The 18% garage fees in Manhattan did not help to reduce traffic congestion. The extra fees that Manhattan residents have to be pay to register their cars did not help traffic congestion.

How do you know that? They didn’t solve the congestion problem, but they may very well have reduced congestion.

I think Aaron should start deleting your posts if you don’t take out the “then let’s talk” part of your handle. You don’t show any willingness to consider congestion pricing under any circumstances other than that handle.

Both reporters went home early, I guess, because there has been no mention of our breakthrough analysis and proposal. The Nassau Queens Assemblywoman made impassioned and specific plea for tolling the East and Harlem River bridges and there was no outcry from the following pols (except a murmur from Joan Millman, who demurred in a subsequent conversation.

Moved out of his 6:30-7:-30 slot, around 9:30. Brian Ketcham reported to remaining commission members that numerous studies by congestion pricing advocates show that tolling just the four free East River bridge could reduce congestion delay by 9%(vs. the mayor’s 6.3% goal)on roads across Brooklyn and Queens as well as the Manhattan CBD. Traffic fro all points north of the CBD could be tolled on southbound roads crossing 60th St. The total 19 charging sites is the appropriate scale of a pilot test. No engineer builds a full scale 340 network to test the concept of screening all traffic every few blocks to find the rare internal driver trips who should be charged.

Use the pilot to gather the missing data to determine if the large neteork is of value. The dual strategy could be installed for the 410.4 million that the feds allocated for the pilot test, 1/25 of the $179 million the City said it needed for the test but didn’t get. Operating the streamlined cordon would consume only 1/10 of the revenues that the City optimistically assumes, and free a reliable $500 million/year for transit. The City’s intent for the large network, to get internal drivers to pay their fair share and cut trips, can be achieved right up front with London-style taxi programs and on-street parking restrictions and pricing.

With such no-brainer benefits, why the silence?

One has to recognize that the outer boroughs, under the current plan, are not getting a fair tradeoff for congestion pricing. The mitigation that is currently on the table is woefully inadequate. I am all for pricing, but it has to be done right or it will be a debacle.

My suggestions to the Committee (in addition to what is already proposed) were:

1. Enhanced F/V/G service on the Culver line.

2. Create authority for residential permit parking in the neighborhoods adjacent to the congestion zone . . . proceeds from violations of RPP rules would flow into the same fund as congestion pricing fees, thus complementing CP.

3. Bury the Gowanus Expy in a tunnel and include a Bus Rapid Transit lane. The Gowanus is wreaking havoc on the health of South Brooklyn children, a tunnel would have scrubbers that would dramatically improve air quality.

4. Build the Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel.

Yes, that’s a ton of money. But all of these projects need to get done. The RPP plan would raise money, and soft benefits in time and air quality outweigh the cash costs of building the tunnels.

And for the record, that is me in the blue shirt on the far right side of the first picture. I’m reading through my prepared remarks.

While Fidler’s “9 Carat Stone” plan is wrong inb it’s conclusions, it’s not without a few gems.

First, building the Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel, burying the Gowanus Expressway, and extending the R train to Staten Island.

Second, his proposal for taxi stands and off-street loading zones also make good sense.

Get police officers to direct traffic, rather than standing around in groups watching the traffic pile up. Where does this happen in Manhattan? Everyday it happens in the Village and at the entrances to the Lincoln Tunnel and the bridge.

The one issue that I have raised before is emergency response time. When you see an ambulance stuck in gridlock there has to be a cost to those inside. Why has that not been raised as a pro-CP issue?

“The G Train Sucks?!?”

Yeah, no thanks to you, councilman!

If mass transit is such a huge problem in the city, stop underfunding the MTA, get to work and do something about it!

No question that once congestion pricing is implemented its considerable and immediate benefits will allow it to continue unabated as elsewhere.

Obviously, something needs to change. My suggestions 1) More emphasis on this being a pilot program and 2) more emphasis on how this will help the poor by making buses go faster.

Right now congestion pricing is being framed negatively: take cars off the streets. When it is thought of this way, people think immediately of the negative consequences (it’s harder to drive) and only secondarily of the positive ones (faster buses, cleaner air, safer city). It’s too late now to rename congestion pricing, but maybe calling it the “Clean Air and Safe Transportation Initiative” would have linked it more closely with what it will bring, rather than take away?

Remind me not to feel guilty when I bypass a direct route to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel and drive to the free bridge through her neighborhood.

New York City Transit surveyed riders some years back, and its estimate of the share of subway riders who had cars was identical to the share of all city households who had cars. What if we all decided to assert our equal right to use them one day?