Pricing Focus Group Final Report Dec 2007

If there are images in this attachment, they will not be displayed.
Page 1
PRICING
FOCUS
GROUPS
FINAL
REPORT
DECEMBER
2007
Prepared by
Page 2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...................................................................................................2
Introduction................................................................................................................................. 2
Awareness and Acceptance of Tolling ....................................................................................... 2
How to Talk about Tolling.......................................................................................................... 4
What Moves People to Support or Oppose Tolling.................................................................... 4
Opportunities to Improve Support for Tolling............................................................................ 5
Major Findings...........................................................................................................6
Tolling Applications ................................................................................................................... 6
Geographic Characterizations..................................................................................................... 9
Focus Group Findings by Discussion Topic............................................................................. 10
Focus Group Discussion Narrative..........................................................................13
Congestion ................................................................................................................................ 13
Overall Responses to Tolling.................................................................................................... 15
HOT Lanes................................................................................................................................ 17
Full-Corridor Tolling................................................................................................................ 19
SR 520 Corridor Tolling........................................................................................................... 20
Proposition 1............................................................................................................................. 23
Messaging................................................................................................................................. 25
Appendix A: Methodology ......................................................................................26
Appendix B: Focus Group Discussion Guide..........................................................29
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 1 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 3
Executive Summary
Introduction
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Puget Sound
Regional Council (PSRC), and King County conducted focus groups to engage
King County drivers and transit riders in discussions regarding “congestion
pricing.” The following document identifies key findings from this effort. Focus
groups were designed to:
• Gauge participants’ awareness of tolling for the purpose of improving traffic
• Learn how to successfully talk with the public about traffic operations and
tolling strategies
• Identify what moves people to support or oppose tolling
• Determine opportunities to improve support for tolling with a public
engagement program
Eight focus groups were held in four locations, representing North King County,
South King County, East King County, and Seattle. In North and South King
County, one of two focus groups was composed of “low-income” participants. All
other groups were recruited to reflect the demographics of their area.
Focus groups are qualitative research efforts designed to explore the attitudes,
beliefs, opinions and experiences of the participants. Although focus groups do
not provide statistically valid data, they are designed to elicit useful information
through the give and take of group discussion. Findings from focus groups should
not be considered to represent the views of the overall population. Additional
follow-up work is needed to determine if these results reflect the general
population.
Awareness and Acceptance of Tolling
Participant awareness of tolling is high
• They are familiar with traditional tolling to fund projects.
• They are aware of using price as a tool to manage congestion.
• Participants don’t always understand how tolling can improve traffic flow,
especially if tolls are charged on all lanes of a facility.
• Participants are generally aware of electronic tolling. Some participants had
driven across the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 2 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 4
Understanding varies with the type of tolling application
• Participants are more prone to understand high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes
than full-corridor tolling as a strategy to keep traffic moving.
Lack of understanding leads to skepticism regarding tolling all lanes
• Many participants were skeptical of the idea that a toll on all lanes could
improve traffic flow. Their skepticism was often linked to a belief that either
they could not give up their car, or that other people would not give up their
cars.
• Many participants indicated that a predictable price is important to them, and
want to know when they leave home what that cost will be.
Support for roadway tolling depends upon the application
• HOT lanes and express toll lanes (applications with regular lanes available)
receive much higher overall levels of support because people have the option
to use them or not.
• Tolling all lanes of a corridor is met with skepticism because of the lack of
alternatives, the perceived effects it has on low-income people and the
perception that workers with the least flexible work hours are also the ones
who make the least amount of money.
Public acceptance is possible, but not guaranteed
• Because participants tend to understand how HOT/express toll lanes work,
they were generally willing to accept this tolling concept.
• Participants accept HOT lanes because there are non-tolled options available.
• If tolling could provide a faster trip, most participants indicated they would try
it, even if they say they don’t really like the concept. Most said they would
use tolled lanes if they were in a hurry.
• Most participants were open to the various conceptual approaches to tolling,
but how projects get implemented, and what the details are, will determine
whether or not participants will be supportive in practice.
Some barriers to broad public acceptance of tolling were identified
• Some participants opposed tolling for philosophical reasons. They either
believe tolling is regressive and hurts low-income people, or they think that it
is government’s job to fully fund transportation infrastructure.
• A few participants assumed any effort to toll is government’s approach to get
more money out of their pocketbooks. Others said they would want to know
what existing taxes are used for before authorizing any new revenues.
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 3 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 5
How to Talk about Tolling
General Terminology
There were no clear standouts for overall terminology to describe what the
transportation industry would call “congestion pricing.” The terms “congestion
pricing” and “pricing” were poorly received. The term “tolling” was well-
received, generally with a modifier to explain this new concept.
Participants preferred terms that were descriptive. For example, the term
“flexible” came up in several groups (as in “flexible tolling”) because it indicates
that the rate changes and that people have options. This term also sounds similar
to “Flex pass” and “Flex time,” terms people already know and use.
Another term that was mentioned several times was “express tolling” because it
indicates a faster trip. Express tolling was used by participants to describe both
single lanes and multiple lanes.
HOT lane names
When discussing HOT lanes, participants liked the term “HOT” only when they
knew that it stood for “high-occupancy toll” lanes. Several participants also
suggested that public agencies should simply pick terms and brand them through
public education.
What Moves People to Support or Oppose Tolling
How tolling affects low-income people
• Learning that HOT lanes were supported by 50-70% of drivers across all
income groups in cities where they are currently operating was the most
effective statement presented to build support for HOT lanes among those
who were not originally favorable.
1
Having travel options
• Few participants were willing to give up their cars. They placed high value on
the convenience of cars or said they need a car to pick up children from school
or run errands after work. Most drivers said they would either drive another
route to avoid a toll or pay to use a tolled facility if the demand on their time
was great enough.
• Some participants thought that improving transit so that it ran more
frequently, or connected more locations, would either be an acceptable
alternative for them individually, or could provide an incentive for others to
support tolling.
1
Statistic from HOT lanes projects on SR 91 in California, I-15 in California, and I-394 in Minnesota.
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 4 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 6
• Participants generally recognized that they contribute to congestion, yet did
not transfer this recognition to what they could do personally to alleviate it.
Opportunities to Improve Support for Tolling
Demonstrate that tolling works
• Leverage the SR 167 HOT Lanes Pilot Project opening to provide a local,
real-life example of tolling that improves traffic flow.
• Let the ability of tolling to improve traffic flow prove itself to people through
experience.
Show how individuals can benefit
• Highlight and define what tolling can do for roadway users (benefit users).
Use examples of successes in other places to build support for tolling – such
as the popularity of HOT lanes among all income groups
Emphasize travel options and alternatives
• Reach out to employers. Nearly all the groups talked about the role of the
employer, including flexible scheduling, transit pass subsidies and
telecommuting.
Highlight the need for tolling
• In the case of the SR 520 bridge, participants’ understanding of the need to
replace the bridge seemed to motivate greater support for tolling. Participants
in the groups even indicated that charging tolls on the existing bridge may be
acceptable under certain circumstances.
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 5 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 7
Major Findings
The following analyzes the findings relevant to future tolling work in King
County. In particular, we examine participants’ awareness, understanding,
acceptance and support of tolling applications that are or may be considered for
use in this region, briefly summarize some geographic differences between the
focus groups, and detail the specific findings from the focus groups by discussion
topic.
Tolling Applications
As possible tolling applications are considered for use in King County, successful
communications with the public will need to be informed by the public’s current
awareness, understanding, acceptance, and support of the specific applications.
The following analyzes the responses of focus group participants when asked
about HOT/express toll lanes, full-corridor tolling, and tolling the SR 520
corridor.
HOT/Express Toll Lanes
Awareness
Awareness levels about HOT/Express lanes were mixed. Some people knew
about them from plans for the SR 167 HOT Lanes Pilot Project, and others were
familiar with them from trips to Denver, San Diego and Salt Lake City. For some,
the concept was new.
Understanding
Participants understood the idea that people can choose to pay for a faster trip and
that tolling a lane or lanes will limit the number of vehicles in that lane. They
liked that people have the option to drive in a tolled or non-tolled lane.
They often did not link the benefit an individual gets (a faster trip) and the
benefits to the system (more vehicles moving). A few people noted that all lanes
should be moving better, but most did not come to this conclusion on their own.
Those who did not understand that the overall system would perform better were
more concerned about the effects tolling would have on people with lower
incomes.
People were quick to understand that accidents will slow down the system and
wanted to know if refunds would be provided if the trip was not reliable.
The “Rachel’s Drive” video was effective in explaining how HOT lanes work.
Questions came up around the changing driving situation on SR 167 and the
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 6 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 8
potential for accidents as a result of the change, especially in the South King
County groups. Several participants already drive on SR 167 and realized that the
experience will be different. Drivers will have to note the price, make a decision,
enter in the correct place, know not to cross the double white line and exit at the
right place to leave the highway.
Some participants wondered how people will track their accounts and know if
billing mistakes are made since the prices change every day. Some expressed
concern for drivers in that area who don’t speak English and wondered how they
would figure out the system.
Acceptance
For the most part, people like HOT/Express lanes because drivers have the option
of using them or not. Not surprisingly, some people expressed concern about
access for low-income people. However, when participants learned that HOT
lanes already operating in other cities have from 50 percent to over 70 percent
support across income groups, many of the skeptics said they might change their
minds. This was the most effective statement presented to build support for HOT
lanes among those who were not originally favorable to them.
In the Seattle groups, participants were concerned that opening HOV lanes to solo
drivers would degrade the trip for transit and carpoolers. They noted that several
HOV lanes are too crowded now and were skeptical that HOT lanes would not
hurt current HOV users.
Support
In all groups, except the low-income group in South King County, nearly
everyone said that if HOT lanes work and their route had one, they would use it at
least occasionally, especially if they are running late or need to be somewhere at a
certain time. The low-income participants were less likely to say they would use
them – many noted that the rising cost of gas is already hitting their pocketbooks
hard.
Full-Corridor Tolling (all lanes)
Awareness
Awareness about tolling to manage traffic did not extend to applications on all
lanes of a highway. When people think about tolling all lanes, they tend to think
of a classic toll that is collected to pay for a specific project.
Understanding
Most people did not understand how tolling all lanes would improve traffic flow.
They assume that if everyone is being tolled, there is no benefit to traffic, other
than possibly shifting the congestion problem to other roads. When asked what
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 7 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 9
they would do if they had to take a route where all lanes were tolled, the most
common answer was to take another route, especially in the North and South King
County groups. Participants in Seattle and East King County recognized that there
were fewer route options if their trips were east-west and were more likely to
consider different alternatives, including transit, avoid unnecessary trips or
traveling at a different time of day. Having said this, all groups still had a difficult
time understanding that tolls could improve the flow of traffic.
Participants also disliked tolling all lanes because they thought it would affect
low-income people the most, and thought low-income workers often have the
least schedule flexibility. There was concern that this type of tolling is “punitive,”
“elitist” or “classist.”
Acceptance
Acceptance levels for this approach were lower because all the lanes are tolled.
People want to have a choice of lanes or routes. Some recognized that choice
could include transit, but most people said existing transit service was not
convenient, not frequent enough or didn’t go to the right places. Some groups
debated the best form of transit – light rail or buses.
When asked if they would drive on a route where all lanes were tolled, and which
offered them a faster trip, most participants agreed they would try it if they
needed to be somewhere on time.
Support
The two primary barriers to support for tolling all lanes are the concern regarding
impacts to lower-income users and the belief that tolling all lanes would not
succeed in improving traffic flow.
SR 520 Corridor Tolling
Awareness
Everyone in all groups seemed well-aware that the SR 520 bridge needs to be
replaced. One person was aware of this but disagreed that it was true.
Nearly everyone was aware that the plan to replace the SR 520 bridge includes
charging tolls as part of the funding plan.
Understanding
When discussing charging tolls on all lanes of SR 520, which was described as
the corridor between I-5 and I-405, most people assumed that the function of the
tolls would be to raise funds. As described above, they did not understand how
tolling the SR 520 corridor would improve traffic.
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 8 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 10
This gap in understanding was illustrated by direct questions from participants
about how traffic would be improved and also by the large number of participants
who assumed the toll would be charged in only one direction.
Acceptance
Using tolls to partially fund the new bridge is generally accepted. Participants
seemed open to the idea that the existing bridge could be tolled as a means to raise
funds for the new bridge, with a number of caveats attached. These include
knowing:
• The specific alternative to replace the bridge
• How much money the tolls would raise
• That the other sources of funds were in place
• When construction would begin and end
• That the solution was agreed upon and the project would actually get built
The failure of the Seattle Monorail Project was an item of discussion in many of
the groups, as was the overall perception that the region can’t build any major
transportation improvements. Several groups referred to the failure of the 1960s-
era light rail vote.
Support
Among focus group participants, there is support for replacing the SR 520 bridge,
and for using tolls as a funding source. However, many of the participants don’t
use the bridge on a regular basis.
Geographic Characterizations
Having conducted focus groups in four locations in King County, some
geographic characterizations are possible and may be useful for future tolling
plans and public education programs. The following are some specific distinctions
between groups from different regional locations.
North King County
• “Reasonable” toll prices for a faster trip ranged from $0.25 - $5.00
• Tentative support for tolling existing SR 520 corridor; think tolls should be
flat-rate, not variable
City of Seattle
• No more interested in “green” issues than other locations
• Concerned with commute times, transit availability and the replacement of the
SR 520 bridge
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 9 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 11
• “Reasonable” toll price for faster trip on SR 520 bridge ranged from $3.00 -
$5.00 (roundtrip)
• More likely than other groups to consider moving to transit to avoid a toll,
rather than changing routes
South King County
• More attuned to possible economic impacts of tolling than other groups,
especially in the low-income group
• “Reasonable” toll prices for a faster trip ranged from $0.25 - $1.00
• Supported tolls on SR 520 corridor because “people who can afford it” would
be paying the tolls and “I don’t drive it”
• Concerned with transit availability and reliability
East King County
• High interest in SR 520 bridge replacement and willingness to contribute toll
revenue
• “Reasonable” toll price for faster trip on SR 520 bridge ranged from $1.50 -
$6.00 (roundtrip)
Focus Group Findings by Discussion Topic
Congestion
• Most participants had a sophisticated knowledge of their daily commutes and
how the transportation system works today – they know when to choose
another route and readily provided examples of congestion scenarios.
• Participants were more likely to blame traffic on circumstances (road
capacity, geography, no transit available) than driver behavior (lack of
carpooling, traveling during rush hours); however, driver behavior was also
mentioned as a cause of congestion.
• Participants suggested improving traffic with more transit options, additional
roadway capacity, and more flexible employment options.
• Tolling to improve traffic flow was not mentioned by participants.
Overall Responses to Tolling
• Participants are familiar with tolls to raise revenue and say they have heard
about tolling to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow.
• The idea of tolling consistently raised concerns about the following critical
issues:
Whether there will be a non-tolled alternative route
How tolls will impact low-income populations
How toll revenue will be spent
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 10 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 12
• Most participants said they are interested in using tolling to improve the flow
of traffic, if it really worked. Many participants have strong concerns about
the specific details of any tolling system.
• Participants asked how toll revenue would be spent and were skeptical of
using toll revenue for services other than new infrastructure. A few
participants supported using toll revenue to increase transit service in the
tolled corridor.
• Some participants oppose tolling “on principle” – either because they see it as
government’s role to provide road services or because it strikes them as
economically or geographically unfair.
HOT Lanes
• Participants were generally supportive of HOT lanes, though there were
strong concerns from some participants about equity for low-income drivers.
• The majority of participants said that they would use HOT lanes when they
are in a hurry.
• Participants liked that HOT lanes provide motorists with a choice between
tolled and non-tolled lanes.
• Some participants noted that HOT lanes are supposed to create better traffic
flow on the entire roadway; however, most participants considered HOT lanes
valuable for the improved travel times they would personally experience when
using the HOT lane.
• Participants thought HOT lanes should have a name that describes the lane,
such as “express toll lanes” because you pay a toll to go faster, or “high-
occupancy toll lanes” because the lane is both an HOV lane and a toll lane.
Full-Corridor Tolling
• Most participants had a negative reaction to tolling an entire corridor to
improve traffic flow, for the following common reasons:
It would be too expensive for working people
It’s a tax on a road we already paid for
• Most participants began the discussion of full-corridor tolling highly skeptical
that tolling could successfully reduce traffic congestion.
• Some participants said they would pay to take a tolled roadway that was
moving smoothly, while others said they would divert to other roads, transit or
a different time of day. Participants did not agree about the value of “saving
time.” While many participants were interested in paying a toll for a faster
trip, many others were willing to drive further or adjust their schedules to
avoid a toll.
• Despite participants’ own answers to how they would respond to a tolled
roadway (i.e. change modes, drive at a different time) many participants
remained skeptical that tolls could effectively improve traffic flow.
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 11 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 13
SR 520 Corridor Tolling
• Participants were supportive of using toll revenue to pay for a new bridge
structure and many were supportive of tolling the existing bridge to raise
revenue, provided the following criteria are met:
Project has a clear design and schedule
Project is completed on time and on budget
Process of toll collection and revenue use is transparent
• While tolls to raise revenue are supported, participants were confused and
skeptical about the notion of using tolls to improve traffic flow or reduce
congestion during construction. As a result, many participants suggested a
flat-rate toll or expected the toll to be charged in only one direction of travel.
• Many participants were skeptical that the SR 520 project (or any major
transportation project) could be delivered on time and on budget. That
skepticism caused some participants to oppose tolling the existing SR 520
corridor.
• When discussing the SR 520 corridor, many participants raised questions
about the I-90 corridor and the effects a toll on SR 520 would have on I-90.
Some participants assumed I-90 would also be tolled, while others were
adamantly opposed to tolling I-90.
• Other participants were concerned about effects on I-5 and I-405. Participants
were generally concerned that even if tolling improves congestion in one
location, it could make congestion worse in other locations.
Proposition 1
• Participants liked that Proposition 1 attempted to address the region’s
transportation problems.
• Participants disliked the cost of the measure, said the size of the measure was
too ambitious, were concerned about the ability of agencies to deliver
promised projects, and saw the measure as vague and lacking a structure for
accountability.
Messaging
• Participants found it difficult to explain these concepts and there was little
consensus about useful terminology.
• Participants preferred terms that were descriptive of the purpose of these kinds
of lanes or facilities and who would be allowed to use them.
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 12 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 14
Focus Group Discussion Narrative
The following is a general narrative of the discussion topics covered during the
focus groups and participants’ responses. For information on the methodology
used to select focus groups participants and a copy of the discussion guide used to
facilitate the focus groups, please see the Appendices to this report.
Congestion
The opening questions of the focus groups were designed to investigate how
participants view congestion, including how significant it is and what role it plays
in their daily schedule, their perceived causes of congestion, and how they think
congestion could be improved.
Discussion Highlights
On a scale of 1 (very good) to 10 (very bad) how would you rate congestion in the
area?
• Congestion is between a 7 and a 10, at least during peak periods. The
majority of participants felt congestion was at least a 7 during peak periods.
Participants in South King County rated congestion as slightly better, with
more responses at 5 or 6 and fewer 10s.
Is traffic getting better or worse?
• Traffic is getting worse. Participants almost unanimously felt that traffic is
getting worse. A few South King County participants felt traffic in the south
Seattle area had improved. They noted specific projects, mostly to separate
rail and highway traffic at crossings.
Compared to other issues, how important is traffic to you? Is the traffic in this
area the same as in other cities?
• Traffic is important to many people. There was variation between
participants’ level of concern about traffic. More participants thought traffic
was an important concern in their lives and fewer felt it was not important, but
responses were mixed and depended on individual circumstances. Many
people said they organize their trips to avoid traveling during the worst times
of day if possible. Several commuters north and south noted that they leave
for work between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m.
“Traffic eats up the time in my day.” (South King County)
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 13 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 15
• I-5 was mentioned as a particularly bad route. Increasing congestion on I-5
during weekends was seen as problematic and getting worse. A few people
wondered why the express lanes are not open in-bound during weekend days.
What causes traffic congestion?
• Not enough alternatives to driving. Many participants said there need to be
improved transit alternatives, flexible work schedules, and other solutions to
“having” to drive.
“There are no alternatives that are convenient – nothing at the right time or
the right place.” (South King County)
• Roads do not accommodate the traffic. Many participants said that current
roads are not large enough, or are not designed well.
• Geography is limiting. Some participants noted that this area has limited
options to expand highways or add new ones due to the water, mountains and
built environment.
• Bad drivers and accidents. Several participants said the bad driving and
traffic accidents are the main causes of traffic backups.
• People live far from where they work. Participants in Seattle and East King
County said that having so many people commute causes traffic. Participants
in South King County noted that they are the people who have to live far from
work because there is a lack of affordable housing closer in.
“People live too far away from their jobs.” (Seattle)
• HOV lanes. A few participants said HOV lanes waste valuable space on the
freeway and contribute to congestion.
Do you think you contribute to traffic congestion?
• Yes, I’m part of congestion. The majority of participants said their behavior
is a cause of congestion. Participants recognized that when they drive, they are
part of traffic congestion.
How can we reduce congestion?
• Increase transit service and connect transit systems. Participants in all
focus groups suggested more accessible, more reliable, or more attractive
transit service to get people out of their cars.
“We don’t have a good transit system because we think people are not
using it, and people are not using it because we don’t have a good
system.” (Seattle)
• Change work hours and promote telecommuting. Many participants
suggested having employers change their work hours or make them more
flexible. Many people also suggested telecommuting.
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 14 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 16
“To reduce traffic, big corporations need virtual offices.” (South King
County)
• Add more lanes. In most groups, at least one participant suggested adding
more lanes to temporarily reduce traffic. This was seen as a temporary but
important solution. Most groups had people note that adding lanes does not
solve the problem, because they just fill up again, or encourage new trips.
• Use a combination of strategies. Several participants noted that no one idea
is going to work for everyone, so a combination of strategies would be
needed.
Overall Responses to Tolling
This section was designed to investigate the level of awareness participants had
about tolling to reduce congestion, introduce the overall concept of tolling and
gauge participants’ reactions. The facilitator introduced the concept of tolling, and
the examples of single-lane tolling (i.e., HOT lanes) and tolling all the lanes of a
highway. Participants were asked to think about these ideas generally, rather than
on a specific corridor, and discuss any possible benefits and drawbacks that occur
to them.
Discussion Highlights
Did you know that tolls and other forms of tolling can be used to reduce
congestion?
• Yes, I’ve heard of that idea. Many participants said they’d heard of using
tolling to improve traffic. Almost all participants had used a tolled-facility of
some kind. A few participants thought of specific example of tolling, such as
the lanes in San Diego and London.
How do you think tolling could reduce congestion?
• It would be an incentive not to drive. Many participants suggested that
tolling would encourage people not to drive, to carpool, or to otherwise
change their behavior. Participants were not clear on how this would work,
and this question prompted more questions from them. Several people
wondered if you can convince people to get out of their cars.
What strikes you about that idea?
• Sounds okay if people have a choice. Several people thought this idea could
work if people had other choices of routes that were not tolled, or other
services, such as transit.
• Tolls impact those who have lower incomes. When first introduced to the
idea, several participants had a gut reaction that tolling would be hard on
certain people that may not be able to afford the toll. They used terms like
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 15 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 17
“elitist,” “punitive” or “classist” and expressed concern that the people with
the least schedule flexibility would be most affected.
• Where would the toll money go? Many participants wanted to know how the
toll revenue would be spent and said that could determine their support for the
concept.
• We already pay taxes. Some people don’t think the government should need
to collect more funds. They noted that they are already paying taxes, and some
mentioned the gas tax specifically.
• Drivers would move to other roads. Many participants said they would
avoid routes with tolls and expected other drivers to do the same.
• If there’s an accident, do I get my money back? Several participants were
concerned that they might pay for a faster trip and then be stuck behind an
accident anyway.
“Accidents impede traffic flow. There are no guarantees. The idea of
‘smooth traffic’ is a fantasy.” (Seattle)
In general, is the concept of paying for improved traffic flow one you could
support?
• Yes, if… The majority of participants thought they could be supportive of
tolling, so long as certain criteria were met and specific questions were
answered. The most common caveats to support for tolling were:
…drivers have a choice of non-tolled routes or convenient transit. This
was the most common caveat. Many people are comfortable with the idea
of tolling as long as no one has to pay a toll.
…I know where the toll revenue is being spent. Many participants
expressed a distrust of government making good and transparent
investments with their toll revenue.
…it’s only one lane or two but not all the lanes. Several people said
they would support one or two lanes on a facility having a toll, but would
not support all lanes.
…I know the rate when I leave the house. Many people said they would
not be okay if they arrived at the tolled route and were surprised by the toll
they had to pay.
• No, it’s not right. A few participants were opposed to the idea of tolling on
principle. Some said that the whole state needs to pay for improvements
through taxes, that it is government’s responsibility to provide infrastructure
or that government needs to spend the money it has more efficiently. Others
thought these concepts would always be unfair to people with less income.
What would be a reasonable toll rate? What would be unreasonable?
In North King County and South King County, groups discussed what would be a
reasonable and unreasonable toll for smooth travel on a highway. The Seattle and
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 16 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 18
East King County groups discussed what would be reasonable for a smooth trip
on the SR 520 corridor specifically (see SR 520 section).
• In South King County, toll rates from $0.25 to $1.00 were suggested as
reasonable, while other people discussed how $8.00 tolls in California are
very expensive. Some people were concerned about impacts on workers.
“Any toll has to be little so it doesn’t make an impact on people. People
who are making $8 to $9 an hour can’t afford that.” (South King County)
• In North King County, toll rates from $0.25 to $5.00 were considered
reasonable by some participants. Others felt strongly that $4.00 or $5.00
would be too much or said they would not pay any amount for faster travel.
“If my husband could pay $2.00 a day to eliminate his stress, I’m sure
he’d gladly do that.” (North King County)
HOT Lanes
Focus group participants were shown a video explaining the purpose and function
of the SR 167 HOT Lanes Pilot Project. They were asked to respond to the idea of
a high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane to keep traffic flowing. Participants were
directed to consider this idea on a highway they might use, not specifically on SR
167.
Discussion Highlights
What’s good about HOT lanes?
• I could escape traffic congestion. All groups noted that the HOT lane
provides a choice for people stuck in traffic. Participants liked the idea of
having an “escape route” and an option for people in a hurry.
“It’s good to have the option.” (North King County)
• The toll would raise revenue. Several participants saw the toll as a potential
source of revenue that could benefit transportation projects.
• Everyone would get a faster trip. Although most participants did not
identify with the benefit of HOT lanes for all users of the corridor, some noted
that the video explaining HOT lanes said that all the lanes of the highway
would flow more smoothly. Overall, there was a narrow understanding of the
HOT lane benefits.
Would there be problems with HOT lanes?
• HOT lanes won’t do enough. Many participants were concerned that HOT
lanes would not be a long-lasting solution to congestion. Some said different
methods of reducing congestion, by adding lanes or improving transit, would
be needed for any lasting improvement.
“This is a band-aid approach.” (South King County)
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 17 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 19
“How long would [HOT lanes] work for, 5 years, 10 years? What
happens when more people come?” (East King County)
• HOT lanes wouldn’t really work. Some participants doubted whether the
tolling mechanism would work effectively. Common concerns were that
accidents would slow the HOT lane, overcrowding would ruin the lane for
current users, or that HOT lanes would create backups with connecting roads.
• Other drivers would cheat. Some were concerned that enforcement would
be ineffective or too expensive to provide.
• HOT lanes aren’t fair. A few participants expressed concerns about the
economic fairness of HOT lanes, because money can buy faster travel times.
Would you use a HOT lane?
• Yes, if I needed to get somewhere fast. The majority of participants said
they would use a HOT lane if they wanted a faster trip, had an emergency, or
needed to get somewhere at a certain time. In most focus groups, more than
half of all participants said they would use HOT lanes at least some of the
time. In the low-income focus group in South King County, less than half of
participants said they would use the lane. Most of the people identified the
cost of gas as a reason to avoid additional travel fees. This result was different
from the low-income group in North King County, where most participants
said they would use a HOT lane.
“I’d use it sometimes. Sometimes I have a doctor’s appointment at a
certain time and I need to be there.” (North King County)
“I’d use it if I was in a hurry.” (Seattle)
What additional information might increase your support for HOT lanes?
The facilitator asked participants if certain factors would increase their support for
the idea of HOT lanes. Many participants said they would be more inclined to
support HOT lanes if they achieved the following results:
• If I knew that in other places where HOT lanes operate, 50 – 70% of
people of all income groups say they like them. When presented with this
information, many participants who had previously expressed concern about
HOT lanes said that they were more favorable to the idea, noting that support
by all income groups was an important consideration.
“If it’s working and everyone likes it, it might sway my opinion.”
(North King County (low-income)
• If I knew toll revenue could be used to improve transit service. In both
Seattle focus groups, and the low-income group in South King County,
several participants said if revenue was used to improve transit service that
would increase their support for HOT lanes.
What name for the idea of “HOT lanes” would clearly describe the lanes?
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 18 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 20
• HOV/toll or HOV/pay
• Express Toll Lanes or Express Lanes
• High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane
• HOV/HOT Lane
Full-Corridor Tolling
The facilitator asked participants to consider the idea of tolling all highway lanes
in a corridor to improve the flow of traffic. Participants were then asked what
would be useful about that idea, what concerns they have, and whether they
would use a facility where all the lanes were tolled.
Discussion Highlights
Do you think tolling all lanes could be useful?
• No, that doesn’t seem good. Most participants had a negative reaction to the
idea of tolling all lanes. They didn’t like that it took away their choice and
pretty quickly assumed that it would lead to people using other routes. The
majority appeared to find it difficult to think about what would be useful
about tolling all the lanes of a roadway.
“I could support one lane of tolls, but not multiple lanes. I would support it
if it was an option, but not if it was forced on all lanes.” (Seattle)
• It could help congestion or raise revenue. Of those who liked the idea, they
suggested ways that this idea could be useful.
“If people don’t want to pay taxes, we can tax the users.” (South King
County)
“You’d have access to a freeway where you could get from Point A to
Point B.” (East King County)
“You push people off the road by adding tolls. People will shift modes.”
(North King County)
Do you see any problems with this idea?
• Working people could not afford this. Many people had concerns about the
impacts on workers that “have to drive on certain routes” and have to be at
work at a certain time or who have less flexibility with their schedules to
avoid peak-hour travel
• It’s a tax on a road we already paid for. Several participants noted that a
toll to pay for a new facility is one thing, but this would be roads taxpayers
have already funded.
“I’m really upset. I pay taxes already.” (Seattle)
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 19 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 21
• People would drive on other roads to avoid the toll. Several people thought
that tolling a major freeway would cause congestion on surrounding streets
and other routes.
“People are going to go off the road and take alternative routes and local
roads.” (East King County)
Would you pay to take the highway that was moving smoothly?
• Yes, if I needed to use it. A majority of participants said that they would
probably pay to take a highway that was moving smoothly – if and when they
needed the faster trip or had to go that way for work.
“I would do it because I want to shorten my commute.” (South King
County)
“I would, but other people wouldn’t.” (Seattle)
“I would, but I would also rethink getting on the freeway.” (East King
County)
If you wouldn’t use that highway, what would you do?
• Take other routes. Many people said they would try to find another route
without a toll.
“I’d go around it, take side streets.” (North King County)
• Take public transportation. Significantly fewer people said they would take
public transportation or carpool to avoid paying a toll.
“I’d take the bus.” (South King County)
“I would start to wonder if I need to use my car for the trip at all. If a bus
can get me within a few blocks I might consider using the bus instead.”
(East King County)
• Go at a different time or not go at all. A few people said they would avoid
driving as much, or would drive at less expensive times of day.
“Limit trips and stay in my area.” (East King County)
SR 520 Corridor Tolling
The facilitator described briefly the need to replace the SR 520 bridge and the
need to fund the bridge replacement partially with toll revenue. Almost all
participants agreed that SR 520 is an aging structure in need of replacement. The
groups had just discussed the concept of a tolled highway to improve traffic flow.
The facilitator described using tolls in the SR 520 corridor, from I-5 to I-405. In
this scenario, tolls could begin on the existing corridor to reduce traffic
congestion and begin raising funds. The discussion was designed to gauge
reactions to tolling this particular corridor and tolling the existing bridge.
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 20 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 22
Discussion Highlights
What do you think of using tolling on SR 520?
• We need to raise the funds. There was a strong understanding among
participants that the SR 520 bridge needs to be replaced and that tolling is part
of the funding strategy. Many participants saw tolling as an avenue to raise
funds for the bridge replacement.
“I believe that people that use it should be the ones paying for it. Once the
bridge is paid for the toll should go away.” (North King County)
• Drivers would divert to I-90. Participants in all focus groups anticipated a
diversion to the I-90 corridor if the SR 520 corridor is tolled. When asked
what they thought about tolling I-90 as well, responses were mixed. Some
participants thought that tolling I-90 would be necessary if SR 520 were
tolled; others thought tolling I-90 would be unacceptable because drivers
would not have a choice to get across Lake Washington without paying a toll.
• I don’t believe tolling would reduce congestion. Many participants
expressed skepticism that tolling would improve the flow of traffic. Often this
meant they were supportive of their future toll revenue funding a new bridge
structure, but not paying for variable tolling or other congestion-reduction
measures.
“As soon as you get a highway that is moving smoothly it is going to
attract more traffic.” (East King County)
“SR 520 is a workers’ road. They wouldn’t go another route.” (East King
County)
• The toll will be too expensive. Some participants were concerned about how
high the toll price would be. Most participants questioned how high it would
have to be in order to effectively reduce congestion and fund the new bridge.
• The toll should be a flat rate, not variable. A few participants argued that a
toll on the SR 520 corridor should be a flat-rate toll on the bridge, either
because it would be too confusing to have a variable rate, or because it would
be unfair to drivers that have to use the bridge during busy times of day.
Would you support tolling the existing bridge?
• Yes, if… The majority of participants said they would support tolling the
existing corridor if the following concerns are addressed adequately.
…the new bridge will be built on time and on budget. Participants
showed skepticism about government’s ability to deliver the SR 520
bridge project successfully. To feel comfortable paying tolls before the
bridge is delivered, participants would want to know the exact cost,
schedule, design, and other elements of the project.
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 21 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 23
• …I know and approve of where my toll revenue is going. Many
participants said they would want to know how exactly their toll revenue
would be used. Using toll revenue to fund the bridge replacement had strong
support from participants, whereas there was debate about using funds for
improved traffic flow, transit, or other services.
“Just say it’s for the new bridge.” (Seattle)
• No, I don’t support that. Several people did not support tolling the existing
SR 520 corridor. Those participants most often said they want to see the
bridge built before they pay a fee for it.
“I don’t mind a toll, but I don’t want to pay before the bridge is built.”
(East King County)
What other factors could increase your support for tolling the existing SR 520
corridor?
• Expanded transit service would be helpful, but not a strong motivation
for supporting tolling. Some participants expressed interest in transit service,
while others saw expanded transit taking funding that would otherwise go
towards the bridge replacement.
• Lower tolls due to an early start of tolling might help. A few participants
liked this idea, while others thought tolls would just last longer, or did not
believe tolls would really be lower.
• It would be great to improve traffic flow, but I don’t think that will
happen. Reliable travel times on SR 520 are highly desired, but participants
were skeptical that this is achievable. Several participants said reliable travel
times would be great, while others expressed doubts about the cost of
improving travel times and congestion on adjacent roadways, such as I-5 and
I-405.
What would be a reasonable toll rate for travel on the SR 520 corridor? What
would be unreasonable?
• Many participants were expecting a toll for travel in only one direction of
travel. The facilitator asked them to provide an amount they would consider
reasonable and unreasonable for roundtrip travel. It was not obvious to
participants that they could be charged for travel in both directions.
• Participants in the Seattle focus groups said between $1.00 and $2.00 for one-
way trip, or from $3.00 - $5.00 roundtrip would be reasonable. Some said
anything above $3.00 would be unreasonable. Several people said they
thought the price of a bus ticket, or slightly higher, was an appropriate price.
• In East King County, roundtrip toll rates ranged from $1.50 to $6.00. Some
participants thought higher than bus fare would be appropriate. Others
suggested that the original toll rate on the SR 520 bridge in today’s dollars
would be fair, or the price of a latte. When asked what toll would cause them
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 22 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 24
to use another mode or facility, some participants said $3.00; others said
$5.00.
“It would have to be high enough to get some people out of their cars.”
(East King County)
“I would expect to pay more than I would for a bus pass.” (East King
County)
Proposition 1
Focus group participants were asked for their opinions on Proposition 1, the
regional roads and transit measure that was rejected by voters in November 2007.
Groups were asked to describe what they liked and disliked about Proposition 1.
Discussion Highlights
What specifically did you like about Proposition 1?
• It was an attempt to solve transportation problems. One of the primary
reasons people liked Proposition 1 was that they believed it was attempting to
address the region’s transportation problems.
“I liked that it was addressing the transportation problems and it was
trying to get the job done.” (North King County)
“We had the choice between hell and purgatory. We know what hell is
like, so I thought maybe purgatory was worth a try.” (North King County)
“It addressed a problem that is a big problem.” (Seattle)
“I thought it was time we did something – many people did not like the
dollars involved but we’ve got to do something!” (East King County)
What specifically did you not like about Proposition 1?
• Too expensive. Many participants felt that the measure overall was too
expensive
“Too much money.” (South King County)
“More money, more taxes.” (North King County)
• Too vague. Participants said they did not know what the package would do
and were not clear about which projects it would build.
“I didn’t see a clear vision of what I would get out of it.” (South King
County)
• Too ambitious. Many participants stated that they felt the measure was too
ambitious and tried to do too much. This element of Proposition 1 seemed to
make many people uncomfortable with the measure.
“The size of the package; we’ll be paying for this forever anyway but it
was overwhelming.” (East King County)
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 23 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 25
“They should have showed the elephant and then showed us how they
were going to eat it one bite at a time. It was so encompassing I don’t
know if there was anything I liked.” (Seattle)
• Perceived lack of fiscal responsibility/accountability. Participants in each
of the four groups were concerned that money would be wasted and that
promised transportation improvements would never become reality
“I didn’t like the fact that the money was just going into a pit without a
real plan.” (Seattle)
“I didn’t trust that the cost was what they said it was.” (South King
County)
“There’s no faith in believing those people when they talk about what
they’re going to do and how much it will cost.” (North King County)
“We need more efficient government in Washington.” (South King
County)
• Project mix. Some people thought there was too much light rail, or that it was
too early to fund additional light rail until the line under construction is
completed. Others thought there were too many road projects. People who
favored light rail tended to think it would have been better if the transit and
road portions were separate.
Should transportation be funded with user fees or general taxes?
• A combination of user fees and general taxes is needed. The majority of
responses advocated some combination of the two funding sources.
“I think you need a combination of both. Local citizens need to pay for
infrastructure but constantly increasing that cost doesn’t work, so user fees
are good too.” (Seattle)
“A combination of both. General taxes for the majority; user fees for high
traffic areas.” (North King County)
When you hear people talk about the “region” we live in, what do you think of?
• Participants provided a variety of responses to what “region” they live in. In
most groups, answers to this question appeared to follow however the first
few participants responded to the question. There was no consensus about
how to define this region. Common responses included:
Puget Sound
Pacific Northwest
Tacoma to Everett
Snohomish, King and Pierce counties
Western Washington
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 24 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 26
Messaging
Focus group participants were asked to consider the general concept of using tolls
to reduce congestion, make traffic flow more smoothly, and improve the
transportation system. They were asked how they would explain the concept of
tolling to a friend or neighbor.
Discussion Highlights
If you were explaining these ideas to a friend or neighbor, what would you tell
them?
• “I’d tell them it’s been proven to work in other cities.” (North King County)
• “It’s a user fee instead of a property tax and it’s one way to fund our freeways
and bridges.” (East King County)
• “You’re paying for roads you already use.” (North King County)
What would you call these techniques that use prices that rise and fall to reduce
congestion?
• Popular Terms
Express Toll Lanes
HOV/Pay
Flex lanes
Time of day pricing
• Unpopular Terms
Dynamic pricing
Good to Go! lanes
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 25 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 27
Appendix A: Methodology
Focus Group Purpose
Focus groups provide an opportunity to explore attitudes, beliefs, opinions and
experiences among a somewhat random yet representative sample of the affected
public. Although focus groups do not provide statistically valid data, they are
designed to elicit qualitative data through the give and take of group discussion.
Focus groups were used on the Awareness and Acceptance of Pricing project to:
• Gauge participants’ awareness of tolling for the purpose of improving traffic
• Learn how to successfully talk with the public about traffic operations and
tolling strategies
• Identify what moves people to support tolling (or to oppose it)
• Determine opportunities to improve support for tolling with a public
engagement program
In Phase 1 of the Awareness and Acceptance of Pricing project, focus groups
were held to gauge public awareness and attitudes regarding tolling. The focus
groups were held from late-November to early December 2007.
Focus Group Participants
All participants were recruited randomly by a paid public opinion firm from four
geographic areas:
• Seattle
• East King County
• South King County
• North King County
General participants were only required to meet the standard recruitment
guidelines, but were screened to ensure demographic diversity. In addition, two
low-income sessions were held, one in the north and one in the south. Low-
income participants were screened according to specific recruitment guidelines set
forth for the low-income groups. In addition to the standard recruitment
guidelines, each focus group targeted participants from geographically relevant
areas, and sought users of specific roadways and modes of transportation.
Recruitment Guidelines
The recruitment guidelines for the focus groups were as follows:
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 26 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 28
Recruitment Guidelines (for all groups)
- Voted in two of last four elections
- Equal numbers of men and women
- Minimum of two racial/ethnic minorities
- Minimum of four with bachelor’s degrees
- Minimum of two who ride transit or carpool
Recruitment Guidelines (for low-income
groups)
- Equal numbers of men and women
- Minimum of two racial-ethnic minorities
- A household income level of $30,000 or
less per year for households of 1-4
people; and $50,000 or less per year for
households of more than 4 people.
(Income levels roughly 150% of the federal
poverty level.)
Focus groups were held at four locations, with two sessions taking place at each
venue. A total of 80 people participated in the focus groups, with 60 people
participating in the general sessions and 20 in the low-income sessions.
Participants were given a stipend of $75.00 for their time. Detailed information on
the four focus groups, including location, session dates and times, and target
audiences is below:
Location
Date and Time
Target Audience
Seattle
2101 N. 34
th
St.
Seattle, WA 98103
November 27, 2007
5:30pm – 7:30pm
8:00pm – 10:00pm
−
Recruit from within Seattle city
limits
−
Drive or ride transit on these
highways one to three times per
week: SR 520, I-90, AWV, I-5
East King County
11808 Northup Way, Suite
270
Bellevue, WA 98005
November 29, 2007
5:30pm – 7:30pm
8:00pm – 10:00pm
−
Recruit from Bellevue,
Redmond, Kirkland, Mercer
Island
−
Drive or ride transit on these
highways one to three times per
week: SR 520, I-90, I-405, SR
522
South King County
12825 1
st
Ave S.
Burien, WA 98168
December 5, 2007
5:30pm – 7:30pm (L.I.)
8:00pm – 10:00pm
(L.I. – Low-Income Group)
−
Recruit from Renton, Tukwila,
Kent, Auburn
−
Drive or ride transit on these
highways one to three times a
week: I-405, I-90, SR 167
1 Low-Income Group
−
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 27 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 29
North King County
19333 North Creek Parkway
Bothell, WA 98011
December 10, 2007
5:30pm – 7:30pm (L.I.)
8:00pm – 10:00pm
(L.I. – Low-Income Group)
−
Recruit from Bothell, Lake
Forest Park, Kenmore,
Woodinville, Shoreline
−
Drive or ride transit on these
highways one to three times a
week: I-5, SR 522, SR 520
−
1 Low-Income Group
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 28 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 30
Appendix B: Focus Group Discussion Guide
Welcome and Introductions (10 minutes) – help participants to feel at ease, set expectations for
the evening
o Introduce self and explain role as moderator. I don’t work for the people who are
sponsoring these sessions and won’t be able to answer all your questions, won’t
be out of a job no matter what you say
o Explain that we are here to discuss traffic, transportation and funding, and learn
your thoughts and opinions about the subject.
o People involved in the project are watching and a recording of these meetings and
they may be viewed by other project staff.
o Ask around the table: “What is your first name? Where do you live? How long
does it take you to get to school or work (and back home again)?
Traffic & what causes congestion? (15 minutes) – see what’s at the forefront of their thinking
about transportation; learn what participants perceive are the causes of congestion; suggest that
traffic can be managed to relieve congestion
o On a scale of 1 (very good) to 10 (very bad), how would you rate traffic and
congestion in the area?
o Is traffic getting better or worse?
o Compared to other things going on, how important is traffic to you? Is our traffic
pretty much the same as in other big cities you’ve visited?
o What causes traffic to be so bad? (Facilitator captures on flip chart.)
o Do you think you contribute to traffic congestion?
(Facilitator reads background piece outlining major causes of congestion).
“Traffic experts have found that highway congestion has many sources. One is the
overcrowded lanes on the highway. During the afternoon commute in the Central
Puget Sound region, some lanes are so crowded that they move only 1,000 cars
per mile per hour – half of what they are designed to move because too many
people flood onto them at the same time.
Another major source of congestion is accidents and disabled vehicles. Depending
on which highway you are traveling these “incidents” contribute to about 40 or 50
percent of all congestion.”
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 29 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 31
Can we solve chronic congestion? (5 minutes) – learn what participants know about possible
solutions for congestion; further suggest that traffic can be managed to relieve congestion
o Do you think we can reduce congestion? How? Do you have personal experience
in other cities that have things that we don’t that make traffic and traveling work
better? What are those ideas?
(Facilitator prompts with following if necessary.)
Add lanes
Add more transit routes
Make transit service more reliable or more frequent
Use stop-and-go lights on on-ramps to keep the highway moving
Signs over the highway telling drivers which routes are faster
Tow trucks to clear away accidents quickly
HOV lanes
Express lanes
Introduce tolling (10 minutes) – Introduce and explain tolling; how it works; and have group
respond to the concept
o How many of you have used a bridge or highway with a toll? (Raised hands;
note-taker counts how many participants are familiar with tolls)
o Did you know that tolls and other forms of pricing can be used to reduce
congestion? Because of advances in technology, no toll booths would be
necessary, so you don’t have to slow down to pay. What do you think about that
idea?
o Can anyone think of how that would work?
(Facilitator reads a background piece on tolling.)
“The tolls most of us think of first are what I’ll call “classic tolls.” Those are tolls
designed to pay for the cost of a new highway or bridge, similar to the new Tacoma
Narrows Bridge. For right now, I’d like us to talk about a different kind of toll. There
are new kinds of tolls that improve the flow of traffic on the highway.
The idea is to charge people to drive in specific routes to assure that traffic flows
smoothly. The price to use the road may change depending on the time of day or the
amount of traffic. As a result, some traffic moves to less busy times, or to other carpools
or transit. Some people also combine their errands into one trip or eliminate
“unnecessary” driving.
Similar thinking has been successfully used to adjust prices for electricity, airline tickets,
cell phone rates, and tickets to movies, where a matinee costs less than an evening show.
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 30 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 32
The money raised can be used to fund transportation, such as road improvements, transit
operations, incident response or other things to help keep traffic moving.”
(If asked “how much would the price be?” facilitator asks the following)
o What would be a reasonable price to pay for faster travel on the highway?
o What price would make you change your behavior?
(Info for facilitator if needed) TNB is $3 round trip. In other places where there are lanes
where the cost ranges from 50 cents to $8 depending on the time of day.
Examples (10 minutes) – Introduce HOT lanes, and the idea of tolling a whole facility; illustrate
how tolling would work in real life.
o Now I’d like to talk about a few ways to improve traffic flow with tolling.
“One way to improve traffic flow is being done in cities like Denver, San Diego, Los
Angeles and Minneapolis. These cities have lanes where people can pay to enter carpool
or transit lanes, similar to our HOV lanes, when space is available. Washington will be
opening a lane like this soon on SR 167 between Renton and Auburn. This quick video
segment shows how the new lane will work. (Facilitator shows 3 minutes of Rachel’s
Drive).
That concept could be used in several ways.
You could have one lane or several lanes where all drivers pay to use them, and only
transit is free. HOVs might pay. There are still regular lanes available.
Another option is to charge for all the lanes. The price could vary by time of day – be
higher during the busiest times such as morning and evening commutes, and lower during
mid-day or night time when there are fewer vehicles on the road. Remember, the purpose
of any of these options is to keep traffic flowing more smoothly, creating more reliable
travel times.
Reactions to examples of tolling (5 minutes) – Have group consider different forms of tolling
and potential benefits and challenges.
Think about what it would be like to drive on a route like those I just described that
charges drivers in order to keep traffic flowing more smoothly.
o What strikes you about the ideas? What thoughts come to your mind? (Facilitator
captures on flip chart.)
o In general, is the concept of paying for improved traffic flow one you could
support? Why or why not?
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 31 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 33
What if you knew that the lanes wouldn’t hurt travel times for transit
or HOV users?
What if some of the toll revenue funded more frequent transit service
so people have an option to travel in that lane without having to pay if
they are on transit?
What if you knew that in cities where HOT lanes are operating, when
people are asked about HOT lanes, 50 percent to over 70 percent of
people across all income groups say they like them?
HOT Lanes (10 minutes)
Great, now assume with me for a minute that these types of designs work well to keep
traffic flowing. Remember the example in the video? There, solo-drivers can pay to
enter the HOV lane if there is space available and in return get a more reliable trip,
because the price in the High Occupancy Toll lane (HOT lane) adjusts to keep traffic
flowing smoothly.
o What would be good about this idea?
(Facilitator prompts with following if necessary.)
Reliable travel times because people might divert to another road or to
transit or to another time of day
Some people may avoid unnecessary trips
You can buy a faster trip
You know the trip will be reliable
It has a benefit to the environment
It provides you another travel choice
It’s optional – there if you need it, but not required
o Do you see any problems with this idea?
(Facilitator prompts with following if necessary.)
Some people might not be able to afford paying for the lane
The HOV lane might be more crowded
HOV drivers would be free
Some people might try to cheat and not pay
A computer will record when your transponder is debited
“Green vehicles” that get very high gas mileage and very low emission
are not given special consideration
o Do you think you would choose to pay to use the lane? Why or why not?
Priced highway (10 minutes)
Now, imagine that all the lanes of the highway are priced and the cost is higher
during busy times, such as the morning and evening commute, to keep traffic moving.
When there are fewer vehicles, the price is lower, say at mid-day or night.
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 32 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 34
o Do you think this could be useful? Why?
(Facilitator prompts with following if necessary.)
The whole highway would be moving faster, and moving more traffic,
than it is now
It’s a benefit to the environment
You individually may have a more reliable drive
o Do you see any problems with this idea? What are they?
(Facilitator prompts with following if necessary.)
Some people would not want to pay to use that highway and might be
inconvenienced
Some people might try to cheat and not pay
You would have to pay since the whole highway has a price
o Do you think you would pay to take the highway that was moving smoothly?
Why or why not?
o If not, what would you do instead?
SR 520 Corridor example (15 minutes)
Now let’s talk about an example of how these ideas might work on a specific
highway. We know that tolls, like those on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge right now,
can be used to raise funds for a major project. We also know charging drivers can
keep traffic flowing smoothly on our highways.
You may know that the SR 520 floating bridge needs to be replaced soon, and the
replacement will be partially funded by toll revenue. That’s a given.
Tolls in the SR 520 corridor, from I-5 to I-405, could help raise the needed funds and
could also be designed to keep traffic moving during the construction process.
Tolls could also start on the existing corridor, say as early as 2009, to reduce the
traffic congestion on SR 520 and start raising funds for the new bridge.
o What do you think of this?
o Would you support tolling the existing corridor?
o What if transit service is expanded?
o What if tolling before construction meant a lower price than if we wait until the
new bridge is built?
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 33 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 35
o What if rush hour travel on SR 520 corridor was reliable?
o What else would have you support tolling the existing corridor?
(Facilitator – if groups talks about how they would use I-90, ask the following)
o What if I-90 also had a toll?
We’ve talked about a lot of different ideas now – we’ll take a quick break and please
think about what you’ve heard so far.
[2-3 minute break while facilitator meets with observers]
Overall responses to tolling (5 minutes)
Consider the whole idea of using prices to reduce congestion and make traffic flow more
smoothly and improve the transportation system.
o If you were explaining these ideas to a friend or neighbor, what would tell them?
(Facilitator captures on flip chart.)
o What questions do you have about these ideas? (Facilitator captures on flip
chart.)
How do we talk about this? (10 minutes) – Get input from participants about how to discuss
tolling with the public
What to call this
Transportation experts are also wondering what to call methods of tolling to keep traffic
moving, so that it’s clear to people what we’re talking about.
o What would you call these techniques that use prices that rise and fall to reduce
congestion?
(Facilitator prompts with following if necessary.)
Road use fees
Road user fees
Roadway Pricing
Value Pricing
Tolling
Time of day pricing
Variable pricing
Dynamic pricing
Express Tolling
What to call “HOT lanes”
As you saw in the video earlier, SR 167 between Renton and Auburn will have a four-year test
allowing solo-drivers to pay to use the HOV lane if there is space available.
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 34 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08
Page 36
o What name for these types of lanes would be clear, paint the right picture of what
the driver will experience, and have a positive connotation?
(Facilitator prompts with following if necessary.)
Express Toll Lanes
High Occupancy Toll lanes
HOT lanes
Good to Go! lanes
Toll lanes
H-O-V/ H-O-T lanes
Fast lanes
Response to election (10 minutes) – Get feedback on how participants think transportation
should be funded
In November, a general tax package (Proposition 1) to support transportation
improvements – both roads and transit – in the region was rejected by a majority of
voters.
o Are you familiar with Proposition 1?
o What specifically did you like about Proposition 1?
o What specifically did you not like about it?
o What’s more fair, general taxes or user fees?
What’s a region? (If time allows, 5 minutes)
o When you hear people talk about the “region” we live in, what do you think of?
Wrap-up (5 minutes) – Wrap up the focus group
o Great work. We really appreciate your thoughts on these important issues and this
is helpful information. Thanks so much.
Pricing Focus Group Report – DRAFT FINAL
Page 35 of 35
EnviroIssues
1/15/08