Once the politicians take seriously the multifaceted impact of such a plan on the people who actually live here beyond one or two issues I’ll support it. . .tell then I’m glad it is dead!

Too bad Millie didn't say "long, time-consuming and inconvenient" instead of "expensive" because then she could point to this guy:

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2008/04/07/2008-04-07_trading_in_private_wheels_for_city_rails.html

Our enemies aren't really the politicians (in this case) - they're the people who are unwilling to shoulder the true costs of their wasteful car-centric lives and insist on everyone else subsidizing them. Occasionally (infrequently in New York but more often elsewhere) these are working people who don't make much - which is why the anticar/anti-global warming movement needs to act in solidarity with the labor movement and support reforms like a living wage. But more often they're well-off suburbanites with outsize power in the state legislature. We need to start organizing people, expand education efforts, and directly confront people who are too selfish to pay for the social damage they cause. This isn't just a political fight, it's also a culture war.

What is the nature of your interest in the livable streets movement?

Also, above you say "CP has its merits." What are those merits? Please be precise.

penalize those who have few options other than expensive train and bus rides into a city they already call home

You know, Millie, I'd take comments like that a lot more seriously if the anti-congestion pricing people had been able to come up with a single person in that situation. They were not.

The arrogance and elitism came from people who live in large houses and drive large cars, but hid their selfish entitlement behind a mask of populism. Their is no way to avoid victimizing drivers "who already need help to make ends meet," because they're fictions controlled by wealthy politicians, and they will always be put upon.

You and your friends won this battle, "Millie." Now don't you have a road widening to subsidize or something?

And the arrogance of the proponents, from Bloomie on down, is what killed the plan. From #3: "Then move to the suburbs where you belong." Elitism is only the tip of what arrogance lurked beneath the surface of this proposal; calling people "stupid" who just didn't want to pay a surcharge on driving into the city in which they live is never good form.

CP has its merits. But the options you provide to the people that suffer because of it have to be worth taking the plunge. Otherwise, what's the point? This plan deserved to die. Revive it when there's a reason not to tax those who already need help to make ends meet. And revive it when the self-righteousness of being a proponent of it is replaced by making sure no one gets crushed under its weight. If supporters' arrogance about it being the way and the life gets replaced by something which doesn't penalize those who have few options other than expensive train and bus rides into a city they already call home, the city will respond. Until then, tell me how something more than half the entire city was opposed to in the first place is much better than having no idea at all.

For opponents as well. A comment I almost choked reading: "How can republicans support a regressive tax like this?" Republicans, what next, you'll vote against the proletariat controlling the means of production!? Capitalist swine!

But don't think the strangeness is over, Shoupian pricing is also pretty capitalistic. Is it fair to working little motorist guys to have parking meters that charge everyone the same rate, or should we free up street parking in a way that affects everyone equally™ ???

Moreover, the Mayor and the MTA are promoting two excessively costly Manhattan mega-projects which threaten to absorb not only all available transit funding and but which may require further subway, bus and toll bridge increases. Moreover, the $4.65 billion, 1.7 mile three station first phase Second Avenue Subway is not expected to be completed until 2015 and construction of the $2.1 billion one station 42nd street number 7 line extension has not yet begun.
Substituting street level boarding (excellent for senior citizens and the disabled) light rail on 1st, 2nd and 3rd Avenues for the Second Avenue Subway and the uncomfortable polluting articulated buses now used on those thoroughfares would cost less than $500 million and the MTA could easily construct river to river light rail on 42nd street for less than $300 million. Studies have shown that European and North American motorists are willing to abandon their cars when provided with state of art light rail as an alternative for their daily commute. There is enough money already committed by Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC and the MTA to the aforementioned Megaprojects to make major improvements such as light rail and bus rapid-transit plus improved subway signaling equipment throughout the five Boroughs without the economically harmful Congestion Pricing scheme.
G

Using the market to regulate congestion is socialist?

Somehow the opponents of congestion pricing seem to be able to paint proponents as both wild-eyed socialists and free-market Bush Administration ideologues. Makes me wonder how well any of them know us. This thing has been an interesting exercise in strange bedfellows.

Please stop- I'm tired of excuses for elected officials refusing to lead.

Continuing without some type of major reform in transportation policy is really not feasible. It is going to happen one way or another.

The Bloomberg proposal was great in that it broke new ground and opened the issue up to serious public discussion. It was also very problematic in a lot of the implementation. It may be for the best, because I think we can do a lot better. The policies that are eventually chosen will shape the city for decades to come, so it's worth taking some time to make sure we choose wisely.

And for proponents of congestion pricing, please, stop crying. Your embarrassing yourselves now. Take it like a man.

Hey gecko, whose Ministry of Truth do you work for? Anyone who was not in favor as of yesterday is oppposed. They are trying to avoid responsibility for the consequences of their decision, and you are trying to help them.

Every one of them is opposed. And only those opposed are responsible for solving the MTA funding problem.

I have already phoned the Speaker's office (212-312-1420) to demand that the plan be put to a vote, and the Gov (518-474-8390) to thank him and ask him to do everything humanly possible to implement the plan.

I have been engaged in the fight for cleaner air, safer streets, less traffic and such for almost 15 years. In the last year or so I have witnessed things I never thought would happen. Up until today, we had been on a long streak of good news. Really good news and innovative initiatives. It was enough to almost make one forget what defeat feels like.

But it has energized me even more. This fight is hardly over. Like Noah says, the mayor could do some amazing things: declare the parks car-free, do lots of dedicated bus lanes and take back streets from cars, build more separated bike lanes, parking reform and loads more. We have to hurry, no doubt about that, but we can still get plenty done.

My video on pedestrian life and the walkability of Melbourne should post shortly. Hopefully it will be just another item that can help fast-track more improvements that do not need the approval of people like Brodsky, De Blasio, Weprin, SIlver, electeds who have just helped continue the political tradition of doing nothing in the face of a local and global crisis. May their children, grandchildren and families forgive them one day if the best advocates cannot turn this city and world around.