Actually, it is the proponents of congestion pricing who are wrong--not those fighting against it. And the more people learn about it, the less they like it, according to the polls cited by the Voice's previous article. I was one of those who did testify, which was made very difficult by short notice, no publicity, and onerous pre-registration of statements. Only because Senator Duane informed me by email was I able to participate. I waited hours, because the hearing I attended at Hunter was incredibly disorganized. Many left without being able to speak. That said, the gist of my testimony, which was heartily cheered by those who hung in for the duration, was as follows (the "comprehensive survey" noted above did not survey me):

Congestion pricing is just another way to make Manhattan into a safe, convenient playground for the rich, for whom $8 is trivial, but for whom being stuck in traffic is a drag. Meanwhile, the rest of us are stuck on even more crowded, miserable, inconvenient, lengthy public transit rides that, even according to the MTA, cannot handle any more traffic. Their solution, unbelievably, is that we should travel off-peak on lines that aren’t overcrowded because they don’t go where we need to go at the time we need to be there; few of us are riding the subways just for the fun of it—we have to be at work in a specific place at a specific time, which usually involves those trains that are already over capacity. As to the mayor’s let them eat cake attitude, I’m sure the trains aren’t that crowded when you’re surrounded by guards with guns, and you only have to travel one stop after being delivered to the optimal station by two gas guzzling SUVs. And some of us can’t leave home at 6:00 a.m. to beat the rush—we have families and responsibilities, and no staff to take care of them for us.

As to the transparently bogus asthma risk reduction, this plan brings MORE traffic to the worst affected areas, poor neighborhoods outside the designated zone. And the claim that congestion reduction is the aim is also demonstrably bogus; note that taxis and limos are exempted from the tax, even though they operate almost exclusively in the areas of Manhattan best-served by public transportation—but they cater to the well-off, who cannot be inconvenienced.

I certainly do not support a plan developed by billionaires and millionaires to turn over public roads to the rich as a private benefit. When the mayor gives up a private jet and helicopter, among other polluting luxuries such as multiple huge homes, maybe I'll be ready to listen to his plans for the rest of us. And please note that while NYC taxpayers who support the building and maintenance of these roads will pay this regressive tax, commuters who don’t even pay a commuter tax any more, but use all city services, will get a free ride by deducting bridge and tunnel tolls; the mayor confirmed that New Jersey commuters would be unaffected by his plan. Exactly who is supposed to be representing the already maximally taxed residents of this city, the only ones stuck with both DOT maintenance costs and the full freight of this tax, among our elected representatives?

I would like to suggest several alternatives to congestion pricing:
1. Since traffic only accounts for 20% of the pollution, and the plan (probably optimistically)estimates a 6.3% reduction in traffic, for a grand total of a 1.26% reduction in pollution, why not tackle it all with pollution credits that can be traded, as is done now in Europe for industry. This would give each resident pollution credits, and according to how large an apartment, whether they have a car, etc. they could either use or sell those credits. Since rich people tend to have large (even multiple) homes (again, the mayor even has a private jet and helicopter) while the poor and middle class live in smaller spaces, often without cars, this plan would be far less regressive than the current plan and would not require the invasion of privacy up to 1000 cameras present.
2. Or, for a much simpler, cheaper, non-invasive low-tech solution that could work immediately, why not try enforcing the current traffic laws on double (or often triple) parking, blocking the intersections, taxis picking up and dropping off fares from anywhere on the road, etc.?
3. Any plan for easing congestion should charge a per ride premium (at least the same $8 residents will be charged), to taxis and limos, who are on the streets all day, unlike commuters, adding disproportionately to both congestion and pollution.
4. Rescind parking permits for government workers, who park anywhere (even at fire hydrants, on sidewalks, or in no parking zones) for free--50% of government workers drive to work.

Posted by: Susan at December 5, 2007 1:55 PM

All it's going to do is increase traffic outside the tiny filthy rich sliver called the "Congestion Zone", where traffic is no worse than in Flushing, Downtown Brooklyn, and The Bronx (in fact CP will make it worse there).

Put the cameras at every 5 borough exit on the parkways/expressways and make the thing citywide. We don't want the pollution any more than you do.

Posted by: Forest Hills 72 at December 5, 2007 2:28 PM

We should angrily tell every transit worker we meet we will not tolerate this "congestion pricing" power grab and that the next time they try to strike, we will put "congestion pricing" up their nose.

Posted by: Marc Bruno Antonelli at December 5, 2007 7:51 PM