RED LIGHT CAMERAS
you haven't already done so, please read the
Newark section on the Camera Towns page
Some of Newark's "tickets" can possibly
be ignored. If your ticket does not have the
Superior Court's name and address on it, it is a fake
ticket, what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more
details, see Docs Set # 7 (below) and the Snitch Ticket section on
the Your Ticket page.
If you have a
Newark red light camera ticket, please be sure to
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.
As of 2018 he is in the State Legislature in Sacramento and was a co-author of SB-1 which raised gas tax and car registration fees beginning Nov. 2017 and which could be repealed by Prop. 6 on the Nov. 2018 ballot.
In 2013 he was the author of AB-666 which - had it passed - would have increased the number of red light camera tickets.
Before reaching the Legislature he was a member of the Fremont City Council, and during his time on the council he approved two extensions of Fremont's contract with RedFlex: He was the maker of the 2005 motion to extend the contract to 2010, and in 2010 he made the motion to extend the contract to June 2017.
Please don't vote for him.
Send him back home to his bankruptcy law practice.
Docs Set # 1
Violations, Notices Printed 
New 8-14-10, updated 9-10-18
This table made by highwayrobbery.net, using official reports provided by the City under the California Public Records Act.
The official reports for April - June 2010 are part of Docs Set # 3, below.
Official reports, 2006 - 2010
Spreadsheet: Activations and Citations, 2006 - 2010 
Official reports, late 2010
Official reports, 2011
Official reports, 2011 - 2012
Official reports, late 2012
Official reports, 2007 - 2013
Official report, Jul2013
Official reports, 2013 - 2014
Official reports, 2008 - 2014
Official reports, 2008 - 2015
Official report, 2014 full year
Official reports, 2015 Spring
Official reports, late 2015
Official reports, early 2016
Official reports, mid 2016
Official reports, early & late 2016
Official reports, late 2016 & early 2017
Official reports, 2015 - late 2017
Official reports, 2017 - 2018
Official reports, 2018 Spring
[ ] indicates a footnote.
 Totals are as provided by the City.
 Annual total, or annual projection, is by highwayrobbery.net. The projections are based upon only the data entered in the table above.
 Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system.
 Except where noted otherwise, the figures given in the table are for the single calendar month indicated. 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).
 Additional monthly or half-year data, and annual totals, are available in the spreadsheet linked above.
 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) may not be accurate. Also see Set # 2 and Set # 6, below.
 Direction of enforcement from list provided by the City. Also see Set # 2 and Set # 6, below.
 The title bar has been repeated solely for the convenience of the reader - there is no difference between it and the one near the top of the table.
 The official report for this month was generated ten days or less after the end of the month and shows a number of violations "in progress," so the "Approved Violations" figure given in the official report may not reflect the full number of tickets eventually issued. The figures for the month were adjusted as follows before being posted to the table above: The Dec. 2015 figure was increased by the number of violations in progress times the 42% issuance rate seen in 2014. The 2016 figures were adjusted by the 47% issuance seen in 2015. The 2017 figures were adjusted by the 48% issuance seen in 2016.
 The official report for this month covered an extra day, so the official figures were reduced by 1/32 before being posted in the table above.
 The official report for this month was generated one or more days before the end of the month. The Processed Incidents were adjusted proportionately, as was the figure for violations "in progress." The citywide "Total Notices Printed" figures were adjusted as follows before being posted to the table above: They were increased by the adjusted number of violations in progress times the issuance rate seen the previous year.
 From the annual reports required, beginning with 2013, by CVC 21455.5(i). They become available by the Fall of the following year.
Newark Docs Set # 2
"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 City has provided bar graphs for a 12-month period in 2009 & 2010, plus July 2007, 2010, and 2011.
See the links, below.
The picture above is an example from another city.
CEMO-01 Nov09 - Oct10
CHMO-01 Nov09 - Oct10
MOCE-01 Nov09 - Oct10
NEJA-01 Nov09 - Oct10
NEJA-03 Nov09 - Oct10
All cameras, Dec12
All cameras, Jul13
All cameras, Jan15
All cameras, Oct15
All cameras, Jun17
All cameras, Mar18
Bar graphs are available for more than fifty other cities - see the list in the expanded version of Defect # 9.
Newark Docs Set # 3
Newark Docs Set # 4
Until a Jan. 20, 2010 amendment, the 2006 contract included an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city did not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if the City's fine revenue was insufficient to cover the rent. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.
With a new
contract looming, on Apr. 12, 2011
highwayrobbery.net wrote to the city council, suggesting
that they negotiate for a better price.
On Apr. 14, 2011
the city council voted 5 - 0 to accept a new 5-year
contact under which the City will pay $5700 monthly rent
per camera for four cameras. The camera covering
northbound Newark/Jarvis was removed. Over the
five years the City will overpay $648,000 for the
existing cameras (when compared with a $3000 target
price). To cover that extra rent, the City
will need to issue an extra 6480 tickets (assuming that
the City receives $100 of revenue from each ticket
issued). Also see FAQ # 17.
The new contract
also provides for up to six new cameras, with a monthly
rent of $6200, which is too high. A close-by
example: Burlingame paid only $5870. Over
the five years Newark will overpay $118,800 for the new
cameras (when compared to Burlingame's price).
Thus, the City gave away $766,800.
Further problems with the 2011 contract extension:
1. The contract contains no adequate escape clause should a future council wish to terminate the contract, or if the voters terminate the contract via initiative. A complete contract will include a formula by which the full cost of such a "for convenience" termination is to be calculated. While Section 6.1 of the contract does specify $1000 per month per camera - a figure that is much too high to retire five-year-old (or more) equipment - the section also requires the City to pay unspecified "...out-of-pocket and/or direct costs and expenses." For an example of a more complete formula - albeit one still having much-too-high prices - see Section 6.2 in the City of Victorville's original contract (available on the Victorville Documents page).
2. Section 2 of the new contract says:
"The Customer shall have the right, but not the obligation, to extend the term of this Agreement for up to two (2) additional consecutive and automatic two (2) year periods following the expiration of the Initial Term.... The customer may exercise the right to NOT extend the term... by providing written notice to Redflex not less than thirty (30) days prior to the last day of the initial term...."
Renewal should never be automatic. Renewals should occur only after a review by the City Council.
2015 Amendment: Still Paying Too Much
The 2011 contract was not due to expire until April 2016 but on Jan. 14, 2015 the City signed a two-year extension (to April 2018) with a rent of $4700.
Even with the
$1000 reduction from the previous rent, the City
agreed to pay WAY too much. In March 2014 the
City of Elk Grove, California approved a new contract
which specified the following schedule of rents for
their five RedFlex cameras.
Newark will pay 135% too much (compared to the
Elk Grove price schedule) over the 39 months of the
extension, $421,200 extra. To cover that extra
rent, the City will need to issue an extra 4212 tickets
(assuming that the City receives an average of $100 for
each ticket issued).
The Amendment specifies that RedFlex will upgrade the existing cameras to "HD Incident Video." Are four (or eight) HD cameras worth that extra $421,200?
(Even though the monthly rent was to be reduced as of the Jan. 14, 2015 effective date of the Amendment, invoices and checks from early 2015 show that RedFlex continued to bill at the old rate, and the City continued to pay it.)
Invoices received in 2017 and in May 2018 showed that the City continued to pay $4700 per camera per month.
The Newark contracts may also be
available at the NPD website - see Set # 5, below.
Newark Docs Set # 5
The Newark PD has extensive materials
on its website,
including copies of the contracts (see Exh. 1 of the
Court Discovery Documents on the site).
Newark Docs Set # 6
report showed that in 2014, 92% of the City's
tickets were for right turns. That is the second
highest percentage of right turns in the State of
Here is a video of a technical violation - making full stop just beyond the limit line - at a Newark intersection.
Newark Docs Set # 7
Newark's Snitch Tickets (Fake Tickets)
Some of Newark's "tickets" can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Superior Court's name and address on it, it is a fake ticket issued by the police, what I call a "Snitch Ticket."
Beginning Jan. 1,
2013, the front and back of Snitch Tickets is
supposed to carry the heading, "Courtesy Notice -
This is Not a Ticket."
A June 2013 sampling
of Newark tickets showed that 24% were Snitch
For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.
Newark Docs Set # 8
If you have a Newark ticket, please be sure to contact me.
Newark Docs Set # 9
Guidelines and Business Rules
These are the City's guidelines (required by CVC 21455.5(c)(1)) and controls (required by CVC 21455.5(c)(2)(f)), for the processing and issuance of tickets.
Guidelines and Controls
Newark Docs Set # 10
There may be some more Newark information posted in the next few weeks. Mark your calendar to remind you to come back here and look!