Modesto Docs - Illegal Red Light Cameras

If you haven't already done so, please read the Modesto section on the Camera Towns page

City of Modesto Documents
(and Information)

Modesto, pop. 206,000, is 90 miles east of San Francisco.

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.

The Modesto program was suspended in June 2014, but could re-open in 2016. See Set # 3, below.

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 late 2014 Sen. Corbett termed out, and was replaced by this person

Wieckowski, author anti-motorist bill AB 666

R.A. Wieckowski, Author of the anti-motorist bill AB 666

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.

Docs Set # 1
Maps of Locations

This map shows the locations as of Nov. 2009:

Docs Set # 2
Ticket Counts

Total Violations Recorded (some months), and Notices Printed [4]

New 11-13-10, updated 7-18-15

This table made by highwayrobbery.net, using official reports provided by the City under the California Public Records Act.

[ ] indicates a footnote.
[1] Totals are as provided by the City.
[2] This annual total, or annual projection, is by highwayrobbery.net.
[3] Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system.
[4] 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 here only for selected months or locations. 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 any Nominations mailed (not filed with the court, a.k.a. Snitch Tickets).
[5] Data for these months was requested in:
[6] The camera enforcement is believed to be on traffic on the first-named street, but the direction of enforcement (north, south, east, west, thru, left, right) is not yet available.
[7] Data shown covers Mar. 1 to Nov. 1, 2005.
[8] Includes enforcement of posted "no turn on red" signs.
[9] Report for this month was generated just a few days after the end of the month. As a result, the reported number of tickets issued may be low.
[10] Annual totals, or annual projections based upon monthly data shown in table above, are by highwayrobbery.net.
[11] In May 2014 the program was suspended. See Set # 3, below.

Modesto's annual report for 2014 (required by CVC 21455.5(i)) disclosed that 79% of that year's tickets were for left turns. Perhaps Modesto should have a look at the actions the City of Santa Clarita recently took to reduce left turn violations.

The City provided bar graphs of Late Times, etcetera, for all of its cameras.
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.

2005 - STSI & TUST only
2006 - TUST only
2006 - Other than TUST
2010
2012

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

The City's contract with RedFlex includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. (For other cities with similar clauses see Subsection B of Defect # 10, on the Home page.)

A Feb. 2007 staff report from the police to the City Council's Safety Committee showed an increase in collision injuries at three of the four monitored locations.

The seven-year contract extension the city council approved on July 7, 2009 (there was no discussion and the vote was 7 - 0) reduced the monthly rent for each of the four existing cameras to $5500. The staff report said that the new rate would save the City $24,000 per year compared to the previous price. Despite the lower price the City still will pay $840,000 too much over the seven years (when compared with a $3000 target price). See FAQ # 17.

The contract contains an escape clause (Section 6.3) which allows the City to cancel the contract with ten days' notice and no penalty (once the cameras are more than 60 months old).

The report also discussed planned new camera locations - which are shown on the map, above.

In Dec. 2013 Ars Technica published an article ("Perfect Enforcement: On the ground in the red light camera wars") including information about Modesto's cameras. (archived copy)

In Aug. 2014 we found out that in May 2014 the program was suspended for six months.

Later, the suspension was extended another six months, to May 2015. According to an Oct. 31, 2014 article (archived copy) in the Bee:

"The Police Department has decided to keep the red-light camera program on hiatus as it continues to talk with the camera provider – Redflex Traffic Systems – about paying less for the cameras under a new contract."

In April 2015 the suspension was extended again, indefinitely. Thus, the cameras could come back alive with little advance notice - or they could be gone, forever.

A May 7, 2015 Modesto Bee article (archived copy) said that a new reduced-rent contract would come before the city council "in several weeks." There also was a May 8 KRCA story.

The item was scheduled much sooner than expected - for the May 12 meeting. The staff report and draft contract prepared for that meeting said that the new rent would be $3400 - which is still way too high. The new rent should be $1500 on the three of Modesto's cameras that are ten years old, and $2000 on the fourth camera. Those target figures are from the April 2014 contract between RedFlex and the nearby City of Elk Grove, which has five cameras. Here is the rent table from Exhibit D of that contract.

Imaged from the Elk Grove contract

If Modesto agrees to pay $3400, it will pay 109% too much (more than double the Elk Grove price schedule), an extra $426,000 during the proposed five year renewal period. To cover that extra rent, Modesto will need to issue an extra 4260 tickets (assuming that the City receives an average of $100 for each ticket issued).

At the May 12 meeting the Council decided to continue the matter to a later meeting, to allow the police to obtain a better price.

The police may try to explain away the too-high $3400 price by saying that RedFlex is going to upgrade the cameras to HD or something like that. That's the explanation offered in other cities. But how are four new cameras worth $426,000?

(Elsewhere, the City of Baldwin Park allowed their RedFlex contract to expire in May 2015, possibly a tactic to negotiate a lower price - like Modesto appears to be doing.)

As of Dec. 7, 2015 the matter had not come back to the Modesto council, and in response to a public records request for copies of Apr. 10, 2015 or later correspondence between the City and RedFlex, the City said that there was none.

An article in the May 23, 2016 Bee (archived copy) said that the chief and the council would soon discuss the possible re-opening of the camera program.

I could not find red light camera program info on the police department's website.

The MPD letter in reply to my Oct. 2010 records request contained a lot of information.

Docs Set # 5
Prevailing Wage Action

RedFlex' construction work in Modesto was the subject of a Prevailing Wage action by the California Department of Industrial Relations.

Docs Set # 6
More Coming

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