A new report from The Eastern Transportation Coalition (TETC) has concluded that closing the public understanding gap around how roads are funded is now the most important factor in moving toward mileage-based user fees (MBUF) as a long-term alternative to fuel tax.
The Phase 5 Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives (STSFA) report, covering work undertaken between 2023 and 2025, finds that most residents across the Coalition’s 20 member states and Washington DC do not know how their roads are paid for.
Many are also unaware that improved fuel efficiency and the growth of electric vehicles (EVs) are weakening fuel tax revenues.
However, when people are given clear, state-specific information on the problem and potential solutions, support for exploring MBUF and other reforms increases, according to the research.
The report’s primary takeaway, titled ‘Funding the Future Starts with Education’, identifies what it describes as a “significant gap in public understanding of how transportation is funded and the problem with today’s fuel tax model”. It concludes that more focused education is needed across US states.
Public opinion research and focus groups in states including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, North Carolina and Virginia found that many participants assumed fuel tax revenues were stable or increasing.
Once the mechanics of the current system and projected revenue decline were explained, respondents generally showed more interest in engaging with potential solutions, including distance-based charging.
Summarising the three-year programme, Coalition executive board chair and Georgia Department of Transportation commissioner Russell McMurry said Phase 5 had moved the work on from small-scale pilots towards more practical tools and outreach.
“Through coordinated multi-state efforts by the Coalition, Phase 5 demonstrated how pilots, data-driven tools, and targeted outreach can effectively address many of the perceived implementation challenges as we determine further the feasibility of MBUF as a sustainable funding approach,” he said.
To address the knowledge gap, Phase 5 supported customised communication campaigns rather than generic national messaging.
In North Carolina, the AdvaNCe Transportation Together initiative combined a dedicated website, a funding calculator, explainer video, postal mailers and social media content to explain the state’s funding gap and test reactions to MBUF alongside other options.
Virginia focused on digital outreach to support its voluntary Mileage Choice programme, which allows some drivers to pay by miles driven instead of a flat annual fee. The campaign used targeted messages to explain how the scheme works and who might benefit.
The report concludes that such tailored, multi-channel campaigns are more effective at building understanding than one-size-fits-all approaches.
Beyond public education, the Coalition finds that MBUF can be a viable alternative to the existing fuel tax if four main implementation barriers are addressed: gaps in public understanding, privacy concerns, perceived unfairness and administration costs.
FREE: Subscribe to the monthly Road User Charging Newsletter!
Phase 5 activity was organised around these themes, combining simulated and real-world pilots with light vehicles, EVs and trucks, household impact analysis, revenue forecasting tools, and surveys and focus groups to track changes in attitudes and awareness.
Household impact work in several states reinforces earlier findings that rural drivers, who often use less fuel-efficient vehicles and therefore pay more fuel tax per mile, would on average pay less under an MBUF than under the current fuel-tax-only system.
The report notes that results “continue to show rural drivers would benefit from MBUF” on average, challenging a common perception that distance-based fees are inherently unfair to rural communities.
It also finds that vehicle type is a stronger predictor of how much a household would pay under different systems than location alone.
Pilot evaluations indicate that concerns about privacy, data accuracy and system complexity tend to diminish once participants have direct experience of an MBUF scheme.
In Georgia and other participating states, reported worries about mileage accuracy and data security fell after drivers completed pilot programmes.
Participants in New Jersey’s electric vehicle pilot often viewed mileage-based charging as fairer than flat EV fees because contributions were tied more closely to actual road use.
A second major conclusion is that state policymakers need clear, state-specific evidence before considering legislative change.
To support this, the Coalition developed “revenue sound bites” and a revenue policy visualisation tool that quantify projected gas tax losses under different fuel-economy and EV uptake scenarios and compare options such as MBUF, EV surcharges and kilowatt-hour-based charges.
Across all sound bites, the report finds that, in the near term, most revenue loss is driven by improved fuel economy rather than EV adoption, although EVs become a larger factor over time.
In Maine, for example, the sound bite shows an expected 18% decline in gas tax revenue by 2030 from improvements in vehicle efficiency and a further 10% decline due to EVs, equivalent to a projected US$1.567bn annual reduction compared with a frozen 2023 fleet.
The report argues that these tools help decision-makers “put a number on the cost of doing nothing” and understand the trade-offs between different policy choices.
A third key finding is that collaboration and knowledge sharing across agencies and states are critical to overcoming practical implementation challenges.
Through its MBUF Steering Committee, peer exchanges and workshops, the Coalition brought together departments of transportation, motor vehicle agencies, tolling authorities, freight operators and other stakeholders to discuss enforcement, rate setting, privacy safeguards, interoperability and administrative cost control.
Participants highlighted the value of learning from other jurisdictions’ pilots and urged further national work on common data standards and a broader public education effort on how roads are funded.
Overall, the Phase 5 report positions MBUF as a technically feasible option that could replace or supplement fuel tax in the Eastern United States, provided that public education, state-level analysis and cross-agency collaboration continue to be developed alongside any future policy proposals.
It concludes that while no single solution will suit all states, the tools and findings from Phase 5 offer a framework for evaluating how distance-based charging might be designed and communicated if states or the federal government decide to move away from the traditional pay-at-the-pump model.
Discover the key trends and challenges shaping the future of user-funded transportation – spanning tolling, road pricing and usage-charges – at Akabo Media’s global Road User Charging Conference series. Join senior decision makers from around the world as they tackle the issues defining the industry in Brussels (March 2026), Abu Dhabi (May 2026), Washington DC (September 2026), and Singapore (December 2026). Gain invaluable insights, share innovative ideas and network with global leaders driving the transformation of transportation systems. Click here to learn more and secure your place at these unmissable events!
