I am glad that state legislature saw throught this plan and voted it down.  I also like to thank Sheldon Silver for convincing them to vote it down.  Congestion pricing is nothing more than a regressive tax in disguise.  If those who supported it were really for the federal grant, then they would be advocating for it to be given for transit regaurdless of the results, not only if it gets passed.  Those who would be living within the zone would get a discount or free pass, while those living without would pay the full price.  The MTA does have the money to improove mass transit, but they tend to treat as if it's the last thing they should do rather than first.  Didn't they have a surplus last year, so what happened to that?  In London, there is proof that congestion pricing is failing, but mayor Ken Livingstone continued to increase that tax as well as expand the zone, which is what could happen to New York City if it got passed just to get the profits.  Bloomberg's main priority was not to help with transit or the envirnonment, it was to make a revenue, which he would end up keeping it for himself.

It's not that I'm against C.P. I'm a life-long New Yorker who does not own an automobile and takes the public transportation to get around Manhattan (I admit it, I do take an occasional cab at night, if I can find one).

My problem with this whole thing is Mayor Bloomberg's hypocrisy. He acts as if he ran on this issue and he was trying to come through with a campaign promise. Like he had some kind of mandate. The fact is that he was against this both times he ran. How DARE he insult the integrity of ANYONE against this plan when he himself was against it when he was running for office. The only mandate he had was from his own mind--that is his changing mind, and his collosal ego that makes him think he's never wrong.

It's, obviously, a very complex issue and no one is "right" or "wrong" depending where they live and, in the case of pols, who their constituents are. The Mayor is almost Bush-like in his pronouncements, it's practically "If you're not with us, you're against us." Again, that might at least be a plausible position, except he was on the other side when he was "against" his current position when he was elected both times.

As to Speaker Silver, for all his flaws, and the problems in Albany (of which he is a big one), he generally does listen to his caucus and usually votes with it. Last year I think most gay people were surprised when he voted for the same-sex marriage bill. We expected him to do what his caucus wanted, i.e., have a vote, but a lot of us were very surprised when he voted in favor. What happened yesterday was not Speaker Silver killing C.P. it was him listening to his members and finding most of them were against it, you know, like Mayor Bloomberg used to be.