I agree with you that the Mayor rolled out his plan too late. But the initiative did have big dollars behind it. It also enjoyed support from a wide range of groups– from business to unions to good gov organizations. And then on top of that, there was a $500 million incentive to get it done. If it could not be passed by Albany now, it will never be passed. The best that we can hope for is that the City somehow manages to secede. Until then, I guess we’ll just have to make do with whatever complementary measures we do have control over. We can still charge market prices for parking. We can still make driving more expensive by reducing the supply of roadways available to cars– by devoting physically separated lanes to buses; by pedestrianizing major commercial corridors. But I suspect that it will also be a challenge to get approval for any of those. Unlike congestion pricing, the perceived negative effects of more local measures appear to be concentrated on particular neighborhoods. So i can just hear it now, “traffic will be a nightmare!” “businesses will suffer” and so on and so forth.

So I guess I just don’t feel as optimistic as i did a couple of weeks ago about the likelihood of making progress. New York will continue ignoring better practices around the world, convinced that it is charting the path of urban sophistication and progressiveness, while its peer cities marvel at its parochialism and backwardness.

It’s better to think that CP was defeated by widespread opposition in the Assembly rather than by the whim and political calculations just a single reprehensible individual.

That may be some consolation … unless your Assemblymember happens to be part of the widespread opposition, despite the fact that there’s significant support for congestion pricing in the district.

If it were the purest form of democracy in Albany, the assembly would be full of transit users instead of drivers. Is it just impossible that an assemblymember from a NYC district could ever not be a long-term car owner with a permanent windshield perspective? Grrr…

I also admit that I have tended to focus on the missteps of the mayor — from before the poorly played roll-out to an arrogant negotiating team to his dismissive comments about subway crowding — rather than the easy-to-pick-apart arguments of the congestion-pricing opponents. This is a classic case of a mayor who appears to be politically naive, even after more than six years in the job, about the ways of the state capital (and capitol). In this case, unlike others, he couldn’t (or wouldn’t) buy off people.

Unless there is a bizarre and unexpected development in the next couple of days, my question — which I guess we can take up after Monday, is what to do next. I know that blasting the speaker or assembly is inevitable. Instead, though, I’d like to talk through a real analysis of where the opposition developed and why.

I also don’t know if there is ever a chance for congestion pricing, given how this has played out. But, if there is any hope, that analysis is going to be very important as we move forward.

What makes all this even less excusable is that we’re talking about a pilot program. So even if you had serious reservations about CP, you’d have to be a real cynical and arrogant son of a bitch to think that nothing useful would come out of a trial program, even if in the form of an empirical validation of your concerns.

This is all very disheartening.

Do they take their lead from Silver? Often, but not always. Does Silver take his lead from them? A great deal of the time. That is one way he stays speaker.

There’s no doubt that Albany is broken, but if it were the purest form of democracy up there (in other words, if members were truly able to push bills, etc.), congestion pricing would still fail to garner enough votes — and it wouldn’t be close.

The funniest part of the whole idea is the thought of Mike Bloomberg trudging up to Albany to serve as a State Assemblyman. Of course, he can probably satisfy the district residency requirement by just buying every residential unit in the entire district.

But that doesn’t negate my key point: Silver listens to the Democratic assembly members, and they are telling him they don’t want congestion pricing.

In the end, even if he was a total congestion-pricing convert, he’d have to have the votes, and for a variety of reasons (see various earlier posts by me and others) he doesn’t have them.

After Monday, Silver’s assembly district constituents will be forever condemned to be parking lots for the three free bridge approaches that run through that neighborhood, and also will probably not have the opportunity to take a Second Ave. Subway uptown in their lifetimes, not just 2020 as now planned. Yes, his power as Speaker brings them a great deal of pork, but they do have to leave their homes to walk on the streets and go to work, and the failure of Status-Quo Silver and the Assembly to pass congestion pricing will leave them worse off in the long-run.

I’m surprised I have not seen any movement towards a rally in front of 250 Broadway on Monday at 2 pm. Everyone now knows where the decision makers will be.

I know there is a great deal of unhappiness with Silver — he doesn’t see what we see and dammit, why not? — but the man is really just responding to his constituents.

In this case, aside from his district, his constituents are the men and women who selected him to be speaker. (That may not be fair or the best thing, but it is correct. It’s the same in the City Council, where ultimately Christine Quinn is going to do what the council members want to do, along with various real estate developers who she thinks can make her mayor.) And Silver’s assembly constituents didn’t want congestion pricing. Making Silver the bad guy doesn’t get us anyplace; figuring out how to persuade the weak links in the opposition (not Brodsky) is the way to go.

And, while the loss of $500 million is bad news, and it’s always good to have a deadline, that’s where the next battle must take place — on the home turf of the assembly members who opposed this and told Silver they wouldn’t support it.

In a city and a country where your proof of identity is a DRIVER’s License even if you are not driving, we are touching here at a deply ingrained cultural myth: I drive therefore I am.

The car was about individual freedom, competitiveness, speed, and proof of success. All values embodied by the automobile that sets you ” free” . It is not in New york but the perception lingers for much longer after the reality has changed, a classic effect of the markets.

I wish Bloomberg would succeed.

If Bloomberg fails, it will be because he is trying something too big, too late and top down, a trade mark of his business- owner culture where he could..

If he fails we will keep him on the matter, win small victories in a slow way and prevent him for going to the next big thing.

Mr Silver, we will remove those cars, one at a time if this is what it takes…. So you are better off doing it quick and easy with a $ 500 million incentive.

Of course I support a compromise at this rate. But thats up to the powers that be. I just hope they make the right decision in the end. Some random, disconnected ideas to float for general digestion:

-Reinstating the post 9/11 HOV rule below 63rd street?
- Reducing the size of the congestion zone?
- Reducing the charge for trucks?
- Promise funding expanded and free Metro-North/LIRR park-and-rides as needed?

I’ll tell you one thing: Funding from the feds or not, inaction is absolutely unacceptable.