http://www.ny1.com/ny1/Polls/index.jsp

For some reason my vote didn't register.

The lady had 3 main points: 1). Congestion pricing hasn't worked in London. The proof is that they've raised the tolls. 2). Congestion pricing is elitist. 3). Congestion pricing will hurt businesses.

Point 1 is factually false. Point 2 is philosophical, but it's logic is essentially libertarian and would oppose many things with widespread acceptance, such as cigarette taxes. Point 3 is not only false, but the opposite of what every business association in the city except the Queens Chamber of Commerce maintains.

It's just incredible how feeble a grasp of facts the opposition has. But they throw a lot of red meat to the peanut gallery, which is a tactic that might work. Politically successful debate is rarely deeply informed and well-reasoned.

I pushed AAA's legislative director to come up with an alternative. She eventually said "improve mass transit." I said, ok, where's the money going to come from? She said it wasn't fair to ask AAA to figure that out. I said that for any proposal to improve mass transit to be taken seriously she would have to address the funding issue. And around we went.

If congestion pricing fails it will be a setback for sustainability in NYC, but it will also represent a triumph of poorly-reasoned, badly-informed reactionary politics. (Nothing new there I suppose.)

Raising money for public transportation is not the only goal of congestion pricing or really the primary goal. The goal is to encourage drivers to switch to public transportation and from a number of studies posted here, the $8 a day really is the only thing that's going to change people's behavior. For people who are unwilling (again, the studies posted here show that people are largely commuting by choice, not necessity) to make the switch, they'll support people who do use more efficient methods of transportation.

I agree that its not the most efficient method, but sometimes efficiency isn't the goal. You're also being misleading in using the term "taxpayers". It a fee for usage that only applies to people who make a certain choice to drive into a certain area, not just because they reside in the city.

How in the world does he expect to pay for those incentives and those transit improvements without raising the funds through some tax or other?

It's a long-term strategy that benefits everyone. I would hope the parking garage owners, upon seeing the land value dollars flowing from increased quality of life, would get Weprin to change his mind.