It's the same knee-jerk reaction that the Queens anti-congestion crowd and their lobbyists are spittin' but it just isn't accurate.

Even further, if you're talking about equity issues, even in David Weprin's district, one of the most transit poor areas in the city, over 65% of Manhattan CBD commuters go by transit. That means that Weprin's fight against congestion charging is only representing about 35% of his overall constituency, and almost none of his poor constituency. If he were serious about the impacts on the poor, he would use his position as Finance Chair to be sure that the congestion pricing revenue went into the MTA contribution the City has reduced steadily since Mayor B. came to town, not into the general fund for use wherever (putting revenue in the general fund is tradition, not law. The Mayor could change that trend if he pleased).

I AM NOT ARGUING FOR RIGHTS FOR MOTORISTS!!!

I just think if you're going to enact measures to restrict motorists you should do it in a way that affects all motorists, and doesn't exempt certain people just because they have more money.

JEEZ!

(sorry, but I have to say something when my position is mischaracterized. I'll be quiet now. Carry on...)

In the early 1900s cars were considered so different that the natural right to use the streets -- whether barefoot, shod, on horseback, in a carriage, etc. -- didn't apply. Sometimes in some places this natural right doesn't apply to people using bicycles either.

Under congestion pricing, or tolls, or any other scheme that attaches a price to cars, it is people who would be handing over the money.

People who are driving are the same species as people moving under human power or people in buses, and the populations aren't even distinct.

At what level of equipment do people lose their right to access the park without charge?

Some parks, by the way, do charge admission to people who come under their own power, including the Bronx Zoo and the Botanical Gardens six days a week.

Nevertheless, I think Spud will have to concede that his final comment basically finishes the argument. You are arguing for rights for all motorists, which is something far different than equal rights for all people. I wholeheartedly agree that all PEOPLE should have the right to reasonably priced, efficient transportation to Manhattan. Perhaps, charging congestion pricing is the best way to do that. Perhaps, as you state, there are other ways to accomplish that goal. But no solution must, can or even should include a guarantee to treat motorists as equal to people. The constitution guarantees equal rights to all human beings, not the two tons of steel they occasionally choose to lug around with them.

(OK, once again I've said enough. Thank you everyone for your time. It's been fun but I'm just repeating myself again. There are a lot of smart people here and it's OK if they disagree. Have a good one.)

I was wondering when someone would bring water into the conversation. Water was never free, but it was unlimited when the city used to charge a flat rate for all the water you could use based on a frontage formula that took into account numerous factors, including the size of your property, the number of housing units, the number of sinks and toilets, etc. Then water metering came around in the late 1980s. However, the city has numerous programs that allow low income housing projects to pay less for water. To this day, many residences still don't have water meters. (And in the end, if you don't pay your water bill, the city rarely turns off your water anyway.) Would there be provisions for low income motorists?

Spud is correct that giving people free access to parks creates costs that society as a whole must bear. We accept that because in order for our civilization to function there has to be free access to an adequate number of public spaces--for public discourse, recreation, and to handle the overflow of people without adequate housing. However the notion that *motor vehicles* must have free access to the roads is a completely different story. Spud's argument ignores the difference between people and cars--one that is fundamental.

Spud's "fair and democratic" argument totally excludes people like me who neither own a car or drive.

For us, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by congestion pricing. And we happen to be the majority here in NYC.

Hey Spud, what happens to your "fair and democratic" argument when you factor in the majority who are non-drivers?

Spud, I think the disconnnect we're having is this: When you say "everyone" you aren't really talking about "everyone." You're talking about motorists. Car owners aren't everyone in New York. They are a minority.

Congestion pricing "affects everyone" in a few ways: In London we know that congestion charging cleans everyone's air and reduces carbon emissions for everyone. It reduces car crashes for everyone. It raises funds for mass transit and public spaces used by, pretty much everyone. As for motorists -- who, again, are a minority, not "everyone" -- congestion pricing extracts a user fee (like mass transit) but it also makes travel by car faster and more predictable.

So, congestion pricing does, in many ways, appear to meet your criteria. It reduces car use while providing a number of significant benefits to everyone, even motorists.

As for your other assumption -- that congestion pricing is unfair to "people who can't afford to pay" -- the census data is pretty clear that New Yorkers who own cars or who regularly drive into Manhattan for work are, on average, wealthier than people who don't own cars and don't drive into the city regularly. So, if congestion pricing freed up street space for other public uses while providing more funds for mass transit, walking and biking, it would almost certainly be a net gain for lower income New Yorkers since lower income New Yorkers aren't driving or owning cars anywhere near as much as wealthier New Yorkers.

All that being said, I know that plenty of people would be happy to explore other policy fixes for the congestion problem. Pricing isn't the only solution and it certainly isn't the easiest, politically.

CHECK. I agree.

That "commuting by car in New York City is a middle-class status symbol, and motorists should be thankful if it becomes more expensive to drive, because that only shows how much they've arrived?"

NOPE, I don't think so.

That reducing traffic will help the poor disproportionately because they live closest to crowded streets and highways?

Half CHECK. In some cases that's true. I haven't seen too many poor people living in the proposed congestion pricing zones, but in the outer boroughs it's somewhat true.

That very few middle class people drive to work in Manhattan?

CHECK. I agree. I've had lots of jobs in Manhattan and never drove to any of them. But wouldn't that mean that maybe congestion pricing wouldn't be so effective after all?

That people "are simply asking that [Trump] pays for his deterioration of public amenities including the streets and the air?"

NOT REALLY. Whatever the charges that may eventually be proposed, they'll never be high enough to give the Trumps of the world any concern whatsoever. But a law that flat out forbade them from having a car in the city would do that. For everyone. Equally.

That a congestion pricing fee would be relatively inexpensive compared to the cost of owning a car?

NOPE. If it was inexpensive it wouldn't work. The whole point is that it's expensive. (To some people, of course.)

That not a lot of poor people drive cars to the UES everyday?

CHECK. I agree. But on that odd occasion when they might have to, should they have just as much right to do it as someone wealthier than them?

That I'm just looking for a free lunch?

NOPE. I'm willing to sacrifice as long as everyone is being asked to do the same.

That something has to change?

CHECK. I agree.

BTW, what makes anyone think congestion pricing would be so effective anyway? Don't you think there are gobs of bankers up in Westchester who would gladly give up Metro North if there wasn't so much darned traffic?

You brought up the idea of an echo chamber. See this from Wikipedia:

"Due to this condition arising in online communities, participants may find their own opinions constantly echoed back to them, and in doing so reinforce a certain sense of truth that resonates with individual belief systems. This can create some significant challenges to critical discourse within an online medium. The echo-chamber effect may also impact a lack of recognition to large demographic changes in language and culture on the Internet if individuals only create, experience and navigate those online spaces that reinforce their "preferred" world view. Another emerging term used to describe this "echoing" and homogenizing effect on the Internet within social communities is "cultural tribalism"."

You still keep ignoring my fundamental point. Before you write again read the following carefully, because I'm not pro-car or pro-driver or anti-pedestrian or anything like that:

"It would be great to decrease the use of cars in NYC and to enjoy all the benefits that would bring. But do it in a way that affects everyone, and not just people who can't afford to pay."

That's it! That's all there is to it. If that means closing all the streets in NYC and turning all the bridges and tunnels into skate parks then go right ahead. If it means digging up Fifth Avenue and making it into a dog run then that's great. I don't support unconditionally a person's right to drive a car. I'm just opposed to traffic control that excludes some people based on the size of their wallet. Is that so hard to understand? This isn't private enterprise, these are city streets. The last thing we should want is for people to be priced out of using their own streets on a selective basis that allows Paris Hilton to tool around unimpeded in her McLaren SLR.

It's sad. All the people here so passionate about this issue and the best they can come up with is a non-democratic, money-based system for parceling out use of an essential public resource. This city already has the country's greatest disparity between rich and non-rich. Government-imposed economic barriers for using the City's streets???? Where does it end?

You know, I wasn't kidding earlier when I said that Central Park is too crowded during peak usage hours. Maybe a $5 entry fee would solve that.