The (Internal) Battle Over Yellow Length in Oakland, California Internal correspondence received (legally) by www.highwayrobbery.net on 4-18-12. (inbox: RedLtDataIn2007-2012) Highwayrobbery.net's edits are in square brackets [ ]. From: Cirolia, Paul [Police Services Technician II) Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:50 AM To: Banks, Anthony [Lt.] Cc: Paich, Steve [Sgt.]; Cirolia, Paul Subject: CEDA / TE Yellow light timing changes Good Morning Lt., In regard to City of Oakland TE extending the yellow signals for the RLCP approaches: I do not have any emails to forward as the discussions related to the extended yellows were over the phone with Edmond Siu during the first 2 weeks of Dec. 09. While in discussions trying to procure data sheets on the new installs Edmond mentioned that CEDA and TE had been receiving phone calls from citizens complaining about the RLCP and specifically the yellow timings (being too short). As such they had moved ahead to extend the timings on all previous and new approaches. I performed the monthly inspections of the intersections and approaches on 1/7/10 and found the following yellow signals extended by approx. 1 sec. as follows: 27th and Northgate = 4.7 secs. Northgate and 27th = 4.7 secs. 7th and Jackson = 5.1 secs. 66th & San Leandro = 4.9 secs. San Leandro & 66th = 5.0 secs. High and Foothill = 4.9 secs. High and Brookdale = 4.8 secs. 82nd and Macarthur = 5.1 secs. Rdwd & Monterey = 4.9 secs. 35th and Market = 4.9 secs. The following approaches appear unchanged to date: San Leandro & 66th (LT Pocket) = 3.0 secs. 36th and Market = 3.8 secs. Oakland Av. and Macarthur = 4.0 secs. Note: Previous to the above changes all the yellow timings had been set to from .5 to 1.0 secs beyond the minimum requirements set by the DOT. Paul J. Cirolia PST II Traffic Investigations Unit -----Original Message----- From: Banks, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:18 AM To: Wlassowsky, Wlad [Transportation Services Div. Mgr.] Subject: Yellow Light Timing Importance: High Wlad, During a recent inspection of the signals where red light cameras are installed, we found the yellow signals have been extended by approx 1 second. They are now as follows: 27th and Northgate = 4.7 secs. Northgate and 27th = 4.7 secs. 7th and Jackson = 5.1 secs. 66th & San Leandro = 4.9 secs. San Leandro & 66th = 5.0 secs. High and Foothill = 4.9 secs. High and Brookdale = 4.8 secs. 82nd and Macarthur = 5.1 secs. Rdwd & Monterey = 4.9 secs. 35th and Market = 4.9 secs This timing is much higher than recommended in the DOT manual of: Approach Speed Yellow Interval mph (km/h) (seconds) 25 or less (40 or less).........3.0 30 (48)................................3.2 35 (56)................................3.6 40 (64)................................3.9 45 (72)................................4.3 50 (80)................................4.7 55 (89)................................5.0 60 (97)................................5.4 65 (105)..............................5.8 The new timing phase is not what was used during the survey of the intersections prior to installation. There are no intersections with a 55mph approach that should require a 5.1 sec signal phase. I am in favor an increase of .5 or so to the recommendation by DOT. An example of that would be 82nd/MacArthur being 4.0 seconds. What is the reason for the increase in the timing phase? What needs to be done to have them changed back? This will obviously have an effect on the program that will require an explanation at the next report in April. Tony Lt. Anthony Banks, Sr. Traffic Operations Section From: Wlassowsky, Wlad Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:30 AM To: Oluwasogo, Ade [Transportation Engineer]; Alaoui, B. Mohamed [Transportation Engineer] Cc: Banks, Anthony Subject: RE: Yellow Light Timing Importance: High Ade/Mohamed, Can you look at Lt. Banks comments below and respond to us? Thanks. Wladimir Wlassowsky Transportation Services Division Manager Community and Economic Development Agency -----Original Message----- From: Banks, Anthony Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:55 AM To: Wlassowsky, Wlad Subject: RE: Yellow Light Timing Importance: High Wlad, Any answer for this yet? As I stated before, this is affecting the program in a negative way. Lt. Anthony Banks, Sr. Traffic Operations Section -----Original Message----- From: Wlassowsky, Wlad Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:56 AM To: Banks, Anthony Cc: Oluwasogo, Ade; Alaoui, B. Mohamed Subject: RE: Yellow Light Timing Importance: High Tony, let me check with staff this morning. Wladimir Wlassowsky Transportation Services Division Manager Community and Economic Development Agency -----Original Message----- From: Oluwasogo, Ade Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:07 PM To: Banks, Anthony Cc: Alaoui, B. Mohamed; Wlassowsky, Wlad Subject: RE: Yellow Light Timing Thank you again. The excel table above presents the reason why 5 sec. yellow time are programmed at locations where there are Red Light Cameras. The commended 5 sec is based on the following: (1) The value in MUTCD is the minimum requirement. MUTCD recommendation considers only approach speed only. (2) Traffic Engineering Handbook (5th Edition) by ITE clearance time considers both speed and intersection geometry and it is the maximum clearance time. The recommended 5 sec used is between the minimum and maximum clearance times. Please let us know if there are questions. Ade Oluwasogo, P.E. (C.E./T.E.) Supervising Transportation Engineer -----Original Message----- From: Banks, Anthony Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 2:55 PM To: Oluwasogo, Ade; Wlassowsky, Wlad Cc: Alaoui, B. Mohamed; Paich, Steve; Downing, David [Capt.]; Cirolia, Paul Subject: RE: Yellow Light Timing Ade, Based on your table you are accommodating speeds of 57 mph on Northgate, 61 mph on San Leandro and 55 mph on Redwood just to name a few. Unless I am reading it wrong. This is in opposition to the posted 30 mph speed limits. The reprogramming of these signals is especially discouraging since our surveys and intersection selections were based on the timing TSD had set previously, which was already higher than MUTCD. The questions I have are as follows: Won’t a longer yellow signal encourage drivers to accelerate to make it to and clear the intersection? Especially those that become accustomed to the longer yellow. Why were these locations selected to have the timing increased? Were all the traffic signals in Oakland increased to 5 seconds or just the ones where there are cameras? Was timing raised based on complaints received by drivers who were cited? Will the timing be changed at future locations of camera installations after we install cameras? Does TSD support the red light camera project? Why weren’t we notified of the increase in the phasing? Can we be notified in the future of any changes that will affect this project? Thank you for the information. It will be included in the next report to city council in April. I will send an invitation to you to represent TSD at the presentation. I believe you will be able to explain this impact better than I will. Lt. Anthony Banks, Sr. Traffic Operations Section From: Oluwasogo, Ade Sent: Mon 1/25/2010 12:13 PM To: Banks, Anthony Cc: Wlassowsky, Wlad; Alaoui, B. Mohamed Subject: RE: Yellow Light Timing Tony, sorry for the lateness in providing response to your email. Please see the response in black. The questions are in blue. Essentially, it it concludes that if the 5 sec is having a significant impact on the success of the red light camera program we should decide and adjust as a team. [Blue] Can we be notified in the future of any changes that will affect this project? [Black] Yes we will definitely notify you in the future. [Blue] Why were these locations selected to have the timing increased? [Black] The locations were selected because it may free the City from possible future class action. The engineering field did not considered red light camera in any of the signal timing recommendation. Development and recommendations for intersection clearance interval did not consider the enforcement equipment application such as red light camera. The discussion is in the early stage on this subject: * A dilemma zone exist for all drivers as they experience changes from green to yellow indicator. The dilemma zone is not definable as it varies with speed, perception reaction time and roadway geometry as well as traffic volume and other human factors, and it is not duplicatable for any particular driver. The dilemma zone is the same as the point (distance or time) when drivers decides to stop or go through a yellow zone. The existing recommendations are based upon these factor and the need to safely guard motorists through intersections. The recommendation concludes that adequate clearance time shall be between a minimum (3 second) and a maximum (6 second). Fundamentally red light camera was not a consideration at the advent of the research, considerations and recommendations by FHA - MUTCD, ITE and other references, and this is where the fine line exists. When we link the dilemma zone rationale with the max allowable clearance time, and the fact that red light cameras are now in place, it will be easier to defendable in the court as challenges come on this subject, to adhere to higher yellow time than lower yellow time. One will agree that if this negatively impacts the red light photo camera's program we should decide adjustment as a team. [Blue] Were all the traffic signals in Oakland increased to 5 seconds or just the ones where there are cameras? [Black] Only the approaches with red light camera are increase to 5 seconds for the reasons stated above. [Blue] Was timing raised based on complaints received by drivers who were cited? [Black] Some drivers called in to complain, two stopped by, no documentation though. There was one email. [Blue] Will the timing be changed at future locations of camera installations after we install cameras? [Black] May be better to wait until we conclude jointly about the subject herein. May be better if PD and TSD meet. [Blue] Does TSD support the red light camera project? [Black] Yes, as far as I know. Thank you! Ade Oluwasogo, P.E. (C.E./T.E.) Supervising Transportation Engineer From: Paich, Steve Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:22 AM To: Perkins, Cynthia [Asst. to Chief, Staff of City Council Public Safety Committee] Subject: FW: Yellow Light Timing Cynthia, This is the response e-mail. After this My Lt told me we were not going to push the issue anymore, just report it to council. Steve Subject: Informational Report on RLC From: "Oluwasogo, Ade" Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 15:33:15 -0700 To: "Paich, Steve" , "Perkins, Cynthia" , "Cirolia, Paul" CC: "Wlassowsky, Wlad" , "Siu, Edmond" [Engineer], "Alaoui, B. Mohamed" Steve, the statement in red below, on the fine-print below the table showing citation data (page 5 of the report), is not correct. I conversed with Paul Cirolia today and went through a record document that we transmitted to PD. The date of installation on the documents show December 28 for High/Brookdale. All changes were made between Dec 28 and December 30. [red] " Staff requested from The Traffic Engineering Division the exact dates yellow light intervals were changed, but was not provided the information; however the intervals were changed sometime during the month of Dec 09." [end red] Therefore the statement that increasing yellow time to 5-second caused significant reduction in citation may not be accurate. There are only two to four days of 5-second yellow in your data from Dec 3 to January 1. For example, how could Northgate/27th have a reduction of 843 citation (2454-1611) in 3 days? Northgate was installed Dec 29, 2009. There must be other reasons why the number of citation went down significantly, and you discussed some of them in your report. I discussed this subject with Paul. Thank you Ade Oluwasogo, P.E. (C.E./T.E.) Supervising Transportation Engineer From: Paich, Steve Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:08 PM To: Llamas, Pelayo [Police Counsel]; Moreno, Doryanna [Asst. City Atty.] Subject: FW:Yellow Light Timing [city disclosed nothing but header, but it likely is for a forward of Oluwasogo's email of April 7.] From: Llamas, Pelayo Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 10:17 PM To: Paich, Steve Cc: Perkins, Cynthia Subject: RE: Yellow Light Timing Thanks. I read Ade’s email from January. He also called me like 3 times on Friday wanting to fix the report. [Uncalled-for vulgarity, deleted.] I think the summary in the staff report is pretty close to what Ade said below. But even then, he was [upset]. He clearly said twice that they were concerned about a class action lawsuit and being able to defend themselves in court. He also said the existence of Redflex at a location had to relevance, then said that they ended up only changing yellow timing at redflex locations. HUH!!!!! I already told this to Doryanna more politely. Pelayo. From: Wlassowsky, Wlad To: Paich, Steve; Williams, Sharon J [Lt.] Cc: Perkins, Cynthia; Oluwasogo, Ade Sent: Fri Apr 23 16:57:09 2010 Subject: Red Light Cameras Lt. Williams and Sgt. Paich: I wanted to follow up with you after our meeting this past Wednesday. I have discussed the changes in the yellow light timing with Ade, and we have concurred that it is safe to return to the timing that was in place prior to December 28-30, when changes were made. We will initiate the changes as soon as possible, possibly as soon as next week. We hope to continue to work with you on this program and improve our communication. Please feel free to contact me. Wladimir Wlassowsky Transportation Services Division Manager Community and Economic Development Agency From: Williams, Sharon J Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 9:53 PM To: Wlassowsky, Wlad; Paich, Steve; Williams, Sharon J Cc: Perkins, Cynthia; Oluwasogo, Ade Subject: Re: Red Light Cameras Thanks for being flexible, Wlad. Sharon J. Williams Lieutenant of Police Bureau of Field Operations - Traffic -----Original Message----- From: Liao, Kevin [Aide to Councilmember Kernighan] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 2:25 PM To: Wlassowsky, Wlad Subject: red light camera item tomorrow night for Public Safety Hi Wlad, I understand you’re working with OPD on the yellow light issue, and that increasing the duration of the yellow light decreases the # of citations issued. What is your recommendation on this issue – increasing the duration, decreasing, etc? And why? Also, is there a standard duration for yellow lights set by Caltrans? Is it uniform for Oakland, or does it vary by circumstance? What is the duration for the yellow light at the 11 intersections with the camera, before the installation of the cameras? It’s not clear from the table on page 4 what the duration of the yellow signal was for the two time periods. Thanks. Kevin Liao, J.D. Legislative Aide to Councilmember Patricia Kernighan -----Original Message----- From: Wlassowsky, Wlad Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 12:46 PM To: Liao, Kevin Cc: Oluwasogo, Ade; Paich, Steve; Perkins, Cynthia; Williams, Sharon J Subject: RE: red light camera item tomorrow night for Public Safety Kevin, Yellow light duration is set by the State of California's Traffic Manual, cited herein in the California Vehicle Code: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21455_7.htm It is typically between 3 to 6 seconds, and depends on approach speed (ie. the greater the approa The yellow time was re-evaluated at the locations as per the cited documents, as part of the implementation; more recently, in December 2009, TSD staff did increase the yellow time additionally (about 1 second) because of a more technical concern about "intersection clearance time" (this is a combination of yellow plus the all-red phase that exists at some intersections). Unfortunately, this change was not initially communicated to OPD, and some discussion between OPD and TSD took place in January and then again in the past 2/3 weeks. The conclusion of our discussions and our final agreement (as of last week) is that the yellow light durations can be set back to what they were prior to December 2009. This is being worked on as we speak. Wladimir Wlassowsky Transportation Services Division Manager Community and Economic Development Agency