Only a handful of individuals attended and testified at a public hearing at York College last week, one of seven held citywide by the state Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, to review plans to reduce traffic congestion in New York City.

The purpose of the hearings, according to Chairman Marc Shaw, was to gauge the public's reactions to the commission's five alternatives to congestion pricing, suggested in an interim report released earlier this month. "It's very important to hear what the public has to say," Shaw said after the hearing.

The first option is Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan, which, among other things, would require drivers entering or leaving Manhattan below 86th Street from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. during the week to pay $8. Truck drivers would pay $21.

The second is an alternative congestion pricing plan, similar to the mayor's but with several differences, including changing the toll border to 60th Street and requiring a charge only for vehicles entering the zone, not leaving.

Another option is implementing 24-hour bridge tolls on all river crossings into Manhattan.

A license plate rationing system was also suggested as an alternative. Based on the last digit of a vehicle's license plate, each car would be prohibited from entering the congestion zone (south of 86th Street) once every five days.

The final alternative was the "Combination Plan," a series of measures to increase parking costs and reduce government parking permits in the zone.

The commission is expected to issue its final recommendation on which of the five traffic reduction plans to implement. The state Legislature and City Council have until March 31 to approve a plan.

Shaw and three other panelists heard from about 15 people, most of whom supported the congestion pricing or alternative congestion pricing plans.

The supporters cited benefits of the plans, which included traffic reductions of up to 7.5 percent in western Queens and revenues that would contribute to much-needed mass transit improvements.

"Congestion pricing tackles the root of the traffic problem in Queens, which is commuting," testified Karla Quintero, the deputy director of planning for the advocacy group Transportation Alternatives. "The high volume of motor vehicle traffic that courses through Queens streets hurts our health, economy, quality of life and relationships with our neighbors."

Councilman Leroy Comrie (D-St. Albans) didn't specify which plan he supports, but stressed the importance of a city-wide traffic reduction.

"Clearly the need for congestion relief and traffic mitigation in the city is something that's real and necessary," Comrie said. "We need to work on a five-borough solution and not just a solution that helps downtown Manhattan."

Sprinkled among the many supporters were those strongly opposed, including Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Fresh Meadows) and a representative for Queens Borough President Helen Marshall.

Citing the severe lack of transportation options in Queens, Lancman said the transportation authority hasn't presented his constituents with any reasonable alternatives. Imposing a $2,000-a-year tax through congestion pricing, he said, "really doesn't do a whole lot for Queens."

One woman brought three renderings to show the panelists and audience that there is an alternative that does not include taxing the public.

For instance, if pedestrian cross signals were changed to allow only cars or only pedestrians to move at one time, congestion would be greatly reduced, Liza Zaneri said. "The reason we have congestion," she added, "is because we have an antiquated traffic system that scientifically does not take into effect the number of moving components that you have for traffic flow."

Proponents of the congestion pricing and alternative congestion pricing plans said Zaneri's alternative would do little to improve mass transit.