HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Agenda - 09/02/2003 Council Workshop Agenda
11�140 All Councilmembers • Judy Woods, Council President
KEN WASHINGTON September 2, 2003
Item Description Action Speaker Time
1. Approval of minutes dated August 19, 2003 YES
2. Red Light Running Cameras NO Mike Martin 10 min.
3. County Budget Advisory Board Findings NO Mike Martin 20 min.
Unless otherwise noted,the Council Workshops are held at 5:00 p.m. on the I"and 3rd Tuesdays of each month.
Council Chambers East,Kent City Hall, 220 4th Avenue South,Kent, 98032-5895.
For information please contact the City Clerk's Office at(253) 856-5712.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at
(253) 856-5725 in advance.
For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388.
U:\userdata\Council Workshop AGenda.doc
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Jim White, Mayor
Phone:253-856-5700
K E N T Fax: 253-856-6700
W A S H I N G T O N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA.98032-5895
September 2, 2003
Red Light Camera Presentation
1) Overview: Steve Mullen. 10 minutes
• What it is.
• Whose done it: The Lakewood experience
• Effectiveness
• Cost
• Downside
2) Kent Experience: Chief Crawford: 5 minutes
• Blue Light Program
• Traffic Emphasis
3) Legal Questions: Pat Fitzpatrick: 5 minutes
4) Legislative Issues: Steve: 5 minutes
• Fund Sharing
• Inclusion in"Pilot Program"
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director
Phone: 253-856-5500
K E N T
WASHINGTON Fax: 253-856-6500
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: September 2, 2003
To: Mike Martin,, Chief Administrative Officer
From: Stev Mullen, Transportation Engineering Manager
Through: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director
Regarding: Red Light Running Automated Enforcement
The following background information was distilled from several sources, the January 13,
2003 Report to the Legislature, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the Washington
Traffic Safety Commission, and others.
In 2001, the State's Transportation Budget Bill contained a proviso authorizing the
Washington Traffic Safety Commission, to oversee pilot projects implementing the use of
automated traffic safety cameras. Limitations were placed on the program, i.e. the
cameras could take{pictures-of the vehicle and vehicle license plate only, the owner of the
vehicle was responsible for the infraction, the infractions did not become part of the
owner's driving record, and the law enforcement agency initiating the program were
required to notify citizens of the locations where cameras were used.
The City of Lakewood initiated a pilot program to examine the use of traffic safety
cameras. Two signalized intersections were selected for the pilot program, and equipment
installed to photograph vehicles violating the traffic signal by failing to stop for the red light
indication. Two approaches were selected at each intersection for photo enforcement.
During the trial period, Lakewood issued 11, 537 citations, and took in $581,106 in fines (of
those cited for violation, 62% have paid their fines). Of the fines collected, $249, 889 went
to the State, $5,774 went to Pierce County, leaving $325,442 in revenue to the City. The
City of Lakewood also paid $379,840 to the vendor for service costs. Lakewood had
additional enforcement-related court and policing costs of$141,670 paid from its public
safety budget. The net cost to the City for the red light cameras was $196,000. Losses
would have been greater had Lakewood not be able to secure a FHWA grant of$72,000 to
help pay for the installation of the cameras and associated infrastructure. Red Light
violations were reduced by 54.1%, 45.4%, 74.2%, and 85.5% on the four approaches.
During Lakewood's pilot program, public reaction has been mixed, with general citizen
support, but with some reservation expressed about fairness, and privacy.
Prior to last year's expansion of the pilot program, Sgt Brian Jones and I met with Public
Works Director Bill Larkin, and Chief of Pierce County's Lakewood Detachment Larry
Saunders. Bill said the installation costs for the cameras, camera housings, vehicle
detection equipment, and all necessary ancillary equipment totaled approximately $75,000
per approach for each intersection. There were significant on-going operational costs
associated with servicing the cameras, processing the film, and providing dedicated phone
lines for authorizing and issuing the actual traffic citation.
Briefly, the equipment is installed such that vehicle location and speed are used to verify
that the vehicle entered the intersection after the light turned red, and did not enter on a
green or yellow phase, and were unable to clear the intersection prior to the signal turning
red. Photographs are taken only of the license plate. The registered owner is identified
through the department of licensing. The citations are processed similar to parking
citations in the pilot program, in that the notice of violation is issued the registered owner of
the vehicle. The registered owner is not responsible for the violation if the owner of the
vehicle, within 14 days, mails to the issuing law enforcement agency, a declaration under
penalty of perjury, stating that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care,
custody, or control of some person other than the registered owner. The infractions are
not part of the registered owner's driving record.
The cities of Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, and Vancouver, and the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT), also applied to participate in the project. The City
of Spokane decided not to participate in the program after an economic assessment
indicated the City would lose $239,000 in the ten month pilot program. The City of
Vancouver also withdrew from the program due to funding and staffing issues. The City of
Seattle eliminated the project in an effort to reduce their budget. The City of Tacoma had
intended to use automated enforcement for school zone speed enforcement, but dropped
the program when their analysis indicated the city would lose $140,120 for the pilot period.
WSDOT anticipated using the cameras for work zone speed enforcement, but has not
developed the program.
There is a great deal of information available via the internet, and ITE has published an
informational report on the more general topic of intersection safety: Making Intersections
Safer: A Toolbox of Engineering Countermeasures to Reduce Red-Light Running. In
short, there are a variety of solutions that can be applied to the problem of motorists failing
to stop at a red light. Photo enforcement is one approach.
In the past, the City of Kent has employed a different enforcement strategy. Traffic Signal
technicians install an auxiliary device (nicknamed a tattletale or "blue light special" - not to
be confused with a major retailer's similarly named event) which connects a blue LED
device that can be aimed so that it is visible from a specific location where a police officer
can safely monitor the intersection. The tattletale allows the police officer to know exactly
when the vehicle signal head displays a red light for a given movement without having to
be in position to view the red light directly.
Attachment: Report to the Legislature, Status of Automated Safety Camera Pilot Projects,
Janurary 13, 2003
Report to the Legislature
1
1 �
Status of Automated
Traffic Safety Camera Pilot Projects
January 13, 2003
Executive The 2001 Transportation Budget bill contained a proviso authorizing the
Summary Washington Traffic Safety Commission to oversee pilot projects implementing the
use of automated traffic safety cameras (cameras). Limitations were placed on
use of the cameras, requiring, for example, the cameras to photograph only the
vehicle and vehicle license. The owner of the vehicle was responsible for the
infraction. Traffic infractions captured by the cameras were not to become part
of the owner's driving record. Law enforcement was also required to notify its
citizens of the locations where the cameras were used.
The Cities of Spokane, Tacoma, Vancouver, Seattle and Lakewood applied to
become part of these pilot projects. Because of budget problems and the costs
associated with starting the projects, the City of Lakewood was the only
jurisdiction that actually got a pilot project up-and-running. Lakewood installed
four cameras to detect red light running at two high-violation intersections.
Between July 2001 and June 2002, violations at those intersections decreased by
54.1%, 45.4%, 74.2% and 85.5%. Lakewood also used cameras for speed
enforcement in many of its 27 school zones, with emphasis on those school
zones on high-volume, high-speed arterials. The cameras recorded 16.29
violations per hour in those locations. In July 2002, Lakewood began residential
speed control, recording an average of 6.94 violations per hour of enforcement.
Although the enforcement numbers were excellent, the City of Lakewood
sustained substantial costs from use of the cameras. Besides the costs of
adjudicating the tickets, which required hiring four additional clerks in the
municipal court, and the on-going costs to the vendor for use of the equipment,
the City found that the revenue generated by the tickets was statutorily required
to be split with the State. Under this distribution, the City did not generate
sufficient revenue to cover its costs.
Despite this drawback, local jurisdictions are interested in pursuing this
technology to promote safety, prevent collisions, and to provide an affordable
response to an issue that is very important to its citizens.
Status of The following jurisdictions expressed interest in being part of the pilot project:
Pilot Projects Spokane, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver, and Lakewood. The Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) wanted to use the cameras for work zone
safety. All cities, except Vancouver, participated in an evaluation meeting on
December 12, 2002.5
The City of Spokane investigated use of the cameras to help solve its problem with
red light running.' Despite increased red light patrols, a publicity and enforcement
program, re-signalizing and adjusting the phase cycles of signalized intersections,
the red light running problem was not eliminated. In 2000, more than 270
collisions occurred, resulting in more than 100 injuries that were due to red light
running at 15 intersections in the City of Spokane. Spokane decided to use
cameras at those 15 intersections. Spokane also wanted to use cameras to prevent
excessive speeding in school zones. After diligently planning implementation of
cameras to improve traffic safety, Spokane discovered that the revenue distribution
of the fine amount from the camera citations coupled with municipal court costs
associated with the program, the costs to the vendor, and the city's internal
operating costs would create a financial burden to the city instead of the program
being self-funding. internal analysis indicated that Spokane would lose$239,300
over a ten-month period if it took part in the pilot project. For this reason,
Spokane decided not to proceed with the pilot project.
The City of Tacoma planned to use the cameras for speed enforcement at fifteen
school locations in Tacoma. They intended to join with Lakewood's pilot project
first, because many drivers commute between Lakewood and Tacoma, and second,
in order to leverage Lakewood's experience and vendor contract to implement its
own school zone safety program. However, analysis of the revenue distribution
brought Tacoma to the same conclusion as Spokane, finding that too much
financial risk was shifted onto the cities. Tacoma estimated a loss of$140,►20
over ten months for its use of the cameras. Costs were attributable to the need for
three additional staff members for the municipal court, vendor costs, installation of
signs around school zones to warn drivers, and additional law enforcement
officers, who would serve as the operators of the mobile camera units. Tacoma
also decided not to proceed with the pilot project.
Seattle planned to use the cameras to target red light running and identified
potential locations for the cameras based upon the number of crashes at those
intersections. Requests for Proposals (RFP) were sent out in January 2002. After
the RFP was issued but before the closing date for responses, the Seattle Police
Department identified what they believed were a number of problems with the RFP
as written, stating that it was inconsistent with current practices and procedures
5 Also present were (for example, chain of evidence). While staff met to determine whether to accept
representatives from WSDOT,
Dot.,and Aoc. proposals under the current RFP, or whether to issue an addendum to the RFP, or
61n 1993 WSDOT gave
Spokane the dubious whether to re-write the RFP, the Seattle Department of Transportation was working
distinction of being the worst
West coast city for right to address the issue of a looming budget shortfall in the current fiscal year as well
angle collisions,the proximate
result of red light running. as in the out years. Because the camera pilot project had not yet gone to contract,
it became a candidate for reduction or elimination. At that point, the RFP process
was placed on hold until the city's financial picture became more clear. In the
3 Report to the Legislature—Automated Traffic Safety Camera Pilot Projects—lanuary 13,2003
Status of spring and summer of 2002, department management and the Mayor's Office
Pilot Projects eliminated the camera pilot project from funding in order to address the city's
budget problems.
—continued
Vancouver also has a serious problem with red light running and speeding. In the
year 2000, the city.had a total of 2005 collisions with 134 involving red light
running at a signalized intersection. These collisions resulted in 75 injuries and
one fatality. Over the last three years, red light running resulted in ten fatalities
and disabling injuries. In the year 2000, 294 collisions were reported with
speeding as a contributing factor. These collisions resulted in 173 injuries and one
fatality. Vancouver planned to use cameras to prevent red light running at the two
intersections with the worst collisions and also to prevent speeding through school
zones. However, Vancouver also dropped out of the pilot projects due to staffing
issues within the police department and financial concerns regarding the
camera program.
The Washington State Department of Transportation was interested in using
cameras for work/construction zone safety on our state streets and highways.
Speeding is a critical safety factor in work zones as many work zones do not
maintain shoulders or full lane widths and usually present hazards to drivers
through a variety of reduced roadway geometrics or fixed hazards such as
concrete barriers. Virtually all devices and measures applied to work zones rely
on voluntary driver compliance. Speed enforcement in work zones would not only
reduce crashes and increase worker safety but would also set the tone for
compliance with all other traffic regulations. This pilot project was not developed.
The City of Lakewood has been an enthusiastic participant in the camera pilot
project from its inception. When the City of Lakewood was incorporated, in 1996,
one of the prominent concerns of its citizens was a desire for improved law
enforcement, including safer roads and improved traffic enforcement. However,
because the staffing ratio of 1.2 officers per one thousand citizens was among the
lowest in Pierce County, creative, non-traditional solutions to traffic enforcement
were sought.
Cameras were installed at two high violation intersections to prevent red light
running. The number of violations decreased by 54.1%1, 45.4%8, 74.2%9, and
85.5%10 between July 2001 and June 2002. Because of the high monthly cost of
leasing the cameras, Lakewood removed three of the four cameras on July 1, 2002
and began randomly moving the remaining camera between the four camera
locations. In order to address budgetary problems that would have required the
City to cease the program, the vendor agreed to provide the four red light cameras
at no cost through the end of the present pilot project. This allowed the City to re-
7 Steilacoom Blvd eastbound at install the three cameras that had been removed.
Phillips Road
B Steilacoom Blvd.westbound at
Phillips Road Lakewood also used cameras for speed enforcement in many of the 27 school
9 Bridgeport Way northbound at zones in the city, with an emphasis on those school zones on high volume
San Francisco Ave.
10 Bridgeport Way southbound (> 19,000ADT), high speed (35 mph) arterials. Enforcement did not occur in
at San Francisco Ave.
seven school zones because they are on lightly traveled residential streets. in the
eleven school zones where flashing lights have been installed that indicate a speed
the lights are flashing, double fines,a for weekends,
charged when
limit of 20 mph when g The program accounts
Status of h limit is recorded. P uarter, cameras were
violation of the 20 mp the last(
Pilot Projects early dismissals, and school holidays.per day.
recorded average number of violations
—continued deployed an average of 4.46 hours er hour of deployment was 16.29."
recorded p
On July 31, 2002 Lak
ewood implemented a residential speedetinncomplaints about
arily to respond to ci
project. Locations were chosen primadar vehicle randomly conducts camera
speeding on selected roadways. A r concentrates on
enf
orcement of speeding in nineteen signed locatii butBetween July 31 and
locations with the most significant speeding pro
ial speed
September 30, 2002, the radar vehicle was deployed oniroe menttof 1 89 hours per
enforcement for 28 days (53 houspeedi , for anng violations were reco ded, for an average of
day. During this time 368 p g
6.94 violations per hour of enforcement. The frequency of violations oa arcedrecor ed
greatly from one roadway to another; the lowest numb
er was three per hour and the highest was 24 per hour.
Complicating this enforcement picture is the cost of the pilot projects to the City of
Lakewood. To quantify the loss of revenue, in 2001 Lakewood lost $196,000
starting up and conducting the pilot projects. This loss would have been greater
had the City not obtained a $72,000 FHWA grant to help pay for the installation of
the red light cameras. Because of concessions by the vendor, and the grant
program offered by the WTSC, Lakewood's losses in 2002 are expected to amount
to $80,000.
Attitudes of The following comments are presented in random order and do not reflect
Citizens, Law either a generalized consensus of the evaluation group or preference by WTSC.
Enforcement, 1' Municipal courts in Lakewood found that camera tickets generated more
hostility from citizens than tickets written by a live officer. An observation was
Courts made that citizens often feel they can talk their way out of a ticket if it is
written by a live officer.
2. Ticket/citation forms used by the Lakewood vendor were not approved by the
state's infraction Committee.
3. Law enforcement and public works departments came together to pick those
intersections where collisions were most frequent. This was a positive
interaction.
4. WSDOT is still very interested in using cameras in work/construction zones.
5. Spokane Police Department recently doubled its traffic unit. City residents may
not hp nn aaci, coil �, _
Attitudes all expressed their support for the concept of red light photo enforcement and
— continued were working with Seattle DOT staff to move the pilot project forward. They
continue to be interested in pursuing a pilot project. Because the program was
not implemented before funding was eliminated, Seattle Municipal Courts have
been only minimally involved so there is no sense for their attitude toward this
type of project.
Advantages The following comments are presented in random order and do not reflect
of using either a generalized consensus of the evaluation group or preference by WTSC.
Automated I. One camera can write many more tickets than one law enforcement officer.
Traffic Safety
2. Photographs make excellent evidence as the photo clearly shows the vehicle in
the intersection while the light is red.
Cameras 3. Drivers do slow down in school zones where cameras are used and do stop
running red lights at intersections where the cameras are installed.
4. Use of cameras provides more versatility for law enforcement as officers can be
doing other things rather than sitting at red lights.
5. Cameras provide the ability to enforce the traffic laws 24/7 without allocating
scarce law enforcement resources for the same coverage.
6. One camera at an intersection actually reduces the need for two officers to
perform the same job — one to see the light change to red and the other to
pursue the vehicle that runs the light.
7. Ten traffic officers produced about 8,000 Notices of Infraction (NOI) in 2002.
Automated enforcement (consisting of one camera-radar equipped patrol car
and two camera monitored intersections) produced about 12,000 N01. This is
about the only way jurisdictions will be able to afford the increased traffic
enforcement demands of expanding urban areas.
S. Even if the likelihood of a serious injury from a car/pedestrian collision in
school zones or residential areas is not high, the outcome is potentially
catastrophic and worth the investment in enforcement.
Disadvantages The following comments are presented in random order and do not reflect
of Using either a generalized consensus of the evaluation group or preference by WTSC.
Automated I' Because camera generated infractions do not appear on the vehicle owner's
driving abstract, there is no penalty and, therefore, no incentive to pay the fine.
Traffic Safety (However, 67% of those with camera generated tickets paid anyway in
Cameras Lakewood.)
2. Use of cameras to prevent red light running becomes a money loser for local
jurisdictions because, once drivers know where the cameras are used, they stop
running red lights in those intersections. Thus, revenue from tickets goes down
while the city's costs of leasing the cameras from the vendor remain the same.
3. Local courts' filing systems cannot accommodate the citation forms used by
vendors in the pilot project. Citation forms were not approved by the state's
Infraction Committee.
4. Increased operational costs for local courts need to be taken into considelaljgp�
Lakewood spends over$105,000 annually in court/legal costs related solely to
the pilot projects. Lakewood Municipal Court had to hire four additional clerks
6 Report to the Legislature—Automated Traffic Safety camera Pilot Projects—January 13.2003
Tribnet.com - News Page 1 of 4
The News Tribune-Tacoma, WA
vo 44� apar
Tribriet
.COM Home > News Thursday, .
News �u
Crime/Safety
Census 2000 �' E-mail This Story ; ; Print This Story ,;�_ : Subscribe sow
: Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Government
Election 2003 Lakewood violations .
Health/Science plunge, but program "
Local loses money a
Nation/World
Obituaries } f Y
Reli ion Cecilia Nguyen; The News BRAME
job
g Tribune David Br
Iraq: Special Follow the
"
News Search developme
Lakewood's traffic cameras have Drety Perine I The News Tribune Tacoma Po
Dave Zeeck encouraged drivers to slowdown in David Bran
Kits Merryman ! the past year, even though the 21st century crossing guard: Lakewood his wife Cr
community service officer Mike Miller monitors suicide ...
Peter Callaghan program is not the moneymaker traffic as a mounted camera photographs
many assumed it would be. s Brame S
All Columnists speeding vehicles that have triggered a radar
Photos system.Violators receive a mailed citation.
Weird News Meanwhile,the City of Tacoma
_ plans to launch a similar program this fall by posting photo-radar cameras outside
Sports some elementary schools. . � r�"',
Entertainment NARROW:.Bridge P
Last year,the Washington Traffic Safety Commission allowed Lakewood to be the From 2002
Business first city to test the use of cameras to ticket speeders and,red-light runners in 27 new suspei
Opinion school zones and two major intersections around the city.With the help of radar, is being bu
P cameras photograph the rear bumpers and license plates of vehicles traveling 6 mph and south
Projects or more above the speed limit or cars that enter an intersection after the light turns existing Na
red. Keep up to
Weather latest deve
•About Us During its one-year trial, Lakewood issued 11,537 citations and took in$581,106 in Narrows
Classifieds fines. But the city lost money in the end:$196,067 for administration and other
program requirements. ,A _.
Search
Shopping in A city report on the past year found the following: IRAQ., A S,
A look a-
-School-zone speeds dropped an average of 7 mph. More than
after the P,
War,the w
-Red-light violations dropped from 1,585 during its first month (July 2001)to 614 involved in
violations in May 2002. conflict wit
President E
Hussein. R
-Red-light running plunged 85 percent at the Bridgeport Way West and San latest new!
Francisco Avenue intersection; it decreased 55 percent at the Phillips Road commentai
Southwest and Steilacoom Boulevard Southwest intersection. •A Specia
"To have that dramatic a change in driving habits and for it to cost$196,000, I'm
delighted,"said Larry Saunders, chief of the Lakewood sheriffs detachment. "It's
worth the money from an enforcement perspective." ,.
`ARMEO F
ACS State and Local Solutions, Inc.,the equipment provider with whom Lakewood Armed F
has a contract, mails out citations to the registered owners of the offendingvehicles. Saturday, I
Saturday, I
Fort Lewis.
Because the program is still in an experimental phase,none of the citations issued is spectacular
reported to insurance companies. filled event
entertain tl
http://www.tribnet.com/news/storv/1471234n-1 S89476r_hfml Q/1)Q i1)nn1.)
Tribnet.com - News Page 2 of 4
family.
•Cameras stationed at the two intersections and the one mobile camera that circulates Armed F
throughout the school zones allow deputies to efficiently enforce the traffic laws, -
Saunders added.
Last month,the city's 10 traffic officers caught and wrote citations for 677 speeders.
The photo radar,which requires the attention of one officer, nabbed 1,014 people
driving at least 6 mph above the posted speed limit in school zones.
The costs of photo enforcement
Last year,the Traffic Safety Commission gave the green light to four other
jurisdictions-Seattle,Spokane,Vancouver and the state Department of
Transportation-to start their own test photo-enforcement programs, but none has
begun.
Vancouver officials said they didn't have the money to operate the program.
The Traffic Safety Commission also allowed other Pierce County cities to piggyback
onto Lakewood's program.Tacoma is the first to propose a similar program.
The way the state divvied up Lakewood's photo enforcement revenue may be the
reason why other cities haven't jumped in, he added.
The program is structured so that the state gets a share of the photo enforcement
revenue before the city pays off the program's expenses.
Of the$581,106 collected from Lakewood's automated tickets,the state took
$249,889; Pierce County got$5,774.The Traffic Safety Commission also received a
portion of the state money.
The city then paid ACS$379,840 in service costs.
And Lakewood had photo enforcement-related court and policing costs that totaled
$141,670 paid for through its public safety budget.
"All along the state has taken too much money,"Mayor Bill Harrison said.
The program's high costs come as Lakewood officials brace for declining state
support for the city's overall budget.The City Council must weigh whether to continue
the traffic-camera program in 2003.
"It's going to be difficult justifying this program when the city is facing budget woes,"
public works director Bill Larkin said.
The city received$3 million in state aid this year, after the Legislature repealed the
motor vehicle excise tax in 2000. It gets$808,000 next year.That means the City
Council must decide how to make up for$2.2 million in less funding.
The state will have to make some changes if it wants more cities to join the program,
the safety commission's Les Pope said, such as splitting the revenue between the
state and city only after ACS has been paid.
Lawmakers also may have to give cities the authority to place sanctions on violators
who refuse to pay, Pope said. Only 62 percent of those ticketed have paid their
citations.
The city forwards unpaid photo enforcement tickets to a collection agency.The
penalty is stiffer for those who don't pay officer-issued citations, Pope added.
http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/1471234p-1589476c.html 8/28/2003
Tribnet.com - News Page 3 of 4
There may be other money-saving options.
Lakewood has removed three of its four intersection cameras, a savings of about
$7,500 a month.The city will rotate its one red-light camera between the two
intersections.
The Traffic Safety Commission also has offered to give all of the money it collects
from photo radar back to the cities.That means the city could get as much as
$77,000 back from the commission, Larkin said.
The commission is scheduled to decide whether to allow Lakewood to expand speed
enforcement onto other neighborhood streets Friday.
The city said it could begin rotating the school-zone speed cameras into the
neighborhoods as early as Tuesday.
The safety commission will report to legislators in January, six months before the
program expires.
Cameras: The eye of Big Brother?
Photo enforcement has its critics.
The Wisconsin-based National Motorists Association has been photo enforcement's
most vocal opponent for more than seven years.
Cities would have fewer speeders and red-light violations if they raised speed limits,
enlarged school-zone signs and lengthened the yellow light times, spokesman Eric
Skrum said.
Former driving instructor Bob LaCoste of Lakewood said he believes that the
cameras have reduced the number of speeders and red-light runners in Lakewood.
But LaCoste,who paid a$159 photo radar ticket this week, said the cameras violate
his privacy.
"It's'1984'and very George Orwellian,"he said.
Megan Toland of Bakersfield, Calif.,said she supports the program, even though she
was forced to pay a$76 ticket for driving too fast in a Lakewood school zone.
Toland said the cameras have encouraged people to drive more safely in Southern
California,where many intersections are enforced with red-light cameras.
"The cameras can do a lot of good,"she said. "Police officers can't be everywhere,
but people still need to follow the rules."
Lakewood officials agree the program has improved safety, but still have to consider
the financial costs.
Saunders,the detachment chief,hopes the state will claim a smaller share of the
city's revenue.
"I will fight tooth and nail for this program,"he said.
Cecilia Nguyen:253-597-8692
cecilia.nguyen@mail.tribnet.com
http://www.tribnet.com/news/storv/1471234D-1589476c.htmI RnR/9nm
Tribnet.com - News Page 4 of 4
Financial summary of Lakewood's photo enforcement program:
Citations: 11,537
Total revenue: $581,106
State share:$249,889
County share:$5,775
City share:$325,442
Total expenses:$521,510
Vendor costs:$379,840
Policing costs: $36,670
Court costs:$105,000
Amounts drivers reduced their speeds after photo radar installed:
Speed at which 8 out of 10 motorists were traveling past schools along high-volume,
high-speed arterials.All posted speed limits are 35 mph.
School: Before photo radar After photo radar:
Lochburn Middle School 42.5 mph 38 mph
Hudtloff Middle School 36 mph 29 mph
Dower Elementary School 42 mph 38.5 mph
Custer Elementary School 40 mph 38.5 mph
Lakes High School 37 mph 35 mph
Source: City of Lakewood
(Published 12;30AM,July 24fh, 2002)
General Info: Privacy Policy I User Agreement I Contact Us
The Interactive Media Division of The News Tribune @ 2003 Tacoma News, Inc.
1950 South State Street,Tacoma, Washington 98405 253-597-8742
Fax Machines: Newsroom, 253-597-8274 Advertising, 253-552-7042
Send comments to the Webmaster at webmaster@tribnet.com.
-- - - - - - - -- - -- - -- --- - - - -- - - - - - - -- - --- - - -- - - - - --
Tacoma News, Inc. is a subsidiary of The McClatchy Company eit"
http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/1471234p-1589476c.htmi 8/28/2003
Council Office
2nd Floor,City Hall
220 4t°Ave.South,Kent,98032
PLEASE SIGN IN
DATE: 0-3
Name Address Phone Number
IV�cC�IZIZ-�1 S Il�t/�l.�I�FiF^
04 ,
<sTa "
��rz7 c i
-jceyj i 006S ,N i� S
-E h OzAy f-o" 11OUCL
pub LAu ltwr
`TdrA