In the United States, the list is growing constantly as people and municipalities become educated about the cruelty in the industry. The list of cities that have banned horse-drawn carriages includes Kenneth City, Key West, Deerfield Beach, Palm Beach, Panama City Beach, Pompano Beach, and Treasure Island. Biloxi, Mississippi banned them, as did Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada. In South Carolina, Broadway at the Beach banned this archaic industry, as did Camden, New Jersey and Virginia Beach, Virginia.

You may not consider Camden, NJ, a major city but London, Toronto, and Paris surely are.

Congestion pricing failed not because it was a bad idea or a bad vision, it failed because it was a bill that was shot full of gaping wide holes on so many levels, and Bloomberg was trying to shove it down NYC's throat in an unethical and questionably illegal manner. Weisenberg's letter touches on most of the significant points of why this tax bill was shot down, and that's why I posted it. If you want to back and support a bill that's shotty, then that's your business.

Right after the congestion taxing bill was shot down, I was in a conference call with my councilmember and other activists to see what concessions were made - and believe me, there were tons of concessions made for NYC councilmembers to get them to vote pro-price; a significant portion of the concessions were not even related to congestion pricing itself! That may be Bloomberg's way of doing business, but it's no way to run NYC!

Manhattan Downtowner: Enjoy that Nassau County motor vehicle traffic rumbling over the free Manhattan Bridge and clogging up Canal Street on its way to the free, west-bound Holland Tunnel. Those are Mr. Weisenberg's constituents driving through our neighborhoods, filling our air with the sound of horn honking and the stench of tailpipe excretion.

Dear M. XXXX:

I have received your letter regarding congestion pricing. After much
debate, this controversial issue has concluded, with the state
legislature declining to act on this measure. While the issue was
pending, I received hundred of e-mails, phone calls and letters both
supporting and opposing the initiative.

In order to clarify my position, I would like to share the following
observations of events as they unfolded in Albany, leading to my
opposition to a plan that I believe was fiscally unsound, ethically
questionable and legally problematic:

· The absence of environmental impact review of the plan, as mandated by
current law under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, which
requires review before an action. The City of New York, who have become
experts at avoiding environmental reviews like this, planned to adhere
to SEQRA after its implementation

· Ethically questionable political tactics by Bloomberg supporters who
attempted to exploit environmental groups to sway legislators through
political contributions and intimidation. Simply put, my vote is not for
sale to the highest bidder. It already belongs to the people of the
20^th Assembly District, the majority of who oppose this plan.

· A New York City official was ticketed in transit to Albany for using a
city vehicle with lights and sirens and excessive speed in order to
lobby for congestion pricing, a fine example of the lengths Mayor
Bloomberg will go to flex his muscle.

· The plan was widely touted to be a 3 year pilot, but 30 year bonds
were built into the plan, which closed the doors of opportunity to
revisit the issue, even if things went awry upon implementation.

· According to our state’s fiscal experts, the MTA was under funded by
$14 billion in the plan. When has the MTA kept their promises, even when
funded adequately?

· Once approved, the cost to commuters would have automatically and
steeply increased, again with no opportunity to revisit.

· When taken as a whole, the City of New York wanted Long Island to pay,
but not New Jersey.

As a staunch environmentalist who has received ratings of A+ from our
state’s environmental groups on my earlier votes, congestion pricing
proved to be a difficult issue to grapple with as a legislator. I know
that many people are happy with my decision and some are not. Sadly, as
the situation unfolded, the issue was no longer about congestion
pricing, tolls, or even the environment. It became an issue of power,
money, greed and politics at its worst. As a state leader, I believe we
can do better.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me to share your views.

Sincerely,

Harvey Weisenberg

Member of Assembly

Not so bicycle riding. Lappin's flip is as a result of this -- with CP dead, drivers are satisfied, so you have to be more afraid of non-drivers -- especially as the MTA budget problems intensify.

Walking and biking costs little in the way of public money, however, so it's a cheap way to placate Streetsbloggers. Hence Plan B.

This whole debate has changed my mind. So others as well. If I'm paying as much per person as drivers for scarce space, how about giving me my share of it?

-GR

Thanks Charles. Good point.

Michael Bloomberg, Jessica Lappin have done their bit for congestion pricing and certainly are seen as strong citizen centric officials.

But hey, just singing in the choir does not make you Pavarotti. I think it is a systemic failure by each and every individual who is at the helm of things and could have made a positive impact on citizens.

Very sad! We seem to be our greatest enemy!!!

Framing congestion as a problem only for "anyone who drives" is unfortunate. It doesn't just betray a windshield perspective. It reduces congestion to a problem for drivers, thus eliminating from the equation the time costs to bus riders, walkers and cyclists, not to mention the maddening impact on all of us from the sheer physical presence of all that traffic.

Lappin's framing also brings back my frustration over remarks I heard from lots of nice New Yorkers when I tabled for c.p. last summer: "Congestion pricing? Doesn't affect me, I don't drive." Grr. That's the silent majority that didn't go to bat for congestion pricing.

The Kheel Plan would be a good start.