[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,76,88,99,111],{"_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",6321648,"mediaKeyId","2349300-f91bdc38fa0d766eac5b826ebead6b6c","parentId",2349300,"title","Local trucker warns TAC that mileage charging risks high collection costs and bureaucracy","audioSeconds",130,"startMs",4560000,"endMs",4690000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2349300-f91bdc38fa0d766eac5b826ebead6b6c&start=4560&end=4690","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2349300-f91bdc38fa0d766eac5b826ebead6b6c/thumbnail_4560000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6321648/California/Local-trucker-warns-TAC-that-mileage-charging-risks-high-collection-costs-and-bureaucracy","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6321648-321158cb12a029980eb7bf5b9cfbc301/orig.mp4?Expires=1776559795&Signature=JlYpJOTrEw2F7VzQXtgtpVjler7FTwCTFRyRDvftKOMNi-MqIhXjpIuvX8G6lYrcDijfYsSdlv9tIvN4nVwKVeaYYAV177Wld-hFcC6MxQqz2hSuWgqZTWJ27FG-xie3I8OIDGyK13j9j6nv51u8bhtAyGcDxFdyH7CtLA3HVB8sXUS3Mp7VrJNmsABOhXdb8XoBt6hT0T6us8t6JtdFkNOuBPDeGlk37oY-KushABAWDu1yB7w~94XLzxZhjTOeAeqVMaIT-beEx6ROc0qjmfBofC7XwCNF6ULBeBjKea6iR9~09Y9iyTedo6bAvAzhwnwo96Bc1eSmpQfKP-9w5w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California Transportation Commission","date","2025-02-20T01:48:51.343Z","article","Tim Fortier, president of Commercial Transfer, a Fresno trucking firm, addressed the Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee during public comment on May 29 and urged caution about administrative complexity and collection costs for any mileage‑based system.

Fortier said his company’s experience with an Oregon system showed collection and auditing costs can be material and that tracking and billing large numbers of individual users would create an administrative burden. \"This state does not need another bureaucracy to monitor 10,000,000 cars in California,\" Fortier said. He added that the gas tax system collects at pump and is easier to administer than a system that requires billing millions of motorists.

Fortier proposed simpler alternatives for non‑gasoline vehicles — for example, a DMV flag and an added assessment on registration for electric vehicles — and stressed the need for political will and fiscal discipline to keep revenue dedicated to road maintenance.

The committee thanked Fortier for the input and noted staff and consultants would consider collection costs and administrative burdens in pilot design and subsequent cost estimates.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","May 29, 2015 Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee Meeting - Part 1.","oneSentenceSummary","A Fresno trucking company president told the TAC that mileage‑based charging systems can be administratively costly and urged policymakers to consider simpler alternatives and strong fiscal discipline.","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},6321652,"Automakers tell TAC they will not report drivers’ location data; urge technology neutrality",2695,3699000,6394000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2349300-f91bdc38fa0d766eac5b826ebead6b6c&start=3699&end=6394","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2349300-f91bdc38fa0d766eac5b826ebead6b6c/thumbnail_3699000.jpg","/articles/6321652/California/Automakers-tell-TAC-they-will-not-report-drivers-location-data-urge-technology-neutrality","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6321652-cff7bd1e3413aca9442a1d909aff68b8/orig.mp4?Expires=1776559795&Signature=T37YgnwUVHo0lqdvWnmJZd7v~PbbkiTSuKt5Y0en3NDmTzBp9~K0pR6IZFVctcWzi1uUyeHT2IcdglhoxMlNjeMoYW0404nYCArBRGFMx0lti4p5Z14Pg1DC6O5ULfkHLOi895mXZYs~5kFLDBmPY1v5ho14JCGX2-AZeiuamPK5qCzUhC4FCOnt9e7lH42RJGhV4WXOvihROfW2kjftj~l7AFgilAGeT8GtsM~6oW7wAxJwmnTZZBwZCp8JJGIgQMqCjRKzYzU4N2XAeTXmfntWtlTc5qVb4G8LpOWGyZqYBDse3Xu251tiZXx0sInzSB8MNgzzauGH63ZlbK688A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kurt Augustine, director of state affairs for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, told the Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee on May 29 that automakers support addressing infrastructure funding shortfalls but object to being compelled to report customers’ driving behavior or location data.

\"Automakers do not want to be mandated to have to report on the driving behaviors of their customers,\" Augustine said. He described that position as \"rock solid,\" adding the industry will not risk customer relationships by disclosing telematics or location data without clear consumer consent.

The Alliance urged technology neutrality in pilot design: all vehicle powertrains and fuel‑efficiency levels should be eligible for testing so the pilot does not pick technological winners or losers. Augustine said manufacturers accept plug‑in devices that read the onboard diagnostic (OBD) port and third‑party devices used in other pilots, but they object to legislation that would require use of manufacturer‑embedded telematics or center‑stack in‑vehicle systems.

Augustine emphasized data privacy and security; he noted automakers and a trade group entered into principles with the Federal Trade Commission on consumer data security and expectations, and he said unauthorized access to vehicle systems could threaten safety. \"We are in the business of selling cars, not selling data,\" he said.

Committee members acknowledged the automakers’ position and asked staff to pursue continued consultation as the TAC designs recording and reporting options for the pilot. The TAC noted that the OBD port and the availability of diagnostic interfaces will shape which technology options are practical for different vehicle vintages and electric vehicles.","The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers told the TAC that manufacturers support finding stable revenues but will not be mandated to provide driver location or behavioral data; automakers urged technology neutrality and stressed data security.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6321655,"Road‑charge outreach expands: website live, phone survey and focus groups set; committee questions distribution",0,3977000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2349300-f91bdc38fa0d766eac5b826ebead6b6c&start=3977&end=3977","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2349300-f91bdc38fa0d766eac5b826ebead6b6c/thumbnail_3977000.jpg","/articles/6321655/California/Roadcharge-outreach-expands-website-live-phone-survey-and-focus-groups-set-committee-questions-distribution","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6321655-863b637595b3a817debf51a6ad666db7/orig.mp4?Expires=1776559795&Signature=Y2hkc22vTR-jRuNgczw4t0OyhNrfS8UTdoXbNVGk8bRWMJKOpP3bmZrO8FKT9A~YUzKzaU~6hD-aCHkQLJC52WBTgFRDKA8V8SjPTNItdChBhYZ2dk14wEDtmmJNBCVri8fIeJRJeru1uY85-wI6qI0BRitoapQlMwDoBhs6igp3gz519AWp0YMXFD5s7MCasACw85m7ZP4AiI6ps4FzfFjcEMYLNrA1fh4dTKpzSTZ65dj4gg1pTSsp5nxonq~yMzCeg2gFQmncBx0u-HyR2RY-R3LXylG~l-rYluJuz2nA2BEU2zexCGX0qxy4K~CSesAW1s-SNEM0b4rxovuUhQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Caltrans staff reported at the May 29 Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee meeting that the California Road Charge Pilot Program website went live on May 1 and is generating public interest. Department staff said the site had 2,546 visits to date, 9 public comments, 18 volunteers and 34 interest‑list emails.

Gary Gutierrez of Caltrans briefed the TAC on the baseline data collection plan: the department will conduct neutral telephone surveys the week of June 5–15 followed by four focus groups (two on the weekend of June 19–20 and two later in July). Gutierrez said the department intends the survey to collect neutral ‘‘baseline’’ public attitudes, and therefore the focus groups will follow the phone survey rather than precede it.

Several TAC members said draft survey questions were provided to members only shortly before the meeting. Commissioner Arp reviewed the materials and suggested language changes; members discussed incorporating his edits. A motion to incorporate Commissioner Arp’s comments was made earlier in the meeting but later removed after staff clarified the survey is a Caltrans baseline effort and that Caltrans would manage the survey schedule and finalize questions. Caltrans said it would still welcome advisory input and would provide better advance distribution of materials.

Committee members asked for written summaries of public comments posted to the website when comment volume increases so the TAC could track recurring themes. Staff said they would provide updated FAQs monthly and would circulate summaries of website comments and work‑group discussions as the outreach program proceeds.

No formal committee action was taken to change the survey schedule; staff said the telephone surveys will begin June 5 and run through June 15, with focus groups scheduled in June and July. Caltrans asked the TAC to allow incorporation of Commissioner Arp’s suggestions into the draft questions, but later clarified that the department will proceed with the baseline survey as its effort while taking TAC input under advisement.","Caltrans launched a public website and prepared baseline telephone surveys and focus groups; committee members raised concerns that draft survey materials arrived at the meeting and asked for improved distribution and summaries of public input.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6321660,"TAC debates who, what and how to test in road‑charge pilot; privacy rules highlighted",90,4458000,4548000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2349300-f91bdc38fa0d766eac5b826ebead6b6c&start=4458&end=4548","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2349300-f91bdc38fa0d766eac5b826ebead6b6c/thumbnail_4458000.jpg","/articles/6321660/California/TAC-debates-who-what-and-how-to-test-in-roadcharge-pilot-privacy-rules-highlighted","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6321660-9423e294954286b55651dd79cbd6906f/orig.mp4?Expires=1776559795&Signature=A2ngORnG0mcIiiGL4HEiOsYx6LNoFIONeiBQuIfMfDRLmPHbWe~kR3rSy7spLDnFrg2gJyWT6wAg47uYxIzjqqB~T2OM~vpdDeDWHe2c-Gh794SrEIWXb0DPmzTeKlQwu9QU44RScNSlnWdfCcCcf~iydg4ipjOtfeFvxs2Nrnexc8EXexIfPWTKqZHcw-Z3ur~ehF0tMVRO3bQabw3x2xGDtmIYv0Jjcp3SWuDIgQrkbb2uqfL56JV6xUV~T~i0IcmGdgeiyU9MBKlzQ28Rflml0CX98u1Ii6RMZ6sGYXyutY1mapWUXpELIcPxgG4gDrByptLB2T1cWp3nHYihQg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee on May 29 reviewed policy questions that will shape the pilot’s design, including which types of participants and vehicle classes to recruit, what mileage exemptions to test, and what privacy protections to require for volunteers.

Shannon Crum, TAC staff, summarized decisions taken to date and posed four policy topics for action: which participant types to recruit (individuals, households, businesses, government agencies); which vehicles to include; what mileage exemptions to test (for example private roads or out‑of‑state miles); and what personal privacy protections the pilot should use.

Crum reiterated earlier design decisions: volunteers will choose account managers; volunteers will choose mileage recording and reporting methods; out‑of‑state vehicles will be included and assessed for use of California roads; the pilot will test an open system design to encourage competition; and the pilot will test interoperability with other states. \"All of these decisions are open to be revisited as new information is developed,\" Crum said.

Privacy emerged as a central theme. Jeff Doyle, a consultant on privacy, told the committee that privacy has been built into choices the TAC already made — for example, allowing a time‑permit option and multiple recording methods. Doyle recommended the committee minimize collection of personally identifiable information (PII) and consider both legal and technical controls. \"These choices together really form the basis of the strongest privacy protections that you can have,\" Doyle said.

Several members asked whether the pilot should collect real money. Committee members emphasized the pilot should replicate real operational steps except where legislative authority prevents collection. Norms derived from state law and a statutory directive in the enabling legislation require the pilot to limit PII and prohibit certain sharing without consent. Panelists said the pilot as currently planned would not be a permanent revenue mechanism and that any future operational collection would require separate legal authorization and policy decisions.

The committee asked staff and consultants to return with further analysis on (a) how many participants of each type would be required to produce statistically useful results, (b) how exemptions would be administered in manual reporting options, (c) the interaction between vehicle classes and participant types (for example fleets), and (d) specific legal and technical privacy safeguards, including data security and retention policies.","At the May 29 Road Charge TAC meeting staff and consultants sought guidance on participant types, vehicle classes, exemptions and privacy protections; committee members emphasized built‑in privacy by design and asked for further analysis of equity and data security.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6321665,"State seeks faster road‑charge pilot; panel debates shortening demonstration period",143,1573000,1716000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2349300-f91bdc38fa0d766eac5b826ebead6b6c&start=1573&end=1716","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2349300-f91bdc38fa0d766eac5b826ebead6b6c/thumbnail_1573000.jpg","/articles/6321665/California/State-seeks-faster-roadcharge-pilot-panel-debates-shortening-demonstration-period","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6321665-a694efc7c8f4f21636409ac31d34a94f/orig.mp4?Expires=1776559795&Signature=ADOtAIeaPCwmYyfZLTt9PUJS2eIpQsbPwKvciH6cE1ywEtDgeRn5GKB2av~87KSWz5iQ1G0mFcRIH4AqQh4g1-14SZJJ~gLIVoco5IGmkQUPCbljmGomeZCyOXOpaEinp~dAKsAnfzcMfxKNsU7Q1SRxpcgCYkhtz3n2iCxrQvg5ALyE6LFH-C8h0p2ggcQTRMmE7BE8J9Lg4IDBzk6UUDJoGk99ByNfj59HSyOtJVdsX5YlE64lmkA7AC4Tbs~My06MkOMitNA5zn4eajYp78DgQZjKyIMRH2SVAOiXO5Eg~P1FFMvw0-KVSvDVjFicSsKAZu7tgPCX~OWe7058bg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","California transportation officials told the Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee in Fresno on May 29 that the State Transportation Agency has asked the administration to accelerate the California Road Charge Pilot Program and that the Legislature approved funding for an accelerated schedule.

Norma Ortega, Chief Financial Officer for Caltrans, said the previously planned 42‑month schedule was being compressed by overlapping procurement and testing tasks. \"The pilot demonstration project is shortened to 7 months. And then the demonstration evaluation and report writing is shortened to 4 months. So our aim is to try and complete the work by July 2017,\" Ortega said during the meeting.

Ortega and other staff said the technical advisory work — the committee’s 12‑month policy, engagement and design work — would not be shortened. The schedule changes apply to procurement, setup, testing, the live demonstration and the post‑demo evaluation and report phases.

Several committee members urged caution about compressing the schedule. Supervisor Finnegan said the state should allow \"as much time as possible to make sure that we're getting this thing right,\" noting the pilot may involve millions of vehicles and vehicle classes that have not been tested in similar pilots.

Committee members pressed staff about the shortened demonstration length. Staff said the seven‑month demonstration could be extended; one staff member indicated a nine‑month demonstration would be feasible. \"I think we can do 9 [months],\" a Caltrans official told the panel when asked whether a longer demonstration was possible.

No formal committee vote was recorded on the revised timeline at the May 29 meeting. Staff said they would return with follow‑up materials and that legislators and the governor's office were closely watching the pilot’s progress.

The committee asked staff to return with more detail on operational and procurement implications of a compressed schedule, and several members said they wanted the pilot long enough to capture data on heavy vehicles and fleet operations if those vehicle classes are included.","California transportation officials told the Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee that the administration and Legislature want to accelerate the pilot from 42 to about 31 months, with a shortened live demonstration; committee members raised concerns and suggested extending the proposed seven‑month demo to nine months.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Local trucker warns TAC that mileage charging risks high collection costs and bureaucracy

Automakers tell TAC they will not report drivers’ location data; urge technology neutrality

Road‑charge outreach expands: website live, phone survey and focus groups set; committee questions distribution

TAC debates who, what and how to test in road‑charge pilot; privacy rules highlighted

State seeks faster road‑charge pilot; panel debates shortening demonstration period