Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pilot Evaluation Criteria topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
TAC refines and pares evaluation criteria for California road‑charge pilot
Summary
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.
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.
