Revisiting reaction to Quinnipiac's congestion pricing poll, which I never got around to yesterday...Basically, both sides found something they believed to be supportive of their position, be it pro or anti.Transportation Alternatives, which favors the pay-to-drive proposal, slammed the Q poll for using what it called "loaded, misleading and absent questions," noting, for example, that respondents were not told congestion pricing would only be in effect during peak hours and this, in the opinion of TA Executive Director Paul Steely White, "skews the results against the proposal."What the poll ultimately demonstrates, Steely White said, is that residents don't know enough about congestion pricing and its benefits.We're seen this fight over poll language and congestion pricing before, particularly when it came to the survey conducted by Mayor Bloomberg's favored firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, which (unsurprisingly) produced some positive results from the pro-plan perspective.UPDATE: Q pollster Mickey Carroll stood by the veracity of his poll, saying he believes it is fair, while admitting that more specifics in the questions "probably would change the numbers a little bit." He added: "Of course they say that. If you're an advocate, you want to list all the good things, but polls don't do that; it's not worth going into every little detail of all the pluses and minuses."On the anti side, Brooklyn Councilman Lew Fidler used the Q poll's results to slam the city/state congestion pricing commission as a "sham," given that the majority of its members are predisposed in favor of Bloomberg's proposal in spite of the fact that a majority of residents in every borough but Manhattan oppose it. "This appointed panel, which by the way does not include anyone from the Bronx or Staten Island, is rigged from the beginning," Fidler said. "Its appointees have overwhelmingly taken a public position on this issue which is inconsistent with the public’s position."Meanwhile, Michael O'Loughlin, director of the pro-congestion pricing Campaign for New York's Future, found solace in the fact that city residents recognize traffic is a serious problem and are more likely to support congestion pricing if the funds it generates are used to prevent mass transit fare hikes, which Bloomberg & Co. insist his plan will do. "We are confident that support will grow over the coming months as the commission goes about its work, details of the full proposal emerge, and questions are answered," O'Loughlin said. "We are similarly confident, based on the experience in London and other cities, that support will be strongest once the program is in place and New Yorkers get to see for themselves the enormous benefits of reduced traffic, better mass transit and cleaner air."