|
. . . a follow up on the meeting held on September 10, 2008 on red light camera enforcement. |
February 4, 2009Committee Report #1
TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC AND PARKING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
The Transportation, Traffic and Parking Committee held a public meeting on Wednesday, February 4, 2009 at five o'clock and thirty minutes p.m. in the Sullivan Chamber. The purpose of the meeting was a follow up on the meeting held on September 10, 2008 on red light camera enforcement. Present at the meeting were Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Committee, Councillor Sam Seidel, Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Sue Clippinger, Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Robert Haas, Police Commissioner, Sergeant Kathy Murphy, Rosalie Anders, Transportation Division, Community Development Department and Deputy City Clerk Donna P. Lopez. Also present were David Davis, 140 Larch Road, Ted Peck, 3 Traymore Street, Ann Lambert, 130 Mt. Auburn Street, Peter Wright, 106 Larch Road, Megan Brook, 103 Inman Street and Rosalie Anders, 154 Auburn Street, Councillor Kelley convened the meeting and explained the purpose. This meeting is about red light camera enforcement; not surveillance cameras. Councillor Kelley gave a brief overview of the topic. A meeting was held on this topic on September 10, 2008. He hoped that the city would explore a local option to install red light camera enforcement. The camera would take a picture of a car running a red light and issue a violation which would be mailed. The violation could be appealed. The police department would review the appeals. Concerns were raised about the lack of privacy, sharing of information and if the license plate would be the only object photographed. Civil liberties issued were raised by the ACLU. Cameras do not prevent accidents. There is evidence of an increase in rear end collisions with camera enforcement. He expressed his concern with the vendor operated system. At five o'clock and thirty-eight minutes p. m. Councillor Kelley opened the meeting to public comment. David Davis stated that he support red light camera enforcement. The intersection in his neighborhood is violated daily. A public safety enforcement officer would create chaos because there is no safe place for an officer to pull someone over. Enforcement can only be done by remote. He favored posting signage that cameras are in use prior to starting use of red light cameras for enforcement. Cameras, he said, are in many places, such as the grocery store, banks, etc. He stated that the privacy issue is a red herring. He has a license to drive, not to make his own laws. Ted Peck stated that he was opposed to camera enforcement. He does not like the idea of being nabbed for anything with the taint of illegality via a computer. Traffic violations are a crime and it feels as such when an officer issues a ticket. He has received a ticket in the mail for an expired inspection sticker and he did not like this. He stated that there is a difference between private and public cameras in the way it feels. A private firm administers the camera system. City should implement this system. Sending money to a private vendor is unacceptable. He is worried that a private company would not be willing to post advance warning. Ann Lambert, ACLU representative, spoke of the distinction between the private and public realm. Other issues she spoke about were cost of the equipment, economic times, banking of the collected data, how much data collected and for how long data is kept. There are surveillance, data bank and dissemination issues. This is a "mission creep" issue. She spoke about due process and taking a picture of a license plate at a particular place and time and then getting the ticket at a later date. A violation ticket is generated by a mechanical means later. She has no faith in the system to manage this system. Traffic violation is issued by an officer now, in a particular setting. With cameras, you may not remember where you were, etc. Why are we doing this enforcement now. Where's the cost benefit analysis. The public safety aspect of this is not great. A data study was done and the benefit is not apparent. She urged Cambridge to not go forward with red light camera enforcement. She e-mailed information links about the various studies done on red light camera enforcement. (See below)
Swampscott, MA:
Virginia:
Federal Highway Administration:
Peter Wright, 106 Larch Road, has lived there for 22 years. He explained that when the traffic light turns green he has to wait for the cars to go through light illegally. He walks his dog at Fresh Pond and cannot cross the Parkway without waiting to for people running the red light to go through. He warns his girls about this a lot as well. Speed is an issue as well as the Larch Road blind intersection. He commented that the Swampscott data is not empirical. This intersection is dangerous; there is no place for the police to observe and apprehend. Car owners should be responsible and a 50 dollar ticket is not much for helping people feel safe. He does not understand the privacy concern with using cameras on a public way. He was in favor of red light camera enforcement. Megan Brook, 103 Inman Street, said she saw both sides of the issue. If we go this route, we want to take small steps. She commented that if the information is saved for six to twelve months is too long, is worried that it would be ‘mined.' She also felt "mission creep" is an issue. Cameras should be restricted to areas where police cannot monitor traffic safely. There are lots of places where the police could safely do more enforcement. She commented that she never sees a police officer at Broadway and Inman Streets. Inman Square could use camera enforcement. She was not sure that red light camera created accidents would be that big of a problem as they would more likely be car/car and not car/pedestrian as pedestrians are careful. One would have to have a lot of imagination to see civil liberties infringed before they are and the Council should try to imagine all scenarios. Stating that the data would not be reviewed is unrealistic. She favored better enforcement and monitoring and is no longer in favor of cameras. Rosalie Anders, 154 Auburn Street, stated that legislation has been filed to address the concerns raised by the ACLU. It is being reviewed for loopholes. The legislation is very restrictive concerning the data being kept. Photo monitoring at the turnpike has been done for years. The insurance industry did research on red light camera enforcement and it does increase safety. Councillor Seidel asked how this legislation relates to what Cambridge might or might not do. Ms. Anders responded that the legislation would allow local adoption of the program. Councillor Kelley requested that copies of the legislation be attached to this report. Ms. Anders complied and the proposed legislation is attached. Councillor Kelley questioned the implementation. Ms. Clippinger stated that there are no problems with the implementation. Ms. Anders stated that Community Development Department had no issues either. Commissioner Haas said that the CPD officers would not object, and that there are a variety different models and vendors to make the program work. Councillor Kelley stated that he wanted Cambridge to take baby steps in implementing to remove the wrinkles. He suggested that the City Council should support the proposed legislation. An implementation program, on a small scale, should be reviewed, then expand the program. Commissioner Haas stated that it is a difficult model to implement. Ms. Clippinger informed the committee that the parking tickets are managed by a vendor. Councillor Kelley responded that the issue is how the vendor is managed. Councillor Toomey stated that he supported red light camera enforcement. Cambridge could file its own home rule petition. Ms. Brook wondered if the City could be stricter than State codes. Ms. Clippinger commented that if it were implemented as part of a home rule petition, then the DCR wouldn't be able to implement it. Mr. Davis asked about the DCR jurisdiction roadways. Ms. Clippinger stated that Cambridge cannot install cameras on DCR intersections. Councillor Kelley stated that he is uneasy that people are not following rules. There is a halo effect if red light camera enforcement goes into effect and he noted how when people are more concerned about enforcement, they will pay more attention to driving safely. Councillor Seidel stated that he wanted to see the language in the legislation and if it specified the location of cameras.
Councillors Kelley and Toomey submitted the following motion:
A communication was received from Daniel J. Boyne who supported red light camera enforcement, which is attached.
Councillor Kelley thanked all attendees for their participation. The meeting adjourned at six o'clock and twenty-four minutes p. m.
For the Committee,
|