7-15-17

Venue:  Red light camera contract, July 17, Los Alamitos City Council, item E

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:

A.  Safety is paramount - the only honest reason to operate red light cameras - and the objective measure of safety is a tabulation of the number of injury accidents over the years, yet the closest the staff report comes to any numbers is the statement, "...the City has not experienced an increase in rear-end collisions."  No numbers at all, and no discussion whatsoever - even without numbers - of injury accidents!  The staff report's lack of any accident stats is similar to another Los Alamitos report; beginning with 2013, California cities having red light cameras have been required to file an annual report (copies attached) detailing, among other things, the number of accidents before the program began, compared to the current year.  In its 2014 report Los Alamitos reported  that it had no "before" accident data, and in its 2015 report there was no accident data at all. 

If the City wishes to prepare useful accident statistics, it could use San Francisco's annual report (copy attached) as an example.

In 2015 Redflex reported to you that 76% of Los Alamitos' tickets were going to visitors.  Ticketing has doubled since 2011, suggesting that the City's visitors will never have their driving behavior improved by cameras they don't know are there.   In a May 2016 letter to me, San Francisco's Chief Traffic Engineer Ricardo Olea said:

"You are correct that engineering changes are the most effective way to reduce red light running crashes. We’ve had a long-standing record of improving intersection safety through signal upgrade improvements and signal timing changes."  "We are the process of starting a new Red Light Camera contract which will reduce the total number of approaches being enforced in San Francisco, keeping some locations we believe are still needed based on crash and citation history."

Later in 2016 San Francisco reduced ticketing by 76%; during the five-month period September 2016 thru January 2017 they issued just 1273 tickets  compared to the average 5310 tickets they issued in the same five-month periods a year and two years before.  (Los Alamitos issued 2777 tickets in February thru June 2016.)

How did San Francisco arrive at their decision to downsize?  Their annual report, mentioned above, found that the installation of a red light camera seldom was followed by a drop in accidents.  Instead, the drops occurred after engineering improvements like making the yellows longer, adding an all-red interval (both of which are cheap to do), or a general upgrade to the signal. (In one instance - see page 12 of the report - staff conceded what one of the graphs shows, that the camera may have had no effect whatsoever.)

If a city genuinely wants to minimize running, and accidents, it should also do the following things to make the problematic intersections stand out, look more important.

a.  Put up more visible signal lights (larger diameter, with bigger backboards, with more of them placed on the "near" side of the wider intersections).
b.  Paint "signal ahead" on the pavement.
c.  Install lighted overhead street signs for the cross street (also placed on the "near" side), and larger bulbs in the streetlights at the intersection.

Then there is the issue of rolling right turns.  Lengthening the yellow won't reduce the number of rolling right turn violations, so I suggest that the council ask staff to identify the specific intersections where the danger from rolling right turns remains high and consider installing "blank out" signs programmed to light up and prohibit all right turns during the riskiest portions of the signal cycle.  If pedestrians or bicyclists are getting hit, the City should not stand by and allow rolling right turns to continue unimpeded.

Now - before a new four-year contract is signed - the council should be provided with a report about whether the cameras actually improve safety.  That report should also include details of any engineering changes staff may have made to improve safety.

The last time the contract was up for renewal was on August 24, 2015, and Redflex submitted accident statistics that morning.  If accident statistics are provided for the first time just before this coming Monday's meeting, I would have two objections:

1.  The last minute presentation of said statistics would deny the public a suitable opportunity to review their veracity.

2.  With all due respect to City and police staff, any statistical analysis should be done by a professional with credentials in the field of statistics, and who is free of other ties or contracts with the City.

Please also consider these comments from other SoCal cities.

    Gardena (cameras installed in 2005, removed in 2011):  "Our research in Gardena has revealed there is no significant traffic safety impact as a result of the use of the red light cameras. At almost every intersection where we have cameras, collisions have remained the same, decreased very slightly, or increased depending on the intersection you examine. When combining the statistics of all the intersections, the overall consensus is that there is not a noticeable safety enhancement to the public."  Chief of Police Edward Medrano, in memo presented at 2-9-10 council meeting.

    Bell Gardens (cameras installed in 2009, removed in 2012):  "To date, 95% of the funds collected from verifiable violations have been paid to RedFlex Traffic Systems for operating the cameras.  The remaining 5% of funds collected have been utilized to partially offset costs of personnel to manage the system.  The red light camera program has contributed to a moderate decrease in the overall number of accidents; however, no change in the overall number of injury accidents. Furthermore, the police department has recognized unanticipated personnel costs to manage the program.  Based on this analysis, the red light camera program is not significant enough of a community safety benefit to justify the continuation of the program beyond the existing three (3) year agreement term that expires on March 29, 2012."  Staff report presented at 9-26-11 council meeting.

    South Gate (cameras installed in 2003, removed in 2013):  "The most disappointing thing from staff's perspective is the lack of change in behavior at the intersections." "If you look at the statistics that were provided by RedFlex, you didn't see a dramatic impact in the behavior over the years.  In fact, a limited correlation between the implementation of RedFlex and the change in behavior.  That's disappointing in the deployment, not just in this city, but everywhere."  City Manager Michael Flad at council meeting of 9-10-13.

    El Monte (cameras installed in 2003, removed in 2008):  "A comparison of traffic collisions at Redflex monitored intersections vs. non-Redflex monitored intersections revealed that there is no statistical difference in the number of traffic collisions because of Redflex monitoring."   Chief of Police Ken Weldon, in memo presented at 10-21-08 council meeting.  More from El Monte:  "We're spending a lot of staff time on this just to gain $2000 a month." "It doesn't reduce accidents -- that's what our studies and results have come back."  City Manager James W. Mussenden.

    Whittier (cameras installed in 2004, removed in 2010):  "Initially, the red-light program did change behaviors because it did lessen the number of red-light violations but over the long term it didn't appear to lessen the number of injury accidents."  Assistant City Manager Nancy Mendez.

    City of Laguna Woods, California (cameras installed in 2005, closed June 2014):  "Staff studied incidents over a 10-year period of time and found that the number of collisions related to signal violations at the two photo enforced intersections fluctuated slightly, but did not change in any significant manner after initiation of the red light photo enforcement program."  City Manager Christopher Macon in staff report prepared for 5-28-14 council item.

    City of Escondido, California (cameras installed in 2004, removed in 2013):  "Staff's analysis is, the data on accident rates is inconclusive." "We didn't find any change between photo enforced intersections and citywide. You're just as likely to be injured at a photo enforced intersection as you are citywide. So we didn't find anything to demonstrate that severity had been reduced."  "Photo enforcement has the highest cost of all the countermeasures."  Escondido Assistant Director of Public Works Julie Procopio. 

B.   It is important to watch the finances, including the monthly rent to be paid to Redflex which, at $3200 (proposed) per camera, is too high by double.  Since I wrote to you on August 22, 2015 (copy below), prices have softened, greatly.  Del Mar pays $1578 for each of its three cameras.  Redflex' contract with Elk Grove - which has five cameras - sets a rent of $1500 for cameras ten years old or more.  Why was Los Alamitos not able to obtain a better price, considering the advanced age of the equipment and that the City is willing to sign a four year contract?  If the City agrees to pay $3200, it will pay $216,000 extra rent over the four years (when compared to a feasible target rent of $1700) and will need to issue an extra 2160 tickets in order to cover that extra rent.  (Assuming the City receives $100 revenue from each ticket.)

C.  Based upon a projection of 6738 tickets issued in 2016 and 24% of them going to City residents, the average household in Los Alamitos will receive 1-1/2 red light camera tickets during the four year term of the proposed extension.

D.  On August 26, 2015 I wrote to the city manager (copy below) about tickets the City issued without probable cause.  Would you please ask staff for a formal update on that issue?

E.  On July 18, 2016 I wrote to the council (copy below) urging refunds of tickets the City issued when one of the yellow lights was too short.  Would you please provide the public with an update of what you have done about that issue?

Conclusion

All of the above suggests that it would be unwise, and premature, to sign a four year contract at this time. 

Regards,

(highwayrobbery.net)

Attached: 
Los Alamitos annual reports
San Francisco annual report