And a tailpipe's a tailpipe. If getting x number of cars off the road in London produced y% less particulate matter in the air, that's entirely relevant to NYC.

Likewise, the PlaNYC guys didn't only use London data to make their projections. In fact, my understanding is that they mostly used information that we have from our own variable pricing system on the Pt. Authority facilities across the Hudson.

I've also seen some interesting historic data comparing traffic volumes on the tolled Battery Tunnel (mostly flat over time) to the free East River Bridges (steadily increasing).

These local examples show that pricing has a tangible impact on driver behavior and provide us with a model for how much price changes impact driver decisions.

I'm with Carolyn Konheim and others who have said that a combination of bridge tolls and rational parking pricing would be vastly preferable to the Mayor's proposal. I'm leaning towards the position that rational parking pricing in combination with the other strategies in this report would also be preferable to the Mayor's proposal ... especially because it could eventually bring about a more favorable climate for bridge tolls.

Of course, I'm skeptical about the Assembly leadership's ability and willingness to implement this system. If tomorrow all the pro-congestion pricing people said "Okay!" and the commission voted for this plan, I could imagine Brodsky inserting some kind of poison pill to sabotage this. Something like "value pricing for parking in the CBD ... not to exceed fifty cents a day." His persistent lies about the "driving poor" indicate that he's not trustworthy.

There's one thing that shows that these people aren't serious about reducing congestion: they discuss increasing tolls with no mention of putting tolls on the "free" DOT bridges. If they added bridge tolls, it would be clear that they recognize that there's no way to reduce congestion without some sacrifice on the part of motorists.

Back to cabs: they're not necessarily winning on fuel efficiency (although they could) but they are more efficient at the regional scale, moving more people per vehicle (and gallon?). And what about inefficient regulations on shared rides and deviated fixed route options? They work in many cities, including parts of this one, but aren't allowed to compete on the market.

We need to not only be more efficient, but also capture that efficiency instead of losing it to new users.

Reintroducing two-way tolls for trucks, but not other vehicles, on the Verranzano (their proposal) won't do it. The route from geographic Long Island to New Jersey (or New England to North Carolina) via Manhattan is free for those willing to idle over the bridges.

How about tolling the East River and Harlem River bridges, turning them over the MTA, having the MTA give the Verranzano, Whitestone, Throggs Neck, and Rockaway Bridges to the city, and having the tolls on those facilties cut? Then we're talking.

I'll bet the incomes of those driving between Staten Island and Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, or Long Island or Westchester across the East River are more "middle class" than those driving to Manhattan. So by cutting the tolls away from transit oriented Manhattan, and not forcing drivers there to carry a share of the transit system, that would give back some of the money to drivers. How about it?

I'm not saying to eliminate cabs, but you could require empty cabs to wait in a particular spot for a fare instead of just driving around. And definitely make them smaller and get rid of those Crown Vics.

For others, the report can be downloaded at
http://www.keepnycfree.com/reports/index.php

Regardless of percentages, if all 8 options were implemented tomorrow, we would see a major improvement in quality of life IMMEDIATELY.

I'm very skeptical of an untested technology rollout in this city, where drivers are accustomed to anarchy and free rein.