4. Congestion pricing does just that by giving a disincentive for making deliveries during the day. If truck drivers want to continue to drive for free, they can do so, between 6 pm and 6 am. More importantly, with congestion pricing, it will make it so the free space made from the lack of trucks won't be completely filled by cars through induced demand.

5. It would be much better to market price street parking. By raising the price of street parking, it would make it less attractive vis-a-vis garage parking, thereby increasing demand for garage parking. With increased demand comes increased price.

Street parking spots should be reduced and converted to loading zones, bus bulbs, etc. which would, with market pricing, further raise the price of street parking.

6. This is another reason for congestion pricing, although not as well implemented in PlaNYC. Ideally this could be achieved by having peak congestion pricing: $12 6am-10am, 4pm-6pm, and $8 10am to 4pm. (I think that the current proposed charge is too low, btw).

9. Again, just removing school buses from the streets does not take into account induced demand. In addition, many people would probably still not feel safe letting their kids go alone to school and, if they had a car, would probably drive them instead, causing more congestion.
Buses are much more efficient people movers than cars so we shouldn't get rid of them only to have that road space given to private motor vehicles.

As to my suggestions:
1. Reduce roadway capacity allocated to private motor vehicles. Every expressway should have at least one lane in each direction converted to either bus-only or HOT (High Occupancy/Toll). In some cases, expressways should be completely eliminated i.e. Sheridan.

2. Eliminate a number of private motor vehicle lanes on the crossings by converting them to bus lanes, HOT or other types of transit. They are already planning on removing another lane in the Lincoln Tunnel approach from general usage by converting it to HOT, lets do it elsewhere. They are also talking about reactivating transit service on the North Shore in SI. If it is extended over the Verazano by taking out road capacity, SI could get the fixed guideway transportation link to the rest of the city that they have been always dreaming of.

3. As I said earlier, variable congestion pricing. And make it higher.

3a. Ideally, it would be great to have a system based on the amount of CO2 admissions like the one proposed for London, but I am not sure how feasible it would be in the U.S. with our decentralized vehicle registration. If its workable, I am all for it, but I would also like to have it based on a formula that takes into account the GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) and particulate emissions. This should also provide a disincentive for using vehicles that take up even more of the road. It would also give an incentives for trucks to modernize to less polluting alternatives.

4. All of the suggestions by gridlock Sam.
http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/12/gridlock-sam-offers-four-ideas-to-cut-traffic-congestion/

5. Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel and other freight rail improvements and modernization around the region. There should be a substantial public/private investments in the infrastructure. The regional freight network should be electrified to improve air quality and efficiency. This should address some of the larger concerns about the tunnel raised by the residents of Maspeth i.e. air quality and noise. The issue of increased pollution with connecting truck traffic can be somewhat mitigated by C.P. encouraging the purchase of cleaner vehicles.

You know that government is supposed to provide a servie not just charge a fee.

1. No cars allowed in Manhattan with less than 2 or 3 people. THIS IS MORE ONEROUS AND DISCRIMINATORY THAN A FEE, PRODUCES NO REVENUE, AND REQUIRES MORE INFRASTRUCTURE/ENFORCEMENT. Think about it: if I need to drive into Manhattan to pick up 4 students, I have to first find someone to ride (one way) in with me? How about having a toll surcharge for single drivers instead?
2. Free mass transit during off peak hours. NO REVENUE HERE, AND DOESN'T REDUCE CONGESTION DURING PEAK HOURS, BUT WOULD MAKE THE EMPTY LINES AND STATIONS IN THE BRONX MUCH SAFER IN OFF PEAK PERIODS (DEPENDING ON WHO TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT!).
3. Credit Car Swipe for the mass transit GOOD FOR THE EXPRESS BUSES.
4. deliveries to buildings in Manhattan should be able to do them in the evening. OK
5. Make parking garages more expensive. ASSUME YOU MEAN WITH A TAX TO CAPTURE REVENUE FOR CITY. IN MANHATTAN OR THE BRONX? BUT HOW ABOUT ALL THAT FREE STREET PARKING? YOU DON'T WANT TO INCREASE CRUISING, DOUBLE PARKING. WON'T THIS BE ATTACKED AS CLASS WARFARE AS MUCH AS THE FEE?
6. Shift working hours to other than 9 to 5. IF THIS REQUIRES INCENTIVES, THEN IT IS A COST TO THE CITY, NOT A SOURCE OF REVENUE. STAGGERING SCHOOL HOURS IS A PROBLEM FOR PARENTS.
7. Taxi's should be able to pick up more than one passenger, and take established routes. THIS HAS PROMISE, ESPECIALLY WITH INTERNET/TEXT MESSAGING, AND OUTSIDE MANHATTAN
8. Make the subways nicer. OF COURSE, BUT YOU DON"T WANT TO INCREASE THE FARE. WHY WE NEED $
9. cross town connections in outer boroughs
YES YES YES. CURRENT THINKING IS TOO MANHATTAN-CENTRIC. Wonder how much of the congestion on subways in Manhattan consists of people who are just traveling through it? This would also keep more lower-income Bronxites out of Manhattan (just kidding!)

1. No cars allowed in Manhattan with less than 2 or 3 people.

2. Free mass transit during off peak hours. Or some kind of an incentive to make it almost free if not used during peak.

3. Credit Car Swipe for the mass transit (either express bus or other). Not really impressed with express bus which is smelly and rough to ride.

4. Truck drivers who make deliveries to buildings in Manhattan should be able to do them in the evening. I still think that taking them off the street is a big relief to the congestion. And the delivery interfers with the regular course of business.

5. Make parking garages more expensive.

6. Shift working hours to other than 9 to 5.

7. Taxi's should be able to pick up more than one passenger, and take established routes.

8. Make the subways nicer to ride. Air condition and/or heat the stations. Clean them up. Lighten the surroundings. Make the messages easier to understand. Have them run on time, and more often. Create more user friendly situations for transferring (IRT 59th Street is confusing). Less stairs and/or more convenient escalators. Make them seem safer. Make certain that they don't skip stations and make a short ride longer (this happens alot in the Bronx no matter what line you ride). You get the idea.

9. If mass transit was safe and if they had cross town connections in outer boroughs like the Bronx, then school buses could be taken off the streets and children could ride on the subway and/or bus. in order to avoid the traffic with the work rush hour of 9 am, school hours should be made either later or earlier, or a combination of both (depending on the age).

Well, there you have it. I tried for 10, but it is too much to ask. I am tired of thinking. Now it is someone else's turn to make suggestions or tear these down.

Well those are certainly valid concerns about where data comes from, but you should cite the data that you find questionable, rather than just raise general questions.

Generally, they gage the number of people coming from an area by surveys, not by counting cars so the numbers for people coming from North Riverdale are people coming from North Riverdale, not from elsewhere.

Also, what are your thoughts on induced demand.

Where did the data originate? Who interpreted it? How is it presented?

Since there is not that many people residing in North Riverdale zip code, it may be that the high number of people from North Riverdale driving by car into Manhattan is really people driving from Westchester, Putnam and Rockland.

Or it could be that although the percentage is high, the number is low.

It just does not seem to be a good fact. That is all I am saying.

There is a lot in PlaNYC for environmentalists and advocates for the city's less fortunate to like. Even, yes, more trees. Please take a serious look at its report. As a resource in this debate it is unfortunately without peer.

There are some pretty descriptions of this and related concepts on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis-Mogridge_Position

I am not a professional. Just saying there must be options. Like any thing we do in the city, there should be an environmental impact statement like dialogue at the highest level of government. This dialogue should ID the options, rate the pros and cons, and help NYers talk about the issue.

I am not sure we are equipped to do this here. For instance, I am not sure of your use of the wording "induced demand."

In addition, I no longer travel daily to Manhattan, so I am not well versed in potential solutions.

But I am willing to listen . . and learn.

I should have been more specific. It is raising the economic cost (opportunity and monetary) of driving so that it is higher than the available alternatives that has been effective at easing congestion.

Market pricing street parking (with the elimination of permits) would also raise the cost of driving.

Turning all the expressways into surface streets would also raise the cost of driving. This has been shown to reduce overall traffic loads (e.g. removal of the elevated west side highway).

Removing capacity on the bridges and tunnels would also lead to reduced congestion (albeit more in Manhattan than region-wide).

The truck idea would not work because of induced demand. If you want to start a dialogue, I am OK with that, but please show me some example of a method to reduce traffic that has been implemented that does not trigger induced demand.

Let the ideas come forward, or all you will get is one man's idea, and that may not be fair or the best choice -- i.e., Yankee Stadium, Atlantic Yards, etc.

Moreover, this is not about the Bronx or Riverdale, or about who drives to Manhattan from the Bronx, that is only a screen. This debate is about developing a plan making less traffic in Manhattan.

That you believe this points to one problem in the debate, Kma. This is not about reducing traffic in Manhattan, it's about reducing traffic throughout the region. People are driving to Manhattan from Putnam County, from eastern Long Island, from Connecticut and even from Pennsylvania. If you dissuade them from driving, that reduces congestion everywhere.

This is why, as a Queens resident, I support congestion pricing. The fact that that hasn't been made clearer is one of the things that makes me believe that people in the outer boroughs are being misinformed. Not that we're stupid, but that we're being lied to.

So instead of using the funding to improve public transit, you propose that warehouse owners should be subsidized by the public. In any case, it would not reduce congestion because of induced demand created by freed up road space by the lack of trucks. Overall, there would be probably an increase in the vehicle-trips.

As far as I am aware, C.P. is the only method proven to work in reducing congestion in an urban area without sparking induced demand. If you are aware of another method that has worked in practice, please us know.

P.S. I will say that I am in favor of much more transparent government (Yankee Stadium, Atlantic Yards, etc.)

Is it possible there are alternatives that have not been studied? Or, is it possible that there are other alternatives that would have a greater impact on reducing congestion? The Mayor's proposal is only ONE solution.

For instance, why not consider using the funding to supplement warehouse owners to open buildings to allow truck night deliveries? Can you imagine the impact of that on Manhattan traffic? There could be less trucks on the streets and highways; less people working on unloading the trucks during the day; and less people on mass transit at rush hours. Instead, the money could be used to encourage the development of a 24 hour NYC where deliveries were made in the night and a full night work force and their economy (restaurants, mass transit, etc.) developed. All the plan has to do is allow truck drivers to make deliveries in the off hours, or the night!

If we favor a sustainable and open government, then open dialogue is a must. This time around, you may agree, but there is always the danger of what happens the next time when you won't. Hopefully, you will recognize this as a potentially instant gratification solution from an administration with a record of making decisions behind closed doors, under imagined deadlines.

JF -- of course I know that cheaper MetroCard fares are available. (Also, some schoolchildren get free fares, right?)

But the point I was trying to make is that it makes a lot more sense, as a matter of policy, that driving be much more expensive that taking the train. Not the opposite. ($2 is infinitely higher that $0.)

I don't see anyone "attacking" Dinowitz as a person. We've done that on Streetsblog; the Lew Fidler fat jokes are particularly shameful. But nobody here is attacking Dinowitz's appearance or anything else about him. No one is accusing him of corruption, as was done with Brodsky. This discussion is entirely focused on his position, as he himself has articulated it in his op-eds. And he's calling us elitist.

I'd like to believe that he is eminently reasonable. Here's what would convince me: if he acknowledged that he's fighting for a tiny minority of his constituents who are significantly wealthier than those who take transit. $8 a day is not going to make these people an "oppressed minority." When he says things like "most Bronx residents would pay the full $8 to drive below 86th Street," it shows that he doesn't understand that most Bronx residents don't own cars, much less drive below 86th Street on weekdays.

It would also help if he acknowledged that congestion pricing is projected to reduce traffic through the Bronx and Upper Manhattan as well as in Midtown, meaning that his district is expected to see a reduction in congestion and pollution, and that the reduction in congestion will mean faster travel times for his constituents who commute by express bus. Even if he disagrees with those projections, he could at least give us credit for thinking that this plan will help his constituents and wanting to do something for them.

Hilary, maybe you can convince him that he's coming off in his op-eds as an elitist hiding behind fake populist rhetoric. If he wants us to take him and his concerns seriously, I'd like to see him act like his district doesn't end at the edge of the hill.

Let's set aside for a moment the value judgment of whether anyone has any business driving for any purpose, and focus on the Dinowitz Question, which is equity. Here is the problem: as it stands now, thousands of students from Manhattan now drive to many fine schools in Riverdale, where they cause congestion and parking problems. They pay little or nothing to do so. They will continue to do so under CP, for an additional $4/day (if they live within the zone). On the other hand, Riverdale students who drive to Manhattan (in-zone)schools will pay $40/month to do so.
Instead of attacking people like Dinowitz, it would be more productive to think hard and creatively about how to reduce congestion in both Manhattan and his district, and also increase mobility for his constituents. In that spririt, here is one idea: let student passes be used for Metronorth trains.
I know Jeffrey Dinowitz. He is eminently reasonable. Work with him, and he will be your staunchest ally.