If you were listening at many of the Chinatown CP meetings, it was made very clear that we in Downtown Manhattan expected placard abusers to be EXEMPT from CP - all due to the terrible track record on placard abuse of Bloomberg, NYPD and D.O.T. As you well know, and as we in Downtown Manhattan expected, the NYPD and Fire Dept unions were screaming for EXEMPTIONS from Congestion Pricing if it were to be enacted. With CP, how was the City realistically going to squeeze $8/day/car out of the NYPD and Fire Dept unions? In hindsight, this issue of exemptions for the governement sector was one of the stumbling blocks for CP.

Yes, the economy is slowing. The obvious point is that if CP were enacted in NYC, using London as an example, many small businesses would suffer and eventually fold, especially those small businesses that are marginal to begin with in this already slowing economy.

As the article cited states, the large businesses and franchises would probably be okay if CP hit NYC, they would ONLY have a 22% drop in profitability.

I do know that profitability slowed down directly as a cause of placard abuse in Downtown Manhattan. The recent reduction in placard distribution can only be regarded as positive. If nothing else, quality of life is already improved.

Well, the economy is slowing down. How much has "profitability" dropped in Manhattan with no change in traffic policy?

Also -- if the space in London is being taken by bus lanes this almost certainly results in a faster overall average commute time (even if driving is about the same.)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/04/06/2008-04-06_congestion_fee_hasnt_stopped_snarls.html

"While traffic congestion also dropped initially, it rose last year with road improvements and additional bus and bike lanes contributing to slowing traffic, the data show.

Business experts are not bullish on the charge.

We would argue the current London scheme is not one you would want to export," says James Ford, spokesman for the London Chamber of Commerce.

Ford's research found that since congestion charging began, retail chains have experienced a 22% drop in profitability while independent stores saw a 53% dip.

Higher-end department stores are doing fine: "Harrods' customer base won't be deterred too much by the cost of the congestion charge," Ford said."

How many small businesses do you think can take a 53% hit in profits?

To Mark #35. I appreciate your acknowledgement. I became involved with fighting placard abuse because of the post 9/11 tremendous upsurge of abuse by government employees - to the degree that I could not walk out onto the street on my block and see ANY regular cars or even commercial trucks parking or doing business on my block. I witnessed long time small businesses fold as a result of this and got fed up.

Glick does not represent the people living in her district. None of them do.

She represents the people who collect her signatures, and give her the money required to keep challengers off the ballot and, if necessary, send out letters accusing any potential opponent of being a child molester.

For people like Glick, for all them them, the schmucks who happen to live there, pay taxes, and hope for something in return are worth just slightly more than those who will live there in a future they do not care about. Which is zero.

"A couple visited my shop from Central London and said virtually ALL the mom and pop businesses have vanished there due to the increasing rents and congestion pricing."

What a ridiculous and specious argument. I suppose if on my next trip to London I say to someone, "I live in NYC's SoHo and virtually all the mom-and-pop stores have vanished because of the economic impact of traffic and our lack of a congestion pricing strategy," that makes it newsworthy report? It's actually at least as true as this Londoners' report.

Interesting that the author points to congestion at the Holland Tunnel as the impetus, yet the Mayor's plan would not have impacted the Holland Tunnel at all (the New Jersey thing).

That's incorrect. Much of the traffic passing through our lower Manhattan neighborhoods is seeking the "free-loop" path to the Holland Tunnel. Take away the free loop by charging to pass through Manhattan and you take away some of the volume of traffic at the tunnel. Plus, Alan Gerson had negotiated many commitments for our neighborhood around the tunnel as part of the plan, which were not publicly announced (such as timelines on CATS, a study of the impact of the one-way VZ tolling on lower Manhattan, enhanced traffic control agents through the approach corridors) - whether any of these take place now is uncertain, especially given the tightened financial picture without revenue from CP.

And you want to lower the number of people abusing placards in lower Manhattan, Mr ManhattanDowntowner? I assume I know who you are, and I tried to explain to you at a CP discussion in Chinatown, but found you not very good at listening. How about we start by charging each of those people $8 each day just to drive to their prized illegal parking spots? That sure sound like a way to get them to stop thinking that their impact on our area is free! Of course, we've lost that opportunity now...

She is so overwhelmingly liberal that she will invent implausible scenarios to rid her of the guilt she must feel for taking the easy do-nothing road at the expense of her constituents. She is a politician in the very worst meaning of the term.

Deborah you have done nothing to alleviate the crisis on Canal St. You have done nothing to alleviate congestion that is stangling your neighborhood.

Give it up retreat to your plaid shirts, Birkenstocks and U-Hauls and leave politics. Good riddance.

Deborah Glick, you aren't against the government, you are the government, and you did this to us, all of it. Go ahead and come up with the money, but don't get if from me, because you and yours have taken too much as it is.

And if anything comes up short, you, personally are to blame. Every last one of you.

I also empathize with your feelings over the upscaling of NYC though I think your feelings on this issue are leading you astray. You're right, affluent people are moving into Manhattan -- but what you don't realize is that they're bringing their cars with them. And the best way to deal with that is to give them disincentives to own cars and drive.

CP would have been a great first step, along with increased parking meter fees, increased taxes on parking garages, and street redesign that favors buses, bikes, and pedestrians. Where do you stand on these things?

Reading your posts, I have the distinct impression you impose CP and certain other car-control measures because you own a car and don't want to pay. You're against placard abuse because it interferes with the parking of your own car. Correct me if I'm wrong.

My personal efforts may SEEM narrow to you because they have been so focused on placard abuse, but I know it is precisely because it IS focused that I have been able to be effective.

Placard abuse is only one part of the struggle downtown. In the role of a "protectionist", my empathy is more with local small businesses and preservation of the middle class in NYC before embracing the grander visions of CP which threatened to bypass these groups, just like the threat of re-zoning and BID (Business Improvement District) proposals are doing right now http://thevillager.com/villager_259/bidbattlebrews.html.

These WERE actual Londoners giving their word-of-mouth observations.

... to some anonymous antique dealer, to anonymous you. Who would base a decision on thirdhand anecdotal evidence from anonymous sources?

We are moving on toward reducing parking placard abuse. Although I still feel No Permit parking signs are worthwhile, there are other approaches being discussed right now. A parking permit database with scannable barcodes to track permit usage is one of them.

Please let us know when there's an opportunity to advocate for these other solutions.

Pushing for elimination of placard abuse first was never an arbitrary move. The placard abuse issue was on the table first, it was all over the press years before the congestion pricing proposal became public. The fact that the NYPD and Fire Dept unions were screaming for exemptions from congestion pricing only made it more obvious that the placard problem should have been dealt with, if not as a prerequisite, then simultaneously. Other kitchen sink actions that were taken about placard abuse in the months before congestion pricing also confirm this, i.e. 20% reduction in number of placards, towing and ticketing in the City Hall area, etc.

I think it was truly arbitrary to ignore elimination of placard abuse and try to place congestion pricing out front. Of course, community activists downtown were not about to let this topic get shoved under the rug.

to JF 28.
"I'd like to see figures, or at least word-of-mouth directly from someone who's observed the situation in London."
These WERE actual Londoners giving their word-of-mouth observations.

As a lifelong NY'er I have seen many of my favorite places cease to exist in the last 10-15 years becuase of easy access to developers who only cater to high end tenants, squeezing out the middle-class. That is the Starbucks mentally I am referring to. True, this all started before congestion pricing, but there were plenty of us downtown who felt that congestion pricing would have been another nail in the coffin for NYC small businesses.

I have no horn to toot about congestion pricing getting shot down.

We are moving on toward reducing parking placard abuse. Although I still feel No Permit parking signs are worthwhile, there are other approaches being discussed right now. A parking permit database with scannable barcodes to track permit usage is one of them.

Interesting that the author points to congestion at the Holland Tunnel as the impetus, yet the Mayor's plan would not have impacted the Holland Tunnel at all (the New Jersey thing).

Glick was rightfully offended that people going to a medical appointment were to have been subjected to a congestion fee but zillionaires in their limos would not.

The reason SEQRA is needed is that this measure really doesn't solve congestion but merely moves it to new and emerging parking lots on the perimeter of the defined congestion area.

The idea that it would reduce congestion or even the number of cars by something between 6 - 7%, as claimed is utterly ridiculous. Not even the most ardent supporters believed that number.

Funding MTA? Last year the money was going to be used to deal with asthma. It was going to be used for about three or four other things. This year, it's the MTA, maybe, and a couple of hundred million short of that too. When was the last time the MTA did what it said it would?

Only the Bush Administration would cynically tie federal aid to a "solution" that would not work and could not gain public support (and it does not have broad public support).

There was a much simpler answer that Mayor Bloomberg rejected out of hand -- a tax on million dollar earners. There is also another idea that Bloomberg is strangely silent on -- reinstatement of the commuter tax!

Glick can be a pain in the butt, humorless and full of herself, but she was dead on right this time.

"A couple visited my shop from Central London and said virtually ALL the mom and pop businesses have vanished there due to the increasing rents and congestion pricing."

That is certainly cause for concern, MD, but it's a third-hand account with a weasel word ("virtually"). It also lumps increased rents in with congestion pricing. With the rise of Starbucks, Duane Reade and bank branches in Manhattan, you would have justification for saying that "virtually ALL" mom and pop businesses have vanished there due to rising rents, with no help from congestion pricing.

I'd like to see figures, or at least word-of-mouth directly from someone who's observed the situation in London.

But anyway, you got what you wanted, right? Why are you still talking about congestion pricing, and not permit abuse? Do you still think that the only way we should be combating permit abuse is by posting "No Permit Parking" signs everywhere?

"A couple visited my shop from Central London and said virtually ALL the mom and pop businesses have vanished there due to the increasing rents and congestion pricing."

Alternatively, Glick is on the money with points 1. and 1. Permit abuse needs to be eliminated first. NYC has already lost over $322-million (and counting) from parking meter revenue since Bloomberg's been in charge (ask Bruce Schaller).

Starbucks, anyone?

And, anyway, what about a return of the two-way toll to the Verranzo-Narrows Bridge? Isn't that a good idea? I haven't read any comment disagreeing with that. And what about bike lanes going both ways on a re-designed Houston St (think Eastern Parkway or Ocean Blvd in BK)? The 'cross-town' bike lanes we do have are not quite cross-town (the 20th/21st ones have full blocks w/o lanes so cops can park diagonally). And is a state millionaire's tax going (or hopefully going) directly to mass transit such a bad idea? I love that, make the millionaires pay for the transportation system that brings them their workers. One more question, how much has the cost of driving gone up recently in the Tri-State area due to the cost of gas? Have we seen a resultant decrease in traffic? I ride by the gas stations looking at the prices thinking...well, maybe the friggin CP wldn't have worked as much as I wanted it to.