USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Investigation of automated photo enforcement for red light running

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Investigation of automated photo enforcement for red light running
Physical Description:
1 online resource (1, 34, 30 leaves) : ill. ;
Language:
English
Creator:
Burris, Mark Whitman, 1970-
Apparaju, Ramakrishna
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa?
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Electronic traffic controls -- Evaluation   ( lcsh )
Traffic signs and signals -- Evaluation   ( lcsh )
Traffic regulations   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (p. 33-34).
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Mark Burris, RamaKrishna Apparaju.
General Note:
Title from e-book t.p. (viewed Aug. 30, 2011).
General Note:
"May 1998."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 029077975
oclc - 748439068
usfldc doi - C01-00033
usfldc handle - c1.33
System ID:
SFS0032156:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Investigation of Automated Photo Enforcement for Red Light Running prepared by Mark Burris RamaKrishna Apparaju Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering, University of South Florida May 1998

PAGE 2

Executive Summary Deliberate running of red lights at intersections is a significant factor contributing to nearly one million motor vehicle crashes at traffic signals each year.1 In Florida alone, red light ruruting caused more than 11, 600 crashes, 121 deaths and 16,000 injwies in 1996 .2 Employing traditional engineering and enforcement methods such as ensuring proper signal timing, removing unwarranted signals and police enforcement can reduce red light ruruting. However, fmancial constraints and logistical problems make it difficult and dangerous to enforce the Jaw at the hundreds of intersections in urban areas. Automated photo enforcement, using red light cameras, provides an innovative approach for compliance with traffic control devices. Red light cameras connected to the traffic signal system and the loop detectors bwied in the pavement continuously monitor the intersection and produce photographic evidence of vehicles whose drivers run red lights. Red light cameras generally take two pictures of each violation, one just as the vehicle enters the intersection and the second when the vehicle is in the middle of the intersection Across the U.S., and in Florida, new state laws and subsequent amendments to local ordinances are required to implement automated photo enforcement projects. These legal issues are complex and need to address liability aspects, citation fmes, and equitable distribution of revenues to various agencies involved. Peop l e may also have concerns over a loss in privacy, especially if frontal photography is needed. Significant investments are necessary to implement this technology. They include acquiring cameras, installation of new loops, and public awareness campaigns. A well planned and focussed public awareness and information campaign is essential for the success of photo enforcement projects. Involvement of various community, traffic safety, and automobile agencies such as Community Traffic Safety Teams, Senior Cit ize n Groups, and AAA would help in convincing the community. Additionally, these projects can be cost neutral as the fines can pay for the program. Interest on red light camera systems is growing rapidly among state agencies and local governments. A number of automated photo enforcement projects are being implemented in various states/cities including Arizona, Virginia, Maryland North Carolina, New York Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The results from various evaluation studies are promising, indicating significant reductions in red light violation rates as well as considerably improved awareness of the problem after the implementation of photo enforcement programs. 1 Richard Ren:ing et at., Evaluation of red light camera enforcement in Oxnard, California, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Tall ah assee Democrat, 01/07/98.

PAGE 3

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ... .. .... . . . ... ........ ................... ........... . . .... ....... . .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. . ............. ) 1.1 Red Ligh t Running and its Im p act . . .. ... . .. .............. . ..... .. . .... .. ........ .. .. .. . ............ ... 1 1.2 Counter Me as ures for R educing Red Light Runni n g . .... .... . .. ................... . .. .. . .. . .... 2 1.2 1 A djusti n g the Signal Tim i ng . .. . .. . ........ ...... ... .. . . .. . .. ... ... ........ .. ....... ........ 2 1.2 2 Removal of Unwarrant e d Traffic S ign al s . ..... . ..... . .. .. .. .... .... . .. .. .. . .. .. .... . . 3 1.2.3 Traditional E nforcement . . .... .. . . ........ . . ... .. . . .. . .. ... .. . ......... .. ...... .. ........ ... 3 1 3 Legal I ssues associated with Red Ligh t R unning and Red Light Cameras ..................... 4 1.3.1 Flo rida Statutes 316.075 (3) ....... .. ... ..... .................... ......... . .. ... .. .. . .. . . .. . .. . . 4 1.3.2 F lorid a Statutes 316.076 ( 1 ) .. . . ... . .......... . .. . . ... .. .... .... .... . .... ........... .. . .. ... . 5 1.4 North Carolina's State Law on Red Light Came r as . . ..... . .. . ........... ......... .. .. . .. . ...... 8 1.5 California's S tate Law on Red Light Cameras . . . . ........... . . .. . ... . .. . . .. .. .. .... . .. . .. . . 9 2.0 Red Ligh t Cam era Techno l ogy ........... . . .. ... .... . . . . .. ..... .... .. ... .... .. .. ... ..... .... . .. .. . ..... 9 3.0 Red Light Camera Usage in the U.S ... . .... .... ... . . . . . .. . . ......... . . ... .. . .. ... . .. .. . ..... . ....... 15 3 1 Sao Francisco Red Light Camera Enforcement Program . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .... .. .. . .. .. . .. ... 15 3 .1. 1 Legal Aspe c t s ....... ... . . . ... .. . ... .. . ............ . .... . .... .... .. ... ...... ..... .. . .. .... .... . 15 3 1 2 Financial Aspe c ts . .. ... . ... . .. . . ... .. ... . ... . .. . . . .. ... .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .......... .. . . . ... . 16 3.1.3 Vendor Aspe cts ....... ................ .... . . .......... . .... . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . .... .. . .. .. .... 17 3.1.4 Technologic al Aspects .. .. .... .... . . ... . .... . . .. . ... . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . ... .. ... . .. . .. . .. .. . . 17 3 .1. 5 P olit i cal and Public Support/ Awarenes s Aspects . .. . ........... ... . .. ........ .... . .. . 18 3 2 P ol k County' s Red Light Pilot Pro j ect.. ....... . . ... . ............. .................... .. .. . .. . .. . .. ... 19 3 .2. 1 L e gal Asp e cts . . . . . .... . . . .. ............ .. . . ... . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . .. .......... .. ... .... 20 3 .2 2 Financia l Aspects . .... .... .......... . . .. ... . . . .. ... ... .. . .. . .... .... .. ...... .. .. ........ . .... 20 3 2 3 Technological and Vendor Aspe c t s ............ . ... . . .............. ..... .... . . .. .. . .. . .. . 20 3 .2.4 P u blic A war e ness!Community Su p port Aspects ........... . . .. .. . . .. . .. ..... . .. . .... 21 3.2 5 Results and the Effective n es s of the Proj ect . .. . . .... .... .... .. . .... ...... . ..... . . .. ... 21 4 .0 Project Costs .. .. ... .. .............. . .... . ..... .. . . . . . ........ . ................... . ... ...... .. . . .. . .. . . ... ... 2 1 5.0 Evaluat i o n o f the Red Light Came r a E nforcement Proje c ts .... . .... . ...... ....... .................. . 22

PAGE 4

6.0 Iss u es, A dvantages and D isad vantages of Automated Photo Enforcement .... . . . .... .. . .... 25 6 1 Legislative Issues ... . .... . .... ...... .............................................. .... .......... ............. .... .... 25 6.2 Technical Issues ................... ................. ...... ...... ... ...... .... .... ...... .... ...... ........ . . ............. 26 6.3 Administrat i ve/lnter-De p artmental Issues ... ............ . .... .... .......... .... . .... ...... ......... .... 27 6 .4 Public Awarenes s/Community Support Iss u es ................. ...... ............ ...... ...... ...... ...... 28 6.5 FinanciaiiFunding Issues ........... ..................... ........ ....... ........ .... ...... .... .... .... ... .... ... 28 6.6 Privacy Issues ......... ...... ........ .... ............................ ................ .............. ...... .... ....... ... 29 6.7 Advantages . . ...... ..................... ...... . ...... .... ...... . ...... .... ...... .... .... ... .... ...... .......... .... 29 6.8 Disadvantages ................... ................ .................... ...... .... ...... .... .... . .... .... ........ ........ 30 7.0 C onclusi o ns ....................... ...................... ........... ....................... .......... ........... ...... . .... .... . 31 Bibliogl'aphy ......... ...... . ......... ...... .... ........ ................... ...... . .... .... ...... .... ........... .... .............. ... 33 Appendix List of T ab l es Table I. DiStributi on o f F ine and Assessment Amounts Mandated by AB 119 1 (Cal i fornia) ... 16 Tab l e 2 Red L ight E nforcement Program Statistics (California) ....... ....... ........... 1 9 L i s t of Figures Figure I. Red Light Camera (P i cture I) .......... ................... ..... ......... I 0 Figure 2. Red L i ght Camera (Picture 2) ....................................... ..... I 0 Figure 3. Example s of Pole Applicat i ons with R e d L ight Cameras ................. ..... II Figure 4. Locatio n of Red Light Cameras a t an Inte r se cti o n ............. ........ ...... 12 Figure 5 Phot ographs taken b y a Red Ligh t Camera ........... . ... ... ...... .... .... 13 Figure 6 An Example of Citation Issued usi ng A u t o mate d Photo Enforcement . .... ....... 1 4 Figure 7. Red Light Camera used in San Franc i sco Pilot Project ....... ........... . ... 18 Figure 8. Percentage Reduction in Red L i gh t V i olation Rates ........ ..... ............ 23 Figure 9 P e r c entage In Favor of Auto mated Photo Enforcem e n t ...... ..... ........... 24

PAGE 5

1.0 Introduction Rwming red lights is one of the leading causes of accidents in urban areas. Nationwide, 22 percent of all collisions in 1996 were due to the driver's disregard for the traffic control devices3 In Florida alone, red light running caused more than 11,600 accidents, 121 deaths and 16,000 injuries in 1996.4 This problem goes largely unchecked due to the inability of law enforcement to adequately patrol hundreds or even thousands of intersections in an urban area. A new method, the use of red light photo enforcement cameras is being implemented to enforce traffic laws by automatically photographing vehicles whose drivers run red lights. The objective of this study is to examine various issues concerning the usage of red light photo enforcement cameras and their use in several cities in the U.S. and to examine their potential use in Florida. This study explores various legis lative issues concerned with automated photo enforcement; technical details of red light cameras; advantages; disadvantages, and issues of the use of this technology; and different application methods. 1.1 Red Light Running and its Impact Throughout the U.S., red light running has been increasingly recognized as a serious safety concern. The Insuranc e lnst irute for Highway Safety reports that running traffic contrOl devices like red lights is o n e of the m ost frequent cause s of crashes in urban areas.s Generally, red light offense occurs when a motorist illegally enters an intersection after the light has turned red (there are excep tions, such as turning righ t, see Section 1.3). However, motorists inadvertently caught in the intersection when waiting to tum are not red light runners. It is the responsibility of motorists to adjust their driving behavior t o suit the weather and road conditions. As stated earl ier, 121 fatalities in Florida resulted from drivers running red lights in 1996 and drivers running red lights in Tallahassee caused two deaths and 246 injuries in 1997. It was e stim ated Ge-rald Ensley: Tallahassee Democrat, ln/98; and Personal communication with George Ferris, Former Chief-Polk County Communi!)' Traffic Safe!)' Team. 'Gerald Ensley, Tallahassee 117/98. $ Retting et al, "Red Light Running and Sensible Countenneasures: Summary of Research Findings." Insurance Institute for Highway Safety> 1996. I

PAGE 6

that the annual number of red light violations on the stre ets of San Francisco was approximately 3.5 million.6 A study conducted at a busy inter sec tion in Arlington County, Virginia, found that a motorist ran a red li ght every 12 minutes.7 The situation was found to be even worse during peak commuting hours. It has been estimated that the accidents d ue to red light running cos t about $7 billion a year in the U.S.8 1.2 Counter Measures for Reducing Red Light Running Various countermeasures are available to solve the red light running problem. Some can be categorized as engineering measures that provide operational solutions, such as ensuring proper signal timing or removing an unwarranted signal, and as enforcement techniques that are aimed at changing the behavior of the drivers such as traditional police enforcement. This section describes some of the countermeasures that could be used to curb red light running. 1.2.1 Adjusting the SigDa! Timing Substantial portions of motor vehicle crashes in the U.S. occur at intersections controlled by traffic signals. This phenomenon has been found to be more prevalent in urban areas, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showed that 39 percent of fatal crashes at urban intersections occurred at traffic signals in 1991.9 The length of the change interval or clearance interval at the intersections has been found to be one of the factors influencing red light violations. The change interva l consists of a steady yellow signal i ndicating an imminent change i n the signal and this may be followed by an all-red phase during which the traffic approaching the intersection in all directions is required to stop. Past research has found that i ndec is ion of the drivers in predicting the phasing of the yellow interval and their inability to come to fu ll stop Bond M. Vee and Jack L. flec k San francisco Red Light Camera Enforcement Program. 'Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 'The Orlando Sentinel. 12128197. 9 Rett:ing et al., "[nfluen ce of Traffic Signal Timing on Red Light Running and PotentiaJ Vehicle Conflicts at Urban Intersections". Transportation Research Board. 1997. 2

PAGE 7

when the signal changes to red, results in crashes. Generally, the type and duration of change intervals is selected by following standards specified by The Manual on Uniform Control Devices (MUTCD), which indicates that a yellow interval in the range of 3 to 6 seconds is sufficient for normal speeds. In a study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, researchers concluded that increasing yellow signal length may decrease late exits and reduce potential vehicle conflicts and, hence, might reduce motor vehicle crash rates. 1.2.2 Removal of Unwarranted Traffic Signals The researchers at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that red light running and intersection crashes might occur due to the traffic signals maintained at intersections v.1th very low volumes. A study done on low volume intersections by Kay et al. in 1980 reports reductions in crashes and injuries after conversion from signal controls to stop sign control. Another crash analysis (Persaud et al.) done in 1996 reported an overall crash reduction of 24 percent at low volume intersections after the removal of signals. 1.2.3 Traditional Enforcement Enforcing various traffic laws, such as signal violation, in accordance with the respective laws can also reduce red light violations. Traditional enforcement requires a law enforcement officer to observe a red light violation and then chase, stop, and cite the violator. This process can be very difficult, because the police officer must see the same signal phase that the violator sees in order to cite the violator. It can also endanger motorists, pedestrians, and officers, because the officers would also have to run the red light to catch the violators. Apart from safety issues, the financial and manpower resources required to enforce traffic laws at multiple intersections by traditional methods are enormous. Safety consequences and the large volume of signalized intersection red light violations mean police may not be able to enforce the Jaw; therefore the automation of this enforcement activity may prove particularly attractive to many cities. Red light camera enforcement is being used in several sites in the United States and it can change driver behavior towards red light running if 3

PAGE 8

conducted in conjunction with a widespread public awareness campaign, as reported in several studies.1 0 1.3 Legal Issues AssO<:iated witb Red Light Running and Red Ligbt Cameras Running red lights is against the law and can be extremely dangerous. I n Florida, this offense is treated as a moving violation, and offenders are issued traffic citations accordingly Florida Statutes 316 075(3) and 316 076(1) and the Florida Driver's Handbook specifically outline the requirements of drivers as they encounter a red light situation. Some of the enabling state legislation aspects will be discussed in the later part of this section. However, special laws are necessary to allow the use of cameras to catch red light runners. Several states have ame n ded the i r laws according ly, and, as of today Florida does not allow the use of cameras. 1.3.1 Florida Statutes 316.075 (3) This statute stipulates the required obedience by vehicular traffic whenever a steady red light is used in a traffic sign or signal Steady red indication (a) V e hicular traffic facing a steady red signal shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown; however: 1 The driver of a vehicle which is stopped at a clearly marked stop line, but if none before entering the crosswalk. on the near side of the intersection, or, if none then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection in obedience to a steady red signal may make a right tum, but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that municipal and county authorities may prohibit any such right turn against a steady red signal at ai'IJI Jt> Rening et al.l "Evaluation of Red Light Camera Enforcemen t in Oxnard, Cal ifornia" and "Followup S urveys done on Tempe & Mesa residents", Summit Group. 4

PAGE 9

intersection, which prohibition shall be effoctive when a sign giving notice thereof is erected in a location visible to traffic approaching the intersection. 2 The driver of a vehicle on a one-way street that intersects another one-way street on which traffic moves to the left shall stop in obedience to a steady red signal, but may then mafre a left turn into the one-way street, but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the imersection, except that municipal and county authorities may prohibit any such left turn as described. which prohibition shall be effective when a sign giving notice thereof is attached to the traffic control signol device at the intersection. (b) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided ins. 316 0755, pedestrians facing a steady red signal shall not enter the roadway 1.3.2 Florida Statutes 316.076 (1) This statute sti pulates the required obedience by vehicular traffic whenever an illwninated flashing red or yellow light is used in a traffic sign or signal FLASHING RED (STOP SIG N AL). -When a red lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent flashes, drivers of vehicles shall stop at a clearly mar/red stop line but if none, before entering the cro s swalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the inter s ecting roadway before entering the intersection, and the right to proceed shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a stop sign. Chapter 4 (Signals Signs, and Pavement Markings) in Florida Driver's Handbook says drivers must Come to a complete stop at the marked stop line or before moving into the crosswalk or intersection. After stopping you may turn right on red at most intersections if the way is clear Some inter s ections display a NO T URN ON RED sign, which you must obey Left turns on red from a one way street into a one-way street are also allowed. 5

PAGE 10

Currently, drivers committing red light violations are issued citations for the offense of Florida statute 316.074( I ).11 This offense is treated as a moving violation, and the State has assessed a fine of $60 fo r each of these moving violations. Furthermore, counties may also include some administrative fees. For example, Hillsborough County impose s an administrative floe of $30, bringing the total fme to $90. Additionally, the State assesses three points to the license status of every driver convicted of a moving violation.12 The traditional method of police enforcement of traffic laws in urban areas has not been entirely effective, as evidenced by the increasing magnitude of problem. Large amounts of resources are necessary t o deploy patrolling officers at all the intersections Apart from funding problem s, enforcement of red light running m ay also create some safety problems. These violation s may also require chasing a red light runner through a red light thereby endangering the lives of officers, motorists and the pedestrians Technology now exists to automatically identify red light runners. Special high speed and hig h resolution cameras receive vehicle loca tion information from loops embedded in tbe pav ement and the signal timing box. When a vehicle passes over the loops and into the intersection after the light has turned red pictures (usually two) are taken of the vehicle and its lic ense plate The time of day, length of the time after the light has turned red, and the vehi cl e speed are all imprinted on the photographs. Based on these photographs, citations can be mailed to the motorists. Several cities and states in U.S have been involved in implementation of red l ight camera programs. New York and Los Angeles were the first two cities to implement red light programs As the knowledge and awareness on the technology grow, several states such as California, Virginia, Mary land, Arizona, and North Carolina, are in the process of implementing such 1 1 Florida Statute 316.074 (1) Obedience to qndrequired trqffic control devicp: The dt-ivtr of O"}' vehicle shall obey the instfllctions of any officio/ traffic comrol device applicable thereto placed in accordance with the provisions of this ,hopter, un/t.$s otherwise directed by a police officer subject to the exceptions grtmted the dr i ver uf an authorized emergent:y veh icle in this chapter. Convusations with HHJsborough County Sherifts Office and the UniveJ$ity of South Florida Police. 6

PAGE 11

programs. A few other places like Ft. Meade i n Florida and Arlington in Virginia carried out experiments with the concep t by issuing warning le tters to violators. E x isting Florida laws> do not permit the use of red light enfo rcement cameras, and new laws would be req u ired to allow the local authorities to use red light cameras for law enforcement purposes. The laws are necessary to cite the red light runners by mail and to issue a ticket withou t a law enforcem ent office r witnessing the infraction The legislation would make the registered owner/operator of the vehicle r esponsible for the v iolation, establishing a presumption that the owner is the vehicle driver at the time of offense. The legislation should also provide a procedure under which the registered owner/operator of a vehicle may establish that the ve h icle was under the control of another person at the t i me of offense and this other person would be fined. In this direction, Florida Legislature will be discussing a bill (hbl479 cl) introduced in March 1997 by State Rep. John Cosgrove during the 1998 legislative session. This bill, if passed, wou ld allow police officers to ticket red light runners through the mail based on the e vidence p r oduced by automated enforcement It a l so authorizes county or munic i pality to enact an ordinance that provides for use of detecto r to e nforce steady red light traffic signal and requires pub li c notice prior to use of said detector. Depending upon the respective state laws, red light running violations photographed by cameras can be handled in one o f the three ways described below: !. The registered owner is charged witb a traffic violation, but he/she can contest the citation by filing an affidavit swearing that he/she was not driving at the time of violation. 2. The registered owner is issued a parking c i tation and is responsi b le for the violation without regard to who is driving at the time offense 3. The driver is charged with a moving violat i on if sufficien tl y identified Drivers are idi .ntified by obtaining clear photographs of both the driver and license pla t e If t he vehicle's driver cannot be identified, then the registered owner is charged, and his/he r n Some stares amended their old laws in order to pennit the use of red light tameras 7

PAGE 12

failure to pay the fine or identify the driver (if the registered owner was not the driving the vehicle at the time of violation) will bold up registration of the vehicle. (This method is used in California and Arizona). In the first and second cases, the need for frontal photography (to identify the drivers) would n ot be necessary, removing the potential concern over driver's right to privacy Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina do not require frontal photography as the citations are issued to the registered owners and the owners have the right to challenge citations. In New York City, red light violations are treated like parking violations in which the registered owner is responsible for the violation without any regard to who is driving the vehicle at the time of violat ion, and, hen ce frontal photography is not needed. California and Arizona passed legislation requiring that photo enforcement of red light violations fully identify the driver of the car. These laws mandated that the automated photo enforcement system must obtain clear photograph of the vehicle's license plate as well as the driver. In such a case, frontal photography becomes essential, making automated photo enforcement more complex. 1.4 North Carolina's State Law on Red Light Cameras The General Assembly ofNonh Carolina passed an act (S.L.l997-216 and Senate Bill 741) in its 1997 session to authorize local governments to use photographic evidence images as prima facie evi dence of a traffic violation. It defined a traffic control photographic system as an electronic system consisting of a photographic video, or electronic camera and a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with an official traffic control device to automatically produce photographs, vid eo, or digita l images of each vehicle violating a standard traffic control statute or ordinance. This act also made the owner of the vehicle responsible for a violat ion wtless the owner can furnish evidence the vehicle wa s, at the time of the violation in the care, custody, or control of another person. This statute states that a violation detected by a traffic con t rol p hotog raphic system shall be dee med as a violation for which a civil penalty of $50 shall be 8

PAGE 13

assessed. Subsequently, an ordinance has been made amending the Charlotte City Code allowing the use of cameras at the intersections to catch red light runners. (See Appendix B for a complete text of the legislation.) 1.5 California's State Law on Red Light Cameras Following the success of photo enforcement at railroad crossings in Los Angeles County, California enacted a law in 1996 authorizing red light photo enforcement. This law stipulated that a clear photograph of the driver and license plate are needed to issue a violation Once the camera captures the driver's image, and if the driver of the vehicle is sufficiently identified, drivers are charged with the v i olation Otherwise, a citation is sent to the registered vehicle owner under the presumption that the driver is generally the owner Failure to pay the fine or identify the driver (if the registered owner was not the driving the vehicle at the time of violation) will hold up registration of the vehicle. During the initial study period, the violators were penalized wit h a standard fine of$104 and, subsequently, the state assembly increased the fine for motorists who run red lights to $270 and allocated half of the increase to city or county where the violation occurs. (See Appendix B for a complete text of the legislation.) 2.0 Red Light Camera Technology This section describes red light camera technology, including its components, funct ionali ty, outputs, manufacturers, installation and maintenance issues; reliability and accuracy aspects, and costs assoeiated with the cameras. Red light cameras (see Figures 1 & 2) generally take two pictures of each violation, one just as the vehicle enters the intersection and another when the vehicle is in the middle of the intersection On both photographs, violation data such as date, time, seconds into the red phase, lane number, and the location of the violation are imprinted. These cameras are capable of operating on a 24-hour basis and under adverse weather conditions without any interruption. A light flash (of about 150-200\V) allows the cameras to ope rat e at night with o ut blinding drivers with a flash. 9

PAGE 14

Figure 1. Red Light Camera (Picture 1). Figure 2. Red Light Camera (Picture 2) Figure 2 shows the red light camera at two different positions on the supporting po le or bar. These systems are equipped with mechanical gears or bearings so the cameras can be lowere d or raised to diffe rent locations on the bar. This arrangement is useful for maintenance and repair 10

PAGE 15

purposes. As the loading and unloading of the film has to done manually, this saves a lot of time and also resources. Figure 3 shows some more examples of pole mounted cameras. 1 / LO Ol I .J 0 0 0 I I I I L ;.J D Figure 3. Examples of Pole Applications with Red Light Cameras. 0 0 D 0 0 Cameras often are installed at multipl e locations at each intersection, as shov.n in Figure 4, to photograph the violating vehicles and, if required by the state l aws, the vehicle drivers (as i n the II

PAGE 16

case of California and Arizona}. Red light cameras installed and connected to traffic signal systems (loops and signal boxes} monitor the traffic in each lane approaching the intersection. Often, the cameras will not have any power except during the red phase for the direction being monitored. Red light cameras generally take two pictures (Photo 'A' and Photo B see Figures 4 & 5) of each violation. The camera is triggered and first photograph (Photo 'A') will be taken when any vehicle passes over the sensors at a specified elapsed time and at a certain speed after the signal has turned red. Another photograph (Photo 'B') shows the vehicle in the middle of the intersection. Camera cakio&: photographs of licetl$e pLates Loops Optioaslloo(n NO
PAGE 17

........ Figure 5. Photographs taken by a Red light Camera. Upon the review of the photographic evidence and depending upon the state law requirements, citations (see Figure 6) are issued by mail to either vehicle owners or to drivers at the time of the offense. (Note: Pictures of red light cameras presented in this section have been based or sourced from the web pages/brochures of American Traffic Systems, USPTI and MultaStar.) Various manufacturers are involved in the development of red light camera technology. They include American Traffic Systems based in Arizona, U.S. Public Technologies from California, Digital Red Light Camera System from Israel, REDFLEX Traffic Systems based in California, andAVL4R Inc from Texas. The majority of these systems use conventional wet film photography, although there is one experimental site (Howard County, Maryland) using digital images. Wet film technology has been the preferred method since any tampering with the film is easily detected and these cameras offer h igher resolution. However, using digital cameras are improving in resolution and vendors are developing methods to ensure there is no opportunity to tamper with the digital image (See Appendix A for brochures from different vendors.) 13

PAGE 18

DRIVER,, SAFETY SYSTEMS LTD The City of Newtown Traffic Violation Monltorlnt Pxogram 137 Centte Stttet. Newtown, NT 10015 NOTICE OF LIABILITY kiO"' ht violatiOft otscc:ti'IIICAl$ a:c C.0 be $etll by mail. Family Name: GinD. Name : Add,..., 8:35AM 26-466.07 Intersection of Main and Pine Slreels, Newtown Entering the l nter$edion and Disregarding Red Traffic Light Signal Details of Vehicle Owner Hendricks John 12 Lincoln Figure 6. An Example of Citation Issued using Automated Photo Enforcement. 14

PAGE 19

3.0 Red Light Camera Usage in the U.S. Red light cameras are being proposed or are now used for l aw enforcement purposes at several places in the United States, including New York City; Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oxnard, Poway, El Cajon, and Beverly Hills, California; Scottsdale, Tuscon, and Mesa, Arizona; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Fairfax, Virginia. Several other communities, including Arlington, Virginia; Jackson, Michigan; City of North Miami, 14 Florida; and Polk County, Florida,15 are experimenting with the cameras to is sue warning notices to vehicle owners. This section briefly describes the San Francisco red light enforcement project and Polk County's red light photo enforcement pilot project. 3.1 San Francisco's Red Light Camera Enforcement Program 3.1.1 Legal Aspects Following a tragic and a hig)lly publicized accident caused by somcrone running a red light at an intersection close to San Franc isco State University in October 1994, City offic ial s in San Francisco initialized a pilot project to study the use of red light cameras. In June 1995, the County Transportation Authority approved funding for a pilot project using three vendors to install cameras at two intersections each. As the pilot project began, the State Legislature amended the California Vehicle Code in 1996 (SB833) to allow the use of red light cameras to identifY red light runners. The State law requires full identification of the driver of the car Once the camera captures a red light violator's image, the vendor mails the citations (carrying a fine of$104 and one point against the driver's license) sign ed by the police department to the registered owners under the presumption that the registered owners are typically the drivers. If the accused desites to contest the ticket, they can schedule a court hearing. The accused also can view the photographs by scheduling a time with the Municipal Court. 1 This project did noc go beyond the concept sra ge. I$ This pilot projec t ended in 1996. 15

PAGE 20

3.1.2 Fina n cia l Aspects The San Francisco Transporta t ion Authority appropriated $250 000 from sales tax collections t o cover start-up costs (instal l ation of l oops, conduits etc.), project management and o versight, and interim studies throughout the project. Eaeh vendor was provided with $30 000 per intersection to cover the installation of cameras. For each $I 04 fine levi e d, San Francisco County receive s $46 50. From the se funds, the vendors rece i ve $17.50 per paid citation to cover the cost of cameras film developing and citation processing costs statistical and data analysis, and follow u p court liaison and support as necessary However, the Pilot Program bas found that the $17.50 is inadequa t e to fund a ful lscale program 1n Octo ber 1997 the Go v ernor s i gned int o law AB 1191, whi c h i ncreased the fine for red light violation to $270 Tab l e I shows the distribution of fine and assessment amount s mandated by AB 119 1 Tabl e 1. Dis tributio n o f Fine and Assess m e n t Amonnts Manda ted b y AB 119 1 Dis tribution of Fine Amo u n t (S) Vi olations in State Trial Court Imp l ementation Fund 5 .40 incorporated City gen e ral fund 79.38 area s State penalty assessment 68 .6 0 County penalty assessment 48.02 City and County s hares 68 60 T otal 27 0 00 Viol ations in State Trial Court Implementat ion Fun d 5.40 unincorporated City general fund 79.38 areas State Pe n alty assessment 6 8 .60 Coun t y penalty assessment 48.02 County share of bas e fine 68.60 Total 2 70 0 0 Th e City o f San Francisco recently awarded a new, expanded red ligh t photo enforceme n t project to U S Publ.ic Techno l ogies lnc ( USPTI). Th i s pro j ect will include 34 i n tersecti o ns o u tfitted with all the hardware and will in t egra t e portable equipm e n t unit s to be rotate d from on e in t ersection to anot her. The details of this agre e ment are still under n egotiation, b u t the vendor will be paid a 1 6

PAGE 21

flat monthly fee plus a per citation fee. The violator's fines are now such that they will fully fund this project. 3.1.3 Vendor Aspects In June 1995, the County Transportation Authority selected three vendors to install cameras at two intersections each. Two vendors Electronic Data Systems (EDS) and USPTI installed cameras at four intersections. A third vendor, also assigned two locations dropped out of the program. Eventually EDS also pulled out of the project, and USPTI completed the installation of cameras at all the four intersections in January 1997. The following section describes the USPTI technology used in the pilot proj ect. 3.1.4 Tecbnological Aspects The red light camera system16 (see Figure 7) consists of two parts. Its core is the in tegrated portable enforcement unit that can be moved from one i ntersection to another. This unit consists of a computer, a highspeed camera, a flash, a digital loop signal processor, and an optional memory card system The fixed part of the system, dedicated to a single intersection, has wiring and detection lo ops i nstalled in the roadway and a bullet-resistant cabinet mounted on a hinged pole. Approximately 80 percent of the system's cost is in the portable enforcement unit, which can be effectively rotated among as many as I 0 traffic intersections. These cameras are activated only when a vehicle is detected entering the intersection after the traffic signal bas turned red. Cameras are capable of t aking two pho t ographs: first when th e vehicle enters the intersection, and again approximately 1.5 seconds later. These pictures show the vehicle's illegal progression through the intersection. Each photograph inclu des a data box contai n ing the date and location of the violation, the speed of the vehicle, the length of the yellow phase of the signal preceding the violation, and the precise number of s e conds the signal was red prior to the vehicle entering the intersect i on. The driver's face, the vehicle and the license pla te, and other v i sible environmental conditions are shown in each photograph. 1 4 The informat ion on USPTI Red Light Cameras discussed in 1 his report is based on the b rochures provided by USPTl and conversations with USPTI personnel. 1 7

PAGE 22

Figure 7. Red Light Camera used in tbe San Francisco Pilot Project. 3.1.5 Political and Public Support/Awareness Aspects The key political decision-makers assoc iated with the pilot project, such as the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors, were very suppon ive and provided coordinated effons to make the project successful The project received widesp read community suppon from groups such as the Senior Action Netwo r k and the San Francisco Pedestrian Safety Coalition who have worked with Department of Parking and Traffic in suppon of automated photograph enforcement The media also p layed a major role in disseminating the information on new technologies to the public. Though it is too early to determine the effectiv eness of the red light camera technology in t erms of a reduction in the number of accidents, the red light enforcement program statis tics (see Table 2} provided by the City of San Francisco show that re d light running was reduced by more than 40 percent at the four intersections in the frrst six months of the automated photo enforcement program (November 1996 to April 1997). According to a recen tly released press release from the C i ty of San Francisco on collision data, collisions resulting from infractio ns related to traffic c o n trol devices dropped by about 10 percent in 1 997 t he year after the installation of red light 18

PAGE 23

cameras. 11 This encouraged the City to expand the project to another 34 intersections. However, n o information is available on the attitudinal survey that was supposed to be conducted to ascertain the public perceptions towards the pilot project Table 2. Red Light Enfo...,ement Program Statistics 1,362 Division. City and County of San Franci s co. 3.2 Polk County's Red Light Pilot Project1 8 Polk County FJ, conducted one of the first demonstration projects showcasing automated photo enforcement techno l ogy. The project consisted of installation of red light cameras at an intersection in Lakeland, Haines City, Fort Meade, and Bartow Apart from the installation of th e se four red light cameras the project also included continuous video monitoring of some intersections. Conceived in the year I 993, and implemented in September I 994 this pilot project was one of the earliest e xperiments conducted on red light cameras in the United States. The main goals of the project were t o test the v arious camera technologies developed by vendors, and to ascertain the impacts of automated photo enforcement on red light running if any. The following sub-sections describe some issues associated with this project. 11 Conversat i on with Bridget Smith, Red Light P h oto Enforcement Project Manager. Ci t y of San Francisco. 1* The section on fort Meade s pil ot project is based mostly on the i nformat i on prov i ded by Geo rge who was t he project leader and also the Ch ief of Polk County Comm unjty T raffic Safety Team. 19

PAGE 24

3.2.1 Legal A spe cts In the absence of any state law allowing the use of cameras to cite red light violators in Florida, no citations were iss ued, but warning le tters were sent This did not evoke much interest or response from the community as there are no provisions for fines. However, some commercial corporations responded, saying that they app rec iated the information and that their drivers would be rep rimanded. 3.2.2 Financial Aspects The pilot proj ect v.oas federally funded, with more than $150,000 of support the from Fed eral Highway Administration (FHW A). The County rented the camera equipment from different vendors (see section 4.2 .3) and also paid them to install the cameras. However, one vendor (A viar Inc.,) installed equipment at its own expense. The Polk County Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST) was the lead agency the project. CTSTs inv olve a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary, and multi-jurisdictional approach to solving safety problems within a community such as a county, a portion of a county multiple counties or any other jurisdictional arrangement. Formed with representatives from the disciplines of engineering, enforcement, education, emergency serv ices, these community traffic safety teams perform various activities concerned enforcemen t and public education. These teams are developed to so lv e loca l problems by involving the public with assistance from the state. 3.2.3 Technological and Vendor Aspects Since one of the goals of the demonstration project was to test various red light camera technologies available, cameras developed by different vendors were used. Three vendors USPTI, American T raffic Systems Inc., and Aviar Inc.-were involved in the project. Two intersections in Lakeland and Bartow were equipped with cameras from two different vendors, while two intersections in Haines City and Fort Meade were given to a single vendor, and the same camera was used on a rotation basis. Some intersections wer e monitored on a continuous basis by using video cameras. These cameras, controlled and viewed from nearby police stations, recorded several traffic crashes. 20

PAGE 25

3.2.4 Public Awareness/Commuuity Support Aspects A public aware ness campaign was conducted by posting signs at each of the intersections to increase awareness among the people on various aspects of red light running However, it was determined that othe r special public awareness measures are needed to inform the vast n wnber of visitors who rarely drive through these intersections. 3.2.5 Results and the Effectiveness of the Project The following were the results from the pilot project: The reduction in red light violations and accidents is unknown because the duration of the project was short and cameras were used only periodically, not on a continuous basis. Also, most data that were collected have not yet been analyzed A total of IS violations/day were observed in Haines City and Lakeland, and I 0 violations/day were observed in Fort Meade. The cameras worked very accurately during both day and night. No problems were faced in getting photographs of license plates, except with tractor trailers with front license plates on power units. Two key issues in gaining public support were identified One issue relates to the reluctance of the people to disclose the names and addresses of their friends to whom they loan their cars. The other is the delay in receiv ing a citation 4.0 Project Costs The cost of the photo enforcement projects varies depending upon the magnitude of the program, that is, the nwnber of intersections to be eqnipped with red light cameras. The project cost s include start up items such as cameras, housing (it protects equipment from environmental conditions and elintinate s the problems of vandalism) and infrastructure such as installation of new l oops and signal boxes at intersections. Accordi ng to information provided by vendors, the cameras cost approximately $50,000 each, housing costs around $6,000; and installation of new loops requires another S I 0,000. 21

PAGE 26

However, it is to be noted that the costs described here do not represent the costs on a whole project basis, but th ese are indiv idual component costs. 5.0 Evaluation of the Red Light Camera Enforcement Projects Owing the initial use of automated photo enforcement, it is important to evaluate the project and determine the device's effectiveness in reducing red light accidents caused by running red lights. These projects can be evaluated to determine reductions in actual red light violations after the installation of cameras; increased driver compliance to traffic control de vic es; and community, media, and political s upport to the use of technology. A number of such studies were done in California, Arizona, and New York. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety evaluated red light camera enforcement project in Oxnard, while the Summit Group conducted an attitude and opinion survey concerning red light photo safety in Mesa and Tempe. This section summarizes results from these studies. In a study conducted on police-reported crashes, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concluded that the like lihood of vehicle occupants sustaining injuries is increased in red light running crashes ( 45%) than the other types of crashes (30%). However, it may be too soon to conclude that accidents due to red light running v.ill drop, as many of the photo enforcement projects in U .S are in their initial stages of development and implementation. The City of San Francisco reported a 10 percent drop in collisions related to traffic control infractions after the implementation of automated photo enforcement.19 An Australian study reported a 32 percent drop in right-angle collisions at the intersection with red light cameras in Victoria. Some earlier stud ies done in the U.S. reported a decline in the number of tickets/violations issued after the installation of red light cameras. 19 Ptrsona1 communication, San Francisco Department of Parking. and Traffic. 22

PAGE 27

Figure 8 shows the percentage of reductions in red light violations after the imp l ementation of automated pho t o enforcement. Results from San Francisco show that the rate of vehicles running red lights bas dropped from approximalely 5 vio lat ions per 5,000 vehicles to 3 vehicles per 5,000 vehicles. The City reported more than a 40 per cent drop in red light running at four test i ntersections in the first six months of the program. Figure 8 Percenb.ge Reduction in Red Light Violation Rates 100 % Reduction in Red Li ht Violation Rates 90 so I 70 I I a 60 U so 1 ... 40 j ;e 30 20 10 0 92'.4 I . it I i : 2 O>Olard New York3 Alondra Stvd, LA4 Victoria, Compton Blvd, J AustraliaS LA 6 \ Notes: I. Red Light Cameras Fact Sheet. Department of Parlcing Md Traffic. City and County of San Francisco 2 Rctting et at.. Evaluation of red Hght eamera enforcement i n Oxnard, C:alifomia,. lnsuran Inst itute for H i ghway Safety 3, 4, and 6. Bond M. Vee e1 al,, San Francisco red light camera enforcement prognm 5. Joseph Genovese. Oxnard's experience wilh run red photo New York City reported that New Yorkers have altered their driving habits significantly after the installalion of red light cameras, and the city experienced a 62 percent decrease in the average number of violations photographed per location since the program inception. Los Angeles, the firSt city in the United States to issue tickets based on automated photo enforcement, a lso showed promising results. The four-month pilot project on Compton Boulevard produced a 92 percent r eduction in the number of violations; the three-month project at Alondra Bou l evard reduced violations by 60 percent. A study conducted by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in the City of Oxnard, California, found a large and highly significant reduction in red light viola t ions after the implementation of 23

PAGE 28

photo enforcement program. It has been observed that the violation rates at the test sites reduced by about 42 percent. This study also found that the amount of citation fines would significantly influence the long-term effects of red light camera enforcement in Oxnard. The study believes that the implications in Oxnard will be influenced by the substantial increase (from $104 to $270) in red light violation fines in California. The Summit Group conducted surveys two surveys for two cities in Arizona (Mesa in 1 996 and 1997 ; Tempe in 1997 and 1998) to ascertain the attitudes and opinions concerning the use of photo radar and red li ght photo safety. The results from these surveys and other studies have been shown in Figure 9 Figure 9. Percentage In Favor of Automated Photo Enforcement %In Favor of Red Light Cameras (RLC) 100 I 90 89% . l u 80 I l ...l 70 I I :g: ' ... 60 ' = 50 c Q 40 > ; .. 30 i i r.. 20 I : 10 0 Mesa1 Tempe2 Nationwide3 Large Cities 4 Omard5 Note s : J. Follow -up s ul"\ey of anitudts and opinions o( Mesa residents concerning photo radar and red light photo safety. 2. Follow-up survey of attitudes and opinions of Tempe residents concerning photo radar and red light phOio safecy. 3 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 4 Rening et aJ.. StaJement before the Muyland House of driving eonfCfence. S. Rtt tin.g ct al. EvaJuation of rJ l i ght in Oxnard. Gali fomia. JnS;UrantC Jn.stirurt for Highway Safety The Summit Group conducted ftrst survey immediately after the implementation of the red light camera projects, while the second survey was conducted one year after the implemen tation Several questions were added to the second survey to see who might have received citations and its impact on their behavior towards the progtams. The results from these surveys indicated significant improvement in public awareness of the enforcement projects (72 percent in 1 997 from 28 percent in 1996 for Mesa; 61 percent in 1998 from 34 percent in 199 7 for Tempe). 24

PAGE 29

Survey results also show that the respondents continue to strongly support the safety programs (82 percent in 1997 and 76 percent in 1996 for Mesa). However, the biggest block of opposition came from the respond ents who admitted they had been ticketed in the past for red light running. In a nationwide survey conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in 199 5, 61 percent of about 1 000 people surveyed favored the use of automated photo enforcement According to another national survey sponsored by the Insurance Research Council, 61 percent of the respondents favored the use of cameras and it was also found that greatest support came from large citie s 20 6.0 Issues, Advantages, and Disadvantages of Automated Photo Enforcement As the use of red light photo enforcement grows, a number of key issues, advantages, and disadvantages of these s ystems are being discovered and documented. Automated photo enforcement faces several challenges prior to implementation i ncluding legislative, l egal, financial, technical, and awareness issues. TI!is section describes some issues, advantages, and disadvantages associated with automated photo enforcement 6.1 Legislative Issues In most jurisdictions it is necessary for an officer of the law to witness a traffic infraction before a ticket can be issued. Therefore, to implement photo enforcement projects, laws allowing governments to make use of cameras to identify red light runners are necessary. As discussed earlier several states, including California, Maryland, and North Carolina, h ave amended their existing enforcement laws, while some local governments like Arlington, Varginia, Polk County, Florida; and Jackson, Michigan have been encouraging testing the technology by holding pilot projects. ::c Richard A. Rening, '"Stafement Before the Maryland House of Delegates Aggressive Driving Conference," 1997. 25

PAGE 30

However, passing the required legislative measures has, in some states, been difficult, with stiff resistance coming from several associations and politicians. Some of the issues that the required legislation shoul d include are: How should a red light violation be handled-as a moving violation or as a violation similar to parking violation? This provides the answer to the question as of who will be liable for the violation--either the driver of the vehicle or the registered owner of the vehicle. Is it necessary to identify the drivers? Or should the tickets be issued to the owner/operator of vehicles. A procedure should be provided to establish if the vehicle was under the care of somebody else. Can images produced by red light cameras be used as a prima facie evidence to issue citations and also to convince the judiciary? What is the appropriate amount of citation fee s and their distribution to vendors/operators and various other departments involved? This proved to be a difficult taSk in California. The State Assembly of California increased the citation fees from $104 to $270 because it was found that the fines and their distribution in the pilot project were inadequate to fund a full scale program. 6.2 Technical Issues Today, various manufacturers are developing red light camera systems in the U.S. They not only supply and install the equ ipment but they are also involved in the opera tion and maintenance of entire projects. By and large, the technologic al aspects of the cameras developed by different manufacturers are the same; however, differences might exist in their service standards. This section describes so me of the technical aspects that should be considered in developing a red light camera project. I s the project is a pilot project or a fu ll-scale project? Conducting a pilot project (similar to the one in Polk County) along with an appropriate publicity campaign may help convince the legislature and gain the public and community support on the usefulness of red light cameras in reducing traffic accidents. This might eventually lead to a full-scale project if the results from pilot project prove to be positive. 26

PAGE 31

How do existing loops and signal system work with the new technology? This is an important concern because the installation of new loops and traffic signal equipment involves considerable costs. However, it has been found that most of these technologies work very well with the existing traffic signal equipment, but they do require the i nstallation of new loops, and this costs approximately $10,000 per intersection 2 1 What sort of cameras should be used-wet film or d i gital? As discussed earlier, most of the existing photo enforcement systems use wet film cameras because they provide greater resolution photographs. However, the y invol v e mor e maintenance work since periodic loading and unloading of the film is required. Though digital cameras offer a high level of flexibility in s toring and transntitting the photographs it is possible to tamper the evid ence using computer technologies Should photos showing the violations be printed on the citations? The results from San Francisco projec t found that appeals to the courts that dispute the citations could be reduced by as much as 80 percent if the photographs are printed on the citations. This technique is useful in avoiding court battles and thereby collecting the fmes more rapidly. However, this would increase the cost of prepari n g the citation. Should police officers be trained, thus eliminating the need for vendor representatives in courts in case of disputes and thus reducing costs? How should missing license plates and environmental factors like glare and obscurity be handled? These are fowtd to reduce approximately 25 perc ent of the readable license plates 6.3 A dministrative/lnte r -Departmentallssues Impleme n tation of red light camera projects requires coordinated and cohesive efforts among various governmental departments in the study area. These projects demand coordination among various agencies such as c ounty /city transportation authorities law enforcement agencies including police, judicial councils, and municipal courts; and elected officials. Another vital administrative i ssue regards the organizing agency that would be in charge o f maintenance, 1 1 Conversation wit h Lauri S. Keller, Regional Marketin g USPTJ. 27

PAGE 32

gathering and developing film, issuing citations, and providing expertise and evidence in the courts Often these responsibilities are part of the vendor contract. 6.4 Public Awareness/Community Support Issues The success of red light camera projects depends upon the understanding of tbe public on the use of the technology and the public support for the project. As automated photo enforcement is relatively a new and emerging technology, an aggressive public information and awareness campaign is essential to ensure driver compliance to traffic rules and fin es imposed by new statutes The target audience consists of many communities, including political decision makers, automobile associations, senior citi2en groups (particularly for states like Florida) Traffic Safety C oalitions and Community Traffic Safety Teams and various media including print, TV, and radio Some of the issues associated with public awareness campaign include: developing partnerships and building coalitions with various agencies enlisting the support of law enforcement agencies gathering pre-campaign crash data related to red light running and explaining the advantage of using cameras to reduce those crashes, with proven results from other projects conducting media campaigns and developing customized media materials conducting and analyzing post-campaign surveys fully explaining the technology 6.5 Financial/Funding Issues The financial aspect is one of the key issues in the implementation of red light camera projects Because of the severe financial constraints and in the absence of any proven record on the success of these projects funding from local governments for these projects has been limited. City and County authorities are implementing automated photo enforcement projects with assistance from various state and federal agencies; however most of the funding for pilot projects has come from vendors deve l oping these techno logies. The se v endors have supplied, installed, operated and maintained the technology; issued the citations; and collected revenues. 28

PAGE 33

In turn, governments pay the vendors either a fee per paid citation or a fixed monthly/yearly fee. Some important financial issues associated with automated photo enforcement are: Identifying the funding source This includes examining and evaluating vanous funding sources avai l able such as federalfstateflocalfgovemments, and the vendors who may be willing to bear some of the expenses. Determining citation fees, and their distribution among various departments and agencies to ensure a justifiable compensation. nus task has to be done by considering overall objectives and goals of the project. For example, if the vendors are paid a fee per paid citation, then there i s a disadvantage of appearing to encourage a profit motive into vendors to issue more citations and hence more revenue. Conversely, if vendors are paid based on a flat monthly rate the governing agencies should be willing to take some risks due to losses. It requires a reasonable estimation of the number of violations expected and the amount of revenue that would be generated; otherwise, the local agencies might incur losses. 6.6 Privacy Issues The privacy issue bas often been used as an argument against the use of red light cameras. Proponents of this argument claim that photographing vehicles whose drivers run red lights violates their privacy rights. The use of frontal photography (as used in states like California and Arizona) to identify drivers and take their photographs has been a major concern for this group of people. In this aspect, the use of cameras to record only the license plates in the rear of the vehicles but not the vehicle occupants, will greatly reduce the problem Furthermore, a well planned public awareness campaign that explains the advantages of cameras to the community in containing the violations, could also help in solving the privacy issue 6.7 Advantages Automated photo enforcement using red light cameras helps to : reduce the prob le m of limited enforcement resowces and logistical difficulties of conducting traditional methods of traffic signal violation enforcement. reduce red light running, and hence the number of crashes 29

PAGE 34

modify driver behavior, particularly if used in conjunction with public awareness campaign provide evidence that can be used in the court both for red light vio lations and accidents captures more violators, and increased revenue can be used for various developmental purposes or to expand the violation program to additional intersections reduce insurance rates and health care costs for drivers increase the safety of drivers and law enforcement officers 6.8 Disadvantages Automated photo enforcement may also result in some disadvantages, inc l uding : dealing \\ith legislative issues, which can be very time consuming and may take many years and much effort before adoption selecting intersections and vendors can be complex and time consuming once the legislation is in place for the development of a photo enforcement program dealing with the large time Jag between when an infraction occurs and when the violator receives a ticket. This is confusing and requires violators to try to remember if they were the driver and the circumstances surrounding the infraction. Using traditional methods, the violator is identified almost i mmediate l y and can prepare a possible defense of their actions. dealing w ith the vehicle owners who were not driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction it putS the owner of the vehicle in an awkward situation. The owner might have to confront the driver and get that person (likely a friend or a relative) to ge t to court and pay the fme. high start up and infrastructure costs involved with the project the potential loss of privacy pub li c perceptionsIf the goal of the governments and vendors is t o increase revenue by fixing high citation/ticket fee it may result in public opposition The program should be oriented to improve the quality of life by reducing safety concerns. 30

PAGE 35

7.0 Conclusions Based on interviews with red light photo enforcement vendors and project managers, literature, and personal site visits, the following conclusions can be drawn: Traffic infractions due to red light running pose severe and growing concerns and the safety consequences are enonnous. Red light running can be reduced by using various engineering measures like adjusting signal timing and removing unwarranted signals, and also by traditional enforcement. However, limited enforcement resources and logistical problems make it difficult to adequately enforce the law at hundreds (even thousands) of intersections in urban areas. Automated photo enforcement provides an approach for better compliance with traffic control devices and improves safety at the intersec tions, and, in some cases, it will have a greater impact on vio lat ors as the cameras provide undeniable photographic proof of the violation. Interest in red light camera systems is growing rapidly among state agenc1es and local governments. The results from various e valuation studies are promising, which indicate significant reductions in red ligh t violation rates as well as considera bly improved awareness, after the implementation of photo enforcement programs In San Francisco red light running was reduced by more than 40 percent at four i nterse ctions in the first six months of the program, and this encouraged the City to expand the p roje ct. The New York City experienced a 62 pe rcen t decrease in the average number of violations photographed per location and it has been observed that the violation rat es at the test sites reduced by about 42 percent in the City of Oxnard. A state law and subsequent ame ndm ents to the loeal ordinances are essential to implemen t automated photo enforcement proje cts These le gal issues are complex and n eed to address several i ssues, including liability aspect s citation fines and equitab le distribution of fines t o v arious involved Adopting the required legislation to allow photo enforcement and developing liability standards are time consuming and require support from severa l communiti e s 31

PAGE 36

. People may also have concerns over a loss in privacy, especially if frontal photography IS needed. A well planned and focused public awareness and information campaign is essential for the success of photo enforcement projects. Involvement of various community, traffic safe ty, and automobile agenci es such as Community Traffic Safety Teams, Senior Citizen Groups, and AAA would help in convincing the community. Law enforcement officers need to be trained to effectively deal with the new technology. Though significant initial investments are necessary to acquire camera technology, install new loops and for conducting public awareness campaigns, automated photo enforcement projects can be cost neutral because the fines can pay for the program. However, a number of vendors are showing keen interest in participating in photo enforceme.nt pilot projects at their own expense, by associating with various state and local agencies. Such pilot proj ects can be converted into long -term and meaningful safety projects by offering incentives such as, a fixed monthly/annual fee or a fee per paid citation, to vendors. Finally, automated photo enforce ment is important and holds promise to the future of law enforcement by reducing red light crashes and enhancing safety at intersections. 32

PAGE 37

. Bibliography "Cameras doesn't lie about city drivers," Sun Current. Bloomington Minnesota, 2/3/98. "Crackdown on red light runners," Tampa Tribune, 2112/96. "Florida Driver's Handbook," Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Tallahassee, F lorida, 1996. "Follow-up Survey of Attitudes and Opinions of Tempe Residents Concerning Photo Radar and Red Light photo Safety," The Summit Group, 1997. "Follow-up Survey of Attitudes and Opinions of Mesa Residents Concerning Photo Radar and Red Light photo Safety," The Summit Group, 1998. Genovese, Joseph. "Oxnard's Experience with Run Red Photo Enforcement." llir, David. "Boulder may test radar, red light teChnology," The Boulder County Business Report. November 1997. "Law enforcers to put the brakes on red light runners," Ft. Pierce Tribune, 1111198. "Let cameras watch intersections, catch drivers who run red lights," Ft. Pierce Tribune, 1/26/98 ""Management of the Photo Citation Program for the City of Charlotte," Request For P r oposal (RFP #98.060), The Char lotte Department of Transportation Charlotte North Carolina, February 1998. "Management of the Photo Citation Program for the City of Charlotte," Request For Proposal (RFP #98.021-10-23), The Charlotte Department of Transportation, Charlotte, North Carolina, September 1997. Modular Traffic Sur.veillance System from MultaStar," Traffic Technology International, April/May 1996. La l ani, Nazir and Fitzpatrick, Kay. "Results of Survey on Propo s ed Position Statement for Automated Enforcement," ITE, 1997. "Photographic Traffic Law Enforcement," Legal Research Digest National Coope rative Highway Research Program, Number 36, December 1996. "Photographic Enforcement of Traffic Laws A Synthesis of Highway Practice, NCHRP Synthesis 219, Transportat ion Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 1995. 33

PAGE 38

"Police plan to put the brakes on thos e who run rod lights," Tallahassee Democrat, In/ 98. Raine George "California State turns its electronic gaze to those who run red lights," Tal l ahassee Democrat "Red Light Camera Systems," Institute of Transportation Engineers Seminar Proceedings, M onterey, CA, !VIarch 1998 "Red Light Camera Enforcement Project," Proposed Scope of Work for Task 2.06 Dade Coun ty Metropolitan Planning Organization, 1997-98. "Red Light Running P lanning Campaign," Institute of Transportation Engineers Red Light Camera Systems Seminar Proceedings, Monterey, CA., March 1998. "Red ligh t Cameras Fact Sheet," Department of Parking and T raffic, Traffic Engineering Division, City and County of San Francisco, July 1997. "Reining in Red Light Runners-Readers propose tough penalties for traffic scofflaws," San Francisco Chronicle, 1127/ 97. Red Eye 77 D i gital Red Light Camera System," User Manual, Driver Safety System L td. "Red l ight runners may get picture-Cameras at intersections will dole out $50 citations," The Charlotte Observer, 1/111/ 98 "Red lights, action, cameras : city may go that route next," Philadelphia Online, hnp :// www3 .obillmewgo m!packageslhellonwheels, December 1997 Retting, Richard et a!., "Evaluation of Red Light Camera E nforceme n t in Ox n ard California. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, March 1998. Retting Richard "Statement Before the Maryland House of Delegates Aggressive Driving Conference on Aggressive Driving and Red Light Running," I nsurance Institute for Highway Safety May 1997 Retting, Richard et al "Influence of T raffic Signal Timing on Red Light Running and Potential Vehicle Conflicts at Urban Intersections," Transportation Research Board, 1997. Retting, Richard et at., "Red Light Running and Sensible Countermeasures : Summary of Researc h Findings," Insurance Institute for Highway Safe ty, April 1996. Roge r Ray cameras may catch red light runners," The O r lando Sentinel, 1131/ 96. Y ee, Bond an d Fleck Jack. "San Francisco Red L ight Camera Enforcement Program." 34

PAGE 39

A pp e ndix Appendix A: Infonnation from Red light Camera Vendors Appendix B: Legislation from North Carolina and California AppendixC : Contacts

PAGE 40

Appendix A Information from Red Light Camera Vendors

PAGE 42

.. ' 2HIIIIP )lllic lllel'.rilll Enfii'WIIilll The Red U ght Camera, a n Automated Traffic Intersection Enforcement System from U.S. Public Technologies Inc. (USPT), produces photographic evidence of vehicles illegally r unning red lights. T h e Red light Camera combines a computer with a h igh--speed indu strial camera a n d detection loops to provide around-the-clock intersection e nforcement. In use around the world (Europe Asia and the U.S.). the Red light Camera has proven to be extremel y effective i n preventing accidents and reducing the number of traffic i n tersection violations. In Jackson Michigan, violation s at intersecti o n s monitored by USPT Red light Cameras have declined by 67%. And i n Compton, California, violatio n s have been reduced by 84% at mon itored intersections. n e Rill u;r &miSJ11Bm The Red light system consists of two parts. At its core is the integrated portable Enforcement Unrt that can b e moved easily from one intersection to a n other. This portable u n i t consists of a computer. high-speed camera. flash. digrtal loop s ignal p rocessor and an optional memory car d system The part of the system, dedicated to a single intersection,

PAGE 43

... ::':'> has wiring and detection loops Installed in the roadway, and a bullet-resistant cabinet (which hOuses the portable Enforcement Untt) mounted on a hinged pole. Approximately 80% of the system's cost is i n the portable Enforcement Unit, which can be effectively rotated among as many as ten traffic interseetions. In to being cost-
PAGE 44

.. ;:;-.US. PUBLIC .... 1 T ECHNOLOGIES INC. T11fflc Services Group 1 0455 Sorren!o Valley Roa!S Suite 101 San Diolo CA 92121 6 1 9 568.8n8 &:IO.:m.Oil53 Fax 6 1 9 .568.8817 tlansaetion basis. .) ... Qlw.t U S PLtk Ttdl'Y.bjje$ lx. 411 US. I reI'll* tiC. iS

PAGE 46

Permanent Camera Recording Systems for Speed and/or Red Light Permanent camera recordin g systems for speed, speed aoo or dedicated redlig h t are suiXO!sslul i n reducing road traHi c attm: pro lites MPCCombl A lt er: Ro 61066S. magenta or orange Measuring The M 4 MPC p lus camera recording unit can be ()ptiollal distaflCe: l.Sm housed in one comroon housii)Q f o r east of AIJtomatic operation. aperatur e Time adjtmer. measurement resolution: m illiseconds 12V Battery Power Interface Fil m material: Std. 35mm by 36 exposu(es. for Speed System Pennanent speed viOiatiotl recording can accuracy: :2kmlh or whichever higher be powered bY 1ZV. 200 Anr rechargeabl e b atteries bulk for a period of 3 days. f i m magazine: 17m or 30m (800 exp.) D iS(IIays: 7 Segment LE.O. Speed range: 1 Olo'Ml to 30Cltrspted 3J;arm Ol'lotogra,eh. -nme of Vlola!ion indication Came.ra motor A!phanumarie liquid teyS!al display o tel1oad with autorm1ic backlightin g protection. Integr a l traffic Power supply: 12\f. v:rw $1andby statistical data: -lowestt'htghest aonrage speed and 85% Camera 24W (0.5s) peakaf\11 average trafllc Uow AV I AR Inc 12V f l"" OW (0.7s) total ani! violat ing vehicle count P.O. Box 162184 Qslttaling v enict.e speed d i W lbutlon Tempe.-awre: -2oc to 1oc Austin, Texas 78716 Humic1i ly : 98% non oondenslno Power supp;y: 12V, 0,5VI. 20il0urs f rom lnlemal luMP.tv o -A

PAGE 47

' SPEED VIOLATION TIUU'FIC LIGHT VIOLATIONS .

PAGE 48

Truvelo "Combl" System Specification Our latest development the TRUVELO COMB!" is a combination of two welf. known products the M4MPC speed measuring instrument and the TRUVELO camera recording system: It uses modem microprocessor technology and is supplied in one, robust housing for ease of Installation. -Operation on all roads and In all traffic: conditions. -Simple, rapid i nstallation -Manual or automatic: ope ration for portable or permanent installations. -Successive photographic: evidence with driver identification with 0,5 second intervals. Guarantee: 12 months -Full support with maintenance, service and spares. -Fault finding indication Camera Specification Camera: Robot 36DCE Shuttmpeed: 111 coos fully 11as11 synchronise. ) or SOm (800 e"ll. ) DiSplay>: 7 Seomtlll LE.O. Ctoct accur.1cy: per month Auxiliary sl'lurta', tor cecorditiO of: For or speedwi1h redlioht violation system$: Additional displays: Rash: Adjustable delays for system actWatioo after re4 phase deteclion and 2nd DtiOIOOr.lPI'l. carmra mo-tor overload f)rotection. Powe; suppty: time (1\.m.s.O.ts) dale (Y.m.d) -60igit cod.e (or 3 digit oode + 3 digit ptw)to count) -redphase timer (0.1s) 2x3 di(litS SPttd PhOto counter traffic counter (r ecHiOTll violation) lnlegral 140 Joutes (01>1. 280 J) will'l flaSh repatilion time o1 0.7s for 12V battefy applications. 12V. 2.4W standby C.mm 24WJ 10.5s) 12V Flash 500W ( .7s) Humidity: gs% non condensing Dimensions: 425mmx305mmx410mm Weight 17kg M4MPC Spec:ificatlon This instrument makes use of multi processor conlrolte
PAGE 49

AppendixB Legislation from North Carolina and California

PAGE 50

SYNOPSIS OF STATE LAWS ON PHOTOGRAPHIC ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC LAWS CALJEORNJA Sees. 2 I W aod 2L1.SS .S. Automated enfoo:ement systems. The C:alifomb Vehicle Code ,ovemmentaJ and law cr.(on:eme.nt eg,el'lcies to operate. enforcement s.ystems"at arade crouin;s r C:n>$Sing sttc, or bocb. or to 111 oflicial ttlttic sigaaL.and is de.Ji. sncd to obtain a clear photovapb of a whlclc's license plate and 1hc diiYer of tbc vehicle:' Automl1ed sy:sce.ms ate atrthorlzed for pttmaM.nt use at railroad cros:s.ings. However, under Jec. 214SS..S, the devjces may only be used u u a mc light intc:rscetioas untill/1199. Bolh xe. 21,6l.S and""-ltcss.s a.-. siC'" be poctco aMn.a nociec 10 or 111c or aVCOIDakd ca.forctmOil 5Y'Icm.t.. 8oth SQ.tuiccs allo 51'0"1de lh.at pbl;ltocraphle rcconts * by wwmded cnforummr S)'S'tUIU att: COC!.lldtndaL Thc.x ft(!Ofdl, may ontr be accessed by tc:kvlni pWUNDttll&l Uld taw enfocccma. aseadu. Che rtJI:nmd owner ot r.hc-'liOl.atin t Ydlick. Mel &n)' iM:iYWIMII4mdficd br tbc: 'liolaUCIJ vehide''t: CWoftCr u cbc 41'fU at Ox lime: of rbe tlkpd vlotalki& iJ s.ip lO ftOd.fy d:rhus of Cbc syscmt pranq. Sec. llC$1 JWU M 'riohlioas Clacacd by an aatonu.tc4 cftlOaW''C IJSICID m Nlljca to che pc'OCCdiUQ c.cubll.sbed by ste. .OSta. Under Stt. <410$ Ia. a wriucn nodcc 10 lsmed by a puce omC!Cr or a cp:Wi tied cmptoyu or a law accnc7 ant1 41'U19S. (Tiu amtNitd rrllo11 It Mlytt IIWJflablt tMlint.} T1sc Oritlltlll y tlti Dt,.,...tU. If iJNl 'tlttraessd unf/IU# llwtill M &k drlkt wo.r ftiU widt.u. !he prrlll4 .J IMt Utt ktkt w.u prcpvly. 6e Wlct II so k rwtU W itn.'blt. All4q""" 11'(//K l#(tdft 4maon 11UU1 ttbl:J IIUn......., .. be ., t\t Florl44 o/ Q/ tilt UNQ -.r-t fW'lif1AI lrfllftc iAf.rJitM ,., uc. J,./4/. As orip..llt Ute bl ftlllltt1rlu:s tlt IUC 41 lt41t JO" t1 dtt lVI tkUf prDCtediiO CTtOft odd/rloMl/4w tl'(orcnMitl pM/tiOIII 01Wf to ,.tttu Jijl4rltl fJ/ lOW tll/fll'tUMN Drltttf'l -.4111 IN'UIO/tdUtt /btu pl4r:td 011 o lftt wllltlt bon lltt llrltttr from Dlnollllnt a llctAJ t pltttt rt-ro./Jdtltlflfl p/tJtt stld:cr. UJ.JNOIS COMMENT : /PIS 8111 JJJ-4, "urodM'ctd JU/9,, OllllwriiU '"' Rc.foNJI TroASptNliltfO,. Altlltorlf)', totttAtr wid. lltt IUI.N>U C6m11Wu CommlultM Gnd lot.olllf/llf u(tHctMtt4.ft.lttlu .., woblUh 11 Olttomotcd rollrtMd uOuillf pllol ilf Dul'l.lt CoUit('J. nr bJll d lktdf1 IAt *tt taHI 4bllt,_, Nfli'Ofl4 tfOU/JttS f A "-'ft 0wllfl, tJA4. wis/1 dt.t 11{ IJJI t.Jw tt(llrttlMA., IJ ., fill .. IAMt crou./Jttt Wlcl ,._, I'JfftnU. Situ ti fdr Mdu tf rAt I'JSlt11f S Mtt IJIIUI k fH'Sfd M rltt llvu CNIJ11Afl. UMt' &lit p/11", l.ol lllw scM 4 Ulliftwm Trd/fic Clrdlbt fO t1t.t: rrrlJurtd tltiiM' I( IDitl.dnJ wl<lt w(ft/11 JO t/lry1 of IAt YIDIMM. A wrirrtn of t1tr riof4/0f".r Mila tJNI ohllptlonl mlttt dtCOilfi/GirJ lllr mGilcd dltlfUHt fluHotrqlu tv rteotdld IIMttt ...U by cu at4fMitd tl'/'tlfttltMM IYtttm bt lllf'J JNtedlllf ,.UtddffJ /rfm a 4ltd ort Oflly IMill .rYdll4blc 10 tht d<{rfllltJIJt (llld ttt toct or piDio ndar

PAGE 51

'$T.cT'E CAPrTOl. CA MZof$.000 1 pt)frff; tit F.AJC.: ct16l .. en OISTIICT omaE '711 VAH JtBS AV!}riUE $AN M t O:l PHOHE: (41$) J Q$.1212 FA;t: (411) US.,'7U Ta: From: Date: County Auditars A$$emblyman Kevil'! Shelley and CSAC January 6, 1998 AP,_,P1Un01U JUCICIAII'r E1.EC"f11IHS. RUPPOR'T1CIHWENT AND CONSTTT\IIl<1' AND .SOCW. S!QJFUTY Re: AS 1191-allocation of fines for red light violations On October 10. 1997 GovemorV\Iilson signed into law AB 1191, which increases the fine for motorists who run red lights and allocates half of the incrnse to 1he city or county where the violation oc:amed. This memo is meant to clarify how the base fine and penalty assessment monies for red light violations shou l d be distribUled under AB 1191. both before and after the effective date of the tria l court fund i ng legislation. This superc-cles the memo of November 14, 1997. . 1. As of January 1. 1998, the base fme for running a red light is $100. This appl ieS to all violations of Vehicle Code Sections 21453(a), 21453(c:), 21454(c). and 21457(a). There is no increase in the base fine for subsequent violations. 2 The mandatory Slate penalty assessment of 5100 (PC section 1464) and a local penalty assessment of $70 (GC Section 76000) are added to make the total bail $270. i; 3 Pursuant to Government Code 68090.8, two percent of the be d i stributed to the state Trial Court Improvement Fund This works out to be $5.40. 4 As a result of AS 1191, thirty percent (30%) of the remaining tOtal shall be aUocated to the gener.ll fu n d of the c;ity or county where the violation occurred. This works out tO $79.38 1'39 '"' Phone' . ., ''"' . -. --.... ... _,._ ......... ...., ..

PAGE 52

5. The percentages subtr.lcted in steps 3 and 4 are taken out of !he base fine and assessments in equal proportions. As a result, the remaining base fii'IE! equals $68.60. The remaining state penalty assessment is also $68.60. The remaining local penally assessment is !&48.02. 6. For red tight violations committed in incorporated areas between January 1, 1998 and June 30, 1998, !he $68.60 i n base fine monies shaU be distnbuted as follow: 1) The county receives its amesponding share pursuant to Penal Code 1463.002. This amount will vary acccrding to county. 2) What is left alter subtracting !he county's 1463.002 share is then split 50%-50% between !he c:i!y and the county. 7. For red light violations committed in incorporated areas on or after July 1, 1998, the $68.60 in base fine monies shall be distributed as follows: 1) The eounty receives its corresponding share pursuant to Penal Code 1463.002. This amount wiD vary. acccrding . to county. 2) The c:i!y receives an of base fine money left after the county's 1463.002 : share is subtracted. 8. For an red light violations committed in unincotporated areas on or. after January 1, 1998, the entire 568.60 of base fine money shaU be cfiStributecl to the county. The following table breaks down !he d'ISiribution cf fine and assessment monies required by AB 1191: January 1, 1998June 30, 1998 On or aftsr July 1, 1998 Violations State Trial Court Imp. Fund $ 5.40 State Trial Court Imp. Fund s 5 .40 in inc;orpoCity General Fund $79.38 City General Fund $79.38 ratad areas State Penally Assmnt $68.60 State Penally Assmnt $68.60 County Penally As.smnt $48 .02 County Penalty Assmnt $48.02 Clty and County Shares $68.60 City and County Shares" $68.60 Total $270.00 Total $270.00 VIolations State Trial Court Imp. Fund $ 5.40 State Trial urt Imp. Fund $ 5.40 in uninc:or County Gener.ll Fund 579.38 County General Fund $79 .38 porated State Penally Assmnt $68.60 State Penalty Assmnt $68.60 areas County Penally Assnvlt $48.02 County Penally Assmnt $48 .02 County Share of Base $68.80 County Share of Base Fine $68.60 Total SZ70.DO Total $270.00 . County share calculated pursuant to Penal Code Section 1463.002. Remander split 50%-50% between the city and the county .. County share cala.Jiated pursuant to Penal Code Section 1463.002 Remainder distributed to the city. If you have any questions regarding this memo, plea&e feel free to ccntact Mark Stivers in Assemblyman Shelley's office (916-445-8253), Rubin Lopez at CSAC (916-327-7500) or Michael Corbett (916-442-0412). ePage2

PAGE 53

6.2 N.C.G.S. 160A-300.1 iENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA l 997 SESSION ;.L. 1997-216 ;ENATE BILL 741 -----------------------------\N ACT TO AUTHORIZE LOCAL GOVERN.MENTS TO USE PHOTOGRAPmC I:MAGES AS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A TRAFFIC VIOLATION. fhe General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: Secti o n 1 Chapter 160A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to r ead: ' 0 160A-300.1. Use of traffic contr o l photographic systems (a) A traffic control photographic system is a n e lectro nic system consisting of a photo g raphic, video, or electronic camera and a vehicle sensor installed to work in c o njuncti o n with an official traffic contro l device to auto maticaUy produce photographs, video or digita l images of each vehicle violating a standard traffic control statute or ordinance. (b) Any traffic control photographic system or any device which is a part of that system, as described in subdivision (a) of this s ection, installed on a street o r highway which is a part of the State highway system shall meet requirements established by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Any traffic contr o l system installed on a muni cipal street shall mee t standards established by the municipality and shall be consistent with any standards set by the Department of Transportation. (c) Municipalit i es may ado pt ordinances for the civil enfo rcement of G.S. 20-158 by means of a The Photo Cimtion Progyam C h arl o tte Department of Transp<>rtation

PAGE 54

------------... traffic control photographic system, as described in subsection (a) ofthis section. Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 20 -176, in the event that a municipality adopts an ordinance pursuant to this section a violation of G.S. 20-158 at a location at which a traffic control photographic system is in -operation shall not be an infraction. AD ordinance authorized by this subsection shall provide that: ( 1 ) The owner of a ve hicl e shall be r esponsible for a v iola tion unless the owner can furn ish e viden ce that the vehicle was, at the time of the violation, in the care, custody o r control of another person. The owner o f the v ehicle shall not be r es p onsible for the vio l ation if the owner o f the vehicle, within 2 1 d ays after notification of the violation, furnishes the officials o r agents of the municipality which issued the cit ation: a The name and address of the person or company who leased, rented, o r otherwise bad the care, custody and co ntrol of the vehiele; or b. An affid avit stating that t he vehicle involved was, a t the time, s t olen or in the care, custody, or control of some p erson who did not have permission of the owner to us e the vehicle. ( 2 ) A violation d etecte d by a traffic control photographic system shall be deemed a noncriminal violation for which a civil penalty off'dty dollars ($50.00) s hall be assessed, and for whicb no points authorized by G.S. 20 160 shall be assigned t o the owner or driver of the ve hicle. (3) The owner of the vehicle sha ll be issued a eitation which shall clearly sta te the manner in which the v i olation may b e challenged, and the owner s hall comply with the d irections o n the citation. The citation shall be processed by officials or a genu of the municipality a .nd shall be fonvarded b y personal service o r firs t-class mail to the address given on the motor vehicle registration. If the owner fails t o pay the civi l penalty or to respond to the citation within the time perio d spec ified on the citation, the owner shall have waived the right t o contest respon sib ility for the viol a t ion, and shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00). The municipality may establish procedures for the collection of these penalties and may enforce the peaa,lti es by civil action in the nature of debt. ( 4 ) The municipality s hall institute a nonjudicial administrative hearing to review objections t o citations o r penalties iss u ed or assessed under t bis sectio n." The Photo Cilation Program Charlotte Depanment of Transportation

PAGE 55

Section 2. This act applies to th e City of Charlotte o nly Section 3. This act is effective when it becomes law In the General Assembly r ead three times and ratified t his the 23rd day of June, 1997. sf DenDis A. Wicke r President of the Senate sl Harold J. Brubaker Speaker oftbe Hous e of Represen ta tives The Photo Cillltion Program Charlotte Department of T ransponation ' ' I l I I I

PAGE 56

The TRUVELO camera system for recording of speed, speed and traffic light, or dedicated traffic light violations is of modular, compact and lightweight design. The system is robust, with a proven track record of more than 15 years. It records the violating vehicle, road sensors, driver identity, and all relevant data about the violation onto film, under all light conditions. This is achie ved by using an automatic aperture adjuster, a powerful electronic flash with fast recharge time and optical filters. The TRUVELO Camera Recording System uses 35mm 'film as the and image storage medium, which is extremely safe and reliable. All the required .Jiolation data is on the negative and form part of the photo image and therefore cannot be altered, accidentally erased, or manipulated. The TRUVELO Photographic Image Processing hardware and software package applies image processing to the negativ e automatically extracts data, and issues intent of prosecution notices The road sensors used for speed violation recordings are piezo-electric detectors. Three or four of these sensors, spaoed a fixed distance apan, are used to obtain two independent time measurements. These are converted into speed using the formula distance divided by time. Two independent measurements again provide for additional system reliabil ity for Court purposes. Although these detector cables/profiles have to be placed across the road to detect axles pass ing over them, they allow for accurate speed measurements not possible with conventional detection methods. Even in dense traffic situations, under bridges, in tunnels, and around bends the TRUVELO system detects axles accurately. The violating vehicle is always clearly visible and positioned on the road detectors TRUVELO uses a unique secondary speed-checking method by which the violation vehicle's front wheels must be on a predetermined marked position on the photograph Any deviation from this shows a possible system malfunction. This means that instruments can be installed with confidence, in portable and/or permanent sites, producing watertight evidence to reduce the accidents and fatalities in such identified areas drastically This was proven by many users ofTRUVELO Camer a Recording Systems The road sensors used for traffic intersection violation recordings are inductive loop detectors. One or two of these loops are installed per lane, to cover a maximwnof4 traffic lanes. Voltage or current interface sensors detect the "red" and "amber" phases of the traffic light. The TRUVELO loop detection system uses a special in-house" algorithm to exclude triggers from vehicles "creeping over the stop line. Once the traffic light turns red, the amber phase was present for a minimum time, the operator-set delay time bas passed, and a vehicle crosses the detectors, two pho t ographs are taken a selectable time delay apan The TRUVELO systems combining speed and traffic light violation recordings, also use piezo detectors. Otlier systems, that use loop detectors, ONLY obtain a NON-ENFORCEABLE SPEED indication for red tight violations, whereas TRUVELO produces an enforceab l e speed measurement Tfuvelo Distributor-A VIAR inc P.O. Box 162184 Austin, TX 78716 Tel: (512) 295-5285 Fax: (512) 295-2603

PAGE 57

During the green phase, the system will record enforceable speed violations. During the red phase, the system will photograph speed and/or red light violators. This application is another "first" from TRUVELO. The TRUVELO Camera Recording System is equally at home in portable or permanent installations and operates under extremes of temperature. Ponable installations allow for freedom of movement to sites with reported violation problems. The system is tripod-mounted and powered by a 12-volt automotive (car) battery. The same system can also be inserted into a stainless-steel permanent outerhousing, which protects it against vandalism and is 2.5 meters above the ground. In this instance, it is powered by 220-volt mains supply. Many users have proved that permanent violation recording systems installed at accident-prone sites reduce the accidents and/or fatalities drastically. > One system can be moved to different outerhousings, thus covering a large area and making the system very cost-effective. Depending upon the application, installation, and the size of the license plate, 2 to 3 traffic lanes can be covered by the system. Adding optical filters to the powerful electronic flash with a fast repetition time, frontal vehicle photography is possible under all lighting conditions. This enables positive driver identification. With a 30-meter film magazine attached to the camera. 800 photographs can be taken. For combined speed and traffic light violation recording systems, the data block appearing in the top right-hand comer of the photograph shows the time, date, site or locatio n code, two speed readings, and the duration of the red phase. In dedicated traffic light violation recording systems, the speed readings are exchanged for a violation counter and lane of violation indiCations. The TRUVELO Camera Recording System simultaneously photographs this data block from a display panel, via a secondary shutter assembly, and the violating vehicle through the main shutter This data is not "written" onto the picture AFTER the main picture has been taken, thus eliminating another source of possible errors. Much thought, experience, and technology went into the design of these systems They can be used with confidence to reduce unnecessary road accidents and fatalities. They are backed up by a team of dedicated engineers. Please contact one of our representatives for further information about the TRUVELO Camera Recording Systems. -2-.. Truvelo Distributor -A VIAR inc P.O. Box162184 Austin, TX 78716 Tel: (512) 295-5285 Fax: (512) 295-2603

PAGE 58

SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRUVELO "CbMBI S" FOR PERMANENT SPEED INSTALLATIONS T RUVELO -COMBI s SPEED CAMERA SYSTEM Camera: Shutter speed: Lpns: ROBOT Molof recordtt 36DCE 1/IOOOs fully nash synchronised Schneider Kreuznadl, 4Smm, 75mm, BOmm or 150mm with Automalic apettwe alljuster Leru !liter: or orange FUm material: Std. 3Smm by 36 exposures BulK fi lm magallne; up to 30m (600 exp.) Displays: 7 Segmenti..E.O. AuXiliaty shutter. for recording onto rum nogalive or: -lime (h.m,s,O.ts) -eed vllfil\caflon lime ( for whicle to llav.J1.8m) Addilional d'ISplays: Flash: Photo counter ltaffic counter Inte g ral 360 Joule.o With flash repetition lime of O.Ss Electronic camera motor overload protecuon. Power supplyo -220Vac, Mains ,. Battery backup p-ower. 8 hours Operating Temperature: -2oc to 1oc Humidity: 98% non c:oodensing Dimensions: 425mm x 2T6mm x 315mm Weight 13 kg Speed measuring Instrument Three or four tndept:nden.t" lime mea&Urements are take n. using lwo micro-processon, with thtee or four piezo detectors and converting these into speed using lhe formula distance divided by time. Two primal)' speed results have to be Within + to be accepted. Truvelo only uses one picture to independently veri& the speed by means or a method. PJ. lhis W onnalion is on the photograph. Detection system: Flush movntee moved to other sites.

PAGE 59

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF RED LIGHT AND SPEED ENFORCEMENT CAMERA SYSTEMS . The TRWELO Red-Light VIOlation Camera System is a dedicated Red-Light System only. . At Railway level crossings or road intersections this system will react and take two photographs of vehicles violating the signals by crossing an Inductive loop Installed behind the stop line. Easily portable and operator friendly, this instrument weighs 13 kgs. only and is placed int o a pole mounted, permanent outer housing by the operator. The 4 lane loop controller and mains flash unit i s also incorp orated into the above unit A. CAMERA UNIT Th e camera unit consists of the following functional blocks The base-plate with microprocessor-controlled electronics and data-readout The data read-out has the following Information, which is transferred onto the film negative: 1. Date in year:month:day 2. nme, in hours:minutes :seco n ds and 1110th seconds 3. Location code. 6 digits, operator programmable 4. Red-light timer, 4 digit seconds and 1110th seconds 5. 3 digit frame counter (not visible o n p hotographs) 6 Amber information is fixed programmed for 3 seconds and may be changed accordi n g to requirements. 7 A 6 digit total traffic volume counter is also integrated (not placed on p hot ograph) 8. Adjustable red -time de lay, operator adjustable, 0 5 seconds in steps of 0.25 seconds. 9. Second photograph delay ti me 0.5 2 seconds, in steps of 0 25 seconds. 10. Two 3 digit speed indications (kmlh). B. CAMERA MOTOR-RECORDER A well known Motor-recorder 36DCE is uti6sed in the system, which allows for a picture rate of 3/second, 1/1000 second exposure time, with full flash-synchron isation. Optic lenses of 45mm, 75mm and 90mm are available. (Only one lens delive red per system, normally a 45mm le n s) A 30 metre film magazine allows the handling of 17 metre or 30 metre bulk film material resulting i n 350 or 800 film exposures of either 35mm black and white or colour film. Automatic aperture controller is also provided to change the l e ns settings fo r different am b ient l i ght conditions. For front photography. with driver identification it has been found from years of experience, that o nly bl ack and whi te fil m should be uti l ised, to avoid bl inding the drivers, but stiH have maximum illumination of the car in terior. by th e use of red-fi lters on the camera as well as on the powerful flash. The fiRers are in the spectral range 665 to 610 n m. This allows for continual operation day and night with only one f stop setting, hence avoid i ng any adj ustment by operators. Colour fi l m should only be used for rear photography with u nfiltered flash and automatic aperture control.

PAGE 60

' C. 4 LANE LOOP CONTROLLER/MAINS FLASH UNIT (220 VAC) This unit forms part of the camera system. Loop circuits are our own Truvelo ctesigned microprocessor-<:ontrolled systems which are self tuning and cross-talk free. The uni. t has a built-in algorithm which avoids false or unnecessary triggering o f the system by vehicles '"creeping" over the stop f ine A sensitivity adjustment forms part of the unit and allows the operator to set the d iff erent loop sizes Red-Qght simulation and vehicle simulation, with lest facilities. are functions and are simply p us hbutton operated. MAINS FLASH This powerful mains flash unit forms part of the portable 4-lane loop controller. Flash power of 350 joules aDows illumination of vehicles and surroundings, with driver identificat ion. Flash repetition of 500 ms allows lull illumination in the second photograph of the vio lation D. MOUNTING POLE, OUTERHOUSING & STREET FURNITURE The following describes a mounting pole which is most widely used, which is cost effective and most vandal resistant A zinc-plated pipe welded onto a mounting p l ate with a height of 2.2m. The lowest section has a diameter of 160mm, the second section -110mm, with a flange on which to fit the housing. A concrete foundation needs to be constructed for the mounting cage, with bolts onto which the pole a n d base are bolted. The Outer housings are weather and vandal resistant with special security locking systems. They are manufactured from stainless-steel and are powder-coated. Ventilation is p rovi ded for excessive climatic conditions. Additional bullet proofing can be supplied and fitted, ory request and at an additional charge. The outer housings are equipped with all necessary circuit breakers and earth le akage switches and wire looms, with connectors, for the systems. The flash reflecto'r is also an integral part of the outer housing. Connections to Amber and Red-Lights: The information from these signals is accomplished via our Truvelo pick-up sensors, which are ga!Van.ically de-coupled from the light controllers and are based on current sensing from the physica l wires leading to the amber and red light globes. No power is consumed from the controllers. The signal from the current sensors are routed via single-core, screened wire to the outer hous i ngs E. TRUVELO COMBINED SYSTEM The i nstrument is a combination of two well-known, approved systems. for s peed law enforcement and red-lig ht violation recordings. It may be utilised tor either/or application or together at i ntersections where not only red-light violations occur on red-light but also speed violations are an accident cause at green lights.

PAGE 61

The speed measuring system forms part of the camera recording unit and is an integral part of the unit described under section A Additional speed sensor profiles are added to the loops mounted behind the stop-line, 1.5m apart before the stop line at the intersection. . \Mth this sensor anangement. the speed of each vehicle is monitored and irrespective of the condition of the red spee
PAGE 62

TRUVELO has developed a new and user-friendly speed verification method, which has been implemented in all of their new speed camera systems The first speed verification takes place automatically within the system. Two speed measuring instruments are combined into one housing and one speed measurement result is compared with the other one. The speed results are displayed only if both readings fall within kmlh of one another. It is now possible to independently verifY the speed measurement from the photographic evidence. The method uses the position of the vehicle' s front wheels in relation to the last detector cable/profile in direction of travel, as well as the time the wheels took to travel tha t distance. Speed can be calculated from these units. This speed result is known as the secondary speed measurement This independent speed verification is required in some European countries. Background: The TRUVELO M4z or M42-MPC speed calculating instruments use pressure sensitive piezo detector cables/profiles for reliable axle detection. Three or four detector cables are placed on top ofthe road pavement for portable installations. Permanent sites use flush-mounted detector "I" profi l es. These sensors are numbered in vehicle travel direction as 'Start 1', 'Start 2 ', 'Stop I', and 'Stop 2'. In a three cable layout method. cables two and three are common ('Stop I' and 'Start 2'). The distance berween 'Stan' and 'Stop' is 1.5 meters. Time measurement I is taken from Start I to Stop I and time measurement 2 from Start 2 to Stop 2. The speed i s then calculated by each of the rwo instruments, using the formula (1}-speed is equal to distance divided by time. Both speed results are displayed only if both readings fall within kmlh of one another. ( I ) (2) v = speed; d = distance ; t = time In the above formula, distance is known and time measured. The formula can also be rewritten to express time as a function of speed and d istan ce or distance as a function of speed and time. .. t=d/v or (3) d=vxt Various methods of secondary.speetl measurements or calculations are described below. They all make use of formul as (I) to (3) above to independently verify the speed measured by the instrument. This method is impleme nted on all M4z-MPC speed measuring systems coupled to a 'ROBOT 36-DCE' camera Truvelo Distributor -. . AVIAR inc P.O. Box 162184 Austin. TX 78716 Tel: (512) 295-5285 Fax: (512) 295-2603

PAGE 63

Method A. Two Photographs Taken a Fixed Time Interval Apart. The violating vehicle's speed will be measured by the instrument at point XI and photographed. A fixed time interval ofO S seconds later, another photograph will be taken . showing the same vehicle in position X2. Depending upon the speed of the vehicle, the position ofX2 wili The speed can then be verified using (I) and dividing the fixed delay time (e g., 0.5 seconds) i nto the distance the vehicle travelled duriqg that time (XI to X2). The distance travelled can be seen in the two photographs but is, however, only an approximation unless markers are painted on the road surface. T he time between the two photographs can be calculated to Ill 000 of a second by subtracting the time in the first photograph from time in the second photograph. With this verification method, only rear vehicle photography can be used as position X2 varies The violating vehicle, t ogether with the detector cables and all other relevant information, is photographed from behind at position XI. The photograph at position X2 is used only for speed validation purposes. XI I Photo position I variable distance (use formula (3) for calculations) fixed time interval v = d (approximation) I time Method B. Two Photographs Taken a Fixed Distance Apart. X2 I Photo position 2 The violating vehicle's speed is measured at position Yl, and a photograph is taken. A line is painted onto the road surface a fixed distance away from the last detector cable/profile, in travel direction, together with the 10 percent distance tolerance limits (e.g., 20, 18, and 22 meters). Using formula (2) and the speed result at position Yl, a delay time can be calculated at which the camera will have to be triggered to ensure the vehicle's front wheels to be on the painted 20meter line. The time difference to 1/1000 of a second can be accurately obtained by subtracting the times on the first and second photographs from one another. The speed can, in this example, be verified accurately using formula (1). Even a lay person can do first order verification by analyzing the second photograph and ensuring that the front whee l position is between the tolerance markers painted on the road surface. The advantage of this method of speed verification is that the second photograph position is fixed The camera lens can b e focused on that position and frontal vehicle photography is possible. This allows for d r iver "identification. The first photograph will show the violating vehicle, the detector cables, and all other relevant information pertaining to the offense. The second photograph will show the driver and is also used for speed verification Truvelo Distributor-AVIAR inc P.O. Box 162184 Austin, TX 78716 tel: (512) 295-5285 Fax: (512) 295-2603

PAGE 64

showing the accurate position and time. Rear vehicle photography can also be used in the same manner described in (A) above. Yl -Fixed distance -Y2 I Variable time interval (use formula (2) for calculations) I Photo position I Photo position I v = d (known) I time (measurable) Metlwd C One photograph a Fixed 1ime from Last Detec/Qr Cable in Vehicle Travel DirectioiL Similar to (A) above but only one photograph is taken a known time after the vehicle has crossed the last detector cable in travel direction (Stop 2). This particular method of secondary speed verification was used mainly with the older TRUVELO speed calculating instruments. The calculation time of this model was fixed and only started once all time measurements were complete Total time from vehicle crossing sensor 'Stop 2 to issuing of camera trigger command was l.Sms. On the 'Robot 36CE' camera recorders, the time from receiving the camera trigger command to the actual shutter opening is a fixed 32ms. This is mainly due to mechanical delays Md lever travel times. This gives a total delay time of 47 milli seconds (4711000 second) from when the vehicle crosses the last detector cable (Stop 2) to when the photograph is taken As the wheel base (distance from front to rear wheels) of the violating vehicle is visible and has a known distance and can be measured on the photograph, a scale factor can be obtained for a particular picture. A cenain number of millimeters on the photograph correspond to an actual distance. By measuring the distance the front wheels of the vehicle are away from the last detector cable (Stop 2) on the picture and multiplying this with the scale factor, the actual distance can be obtained. Alternatively, distance markers can be painted onto the road surface. To validate the precise system delay time. several photographs before and after the one of interest have to be analyzed. From this an average actual camera trigger time delay is obtained. Using formula (I) above, speed can now be calculated. This method is rather cumbersome and usually gives better results on frontal vehic l e photography and on pictures with a good quality and clarity Stop 2 variable distance (use formula (3) for calculations) Photo I I fixed time (47ms) Vehicle front wheels Vehicl e front wheel position v = d (approximation) I time (known) Truvelo Distributor-A VIAR inc P.O. Box 162184 Austin, TX 78716 Tel: (512) 295-5285 Fax: (512) 295-2603

PAGE 65

Method D. One Photograph a r1Xetl Distance Away from Last Detector Cable in Travd Direction. This panicular speed method is a simplified version of (B) above. The TRUVELO M4'-_MPC speed calculating instrument can. detect and time axles of vehicles accwately. It times a violating vehicle's front wheels crossing the last detector cable (Stop 2) to when the camera shutter opens. The newer 'Robot 36-DCE' camera recorder has a faster mechanism, and a fixed distanc e of I 8 meters was selected to allow the front wheels of a vehicle to move from the Stop 2 detector cable to the photograph position. This distance, together with the I 0 percent distance tolerance, is painted on the road surface (e.g., 1.8m, 1.62m, and 1.98m). Using formula (2) above, the instrument calculates a delay time before giving the camera trigger command to ensure the front wheels of the violating vehicle are positioned on this 1.8m line in the photograph. As everything is fixed or measurable, accurate speed verification can be obtained. A lay person can easily verify the speed on the photograph by visually confirming that the violating vehicle's front wheels are between the distance tolerance markings on the road or by performing the calculation as per formula (I). Again, the lens focus distance is constant for vehicle frontal photography enabling driver identification. In addition, it SAVES SO percent of photographic material costs compared to method (B). Stop 2 I Vehicle front wheels -fixed distance (1.8m) -variable time (use formula (2) for calculations) Photo I Vehicle front wheel position v = d (fixed) I time (measurable) The above-mentioned methods illustrate all possible secondary speed verification methods TRUVELO recommends method (B) or (D) above The minimum information required on the photograph is the road surface, the violating vehicle, and the last detector cable. For obvious reasons, the more detailed the picture information is the better and easier calculations can be undenaken. RHG/secdspd.wpd/07n/95 Truvelo DistributorAVTARinr P O Rnx 162184 Austin. TX78716 Tel: 1512) 295-5285 Fax: 1512) 295-2603

PAGE 66

N.E. othetWise specified pleose comact the ChiefTraflic Officer or C hid' of Police. Traffic Deparuncn t C a m e r a Section, at ..ach o f th e T own l.lcpnrtments. Akasla .Town Council AlbertDn Town Council BedfordView Town Council Benoni Town Counci l Bloemfontei n Ci\y CouncU Bol
PAGE 67

KlOritoria. 0001 21 cameras 1 983 Tel: 012 313 034113138213. Fax: 012 313 0368/9 20 sites Queensburgh Borough P 0 Box 39016. Queensburgh. 4070 1 11!94 Council T et 03 1 441233 Fax: auee,.stown Private Bag X7111. Queenstown 5320 1 1991 Tel: Phuthadlijhaba (Owa Private Bag X05, Phuthadi t jhaba. 9866 1989 Qwa) Municipa l ity Tel: Randburg Town P rivate Bag 1. Randburg, 2 125 4 1986 Council Tel: 0117890911 Fax: 011789 0338 Richards Bay Private Bag X 1004, Richards Bay, 3900 1 1988 Municlpalily Tet035131111 Fax: 03513t897 2

PAGE 68

.. vc:uo oo!:f .... .,u, rtooaepoort, 1 n.s 1990 I ................ Council Tel: 011 766 2166. Fax: 011 763 6282 Rustenburg Town P 0 :lox 550. Rustenburg, 0300 2 1 989 Counci l Tel : 0142 943210 Fax: 0142 943227 Sandton Town Counci l P 0 Box 78002, Sandton 2146 3 1987 Tot: 011 881 6631. Fax: 011 881 6207 Splings Town Counci l P 0 Box 45. Springs. 1560 2 1996 Tel: 0113602000. Fax: 011 360 2201 Gauteng (Transvaa l ) Public Trnnsport & Roads. Control Ptov incial tnspectot, 4 1991 Provi nCial Private bag X722, Pretoria 0001 Administration Tel: 012 330 0350 Tuncor Services P 0 Box 263, 7620 1 199 2 Tel : 02211624400. Fax: 02211 624407 Towt. P 0 Box 45. Uilenhage. 6230 ., 1 1 995 Council Tel: 041 922 9900. Fax: 041 922 0002 Vereeniging Town P 0 Box 35. Vereeniging, 1930 1 1988 Counci J Tel: 016 503235. Fax: 016 503234 Centurion(Verwoerdbu P 0 Box 14013. Centurion. 0140 < 1983 rg) Town Council Tel: 012 671 7273 Fax: Welkom Cily COuncil P 0 Box 708 Welkom, 9460 1 1988 Tel: 057 352 7251. Fax: 057 352 7252 Windhoek Town Private Bag 12009, Windhoek. 9000. Namibia 3 cameras 1988 Council Tel: 061 290 2264. 3 s i tes Z imbabwe Military 7 1989 Police Z imbabwe Republic P 0 Box 8007, Causeway, Zimbabwe 2 1989 Police Tel: 2634 7001711725559. Fax: 2634 728768 GERMAN Y 166 UNITS C it y of Bonn Oar Oberkreisdirektor, Tief bauam1, Bertiner P l atz 2. 5311 3 camera systems Bonn. Tel: 0228 774173 23 permanent speed s ites County of Borken Oer Oberll n Tel: 26 permanent speed s ites 022 1 2217774 9 red light s i tes County of Mettmann Oder Oberkreisdi rektor StraBen verkehrsaml. Dus&el dorler 3 came r a !ystems 28 Stral>e 26.40822 Mettmann. Tel: 02104 99174 1 permanent s'ites. 1 speed & red light combination, 3 permanent r&d light s ites. Count y of Siegburg Oer O berkreisdirek lor. Sltallenverl
PAGE 69

. . . . County of Berg i sch Der Oberkreisdirektor, St ra6enveckehrsamt, Am . ---.................. _..,..,,,. . 2 camera systems "' -.. . Glaobach 7 Bergisch G ladbach. Te l : 02202 18 pennanen t speed sites 132255 County of Steinfurt Oer Dbarkreisdirektor StraBenverle 51/1, 74072 Heilbronn. Tel: 3 camera systems 07131 562096 1 S perrnanent speed s i t e s C ity of Hockenheim Ordnungsamt, Obere 11. 687 Hockenheim 1 camera system Tel: 08205 21228 1 per manent speed sit& City of Leinfelden Ordnungsaml, Marktp l atz 1, 70771 Lei n!e l den1 camera system portable Echterdingen Echlerdingen. Tel: 071179SS211 C ity or Ostfildem Ordnungsam t Wilhe lmstraBe, 73760 Ostfildern Tel: 07 1 1 1 came r a system 3404250 e perruaiien: speed sUes I 4

PAGE 70

. City of Radottz;ell Marktplatz 2. 78315 Rado l f
PAGE 71

. Appendix C Contacts

PAGE 72

C ontacts . Former chief of Polk Coun ty Cornmunilly Traffic Safety Team and project lead for the light camera pilot project in Polk County in Florida officer with the charJonc DoT, Charlotte, NC Source for informa tion on proposed red light at U.S. Public Technologies Inc., Zev James Maguire, Lauri S. Keller Provided information brochure s and ca!3logues on various technologi es iiZiibeiiiS:be

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200349Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029077975
005 20110830172640.0
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110830s1998 flua ob s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00033
035
(OCoLC)748439068
040
FHM
c FHM
090
TE228 (ONLINE)
1 100
Burris, Mark Whitman,
d 1970-
0 245
Investigation of automated photo enforcement for red light running
h [electronic resource] /
prepared by Mark Burris, RamaKrishna Apparaju.
260
[Tampa?] :
b University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
1998.
300
1 online resource ([1], 34, [30] leaves) :
ill.
500
Title from e-book t.p. (viewed Aug. 30, 2011).
5 FTS
"May 1998."
FTS
504
Includes bibliographical references (p. 33-34).
650
Electronic traffic controls
x Evaluation.
Traffic signs and signals
Evaluation.
Traffic regulations.
700
Apparaju, Ramakrishna.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
776
Burris, Mark Whitman, 1970-
t Investigation of automated photo enforcement for red light running.
[Tampa?] : University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research, 1998
w (OCoLC)39520501
773
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.33
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001960094;
FTS