Last Thursday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg held a rally in Times Square in the ongoing battle over congestion pricing. The mayor and his supporters have one message that they want to get across, and it is to push congestion pricing.There are people who don't have a problem with the proposed $8 or $21 fee to drive into Manhattan at certain times of day. One such person is Rico Baustista. He lives in one of the outer boroughs by the D train, but sometimes he drives into the city and realizes that he'd have to pay the $8 fee. He feels that it would be good for those who don't drive into the city because "it would benefit the city as a whole to improve transportation [in] the city." The subway lines and bus lines "really need a lot of improvement," and he feels that if the congestion-pricing bill will help the city get the funding that it needs to improve mass transit, then it's worth it.Bloomberg made a speech at the rally, saying, "This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and we can't let it pass us by." He pointed out, "If we can reduce congestion, we can clear the road to a better brighter future for everyone."Also attending the rally was Assemblyman Richard Gottfried. He told the crowd, "If we want New York City to be able to continue to grow and to employ New Yorkers and to enable New Yorkers to live and to breathe, we need Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing."The congestion-pricing bill still faces problems and opposition. One of the people who isn't in favor of congestion pricing is Assemblyman Keith L.T. Wright. According to Jeanine Johnson, his spokesperson, "He's not confident about the remedies that have been put in place to alleviate the surrounding community, such as the residential parking permit." Wright also believes something "should be done to alleviate the pressure of the surrounding district especially his district of central and western Harlem," said Johnson.This Monday, State Senator Richard Brodsky held a press conference at City Hall to present "An inquiry into congestion pricing as proposed in PlanNYC 2030." The report says the city's actual congestion pricing plan is "inconsistent" with the public description of the plan.Brodsky went on to talk about how congestion pricing is "a regressive tax on working families." He continued to make this argument by saying, "It is made largely by people in the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn, and largely who by the mayor's own data have an average income of less than $50,000."Another opponent on hand for the press conference was Councilman David Weprin. One of his complaints is about the ineffectiveness of the current $8 and $21 price. "In order to reduce congestion, it probably will have to be more than $8, as similar to what happened in London." In London, the prices ended up doubling.Instead of congestion pricing, Brodsky sees congestion rationing as a possible alternative. Congestion rationing is a scheme, which would restrict driving in certain parts of Manhattan based on a vehicle's license plate. For example, cars with license plates ending with an even number would only be allowed to drive on Tuesdays. This was done before in Mexico City, but it proved to harder to enforce, and people beat it by getting two cars. His solution to this is assigning the same license plate number and including the letters A, B, C or D for additional cars.According to Paul White, the executive director of Transportation Alternatives, there are many overlooked truths about congestion pricing. According to White, "Proponents of congestion pricing are overlooking the simple fact that the majority of New Yorkers take the bus and take the subway, especially low- and middle-income New Yorkers."He believes that proponents are "ignoring" the benefits of pricing such as "improved air quality," and "better quality of life." He also believes that "congestion pricing is the best way to generate much-needed revenue for transit expansions and improvements."The congestion pricing bill has until July 16 to be approved. There are rumors about a special assembly taking place beforehand. In regard of the possibility of this session, Brodsky said, "If there are reasons to come back, we will come back."