Red Light Camera Programs: Although They Have Contributed to a ...

5285 users shared this document! click

Red Light Camera Programs: Although They Have Contributed to a Reduction in Accidents, Operational Weaknesses Exist at the Local Level July 2002 2001-125 California State Auditor B U R E A U O F S T A T E A U D I T S The first five copies of each California State Auditor report are free. Additional copies are $3 each, payable by check or money order. You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits at the following address: California State Auditor Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 445-0255 or TDD (916) 445-0255 x 216 OR This report may also be available on the World Wide Web http://www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa/ The California State Auditor is pleased to announce the availability of an online subscription service. For information on how to subscribe, please contact David Madrigal at (916) 445-0255, ext. 201, or visit our Web site at www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa Alternate format reports available upon request. Permission is granted to reproduce reports. July 23, 2002 2001-125 The Governor of California President pro Tempore of the Senate Speaker of the Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders: As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Bureau of State Audits presents its audit report concerning our review of the implementation, application, and efficacy of red light camera programs statewide. This report concludes that red light cameras have contributed to a reduction of accidents; however, our review of a sample of seven local governments found weaknesses in the way they are operating their programs that make them more vulnerable to legal challenge. Specifically, we found that the local governments we reviewed need to more rigorously supervise their respective vendors to exercise and maintain control of their programs. Furthermore, we could not always determine if local governments followed the best practice of first addressing any needed engineering improvements to the intersections they designated before installing the red light cameras. In addition, four of the seven local governments in our sample avoided placing cameras at dangerous intersections along state-owned highways because of the delay involved in obtaining state permission. Moreover, most would use photographs as evidence in criminal proceedings even though it would appear to conflict with the law governing the program. We also found that the local governments in our sample have generally followed the California Department of Transportations required yellow light time interval standards. Finally, only two of the seven local governments we reviewed have generated significant revenue from their red light camera programs. Respectfully submitted, ELAINE M. HOWLE State Auditor CONTENTS Summary 1 Introduction 5 Chapter 1 Operational Weaknesses Make Red Light Camera
Programs Vulnerable to Legal Challenges 13 Recommendations 45 Chapter 2 Red Light Cameras Improve Traffic
Safety While Generating Little Additional
Revenues for Most Local Governments 47 Recommendation 56 Appendix A Reasons Local Governments Do Not Enforce Many
Red Light Violations 59 Appendix B Local Governments That Employ Red Light
Cameras as of April 2002 63 Appendix C Local Government Accident Studies 65 Appendix D Accident Rates at Selected Red Light
Camera Intersections 69 1 Appendix E Red Light Camera Revenues and Expenditures 77 Responses to the Audit City of Fremont 79 California State Auditors Comments on the Response From the City of Fremont 81 City of Long Beach 83 California State Auditors Comments on the Response From the City of Long Beach 87 Los Angeles County 89 City of Oxnard 93 City of Sacramento 95 California State Auditors Comments on the Response From the City of Sacramento 99 City of San Diego 101 California State Auditors Comment on the Response From the City of San Diego 103 City and County of San Francisco 105 1 SUMMARY Audit Highlights . . . Red light cameras have
contributed to a reduction of
accidents; however, our review
of seven local governments
found weaknesses in the
way they are operating their
programs that make them
vulnerable to legal challenge.
Specifically, we found that the
local governments:

Comments