SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
March 19, 2015· santaclarita.com · SantaClarita.com (SCVTalk 5.0) · Wayback capture

Red Ink May Mean STOP for SCV Red Light Cameras

By Mike Devlin

An embedded YouTube video appeared here in the original post. View the original — embeds are preserved as links in this archive.
A year ago, in the unbelievably late hours following the City Council's final approval of the blockbuster digital billboard agreement that would later come undone with Measure S, the council took up the matter of the red light cameras.
Longtime friend of SCVTalk Jim Farley fought hard last year to get the council to give the cameras a second look before their contract renewed. It was Jim's contention that the yellow light times were unreasonably short for the long turn pockets we have at major intersections, and those short times were to blame for most tickets. We took a look at his fight against these cameras right before that meeting (Area Man Gives Yellow Light to City's Red Light) and summarized the situation like so:
People who just barely run a red light – perceptible sometimes to only our robocops – are receiving fines that were based a more serious offense. Right now the city makes about $90,000 per year from the program, from $675,000 in tickets. But if they were to ticket only those drivers who missed the red by more than a split second, the program would fall deeply in the red. 
That night, the council moved to a month-to-month contract with the camera operator (Redflex) and agreed to revisit within a year. Meanwhile, the city experimented with longer yellow light times and hired a consultant to study our intersections and come up with scientifically-justified yellow light timings.
Image not recoveredred-lights-red.jpg
The results are in, and it doesn't look good for the future of the red light cameras. After increasing yellow lights by a second or less, violations have plummeted, and the consultant's study found that the city should increase yellow light timing even more. Now the city is looking at a net cost of $210,000 to keep the cameras next year, and the cameras are riding a money-losing streak going back to November of 2013.
So on Tuesday, the council will revisit the contract (agenda item here). The city staff gives them three options: yank the cameras, suspend the program for two years, or keep on with the current (money-losing) program. 
The cameras are, at their heart, a public safety device. The city's studies show reduction in collisions at the intersections with cameras. But it seems that the public has turned against their over-zealousness, and many cities got rid of them years ago. It's hard to see the council sinking hundreds of thousands of dollars in a year to keep these running.
It might be a little premature to congratulate Jim, but we're awfully close. 


Comments (4)

  1. James C. WalkerFriday, March 20th, 2015 at 7:07 pm
    Santa Clarita needs to join this list of 72 California cities that have dropped red light cameras, or prohibited them before any were installed. Anaheim, Bell Gardens, Belmont, Berkeley, Burlingame, City of Orange, Compton, Corona, Costa Mesa, Cupertino, Davis, East LA, El Cajon, El Monte, Emeryville, Escondido, Fairfield, Fresno, Fullerton, Gardena, Glendale, Grand Terrace, Hayward, Highland, Indian Wells, Inglewood, Irvine, LA County, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lancaster, Loma Linda, Long Beach, City of Los Angeles, Maywood, Montclair, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Newport Beach, Oakland, Oceanside, Paramount, Pasadena, Poway, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Redwood City, Riverside, Rocklin, Roseville, Rowland Heights, San Bernardino, San Carlos, San Diego, San Juan Capistrano, San Rafael, *Santa Ana July 2015*, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Maria, Santa Rosa, South Gate, South San Francisco, South Whittier, Stockton, Union City, Upland, *Victorville June 2015*, Walnut, Westminster, Whittier, Yuba City, Yucaipa. *cities where cameras operate until the end of their current contract on the dates noted* 39 plan to continue at this point. Note: The city of Modesto has a suspended program with an unknown future. They are still counted in the 39 number above, but only 38 programs are issuing tickets currently, in a state that once had over 100 programs. Adding a bit more yellow time (which will be required by state law by 8/1/15) will even further make it clear that most camera tickets were "gotchas" at about $500 a pop, NOT tickets to the tiny percentage of bad drivers that cause t-bone crashes. The for-profit camera companies of course knew their devices would issue mostly "gotcha" tickets for profits - the ONLY goal of the camera companies. Residents need to call all the elected Santa Clarita officials to make it clear they want the program ended and the cameras removed. James C. Walker, Life Member - National Motorists Association
  2. James FarleyFriday, March 20th, 2015 at 8:57 pm
    James C. Walker, we are kindred spirits. What a great post. You are right on target. God Bless you.
  3. James C. WalkerSaturday, March 21st, 2015 at 5:02 am
    GOOD LUCK James Farley, in finally seeing the scourge end. One thing I have never understood is WHY city councils agree to do SO much damage to their local economies with red light cameras. $100 spent in a store on January 1st does not go into a mattress, it circulates about 6.5 times in a year to produce about $650 in total economic turnover by December 31st - per the Federal Reserve "velocity of money" calculation. Assume that about half the turnover would stay in a local area economy, so $100 spent in a local store would result in about $325 in total economic activity in that area in a year. Now ask how many dollars the cameras in Santa Clarita strip out of the local economy to be sent to Sacramento, the county, and Arizona - virtually none of which will ever return. Multiply that number by 3.25 to see how much economic turnover will NOT happen in the Santa Clarita area. If I understand correctly, Santa Clarita ships at least $2 million a year away with the cameras, causing about $6.5 million dollars damage to the local economy. That HURTS your businesses, their employees, and ultimately your tax base. And the city keeps what? Maybe $100,000 in true net profit after expenses. What rational person would vote for doing this much damage to their local economy for such a pittance of net profit? James C. Walker, Life Member - National Motorists Association
  4. SCVMJBTuesday, March 24th, 2015 at 3:45 pm
    A tip o' the hat to our two careful and caring James!

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support