Federal and state fuel taxes were designed for a 20th-century transportation system. When every car burned roughly the same amount of fuel per mile, taxing fuel was an efficient and equitable way to fund roads. However, as fuel economy improves and the number of electric vehicles (EVs) increases, revenues decline, and the burden shifts to drivers of older, less efficient vehicles.

In Oregon, total fuel consumption has fallen for more than a decade. In California, the Legislative Analyst’s Office projects a $4.4 billion—or 31%—drop in transportation revenue over the next 10 years if nothing changes. The existing model is not only unfair—it’s unsustainable.

Mileage-based user fees (MBUFs) offer a more sustainable alternative than the fuel tax: drivers pay for the miles they drive, not the fuel they buy. However, if states present MBUFs merely as a tax replacement, they risk public backlash. Many residents equate any new funding model with higher taxes or expanded government. That skepticism is understandable. If the gas tax isn’t repealed, a per-mile fee would feel like an added tax rather than a replacement for the fuel tax. The goal should be revenue neutrality, replacing how states collect road funding without increasing the overall tax burden. Some drivers, especially those operating electric vehicles or highly fuel-efficient vehicles, will pay more in mileage-based user fees than they do today under the fuel tax, but that’s a fair adjustment since those vehicles still use the roads without contributing proportionally to their upkeep. 

Early government marketing of electric vehicles emphasized cost savings, so states will need to clearly explain why contributing to road maintenance is now part of long-term fairness. The communication challenge is not whether MBUFs are equitable; it’s how governments convey that equity to the public.

To build confidence, states must use clear, consistent messaging that explains not only how road funding works but also why change is needed and how drivers will see the benefits. For states, that means leading with transparency, local relevance, and choice. The next step is clear: educate the public through focused outreach and communication.

Educate first, build trust

It’s not enough for policymakers to say the fuel tax is outdated; states must explain why it exists and how it functions. In the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s 2022 public attitudes study, fewer than one in four drivers could accurately describe how the fuel tax works, and more than half expressed concerns about privacy, fairness, and whether revenue actually returns to their communities. Those findings align with national research from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Eastern Transportation Coalition.

To bridge that knowledge gap, states can draw from FHWA’s report “Bridging the Communications Gap in Understanding Road Usage Charges,” which outlines early the outreach, education, and public
awareness techniques used by the state MBUF pilot projects such as:

1. Simple, non-technical materials. Oregon’s Oregon Road Usage Charge Program (OReGO) uses a three-step infographic and mileage calculator to explain how per-mile fees work. States should use everyday analogies, such as a phone plan or utility bill, and provide materials in multiple languages. Short, animated explainers comparing “John’s commute under the gas tax vs. per-mile fee” can make the concept more relatable.

2. Local forums. The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) held info booths at county fairs. The Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) hosted community meetings across the islands. States could have “MBUF open houses” at DMVs, libraries, or community centers where residents can test a demo mileage calculator.

3. Trusted messengers. Virginia used DMV clerks to explain its “Mileage Choice” option during the registration process. States can partner with farm bureaus, school bus fleets, and local radio hosts to hold town halls with trusted local leaders such as county boards, sheriffs, and faith leaders, connecting MBUFs with visible local road and safety improvements.

4. Testing messages. California’s statewide pilot tested different phrases in English and Spanish to identify which resonated most. States can replicate this through small-scale message testing, such as comparing “No GPS tracking required” versus “Flat fee or per mile—you choose” and measuring responses.

States should also explain how electric vehicles and fuel-efficient vehicles fit into a user-pay system. Many drivers bought these cars expecting savings, often encouraged by government incentives. Outreach should emphasize that per-mile fees don’t erase those savings; they ensure every driver contributes fairly to maintaining safe, reliable roads. 

Minnesota’s experience demonstrates that education is an effective tool for mileage fees. In a 2022 Minnesota Department of Transportation study, support for a mileage-based fee increased from 32% to 64% after participants understood how the fuel tax works and why revenues are declining. When people see the link between what they pay and the roads they use, skepticism gives way to support. Clear, early communication helps build trust and demonstrates that MBUFs can deliver visible local benefits while replacing the fuel tax. From there, policymakers should shift their focus to giving drivers confidence in how these systems protect their privacy and provide real choice.

Lead with choice and privacy

People don’t mind paying their fair share for vital infrastructure, but many are wary of MBUFs. Focus groups from Minnesota to the Eastern Transportation Coalition reveal that privacy concerns and lack of choice are the top concerns. Utah addresses those fears by letting drivers choose between a flat alternative-fuel fee or per-mile billing, up to a posted cap, while clearly stating that “neither option involves sharing location data.” A prepaid “wallet” lets participants view real-time deductions, caps, and clear privacy promises, making the fee feel more like a phone plan than a tax.

Other states can offer multiple reporting options, such as odometer photos, non-GPS plug-ins, or optional GPS, and enact strict privacy laws with independent audits or privacy boards. The privacy pledge shouldn’t be hidden in an FAQ somewhere online; it should lead the message. MBUF programs that emphasize voluntary participation and privacy protections consistently gain more support.

Make the mileage-based user fee money visible locally

Fuel-tax dollars often seem to vanish, especially when drivers don’t see improvements on the roads they use. MBUF can change that. The Hawai‘i Road Usage Charge (HiRUC) program, which began for EVs in July 2025, allows drivers to choose between an $8 per 1,000 miles charge (capped at $50) or a flat $50 annual fee, verified through odometer readings. Public estimators help drivers compare costs. 

States can go further with “Your Dollars at Work” dashboards, showing how much was collected in each county and what projects it funded, such as repaving Main Street, fixing intersections, or adding guardrails. Oregon and Minnesota already share project maps online. Adapting these tools for per-mile fees, with quarterly emails linking mileage to local projects, helps turn a fee into a visible service. 

Market like a product, not a program

Branding matters. Virginia’s “Mileage Choice” program embeds enrollment in DMV registration with a flyer headlined “Drive Less. Pay Less.” That timing and slogan make an abstract policy feel like a consumer choice.

California uses bilingual outreach, multiple device options, and pilot incentives to recruit participants. States are learning they should not call it “MBUF” to the public. They can use names that signal fairness—DriveFair, RoadReturns, MyMiles—and apply consistent logos and colors across DMV notices, social media, and flyers.

States should share short success stories, such as ‘I drive 8,000 miles a year and saved $180 under Utah’s per-mile option.’

States can also launch pilots with small incentives or referral credits to boost participation. When mileage fees are branded as a product, they can become a service people choose, rather than a tax they resent. As trust grows, states can phase out some options. The goal is to create a system where MBUF becomes the standard. Simple, trusted, and fair so that every mile truly pays for the road ahead.

Anticipate criticism up front

Some critics will label mileage-based user fees a tax increase. Policymakers should be proactive to counter this. In the near term, they should make the transition to MBUFs revenue-neutral and ensure there are caps so that no one pays more than under the old fuel tax system for driving. States can address privacy concerns with non-GPS options and legal guarantees.

Rural drivers fear being penalized by mileage fees. However, pilot data from Oregon and Utah show that many rural residents with older, less efficient vehicles actually pay less per mile. States can still include mileage caps or rural credits to show that fairness is a priority. Concerns about complexity and cost are valid. States should start small, utilize competitive contracting for administration, and demonstrate how costs decrease with scale and technological advancements.

The gas tax is eroding fast, and so is the public’s patience. Mileage-based user fees can either become another tax or a smarter, privacy-safe way to fund the roads people rely on. States that educate first, offer real choices, and show visible results will earn public trust and lay the groundwork for lasting infrastructure.

A roadmap for the future

The ultimate vision for mileage-based user fees is a simple, fair, and sustainable funding system where every driver pays proportionally for what they use—no more, no less. Over time, MBUFs can evolve into a national framework that replaces the fuel tax entirely, ensuring long-term stability for highway funding for maintenance and construction. In the long term, this system would give drivers control, choice, and visibility, while enabling states to modernize their transportation networks without relying on outdated or inequitable revenue sources. Implemented correctly, mileage-based user fees align with the users-pay principle and restore the link between the miles we drive and the roads we depend on.

When every mile counts, every dollar should too—and that’s how we rebuild trust in America’s roads.

The post Building public trust in mileage-based road funding appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Public-private partnerships (P3s) can deliver megaprojects but can also add value by addressing smaller-scale infrastructure facilities that people rely on every day. Local bridges, transit hubs, and rest areas may not grab headlines, but they shape commutes, commerce, and safety. In a country where mobility helps drive opportunity, infrastructure project delays don’t just cause inconvenience—they drive decline. Every postponed or long-delayed transportation project slows growth, deepens disparities, and erodes public trust.

Pennsylvania faced this challenge directly. With more than 4,000 structurally deficient bridges statewide, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) launched the Rapid Bridge Replacement Project to tackle 558 of them in a single package. The winning consortium, Plenary Walsh Keystone Partners, agreed to finance, design, build, and maintain the bridges until 2042.

Instead of paying the company all at once, PennDOT used an availability-payment contract. Under this arrangement, the private partner is paid gradually over 25 years, provided that the bridges are open to traffic and meet safety and maintenance standards. This approach was the best fit for Pennsylvania because hundreds of small rural bridges could never generate sufficient toll revenue. By tying payments to availability and condition, PennDOT accelerated delivery without creating a new revenue stream.

The contract also clarified who was responsible for which risks. Plenary Walsh Keystone Partners assumed responsibility for design, construction, financing, and long-term maintenance. If bridges were delayed, failed inspection, or fell below contractual standards, PennDOT could reduce or withhold payments. This created a direct incentive to build durable structures and keep them in good condition over time.

At the same time, PennDOT retained certain risks that only the state could manage—such as acquiring rights-of-way, coordinating utility relocations, and monitoring performance. These responsibilities meant the public agency still had to step in at times, but the private partner was directly accountable for the timely, durable delivery of hundreds of bridges. The result was a win-win: Pennsylvania taxpayers saw a large backlog cleared years sooner, while the private consortium secured steady returns by meeting strict performance requirements.

Other states have shown the same principles at work. In Colorado, the US-36 Express Lanes public-private partnership delivered two new express lanes, rebuilt two general-purpose lanes, added five bus rapid transit stations, and built 12 miles of bikeway—completed under a concession that tied private payments to performance.

In Louisiana, the I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge reached financial close in August 2024, with a private consortium now responsible for designing, financing, constructing, and maintaining the 5.5-mile corridor between Lake Charles and Westlake. These results show that P3s not only save time but also raise expectations for how quickly and effectively infrastructure can be delivered.

Public-private partnerships are not without risks, and strong oversight is essential. PennDOT’s Rapid Bridge Replacement Project demonstrated the importance of anticipating and managing challenges early. The department learned that some utility companies lacked the capacity to relocate their lines on schedule, resulting in delays. To keep the project moving, PennDOT stepped in directly when outside partners failed to respond to the private contractor. The agency also determined it was more effective for the state itself to handle right-of-way acquisitions, leaving the private partner to focus on design and construction responsibilities. Beyond these examples, PennDOT still faced other risks, including:

• Coordinating with local governments and permitting agencies on necessary approvals;
• Ensuring contract compliance through ongoing inspections and monitoring;
• Defending the project against possible lawsuits, legislative changes, or political opposition; and
• Guaranteeing availability payments, because the state’s credit ultimately backs them.

To reduce those risks and strengthen future infrastructure projects, governments should adopt clear safeguards in P3 contracts, including:

• Net worth maintenance requirements: A rule should require the private partner to maintain sufficient assets to always meet its obligations. This prevents the company from running out of funds or abandoning the contract before it is complete;
• Performance monitoring: Regular inspections and reports to confirm the project meets safety and service standards, with penalties if it doesn’t;
• Independent audits: Outside reviewers ensure that the private partner is meeting its obligations; 
• Contingency planning: The state retains the authority to step in and complete the project if the private partner fails to meet its obligations; and
• Defined public responsibilities: Clear roles for the government, such as acquiring land, relocating utilities, and securing permits, so there’s no confusion about which tasks remain public and which belong to the private partner.

Policymakers who confine public-private partnerships to megaprojects are missing their most significant value: delivering the everyday infrastructure that communities notice most. States should look to enter into P3s for moderate-cost infrastructure projects, such as the Pennsylvania bridges project, which can be completed efficiently, at lower cost, and with greater accountability. The question isn’t whether mid-sized public-private partnerships work, but why more states aren’t using them now.

The post Using the practical power of public-private partnerships to improve infrastructure appeared first on Reason Foundation.