City of Fremont Documents
(and Information)

Fremont, pop. 190,000, is in the East Bay, 10 miles north of San Jose and 25 miles southeast of San Francisco.

Fremont is a RedFlex town.  Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore.  A Snitch Ticket will not have the Superior Court's name and address on it.  For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

If you have a Fremont red light camera ticket, be sure to look at the Countywide Information, on the Oakland Documents page.
 
  Fremont Docs Set # 1
"Substandard" Warning Signs

The City of Fremont opted to place its warning signs at the entrances to town, rather than at the camera enforced intersections.  During the first years of the program, the signs were not the required minimum size, and they may not have had signs at all the required entrances.  (See Defect # 4 on the Home page.)   On July 14, 2004 I made a public records request to the City of Fremont for information about their warning signs.  On August 6 I received this May 3, 2004 City internal memo directing that 38 "substandard" signs were to be replaced with 30" by 42" signs.  The memo indicated that the signs all were replaced by May 7.

Fremont Docs Set # 2
Ticket Counts

Updated 11-24-12

Table A:  2001 - 2005 monthly totals, by intersection.
Table B:  2001 - 2010 annual totals, by intersection.
Table C:  2009 - 2012 monthly totals, by intersection.
Table D:  2010 - 2012 right turns on red, monthly, three intersections.
E:  Official source documents for tables.

Table A:  2001 - 2005 Cites Paid, and Detail for 2005

Total Violations Recorded (some months), Notices Printed, and Citations Paid at Court [4]

Table B:  2001 - 2010 Annual Totals, by Intersection

Click to see Table B:  2001 - 2010 (Excel spreadsheet)

Table C:  2009 - 2013 Month-by-Month, by Intersection

Table C (Excel)

Table D:  2010 - 2012 Right Turns on Red, Monthly, for Three Intersections

Table D (Excel)

E:  Official Source Documents for Tables

2001- 2009 Annual Reports
2009 Month-by-Month
2010 Month-by-Month
2011 Month-by-Month
2012 Month-by-Month, to Oct.

Fremont Docs Set # 3
The 2005 and 2010 Contracts



The original contract was expiring, so on Sept. 23, 2005 the City signed a new contract with RedFlex.  That contract included a new compensation scheme so complicated that I am having trouble telling if it complies with the CVC 21455.5 "pay-per-ticket" prohibition.  (See Defect # 10.)  Maybe a judge will have to decide.  But if you are an accounting or contract whiz, have a look at it, let me know what you think.

Here is the staff report for the new seven-year contract which was approved at the June 1, 2010 council meeting.
The new contract reduced the monthly rent for each of the ten existing cameras to $4800.  Despite that lower price the City will overpay by $1,512,000 over the seven years (when compared with a $3000 target price).  See FAQ # 17.

2013 Amendment to Annual Pricing Adjustment

Early 2013 Invoices showed that the rent had risen to $4995.




Fremont Docs Set # 4
Why Do These Intersections Continue To Be So Dangerous?

Despite heavy ticketing for a long time, the cameras at three intersections continue to see unusually high numbers of straight-through violations.  On Dec. 30, 2005 I received documents which may explain why.

All three intersections (Mowry at Blacow, Mowry at Farwell, Decoto at Paseo Padre) have 40 mph posted speed limits and, per the signal control charts received from the City, yellows set at 4.0 seconds, 0.1 above the minimum required in a 40 zone.   However, both Mowry and Decoto are high speed streets, and one explanation for high ticket numbers can be a too-low posted speed limit and the too-short yellows that it allows.

Posted speeds are supposed to be determined, and justified, in an engineering survey done every five to seven years.  Here are the surveys for Mowry and Decoto.








 In these surveys, the "85th Percentile* Speed" for the section of Mowry that has cameras is 47, and the 85th for Decoto is 46.  By law, the traffic engineer (who writes the survey) is supposed to choose a speed limit that is just below the 85th percentile speed. 
However, he can reduce the posted speed by an additional 5 mph increment if he cites, in the survey, a danger that would not be apparent to a driver on the street. That danger could be a hidden driveway, or a higher-than-average accident rate.  Using Mowry's 85th as an example, he could post a 45 without giving any justification for doing so.  But he could only move the limit down to 40 if he said that there is some non-obvious danger or that there was a higher-than-expected number of accidents - as he has done with Mowry (highlighted).  (CVC 22358.5)  (You can see an "informal discussion" of the law, in the Speeding Ticket section of the Links page.)

Examining the Surveys

Decoto

The Decoto survey does not seem to justify the 40 limit posted there - "high pedestrian activity" is something that would be apparent to a driver, and thus is not a legally proper reason to down-rate the speed on a street.  If the speed limit was increased to 45, the yellow at the intersection with Paseo Padre would need to be set at a minimum of 4.3 seconds.  This 0.3 increase would cut the number of violations, dramatically - probably in half - and make it a much safer intersection.  (For those who would argue that violations would return to former levels after local drivers got used to the longer yellow, see FAQ # 6.)

Mowry

The Mowry survey cites the "high number of rear-end accidents" as justification for the down-rating to 40 mph.  That is a factor that would not be apparent to a driver, so , technically, can be used to justify lowering the limit the extra 5 mph increment - and the short yellow that results.  But the survey was based upon data from 1999 and 2000, just before the cameras were installed on Mowry.  In light of the current understanding that red light cameras increase rear-enders, it seems unsafe to maintain short yellows that will cause drivers (those who have had a ticket, or know about the short yellows) to brake abruptly and increase the already-high number of rear-enders.
Additionally, the Mowry survey lists a 50th Percentile Speed of 42 mph.  This tells us that the majority of motorists are exceeding the posted speed limit.  This is significant because of People v. Goulet, in which the court ruled:
"...[T]he general rule [is that speed limits are to be] set at the 85th percentile speed or within 5 mph under that speed.  Some speed limits may be justified because they are set five mph below the general rule, based on higher than expected accident rates or listed hidden hazards.  Some speed limits may appeal to be unjustified because:
... 2.  The speed limit makes violators of a large percentage of drivers."

*The "85th Percentile Speed" is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the motorists travel, according to survey results. 




Fremont Docs Set # 5
"Late Time" Graphs 

These graphs track violations recorded, not tickets issued.
Where there is a large number of long Late Time violations in a curb lane, it is believed to indicate heavy ticketing on right turns.
(The curb lane will be the lane with the highest lane number.) 


The picture above is an example from another city.

July 2012

Bar graphs are available for more than fifty other cities - see the list in the expanded version of Defect # 9.






Fremont Docs Set # 6
Longer Yellow at Mission / Mohave


Portion of Bar Graph - for Full Bar Graph, Click on Link, Below

This graph shows a big drop in running, and citations, after CalTrans lengthened the yellow at Mission/Mohave sometime in Nov. 2010.
The graph shows that more than half of the tickets were unjustified, because the motorist was entrapped by the too-short yellow.
We now have data for twenty months of operation after the the lengthening (Table C, above), and it shows that there has been no "rebound" - violations have stayed down.  See FAQ # 6.

Full Bar Graph

Using monthly ticket counts from this graph and the overall total from Table C, we can see that at least 7874 tickets were issued at Mission/Mohave prior to the lengthening of the yellow.  Will the City do a refund of the (approx.) half of those (3937 tickets) that would not have been issued had the yellow been long enough?





Fremont Docs Set # 7
Article, and Protest

There was a protest in 2012.  If you would like to join the next one, contact me. 




  Fremont Docs Set # 8
Encroachment Permits

Some of the City's cameras are located on CalTrans right-of-ways, so are operated under an encroachment permit obtained from CalTrans.  HighwayRobbery.net obtained these documents from CalTrans, via a public records request.

Permit Application 2006, Issued 2007

Some other cities operate cameras under encroachment permits.  For more information about those cities and about CalTrans' criteria for the issuance of an encroachment permit, see the CalTrans section on the Links page.




Fremont Docs Set # 9
The Judges

I recommend doing a PC on Comm. Geoffrey Carter, who was sitting in Oakland but as of 2013 is in Fremont.




Fremont Docs Set # 10
The Politicians

Don't vote for:


Assemblyman Wieckowski, Author of the anti-motorist bill AB 666

Right now he is in the State Assembly but in 2014 he may run for the State Senate Seat presently occupied by Sen. Ellen Corbett, who will be termed out.




Fremont Docs Set # 11
More Coming

There may be some more Fremont information posted in the next few days.  Mark your calendar to remind you to come back here and look!



 
---------------------------------
RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net
www.highwayrobbery.net