I will not settle for a crappy plan that is trendy and being done for a man's legacy.

I will not settle for the crappy status quo that is being kept in place out of fear and entitlement. Nobody in power has seriously proposed an alternative to Bloomberg's plan that would do anything to reduce the amount of traffic coming down Skillman Avenue. Therefore I am stuck with Bloomberg's plan.

Because my writing is more colorful than your writing and because I enjoy writing more than you seem to doesn't make me a jerk. Oh, hey, look at that, Angus just insulted me. But since he is on the righteous side, that's okay, right? Lipsky, Brodsky, et al. You only name two people but look at the polls and you see skepticism. READ THE REST OF MY POSTS AND YOU WILL SEE THAT I AM FOR REDUCED CONGESTION BUT NOT IN A WAY THAT ISN'T OPTIMAL. I will not settle for a crappy plan that is trendy and being done for a man's legacy.

You, Angus, are the only person on here who has insulted me, no one else. Its funny, but you are the one accusing me of being insulted. Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.

Have a nice day, one as free of congestion as possible.

I see blindness to the realities involved here on the pro-CP side.

You see the same thing that Richard Lipsky and Walter McCaffrey see, because that's what they want to see. I can only imagine that it's the same with you.

I ask you to consider the possibility that we aren't blind to Bloomberg's ambition and duplicitousness. That we know that he's a rich, opportunistic guy with lots of developer friends who on some level wants to be president. That we're well aware that politicians lie. And we still support congestion pricing. Not because we think that Bloomberg loves us, but because we think it will be good for New York and good for our communities.

Question: was my rhetoric level okay? Just checking.

No, actually, you're being a complete jerk. What on earth do you expect to accomplish by coming on here and insulting everybody? Do you think we're going to say, "Oh look at that! Ed has shown me the light! I'm going to abandon my inane, silly ways. Oh my god, Bloomberg is an egotistical, ambitious liar! Oh how I've been deceived!"?

I see blindness to the realities involved here on the pro-CP side.

I have a person stating that I have a "superficial" understanding of the funding for the 2nd ave line (a person who's username shall not be repeated by me due to my own sense of awe at its use). How does he know what I know? Because I used it as an example of the government saying one thing and changing their story down the line when convenient.

Oh, wait a minute, that's right, government never, never, never lies to us or manipulates the truth for the benefits of pols who are running it. Noooooooooo. That has never happened in the history of the world. Not once. Maybe that guy with the suspicious user name should read his own book. And Bloomberg is a saint. I'm sorry, I forgot for a moment. He is so green, too but that has nothing to do with the current zeitgeist.

He was never considering a run for president, right? So while he was saying to us that he was planning to serve out his term he had teams of people in all 50 states (and denied involvement), changed his party affiliation by a specific date so he could be in a primary or on a ballot in a certain state but that wasn't a lying, egomaniacal guy in office, that was Saint Bloomberg, ready to save us from our ignorant ways and ready to help pave the way for big business to save us from ourselves. I mean, if he is not my friend and a friend of the regular guy on the streets (albeit not one in a car anymore in Manhattan during the hours of 9 -5 Monday thru Friday), who is my friend. The big lug.

To put any anxieties to rest, rest assured, Bloomberg loves every one of your green asses (mine included) and he includes each and every one of you in his prayers each night as he lay his head down on his 4000 count luxury sheets. Trust him. He really, really cares about you and not his legacy. Its not about his skyscaper with his name on it or his philanthropy or his aborted presidential run. Its all about YOU, you silly new yorker, you.

Question: was my rhetoric level okay? Just checking.

Just because you're a hard-working middle-class politician who takes transit as much as possible and never abuses their placard doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of politicians who drive everywhere and park on sidewalks and in bus stops. More importantly, it doesn't mean that we don't have lots of politicians who simply don't get that the supposed "inequalities" of congestion pricing affect a tiny minority of commuters, while the benefits of congestion pricing would be felt by almost all.

I am not making an argument on behalf of low income drivers and a daily commute. My point, clearly laid out, is that some low income drivers have cars - that or your South Bronx would be car free, now wouldn't it? That's it. I was countering inane posts on here regarding low income drivers not being able to afford cars and insurance.

Honestly, I agree with the commenters who think that anyone below the median income in this city can't afford a car. Just because someone lent them the money to buy it doesn't make it a smart decision - or one we should be subsidizing. But I ignored the issue in this post - and so should you - because it has nothing to do with congestion pricing.

And if it is not greatly affecting low income drivers than why is Bloomberg now proposing a rebate? Be careful how you argue this point because this is a classic catch-22.

Because he's pandering. Why is this a catch-22?

Now as to the funding of the 2nd ave subway Ed has a very superficial understanding of how that is being done. Yes the Feds coughed up some promises a couple years ago, and a transportation bond act was passed to borrow the state piece. Still there are checks to be written as construction costs have inflated (Steel, diesel, materials, labor) substantially. And, those bonds have to be paid off. Everyone hated using fare increases to pay these debts so here we are. More money for transit AND less traffic (every day a Jewish holiday). Nothing Ed or any of the oppositionists, whatever class they are in, from or represent, does both other than congestion pricing.

Politics is a serious business with lots of sex on the side.

My rhetoric? You say I know "tons" of people? Who wrote that, me or you? You're guilty of your own accusation. I am not trying to convince anyone on here since most have already made up their minds. I am pointing out the flaws in their positions and that there is more than just getting CP passed that is going on here.

I am not making an argument on behalf of low income drivers and a daily commute. My point, clearly laid out, is that some low income drivers have cars - that or your South Bronx would be car free, now wouldn't it? That's it. I was countering inane posts on here regarding low income drivers not being able to afford cars and insurance.

And if it is not greatly affecting low income drivers than why is Bloomberg now proposing a rebate? Be careful how you argue this point because this is a classic catch-22.

Mark, think before you write please. If you pay for the street it is called a turnpike or a toll road. Those do exist. You have an attitude of entitlement oozing through your posts.

I believe congestion can be relieved in better ways but they are not going to allow Bloomberg to have his legacy and that is why we are not discussing them.

I find it incredibly suspicious, coincidental, whatever, that two years ago we got all of the funding in place for the second ave subway line. I mean, do you all remember all of the hoopla? Now, CP is up for a vote in conjunction with MTA funding and now we don't know we are hinging the subway line on the passing of CP? It is pure politics using a so-called green alternative (not the best one, not the least costly and with no added green benefits besides other proposals) to pull the wool over people's eyes. I see that most here have signed on. Nothing I can do but share on this forum.

And don't even get me started on the inane posts on here regarding the inability of low income drivers to afford cars and insurance. Do you know anyone besides those people in your rarefied circles? Get out of Manhattan or go above the 90's and meet some people who, lo and behold, are low income yet drive too.

Ed, the issue isn't so much whether there are low-income people who drive (some, but not too many), but whether they drive to Manhattan during business hours.

I've been living in the outer boroughs for ten years, including two in the South Bronx. I've met a few car owners who were lower-middle-class, but the vast majority were upper-middle. I have never met anyone who drives in Manhattan below 60th Street on weekdays who could remotely be described as "low-income."

You'd think that in over a year, the anti-congestion-pricing people would have produced at least one person who makes less than, say, $50,000 and drives into Manhattan every day. Why haven't they? Because the lower-income people are all on the train.

If you're the same Ed who posted last week, you live in Woodside too, and presumably know tons of these people. I'd be happy to buy a burger at Donovan's for every person you can produce who makes less than $50K and drives to the proposed pricing zone more than three days a week.

And please cool it on the insulting rhetoric. It's not helping your case.

I love it Mark. You raise no points of argument, just my income level that you'll never know unless you do my taxes. I am well educated and maybe my income level matches that and maybe it doesn't. I'll tell you this - I've lived in Camden, NJ, South Philadelphia, Elmhurst, NY, the lower east side in the early 90s (pre-gentrification), currently Queens and I've seen lots and lots of low income people with cars. I've also gone to school with and am friends with lots of high earners. I run the gamut as far as income and education are concerned in my life. Income doesn't matter to me as a marker like it does to you. Sorry, you can't categorize me like you want to. I know and understand that makes you uncomfortable and I am sorry for you.

I've made a lot of money and I've made minimal money (and not just as a starving college student, at other adult times) and I know that income doesn't define one. Education, whether via schooling or otherwise, and having one's own opinions and thoughts are what defines one's ability to process complex issues.

A political process that was pretty - how about both houses passing the economic rebates proposed by Bush? That was pretty easy. Do I agree with that? That's not the point. Don't make simplistic arguments. Think.

But then, people who want something for nothing -- in this case, use of the streets at peak hours for nothing -- can be counted on to fight dirty.