RED LIGHT CAMERAS
If you haven't already done so, please read the Fremont section on the Camera Towns page
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.
East Bay Voters:
Please don't vote for him.
Send him back home to his bankruptcy
"According to City of Fremont
Staff, other safety features to improve safety and
discourage red light violations were not considered
prior to the installations of the ARLE systems at
either study intersection. To date, the City is
satisfied with the operational benefits of the current
ARLE system and have not explored other possible
New 2-5-17, updated 4-18-17
2015 - 2017:
Ticketing Way Down, Then Way Up, Then Way Down!
Immediately after the new rule
requiring longer yellows took effect on Aug. 1, 2015
(see Defect # 2 on the Home page for more info about the
new rule), Fremont's ticketing dropped to about half of
what it had been, and stayed low through November
2015. Then in December, ticketing began to go back
up and by February 2016 it had almost doubled, with most
of the sudden increase coming from two cameras on
Mowry. Ticketing by those two cameras stayed high
until November 2016, when it dropped by 3/4.
We think that the wild oscillations in
ticketing were caused by multiple changes to the lengths
of the yellows, as shown in this timeline.
So, why did the City change the
The City lengthened the yellows to 4.7
on Aug. 1, 2015 to meet the deadline for compliance with
the new rule. They used the 85th% from the field
survey sheet from Mar. 2015; that 47.5 mph 85th%
required a 4.7 yellow.
Then in late Sept. 2015 they conducted
a new field survey on Mowry, because the 47.5 mph 85th%
from the survey they conducted in Mar. 2015, if formally
adopted, would have required an increase in the posted
speed limit*. It's also likely they had
noticed that the new 4.7 yellows had cut ticketing by
the two cameras to 1/4 of the previous rate.
In November they published the new ETS book, and for
Mowry it listed an 85th% of 39.0 instead of the 47.5
found in the March survey sheet. (The field survey
sheet from March was not included in the new book.
The first evidence pointing to the existence of the
March survey sheet was the 47.5 mph 85th% shown -
instead of 39.0 - in the Aug. 2015 spreadsheet the City
sent us in Apr. 2016. See Note 3, above.)
The City was not required to shorten
the yellows to conform with the 39.0 mph 85th% they
published in the new ETS book - CVC 21455.7 says, "A yellow
light change interval may exceed the minimum
interval..." - but on Feb. 1,
2016 they went ahead and shortened the yellows to 4.0,
even though they should have been able to predict that
the dramatically shorter yellows would increase red
light running and make the intersections more dangerous.
In late 2016 the 4.7 yellows came
back! We don't know for sure the date the City
made the change, but the ticket counts suggest it was in
October and some signal
logs (highlighting added by City) say it may have
been Oct. 24. The return to 4.7 yellows may have
happened because City employees became concerned that
they could be prosecuted for switching the surveys.
A Fractional Refund - If
Any! And, the Yellows May be Shortened Again
In an East Bay Times article published
Feb. 22, the City admitted that it had shortened the
yellows - it continued to blame an intern for the error
- and said that it would ask the court to refund approx.
1000 tickets issued during the first two months after
the yellows were shortened. The East Bay
The Feb. 22 East Bay Times article
An Apr. 13 East Bay Times article quoted the Court as saying that it cannot refund the (approx.) 1000 tickets because the fine money has already been distributed and cannot be retrieved. The Court also announced:
“Institutionally or globally,
we’re not doing anything.“ "If people still feel they were
(It should be noted that when the City
of South San Francisco had a nearly identical
situation, the city and its superior court were able to
a full refund of all the tickets.)
Please contact me.
Now that it is clear that both Fremont
and the Alameda County Court are trying to wiggle out of
refunding the fines and clearing motorists' records, you
should consider contacting your state legislators
(assemblyperson and state senator). And, while you
have them on the phone, consider talking to them about
the bill to allow speed cameras (photo radar - speeding
tickets mailed to you), which is currently moving
through the State Legislature in Sacramento. It is
AB 342, and more details about it are on the
The ups and downs were not confined to
Mowry Avenue. See Set # 9, below, about the
cameras on Mission.
*If you've had a speeding
ticket anywhere in Fremont, you should be concerned as
it wasn't just Mowry Avenue that was re-surveyed in late
2015. Eleven other street segments were re-done, as
shown in this table of 85th Percentile speeds and
recommended posted speeds over the years.
A similar situation involving the red
light cameras in Oakland pitted the OPD against
Oakland's traffic engineers. See Set # 1 on the
Oakland Docs page.
How Much Money Does Fremont Make, and
what have they done to protect that income stream? - Set
# 3, below.
The email linked in Set # 4, below, in which the Director of Public Works says that the City's policy is to round yellows up to to the nearest half-second - which they didn't do on Mowry.
Table A: 2001 - 2005 monthly ticket
totals, by intersection.
Table A: 2001 - 2005 Tickets
Paid, and Detail for 2005
Total Violations Recorded (some months), Notices Printed, and Citations Paid at Court 
Table A was made by highwayrobbery.net, using official monthly tabulations of citations actually issued.
[ ] indicates a footnote.
 Totals are as provided by the City.
 YTD = Year-to-date total.
 Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system.
 Any figures in red type (or, if you are looking at this table in black and white, the upper figure when there are two or more figures in a cell) are what RedFlex calls Total Violations, or all incidents recorded by the cameras, and due to time limitations may have been posted only for selected months or locations (or not at all). If there is sufficient public interest, the remaining months will be posted. The figures in black type are what RedFlex calls Notices Printed, and represent the sum of genuine citations issued (those filed with the court) plus Nominations mailed (not filed with the court, a.k.a. Snitch Tickets). Figures in blue type (or, if you are looking at this table in black and white, solely in the rightmost column) are total Cites Paid (at the court), per RedFlex's monthly invoices to the City.
 Camera-by-camera data for these months has not been requested.
 The camera enforcement is on traffic on the first-named street, but the direction of enforcement (north, south, east, west, thru, left) is not yet available, except as noted for October 2005.
 Cites paid from 9-24-00 to 1-31-01.
 Highwayrobbery.net requested details about the first and last 10 tickets issued by each camera during that month. The information posted in italic type shows how many of the 20 tickets were for right turns and how many were for straight-through movements.
Table B: 2001 - 2016 Annual
Totals, by Intersection and 2009 - 2017
Monthly Totals, by Intersection.
Table C: 2010 - 2012 Right
Turns on Red, Monthly, for Three Intersections
D: Official Source Documents for Tables A, B and C
2001 - 2009 Annual Reports
2001 - 2005 Reports
2012 Month-by-Month, to Oct.
2012 Right Turns
Nov. 2012 to June 2013 Month-by-Month
July 2013 Report
Aug. 2013 Report
Sept. 2013 Report
Oct. & Nov. 2013 Reports
Dec. 2013 to June 2014 Month-by-Month
July 2014 to Jan. 2015 Month-by-Month
Mar. 2015 to May 2015 Month-by-Month
June 2015 to Mar. 2016 Month-by-Month
Feb. 2015 & Feb. 2016 to June 2016 Month-by-Month
July 2016 to Oct. 2016
Nov. & Dec. 2016 Reports
Jan. 2017 Report
Fremont Docs Set # 3
How Much Money Does Fremont Make?
The City pays RedFlex $600,000 per year (see Set # 6, below). To estimate Fremont's internal costs to run the program (mostly labor), we started with the $222,600 that the City of San Mateo charges the City of Millbrae to process approx. 1600 tickets a month, deducted about 1/3 because Fremont issues fewer tickets than that, and got $144,000. For a total cost of $744,000.
Our Rule of Thumb is that the revenue flowing from the court to a city is about $100 for each red light camera ticket issued, so Fremont's gross revenue has been about $1.1 million annually, against expenses of $744,000, yielding a net of $356,000.
What have they done to keep the income up?
When straight-thru ticketing went down, they turned on right turn ticketing. An example of that is on the last page (page 59 of the pdf) of the 2016 DKS study discussed in Set # 9, below.
They haven't explored countermeasures. See Set # 9, below.
They have manipulated the yellows. See Set # 1, above.
Fremont Docs Set # 4
A June 2013 email
from the Public Works Director to a motorist revealed
that only 31% of Fremont's tickets went to City
Food for thought: 31% is
actually rather high; in Menlo Park, only
10% of the tickets go to that City's residents.
Fremont Docs Set # 5
Grand Jury Says: "Don't Hide the Emails"
In 2015 the Alameda County Grand Jury told the City of Fremont that it must cease its practice of destroying emails after 30 days.
If you would like to read some grand jury reports from other counties, about their red light cameras and related issues, see the Grand Jury entry in the Site Index.
Fremont Docs Set # 6
The 2005 and 2010 Contracts - Paying More Than Double
Not the City's Official Logo
The original contract was expiring, so at the Sept. 13, 2005 council meeting the City Council approved a new contract with RedFlex. That contract included a unique compensation scheme so complicated that I had trouble telling if it complies with the CVC 21455.5 "pay-per-ticket" prohibition. (See Defect # 10.) Despite the complexity of the contract and its five-year term, there was absolutely no discussion of by the council before they voted to approve it. Staff Report and Minutes
2010: Another New Contract
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 $2,352,000 over the seven years (when compared with a $2000 target price - see FAQ # 17).
2013 Amendment to Annual Pricing Adjustment
Early 2013 Invoices showed that the rent had risen to $4995. With that increase, the amount by which the City will overpay during the seven years 2010 - 2017 rose to (at least) $2,445,600. To cover that extra rent, the City will need to issue an extra 24,456 tickets (assuming that the City receives $100 of revenue from each ticket issued).
As of early 2016 the City still was paying $4995 per camera.
The City can cancel the contract anytime, on 10 days notice.
Fremont Docs Set # 7
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. [That was under the old rules, prior to Aug. 1, 2015. Under the new rules the yellow is to be based upon the 85th, rounded up. See Defect # 2, on the Home page.] 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
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. [That was under the old rules, prior to Aug. 1, 2015. Under the new rules the yellow is to be based upon the 85th, rounded up. See Defect # 2, on the Home page.] 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.)
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. [That was under the old rules, prior to Aug. 1, 2015. Under the new rules the yellow is to be based upon the 85th, rounded up. See Defect # 2, on the Home page.] 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 # 8
"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.
All cameras, July 2012
All cameras, June 2013
Four cameras, late 2013 (AMFR, MIMO, MOFR, STBL)
All cameras, Aug. 2015
All cameras, Aug. 2016
Bar graphs are available for more than fifty other cities - see the list in the expanded version of Defect # 9.
Fremont Docs Set # 9
Mission / Mohave and Mission / Warm Springs
Longer Yellows = Much Lower Ticketing, for a While
The Cameras are Not Cutting Angle Crashes
City has No Interest in Non-Camera Countermeasures
Mission Blvd. is a State highway, so CalTrans sets the signal timing.
Portion of Bar Graph - for Full Bar Graph, Click on Link, Below
Full Bar Graph
This graph shows a big drop in running, and citations, after CalTrans lengthened the yellow at Mission/Mohave sometime in Nov. 2010.
The graph suggests that more than half of the Mission/Mohave tickets were unjustified, because the motorist was entrapped by the too-short yellow. Using monthly ticket counts and overall totals from Table B (above), we can see that at least 7874 tickets were issued at Mission/Mohave prior to the lengthening of the yellow. Will the City ever do a refund of the (approx.) 3937 tickets that would not have been issued had the yellow been long enough?
The data for the six years of operation after the 2010 lengthening shows that for nearly five years there was no "rebound" - ticketing at Mission/Mohave stayed down until late Summer 2015, when it was raised by about 50%, probably as part of an citywide attempt to compensate for the drop in ticketing at the locations where the yellows had to be lengthened on Aug. 1. (For more info about rebound, see FAQ # 6.)
A 2016 engineering study revealed that when CalTrans lengthened the Mission/Mohave yellow and straight-thru ticketing went down, the City turned on right turn ticketing. See the last page (page 59 of the pdf) of the 2016 DKS study discussed in Set # 10, below.
On Nov. 29, 2012 CalTrans lengthened the yellow at Mission/Warm Springs from 4.3 seconds up to 5.0, and ticketing stayed down until a jump in Fall 2013 and another in Fall 2016.
SaferStreetsLA Report on Effect of Longer Yellows in Fremont
The Trend - Ticketing and Angle Crashes Both Up!
Citywide ticketing in Fremont - which should have dropped after years of enforcement - remains about the same.
At the two cameras on Mission, ticketing dropped 63% between 2010 and 2013, but then rose 29% between 2013 and 2014.
And in 2016, ticketing at Mission/Mohave was 83% greater than it was in 2014; Mission/Warm Springs was 96% greater.
An independent engineering study commissioned by the City in 2016 reported that angle crashes were up 43% at Mission/Mohave and up 55% at Mission/Warm Springs. (See page 10 of the pdf linked in Set # 10, below.)
That same engineering study revealed that City staff expressed no interest in countermeasures (at page 13 of the pdf):
"According to City of Fremont Staff, other safety features to improve safety and discourage red light violations were not considered prior to the installations of the ARLE systems at either study intersection. To date, the City is satisfied with the operational benefits of the current ARLE system and have not explored other possible countermeasures."
Fremont Docs Set # 10
Some of the City's cameras (those on Mission Blvd.) 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
April 2016 DKS Study, Part of Application for Permit Renewal
Permit Issued June 2016, Expiring June 2017
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 # 11
I recommend doing a PC on Comm. Geoffrey Carter.
In late 2016, the Judicial Council removed Comm. Taylor Culver from the Alameda County Superior Court bench.
Fremont Docs Set # 12
Do you live in the South end of Alameda County or the North end of Santa Clara County - State Sen. Ellen Corbett's former District?
In 2014 Sen. Corbett "termed out," and was replaced by this person
who will be running for re-election in 2018 and 2022.
Please don't vote for him.
Send him back home to his
bankruptcy law practice.
Fremont Docs Set # 13
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