London has pedestrianized huge swaths of the center city since the start of pricing, Trafalgar Square most notably. There are many more buses than there used to be and they run faster and more reliably. The Tube is still a pain in the ass but it's better funded. Cycling is up something like 400% over the last five years. There are so many more bikes on the street than there used to be.

What's allowing London to make all of these kinds of improvements is the fact that they've created a new, dedicated revenue stream and have freed up all of this street space using congestion pricing.

Which is why this New Scientist article completely misses the point:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19726382.200-commentary-wouldbe-traffic-herders-beware.html

If you look at the Streetsblog archives down in the right-hand column there, you'll see that bicycling and pedestrian issues, and safety issues in particular, have received far more coverage than congestion pricing or anything else.

I think it goes without saying that, in and of itself, congestion pricing doesn't necessarily make a city more bike-friendly. Copenhagen -- also covered extensively on the blog and StreetFilms, is very bike- and ped-friendly and it didn't take congestion pricing to get that way. There's no reason to believe that simply implementing congestion pricing in NYC will suddenly make it a cyclists' paradise. I don't think I've ever ready anyone make that claim here on Streetsblog.

As for London -- yes, I agree. In many ways, London is behind NYC in terms of bike-friendliness (though I think the most dangerous thing about biking there is that everyone is driving on the wrong side of the road -- seriously).

But did you ever get the chance to visit London before congestion pricing to make a comparison? London has pedestrianized huge swaths of the center city since the start of pricing, Trafalgar Square most notably. There are many more buses than there used to be and they run faster and more reliably. The Tube is still a pain in the ass but it's better funded. Cycling is up something like 400% over the last five years. There are so many more bikes on the street than there used to be.

What's allowing London to make all of these kinds of improvements is the fact that they've created a new, dedicated revenue stream and have freed up all of this street space using congestion pricing.

Bottom line for me is any policy that can take 120,000 cars a day off the street while raising hundreds of millions of dollars a year for transit sounds pretty good. Hell, they could flush all the money down the toilet and it'll be a boon to cyclists, pedestrians and bus riders to get rid of all of those car trips.

So, I just don't see what your gripe is. If you're looking for a fight, I suggest you call your City Council member immediately...

There's a lot to be learned from what Robert Moses did to this city. Mostly, these are lessons in what not to do.

But one truly valuable lesson is that with money in hand, anything can be accomplished. This program would harness money to "get things done" . . . but this time, the right things.

Personally, I favor a modified version of the bridge tolling plan, but I could also live with a tweaked congestion pricing plan. The only plan which is a non-starter is the license plate rationing, which is a joke.

The TA Queens Committee will be at York College tonight for the hearing. Come out and join us!