Traffic Choices participants were surveyed about their experiences at the conclusion of the study. Below is a sampling of the comments we received.

Alternative modes

I did find that the alternatives for transportation were difficult. To lower my toll costs, the gas for the extra mileage would even out the cost. Also, the mass transit was a difficult option given my work schedule and bus times. It highlighted for me how we need better public transportation options.

Our choices of transportation to work and play are rapidly narrowing down to a rapid transit system. Move of the population to the areas outside the current transit system is making a coordinated road/rapid transit system mandatory in order to maintain our standard of living. Personally I would ride Rapid Transit (bus or rail?) if it could get me to work in less than one hour. No public transit system can fit everyone's personal needs, but transit to specific large employers and shopping centers in mini regional grids with connectors to other grids would help.

I will continue to use the new routes I discovered while part of the survey, but at no time did I ever consider using public transit. I believe that a pay-per-use system will only encourage use of public transit if the public transit system is improved as well. I, for one, am not prepared to spend twice as long (or more) getting from point A to B.

Changes

I really enjoyed being part of the study. It gave me the opportunity to find small ways I could change my driving habits to help out with traffic. As a result, I did change the way I drive to and from work and am more purposeful on combining all my errands into one organized trip. I also enjoyed the information I received from the box and the monthly statements. As I mentioned earlier, I made up games with my nephews regarding the print out information on the box. It was a very informative experience and I would do it again in a minute.

My driving patterns and habits changed substantially as a result of the traffic study. Because I have free parking at my workplace, I had never really considered transit or alternative means of getting to work as viable or desirable options. Transit and carpooling means less freedom and more required coordination of work schedules, errands, etc. However, when it was 'costing' me NOT to do this, I began to get creative. I hate spending money if I don't have to. However, to be fair, several things happened during the study that provided additional incentives for me to use transit or to carpool. First, my company offers free bus passes for anyone wishing to use public transport. Consequently, switching out of my car to the bus cost me nothing, whereas before, the $2.50 fare each way actually made driving almost as economical. But with the subsidy from work, I saved on gas and didn't have to worry about transit costs. A no-brainer. Second. Gas prices sky-rocketed during the study, so I was happy to try transit or carpooling. Third, I was able to start carpooling with a co-worker because we were able to coordinate our schedules to accommodate this. In the end, I used a combination of transit and carpooling to get to work during the study and have continued this pattern after the study. I enjoy not having to drive every day. I just wish there were now express lanes for those of us who "reverse commute" from Seattle on I-90.

Complaints

My concerns were primarily about the way the study was run. Some frustrating communication issues really delayed getting a meter moved from an old vehicle to a new one. The website was fairly difficult to use, and didn't seem to add much value. The invoices were difficult to interpret.

I felt that we were not often given correct information when we signed up and despite several times trying to contact your office by phone, we were never given the courtesy of a response. I would not participate again because of this lack of response.

Compliments

Glad to help. The survey was managed well with little inconvenience to both of us. It will be interesting to see how the future unfolds.

I think this was a great study, it really affected decision making of when and where I went. It also created discussion for passengers who rode in my car. They were very interested in what the meter was and why I was doing it. Thank you!

I thought the study was very professionally and thoroughly conducted. I also was pleased to participate.

Traffic Diversion

I did try to find more economical routes while the meter was functioning, which kept me off the freeways for the most part. But the whole time, I couldn't help but think that if everyone had a meter, the side roads would be pretty crowded. I am concerned about quality of life and traffic impacts on local streets (arterials and residential streets). If folks have to begin paying fees to travel on roads, might traffic detour through local streets (i.e., the cheaper or "free" streets?). Felt like the study was too long. I feel like I changed my driving routes changed earlier in the process, but after a while, ignored the meter and went the way that was most convenient.

Fairness

It sounds as if the main solution Traffic Choices feels strongest about making is the pay for road use. I believe charging fees to travel on roads when they are clogged would not be fair and would be difficult to enforce. Suppose a route is the only one available to and from a person's destination? p.s. I do not drive as far as I used to now that I am retired.

The issue is economic diversity. Some folks would not be able to afford to work where they do it. It cost them $10 a day in tolls. Could this possibly discourage some populations to stop striving for economic independence? A bigger buy-in for large companies that have shift workers to use van and bus pools use Internet capabilities within companies to connect more potential ride shares. Another area to consider is large churches to push for carpooling within the congregators, or large sporting events (that already happens, I know, for Husky games, but am not sure about the professional sports). I would use mass transit, but assume it would take me two hours to get to work. If I tried harder I could probably figure out a park-n-ride to go to, but to be at work at 7 a.m., there isn't much incentive.

Focus Revenues

Concern that there could become an over-abundance of funds for some roadways-- consequently those roads might not actually need $$ but less-traveled roads might need improvements, but are unable to collect enough $$ to make such improvements. Changing driving routes is probably the most feasible option for most people.

Free roads

In a free, democratic society, roads need to be free. Without the freedom to move, the poor are left less free at the price of the rich who get to go fast in the toll lanes.

I find the idea of charging based on miles driven, as opposed to taxing cars that use more gas, quite outrageous. That gives no incentive for people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.

Gas tax

While we paid close attention to the email summaries and traffic meters initially, they seemed to wear off over time. The increase in the price of gas over this time period may have done as much to curb our road use (though not changing which roads we used, just how much we drove). Perhaps the answer is to do what the Europeans tend to do and tax gas like crazy.

Inflexible

Financial incentives to save money are a very powerful motivator; however, the Traffic Choices study doesn't seem to take into consideration the fact that many people may not have a choice - depending on availability of public transportation or affordable housing. Even if you wanted to live next door to where you work, if you can't afford to, it doesn't matter how motivated you might be. When I started the study I thought that only the freeway miles were going to be tolled. I felt like I had limited non-tolling options for commuting, except to work a later, longer day. Cutting through neighborhoods was not an efficient option. Transit options require multiple transfers and at least double the commute time. I have lived where pikepasses were used and I think that for I-5, 405, I-90 and 520 it would be an option.

This study is based on the premise that drivers have the choice to drive at nonpeak times, carpool, or have access to transit. I found that my work requirements and/or schedule didn't allow me that flexibility. I did change my non-work driving patterns, but don't know if staying home more was a positive solution for my family to save money.

I like it that there are people trying to pioneer new ways to solve the congestion problems that are facing the Puget Sound region, but I have some misgivings about the concepts that this study introduces. I personally did not change my driving habits at all for this study, even with the financial incentive to do so. Perhaps if the financial incentive was greater I might have given it more thought, but the fact is that I travel as little as possible and not more, and I already take what I perceive to be the fastest route to and from wherever it is that I want to go. This is largely due to the fact that my time is more valuable to me than meager financial incentives.

I am a father of a baby and a toddler and demands on my time between work and home are great. My travel consists largely of trips to and from work. My wife runs various errands, but when she does that is dictated more by the schedule of things like nap time than it is by tolls on the roads. This equation could change if the incentives (penalties) were significantly greater or if my finances were more constrained. I might be forced to consider alternatives that I have the luxury to disregard today. But considering the fact that my annual household income exceeds $130,000, if penalties for traveling on major arteries during rush hour are so great that I need to seriously consider alternatives, I shudder to think of the impact on lower income families. In particular, families where their travel times and routes are dictated by work schedules (think punch clocks) not peak toll times. These people will have to pay whatever the tolls are.

I am actually less enthusiastic about road tolls than when I started this survey a year ago. It made me realize how unavoidable many trips are, and I do not think that any reasonably priced toll will drastically cut down on trips, especially during commute hours. On the other hand, if the goal of tolls is to raise money, it would probably succeed due to a captive population. I'm surprised that no questions were asked about how driving patterns were altered (take bus, change commute hour, don't go, etc). I started taking the bus every day in part because of this survey and am still doing it and I'm rather proud of that. But I had an ideal situation, and I can see how difficult it would be for others to change.

Two comments: 1. I am a disabled person who finds it necessary to drive alone. I did change shifts from 9/80 to 4/40 to drive to work one less day per week. 2. The van in our family is used primarily to transport my two wheelchair-bound in-laws and so changes in driving habits is not an option there as well.

Information

At first I looked at the traffic meter frequently. I found that it caused me stress to see the trip cost go up, especially between 4 and 7 p.m. I sometimes tried alternate routes and found that I could save a little money, but it took so long, it wasn't worth it. After a few months I figured out that I would still get money back if I pretty much drove as usual, so I paid less attention to the meter. I continued to take a few routes that would cost me less and I tried to travel at cheaper times, but I didn't worry about it too much. Because of my home and work location, taking the bus or carpooling wasn't very realistic. Since I work at a school, I couldn't change my work hours, either.

Before the study, I was very resistant to the idea of a "pay as you go" solution to our traffic mess. But after participating in the study and being "forced" into making conscious choices about my mode/frequency of travel - else losing money from my account - I am now feeling quite different. I did not like having to take the bus in my daily commute to work, but on the other hand I did enjoy the stress-free travel, which was well worth it in the long run. I think a combination of incentives/disincentives would be very effective overall, but only if easy, convenient, and cost-effective alternatives were available. Great experience - thank you!

We found that day to day information about the cost of a particular trip was difficult to access. The monitors in the cars did not display the screen where the driver could see it so we did not benefit from the immediate feedback of knowing what the trip was costing. In thinking about our travel, we think that most of our trips are in response to specific short times and not easily moved to different times. Our destinations are also not easily reached by transit. So -- we changed our driving very little.

Privacy

The biggest concern is the close tracking and movement monitoring. This device watched a little too close. I think a check point system on freeway entrance and exits and on main roads would be more liked. I had friend and others seemed very concerned about being monitored this way. Personally, however, I did not have a real problem with this.

Very concerned about the privacy implications of the this particular tolling system. We have many friends who knew about this project and thought it was a great way to pay for the roads, but in the end it does bring up the issue of privacy.... the government would know at all times were you are at. It does seem a little George Orwell 1984..... like I said it is an excellent way to fund for transportation/road needs, yet there are probably less invasive ways...like toll booths?

Tolls future

Since I use side streets and drive only a few miles to work (6.1 or so) I didn't really change my driving habits for commuting. I did combine more trips for errands both during the week and weekends and for weekend trips. When I did drive longer distances, I was really surprised at the prices I would have been charged. Not that I thought that it was unfair, it just really added up, on a trip, for example, to Normandy Park or Ballard. Paying for use is the way to go when paying for roads, because of the much higher cost of driving longer distances. It would be more fair to charge users of specific roads or stretches or roads for their maintenance. A good example would be the Alaskan Way Viaduct, which I never use and don't want to pay for.

I think we should tax passenger cars based on weight and size of engine. We should make these people who drive big heavy cars pay the most. Also gas tax and a vehicle luxury tax on huge cars. Tolls are good. The meters can work too though it seemed like a lot of work and people could tamper or wreck the machines.

Tolls should be based upon congestion and not time of day. I saw the amount of cars on NE 148th vary greatly form day to day and my drive time vary from 15 minutes to 40 minutes.