Tying prime-time truck deliveries to economic prosperity is the same kind of thinking as saying we shouldn't regulate smokestack emissions, because after all "we have to have commerce".

Trucks contribute quite a bit to New York's poor air quality and traffic congestion, and should be made to pay their fair share.

As far as HOV rules go, please have a look at comment 23.

Equalizing and raising bridge tolls may be a more cost-effective congestion measure than congestion pricing, but for better or for worse the question on the table is not so much whether the proposed congestion pricing scheme is the best possible one but rather whether it is better than doing nothing. On this issue I think we can agree: Congestion pricing as proposed is better from the status quo.

Furthermore, although from a technocratic perspective a bridge-toll approach may be more desirable, from a political perspective it is clearly inferior. A bridge toll approach creates a very distinct borough-versus-borough conflict, whereas even Manhattan residents would need to pay under the proposed scheme.

If he wants to eliminate cars during the day.. he should do the following..

The City sould institute a HOV system like they have on highways.. Either three or four passengers to a car.

People could buy monthy passes like they do with metro cards or easy pass.

Violators could be fined anywhere from $250 -1,000. They can post signs prominently on all river crossings... and in the Bronx, Queens & Staten Island... for those coming in from Jersey. .there can be signs by the Holland & Lincoln tunnel..

I don't think you should disrupt truck traffic.. we have to have commerce...

The main issue is that the Mayor's twin goals of reducing congestion and improving transit can best be accomplished by taking advantage (as Stockholm has done) of our limited portals to Manhattan below 60th Street (48 inbound lanes vs 1,020 under the Mayor's plan). Installing E-ZPass readers on the 16 untolled bridge lanes is a cinch. Limit high tech monitors to the 32 lanes along a 60th Street cordon (river to river). This could be done for less than the $10.1 million in federal funds. The simpler, easy-to-understand system would not only reduce congestion in Manhattan--it would cut wasted travel time citywide by nearly 10%. Most of all, avoiding the high cost of operating and enforcing a system 20 times more complex system would at least double net revenues for transit. We cannot squander this last untapped source of transit funds because the initial lure of keeping up with other cities high tech networks seemed the easy way out of the perceived bridge toll taboo.

Flexible carpooling is a way of enabling a behaviour change. It doesn't raise revenue, but cuts congestion. I doubt it will be seen as an 'alternative' to congestion pricing, though the key point of congestion pricing is to get people to do what they could have done anyway: take a different mode. Add flexible carpooling everywhere and you would create an alternative mode that people will feel they can change to.

Motorists already have a close eye being kept on them -- they're licensed, their cars are registered and have to display license tags and registration stickers, their cars are inspected annually, and detailed histories of their driving records are maintained by government and insurance companies alike. But that's a far cry from monitoring their actual whereabouts from minute to minute. I can voluntarily choose to use EZ Pass at a bridge or tunnel knowing that my travel will be recorded in some database somewhere, but I can also choose not to use EZ Pass. But drive into the CP zone and you're recorded no matter what.

Bern, congestion pricing is "unavoidable????" HA! That's funny. Are you familiar with how these things work in New York State?

I used to take your position "what do YOU have to hide".

That's not my position. I have very serious concerns about privacy, but I can't be moved to fight for motorists' privacy if they can't be moved to fight for mine.

Thanks for the info; I just wanted to make my position clear.

Enforcement is via random, mobile, moveable, or handheld license plate recognition. If your meter's green light is on (paid-up and working) your plate number is not required. If not (no meter, not paid, broken), then your plate number is used to bill you (citation) through the mail. Guests (tourists) purchase a guess pass by the day/week so that their plate is passed without citation.

And, yes, we can park vehicles by the minute and if you overstay an on-street time limit you can pay an escalated per-minute fee RATHER than get a parking ticket. How much nicer is that? IN fact we can GIVE you a parking credit for NOT driving during rush hour. So go earlier, later, car-pool, telework or transit and get free parking to shop on the weekend. Lots of benefits.

I used to take your position "what do YOU have to hide". I abandoned that because a significant portion of people are genuinely concerned. And we need to solve congestion, not people's distrust of government. The latter being a difficult and often well-placed emotion.

Pay what you use. Drive private. These are not mutually exclusive.

(Also, sometimes packing 2 pounds of steel is far worse than piloting two tons...

Driving around two pounds of steel is not an innocuous act, and I don't see anything wrong with keeping a close eye on people who are granted that privilege.

By comparison, in Paris people have actually gotten their transit agency to commit to an anonymous monthly pass (for a 5€ surcharge):

http://grieve-smith.com/ftn/?p=3