Interestingly, most Staten Islanders present were not buying it. Indeed, when challenged on the assumptions behind their congestion modeling, the DOT spokespersons said that the results might be "a little optimistic." More importantly, they agreed that additional highway capacity could induce more motor vehicle trips, including trips resulting from highway-promoted sprawl development. But they said that their traffic estimates could not include these effects. When pressed for a worst-case scenario, project director Peter King first said "doing nothing," but then conceded that "eight lanes of stop-and-go traffic is worse than six lanes of stop-and-go."

A good deal of ensuing discussion was on the issue of induced traffic and whether public transit could break the cycle of more cars, more roads, more cars. A representative of City Council member John Fusco questioned the worth of any initiative that would not get people out of cars. He predicted that "a ten-lane SIE would be just as congested" as it is now. Although some attendees represented the position that Staten Islanders were glued to their cars, the general sense of the advisory committee favored a transit solution. Trucks were also a dominant concern. Borough President Molinari's office asked the DOT to develop study scenarios that include development of a NYC hub port for its truck traffic forecasts.

DOT appeared open to suggestions about transit, but in the past it has interpreted these to mean support for HOV highway lane construction, which can improve bus movement. Officials said focus groups convened by the study were more favorable than the advisory committee toward highway solutions.

Throughout the evening, DOT representatives were anxious to avoid discussion of transportation pricing. Materials distributed prior to the meeting contain outlines of several pricing schemes, but all of them are tied to construction of new highway lanes rather than treating incentive pricing as a transportation demand management alternative to pouring more pavement.