Comments on: Brian Ketcham Proposes a “Simpler, Cheaper Traffic Fix” http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:01:47 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Carolyn Konheim http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40462 Carolyn Konheim Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:20:19 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40462 Re: Privacy I never gave the issue much heed until I heard the ACLU speaker at the Hunter College hearing describe their concerns about cameras taking in pedestrians, access to databases and misuse of files in the name of Homeland Security. The speaker also described essential highly specific safeguards--most of which seemed to me impossible/improbable. (Someone should post that testimony.) The most effective step to me is to limit the exposure by using bridge spans where there are no peds and cyclists and to monitor one pass across just the northern boundary cordon. Re: Privacy

I never gave the issue much heed until I heard the ACLU speaker at the Hunter College hearing describe their concerns about cameras taking in pedestrians, access to databases and misuse of files in the name of Homeland Security. The speaker also described essential highly specific safeguards--most of which seemed to me impossible/improbable. (Someone should post that testimony.) The most effective step to me is to limit the exposure by using bridge spans where there are no peds and cyclists and to monitor one pass across just the northern boundary cordon.

]]> By: Larry Littlefield http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40422 Larry Littlefield Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:04:54 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40422 (I'm simply stating that I feel it's fundamental to be able to leave your house and go somewhere without being tracked by the government.) Back in 2000, I worked on a city project to improve the housing unit count for NYC. I got a Census Bureau mug for my efforts. I was also applying for term life insurance, and they sent someone out to interview me. I found they wanted to know everything the Census Bureau did -- age, sex, family status, occupation, income, industry, housing, vehicle use, past residences, citizenship. Then they asked about my health history. My sexual history. My legal history. My mental health history. Then they took a sample of my blood and urine. Seeing the mug, the subject of the census came up. I asked the interviewer, who goes around asking these questions all day every day, if he had filled out his confidential form. "I threw it out, that is none of the goverment's business" he told me. "They keep sending people around and I tell them to go to hell." (I'm simply stating that I feel it's fundamental to be able to leave your house and go somewhere without being tracked by the government.)

Back in 2000, I worked on a city project to improve the housing unit count for NYC. I got a Census Bureau mug for my efforts.

I was also applying for term life insurance, and they sent someone out to interview me. I found they wanted to know everything the Census Bureau did -- age, sex, family status, occupation, income, industry, housing, vehicle use, past residences, citizenship. Then they asked about my health history. My sexual history. My legal history. My mental health history. Then they took a sample of my blood and urine.

Seeing the mug, the subject of the census came up. I asked the interviewer, who goes around asking these questions all day every day, if he had filled out his confidential form. "I threw it out, that is none of the goverment's business" he told me. "They keep sending people around and I tell them to go to hell."

]]> By: Angus Grieve-Smith http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40387 Angus Grieve-Smith Fri, 16 Nov 2007 03:52:13 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40387 Bottom line, if the state legislature passes a congestion pricing bill that goes out of its way to protect the privacy of motorists, then it had better damn well include a provision forbidding common carriers from requiring intrastate passengers to identify themselves as a condition of passage, and a provision forbidding the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement without a warrant. These ought to be pretty easy concessions to win. Bottom line, if the state legislature passes a congestion pricing bill that goes out of its way to protect the privacy of motorists, then it had better damn well include a provision forbidding common carriers from requiring intrastate passengers to identify themselves as a condition of passage, and a provision forbidding the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement without a warrant. These ought to be pretty easy concessions to win.

]]> By: Angus Grieve-Smith http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40386 Angus Grieve-Smith Fri, 16 Nov 2007 03:45:28 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40386 I agree that the privacy issue is huge. But so are the privacy issues that I mentioned above with regard to metrocards and intercity buses and trains, and as "Winston Smith" pointed out, the privacy issues with regards to pedestrians, especially with the push for facial recognition technology. The ACLU has been doing the right thing by arguing forcefully against all these surveillance plans. Unlike the ACLU, the state legislators in question have not raised any concerns about surveillance and tracking of pedestrians or bus and train riders. Sadly, to my knowledge, transit and pedestrian advocates haven't been in the forefront on this issue either. I would be extremely disappointed if transit and pedestrian activists supported the efforts of windshield-perspective legislators in setting a precedent that the privacy of motorists is more worthy of protection than the privacy of pedestrians or bus and train riders. Actually, I'd be fucking furious. I agree that the privacy issue is huge. But so are the privacy issues that I mentioned above with regard to metrocards and intercity buses and trains, and as "Winston Smith" pointed out, the privacy issues with regards to pedestrians, especially with the push for facial recognition technology. The ACLU has been doing the right thing by arguing forcefully against all these surveillance plans.

Unlike the ACLU, the state legislators in question have not raised any concerns about surveillance and tracking of pedestrians or bus and train riders. Sadly, to my knowledge, transit and pedestrian advocates haven't been in the forefront on this issue either.

I would be extremely disappointed if transit and pedestrian activists supported the efforts of windshield-perspective legislators in setting a precedent that the privacy of motorists is more worthy of protection than the privacy of pedestrians or bus and train riders. Actually, I'd be fucking furious.

]]> By: Jonathan http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40385 Jonathan Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:59:32 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40385 I think the privacy issue is huge. With respect to Davis and Dave, I don't believe that the listed objections have to do with a private space/public space dichotomy. I believe that ordinary people have the right to travel around in any fashion--motorcar, bicycle, foot, pedicab or palanquin--without being permanently monitored by the government. I do not believe that we have the right to be noisy and violent while doing so, but that's illegal already. I'm not advocating for the repeal of all traffic laws here, I'm simply stating that I feel it's fundamental to be able to leave your house and go somewhere without being tracked by the government. Even in a car. You might be picking up or delivering something heavy or bulky that you couldn't carry on a bike. Dave, just because taxes pay for the roads doesn't mean that the government has to know all about your business; I pay rent to my landlord but my landlord can't come in and look at my books or papers. And Davis, I would like to disagree with you about what you perceive as motorists' perceived lack of regard for the space around them. I would venture to say that the complicated and often frustrating set of traffic rules that motorists have to follow in the city is enough to make them realize that they are indeed bound by a social contract. And there are plenty of people who play loud ringtones on the subway, carry on arguments on their cellphones, or just open the window and play loud music for all the neighbors. It seems to me that antisocial behavior is multimodal. I think the privacy issue is huge. With respect to Davis and Dave, I don't believe that the listed objections have to do with a private space/public space dichotomy.

I believe that ordinary people have the right to travel around in any fashion--motorcar, bicycle, foot, pedicab or palanquin--without being permanently monitored by the government. I do not believe that we have the right to be noisy and violent while doing so, but that's illegal already.

I'm not advocating for the repeal of all traffic laws here, I'm simply stating that I feel it's fundamental to be able to leave your house and go somewhere without being tracked by the government. Even in a car. You might be picking up or delivering something heavy or bulky that you couldn't carry on a bike. Dave, just because taxes pay for the roads doesn't mean that the government has to know all about your business; I pay rent to my landlord but my landlord can't come in and look at my books or papers.

And Davis, I would like to disagree with you about what you perceive as motorists' perceived lack of regard for the space around them. I would venture to say that the complicated and often frustrating set of traffic rules that motorists have to follow in the city is enough to make them realize that they are indeed bound by a social contract.

And there are plenty of people who play loud ringtones on the subway, carry on arguments on their cellphones, or just open the window and play loud music for all the neighbors. It seems to me that antisocial behavior is multimodal.

]]> By: Davis http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40384 Davis Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:14:34 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40384 The privacy issue is utterly ridiculous. Many of the biggest problems we have with car culture in NYC stem from the fact that motorists behave as though they believe they are in their own, private living room rather than a public street. Horn-blasting, boom stereos, speeding, hit-and-runs... all of these behaviors are related to the motorist's sense that he can behave however he wants because he is inhabiting his own private space. He doesn't have to behave with the sense of social contract that one must maintain in the public realm. So, I say, please, go, take away as much of the motorist's sense of privacy as you can, New York City. Make these rude, destructive, insensitive and unaccountable boneheads realize that they are no more private rolling down Prince Street in their SUV's then I am on the subway, or on my bike or walking down a sidewalk in Midtown in the middle of the day. On the whole, the city and humanity will be all the better for this particular loss of privacy. The privacy issue is utterly ridiculous.

Many of the biggest problems we have with car culture in NYC stem from the fact that motorists behave as though they believe they are in their own, private living room rather than a public street.

Horn-blasting, boom stereos, speeding, hit-and-runs... all of these behaviors are related to the motorist's sense that he can behave however he wants because he is inhabiting his own private space. He doesn't have to behave with the sense of social contract that one must maintain in the public realm.

So, I say, please, go, take away as much of the motorist's sense of privacy as you can, New York City. Make these rude, destructive, insensitive and unaccountable boneheads realize that they are no more private rolling down Prince Street in their SUV's then I am on the subway, or on my bike or walking down a sidewalk in Midtown in the middle of the day.

On the whole, the city and humanity will be all the better for this particular loss of privacy.

]]> By: Dave http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40383 Dave Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:36:42 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40383 I find the issue of privacy to be specious; why should anyone on the public streets be guaranteed privacy? Taxes pay to create, pave, maintain and police streets. Why should anyone be guaranteed privacy when using a public thoroughfare? I find the issue of privacy to be specious; why should anyone on the public streets be guaranteed privacy? Taxes pay to create, pave, maintain and police streets. Why should anyone be guaranteed privacy when using a public thoroughfare?

]]> By: Carolyn Konheim http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40374 Carolyn Konheim Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:29:27 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40374 As co-author of the article, I am responding to the few items I can recall: - we don't believe in free bypass routes--they would become completely jammed (they're bad enough now) and squeezing currently dispersed through trips into these corridors would cause spill back traffic deep into the pricing zone. Besides all the interfaces with the bypass routes is the reason for may of the street grid toll gates. - we're not saying charge taxis $8 a ride, - there are dozens of reasons why 86th Street doesn't work -- fervently desribed atthe Manhattan hearings. The most unlikely place tto find street parking is north of 60th Strret. At least half the traffic north of there is headed toward the CBD so a c ordon there would capture those trips -as for privacy, it wasn't an issue for me either until I heard the alarms of the NY ACLU at the Manhattan hearings and the extensive (and unkikeky) safegurards needed. we're saying why set up an elaborate detection system when most of the vehicles processed in the zone will either have paid a toll or be designated(as are taxis) as exempt from any fee? We're saying there are more- effective ways to use pricing to minimize taxi cruising. - we disagree that tolls on other major crossings should be less just because there's no transit alternative. Toll revenues are needed to back bods that finance transit that serves legs of the journey (like the GCP and other approach roads) that would be impassable if there were no transit. They also support the bridge infrastructure and free up other public funds for road infrastructure and hidden costs and taxpayer subsidies of auto use. These add up to about $3 a mile (much more for trucks) which tolls help offset. As co-author of the article, I am responding to the few items I can recall:
- we don't believe in free bypass routes--they would become completely jammed (they're bad enough now) and squeezing currently dispersed through trips into these corridors would cause spill back traffic deep into the pricing zone. Besides all the interfaces with the bypass routes is the reason for may of the street grid toll gates.
- we're not saying charge taxis $8 a ride,
- there are dozens of reasons why 86th Street doesn't work -- fervently desribed atthe Manhattan hearings. The most unlikely place tto find street parking is north of 60th Strret. At least half the traffic north of there is headed toward the CBD so a c ordon there would capture those trips
-as for privacy, it wasn't an issue for me either until I heard the alarms of the NY ACLU at the Manhattan hearings and the extensive (and unkikeky) safegurards needed.
we're saying why set up an elaborate detection system when most of the vehicles processed in the zone will either have paid a toll or be designated(as are taxis) as exempt from any fee? We're saying there are more- effective ways to use pricing to minimize taxi cruising.
- we disagree that tolls on other major crossings should be less just because there's no transit alternative. Toll revenues are needed to back bods that finance transit that serves legs of the journey (like the GCP and other approach roads) that would be impassable if there were no transit. They also support the bridge infrastructure and free up other public funds for road infrastructure and hidden costs and taxpayer subsidies of auto use. These add up to about $3 a mile (much more for trucks) which tolls help offset.

]]> By: Hilary http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40349 Hilary Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:58:00 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40349 Here is more information on Bern Grush and satellite-based CP, received in an email this am: First, his company's response to the RFEI: http://www.skymetercorp.com/cms/images/news/NYCEDCresponseSKYMETER.071002.pdf more info: http://grushhour.blogspot.com/2007/09/could-sustainability-become.html http://grushhour.blogspot.com/2007/08/us-dots-pearl-harbor.html http://grushhour.blogspot.com/2007/08/mary-peters-says-it-best_28.html The whole blog is dedicated to Congestion Pricing www.grushhour.com and is meant as a resource for advocates. Please pass it on... Here is what one of Toronto's top clean-bloggers did: http://tyler.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/10/12/3286522.html Maybe his third-party commentary is more useful for Streetsblog readers... the most recent item on my blog is to be re-published in UK on Dec 1 to circulation 45,000 http://grushhour.blogspot.com/2007/11/all-you-can-drive-roads.html Our corporate site has other (less edgy) news and articles www.skymetercorp.com. Here is more information on Bern Grush and satellite-based CP, received in an email this am:
First, his company's response to the RFEI:

http://www.skymetercorp.com/cms/images/news/NYCEDCresponseSKYMETER.071002.pdf

more info:

http://grushhour.blogspot.com/2007/09/could-sustainability-become.html
http://grushhour.blogspot.com/2007/08/us-dots-pearl-harbor.html
http://grushhour.blogspot.com/2007/08/mary-peters-says-it-best_28.html

The whole blog is dedicated to Congestion Pricing http://www.grushhour.com and is meant as a resource for advocates. Please pass it on...

Here is what one of Toronto's top clean-bloggers did: http://tyler.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/10/12/3286522.html Maybe his third-party commentary is more useful for Streetsblog readers...

the most recent item on my blog is to be re-published in UK on Dec 1 to circulation 45,000
http://grushhour.blogspot.com/2007/11/all-you-can-drive-roads.html

Our corporate site has other (less edgy) news and articles http://www.skymetercorp.com.

]]> By: Winston Smith http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40340 Winston Smith Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:05:43 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40340 The privacy issue is not just for drivers. The Mayor's congestion pricing approach will have to rely on a combination of EZ-Pass readers and cameras (both for technical reasons, and because not every car is EZ-Pass equipped) -- A LOT of cameras, throughout the zone. Those cameras can and almost certainly will be used for non-congestion-pricing surveillance purposes, as has been happening in London. Now I know that we're already on that slippery slope, and the camel long ago poked his nose into this tent, and all that, what with security cameras everywhere, NYPD's lower Manhattan "ring of steel", etc., but this will make for a qualitative jump in the government's capacity to (literally) watch us. The privacy issue is not just for drivers. The Mayor's congestion pricing approach will have to rely on a combination of EZ-Pass readers and cameras (both for technical reasons, and because not every car is EZ-Pass equipped) -- A LOT of cameras, throughout the zone. Those cameras can and almost certainly will be used for non-congestion-pricing surveillance purposes, as has been happening in London. Now I know that we're already on that slippery slope, and the camel long ago poked his nose into this tent, and all that, what with security cameras everywhere, NYPD's lower Manhattan "ring of steel", etc., but this will make for a qualitative jump in the government's capacity to (literally) watch us.

]]> By: Angus Grieve-Smith http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40335 Angus Grieve-Smith Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:37:02 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40335 <blockquote>Instead of those with parking permits, or some other parking deal? Even with a monthly deal, it would cost at least $15 per day to park near where I work, or double the proposed charge.</blockquote> I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. Of course permit reform should happen, but in the absence of any significant movement on that issue, we should do something else. <blockquote>Angus - and they will, when it looks like London and Paris. In the meantime, we shouldn't design a system that is unnecessarily expensive or intrusive in the determination to "price" these people out of their cars. Larry is right - do what is best for the most of us - the system that captures the most revenue, preserves maximum privacy, aesthetics and other values, etc. So far, that would seem to be Ketchum and Kohneim.</blockquote> I favor the Konheim and Ketcham proposal over any of the others, but in the absence of any official support for it - say, from at least one member of the commission - we should do something else. <blockquote>I didn't get the whole privacy thing. Until I found that EZ-Pass records were being used in divorce proceedings against spouses who had screwed around on their husbands and wives. Not something I would have thought of. For some reason our state legislators were way ahead of me on that one.</blockquote> Not ahead of me. But then, I seem to have been (and still am) way ahead of them on the privacy implications of requiring name and ID for intercity bus and train travel, of cell phone and cash machine records, and of purchasing Metrocards with credit cards. Our state legislators clearly don't care about the privacy of anyone who doesn't drive. <blockquote>Anyone know about Bern Grush</blockquote> All I know is what he's posted in the comments here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+site%3Awww.streetsblog.org+Bern+Grush+&btnG=Search

Instead of those with parking permits, or some other parking deal? Even with a monthly deal, it would cost at least $15 per day to park near where I work, or double the proposed charge.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. Of course permit reform should happen, but in the absence of any significant movement on that issue, we should do something else.

Angus - and they will, when it looks like London and Paris. In the meantime, we shouldn't design a system that is unnecessarily expensive or intrusive in the determination to "price" these people out of their cars. Larry is right - do what is best for the most of us - the system that captures the most revenue, preserves maximum privacy, aesthetics and other values, etc. So far, that would seem to be Ketchum and Kohneim.

I favor the Konheim and Ketcham proposal over any of the others, but in the absence of any official support for it - say, from at least one member of the commission - we should do something else.

I didn't get the whole privacy thing.

Until I found that EZ-Pass records were being used in divorce proceedings against spouses who had screwed around on their husbands and wives.

Not something I would have thought of. For some reason our state legislators were way ahead of me on that one.

Not ahead of me. But then, I seem to have been (and still am) way ahead of them on the privacy implications of requiring name and ID for intercity bus and train travel, of cell phone and cash machine records, and of purchasing Metrocards with credit cards. Our state legislators clearly don't care about the privacy of anyone who doesn't drive.

Anyone know about Bern Grush

All I know is what he's posted in the comments here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+site%3Awww.streetsblog.org+Bern+Grush+&btnG=Search

]]> By: Doc Barnett http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40334 Doc Barnett Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:34:35 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40334 When they spend their time thinking up ways to preserve the great automotive free ride, it's not really so impressive. ;) As driving shifts in NYC from being viewed as a public and protected activity to one that the public needs to be protected from, privacy isn't going to win people's hearts. Die-hard weapon aficionados hate background checks, for example, but the public doesn't pay their privacy much mind. In the future if some Long Island banker wants to cheat on in wife with a woman he's put up in Manhattan, he's just going to have to take public transportation to do it (and be careful to cover his tracks there too). Boo hoo. When they spend their time thinking up ways to preserve the great automotive free ride, it's not really so impressive. ;)

As driving shifts in NYC from being viewed as a public and protected activity to one that the public needs to be protected from, privacy isn't going to win people's hearts. Die-hard weapon aficionados hate background checks, for example, but the public doesn't pay their privacy much mind. In the future if some Long Island banker wants to cheat on in wife with a woman he's put up in Manhattan, he's just going to have to take public transportation to do it (and be careful to cover his tracks there too). Boo hoo.

]]> By: Larry Littlefield http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40332 Larry Littlefield Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:11:00 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40332 (the system that captures the most revenue, preserves maximum privacy) I didn't get the whole privacy thing. Until I found that EZ-Pass records were being used in divorce proceedings against spouses who had screwed around on their husbands and wives. Not something I would have thought of. For some reason our state legislators were way ahead of me on that one. (the system that captures the most revenue, preserves maximum privacy)

I didn't get the whole privacy thing.

Until I found that EZ-Pass records were being used in divorce proceedings against spouses who had screwed around on their husbands and wives.

Not something I would have thought of. For some reason our state legislators were way ahead of me on that one.

]]> By: Hilary http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40331 Hilary Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:44:36 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40331 Angus - and they will, when it looks like London and Paris. In the meantime, we shouldn't design a system that is unnecessarily expensive or intrusive in the determination to "price" these people out of their cars. Larry is right - do what is best for the most of us - the system that captures the most revenue, preserves maximum privacy, aesthetics and other values, etc. So far, that would seem to be Ketchum and Kohneim. However, there was a fellow from Toronto who piped up at the end of the Megaregion conference at Rudin Center on Tuesday. He wanted to know if anyone was looking at his satellite-based technology. The short answer was no. I couldn't figure out whether the guy is a nut or the saviour we've been waiting for. Anyone know about Bern Grush (grushour.com or www.mobilitypricing.org?) Hilary Angus - and they will, when it looks like London and Paris. In the meantime, we shouldn't design a system that is unnecessarily expensive or intrusive in the determination to "price" these people out of their cars. Larry is right - do what is best for the most of us - the system that captures the most revenue, preserves maximum privacy, aesthetics and other values, etc. So far, that would seem to be Ketchum and Kohneim.
However, there was a fellow from Toronto who piped up at the end of the Megaregion conference at Rudin Center on Tuesday. He wanted to know if anyone was looking at his satellite-based technology. The short answer was no. I couldn't figure out whether the guy is a nut or the saviour we've been waiting for. Anyone know about Bern Grush (grushour.com or http://www.mobilitypricing.org?)
Hilary

]]> By: Larry Littlefield http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40330 Larry Littlefield Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:04:29 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40330 (these upper-middle-class car commuters still can and should be using the train or the bus instead.) Instead of those with parking permits, or some other parking deal? Even with a monthly deal, it would cost at least $15 per day to park near where I work, or double the proposed charge. So it's the executive class vs. the political class. I say do what is best for the rest of us. (these upper-middle-class car commuters still can and should be using the train or the bus instead.)

Instead of those with parking permits, or some other parking deal? Even with a monthly deal, it would cost at least $15 per day to park near where I work, or double the proposed charge.

So it's the executive class vs. the political class. I say do what is best for the rest of us.

]]> By: Angus Grieve-Smith http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40328 Angus Grieve-Smith Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:33:02 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40328 The anti-congestion pricing people have been making that argument since congestion pricing was first proposed. I've understood their argument the whole time and my response is and always has been: these <b>upper</b>-middle-class car commuters still can and should be using the train or the bus instead. The anti-congestion pricing people have been making that argument since congestion pricing was first proposed. I've understood their argument the whole time and my response is and always has been: these upper-middle-class car commuters still can and should be using the train or the bus instead.

]]> By: Hilary http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40327 Hilary Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:14:11 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40327 This thread has perhaps brought us to a painful but helpful recognition. There is no realistic way to "price" the most affluent city car owners from using their cars. Every tool is counterproductive. Increasing the cost of ownership may discourage some people from owning, but for those who decide to own (or whose employers pick up the cost), they will only increase the incentive to use the vehicle. Increasing the cost of using cars in the city - congestion pricing, bridge tolling, parking reform - have the perverse effect of making driving in the city for those who can afford it even more attractive. Whether we like it or not, the only area where we have any chance of seriously reducing traffic is where price is elastic. That is the middle class minority of driving commuters. This thread has perhaps brought us to a painful but helpful recognition. There is no realistic way to "price" the most affluent city car owners from using their cars. Every tool is counterproductive. Increasing the cost of ownership may discourage some people from owning, but for those who decide to own (or whose employers pick up the cost), they will only increase the incentive to use the vehicle. Increasing the cost of using cars in the city - congestion pricing, bridge tolling, parking reform - have the perverse effect of making driving in the city for those who can afford it even more attractive. Whether we like it or not, the only area where we have any chance of seriously reducing traffic is where price is elastic. That is the middle class minority of driving commuters.

]]> By: Chris H http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40325 Chris H Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:08:05 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40325 Niccolo, I don't think it is a well established fact that tolling and cordon would work better. I don't know if the way its proposed for the Bloomberg plan is better, but I don't think you *know* that its worse based empirical evidence or even detailed studies. Please correct me if I am wrong. People like to make claims about capital and operating costs for running a system without any evidence. You can't just say since London's system costs a certain amount that you can scale it up to estimate what NYC's would cost. There are too many factors. Unless you can come up with solid evidence, not just conjecture, I don't think you can say its "well established and accepted wisdom, even a truism." Please correct me if I am wrong. Niccolo,

I don't think it is a well established fact that tolling and cordon would work better. I don't know if the way its proposed for the Bloomberg plan is better, but I don't think you *know* that its worse based empirical evidence or even detailed studies. Please correct me if I am wrong.

People like to make claims about capital and operating costs for running a system without any evidence. You can't just say since London's system costs a certain amount that you can scale it up to estimate what NYC's would cost. There are too many factors. Unless you can come up with solid evidence, not just conjecture, I don't think you can say its "well established and accepted wisdom, even a truism."

Please correct me if I am wrong.

]]> By: Jonathan http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40323 Jonathan Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:49:09 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40323 mf, don't you think there are enough cars registered in Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Michigan already in your neighborhood? mf, don't you think there are enough cars registered in Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Michigan already in your neighborhood?

]]> By: mf http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/ketcham-proposes-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/comment-page-1/#comment-40322 mf Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:23:12 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/konheim-and-ketcham-propose-a-simpler-cheaper-traffic-fix/#comment-40322 Why not really keep it simple and just increase the registration fees on automobiles in the NYC area to some fee that approximates all these costs, say $2,000/yr? Many people who don't "need" cars would get rid of them, which would greatly reduce occasional trips. We could encourage car-sharing services through providing free parking. No new infrastructure needed, although a few muni meters would be good, to keep the non-residents from taking a free ride. Why not really keep it simple and just increase the registration fees on automobiles in the NYC area to some fee that approximates all these costs, say $2,000/yr? Many people who don't "need" cars would get rid of them, which would greatly reduce occasional trips. We could encourage car-sharing services through providing free parking.

No new infrastructure needed, although a few muni meters would be good, to keep the non-residents from taking a free ride.

]]>