Is there a discrepancy in these maps? In the lower colored maps, it looks like Staten Island is one of the biggest sources of auto traffic, but in the top map it says that only 1% come from or through Long Island.

As for the counties just outside of NYC, the state could perhaps work with Metro North to add more trains on the westchester side, but Rockland will always be a problem because although there are (a few) train lines there, the riders are forced to connect in Secaucus, and those trains don't run on the weekend at all. Maybe a direct connection to either Penn Station or GCT is in order?

As for the Upper East Side, well, a PR campaign there is where you come in! But seriously. I think on Streetsblog, someone said, "Well, there are so many rich people on the UES that it won't matter, because they'll just pay." Actually, I'd be curious to see the income breakdown. Do you have that? And the 2nd Ave Subway is going to ultimately play a major role in determining whether UESers take more public transportation, so even though a lot of people are wary about funding public transit with bonds, I think in this case it's the only thing that makes sense.

The difference between the two maps is between "original starting place" (the colored maps) and the actual "point of entry" into Manhattan. Both are important.

The original starting places of the residents driving to the CBD shows where political opposition would probably come from.

The "point of entry" map shows how much traffic is flowing through that point into the CBD. This shows which entry points have the most traffic. The 60th street line have folks coming from northern Manhattan, New Jersey, Westchester, Connecticut...etc

The income breakdown by drivers to the CBD might be difficult to find, but if anyone has that, please send it in. I suspect it's more diverse than most people think. Also some of it could easily be replaced by more frequent express buses to Wall Street area.