The fact is that it's not Manhattan's fault that these areas have lousy transportation options oriented around a mode of transit that is not sustainable. It should also be remembered that--Manhattan's tax base is what subsidises most of the rest of the city and is the reason for the relatively low property taxes on private homes in the outer boroughs.

For those who want to follow up on Angus's questions, here is the list of Queens Civic Congress members and here is some information on the QCPGS.

I leave it as an exercise for informed Streetsbloggers to judge from the list of QCC member organizations how much of their membership also belongs to the 54% of New Yorkers who do not have access to a car and who would suffer no harm if CP was implemented.

And Corey, the first plank on the QCC's CIVIC 2030 platform's list of mass-transit goals is this:

Provide Queens commuters a more clean, comfortable, dependable and speedy trip to and from work. Apply Metropolitan Transportation Authority budget to increase mass transit service.

The part about opposing congestion pricing or bridge tolling is plank no. 6 under "Transportation, Vehicular" (the next section of the platform). Sounds to me as if your organization supports the CP goals more than it disapproves of its implementation.

I cannot see anyone who supports the congestion tax getting very upset if the Queens Civic Congress revenue proposal goes through and the result is my friend Rory Lancman's carrot approach because the system gets funded adequately.

I wouldn't be upset about that per se, but it doesn't do enough. It doesn't change the fact that the "free" bridge draws a heavy flow of cars through my neighborhood, and puts pressure on the DOT to configure our streets for through traffic. Your proposal does not allow the DOT to return our streets to neighborhood use, and it does nothing to relieve the morning traffic jam that holds up our buses. The plans being considered by the Commission do.

I think also you gloss over the the broad opposition. The Community Boards - made up of up to 50 community volunteers, Queens Civic Congress (100+) and Queens Coalition for Parks and Green Spaces, as well as the Queens Chamber of Commerce, certainly represent a cross-section of the borough.

Can you tell me a bit more about the decision-making processes for the Queens Civic Congress and the Queens Coalition for Parks and Green Spaces? How did these 400-500 groups under these umbrellas get the sense of their membership on this issue, and then come to a consensus?

51st Street and 43rd Avenue, where my friend was hit by the motorcycle
51st Street and Skillman Avenue, where my neighbor saw an elderly woman making the sign of the cross before engaging with the cars speeding down the avenue
50th Street and Skillman Avenue, where a van crashed into the front of Aubergine Cafe on November 1, the third such crash in two years

51st Street is the main route for hundreds of people from two large apartment complexes, two medium-size apartment buildings and many houses to get to the subway station. We all have to cross the two intersections on 51st Street to get to the subway. Many of us cross all three intersections at some point during the day.

I've marked them on this Google map as well.

Your comments about the significance of "a few folks" is overreaching, though. It is significant that nine Queens residents spoke passionately in favor of one or another of the three serious plans being considered by the Commission. Four of us were not paid to be there, but cared enough to make the trip to Jamaica and tell the Commission how we felt. We're part of the 36% of Queens residents who support congestion pricing, and the 61% who support congestion pricing dedicated to fund transit.

Our presence and the poll results are at odds with the often-repeated claim that "Queens is against congestion pricing," and with the stances of the elected officials you mention. We may be in the sizable minority that's in support of congestion pricing to fund hookers and blow, but we're in the solid majority in support of congestion pricing to fund transit. It's disappointing that so many elected officials, community boards and "civics" aren't with this majority.

I certainly don't take it as a criticism that I think of my self-interest, if by that you mean not wanting to be killed or injured or have any of my friends or family killed or injured. But I'm not sure I want to see a "larger picture" in which my friend's lifelong disability is somehow justified.

Finally, the accusation that anyone who spoke in favor of congestion pricing did it to ingratiate themselves with the Times editorial board or unnamed goo-goos is a nasty slur that should be beneath you. I've talked to many of the people who have made this issue part of their careers, and I'm sharp enough to be able to tell if they were doing it solely for glory, funding or influence. Instead, what I hear from them is a tremendous pride that they're actually able to make a living arguing for something they believe in, instead of spending their entire lives shilling for someone else's profit. I really want to have a relationship of respect with you, so please don't repeat that slander again. Okay?

It's dark days ahead for New York City's transportation systems, environment, livability and economy if congestion pricing goes down.

History will remember where to pin the blame, I assure you.