Okay my fat-assed fellow Americans. You have neglected two of the biggest losers in this scheme: Cyclists and the environment. You see, by assuming that everyone travels by motorized conveyance, you neglect the impact on human-powered folks (you know, those folks who aren't morbidly obese like the typical American). By pushing the traffic off of the congested arteries and onto less-traveled streets, you push the cyclists off of the public roads completely. Great move! In short order everyone will be so unfit that no one can ever get anywhere without a steel wheelchair.

Why will no Americans accept the logical solution of non-tradeable fuel quotas. They are fair to all and can be ratcheted down over time to get us out of our unsustainable ways. They worked during WWII and can work again.

The cost of urban living is pushing lower-income people further into the 'burbs (suburbs, exurbs) where, as mentioned, transit is not a viable option.  Also, many low-wage jobs require travel in early morning or night when in some urban areas there is no public transit at all.  Then there are rural people (whose incomes are significantly lower than urban workers) who must occasionally come into the urban area for business.  Once again, lower income people are completely omitted from the discussion, and PSRC is notorious for ignoring the problems of the working poor, for whom tolls are unfair.  Especially when the well-to-do can afford tolls for luxury drives.  Tolls simply exacerbate class disparities.

The backwards looking Statists of Seattle are trying to entrap more and more tax monies.

Like the tire repair person who puts nails on the road so he can "fix" the problem, the Bureaucrats do the following:

Restrict land with GMA.
Drive up land costs.
Cause density.
Manipulate land prices with light rail and other boondoggles.
Create density oriented "remedies" to solve the problems they caused.

Why don't you change your moniker to Worker, Working Class, or something else more appropriate to your comments.  You obviously prioritize social concerns over the environment, and your moniker is an insult to those of us who actually advocate for wilderness and wildlife protection.