Originally published by ITS International, this thought leadership piece by Q-Free CEO Mark Talbot explores
You can also read the article in the Sept-Oct 2026 edition of ITS International magazine.
Road user charging: The time is now
You might think Road User Charging (RUC) is a new concept. The idea of people paying a fee to drive on roads might sound radical but in fact we’ve been doing it all along. We just call it a fuel tax.
Fuel taxes were a fantastic idea in the 20th century when every vehicle was reliably inefficient and ran on oil. For decades, the funds raised were a predictable revenue source to build, maintain, and improve our infrastructure, right up until they weren’t. Everyone in our industry understands fuel efficient and electric vehicles coupled with stagnant fuel tax rates have created an unsustainable problem for governments and agencies around the globe, and for the first time since the establishment of national highway networks, we’re literally running out of road. Meanwhile, demand on our transportation networks has never been greater. Freight volumes continue to rise. Urban congestion continues to intensify. Infrastructure is aging, while expectations for safer, smarter, and more connected roads continue to grow, but without a solution, we risk moving backwards rather than forwards.
Mark Talbot: “For decades, the funds raised were a predictable revenue source to build, maintain, and improve our infrastructure, right up until they weren’t.”
While others have talked about the issue and haven’t addressed it, at Q-Free, we’ve addressed it and now I feel compelled to talk about it. The fact is we all need to pay our share, and equity and long-term sustainability have to be at the heart of our strategy moving forward. Electric vehicle drivers need to pay and so do the owners of gas powered vehicles. We should all be responsible for building new roads. In my view, the answer is obvious. We should each pay for the distance we travel. That’s the definition of RUC and it hits all the marks, from equity and fairness, to embracing technology and innovation, to long term sustainability.
For years, the argument against RUC has started with the assumption that the public isn’t ready, followed quickly by the lack of accurate technology to deliver a transparent and equitable process. But modern positioning systems, connected vehicles, secure payment platforms and privacy-preserving architectures have matured dramatically over the past decade. Opponents often cited privacy concerns, but protecting privacy is key to user confidence and adoption. User data should be collected for one specific purpose: to calculate the amount owed, and the only data collected should be captured solely to support that purpose. Flexible architectures now allow agencies to adopt policies that reflect their own legal frameworks while giving motorists the assurance their data is secure, and we, along with several of our competitors can now provide reliable, accurate, low-cost solutions that completely undermine any argument that the technology isn’t ready to support RUC.
Successful deployments place as much emphasis on customer experience as engineering. Drivers expect systems that are simple, accurate and largely invisible in their daily lives. Whether payments occur through onboard devices, connected vehicle platforms or future software-defined vehicles, convenience matters just as much as capability, and agencies are learning that transparency matters more than complexity. People do not necessarily expect road funding to be simple. They do expect it to be understandable.
In 2026, the pieces are in place and all of that is possible. Road User Charging is not only the obvious choice, it’s the only one that checks all the boxes.
The question is no longer whether the technology is ready. It is. The question is whether we can build the public support and trust necessary to implement the change. That’s where the tide is shifting. Most drivers understand that roads require investment, and as Road User Charging aligns cost with actual use, those same drivers respond to equity.
Our company has a significant footprint in Australia, and one of the most encouraging developments was revealed in a recent national study commissioned by Transport Australia. The research examined public attitudes toward future road funding and the results challenge many long-held assumptions. Nearly six in ten Australians support replacing the fuel tax with a per-kilometer road user charge. Interestingly, support climbs even higher among electric and hybrid vehicle owners. People want equity in Road User Charging. They also want an assurance that money raised will be put to its intended use. In the Transport Australia study, support for Road User Charging increased when respondents understood that revenues would be dedicated to maintaining and improving roads. It’s important to note that does not necessarily mean everyone pays more. In many cases, it means people pay more fairly. That distinction matters because fairness builds trust, and trust is the real currency of transportation policy. Technology may enable road user charging, but public confidence determines success
In Europe we’ve seen a similar shift with different solutions being tested throughout the continent. We have already demonstrated how our on-board unit-based Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) solution, created in partnership with Sony, can be deployed at scale while maintaining privacy and operational robustness, but this isn’t technology searching for a problem. In fact, it was developed and tested in collaboration with research institutions and public road authorities including the Norwegian Public Roads Administration, SINTEF, and the Norwegian Research Council, to address their reality. More pilots are underway, including one in Oslo, the capital of Norway, kicking off this autumn where 300 drivers will test the solution over three months. Built with deep consideration for cybersecurity and privacy, the solution is seamless and as we gather driver feedback on the user experience, we understand that aspect is an important part of these trials. Implementing Road User Charging requires that the public understands both its value and its implications.
In the complex U.S. market, RUC addresses America’s unique challenges. All 50 states and the District of Columbia charge a gas tax ranging from 71 cents per gallon in California, to 8 cents in Alaska. Add on the Federal gas tax of 18.4 cents and the math gets complicated. But once again, Americans have already opted in to Road User Charging. 35 states currently have toll roads, tunnels, or bridges – often all three. Programs like E-Z Pass, which operates in 20 states make the process simple and seamless.
At Q-Free, we were founded on the dual business streams of traffic management and tolling, and we answer two questions particularly well: how will we manage our roads and how will we pay for them? I’m excited about the pace of innovation of the technologies, some of which we haven’t even begun to imagine which will drive road management, but the answer to payment question is already mature, ready, and right in front of us.
Road User Charging. It’s not if or even how. It’s now.
This article was originally published by Q-Free.
