CITY OF TALLAHASSEE
CITY COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM
ACTION REQUESTED ON: June 24, 2009
SUBJECT/TITLE: Discussion of Request for Proposal to enforce Ordinance No. 09-O-22AA, Red Light Camera Safety Program
TARGET ISSUE: Financial Viability of the Government

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

Ordinance No. 09-O-22AA which created a Red Light Camera Safety Program was introduced on April 22, 2009 and adopted on May 27, 2009. Several Florida cities and other cities throughout the United States have approved such programs using automated cameras mounted at intersections to focus on public safety and to reduce red light violations. Deploying such technology enhances public health, safety, and welfare by providing an additional deterrent to traffic control signal violations, thus reducing accidents and injuries associated with such violations. At the May 27, 2009 adoption hearing, the City Commission directed the Public Works Department to bring back recommendations on how to fast-track the implementation of a Red Light Camera Safety Program. This item presents viable alternatives for delivering such a program and requests Commission selection and approval of the delivery method.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Option 1: Authorize staff to issue a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) and choose two (2) firms to provide and operate the Red Light Camera Safety Program. The firms will monitor different intersections for a two-year period. At the end of the two-year period, a selection will be made based on performance criteria from the RFP. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract for said program.

FISCAL IMPACT

This is a vendor driven program. All equipment costs, set up and operational costs are born by the vendor. The City would be responsible for assigning a police officer to review appropriateness of the prima facie photo evidence prior to citation being issued. It is envisioned that up to 500 hours (not to exceed $10,000) per year of the generated revenues, would be used to fund a reserve officer’s time to validate citations. Added revenues are highly dependent on the number and location of the intersections chosen. Assuming a minimum of three intersections, revenues are anticipated in excess of $1M per year.

Gabriel P. Menendez, Director, Public Works Department

Anita Favors Thompson, City Manager

For information, please contact: Gabriel Menendez, Director-Public Works Department, (850) 891-9197.

 

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL/ISSUE ANALYSIS
HISTORY/FACTS & ISSUES

Several Florida cities have recently approved programs using cameras mounted at intersections to deter red light violations.  The technology improves public safety, provides an additional deterrent to traffic control signal violations, and reduces accidents and injuries associated with such violations. Such programs have significantly improved intersection traffic safety by deterring red light running, a traffic violation with potentially catastrophic consequences for those involved. In addition, these programs have the added benefit of eliminating the need for law enforcement personnel monitoring intersections for similar infractions. Similar programs have also proven to be revenue producers for the cities and counties that have adopted and implemented them. The Cities of Apopka, Aventura and Orlando have adopted programs; and Winter Park, Clermont, Kissimmee, Longwood, and Orange County are considering similar programs. In Orlando, approximately $700,000 worth of civil penalties was issued in the first 2-½ months of the program, at $125 per penalty. On May 27, 2009, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 09-O-22AA, creating the Red Light Camera Safety Program, and requested alternatives for fast-tracking the selection and implementation of such a program.

Post Implementation Accident Impact
Also at the May 27, 2009 public hearing, suggestions were made that such automated red light camera (RLC) enforcement programs actually increase intersection related accidents. Staff has reviewed an Empirical Bayes (EB) before-after research project commissioned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and presented in Publication No. FHWA-HRT-05-049 entitled “Safety Evaluation of Red Light Cameras.” This was a multi-jurisdictional study with samples from seven jurisdictions and 132 sites at El Cajon, San Diego, and San Francisco in California; Howard County, Montgomery County, and Baltimore, Maryland; Charlotte, North Carolina. The objectives of this study were to: a) determine if there is an increase in rear end accidents due to RLC’s, and; b) determine if the increase in rear end accidents outweighs the decrease in right angle accidents. The study concludes with the following observations: 

Staff’s review of the referenced study did not yield new information deterring staff from pursuing the installation of a Red Light Camera Safety Program in support of Ordinance No. 09-O-22AA.

Alternative Methods for Program Delivery
Red light running is a dangerous and costly traffic infraction with potentially catastrophic consequences. In Florida, over 300,000 red light running tickets are issued every year. Recently, at the intersection of Capital Circle and Killearn Center Blvd., a single 8-hour period yielded over 262 observed violations. On-site observation and enforcement has long been the tool used to deter this type of violation. Traditional enforcement methods deploy law enforcement officers to known hot spots to issue citations to violators. This enforcement technique is time consuming and strains resources. In addition, history has shown that the residual effects of these traditional enforcement efforts wane quickly. An automated program such as the Red Light Camera Safety Program, which can provide enforcement on a continual basis, would significantly and consistently deter violations.

These programs are usually vendor driven in as much as the vendors supply, install, and operate all necessary field equipment as well as issue, process, and collect all fines resulting from the traffic infractions. There are several methodologies, which we can follow in contracting with a single vendor or multiple vendors. The following provides the alternatives for choosing a red light camera enforcement service provider. These alternatives consist of issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP), which would either select a single or multiple vendor(s). We have attached a schedule for the RFP process under the City’s Fast Track Program.

Typical Vendor Program
The Public Works Director, as the City Manager’s designee, working with the Police Chief, would determine which intersections should have the cameras. Preliminary investigations have determined that the following six intersections (listed in priority order) are prime candidates for red light camera enforcement*:

*If a single service provider were selected then we would limit the program installation to the top three intersections. On the other hand, if multiple vendors were selected, we would assign the intersections in such a manner so as to distribute the anticipated number of citations equally among the vendors.

The program would involve placing cameras at the selected intersection approaches so as to be able to take pictures of the vehicles before and after entering the intersections. The cameras may be installed on City roadways, but not on County or State roadways without the permission of those entities. The Public Works Director would work with Leon County and the Department of Transportation to determine if cameras may be placed on their roadways within the City. It is important to note that the existing cameras currently installed and used by the Traffic Engineer for the City’s Video Traffic Monitoring System, would not be used for the Red Light Camera Safety Program. Appropriate signage would be installed warning drivers that the City is implementing a Red Light Camera Safety Program.

The program would be under the direction of the Police Chief, who would fund up to 500 hours (not to exceed $10,000) of a reserve officer’s time (to review and validate the appropriateness of the violation) from the revenues generated by the program.  The violation must be clearly visible on at least two (2) images. Citations would then be sent to the vehicle owner as found in State of Florida motor vehicle records. Violators will be cited under the City’s existing citation system. Hearings for drivers contesting the fines would be available before the City’s Code Magistrates.

At previous meetings, the City Commission also asked staff to evaluate longer yellow signal indications to help curtail the red light violations. The answer is complicated and influenced by site specifics. Staff’s process for establishing yellow times follows the recommendations of a published report by the FHWA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration entitled “Guidance for Using Red Light Cameras” dated March 2003. Subsection 5.2.4 of this report references the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Institute of Traffic Engineer’s recommended practice on the lengths of yellow interval times as adequate for monitored intersections. The yellow time intervals for all the traffic signals in the City are based on this recommended practice.

OPTIONS

1. Authorize staff to issue a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) and choose two (2) firms to provide and operate the Red Light Camera Safety Program. The firms will monitor different intersections for a two-year period. At the end of the two-year period, a selection will be made based on performance criteria from the RFP. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract for said program.

a. Pros
i. Streamline process to allow for Manager to execute contract.
ii. Allow for City staff to use an existing RFP to choose two vendors of choice.
iii. Ability to observe the vendor process in place for a two-year period before a final decision is made.

b. Cons
i. May prefer the vendor process of the vendor who did not generate the most revenue.

2. Approve the issuance of Request for Proposal for the Red Light Camera Safety Program and choose one (1) firm to provide and operate the program. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract for said program.

a. Pros
i. Allow for bids to be received from various vendors and chose the most compatible firm.

b. Cons
i. Only allows staff to evaluate one red light camera system.

3. Provide alternative direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS/REFERENCES

Proposed Fast Track Schedule for Proposal for Red Light Camera Safety Program