjAQcfvxEsbtc4JuimZDGiVuko3N6NqCDT0J2KIOCNSkicI7oA1qe6qVj6abt6J7MeS8pn4nNQixJ1~Y6EKxfbsGS6CwVMda2GpV46SC7URb~HWYmnK5y6jcJOF~klVJWpy1WDL1pX1sB2-mBBpy8OxYe~yuOOCpIvu-qYikegRh1gr8fIKURXPCqRu8ALc1-LC9N4X3XemtiH2OQH6BpJXgwLsE7sEQzYluMpNWoAIad6RFyb~M21z7d1DiCTq~rZxTWSX7iRHe-71Qg8WdtEiJkWmd~~n1CmIT~R9a-BwaQq6czDM7F-GgNg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Technical Advisory Committee reviewed staff analysis of non‑mileage accommodations that could be considered in a road‑charge system and discussed which items the pilot could test or inform.

Jeff Doyle briefed the TAC on several accommodation types — level payment plans, infrequent‑driver permits, trip permits and time permits — and reiterated that the pilot’s exemptions to date are based on roadway status (miles off the public California network, out‑of‑state, and private roads), not driver status. He noted that the pilot is primarily a mechanism to test user‑based fees as an alternative to the fuel tax and that policy choices about credits or caps would be a legislative or policy decision informed by pilot evidence.

Several members urged caution about credits for private‑road miles. Supervisor Lisa Bartlett noted that motorists now pay state fuel tax even if they travel on private roads and warned that adding complex credits could make the system administratively burdensome and prone to error. Others suggested targeted accommodations for specific sectors such as agriculture or tribal lands because those users often operate primarily on private or nonpublic roads.

Staff described Oregon’s approach to a time permit (a pre‑paid annual permit) and said the state had priced its permit at roughly the 98th percentile of miles driven to limit adverse selection; staff used an example that at 1.5¢ per mile an annual permit priced at the 98th percentile would cost about $525. Members raised two recurring points: first, concerns about gaming/moral‑hazard under a time permit and second, the need to consider income‑based accommodations since low‑income households typically drive fewer miles.

Stakeholders in the public comment period and committee members suggested the pilot could provide empirical evidence on several of these policy questions: whether time permits produce more miles driven, how administrative complexity affects compliance, and what accommodations are necessary or appropriate for agricultural operators, trucking account customers, and tribal communities. Staff said the pilot can collect evidence to inform recommendations but that any permanent exemptions or credits would be subject to statutory and budgetary review.","Staff presented options for non‑mileage accommodations — credits, caps, level‑payment plans and time permits — and the committee discussed equity trade‑offs, exemptions for off‑network and private road use, and possible income‑based accommodations for time permits.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6324327,"TAC lays out participant matrix, recommends judgmental sampling and statewide recruitment for road‑charge pilot",1858,3209000,5067000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2338574-daaae46006a6625795cf91418614de9d&start=3209&end=5067","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2338574-daaae46006a6625795cf91418614de9d/thumbnail_3209000.jpg","/articles/6324327/California/TAC-lays-out-participant-matrix-recommends-judgmental-sampling-and-statewide-recruitment-for-roadcharge-pilot","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6324327-58ba8be47c31192241ae3f7ae87486a5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770956145&Signature=Pz1B6tuQbkpIUnBCeQLtJG~dixm5QN1luFqJBk7usKWFS~-zEgPlj3~n-5kiKnD8DR3VowSDvTJIUETVMt1PZ5nAc7qOy-VkdJW-fqF4Gms6MWcTHFBhDla-gHO58AsvSBKMQh3AFKQyLjDOMxKz8D2QO16XwYp3l9SWLSVD6DrjytiR5hR81L-vy2lnQCl1ZVoQ-EWdVYyhSyLIJq~5-wYZyKnJCOWIwkVp02jgto7D~yOHxFACCS-vHSB4WGdgHsSs7rP~nINWCSt3htG2UJUy4liJFtPyYUt0kUlF9BTZLsNW-d4f~aTOCoJN3T3mywS4DrV-vxDn9xZvtaS35Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Technical Advisory Committee spent the morning developing a recruitment framework for the California Road Charge pilot, reviewing a staff‑built matrix that translates policy priorities (vehicle class, geography, income and operational concept) into recruiting targets.

Travis Dunn presented the matrix as a judgmental sampling tool that guarantees representation for subgroups of interest rather than relying on strictly proportional or purely random sampling. The staff proposal simplifies vehicle weight classes to three buckets (passenger/light trucks; medium trucks; heavy trucks) and uses a matrix of 32 subgroups for recruiting targets. Red placeholder numbers in the draft matrix are not recommendations but examples to be filled in during the TAC’s afternoon exercise.

Staff recommended statewide recruitment through a combination of channels: outreach by TAC members and the work group, the project website and social media, targeted contact via local governments and MPOs, and potential use of commercial account managers. Committee members suggested adding the DMV and county associations (CSAC) as distribution partners; staff said DMV is on the work group and registration‑insert options are being explored.

The TAC discussed definitions for urban/suburban versus rural/agricultural and income buckets. Staff presented three options for defining rural/urban (USDA census tract density; Census urban cluster/urbanized area with 2,500 persons per square mile threshold; and metropolitan statistical area), and recommended using census‑defined urbanized areas/urban clusters to preserve flexibility for county‑level recruitment. For income, staff recommended compressing HCD categories (extremely low, very low, low) into a single “low” bucket, median/moderate to “medium,” and above moderate to “high.”

On heavy trucks, staff proposed fleet‑size buckets (fewer than 50 trucks, 50–999, 1,000+), and committee members asked that the consultants and industry representatives refine those thresholds because fleet structure, domiciling, and operation types vary widely. Participants also favored letting volunteers choose an operational concept (odometer, time permit, GPS/mileage) at signup while setting minimum sample targets for each concept to ensure evaluable comparisons.

Staff noted recruitment would be dynamic: the TAC can set minimums and open statewide recruitment if some subgroups under‑perform in early outreach. The TAC scheduled an interactive afternoon session to populate the matrix with numeric targets and set minimums for households, age, gender and special vehicle classes.","Staff presented a 32‑cell sampling matrix to guide recruitment of pilot participants across vehicle classes, urban/rural residence, income levels, and region; the TAC favored a judgmental sampling approach with statewide recruitment and minimum subgroup targets rather than hard maximums.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6324332,"TAC refines and pares evaluation criteria for California road‑charge pilot",553,2279000,2832000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2338574-daaae46006a6625795cf91418614de9d&start=2279&end=2832","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2338574-daaae46006a6625795cf91418614de9d/thumbnail_2279000.jpg","/articles/6324332/California/TAC-refines-and-pares-evaluation-criteria-for-California-roadcharge-pilot","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6324332-2d4182d69a12b029cb3e55e82366d445/orig.mp4?Expires=1770956145&Signature=RJ6AgjCI3eiaseaejCFDoW6bhQYGX2ereSUpbD1qBBfcChGEiw1Qbqo-Q~1kYtF5070YQTM3mSP324hxaQgXrUie6dbDam3kkeQgZFcRZxdxAlD5dDXBMgRSoCEpPP-41QxIAJPsenO~l0VNsVocHcjR3MVQi~AKyUrXSqkO1HVBQl9O~pnrckftfpIVmI2S2euyZjlapfpmk8CfafjZP~xMxIjSDAxlWf48cxBKsu4csymmctYrAa3JnhmTEDmZrR2ZQ9sd213k-NSt07IYuagGF-ouCOLWjEYJ3-PSDZvUV~WuDhNqCSFh6qhWiUBLGTf1HzkWakvLvn5tOwXa8w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The California Road Charge Pilot Technical Advisory Committee on June 26 reviewed revisions to the pilot evaluation criteria and narrowed the draft list in response to written and verbal comments from committee members and stakeholders.

The committee’s revision trims duplicate and hard‑to‑measure items and emphasizes criteria that can be assessed over the nine‑month pilot. Travis Dunn, who led the revisions, said the independent evaluator will be directed to measure trade‑offs across categories — for example, how enforcement choices affect cost or user experience.

Members pressed for clarity on several points. Dunn told the committee that some criteria remain explicitly relative to the existing fuel‑tax baseline (for instance, several equity measures), while others will assess outcomes in absolute terms such as user perception of reliability and security. He said the earlier set of 57 criteria had been reduced to 50 after consolidation and removal of items not well suited to evaluation in a short pilot, for example intertemporal equity.

Professor Lee Wax and others questioned behavioral‑change criteria and their inclusion. Dunn said the pilot will still measure whether mileage patterns change under a road charge so that any future business‑case revenue estimates are informed by observed behavior, not assumptions.

Shannon Crum, who framed the agenda item, said the TAC will be asked later in the day to adopt the revised criteria. Committee members asked that the independent evaluator explicitly perform cross‑category trade‑offs and that each criterion be defined in terms that can be measured during the pilot.

The committee discussion also sought to keep the evaluation practical: several members urged removing measures that could not be meaningfully observed in the pilot’s time frame and to prefer criteria that tie directly to pilot operations, participant experience, and administrative cost.","The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) reviewed public and member comments and reduced and clarified draft evaluation criteria for the California Road Charge pilot, focusing the list to 50 measurable items across cost, equity, enforcement, privacy and user experience.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

TAC approves May 29 minutes and revises September meeting date to Sept. 16

TAC examines non‑mileage accommodations, time permits and equity concerns

TAC lays out participant matrix, recommends judgmental sampling and statewide recruitment for road‑charge pilot

TAC refines and pares evaluation criteria for California road‑charge pilot