COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, May 6, 2003 10:15 a.m. - - - BILL 000682 - An Ordinance providing for civil liability for violations of certain provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code relating to obedience to steady red-light signals and stopping at an intersection or crossing; and establishing an administrative system for adjudicating liability in connection with such violations; all under certain terms and conditions. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER - - - V A R A L L O, INCORPORATED LITIGATION SUPPORT SERVICES 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 I N D E X BILL 000682 PAGE NANCY LAVIN, PhillyWalks .................... DENNIS WINTERS, Clean Air Council ........... LINDA RIPA .................................. IRA WINSTON ................................. TOM MCCAREY, National Motorist Assoc. ...... DAVID DISABATINO, ACLU ...................... LESLIE BLAKEY, National Campaign to Stop 7 Red Light Running ...................... 61 CATHY CHASE, Advocates for Highway and 8 Auto Safety ........................... 73 JUDGE FRANCIS KELLY ........................ 97 9 DOMINIC CEREMELE, Finance .................. 98 RICHARD DICKSON, Parking Authority ........ 102 10 FRANCIS HEALY, Police Department .......... 124 VINCENT FENERTY, Parking Authority ........ 130 11 DUTCH EICHORN, Dept. of Transportation .... 165 CHARLES TRAINOR, Dept. of Streets ........ 171 12 13 14 3 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
The Committee on Streets and Services, the public hearing, is now in Session. In attendance, to my left is Councilman Mariano, to my immediate right is Councilman Rizzo. Councilman Kenney and Councilmember Nutter have been assigned to this Committee by the Council President, Anna Verna. And also Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller is here also. I understand that there are a couple of people who have a meeting, that they need to leave these Chambers almost immediately, and I will call them up first. Nancy Lavin and Dennis Winters. The Clerk will read the title of the Bill.
Bill No. 000682, providing for civil liability for violations of certain provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code relating to obedience to steady red-light signals and stopping at an intersection or crossing; and establishing an administrative system for adjudicating liability in connection with such violations; all under certain terms and conditions.
It is my 4 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 understanding that Councilman Rizzo has an opening statement. Councilmember Rizzo.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on Bill No. 000682, the Red Light Camera Ordinance, which addresses a very serious problem that affects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens and visitors of Philadelphia - traffic accidents caused by red light running. Everyone knows that red light running is a serious problem both nationwide and particularly in Philadelphia. In 2001, there were 44 fatal red light running crashes in Pennsylvania in which 48 people died. About of those fatalities occurred 18 in the City of Philadelphia alone. These statistics 19 are proof that red light running is a threat to 20 public safety and that your elected leaders have a responsibility to act to remedy the growing problem. While I recognize the significant achievements of law enforcement in the City of Philadelphia to make our roadways safe, I also recognize the great burden placed on our law 5 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 enforcement that may prevent them from expending the resources necessary to combat the red light running. That is why I introduced Bill No. 000682 in Philadelphia City Council. The objective of my legislation is to implement a photo monitoring system at dangerous intersections in the City of Philadelphia in order to photograph vehicle license plates of motorists who violate steady -- and I repeat, steady red lights, thus creating hazardous conditions at intersections around the City. As I mentioned earlier, the statistics of the number of accidents caused by red light violators every year in Philadelphia, as well as around the country, are overwhelming. The number of deaths and injuries associated with red light running cannot be overlooked and have highlighted the need for a red light photo monitoring system. Further, the statistics relating to the effectiveness of photo monitoring enforcement systems that have been implemented around the country are impressive. In many instances these systems have been responsible for reductions in red light traffic accidents and deaths, injuries and 6 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 property damage associated with them of between 40 and 60 percent. With two of the most dangerous intersections in the country right here in Northeast Philadelphia, we cannot afford to ignore this problem any longer. Red light cameras are a proven and effective tool in reducing red light traffic accidents that will support our efforts to make intersections in the City of Philadelphia safer. I look forward to continuing the dialog on this issue in the future and ask for support of my colleagues on City Council for this important initiative. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that opportunity.
Thank you, Councilman Rizzo. Also for the record, Councilman Ortiz has now joined this Committee. Ms. Lavin, Mr. Winters, you decide among the two of you who will speak first.
My name is Nancy Lavin, Vice President of PhillyWalks, the only pedestrian advocacy organization in the greater Philadelphia 7 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 region. Two years ago in Philadelphia, there were 39 pedestrian fatalities caused by motor vehicles. There were 2,409 injuries. New York statistics report that drivers are at fault in 90 percent of pedestrian deaths. PhillyWalks supports the use of these cameras because they have the potential to reduce the numbers of crashes caused by red light runners. We sponsored a public forum addressing the subject, that featured Councilman Rizzo. The large number of attendees was overwhelmingly in favor of the Councilman's proposal to implement the cameras in Philadelphia. To achieve the highest level of pedestrian safety, this technology must be accompanied by our local agencies taking proactive steps to educate the driving public about our pedestrians' right-of-way. In order words, teach that driving is not one of those rights. It is a privilege. To enforce already existing laws and stress improved engineering; that is, traffic signage and signaling, for example. Red light cameras will play a significant part in enhancing Philadelphians' 8 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 quality of life. Options for one's own normal activity in the course of one's day are included in the Center for Disease Control program for healthy communities. The nexus between the two is the importance of walking, bicycling, taking transit, as well as driving. But when one mode threatens all the others through inconsiderate or aggressive actions, red light cameras can add one more tool to promote a safe environment. So in conclusion, these cameras represent much more than just a Kodak moment. They will, instead, help create a more perfect picture of a better and safer Philadelphia. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, Members of City Council, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Dennis R. Winters, and I am Deputy Director of the Clean Air Council, Philadelphia's oldest membership-supported environmental organization. I'm here today to express the Council's support for legislative intent of Bill 000682, an 9 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Ordinance to establish photo enforcement of red light running in the City of Philadelphia. While not apparent at first, the Clean Air Council's interest in this Bill is one of expanding the choice people have in choosing the way they get from one place to another in our beautiful City. Rather than have to rely on motor vehicles to get around, if walking and bicycling are perceived to be safe and enjoyable experiences, studies and surveys have indicated that these two modes are used more often. And every auto trip avoided improves the air we all have to breathe. Philadelphia is still in non-compliance with the Clean Air Act for ozone, a pollutant largely resulting from our overdependency on the automobile. On the other hand, if walking and cycling are thought by most people to be risky and dangerous activities, they are going to be far more likely to use their vehicle. Pedestrians suffer the most under the situation because more cyclists will choose to break the law and use the sidewalk rather than the street, simply because they feel safer there. Unfortunately, bicycles on the sidewalk and pedestrians, particularly those that are elderly, 10 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 are accidents looking for a place to happen. The statistics delivered by others here this morning clearly show the increased safety of streets and intersections where photo enforcement is used to catch motorists running red lights in many of our major cities. It is time Philadelphia made its streets safer by doing the same thing. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will ask for Panel No. 1, Linda Ripa and Ira Winston. Thank you for your testimony. Also in attendance is Councilmember Darrell Clarke.
Good morning. My name is Linda Ripa. My son, Sergio Ripa, and I had the misfortune of being in the path of a red light runner in Philadelphia. I know all too well, the suffering. We almost lost our lives. I don't need to prepare a written speech 11 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 because I can tell you just from everything that I've experienced, that no one, and I mean no one, should have to suffer the way that my son and I have suffered and continue to suffer. Instead of being killed instantly, I feel as though I am dying slowly, surgery after surgery after surgery. I don't know how many more I'm going to have to have. The red light cameras -- this is solely about protecting the innocent people, protecting the law-abiding citizens. And if someone is opposing the red light photo enforcement, I feel that they have no business being behind the wheel of a motor vehicle because they're not only taking their own lives into their own hands, they're taking the lives of innocent people into their own hands. This is just something that must be passed through Council. And I hope that this is just the beginning, not just for the Philadelphia area, but for all the states as well. Thank you.
My name is Ira Winston. I'm an employee of the University of Pennsylvania. In January of 2002, I was struck by a 12 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 motor vehicle at 34th and Walnut Street while crossing the street. The car ducked around another car into a turn lane and then went through a solid red light and broke my right leg. I was fortunately okay and I'm doing quite well right now. The particular intersection is a very dangerous intersection because it's on Walnut Street just as it enters the Penn campus. Cars drive up Walnut Street from Center City going very slowly, then they hit a three-lane section where it all opens up, and they hit about 40 or 50 miles an hour. And if they make the lights, they hit the Penn campus with all the students crossing the streets at full speed. Attempts have been made to narrow the street at that location, but have been unsuccessful because it is a state emergency road and it cannot be narrowed. We need other techniques for signaling drivers that they have arrived at a major pedestrian site. I'm not convinced that a red light running camera would have stopped the gentleman who ducked around another car and hit me. But I will tell you one thing that I learned from this experience is, I used to be a red light runner 13 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 myself until this happened to me. It took being hit by a car to wake me up. But I'll tell you that the majority of people who run through these red lights are not the drunk drivers or the crazy drivers. They're people like you and me who just are in a rush to get someplace. And you know that light is a two-minute light and you just don't want to wait and you go through it. And for people like us, we would worry about getting caught by a red light running camera. And we would worry about that sort of thing. And that can make a difference. I will not -- I guarantee you, I will not run through another red light after what I went through, but I hope it doesn't take people having to have their legs broken so they can also change. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank both of you for your testimony. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Seeing none, we'll ask Mr. David DiSabatino and Tom McCarey to please come to the witness table. Good morning. Please identify yourself 14 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Tom McCarey. I'm a member of the National Motorists Association. Mr. Chairman, Councilman Rizzo, and distinguished Councilpeople, the statements and assertions of ticket camera supporters are, at best, misleading and, at worst, outright falsehoods misled by convoluted, ten-year-old data from an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study. Proponents claim, red light runners cause percent of all crashes and fatalities. 13 Absolute bunk. Federal Highway Administration 14 statistics show 92,000 red light violation crashes 15 in 1999 versus 98,000 in 1996, a 6 percent 16 improvement. These numbers comprise less than 2 17 percent of all US crashes. 18 Proponents of ticket cameras need you to 19 believe that all red light violations are dangerous 20 actions deserving of punishment. Camera and other 21 data from Florida, Maryland to Virginia, and 22 Australia reveal that way less than percent of 23 these violations result in a crash. The red light 24 violation mileage fatality rate fell to a record low 25 between 1992 and 1999. 15 1 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Red light ticket camera advocates loudly proclaim that there is an epidemic of red light running caused by aggressive driver behavior. In reality, there is an epidemic of malpractice in the setting of traffic control devices. Most US signalized intersections, with approach speeds over 35 miles per hour, do not provide enough amber warning time for safe stopping or clearance because over 90 percent of speed limits are underposted. Over 70 percent of red light violations result from signal timing shortfalls or honest human error. Numerous other problems exist, including signals lacking synchronization and change interval formula limitations, with driver disobedience purposely programmed into signal timings. These traffic control deficiencies manufacture scofflaws out of reasonable and safe drivers. They also cause more crashes. Camera enforcement profiteers insist that they respect you and your rights. The ACLU says cameras violate due process. Regardless of who is driving, the ticket gets mailed to the vehicle's registered owner. Illegally reversing the burden of proof from the State to the defendant, the owner, if 16 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 not guilty, must turn in the violator. According to an Insurance Institute for Highway Study, almost 30 percent of red light violation automated tickets get mailed to an innocent person. Cameras also deny the Sixth Amendment right to confront your accusers. Mail does not provide adequate or guaranteed notification. With tickets often arriving weeks after an alleged violation, clear recall can be impossible. All traffic citations, even parking tickets, are issued at the time of the events. Guilt or innocence can definitely be established. If not guilty, clear recall of the event allows the accused a proper chance to challenge the charge in court. Cameras undermine every aspect of an American's legal right to a fair trial. Based on their own biased, conflict-of-interest-inspired surveys, supporters claim most people want cameras. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration poll of 1998 admitted that 35 percent of those surveyed had never even heard of photo enforcement. Any acceptance results from misinformation and the false premise that cameras save lives. Since cameras cannot 17 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 improve safety, opinions are meaningless. Do camera advocates really care what we think? No. The first ticket camera program in New York City began without public consensus. Camera supporters urge you to believe that this automated technology offers the best solution to improving traffic safety. In reality, it offers the surest means for quickly extorting great amounts of money from safe driving motorists. Cameras fail to provide even a partial solution. Proper analysis of over camera programs reveals 13 that photo enforcement cannot enhance safety.
14 Often-times, cameras increase accidents, especially 15 rear-end collisions, which already kill 70 percent more people than red light violations. The most comprehensive study, by Andreassen of Australia, analyzed crash data from five years before and five years after cameras at 41 photo-enforced intersections in Melbourne. Even right-angle crashes, the ones allegedly prevented by cameras, increased by 150 percent after camera installations. Plus, camera sites from all over the globe continue to photograph fatal crashes, proving 18 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 their inability to avert them. DWI, inattentive and reckless drivers constitute the vast majority of red light violation crashes. Cameras cannot detect, impede or apprehend these perilous motorists. Only live police officers can, thereby preventing fatalities, instead of just photographing them. Furthermore, the lust for photo enforcement money will supersede correcting dangerous engineering malpractices. In reality, camera supporters have placed power and money above public safety. They really hope you will swallow one final assertion: This is a safety issue and has nothing to do with money. The previous paragraph refutes the safety part. Proponents of cameras will all profit from their operation. Money from fines enhances the coffers of state, county and city police, local governments, camera vendors, and insurance companies. Campaign money from insurance and camera corporations helps encourage pro-camera politicians. Conflict of interest abounds. Photo enforcement programs throughout America have extorted over $100 million as of January 2001. The 72 insurance 19 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 companies funding the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety usurped an additional $30 million in policy surcharges. " If officials truly care about safety, not just revenue enhancement, then engineering is the key. Engineering, not enforcement, maintains the greatest effect on compliance and safety. Correctly engineered traffic signals, often including more yellow warning time, will seriously diminish red light violations and crashes as demonstrated in Detroit, Omaha, and San Francisco. It's simple, inexpensive, and it respects people's rights. Camera enforcement provides absolutely no benefit to society, only detriments. Cameras extort money and violate rights while increasing crashes and fatalities. Cameras remove the police presence needed to apprehend DWI, criminal and reckless drivers. They also deny police direction. Photo enforcement will encourage further engineering 20 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 malpractices and other unethical behaviors as documented in Washington DC, Virginia, and Florida. In the interest of truth, justice, freedom, and real safety, this red light ticket camera program should be rejected by City Council, and no future program should ever be considered. Whether well intentioned or not, those who endorse cameras have placed power and money above the welfare of the people of Philadelphia. Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the City Council Committee on Streets and Services. My name is David DiSabatino, and I'm the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. I want to thank you for inviting the ACLU to present testimony on Bill 000682. The ACLU opposes this legislation because we think it undermines due process rights and poses a threat to the privacy of drivers in Philadelphia. We believe that using technology rather than human beings --
Do you have copies? 21 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
I'm sorry. Copies of my statement have been passed around.
We believe that technology rather than human beings to enforce our laws diminishes the fundamental principle that guilt is determined on an individualized basis. We also fear the program could actually harm public safety, as already has been pointed out. Finally, we are concerned about the administrative role of the Philadelphia Parking Authority, an unelected entity that is no longer under the control of the City of Philadelphia. Red light camera technology is being sold as a means for enhancing public safety and reducing the number of accidents. We have serious reservations about the evidence regarding red light cameras and safety, and hope that you will look at such evidence skeptically. However, should you remain convinced that this program will enhance public safety, and feel that the benefits outweigh the serious Constitutional concerns, then we hope that you will 22 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 attach to this legislation a mandated reduction in insurance premiums for automobile drivers. After all, if we're being asked to give up some of our rights to privacy and due process, then certainly we should be guaranteed a substantial reduction in what we pay to insurance companies. Under the proposed red light camera program, the owner of a car that is photographed going through a red light will be presumed to be guilty. The owner will have to request a hearing to prove his or her innocence. Furthermore, at such a hearing, the rules of evidence will not apply. All of this, in the birth place of freedom. In the United States of America, we presume someone is innocent until proven guilty. In this country, the burden is on the government to establish that one is guilty. These principles are abandoned in the red light camera program. The United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions recognize the right to confront one's accuser. This right of confrontation is rendered meaningless when one's accuser is a machine. Some discount these concerns about traditional notions of due process by claiming that public safety is more important than Constitutional 23 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 notions of fairness. You heard testimony from victims of crashes this morning. We are very sympathetic to the plight and suffering of victims. But the ACLU is just as concerned about public safety as the proponents of red light cameras. But it's this nation's commitment to due process and procedural fairness that distinguishes the United States from other countries. We lose too much of our freedom each time we trade away any of these core components of our justice system. A state court in San Diego, California, has vindicated this concern over fundamental fairness. That Court held that the evidence from red light cameras is quote, so untrustworthy and unreliable, that it lacks foundation and should not be admitted. There's additional information attached to my prepared remarks. The testimony presented by the Honorable Richard Army, then Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives to the US House Transportation Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. The ACLU is also concerned about the 24 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 potential invasion of privacy through the use of these cameras. Experience has shown that once surveillance systems are put into place for a limited purpose, they inevitably are used for additional purposes. I'm sure you all can imagine the pressure that will be brought to bear on law enforcement to permit red light camera evidence to be used for 24-hour surveillance. We fear that in a few years' time, these cameras will not just be used to catch drivers going through red lights, rather we find that the cameras have become a critical component of a system designed to keep tabs on all of us, all of the time. " We suspect that data and photographs collected by red light cameras will become part of ever-expanding databases. We have seen that every new use for data opens the door to more and more privacy abuses.
For example, cameras that were installed at the Texas-Oklahoma border have been used to capture the license plate numbers of thousands of law-abiding citizens who were then subjected to inquiries about why they were crossing the border. We feel that information collected 25 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 through red light cameras will ultimately be sold, shared, or otherwise abused. The ACLU is also troubled by reliance on technology, rather than human beings, to enforce the laws of Pennsylvania. We think that this diminishes the principle of individualized determination of guilt. How can a person accused of driving through a red light effectively cross-examine a video camera? How does one test the credibility of the photograph that was taken, or the system that is used to generate the photograph? How does one account for mistakes that are made by a machine? Anyone who is mistakenly charged due to camera errors will be required to demonstrate that the system itself malfunctioned. Individuals will have put themselves in a position where they may have to spend hundreds, perhaps thousands, of dollars on attorneys and experts in order to prove that the red light cameras were improperly installed or inaccurately functioning. Defending one's self against a false charge of running a red light will no longer mean merely demonstrating that the police officer's observations were inaccurate. Rather, one will have to show that a fancy technological device 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 is not working properly. And all of this may actually harm public safety. There were reports in some jurisdictions that used red light cameras that the yellow light intervals had been shortened. While this may lead to an increase in revenue for the government due to more citations being issued, it can also lead to more rear-end collisions at intersections where yellow lights have been shortened. If you want to make the public safer, you could have engineers design the dangerous intersections that we all know about in Philadelphia, lengthen the time of yellow lights, and provide for more public transit so there will be fewer cars on the road. The ACLU believes that Americans should carefully examine and debate the extent to which we want computers, surveillance cameras, and other technologies to be used for law enforcement purposes in place of real human beings who make actual observations of human behavior. We also believe that traffic safety and due process are not mutually incompatible. We do not think that traffic is compromised when we protect privacy. 27 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Last year the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed Act 123. Pursuant to that law, the Philadelphia Parking Authority must be the administrator of the red light camera program. The ACLU is troubled by the fact that this system that compromises our privacy interests and the fundamental notions of due process is going to be run by an agency that is not elected and not under the control of the City. It would be one thing for the citizens of Philadelphia to have this system run by employees who must answer to our elected officials, but the system is not going to operate in that manner. And the interests of the citizens of Philadelphia will be subject to the whim of an agency that is now a creature beholden to the powers that be in Harrisburg. It's for all these reasons that the ACLU of Pennsylvania urges you to oppose this Bill. However, should you not agree with our views, we do hope that you will at least consider conditioning implementation of this program on an actual substantial reduction in auto insurance premiums in Philadelphia. If we're going to be asked to sacrifice our rights in the name of safety, then 28 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 shouldn't we see some relief from the punishing auto insurance rates? Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I'll be happy to take any questions you have.
Thank you very much. I'm intrigued by your indication you would like us to attach mandatory reductions in insurance rates. Are you an attorney?
How in God's name would we do that? Because if it's that easily done, we could pass that today. I don't know if it's going to work. What teeth does the City Council have to mandate reductions in auto insurance rates?
I think you're right that there's no way to directly do it.
No. I think that what the City Council could consider is ways to negotiate with the folks who are going to benefit from these programs, to bring to the table the insurance companies. I mean, we've been under these high 29 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 insurance rates for so long, as City Council knows. Various programs have been tried to try to make the streets of Philadelphia safer for insurance companies through Live Stop and other such programs, but we haven't seen any relief. So it's a real concern to the citizens of Philadelphia. If we can come up with creative ways to make it more affordable for drivers to register their cars and insure their cars --
But for argument's sake -- and the last witness disagrees with the statistics that indicate the reduction in accidents and injuries. You haven't spoken to that in your testimony about statistics, whether you disagree or agree with the effectiveness. Yours more is a civil liberties argument. I understand it and respect it. Would it seem natural that if, in fact, for argument's sake, it did reduce the amount of accidents and injuries, that it would be another piece in our ability to go to Harrisburg, Live Stop, reduction in accidents, reduction in injuries, reduction in premium payments, wouldn't that seem to make more sense as a component piece of the argument on why Philadelphia should get some rate relief? 30 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
Well, we don't think that you can skip over the privacy and due process issues.
We may have an argument about that. I'm not going to debate you on it because I respect the ACLU's position on a lot of these issues. Thank God you're there to at least give the other side. But as far as putting together pieces that will allow us to make a cogent argument to Harrisburg that we should deserve rate relief, would not this seem to be one of those pieces?
That's essentially what the core of that part of our proposal is, that if you do go forward with this, that it be considered in the entire nature of the negotiation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, gentlemen. I actually wanted to follow-up on Councilman Kenney's issue with respect to insurance rates. During the course of the deliberations on the state level authorizing the implementation of 31 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 this program in the City of Philadelphia, did the ACLU testify?
The ACLU did participate in the process. I wasn't there. Our legislative director, Larry Frankel, was present. I'm not sure if he gave testimony on it. I think he did.
Well, you not knowing if they testified or not, my question was going to be relating to the auto insurance issue on a state level, since the State Legislature has substantially more involvement in the process than we do here locally. I was wondering if that was a part of the testimony and to what degree you were hopefully going to tie this issue if, in fact, implemented to the insurance rates? And it actually may even come up in the confirmation hearings of the insurance commissioner in the next few days.
It may not have been raised during the original hearings in Harrisburg on the 123. But for sure now, if this effort does move forward, we will be tying this issue to the issue of auto insurance in Harrisburg.
Wouldn't it be 32 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 prudent even if we for some reason don't authorize it today, to have that on the table in the future if, in fact, we implemented it? It may change Members' minds if there was actually a thought that they would reduce to some degree. And I'm a little reluctant to believe that that's going to happen, frankly speaking, given all we've done here locally.
Councilman, if I may. These red light ticket cameras increase accidents, rear-end collisions especially, which are litigated terrifically in Philadelphia. Insurance rates are going to go up. Eventually, the insurance companies are going to demand points on these tickets like they have everywhere else in the country. Everybody's rates are going to go up, and it's going to be one more reason for people to leave Philadelphia.
Well, that was actually my next line of questioning with respect to other municipalities. With respect to other municipalities, do you have statistics to show that where this program has been implemented, rates have gone up or gone 33 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 down?
I don't know about rates. But I know about a 125 percent increase in rear-end collisions after a 10-year study in Australia.
You just said that in other municipalities auto insurance has gone up.
So you don't know that that has, in fact, happened? You're assuming that they've gone up in other areas?
As day follows night, when you have an accident, your rates go up. There's going to be more accidents and more deaths and crashes.
It's not an assumption. It's a fact borne out by the insurance --
Sir, excuse me. The question was, have they gone up or gone down in other municipalities where this program has been implemented? You either don't know, yes or no. 25
That's the answer I'm looking for. You don't know. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. McCarey, you keep referencing Australia. Is there any difference in the traffic patterns? I think they drive on the different side of the road.
Well, not substantially. But there is some difference in their traffic patterns and their highways, I assume?
Not that I know of. This study is the most comprehensive study. It debunks other studies. The Insurance Institute says there's no rear-end crashes. You can look at my last page. I made a diagram. They look at the rear-end crashes inside the crosswalks. If you go back to 50 22 feet, that's where the rear-end collisions happen. 23 They conveniently leave that out of their studies. 24
Don't you think 25 that the cameras in those instances where there may 35 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 be accident at an intersection, where there hopefully is a camera installed, would help alleviate some of the legal issues, the expenses of lawyers debating who went through the light first? Don't you think that would be somewhat helpful?
No. And it certainly isn't worth the cost of the detriment of the cameras.
It's not worth the drawbacks that cameras bring to the situation.
It's a grassroots, member-funded, non-profit organization to promote automobile rights. We're against this instance in particular, enforcement for profit. There's rational ways of engineering to make driving safe. And there's a lot of misconceptions and myths put out by the government, especially in the insurance companies and some of the people you've heard here today.
You say it's a 36 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 grassroots organization made up of just --
Well, there's a president and a communications director and some lady answers the phone. It's in Wisconsin.
Someone handed me a sheet of paper here that speaks to some of the issues, and I'm not certain if they're accurate or not. I'd like to ask you. 37 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 What is the National Motorists Association's position on sobriety checks?
Against it. It's a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Most DUI problems come from people who have 1.2 to 1.7 percent alcohol in their blood. There's a lot of different complicated medical things about blood alcohol --
I just want to make certain that this note that was handed to me is accurate or inaccurate. What is the National Motorists Association's position on mandatory seat belt laws?
Against it. It's up to the person's individual choice. The government has no business making decisions for people.
What is the National Motorists Association's position on automobile safety inspections?
So it's the individual's right, in your opinion, the Association's opinion, to decide whether or not 38 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 their vehicle is safe or not?
You suggest that everyone who drives a car maintains it?
I'm not suggesting everyone. Well over 97 percent of the motoring public is safe and reasonable. This is an attempt by the camera companies paying for this program to discredit the National Motorists Association.
Sir, I was just handed a slip of paper. Sir, I've given you the courtesy of listening to your testimony, much of which I disagree with. But that's okay. That's the process. So I'd just like to know the position of your association on all these issues.
What is your association's position on mandatory automobile insurance?
What is your 39 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 opinion on mandatory factory installation of air bags in vehicles?
Air bags have killed people. There's a lot of controversy about that. I don't know their position. I don't have a position.
Is it correct that your association is now boycotting General Motors Saturn products because apparently they are manufacturing vehicles with daytime running lights?
That's correct. Daytime running lights are unnecessary, and they're confusing.
For me, I wish that every time you started your car up your headlights would go on automatically. Because I see people driving around constantly at dusk, driving around in the middle of the night without their headlights on. I think that there should be a law that they go on automatically all the time. As soon as your car starts up, those lights should be on. So that's really one I disagree with you on. Any questions for this gentleman?
Mr. Chairman, I wasn't finished. 40 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
No. Actually, I was going to ask Mr. DiSabatino the question with respect to insurance rates in other municipalities.
I apologize. Councilman Rizzo will be next. I'm sorry about that.
Mr. DiSabatino, the issue with respect to other municipalities and insurance rates, gone up, gone down, don't know?
I'm not prepared to talk about those issues. I came to address mainly the Constitutional issues.
I understand. But you referenced it in your testimony.
We have seen some evidence, but we have not evaluated the evidence. We're attorneys rather than traffic safety people.
Thank you. Councilman Rizzo and then Councilman Cohen after Rizzo. 41 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
The statistics that I have indicate that deaths, injuries, property damage associated with -- after the installation of red light cameras, property damage cases in many of the municipalities have been reduced between 40 and 60 percent. And, again, I'm not here today to talk about the financial aspects of this, but the information that I received is that it's had the trickle down effect and has affected the number of losses in some of the cities that have implemented cameras. So I just wanted to put that out there. And, again, I appreciate both of you coming in here. I wish you didn't come, but I appreciate that you came and expressed yourself. There's one last thing on the list that really amazes me with the number of -- how the National Motorists Association could be against trying to repeal laws when you violate the speed limit in a work zone. You're trying to repeal that law that doubles the fine in a work zone. When you hear -- just recently out on the turnpike, two workers were killed by a car that was speeding and in a work zone. Why you would want to be hooked up with trying to repeal that law amazes me. 42 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
You have to deal with that individual speeder. Texas A&M transportation --
But after somebody's killed, you can deal with individual speeder, but that doesn't bring the person back to life that was killed.
If it slows down the vehicle in the work zone and the accident never occurs because that sign that says it's -- let me tell you, it gets my attention and I think it gets a lot of people's attention.
Texas A&M Department of Transportation Engineering Department did a study that said doubling fines has little effect on compliance. So it's just a money grab by the government.
Councilman Mariano and then Councilman Cohen. Councilman Mariano first.
Thank you, Mr. 43 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Chairman. Mr. McCarey, explain to me the rear-end crashes in your theory on how the red lights cause --
Not to my knowledge. You need a certain amount of yellow time to safely decide whether to stop or to continue. And I talked to Charles Trainor and he said that the yellow time is based on the posted speed limit. The posted speed limit has nothing to do with what people drive. People drive the 85th percentile speed. That's the speed at which 85 percent of the drivers or less, slightly less, speed. If the speed limit posted is 30, people could be going 40 at the 85th percentile. You need more yellow time to stop. So every light in Philadelphia is mis-timed.
Do you think -- this is just my theory. Yellow light to a lot of people means go faster and get through it before it gets red. It's what I've seen. I'll be 48 years 44 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 old. I've been driving since I was 16. I don't think I had any moving violations that I can remember. The people listening to this on the radio, if they're here, a lot of this stuff you're trying to explain to us is very technical. It's your theory on it. And the other side has a theory. But in all practicality, to me, the yellow light makes sense. Even if it saves -- will it save any lives? Probably. Because people that have money that are in a hurry are going to go through the light anyhow and say, "The heck with it." And that goes to sum up with what the guy from the ACLU says. But people who don't have money, which are probably most of the people in Philadelphia -- and it's not about trying to get money, on my part. I can't speak for the sponsor of the Bill. I know him. I doubt it. He's really trying to do something here that helps people stay alive. We can probably bring a lot more people in for both sides of the issue. I just can't understand why something like this -- I understand the ACLU's point of view. I think I do. But your point of view and your organization's point of view, if there's a red light people are going to 45 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 go through it, if they're going to go through it anyhow. I heard theories before from these people that said, "We'd rather have stop signs because people will blow red lights because they figure the guy on the four-way red light or the four-way stop" -- I'm looking at one of the judges over there. I think he explained it to me. People blow things if they're going to or not. But there's an effect here. Something is going to happen here if you do this. Someone is going to take a picture of your plate, and if it's me driving or it's my car -- I have to deal with my 22-year-old that may have my car. It may give me a good reason not to lend my car to him. You're not getting my car because of that. But I just can't understand -- maybe it's a lack on my part -- where anyone would think that this would cause more accidents. I mean, I understand the stopping part, but it's going to cause accidents the other way. It's got to be both ways.
No, it's not. And they're not my opinions and it's not theory. These are engineering facts backed up by the Institute of 46 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Transportation Engineers and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. If you have a properly engineered intersection, the cameras are not profitable.
Explain properly engineered intersection. Let's talk about Grant and the Boulevard in my district. That's the most dangerous intersection in the country. Where we did the Live Stops and people are still doing 85 miles an hour in a 35-mile-an-hour zone.
A lot of people. The only person I know that's not is me. I doubt if everybody else is. I'm not. Because if I do it, it's a story in the Inquirer. So I'm obviously not doing it. Plus the cops that stop us know all of us. And if you think they won't write us a ticket, they will. It works the other way too. Seriously, that's a busy intersection. Now, I'm sure there was an insurance company that was involved in that study, so you may discount that study. I know what I see from living in this City my whole life. People are riding around -- one of the Councilpeople told me he saw 47 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 somebody shaving as they were driving. I see people driving SUVs that are smaller than me, they got their hands up, they're talking on the cell phone, they're doing things with their nose that I won't mention, their ears. Who knows what else they're doing. We need help here.
I can tell you what they did in Detroit for four problem intersections. They combined with the AAA. They made better pavement markings, better signages, better site lines and they increased the size of the lenses from eight inches to 12 inches and they increased the yellow time. Violations went down by 50 percent and it stayed there.
Even if that's all done, isn't that guy who's going to blow that red light, he's going to blow that red light anyhow because he's in hurry? The only thing that's going to stop him from blowing that red light is because something is going to happen to him. He's either going to get hit in an accident or he's going to get a ticket. Hopefully, he doesn't get in an accident. He will get a ticket if this passes.
A camera is not going to 48 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 stop a guy like that. There's a very, very small percentage of people like that. You're never going to stop a willful red light runner, a DUI, a criminal, a reckless driver. That's what the police are for. They can stop him before he gets to the next camera to take a picture of him running into somebody.
I have to differ with you. It's not that I know a lot of criminals, but I know a lot of people -- we're talking about criminals and people who make bad decisions driving. I just have to differ with you on that. They're going to get in trouble. There's going to be at least a ticket sent to their house. So if my son, my 22-year-old or my 18-year-old is out there with my car, I'm going to get that ticket. I read the stuff here that may have been the ACLU's. Two weeks ago, I know who had my car. It's down to two or three people. It's me, my wife, my son and maybe my other son. He's in college. Do you know what I'm saying? I mean, it's clear in your mind, but it's just as clear in our minds. It's simple stuff to me. I can't speak for the rest of the Committee here. Something is going 49 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 to happen. It may affect one person. If it affects one person who slows down, that's a victory for us.
With all due respect, those are emotional opinions, and the camera companies have resorted to emotion to try to sell these things. I have statistics that show that 80 percent of red light running occurs within one second of the red. That's an honest human mistake. Fairfax County, Virginia, lengthened the yellow from four seconds to five-and-a-half seconds. Red light violations went down by 96 percent and have stayed there. That hasn't been tried in Philadelphia yet. I think it's worth a try before you even look at these cameras. But the statistics show the cameras increase rear-end collisions. And it really is all about the money.
This is the last thing I'll say. I'm on this Committee. I've been on this Committee for eight years. Nobody from any red light company has contacted me, or any camera company. I haven't heard anything. I talked to Councilman Rizzo when he started it. I didn't sign it at the beginning because one of the Traffic Court judges had an opinion and I wanted to listen to 50 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 them, and I did. Now I'm for it. But what's black and white to you, it's not to us. Thank you. Thanks for your theories.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiSabatino, you're the representative of the American Civil Liberties Union?
I'm just a bit troubled. I'm troubled by both aspects of this situation, but I'm troubled that the Civil Liberties Union would think in any way that a payoff in financial relief would justify any violation of privacy rights.
Well, I wasn't trying to suggest that we justify it. I was suggesting 51 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 that if Council does move forward with this, because of an honest disagreement over the extent of the Constitutional problems, that Council consider providing relief to overburdened drivers at the same time.
Well, I'm not so sure that there's really a difference of opinion about violations of Constitutional rights. I think the division is more about people who care about the violations and those who don't. And if you don't care about violations of civil rights, of course you don't know anything about privacy, you don't care to protect it. But if you care about civil rights, then you know that things always come to us in sweet, syrupy conditions. This is only going to be the picture of the license tag. Nobody is ever going to see a face. Now, anybody who knows anything about progress knows that's untrue, knows that shortly after the plan is put into effect, if it ever is, that there will come a statement, we've now perfected this, and now we can get to the place where we can put points on because we can get enough of a picture so that somebody can defend himself 52 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 properly and, therefore, we don't have to limit ourselves to only ticketing. We can actually give people points. Not only a civil violation, but we can affect the driving habits. We've seen photographs begin to invade privacy all along the business intersections of the City. And in no time at all -- speaking historically, it may take 5 or years. So maybe 10 in my lifetime I'm safe. But for most of my colleagues, if they don't understand that this is merely the beginning of what we generally call a slippery slope, and it get's more slippery and the slope gets more intense, and in a short period we're going to have a violation of rights. So I would just suggest that the Civil Liberties Union reconsider its attitude. I don't think there's any question as to whether it's a violation of civil rights and privacy. It is. And it leads to the kind of things like in the new Security Act, which permits the government to go into areas we never thought they would ever be allowed to go. For example, if you take a book out of a library -- now, isn't that an innocent thing? You go to the library. You want to 53 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 read a book. You've read maybe about Iraq you're interested in. So you go there and then the government decides to investigate because there's a specific provision in that act which permits the government to get library information, including what books, who read. And so suddenly you're called in. "We notice that in April three years ago you read a book on Iraq. What was your reason for reading that book on Iraq? Were you going to work with Saddam Hussein? Were you against him? " Well, that kind of privacy -- we've always rejected that kind of invasions of privacy. Yet it sounded innocent enough when introduced. When people face a crisis -- and driving accidents are a crisis. I admit that. It's a serious problem. Philadelphia is a City where everybody passes the red light and everybody throws trash on the street. Sooner or later we're going to have cameras on every street in Philadelphia so that we'll identify people who drop pieces of paper on the street. Maybe that's worth the price that you have to pay for a clean city, but it seems to me that other cities have become clean without that. 54 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 And there must be non-invasive methods for dealing with situations. I'm also concerned about the fact that governments have become pretty much like private business. They look for every conceivable way to raise funds, particularly from poor people and low income people. And it seems to me that this is aimed basically, like most government financing is aimed, at the people who are not influential, at the people who it's felt will accept it. And that's the low income people who are overwhelmingly most of the drivers in the country. So I'm concerned about those aspects. And I'm concerned about why is it that in Philadelphia, unlike many other cities, we don't solve these problems without going to these extremes, which always also involve money.
Somehow the government makes money out of the bad habits of people. So I'm concerned about all the aspects of this case. But one of my main concerns is the Constitutional concern of privacy, and I just want to reinforce my view that I don't think any price is worth paying to permit an invasion of privacy. 55 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 I wonder what happens if somebody is out on a street that night and a robbery takes place near where a red light was passed, and the police begin an investigation very properly of the robbery. And they want to follow every lead. And police should follow every lead. And your car happened to pass that intersection at or about the time. Suddenly you're involved in a robbery investigation. And maybe you were in that neighborhood for reasons you're not prepared to disclose to the public. Maybe if you were a lawyer, you were investigating a case, a case for a client who did not wish to have their names released. I can think of all kinds of ways in which the information could be harmful to people. And so I'm wondering is it worth the price, if there is a price? Can there been a price to this kind of thing? Why can't we get smart and figure out ways to clean up the City from the trash, make it a clean City and make it a safe City. Why can't we find a method to convince Philadelphians that you ought not to pass red lights. It's too dangerous for everybody; for the driver, for the pedestrians, everybody. Why can't we do it preserving our basic 56 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Constitutional rights? Why is it whenever there is a crisis in anything, the first approach always is, let's give up some basic American right that we think is important enough to fight about, to fight militarily, to give up, if necessary, our children. So I'm very concerned about this issue. I'm listening intently. But I don't want to neglect or underestimate the very serious invasion this would be of privacy and Constitutional rights. Just think of yourself walking your dog, deciding one night to walk two blocks further because it's a lovely night, having something happen somewhere where you're walking, and then having to explain what were you doing in this neighborhood. You didn't belong here. We watched you walk on other nights and you only walked across the street where the park is. What were you doing two blocks away that night? They're the kind of concerns I have. I don't think this is an easy question at all. And I'm also very suspicious -- who gets the money in this Bill? Who's going to get the money? Have you checked that?
It goes to the Parking Authority, which is the administrator of the 57 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 program. I'm not sure how that money is shared between the City and the State.
Well, if anybody has any information, I'd like to know. Because Parking Authority recently changed ownership. And they sold out from one outfit to another outfit. And the first outfit had all kinds of investment practices, like building garages and empty holes, like at 8th and Market Street investing $30 million. And the new ownership said, "We're going to take care of the school system with the Parking Authority," only to find there was no money.
Councilman Cohen, there are representatives from the Parking Authority who will be testifying this morning. I'm certain that you will want to reserve your questions for them.
Okay. Very good, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. So if either of you have any comments -- I tried to follow the gentleman from the other organization, but he was way beyond my level of understanding about slippery slopes. I think he slipped all the way down. But I am very much 58 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 concerned with the position of the Civil Liberties Union.
Councilman Cohen, I just want to respond briefly by saying I agree with you 100 percent. We are opposed to the legislation. I didn't mean to imply that the ACLU would consider it okay if there was enough of a financial relief exacted for the citizens of Philadelphia. We completely share your concerns about privacy and due process. And I think that we are also aware, as you are, of the importance of enforcing the the traffic laws. But we really believe that real human police officers, law enforcement officers, should be doing that enforcement rather than relying on technology. It's tempting, as you say. But also as you said, the technology is advancing so quickly, that right now or in a few years, we will have the ability to track people in public in a way that a prior generation couldn't even imagine. And when people make the argument, "Well, it's for safety," it's a very appealing argument, as you say. But it also presents real Constitutional problems. And that's what we're encouraging City Council to do, is to think about those problems before adopting a new 59 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 technology which then becomes part of everybody's daily life.
Councilman Cohen, the bottom line is, we're against this because it won't work. It will cause more crashes and fatalities and it just extorts money from motorists. If it worked, fine. But it doesn't work. It has proved it hasn't worked. There's statistics all over the country, every program.
I'm inclined to think you're right with respect to your conclusion. To Mr. DiSabatino, anybody who thinks you're going to find a way to get the insurance companies to stop molting the public, I think we're dreaming. On the Live Stop program, I think the Chair has reported at other meetings about the great reduction in the number of problems for insurance companies. And the insurance companies respond, "Yes, that's true. But that's kind of irrelevant. It only reflected a tiny portion. So tiny it doesn't effect the rates." The insurance company will probably come up with that kind of story, if this program were put 60 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 into effect. And if it were indeed successful, they'd probably say, "Well, that's really irrelevant. You didn't stop enough. It wasn't quite successful enough." Insurance companies are going to have to be dealt with by an Insurance Commissioner who really works in the interest of the public. And City Council has expressed its opinion to the Governor as to the first -- two steps have already been taken: The change in the Insurance Commissioner and the passage of a Bill for a Consumer Advocate for auto insurance. But in any event, this presentation is a problem. I think it ought to be presented, but I think we all ought to be conscious of the dangers that we face by the shortcut approach. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman Cohen. Are there any other questions for these witnesses from the panel? (No response.)
Seeing none, I ask the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, 61 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Leslie Blakey, and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Cathy Chase. Is there someone here from the Pennsylvania Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee? I don't have a name for that organization. I want to hear from them. Good morning, ladies. Please identify yourself for the record. Decide among the two of you who will speak first.
Thank you, Councilman DiCicco, Vice Chairman Cohen, and Members of the City Council for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of City Ordinance 000682, a Bill that would allow Philadelphia to establish a photo red camera pilot program within well-established guidelines. As Executive Director of the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, an industry-funded advocacy organization, I urge your favorable vote on this important Ordinance that will help decrease red light camera running crashes and reduce deaths and injuries in Philadelphia. In Philadelphia during 2001 there were 20 fatalities caused by red light runners. Fatal 62 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 red light crashes in Philadelphia are increasing, and they account for nearly half of the fatal red light crashes in the entire State of Pennsylvania. Nationally, red light running caused as many as 218,000 crashes last year, resulting in more than 181,000 injuries and 880 deaths, at a $14 billion cost to American taxpayers. One in three Americans knows someone who has been injured, somebody who has been killed, or both, because of a red light runner. Red light running crash deaths are increasing three times faster than any other type of roadway fatality. Philadelphia's home to two of the country's most dangerous intersections, according to State Farm Insurance. But red light running is not only a problem at these troubled intersections. It's a problem right outside the doors of City Hall. We took our cameras outside the building, and in one hour, this is what we found. And I urge you to look carefully on the video at the signal which shows -- when the signal turns red, you will be able to see running the red light right outside the doors of City Hall. (Videotape played.) 63 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
As you can see, too many drivers do not consider running a red light to be a serious traffic offense or a danger to their fellow citizens. Consistent enforcement is necessary to deter people from making this dangerous and often deadly choice, and photo red light camera programs are a very effective safety countermeasure to establish this goal. I would like to depart from my written remarks here for just a moment to address some of the issues that were brought up by the previous witnesses. In particular, I want to call the Council's attention to three reports that were released in just the past month: One from the Transportation Research Board, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences; one from the FHWA; and one from the Texas Transportation Institute. All three of these were major comprehensive reports and all three endorsed the benefits of photo enforcement programs and their effectiveness. There was also one other report which was released back in February from the Virginia Institute of Technology studying the Fairfax County program in Fairfax, Virginia. The report showed that, in fact, the issue of cost 64 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 is really a cost to society, not the issue at hand. It's the savings that are achieved from savings in crashes and injuries and fatalities. In that study, the research has found that projected over eight years, eight cameras, only eight, in Fairfax County would save $30 million in societal costs, which is, I think, one of most significant findings recently is that we benefit from reduced accidents and reduced injuries, but there's also saved police power, saved EMS personnel, savings in terms of commuter time from tie-ups and congestion and so forth caused by injuries, not to mention the savings in families from people who are out of work due to these crashes and injuries. Also, with respect to the aspect that was brought up in terms of civil liberties, the issue of being able to confront your accuser. Under these systems, under these programs, and in the Philadelphia proposal, you will still have the right to do that. The ticket is merely a summons to present your case at a hearing, if you so choose, or to pay the ticket if you choose to do so because you recognize that you are guilty. You can confront your accuser, which is the State. The camera is not 65 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 your accuser. The photo is merely evidence. The State is your accuser, and the opportunity is there for you to confront the State and deny that you ran the red light. However, in most cases, people see themselves in the photo and -- or where there's video, they see themselves on the video and they recognize that they actually ran the light. This is a very --
Point of information. As I understand this Bill, you're speaking in your testimony as to a photograph of a person. It's my understanding that this program is only photographing a license. So I don't want to mislead anyone here. Maybe other jurisdictions have the ability or the capacity to photograph the driver. One of the things that was, I think, strongly, from my perspective, favoring the Bill, was the fact that it was only the license plate that was being photographed. So a lot of the civil liberties issues are not as serious because you're photographing the plates. I don't want your testimony to --
That's correct. What I was 66 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 addressing was the issue of being able to confront your accuser. And you do have the opportunity to confront --
I just didn't want anybody here in the room or on the panel to think that somehow there was going to be facial photographs of the driver.
That's correct. It will be a rear license plate only. And the camera only activates and takes a picture once someone has crossed the crosswalk and entered the intersection after the light has turned red. So that the only pictures that will be taken will be people that are actually breaking the law. And the picture will be of their license plate, not of the individual. So the issue that I was going to, in terms of Constitutional issues, has do to with the right to confront your accuser, which you still have.
I just want to make sure that the record was clear, that no one's photograph was being taken. It was only the license plate.
Further point of 67 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 information, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to also point out that every photograph, license plate that's photographed, before that is sent to the registered owner of that vehicle, that a Philadelphia Police officer will be associated with the process where -- the Parking Authority can further elaborate on that. But they will view each of the photographs to be assured that it is a legitimate violation, that it's looked at by the police officer before it's sent. So that is also the human factor into the process. And, again, if that's not absolutely correct, I'm sure that I'll be straightened out on that, but I believe that's how that is going to work.
That certainly is my understanding, as well. And with respect to a remark that was made by our previous witness, which is that in the case of a live citation issued at the time by a police officer that -- he made the comment that guilt or innocence can be established at that time. And, in fact, that is not the purpose of a law enforcement officer. An officer is not to establish guilt or innocence. The officer cites the offender 68 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 based on what he has observed, and guilt or innocence is not established at that time. It operates exactly the same way effectively, as this program would operate, which is that you then are allowed to present your evidence at a hearing that you are either innocent or guilty. So there really is actually very little difference from a Constitutional standpoint.
Thank you very much. Excuse me for interrupting your presentation.
Sure. Absolutely. One of the other aspects, though, that I was interested in addressing was the privacy issue, which I do want to reiterate that driving is a privilege. When you're driving on a public road, there's a different set of obligations at work. And when you're breaking the law on a public street, you're not entitled to special protections of privacy. The camera systems that we're talking about here will allow the photograph only from the rear and, therefore, we're not identifying any individual. And when that ticket or citation is sent to the owner of the vehicle, the owner has the opportunity to identify the person who is driving, 69 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 if it was not them. And they have the opportunity, therefore, to have the ticket abated and the proper person cited subsequently. So there's quite a lot of built-in protection here in terms of civil liberties. One of the other aspects that I wanted to address that was presented in the previous testimony is that there was an assertion that rear-end collisions greatly increased as a result of these programs. In fact, the evidence for the rear-end collisions have increased in one of the reports -- as a matter of fact, it was an extensive review of 90 different programs in the United States and in other countries which was released by the Texas Transportation Institute -- stated, and I quote, that any increase in rear-end collisions is both slight and temporary. That was their conclusions based on studies of 90 different communities. The previous witness, and often when we hear this from opponents, greatly exaggerates the importance of the rear-end crashes. The rear-end crashes also, when they do occur, tend to be much less injurious, much less damaging than the typical red light running crash, which is a T-bone crash 70 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 often resulting in brain injury and spinal cord injury, as well as fatalities. One other point that I wanted to make which has to do with the San Diego case that was cited previously. In San Diego -- in fact, Judge Stein's ruling in San Diego affirmed the Constitutionality of the program there, as did the audit that was conducted by the State of California, which was an audit that was called for by the State's Legislative Body and conducted by the State's Independent Auditing Authority. The Constitutionality was not at issue in that program, on the temporary interruption of the program out there. It had to do with procedures in oversight by the City of San Diego in administering the program. The interesting results, though, of ceasing the red light camera program in San Diego was that crashes in San Diego actually went up after the cameras were turned off at camera intersections by 14 percent. So if anyone has any doubt that red light cameras reduce crashes, you have only to look at the case in San Diego, which shows that once the cameras were turned off during this temporary interruption, over that period of time crashes went back up 14 percent. 71 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 I think that's a very telling statistic. The other aspect is the popularity of the programs. It was asserted that a lot of people don't understand them, don't know about them, or do not have enough basis, therefore, on which to make up their minds. Our opinion poll of just last August, which was a national poll, showed that 83 percent of the American public supports the use of photo enforcement. But more interestingly is that in areas where photo red light programs are in effect, the studies and polls by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety have shown that support in the public actually goes up after the programs are in place and have been in place for some time. People recognize the value of the photo enforcement programs in these cities, and support actually increases. I'll just return now to my original remarks. I apologize for interrupting, but I just could not let some of these inaccuracies pass unchallenged.
The red light camera programs nationwide have very promising results. And in nearby Wilmington, Delaware, violations decreased by 56 72 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 percent since the start of red light camera programs in July 2001. Additionally, citations from the Wilmington program have been upheld 97 percent of the time they've been contested. Residents there are getting the message that red light running is not an option. Red light photo enforcement programs are popular with the general public. I just mentioned that our poll showed 83 percent support. And the cameras supplement police work and allow law enforcement to focus on other crimes. Red light cameras capture and process the violation without a dangerous pursuit. This technology is a valuable supplement to good engineering and is in use in 70 communities throughout the United States. I urge the City Council to authorize the use of this lifesaving technology as part of an overall traffic safety program. When combined with good engineering practice and strong public awareness and education programs, this method of enforcement is a very effective procedure in preventing crashes and tragedies that all too often result. 73 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Thank you very much.
Thank you. Good morning, ma'am. Would you please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony?
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Cathy Chase. I'm with Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and I'm going to try to keep my remarks as short as possible. A lot of my points have already been expressed, but since I made the trip up from Washington, I think I'll do my best to make some remarks that hopefully you'll find persuasive. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety is a non-profit organization. We work to advance highway safety laws, both the state and federal levels. We're a unique organization because we're comprised of consumer health safety and law enforcement organizations, as well as insurance companies. For example, one of our board members is Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and they are in support of this legislation as well. I'm pleased to be here today to testify on Bill 000682 to help stop the dangerous problem of red light running in 74 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Philadelphia. We all know how tempting it is to run a red light, either if we're in a rush to go somewhere or we're just running late. We all likely know that this is dangerous behavior, but we don't know how deadly the consequences of running a red light can be. At Advocates, we work with victims of red light crashes across the country to get laws passed. I've seen firsthand how the crashes can affect the victims and their loved ones. We've heard from two of them today. But by working with victims, we aren't playing on your empathy, as was suggested by a person who testified earlier. Rather, we're demonstrating, what else is there except for life? If we're not here to try to protect people -- what is the point of protecting people's rights to liberty if you don't protect the people? I don't understand that argument. In 2001, 880 people were killed by red light runners, and 181,000 people were injured. And citizens of Philadelphia are not spared the personal and financial toll of red light running crashing. In 2001, there were 44 fatal red light running crashes in Pennsylvania, in which 48 people died. 75 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 And we've already heard before that almost half of those happen in Philadelphia. Additionally, in the City of Philadelphia, there was 21,532 red light running tickets issued in 2002. And so far this year, there have been more than 6,000 red light runners who have been cited. While this seems like a lot of tickets, it's really only a small portion of red light runners who are getting caught. Law enforcement simply does not have the resources to devote to consistent widespread enforcement that is needed to deter people from engaging in this dangerous and potentially deadly behavior. You've already heard about some polls. And poll after poll demonstrates that the public is supportive of these red light running cameras. People get it. They want the cameras. Furthermore, there's ample data demonstrating that the cameras work. You've already heard of a couple of very credible studies that have been done on these red light camera programs. I'll just add one more that wasn't mentioned yet. , has experienced a 69 percent reduction in red light 76 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 running violations at intersections with cameras. That amounts to 25,900 fewer violations a month. That's a lot of people who are being protected by red light cameras. And despite the lifesaving benefits that we've mentioned and the public support that we've mentioned, often-times this debate is boiled down to Big Brother or misinterpreted Constitutional rights. Arguments about privacy and Constitutionality are specious, in that the Constitution gives us a reasonable expectation of privacy, which does not apply to public roads. Additionally, the red light camera proposed in this Bill would only require photographs of the license plate of the offender, not the driver's image and not the interior of the car.
In this respect, a photograph is less invasive than when a police officer pulls someone over, because the officer would see both the person and some of the interior of the car. Cameras take a picture of all violators. There's no subjectivity or privacy violation. It's very clear. Whoever crosses the intersection after the light turns red will receive a citation. Unlike cameras at ATMs, shopping malls' 77 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 parking lots, in this room, these cameras only take your picture if you have already broken the law. The right to confront one's accuser, another lost liberty according to opponents, which is embodied in the Sixth Amendment, has never meant the right to confront an arresting officer or someone issuing the ticket. The right is preserved in court where all ticketed individuals can go if they disagree. By obtaining a driver's license, an individual agrees to abide by certain rules, one of which is to obey traffic signals. The use of cameras is just one way to enforce this law, and is a supplement to ongoing police enforcement. The sole purpose of the automated enforcement systems is to serve as a deterrent to breaking the law, preventing this law-breaking act from happening in the first place. Finally, common sense ways in favor of implementing red light cameras. Automobile crashes, like diseases, kill tens of thousands of Americans a year. When we're sick and go to the hospital, we want and we expect our doctors to use the very best methods and the very latest technologies to save our 78 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 lives and treat our illnesses. Similarly, when addressing the problem of motor vehicle crash deaths and injuries, we want and we expect our government to take every reasonable step to eliminate the dangers posed by law breakers. It makes sense to use all of the proven technological tools at our disposal to prevent the loss of life of innocent motorists. For these reasons, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety strongly supports this Bill and urges its passage. Allowing the use of auto and photo enforcement to stop reckless driving will save taxpayer dollars, save police resources and, most importantly, save lives. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you, Ms. Chase. For the record, Councilmember Goode, who is a Member of this Committee, is also in attendance. Either of you ladies can answer this question. I'm really impressed with the numbers in your testimony, Ms. Chase, where you state that the 79 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 reduction in red light running violations in Washington, D.C., had been reduced by 69 percent. That kind of goes counter to what some of the earlier witnesses were testifying, that this is just another attempt on behalf of government, in one sense or another, to increase ticket writing, which will, in effect, increase revenues. Is there any reduction in the number of vehicles who use these intersections, since they now know that there are cameras there? Do you see any of that kind of reduction?
I'm just curious. I'm supportive of this Bill. I just was curious, that if people know that there is that red light at a particular intersection, they'll find an alternative route, and would that have any bearing on the number of violations that are being written.
Well, they don't always know where the red light cameras are. While it is on the MPD, the Metropolitan Police Department Website, where the cameras may be, they do move the cameras from time to time. The casings stay in place, but the cameras are moved, so people don't always know. 80 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 They know it could be there and they know all of the possibilities where it might be, but they don't know if it would actually be there or not.
Is there a percentage of intersections in the jurisdictions that have the red light cameras installed, a percentage of intersections that they're installed at? Is that different in every municipality, or is there a general number that we can look to? Currently, I think we have nine or so intersections that we're looking to do, out of I don't know how many thousands of intersections in the City of Philadelphia.
It various greatly. There are towns that have just one camera, and that's all they have. I think that's the case --
Well, a community similar to the size of Philadelphia, are there any comparisons to that?
I think that basically it varies. Partly because a lot of times these things start out as pilot programs, and once the cameras have been in place for some time, the City finds that they're so effective that they decide to 81 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 increase the number of cameras. It tends to be quite varied in terms of how many.
Just for the people attending and watching this hearing at home, in the legislation that came from Harrisburg there are nine intersections that are mentioned there. They are to be considered. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to get cameras. But they are nine intersections that need to be considered by our traffic engineering people, the Police Department, to see whether or not they should be equipped with cameras. And I believe our policy here is even going to be more stringent. There's going to be a period of time where we're going to post that intersection to let them know that it will be a photo-enforced intersection, so there should be no 22 surprises here. In fact, that's part of what I learned from you folks about the culture change in Washington and other municipalities where the number of violations decreased substantially because people 82 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 realized that they should not be running red lights, especially in the intersections that have cameras, and even intersections that aren't equipped with cameras in many of those municipalities. The culture change, people started to stop when they see that yellow light.
Keeping people informed is one of the important aspects of this, and keeping the public up to date about the camera program and so forth helps to deter the red light running. What we want is to ultimately get to zero citations and zero violations.
Ms. Blakey, in the interest of fairness, earlier I asked questions of Mr. McCarey based on a sheet of paper that someone handed me. Someone has now handed me a sheet of paper to ask you a question. Who funds your organization?
Happy to tell you. We are funded by members of the industry that supplies and maintains cameras, ACS State and Local Solutions and Red Flex (ph) are funders of our campaign. Other industry members also support us in various other 83 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 ways and we are happy to acknowledge that. Part of the mission of our campaign is to operate in a very credible way, but we're here to supply information that's provided by a number of other resources, studies and other sources of information. We do not do our own research. So when I am reporting facts, they are facts that have been established by other organizations.
Thank you. Thank you for your answer. Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I wanted to ask briefly a couple of questions, and it centers around information. One of the problems that we tend to have when we have somewhat controversial issues, we have individuals or groups that come in to testify. They tend to be geared one way or another. And my concern is that we rarely have an opportunity to have an objective viewpoint. In government we have certain offices set up in Philadelphia. We have the City Controller, who is supposed to give us an 84 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 objective viewpoint on the budget. So when Council and the Administration tend to have differences, we go to the Controller and other portions of government. You have auditors at the state level to give you the facts. Is there an agency or an entity that I can go to that will give me the hard core facts as it relates to this issue, someone who is not funded by the red light camera industry or someone who has views that go beyond just this particular issue, but clearly views relating to the civil rights of individuals?
Sure. Actually, the Federal Highway Administration has no ax to grind on this at all. And they just came out with -- literally last month -- it was one of the reports that I mentioned and I'd be happy to get you a copy, "Guidelines for Red Light Camera Programs." In addition, the Transportation Research Board, who also came out with their own guidelines as well last month, also essentially drew the same conclusion.
When you say guidelines -- 85 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
Well, I guess I'm looking more for a statistical analysis.
I think that in both of these reports they establish the statistical analysis as part of the argument, and then they go on to make their points.
And both of those are entirely independent. They have no connection to anyone who gains or loses, except the public.
One other brief question, since you are obviously very involved and knowledgeable of the red light camera. Traditionally when you talk about running red lights, we have the human error because we tend to utilize police officers. Is there a failure rate associated with camera operations? Is it minimal or does it vary? 86 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 One of the concerns that I have is the ability of an individual to face their accuser in the event -- in the traditional program you have a police officer and people that can kind of, like, look to the judge to hear the case and hear the story and make an objective determination based on who's the most believable person. When you're up against a machine, a camera, it's rather difficult in terms of your ability to influence that individual who makes that determination. But, in fact, machines are machines. They sometimes fail. And I'm wondering, is there a failure rate associated with these cameras?
There's an extremely low failure rate. Usually when there are issues that come up concerning the programs, they involve situations where, somehow or another, there's been a breakdown between communication and the engineering department, perhaps in the City and the enforcement side, and some engineering error has been made, perhaps in locating the cameras or something like that. The camera and the camera technology itself is extremely reliable. I call your attention to the testimony 87 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 that was submitted by Richard Reading of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. And it was written testimony that was submitted. He points out that the insurance researchers used red light cameras in Arlington, Virginia, for about three years. This was just a field study. More than 30,000 violations were reported, but no citations were issued because the work was conducted for research purposes only. The camera systems have been extremely accurate and reliable. They have required virtually no maintenance. The same equipment subsequently was installed in two intersections in Howard County, Maryland, to help police and traffic engineers evaluate the extent of red light running and the feasibility of using red light cameras to help enforce traffic laws. The results confirmed, again, that violations are frequent and that the red light cameras function well. And they have quite a number of the actual data and methodology to support Dr. Reading's conclusions.
It's good to hear that it's minimal. But there is -- and I'm sure there has been instances when the camera didn't work 88 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 properly. What recourse does an individual have? One of my concerns is Joe Blow, Susie Q, whatever, gets a violation. The camera is not functioning properly. This person doesn't really have the resources to hire an expert to determine if the camera is functioning properly. Would the cost associated with reviewing the camera or determining whether or not the camera wasn't functional be left on the City, the State, or would it be left on the individual who's indicating that they think there was a faulty camera?
It's my understanding that -- and I don't work for the government, obviously, or for anyone who runs the systems. But it's my understanding that the company and the government are so sensitive about the issue of the cameras not working properly, that if there is a question that perhaps this ticket shouldn't have been issued or the camera wasn't working properly or there was mud on the license plate or something, that they don't issue the tickets. There's a certain percentage of tickets that, even though someone ran a red light, the tickets aren't issued. But to address some of your other 89 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 concerns, when -- I can speak in Washington, D.C. -- when someone goes to challenge a ticket, they go for themselves. So they're inconvenienced. They have to take some time off from work, which is an inconvenience, certainly. But you can represent yourself in Traffic Court and you can challenge, you know, you don't believe the cameras were working properly. And then the company or government has to show that.
I have a follow-up to that, as well. And you may not be the person to answer this. It may have to do with the Parking Authority. In the City of Philadelphia, and I suspect in other municipalities, if an individual is issued a ticket at a meter for overtime and the meter expired, and the individual who received the ticket has a dispute as to the accuracy of that, then the Parking Authority will send someone out with a device or whatever to test the accuracy to see if the clock on the meter is accurate. Is there anything in this system, the camera system or in the system of issuing the ticket and the remedies to dispute that, that are similar 90 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 in nature where if I were to receive a ticket for having allegedly gone through a red light and I want to dispute the fact and say it wasn't red, when I entered the intersection it just went from green to red, which is a common excuse in Philadelphia, there was never any yellow; is there a remedy for that? Is someone able to go out there to check and see if the camera is accurate as it relates to the timing of the lights? I'm not sure how the mechanics of that works. I suspect that when you enter the intersection, it probably takes just about everyone's tag, I would assume, right? Or is it timed to the traffic device?
It's timed to the traffic light. But what usually happens, what will tip off the manufacturer or the government that the camera systems aren't working properly, it doesn't make one mistake. If there's a problem, it's broken and it makes thousands of mistakes, then they send a technician out to go fix it. I think what you said, Mr. Chairman, is a very fair analogy to the parking meters. It's a very similar kind of system, in my understanding. 91 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
That's exactly right. The situations happen fairly rarely, but when they do, it comes to the attention fairly quickly because there's quite a few errors that get made. But also the question of having regular maintenance crews that really go out literally on a weekly or more frequent basis.
That was my next question. So there is regular maintenance?
And I assume part of the maintenance is to test the accuracy?
That's essentially right. And that is part of the service thing that the City pays for in their contract.
Thank you. Councilmember Clarke, are you through with your questions?
Actually, Councilman, you kind of followed-up on what I was going to ask.
Thank you, Mr. 92 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Chairman. You know, I marvel at the perfection of these cameras in view of the fact that I live near Central High School in Philadelphia. And near Central High School is a big parking area where many buses, school buses, are parked. They have a traffic light to aid those buses during the school day to leave and enter the parking area. Yet, after many years of complaints, frequently still on Saturdays and Sundays and at night when there is no 12 school, the traffic lights still operate for the parking lot, even though no parking is going on, no 14 traffic at all. I wonder how come such a simple problem as turning off traffic lights cannot be done effectively, how these wonders exists with photo cameras that are almost perfect. Let me ask you, is it one company that manufactures or more than that?
There's quite a few companies that manufacture. There's various aspects that are manufactured by maybe 20 different industry members. And different companies have different technologies and so forth, as well.
And is there any 93 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 contract or contract talks ongoing between any companies and the State or City? I don't know who would be dealing with that problem now.
Mr. Chairman, point of information. Will there be witnesses that can tell us what the state of negotiations, if any, is and what the names of the companies are?
And to the companies, I would like to know about the officers and the major stockholders and whether they contribute funding to different political candidates and, if so, to whom and how much. Because I'm very concerned --
I'm running for reelection this year too. I'm just joking.
-- with respect to 94 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 this. For example, has there been tried ever that when a red light goes on, on one side, that the other side waits for a few seconds while they're both red? Are there any studies on the accident report? Because in Philadelphia that doesn't happen.
That is called an all red signal. In fact, there are engineering studies on it. But the engineering community has said throughout the use of all red, the purpose of it is not to prevent red light running. It's a slight time delay in allowing a green on one side, which is to add an extra margin of safety. But the engineering community disavows that that's a technique specifically to prevent red light running or that it necessarily is effective for that purpose.
I'm not sure -- tell me what you said. The industry says what with respect to the red light?
The engineering communities, traffic engineers throughout the country of various types who work on research issues of this nature, such as the Transportation Research 95 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Board and the Institute of Transportation Engineers, have studied the all-red clearance signal that you're talking about. It is a useful tool to provide a an extra margin of safety. But they specifically indicate in their research that it is not a technique for preventing red light running. It is not considered to be a technique for that purpose. It can be a useful engineering --
Are the statistics with respect to comparisons between intersections which have that all red on all sides for a few seconds as against those that don't?
Specifically, I don't know if that study has been done, if a comparison study like that has been done.
The question of light timing gets really complicated because from the engineering point of view, the light timing's really primary purpose is to move the traffic smoothly and allow for mobility, as well as safety. So when they start to change the light timing at a lot of intersections and try to adjust for things 96 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 specifically to deal with the problem at that one intersection, it messes up the whole process up and down stream. So it's approached very cautiously by traffic engineers typically.
Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, I will call up the next panel. Philadelphia Parking Authority represented by Vince Fenerty and Rick Dickson. Bureau of Administrative Adjudication represented by the Honorable Dominick Ceremele. Police Department represented by Fran Healy. And the Traffic Court represented by Judge Francis Kelly. You gentlemen can decide for yourselves who wants to go first. Normally, I would yield to the judge. JUDGE KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 97 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 opportunity to present testimony on the Bill to permit camera red light enforcement in Philadelphia. The primary objective of the Traffic Court is to promote traffic safety. Through the consistent enforcement of traffic laws and fair resolutions of disputes regarding traffic tickets, I believe the court plays a vital role in reducing accidents and saving lives. The proposed Ordinance 10 is another tool in that effort. Statistics gathered in other cities where automated red light enforcement takes place makes a compelling case for its use. While this program does not eliminate the need for police-issued moving violations, it frees police officers to monitor other intersections and, therefore, have a greater impact on public safety. While the court will not preside over the initial hearing on tickets issued under this program, we will hear the appeals. The court is ready and willing to accept that responsibility. Each accident prevented as a result of this program is a potential life saved. Therefore, the court is willing to assume the responsibility for appeals on these matters. 98 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony.
Thank you, Your Honor. Honorable Judge Ceremele -- former judge.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Dominic Ceremele, Deputy Finance Director of the City and Executive Director of the Office of Administrative Review. I'm here on behalf of Janice Davis, the Director of Finance and Secretary of Financial Oversight. We are in support of Council Bill 682, which provides for civil liability for red light violations cited via a photographic monitoring system. However, our support is conditioned upon the acceptance of certain amendments proposed by Nelson Diaz, our City Solicitor, in his memorandum to the Honorable Frank Rizzo dated November 13, 2002. I understand that those amendments will be included. The purpose of this proposed Ordinance 24 is to implement the provisions of Act 2002-123, which was passed by the Pennsylvania General 99 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Assembly last year. Traffic safety is a very important initiative of this City's Administration, as demonstrated by our commitment to the highly successful Live Stop program, which was fully implemented last year. All of us who drive in urban areas can tell anecdote after anecdote, and you've heard many today of the times we had near misses, which were caused by bad drivers passing through full red lights. Those of us who have been involved in traffic safety education -- and, as you all know, I have been doing this for more than years, and I 14 have spoken in more than three-quarters of all the 15 schools in Philadelphia concerning traffic safety 16 over those years. And we all know full well that 17 most motor vehicle accidents in urban areas occur at 18 intersections, and are the direct result of one of 19 the drivers failing to obey a traffic control 20 device. 21 Further, intersectional or right angle 22 accidents are very dangerous for the reason that 23 only some of the very newest vehicles are now 24 equipped with side curtain air bags. Thus, the 25 possibility of severe injury exists in these types 100 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 of collisions. The intersections that are delineated in Act 123 are among the City's most notorious and dangerous intersections, so it is fitting that they should be addressed as soon as possible and outfitted forthwith with photographic equipment designed to enforce the prohibition against running red lights. The technology for photographic enforcement of this particular violation of the vehicle code is now well tested and is used in numerous communities around the country. It has been delayed here in Philadelphia because the Commonwealth Motor Vehicle Code required amendments to allow this type of technology. Until the passing of Act 123, we would have been prohibited from this type of enforcement, since there is no provision in criminal law for an owner/operator inference, which is an essential ingredient for the issuance of a citation based on photographic images of the rear of a motor vehicle. Act 123 allows for the issuance of civil violations, which will be akin to a parking ticket, and relies on this owner/operator inference while still allowing for the owner to transfer 101 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 responsibility to the actual driver as outlined in this proposed Ordinance. Act 123 mandates that the Philadelphia Parking Authority be designated the system administrator for photo enforcement and directs all revenue to the Parking Authority for its administrative expenses, with the remainder going to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for a to-be-established Transportation Enhancements Grants program. There is no revenue from this program that will benefit the City's General Fund. At the same time, Act 123 obligates the City to provide its employees to establish and implement important parts of the program. The Police Department is obliged to provide commissioned police officers to review the images and sign off on notices of violation. The Director of Finance is obliged to provide hearing officers to preside over administrative hearings.
And the Bill also provides for the Streets Department to conduct studies. All of these items are costly and there needs to be a provision, which is among those amendments proposed by the Solicitor. There needs to be provisions to allow the City to recoup its cost from the Parking 102 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Authority, who has the ability to recover these costs from the revenue stream. Thus, it is vital that the provisions suggested by the City Solicitor be included that blocks the Ordinance from taking effect until the Parking Authority enters into an agreement with the City agreeing to pay the City for its share of the administrative expenses of the program. It is my belief that the Parking Authority will readily enter into such an agreement, as we have had earlier discussions with the Authority along these lines. In summation, let me say that this is important legislation. This is legislation that will enure to the benefit of the citizens of Philadelphia and visitors alike. It will surely save many lives. It will avoid numerous painful and debilitating injuries and save millions of dollars in property damage. It is, in short, legislation designed to make this City safer. Thank you.
Judge Kelly indicated that the Traffic Court is going to be part of the 103 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 appeal process. Judge Ceremele, can you please explain -- you mentioned that the Board of Adjudication somehow is going to be -- if you don't pay the ticket and you want to appeal it, does it go to Judge Kelly?
First level will come to those hearing officers that I designate, and then appeals from them will go to Judge Kelly.
So if the person wants to appeal it beyond your authority, then it will go to Traffic Court?
They have the absolute right to immediately go to Traffic Court.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Richard Dickson. I'm the Director of On-street Parking for the Parking Authority. I have written testimony here, but I think it would probably be most helpful to the Committee if I summarized how this program will operate under both the state law and under the proposed Ordinance as amended, and then address some of the concerns that have been raised by other panelists that have 104 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 spoken. The terms set out by both Act 123 and the Ordinance that has been proposed here today, the Parking Authority and the Streets Department will confer on what intersections would be designated as applicable for this program. The state law lists nine intersections to be considered. It does not mandate that those intersections be selected, nor does it limit the selection process to those intersections. The Streets Department will conduct surveys in order to determine those that have the highest incidence of red light running and would be most appropriate for inclusion in the process. After we have agreed on what those intersections would be, we would send that list to the Secretary of Transportation for his or her approval, and then we would begin the process of installation. We will contract with a vendor to install the cameras. One of the questions that was raised earlier was how that would go about. That will be a public bid. There are a number of companies out there that provide this service. It would be publicly bid among anyone that wanted to apply, and the lowest responsible bidder would be 105 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 awarded the contract. When the devices are installed, they'll work as a vehicle enters the intersection after a red light has already happened. It will take a picture of the rear end of that vehicle. A couple of seconds later it will take another confirming photograph to ensure that the vehicle was completely in the intersection during the time the light was on red. The photograph also includes the image of the red light so that if the camera was not working properly, we would have to display both the vehicle, the license plate and the actual red light signal in the photograph to confirm that the vehicle was in the intersection at the time of the violation. After those photographs are retrieved from the device, they would be returned. A police officer would review those and make a determination as to which of those were actually in violation. We would get the registration information from the Department of Transportation from the State in which the vehicle was registered and send a notice of violation to the registered owner of the vehicle. That will include a certification that the equipment was working properly at the time that the photograph 106 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 was taken, and the actual photograph showing the vehicle in violation, as well as the information on the date, time and the location of where the violation took place. If an individual wishes to contest the ticket, they may do so by requesting a hearing within 30 days at the Bureau of Administrative Adjudication. The law lays out three affirmative defenses to the violation. First is, I was not driving the vehicle at the time. The law says the Bureau may request some kind of documentation that they were not driving the vehicle, but they may not require that the person identify the person who was driving the vehicle. So as Councilman Mariano indicated earlier, if he got notification of this, and his son was driving the vehicle and he could convince the hearing examiner that it wasn't him, he would not be required to identify his son as the person who is was driving.
Point of information. I would turn my son in. I might turn him in even if he wasn't in the car, Mr. Dickson.
Sorry to interrupt your testimony. But in that scenario, regardless of 107 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 who the person is, to whom then does the ticket get issued, or does no ticket get issued at all?
If they cannot identify the person who was driving the vehicle, and the owner has sufficiently demonstrated that he was not driving the vehicle, the ticket is not issued.
Well, a number of things were considered in this, and some of those were the due process issues that have been raised by other people that testified here. And in order to protect those people and not to turn everyone who is driving a vehicle into almost like -- not to create a situation where people felt compelled to disclose what --
Municipalities, to my understanding, have a broad range of criteria that they use in doing this. There are municipalities 108 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 that do have this provision.
Mr. Chairman, obviously it will be my responsibility to propound regulations for the hearing of these violations. We will include in those regulations, I presume, a mechanism where a person would not need to come to a hearing if they merely want to transfer responsibility to someone else.
But my concern is, in the event that they do not choose to identify who the actual driver was.
And at that hearing they are required to demonstrate somehow that they were not driving the vehicle at the time. It's up to the hearing examiner to determine whatever information that they give or whatever documentation they provide for that, as to whether or not that is sufficient to relieve them of responsibility.
The first initial hearing is going to be down at 9th and Filbert? 109 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
No. It will be at the Office of Administrative Review. We'll be using the masters who hear the code violation matters, as well as tax review board matters. Those masters tend to be more highly trained. Some of them have law degrees. Some of them are accountants. And we feel these type of violations would best be heard by them. The people at 9th and Filbert are very busy with parking violations.
I apologize. I'm breaking my own rules here by asking questions before the panel completed its testimony. Do you know yet what the time period is between the initial hearing at your department and the appeal that would be heard down at Traffic Court? Have you worked that out yet?
Again, I apologize for interrupting. Let us continue with all the testimony. 110 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
Let me just say, Judge Kelly and I work very closely together. My office manages collection processes for him, as well as his data processing contract. We know what his scheduling needs are. It will not be a long period of time between the time that they have a hearing at the Office of the Administrative Review and the time that they the appeal at Traffic Court.
Thank you again. I apologize one more time for interrupting. Mr. Dickson.
Point of information. I wanted to get clarified what was said about compelling the owner of the car to give information, if he knows it, about who the driver was?
Well, at the cost of otherwise admitting you're guilty.
We offer the opportunity 111 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 to the person to transfer responsibility.
Well, I hardly think, Judge, that it offers an opportunity. In most cases it may well be a wife or more likely a child. And what you're doing is tearing the family apart by telling the father, if you give us the name of your son who was driving the car or your daughter or your wife, then we'll go after them. Now, that's unlikely to happen. And you put the driver in a position of admitting something that he did not do. It seems to me the fairer procedure would be to adopt a rule that does not permit the compulsion. If he testifies he did not do it and that's the only credible evidence, it seems to me he ought to be found not guilty.
That means that the individual who would like to come and testify that he is not the person driving the car without giving the name of the person who was driving the car, we'll certainly give him that right too. 112 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
And will you carry with it the instruction that that's not to be taken as evidence of his guilt?
Yes. We will make sure we include that in the instructions with the training manual.
Councilman DiCicco used the word watered down. I'll use that. A parking ticket -- if I borrow a car and get a parking ticket, the person that owns the vehicle is responsible for the parking ticket.
We allow for the transfer of responsibility of parking tickets too. There are many, many vehicles, for instance, that are owned by the City of Philadelphia, but driven by individuals such as myself.
And us. I have a credit down at the Parking Authority. I've overpaid them. I can't get a refund.
But aside from the City 113 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 of Philadelphia there are many other fleets, particularly there are fleets that rent cars and we allow for the transfer of responsibility of those tickets from the owner of the vehicles to the actual person who was driving.
I understand that. What I'm getting at is that I wouldn't want to see a system that a person walks in and says, "Yeah, that's my car in the picture, but I wasn't driving, and I ain't telling you who's driving it." And they walk out, off the hook. I hope it isn't that matter of fact. Because I know if the average citizen's car gets a parking ticket, that you can't walk in there and say, "Well, that's my car, but I wasn't driving it and I'm not telling you who's driving," and walk out.
You have the expectation -- you should have the expectation when you come to a hearing officer that works for me or any of the judges in Traffic Court, or when I was a Traffic Court judge myself, you will get a fair hearing. There will be someone there to listen to you and who will make an appropriate decision based on what you're telling him or her and based on the law. 114 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
If you're confident that a car with a specific license number was parked at a meter, and the meter expired and a person received a ticket, and then the person comes in and says, "Yeah, that's my car, but I'm not responsible," is that fair?
You do that once. One time. I'm still serious. I'm giving up my kids. But if I come in once and I'm not a Councilman and I say, "I'm not telling you who," and you let me slide once, you have the computer record of that, right? So you may get away with it the first time, but the next time you say, "Now, hold on, Rick, you did this before. You're getting a ticket now or you better find out who has keys to your car." Am I correct in assuming that? Is there a computer record?
There is a computer record of the person at a hearing and we do have a coding that we put on them. I think that the type of detail --
Well, you would know by my license plate how many times I've been in front of you? 115 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
But my point is, that I don't want to see us adopt a system that is kind of like a joke on the street, just go down there and give the pitch that it's not your car -- it's your car, but I don't know who's driving it. There's got to be some responsibility, especially if you're driving a 2003 Corvette that's got a vanity tag on it that blew a red light at Broad and wherever and that --
I don't know how that works because my body doesn't fit into a Corvette anymore.
Again, I just want to be assured that this isn't going to be a system where in two weeks the word on the street is, just go down there and say you don't know who was driving the vehicle. So I'd like to hear today that -- and what I heard from Mr. Dickson got me a little -- my antenna went up, that all you have to do is give the pitch that you don't know who the vehicle's driver was, and that's not good enough for me.
No, sir. You also need 116 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 to provide documentation as to how it was not you.
Just one more question. I really want to go back to -- what I started was the wrong thing. Let the panel finish and we'll come in to a round of questions. Councilman Clarke. And then let's get on with the testimony. We'll come back to questions. Thank you. Councilmember Clarke.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief. My understanding, based on what I've heard, is that although the individual comes in and sees the hearing examiner, they're presumed innocent, but the burden of proof is on that individual if he indicates that he did not, in fact, drive that vehicle at that particular time. So the responsibility is then on that individual. We assume that this individual is guilty. He has to 117 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 prove that he wasn't, in fact, driving.
This is not criminal law where you're innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is civil. These are administrative hearings, and we will make a decision based on the evidence that we hear.
Are you not, in fact, innocent when you come into a civil hearing?
Guilt and innocence is not the concept here. Liability or non-liability is the issue. It is not like a criminal violation where you're guilty. The impact here is only a fine. So it is very much like a parking ticket. You have to remember that when you have this hearing and you go before the hearing officer -- and, again, even when you go up to Traffic Court, you're the one who's testifying. The violator is the only one who is testifying. There is a picture there, but the picture doesn't talk. It just sits there. You're the one who's interacting with the hearing officer. You're the human being engaging in dialog with another human being.
I'm only talking about in this small instance when an individual says 118 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 he was not the driver of the vehicle. All I'm saying is, is that the burden of proof is on that individual to prove --
I'm kind of responding to Councilman Rizzo's concern that a person can just come in and say, I wasn't -- but I'm assuming you'll have some guideline associated as to what will be an acceptable circumstance, not disallowing the hearing examiner to be all over the place with determining that issue.
That is why we are going to have them up at our offices at the Land Title Building at the Office of Administrative Review. We think that those people will be well equipped to here these cases.
Thank you. I promise I will not interrupt or allow any Member of this Committee to interrupt until the testimony has been complete. Thank you. Mr. Dickson.
My apologies one 119 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 more time.
That's no problem. There are also provisions in the law which protect citizens from unwarranted intrusions into their privacy. For example, only still photographs can be taken. Pictures from the front of the vehicle are specifically prohibited so that you can't see in to see who the driver of the vehicle is. The system can't be used for automated or user-controlled video surveillance, meaning somebody can't sit there and move the camera to pan an intersection to see what other people are doing. The information cannot be used for any other purpose other than for the enforcement of the red light provision of the law, cannot be shared with anyone else for any purposes except by a court order. In addition to that, all of the evidence must be destroyed within a year of the conclusion of the case regarding the ticket. There were some issues raised concerning the impact of this on people's driver's licenses. These are not convictions that would be applicable to anyone's drivers record. None of this 120 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 information is reported to PennDOT for inclusion in their record. There are no points assessed to anybody's record as a result of this. And it specifically prohibits using any conviction for these violations in the determination of a person's auto insurance rates by any insurance company. The relationship between this program and Live Stop has also been raised, and I would say that this program, as well as the other programs, that the Authority and the City have cooperated on in order to address the overriding auto insurance rate problem are related. Anything that we can do to reasonably increase traffic safety, thereby reduce auto accidents and reduce the number of cases that are filed as a result of auto accidents, will result in our making a better case to the insurance industry to reduce those rates. The question was also raised about the agency's relationship to the City. Despite the fact that there has been a change in the governance of the Authority in the last couple of years, we've been able to cooperate on a number of enterprises in order to help the City government in dealing with some of these issues. One of them was Live Stop, 121 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 which has been universally claimed as a successful program in both reducing the number of unregistered, uninsured and unlicensed drivers from the street, but also helping to reduce the number of abandoned vehicles on the street by removing them from the road. The other thing that was raised is this is just another attempt by the Parking Authority, that evil empire over there on the other side of the river, to pick people's pockets. We believe that the larger problem in taking money out of the pockets of citizens, and particularly those who are poor, is the amount that they need to pay for auto insurance rates in the City. If this helps to reduce those rates, I think they are specifically the people that will most benefit from the implementation of this program. Finally, some questions were raised about the reliability of the equipment and how we would determine whether or not the equipment was working properly at the time the picture was taken. Because the law requires that only 35 millimeter film can be used in these cameras, it will require a technician to go to those cameras on a regular basis 122 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 to retrieve the film and bring it back for processing. Every time one of those retrievals take place, the technician will check the equipment and determine whether or not it's working properly. We're also required under the law to certify to the citizen who gets the violation, that at the time of the violation, the equipment was working properly. So there is routine maintenance and routine certification that those things are working properly.
And in answer to the other question that was raised earlier, will we have the opportunity to send someone out if a person raises a question as to whether or not the equipment was working. Will we send someone out to verify that, and the answer is, yes, we would. The question has also been brought up as to why the Parking Authority is to be the system administrator of this program. For one thing, we already have the mechanism in place to process these notices, to schedule hearings at the Bureau of Administrative Adjudication, which we do now, to forward the information to the citizens, to process the return requests for hearings. There's a 123 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 telephone call system in place. There is a correspondence system in place. So the economy of scale already exists in order for us to fold this program into our existing programs without much additional cost. In addition to that, I think that we have really proven our expertise in this area, both to the City and nationally in the Live Stop program that we implemented for the City about a year ago. We received an award this year from the International Parking Institute for our ability to get that program up and running, the efficiency with which we run that program, and the processes that have been in place to protect, not only the City's interest in getting those vehicles off the street, but the citizen's interest whose vehicles have been claimed. So I think for all those reasons, that's why the legislature determined that we would be the appropriate place to be the system administrator for the program.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Committee -- good afternoon. My name is Francis Healy, and I'm Special Advisor to Police Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Johnson has asked that I testify on his behalf at these proceedings. The purpose of my appearance is to support the amended version of City Council Bill 000682 as it relates to automated red light enforcement in Philadelphia. The current Bill, like the enabling state statute, has incorporated the requisite procedural safeguards. Accordingly, the Police Department has no objections to and fully supports the use of red light camera traffic enforcement technology in Philadelphia. This support is based upon the authoritative research that has shown that the introduction of this technology may significantly reduce accidents and injuries resulting from red light running accidents. Specifically, in April of 2001, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released the 125 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 first significant study on the effects of red light camera enforcement technology. This study indicated that injury crashes at traffic signals were reduced 29 percent after the introduction of red light camera enforcement. Specifically, front and side collisions, the crash type that is most closely associated with red light running, were reduced 35 percent overall. Front into side crashes involving injuries were reduced 68 percent. Equally interesting, only about 9 percent of the total 125 intersections in the study had red light cameras. Nevertheless, crashes declined at those intersections without red light cameras, as well. That is, the violations apparently dropped in about the same proportionate intersections with and without the cameras, indicating a possible deterrent value of red light cameras and their ability to change driver behavior. Considering that the goals of the Philadelphia Police Department's traffic enforcement efforts are to reduce auto accidents and the resulting injuries and death, any legislation authorizing the use of proven technology that can further help reduce such occurrences will be 126 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 supported and eagerly welcomed by the Philadelphia Police Department. As you are aware, the state statute authorizing the use of automated red light enforcement technology mandates a police officer will sign off on any tickets issued under the statute. The Council Bill also accurately reflects this requirement. This will undoubtedly pose additional administrative burdens upon the Police Department. Currently, Deputy Commissioner Nestell, who commands the Administration of Training Bureau, is researching and reviewing which administrative unit or officers will be actually used or who will bear the added responsibility. Since this is a new endeavor and the actual volume of the work is not clear, the Police Department is unable at the current time to accurately identify any direct or indirect cost that this program may occur. This concludes my testimony. If there's any questions, I'll be here.
Thank you, Mr. Healy. I have a couple of questions. Will there be signage warning motorists in advance of the intersection where the cameras 127 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 would be installed?
Yes. Both the state law and the Ordinance requires that each intersection be signed. And the other thing I failed to mention, that there will be a 120-day warning period before any actual fines can be assessed at any of those intersections.
I see that in your testimony. You mentioned earlier, Mr. Dickson, about the state statute provides for nine intersections.
We can, if we wanted to, increase that number, I assume?
So in reality there's no limit. Will Council have any input as to the installation of any of the cameras within a particular Councilmatic district, or will that be solely the responsibility of the Parking Authority?
It's not solely the responsibility of the Parking Authority. Under the 128 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Ordinance, it requires consultation with the Department of Streets. And I think from the Parking Authority's perspective, it would be prudent for us to consult with District Councilpeople in order to determine intersections in their district where it might be appropriate.
The bids for the companies that will be bidding for this, who will control that, is that the Parking Authority? Is that the City of Philadelphia?
The Parking Authority will let the bids -- the RFPs out?
Thank you. Councilman Kenney and then Councilman Mariano.
One question on the statute. The statute does not prohibit the signage of intersections where the cameras won't be installed, does it?
Is there any 129 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 anticipation of a little dummy work going on, as far as putting some signs up in places where maybe we can't necessarily afford the cameras, but -- because I had heard earlier testimony about -- I think in Washington or someplace -- they move the cameras around just to keep people on their toes. So I would ask that maybe you guys consider the possibility of including additional signage where -- or some dummy cameras.
Councilman, I think what the lady was testifying to, is that the cameras do get moved, but the box or the housing of the cameras remains there so some people would not know whether there was a camera or not.
Not that I'm aware of, Councilman. We would consult with the Streets Department to see whether we could do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This might be to Officer Healy, but anybody can answer here. What about these license 130 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 plate blockers and the sprays, what are you going to do with that stuff? Is that a criminal offense?
Well, if you obstruct the license, that's obviously a violation. But there's no way this photo enforcement will be able to enforce it because it's clearly blocked the license.
I'm not trying to tip people off, but there is an Internet site. I don't have anything to do it.
It's my understanding that the technology has advanced. The photo cameras are also addressing those types of issues. The Police Department, obviously, if we can't see the tag, we can't sign off and give a ticket.
Mr. Fenerty, would you please identify yourself. Speak into the mike.
That's why the suggestion was made by the state legislator to use the wet film version of the cameras, rather than digital. Because the wet film enhances the visibility of the 131 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 license tag versus the new model, which is the digital.
That license plate blocker, it only hurts the digitals?
Yes. It will reflect off of the wet film, but wet film enhances the photo imaging much better.
If a policeman makes a stop -- nothing to do with this -- and sees they have something obstructing the license plate, they write a ticket anyhow?
These things I saw in the Internet site when it was in the paper before, you couldn't tell -- I had to look at it up front. It looks like a clear piece of plexiglas that goes over it, that you might want to put to protect your license plate.
There's a lot of license plate holders out there that actually, in effect, obstruct the tag. A lot of times people aren't aware of that. The officers -- if they do get stopped -- usually inform them and they take it off or a ticket is issued. It's at the discretion of 132 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 the officers.
Thank you. First on a kind of legal question. In reply to Councilman Rizzo's apparent view that everybody ought to be held responsible for the ticket if they're not prepared to say who drove the car. Let me say, in every hearing matter of any kind, civil or criminal, there always has to be a finding of credibility. And clearly, if the hearing examiner finds a witness credible, with respect to stating, I did not drive that car, that is sufficient grounds for finding someone not guilty of whatever the person is charged with, whether it's a civil offense or a criminal offense. I want to make clear, Judge Ceremele, that your original statement would stand the test of law, in my judgment. You don't have to get a confession from somebody, that their son or wife or daughter or anybody else drove the car, if the hearing examiner believes the witness is credible. That's the reason why past testimony is important to know about. That's why the demeanor of the person 133 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 is important to know about. So I just wanted to state my understanding of the law from that point of view. It's not a difficult question at all. If the witness appears just to have made up a story, of course the hearing examiner wouldn't believe that person. But if the witness does appear to be credible and the hearing examiner finds it, there is sufficient basis for discharge of the ticket. Now, with respect to a whole series of problems I have with the Bill. First of all, why did the State pass it instead of permitting the City to deal with it? I'm insulted by the fact that the State picked nine intersections in Philadelphia with no consultation with the City Council at all. And I'm also insulted by the fact that the State seems to think it can come in and take over the duties of City Council and run them. I'm unalterably opposed to any legislation by the State dealing with City problems. Therefore, I believe this Bill is bad from its very inception, in addition to the reasons I've cited before of privacy. I don't think this Council ought to, in any way, encourage the notion that the State had a right to do what it did with respect to the 134 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Parking Authority. I'm also suspicious that the State has monetary reasons in their financial crisis, much more severe than ours is locally, although according to the Mayor we have severe problems. The money is going to go to the State and not to the City. I don't want to enrich the State or help the State milk the citizens of Philadelphia out of their money. I think all of those reasons are bad reasons. I think this is a matter for Philadelphia to decide. I don't think the State has any wisdom whatsoever, certainly not a superior wisdom, over that of the legislators who represent Philadelphia City Council as to the desirability of it. So once more, I'm offended by the notion that the State believes that we cannot do anything in Philadelphia. I'm also very unhappy about the notion about our Streets Department being involved. The Streets Department, in my judgment, whenever it comes to decisions about making -- Streets suddenly puts on its state hat. " At one point I proposed, and may wish to propose again, that whenever they put on the state hat, the State ought to take over the responsibility for paying those engineers. I don't see why they ought to be on City payroll allegedly taking over the state function and saying, we're superior to the rest of Philadelphia because we've been given the assignment to carry through state law's rules. Therefore, there's so many things in this Bill that concern me. The element of privacy. And to the gentleman from the Parking Authority who made an excellent presentation, we know this is only stage one.
You have all these safeguards, but if you depend on safeguards in the state law where the State on its own paid no 18 attention to the City of Philadelphia at all, as least as far as City Council knows, and went ahead and passed this Bill. The state can tomorrow right after we act and say, approve this Bill, the State can eliminate all those points that you refer to as a safeguard. Whenever something distasteful is given like a medicine to a patient, you always sweeten it 136 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 up with a lot of syrup. That's what this story is all about. The moment the State gets us to adopt the idea that the State has the right to rule us in this fashion, all of these protections will begin to disappear, including the one that limits this to being a ticket or having to have points. Or maybe the technology will increase in the next year or so that there can be enough shown of the person driving the car to identify who it is. They say, no, we're forbidding it, but they're forbidding it for today. There's no certainty at all that the law won't be changed. Our experience generally is -- and that's why we call it a slippery slope -- once you go down this road, then you raise all kinds of questions. Now, I do concede there is a serious problem on the safety matter. I would like to find out what other methods are there that can control that. And I think before we move ahead to this slippery slope we ought to be pursuing it. I'm going to suggest that this is a matter that be taken seriously for the first time. The Bill has been around a long time. We did not pass it in City Council. And it took the State a long time to act. Because I understand this Bill is 137 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 more than a year old. And I'm going to be urging that this is not the way to proceed. I think we all are concerned about safety, but there must be a better way to do it. I'd also like this other information I raised. I would like to know what companies are involved, who are their officers, who are their major stockholders and what role do they play with respect to campaign contributions. Because in my opinion, much legislation is borne out of the way in which it can serve to enhance campaign contributions, rather than the welfare of the State or of the City. So I have these questions. Mr. Ceremele, what's your view with respect to the legal question that I raised on credibility? I know you're on the spot, but it seems to me you have a very simple answer. Credibility is always involved.
I have a very simple answer, sir. With all the years that I've been doing this, I can assure you that we will conduct fair hearings and we will render appropriate decisions.
Well, your record is 138 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 truth of the fact that what you say, you will make every effort to achieve. We've known that, and that's a strong point in favor of this program. But nonetheless, there are these other problems that I think requires some time to resolve. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a just a couple questions about the mechanics of this whole thing. I guess most of the questions are just around education of drivers. For example, I see a lot of people in Philadelphia, they're not actually running a red light, but the light is yellow. It turns yellow as they're going through the intersection. Is that a ticket? Is that an offense? When you take the picture, does the picture actually show the red light, or will it show the yellow light? When you send someone a picture, will the traffic light also be in the picture?
No, there is no violation for a yellow light. The picture is not taken until 139 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 the car enters the intersection during the red signal. So a yellow light is not a violation. And, yes, in answer to the second part of your question. The picture will show both the vehicle and the red signal.
Okay. Is there any place that's using this, any other state or city that's using this, that the use of this has impact on lowering insurance rates?
I don't have that data. There are over 70 cities in the United States that are using similar types of programs. I believe there was testimony earlier about the statistics on the reduction in the number of accidents associated with this. But I'm not sure I heard testimony regarding insurance rates.
People always mention when we're looking at public safety, in particular traffic calming or traffic control techniques, that it may impact Philadelphia's insurance rates. I just think that's like a buzz that we all want to happen. So I was just wondering if there was any really hard data or facts that support that. 140 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
I have no data from other cities. The only thing in my testimony concerning insurance rates was, after listening to the testimony before another Committee of this Council concerning insurance, the issue is always raised about the number of auto accidents and the number of lawsuits that result from them. If by doing this we can reduce the number of accidents, it would seem to me it would be a much stronger argument to go to the insurance industry and say, "We've both reduced accidents and lawsuits and, therefore, should have some benefit, financial benefit, back to the people who buy insurance in Philadelphia."
I don't know whether this question is for the Parking Authority, or the Streets Department or PennDOT. I don't know who. But you have a suggested list of intersections, correct?
How many intersections are on the list? 141 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
There are nine intersections recommended for consideration. None of them are mandated and it's not limited to only those nine. It will be determined after consultation with the Streets Department, the Parking Authority and approval by the State Secretary of Transportation.
Because how many potential intersections -- how many dangerous intersections do we have here in Philadelphia?
That would be a question for the Streets Department, the number of dangerous intersections.
We know that it's way more than nine, though, correct?
I just wanted to know why the nine were selected and the accident data, but I'll talk to the Streets Department or PennDOT regarding the data to support the nine 142 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 versus the or whatever. Is it cost? All those kinds of things. Someone told me that Broad and Olney in my district was being considered. And I was just wondering why them versus somebody else. I'm not saying we want Broad and Olney. I'm just trying to figure out where you got the nine from.
Councilwoman, Vince 10 Fenerty. 11 The nine were suggested during the Act 12 in Harrisburg. The Bill lets us go back to the 13 Streets Department of Philadelphia. And we will 14 accept input from City Council members and studies 15 from the Streets Department for additional selected 16 intersections or the possible elimination of any of 17 those intersections that are currently suggested as 18 not being warranted. It is not our intention just 19 to use those nine intersections. We are going to do 20 a proper intersection study with the Streets Department and come up with the best intersections in the City of Philadelphia to do the pilot program.
If the Bill is passed by 143 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 City Council, we would enter into negotiations with the Streets Department, the proper studies, prepare an RFP for public bidding. It would probably take anywhere from six months to a year.
And I assume that there's going to be some education, some effort to educate drivers here?
Yes. Part of the implementation of the program, not only would we erect signs at the intersections in which the equipment is installed -- and whether or not we did that at other intersections -- but there would need to be, and we anticipate, an intensive public relations campaign to let the public know that this is happening, what the consequences of the violations are and how the process will work and how it effects motorists in the City.
In addition to the 120-day period in which warnings will be issued as opposed to actual citations?
Councilman Clarke and then I'll come back second round to Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I'd like to congratulate Mr. Dickson on a preemptive response to a question that he knew that was coming from me about the Parking Authority's involvement in this process. It raised some concerns and you gave a pretty good explanation. But I want to ask you about the state enabling legislation. It, in fact, could have gone the way of authorizing the City to implement its own program using whatever department it so felt necessary to implement such a program; am I correct?
It could have named a City agency. It could have created a totally new agency to administer it.
But they opted to go with the Parking Authority for the aforementioned reasons. How many other municipalities is this program currently operating in?
We're aware of over 70 in 145 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 the United States and there may be more.
In any of those other municipalities, is the Parking Authority an administrator of the program?
With respect to the contractual relationship you have with the City, so many questions are arising that voiced some concerns about the next phase of the program. Councilman Cohen, I think, was the most extreme, but there have been some questions raised about Council basically authorizing the implementation of this program and then subsequent changes where we would not be involved. One of the concerns that I have is our authorization, the implementation, and then additional sites being added. I know you talk about the Streets Commissioner and the Streets Department, but if you've ever been in some of the Council hearings, we tend to disagree on a substantial amount of issues 146 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 with the Streets Department. So it's not necessarily a Council approval or involvement. In the event that this is authorized, in terms of the next phase or the advancement or the expansion or any changes with respect to the administration of the program, what involvement will Councilmembers have, beyond the simple phone call, because you know us and we've had these relationships over the period of years?
First of all, what the state law did was authorize the City of Philadelphia to make a determination as to whether or not they want to implement this program in the City. That's why it's before the Council now. The state did not mandate that the City adopt this program. It said, if the City adopts an Ordinance to do it, you have the State's permission to do that. The State's permission was required because it decriminalized what is otherwise a criminal violation under the State Code. So that's why we're here. I understand the sometimes tense relationship --
Well, there's an issue with respect to the authorization of the City and authorization of the Parking Authority. Some 147 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 would say that the City doesn't necessarily have control of the Parking Authority. So although they authorized the City, they mandated that the Parking Authority be the entity involved in implementing the program, so there's some question as to --
They mandated that the Parking Authority be the system administrator. The Ordinance before the Council now also requires that before any intersection is selected, that the Streets Department, an agency of the City, must also sign off on that. So we don't have the ability to act independently, even if we wanted to, under the Ordinance before the Council today.
To the best of my knowledge, although we're on the Streets Committee, we have no jurisdiction over the Streets Department. So my question has more to do with Council's involvement as we proceed on this program. As I said earlier, we don't necessarily agree with the Streets Department on a lot of issues.
I understand that. The initial question was that the City was cut out of this process. My response to that is that the City government is not cut out, in that their agent, the 148 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Streets Department, is there. I also understand that there have sometimes been tensions between Councilmembers and the Streets Department. What I said earlier in my testimony is, the Authority's position is that we would always consult with District Councilmembers before we made final determinations as to those intersections we would recommend to PennDOT for inclusion. That is the way that the Authority, I believe, has operated --
If a Member of Council said, "No, I don't want that intersection to be subject to cameras," what happens?
The Parking Authority's position would be that that is a very important consideration for us to make before making a recommendation to the State Department of Transportation. Our position has been that we've always worked with District Councilmembers on any kind of regulation or program implemented in their district. We have always tried to take their views into account before we would adopt a program or a policy or a regulation that would affect their district. All 17 Members of City Council. 149 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 The normal process has been that we first go to district Councilmembers for anything that we do in their district, and secure their approval before we would move forward. I anticipate that the process would work the same way. We have also been happy to deal with At-Large Members, since they seem to be a majority of the Committee here, to take their concerns into consideration, as well, for areas where they have an interest.
Fast on your feet, Mr. Dickson. With respect to that, since we talk about the Streets Department, there had been some concerns raised about Streets Department operations, granting closure of streets without any Council involvement. And we actually ended up doing a Bill 18 that will require, if a street was closed beyond a certain period of time, that the Streets Department had to submit a memo where the Councilmember had to sign off. We ultimately did not pass the Bill 22 because they've committed to do that and they've subsequently been doing that. Could you foresee some sort of memo, some sort of formalization of that process beyond 150 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 the fact that we've known each other for years? Hopefully not, but there could be new Councilmembers. I don't know what could happen.
One of the things that's mandated in the Ordinance is that we enter into an agreement with the City for a variety of issues. That's one of the things that could be brought up for consideration. I can't say today that we're willing to do that, other than to say the way we have operated in the 19, almost years that I've 12 been there is that, that is a regular part of our 13 process, that we consult with district 14 Councilmembers before we do anything in their 15 district. 16
Would you be opposed 17 to a requirement by the Streets Department to have 18 some sign off before they give their authorization 19 for you to proceed, since Council and the Streets 20 Department have a similar type arrangement currently?
I don't see any difficulty with that. If the Streets Department wanted to be the conduit for which Council approval was granted, that's no problem to the Authority. 151 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
I just want to get some clarity on a couple of other issues. With respect to the cost of police in any City involvement in the process, I think you indicated that we would be reimbursed in terms of the number of tickets that the cops had to review, in terms of -- and I'm assuming the installation of any cameras would to some degree have some relationship with the Streets Department by using their poles.
The Ordinance requires that, as part of this agreement, that we would -- the agreement would specify that the City would be reimbursed for any costs associated with the implementation or maintenance of this program.
Before. Because earlier in the testimony, I think you said the State got its money, then the City would get what's left.
No. The way the system works, both in accordance with 123 of 2003 and this Ordinance, subject to the amendment that you were 152 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 referring to, is that they must enter into agreement with the City before the implementation of this program. We will recover our costs out of that portion of the revenue stream that the Parking Authority gets for their cost. So we will recover out of there. Any money left over goes to the Department of Transportation for a Traffic Safety Enhancement Grants program. And I assume that as a City in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, if there is such a grants program, we will make application for grants for the City of Philadelphia too.
You earlier indicated that this will not affect points on your driver's license because it's been decriminalized, so to speak. It's not a moving violation. Would it, in fact, increase the ability to have your vehicle booted? If you got a number, would it be included in other tickets? What's the boot right now, six tickets you get booted?
One of the concerns 153 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 that I have, because of the process relating to the hearing -- I'm not sure what it is now with this new program -- is that I've seen, being involved in some of these different programs that we've had in the City, is that an individual's vehicle gets booted while they have a pending ticket, it could be that third ticket that authorizes them to be booted and they have a pending hearing --
If there are hearings scheduled for any ticket, any parking ticket or one of these tickets, it removes that ticket from boot eligibility. So it would not apply to the threshold.
We operate with an online system, Councilman. And that is, if a person were in the Bureau of Administrative Adjudication having a hearing for parking tickets, and a booting crew was going by outside -- and they too are online -- they would punch in the person's license number and go back to the database via radio system. And if the hearing examiner were to dismiss that ticket, instantaneously, just before they would request boot eligibility, it come up not eligible because the hearing was taking place and the matter was 154 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 resolved. It is all online.
Councilman, just to go back to the last portion where you were at regarding Council approval for some of the intersections. I'd like to point out that one of the intersections that the State named is Thompson and Lehigh. There's barely any traffic on that intersection. It's in my neighborhood. I don't know how it got there. It's in Councilman DiCicco's district, and I would think that he would want the Streets Department to review that because I think there would be a more active intersection where there were many more accidents, that the cost of putting a camera there and for the enhancement of the program would be much better. So the Parking Authority -- and I'm speaking bipartisan effort here -- would want Council approval. I've worked for many years with Councilman DiCicco as my Councilman and I would not want to tread on anyone's toes. I believe that would be our program from the Parking Authority.
One last question. Who signs off on state highways? Is the City Highway Department involved in that? 155 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
In the event that there was a request to have a camera on a state highway.
Well, the final approval was from the State Secretary of Transportation.
The selection of the intersection comes from the City and then the final approval is from the State Secretary of Transportation.
Regardless of the jurisdiction of the particular highway?
Councilman Goode first and then Councilman Cohen. We're still on the first round.
Thank you, Mr. 156 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Chairman. Mr. Dickson, you seem to suggest that the choosing of the intersections is not going to be driven by issues of traffic safety?
No, sir. What we anticipate happening is that the Streets Department will identify intersections that have a high incidents of traffic safety issues, whether they be red light running, accidents, those kinds of things. From that, they will do a study to determine which are the most affected by traffic safety issues. From those we will together make a recommendation after consultation with members of Council to send to PennDOT for the final approval of the Secretary of Transportation.
But that's not written within our legislation. The streets are not based on issues of traffic safety.
It's based on, I believe, a traffic engineering study, I believe it says there.
Excuse me for interrupting. We have two more witnesses, one from PennDOT and one from the Streets. 157 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 I assume you gentlemen may have heard that last question. Would you be able to answer that when you come up here? You might want to wait. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, Mr. Dickson. Any further questions for this panel? Councilman Ortiz.
I imagine you studied this in detail and you saw it from all sides. You have studies from both sides that you can make available in terms of -- because I don't think we really have delved into this issue in this Council. Do you have studies from different independent sources outside of the insurance companies and so on?
We have some studies that we've collected, and we have the ability to get some other ones, and we would be happy to make copies of those and submit them to Members.
I just want to know what's the intellectual process that has taken place in terms of deciding that this is a better answer 158 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 against another methodology that might be available. What is the decision-making process that took place that proves that this is really the best process to take in terms of preventing accidents?
I will attempt to get any documentation that we have available to us to you.
Thank you. Why are you bothering with signage and education programs? What's the theory behind that?
What's the theory behind having an educational program and signage at corners? Is it to tell people that the other corners that don't have the signage are corners that are free corners, that people can pass red lights safely? What's the idea of this education program? Why do you need it? Why do you have to have signs notifying people that particular corners are directly involved? I'm trying to get at the theory of this thing. 159 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
The principle behind it is to increase driver awareness of the consequences of red light running and the problems associated with that, both in terms of public safety, bodily injury and the number of deaths associated with it. Every time we increase awareness of the problem by a public relations campaign and letting people know that there is another tool available to us in order to confront the issue, whether it be policemen stationed on a corner or remote camera enforcement or any other number of devices that might be available, it increases motorist compliance with the law. And that is the ultimate goal.
It seem to me the tool is education, not the red lights. Why don't you go into a heavy education campaign pointing out what you say are the problems in safety and alerting people at every corner not to pass through red lights and not to get themselves in a position where their car may be blocking intersections?
We absolutely will do that. But unfortunately, Councilman, unless there is a credible deterrent to people doing that, meaning that there's some kind penalty imposed for 160 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 them not abiding by the law, there will be some segment of the population that won't. They are people --
I've seen no program in the City of Philadelphia with respect to the red light running. And the Streets Department is the least efficient department. They always tell you no. And that's why Councilman Clarke, I assume, raised the question. We've had a running fight for many, many years. All the years I've been in City Council, the Streets Department takes the position that it alone has the genius and the understanding as to when a red light should be in place or a stop sign. And almost always when the people in the community want something, the Streets Department's study is, no. No matter what happens, they always find no. They say they are acting for the State and, therefore, they override us in City Council. Therefore, we have begun the policy in City Council of passing Bills and then threatening to withhold money, if our will isn't carried. I don't see anything in this Bill that restores the power of City Council. I tried to follow the discussion between 161 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Mr. Dickson -- and we appreciate your service. None of this is a personal attack. We know your deep, loyal services of the Parking Authority Department all these years and we appreciate that very much. But in this case I think you're dead wrong. I think that any act passed by the State ought to be withdrawn and let us in Philadelphia deal with it. And let us make clear that in Philadelphia, the governing body as stated in the Home Rule Charter, is City Council, not the Streets Department, whether they're wearing a City of Philadelphia hat or wearing a state hat. Because your assurance, Mr. Dickson, it may be given to us in good faith, but I can tell you that the fact that we consult with you and you consult with us will have nothing whatsoever to do with the decisions of the Streets Department. They will put on their state department hat -- incidentally, the states says that PennDOT does not control the Streets. They say they don't tell the Streets Department that they have the authority of the state. But nonetheless the Street Department's engineers do it. And I believe any action first must restore to City Council its powers as the 162 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 governing body. Therefore, I'm very much concerned. I know of no educational program and no 4 educational campaign that's ever been waged in a significant way with respect to red light running. Maybe if I saw a campaign go on for six months or a year and then saw the results of it, maybe that would convince me. Or maybe it might convince you that legislation wasn't needed. All I see is an effort of compulsion and an effort to collect money. And in this case, the collection of money would be bad enough if that were the motive and the City got it, but the money is going to go to the State. On top of that, the State picks the nine places. What's the State got to do with the nine places in the City of Philadelphia? They don't even know we have a gun problem in the Philadelphia. They think the gun problem in Philadelphia is no 19 different than the gun problem in the most rural areas of the state. The State is totally incompetent when it comes to dealing with City matters. So I think that's a basic weakness. Why don't you start your educational program now and let's see where it is three months from now? 163 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 You may have a comment with respect to that, Mr. Dickson.
We appreciate what you've done. We appreciate what Judge Ceremele has done over the years. You both have had very difficult and very uncooperative jobs from time to time. But you've done the work with distinction. We appreciate that. But that doesn't mean we're going to just follow your advice whenever you give it to us. We've got to question it and reach conclusions. And the body that ought to reach conclusions is City Council on City Council legislation, not on legislation foisted upon us without our consent by the State. And to add insult to injury, they told us, you don't even know what streets you ought to begin with, therefore we're going to name nine streets. Oh, you can maybe change them, if the Parking Authority thinks it's right. Well, that's not the way you deal with City Council. We're the governing body. There are 18 people that make the laws in Philadelphia. 17 of them are in City County 164 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 and the 18th is the Mayor's Office. JUDGE KELLY: Mr. Chairman, if I could respond quickly.
Absolutely. JUDGE KELLY: Because I'm going to ask to be excused. I have actual trials. In consulting with Judge Ceremele, I think you raised a good point, Councilman Cohen, regarding the educational programs. In looking back to Judge Ceremele's previous service at the court, I do expect, as the president judge, to work with former Judge Ceremele regarding educational programs and the impact of red light running, what the effect that that does have on the community. I'll respond to you.
We agree that we'll work together on an educational program. Perhaps we should ask the Department of Transportation for one of those grants from this fund that they're setting up to help us with that type of program. Finally, I would say to you, Mr. Cohen, you had a very interesting dialog with the Executive Director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania today. I was a little disappointed that you didn't chide him for 165 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 his alliance with the comments of Congressman Dick Army.
Thank you. Any further questions for this panel? The next witnesses are Philadelphia Streets Department, Mr. Charles Trainor; and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Dutch Eichorn. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. My name is Dutch Eichorn. I'm with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in our District 6 Traffic Unit. I presented to the Council written testimony given by our Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering, and I'd like to read this in at this time. We are pleased to have the opportunity to provide written testimony to the Philadelphia City Council Committee on Streets and Services regarding Councilman Frank Rizzo's Bill 682 and the 166 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 proposed amendments to this Bill, which were prepared by the City Solicitor. As you know, Senate Bill 238, Act 123 of 2002, was approved by the Pennsylvania General Assembly in late September 2002 and was signed by the Governor on October 4th, 2002. It provides the legal authority for the establishment of a pilot program of automated red light enforcement within the City of Philadelphia in accordance with the provisions of the Act. One of the needed first steps for the usage of automated red light enforcement systems within the City of Philadelphia is the passage of an Ordinance by City Council. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation will work cooperatively with the Philadelphia City Council, the Department of Streets, the Parking Authority and other City organizations and officials to ensure that automated red light enforcement systems desired by the City are installed and operated in full compliance with Act 123. Our department has reviewed proposed City Bill 682 and the proposed amendments to it that were prepared by the City Solicitor. We have 167 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 determined that if the City Solicitor's amendments are adopted, the City's Ordinance would be in compliance with Act 123. However, we very strongly recommend that the following revisions be made in the final version of the City's Ordinance. Since Act 123 does not provide the legal authority to enforce Section 3710 of the Vehicle Code with automated red light enforcement systems, delete the second, third, fourth, and fifth "whereas" clauses which relate to spill back and gridlock. In essence, photo equipment can only be done for the red light running program. In paragraph one of Section 12-3002 of the proposed amendments, replace the term "car" with the term "vehicle" to ensure that enforcement can apply to vehicles, trucks, cars, et cetera, and not just cars. This would also more closely conform with the terminology of vehicular traffic used in Section 3112 A-3 of the Vehicle Code. " Number three. In order to more closely conform to the provisions of Act 123, and in light of the material already contained in Section Two of 168 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 the proposed amendments, we recommend revising paragraph one of Section 12-3005 to read as follows: One, automated red light enforcement systems that are approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation may be used to enforce this chapter at such intersections as designated and agreed upon by the systems administrator and the Pennsylvania Secretary of Transportation. Again, this is for compliance with Act 123. Listening to the testimony as it's been presented, and having had Charlie Trainor review this prior, I know there's reservations about not including final approval by City Streets or what have you. Now, in the Act it does allow for the recommendations, initial recommendations to come from the City Streets Department. In essence, they are approving their own recommendations. From the other standpoint, since the signals themselves are owned and maintained by the City Streets Department, they have final veto on anything that can be hooked up to it. So if there's not agreement on the City Streets Department, it won't occur at that intersection. Number four. " I again talked to Charlie Trainor about this, because his intention is not to have the City Streets Department maintaining the red light running equipment, that it should be part of the system administrator's responsibility.
I talked to our Harrisburg office about this, and they're in full agreement with that. So that provision there can be deleted. We noticed that some provisions of Act 123 were not included in the proposed City Ordinance. These include Sections 3116 D-3 and 4, relating to operating record and insurance points; Section 3116 I-3, relating to the annual report to the State House and Senate Transportation Committees; Section 3116 K-2, related to the reimbursement for operation and maintenance costs and the development of a Transportation Enhancements Grant program by our department; Section 3116 N, relating to compensation to manufacturer or vendor; and Section 3116 P, on revenue limitations. You may 170 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 wish to consider the addition of this material to the Ordinance. Beyond the actual text of the Ordinance, our department realizes that we will need to have an ongoing dialog with the City on the following topics. One, we plan to work jointly with the Streets Department to develop selection criteria for the intersections to be equipped with automated red light enforcement, equipment to determine equipment specifications and to develop a standard design for the sign that must be posted in advance of the equipped intersections. Two, we will need to work with the City to develop suitable reimbursement procedures. Three, we will seek the input of the City as our department develops regulations for the Transportation Enhancements Grant program. Four, we will work with the City to help ensure that they conduct an evaluation of the automated red light enforcement program and file the required annual report to the chairman and the minority chairman of the Senate and House Transportation Committees. In conclusion, we'd like to commend 171 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Councilman Rizzo for his initiative in introducing this Ordinance, as well the City Solicitor for preparing amendments that will ensure compliance with Act 123. We welcome the opportunity to provide comments. Our department will continue to work with the City to ensure that this pilot program to address the problem of red light running is implemented in full compliance with Act 123 and is properly evaluated.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Charles Trainor. I'm the Chief Traffic Engineer for the Department of Streets. I'm here today to offer testimony on Bill 000682. The Streets Department supports the passage of this Ordinance as amended, which permits the use of cameras to enforce Section 3112 A-3 of the State Vehicle Code. This support is based on the nationwide accident reduction experience of 25 172 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 to 30 percent in intersection injury crashes. The Streets Department sees red light cameras as an additional tool to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic. The department believes that their use should be at locations that are engineered in accordance with national standards, where there are demonstrated crash problems, and are conducive to the installation of the system. Signals in Philadelphia provide a yellow phase meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements of PennDOT, the MUTCD, the ITE. Additionally, all signals have an all red interval following the main street movement with the majority having an all red movement following all movements. Many main arterial streets have a coordinated system. Signal visibility is increased by the use of larger 12-inch diameter signals for the main street, as well as for overhead signals. These are engineering initiatives that previously have been taken to improve intersection safety. Still, PennDOT accident records from 1996 to 2000 show 259 cluster locations in the City of Philadelphia that experienced eight or more reportable accidents where red light running 173 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 was a contributing factor. A total of 4,728 reportable accidents occurred at these locations. 113, 2.4 percent, had at least one fatality. 2,525, 53.4 percent, had injuries. And the remainder, 44.2 percent, had at least one vehicle towed. Philadelphia crash data show that the enforcement of red light running by cameras should be considered at Bridge and James streets, 51st and Walnut streets, Comly Road and Roosevelt Boulevard, Bridge and Tacony Streets, Grant Avenue and Roosevelt Boulevard, 58th and Walnut Streets, Devereaux Avenue and Roosevelt Boulevard, Roberts and Wissahickon Avenues, 12th and Vine Streets, Charles and Levick Streets, Harbison Avenue and Roosevelt Boulevard, 25th Street and Sedgley Avenue, Front Street and Roosevelt Boulevard, Bridge and Harbison, 5th Street and Roosevelt Boulevard, 15th Street and Vine Street, Front and Luzerne Streets, Levick Street and Roosevelt Boulevard, 8th and Vine Streets, 15th and Cayuga Streets. Red light running is a complex driving behavior that needs to be addressed with a combination of engineering, enforcement and education. This legislation will improve safety 174 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 through enforcement at specific locations and, by its publicity, spill over to non-camera intersections. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. Do you have any questions?
Thank you, Mr. Trainor, and thank you, Mr. Eichorn. In proposed amendments, I believe attached to the amendments is a copy or some material concerning Senate Bill 238, which it only identifies the original nine. Mr. Trainor, unless I missed your point, you mentioned many more than nine intersections. Are those recommended?
These are recommendations from the Streets Department to be looked at. These are intersections that, based on intersection red 20 light running contributing factors from police crash records, are the top 20.
Since I do not have a copy of your testimony, or are not able to locate it, are the nine that are in the proposed amendment Bill with the attachment of Senate Bill 238, are 175 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 they included in that list that you just put forth in your testimony?
So Broad and Washington Avenue, Thompson Street and Lehigh, Aramingo and York are not included in your list?
Are you suggesting that they are not that significant in terms of your statistics warranting a camera?
They are not in the top 14 based on the police crash data for five years, but 15 they should be looked at based on the fact that they 16 are in the State Legislature. 17
I only mention 18 those three of the original nine because they happen 19 to be in my district. Actually, six of the original 20 are in my district, and I don't think they're included in your list. Could somebody explain to me -- maybe I missed the point -- how we came up with this nine, and why is the recommendation for these nine intersections different from the Streets Department? 176 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
The nine that were listed are the original nine that were put into the legislation by state representatives. And they are not cast in stone. They are to be considered along with other intersections that Charlie Trainor just identified.
Well, for the purpose of the initial installation of cameras -- assuming the Bill is passed and approved -- where do these nine stand?
They're in the same pot with the ones that Mr. Trainor just mentioned. They get no preference, other than they need to be considered.
But I thought that earlier testimony said that the pilot program would only be nine intersections? Correct me if I'm wrong. I just want clarification. Because personally I think that these intersections -- I'd like to see cameras installed at these 177 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 intersections. They're in my district. And I'm very familiar with Aramingo and York and Broad and Washington Avenue. And I just was curious that they're not a part of the testimony that was just put forth by --
Mr. Chairman, the nine that are in the initial legislation are now part of the list that the Streets Department has developed. Any of those intersections or any intersection that's not even mentioned, if a camera is warranted at that location, the process could begin and the cameras could be installed with the Department of Transportation's --
But Mr. Trainor's testimony only identified two of the original nine. How many intersections do you have total?
Twenty intersections. And only two of them were on the nine. So if we wanted to get the rest of the nine in there, we would bring that number up to 27.
Correct, Councilman. Councilman, there may be additional intersections. What I'm looking at here is based on Philadelphia 178 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Police crash records that we looked at.
I'm not arguing that point. I think that you're doing a good job and I appreciate your testimony and pointing out that those are the higher incident intersections. That, I understand. But I was just curious how we moved from this list to your list and what happens to --
That list is strictly the Streets Department's recommendations, which would eventually surface.
Councilman Goode. And then we'll take some rounds of questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was exactly my question to the Parking Authority, whether this was actually, in fact, data driven. I'll ask the question in a different way. Under the original legislation, local legislation or even proposed amendments, in your estimation should the Streets Department be making recommendation or making a determination as to the 179 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 intersections?
Or a determination? I'm making a distinction between the use of the term recommendation and the term determination.
Determination means that we're looking at criteria that either says, yes, there is a camera or, no, there is not a camera. You're crossing the threshold if you determine that. At this time there is no criteria of that nature.
What we're looking at doing with this phase, we're looking at the intersections ranking both in the Philadelphia Police crash data and also PennDOT crash data as the highest intersections that have red light running accidents, where that is the contributing factor.
It will be based upon that data. It would be based upon the volume and whether we can physically place the camera and the system to 180 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 do the camera at that intersection.
Therefore, your recommendations or determinations would be for the intersections that you named? 6
My recommendation is that 7 we look at these 20, in addition to the nine, and 8 possibly -- 9
But your 10 recommendation would be those 20 before the other 11 seven? 12
I don't have a 15 recommendation either way because I have not looked 16 specifically at the nine that are specifically in 17 the state legislation nor -- 18
You've already made a 19 determination of those 20 are the 20 that you would 20 pick based upon the data that you examined?
These are the first 20 to be looked at because they are the highest in our records.
So you would recommend those 20 before the other seven that are 181 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 also included in the state legislation?
When we look at the state crash records, the data from the state crash records systems, we will wind up seeing a little different aspect. The City's crash records are sorted on one contributing factor out of many. The state puts in at least five. And when they do their sorting, they could wind up coming out with locations that are higher incidences than I have. And also the ones that are on the state legislation could be of a higher incidence. So we have to delve into the actual physical records.
I think that would be a triumph of the Streets Department, PennDOT and the Parking Authority.
That doesn't work for me because it doesn't answer the question. How do you negotiate who makes the actual determination?
Again, it will be a combination of the Streets Department, who has to approve it, the Parking Authority, who has to install it, and PennDOT, who has to approve it. 182 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
So your testimony is actually that you can agree upon anything you want to agree upon?
There is no criteria to define when cameras go in and when cameras do not go in.
But per the legislation as its written and/or amended, the Department of Transportation and the Streets Department could just agree upon any intersections they want to agree upon? It does not have to be data driven?
It doesn't require that you abide by that study, though?
Again, there is no 19 criteria as to what requires a camera.
But it does not require that you abide by the study that you conduct. It just requests a study. It doesn't require that you abide by the study. You are, under the legislation, allowed to disagree upon the intersections, whether it's data driven or not? 183 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 That's a question.
Could I respond? I don't think the department would accept a study that the data didn't support. I think that's why it's important to have the different parties involved in it. The list that Charlie started with, the list that was in the Bill, they're basically just starting points. They're based on one aspect of that intersection, which is a red light running violation.
My concern is not with any specific intersections at all, whether it be the that you named or the nine that were in 15 the state legislation. My concern is that it's data 16 driven. And that there's something within the 17 legislation that ensures that it's data driven and 18 that you can't just pick any 10, 20, 30 19 intersections that you want, simply because you 20 agree upon it.
It doesn't say you have to follow an engineering study.
I believe that it requires 184 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 that the City Streets Department do an engineering study.
It requests that they do an engineering study. It does not require that they abide by it.
Point of order. Who will make the final determination as to what intersection or intersections will have a camera installed? Apparently there's some communication, or will be communication, between PennDOT and the Streets Department; am I correct on that?
And if one agency does not think that it warrants it, will there be -- does PennDOT have the jurisdiction overriding jurisdiction of the Streets Department? How do we resolve that debate? I'm certain it's going to come up.
I tried to clarify that over the written statement. The written statement and the regulations state that the list would go to the Secretary for approval. Realistically, though, the City Streets Department, who owns the traffic signals, if they don't want that signal hooked up, 185 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 it won't get hooked up. So ultimate veto power is the City Streets Department, as far as the use of red light running on the --
I don't know why you're saying the City. The City has no control over a Streets Department that thinks it's part of the State. That's why we have to threaten to go to court when we want lights put in at an intersection or a stop sign. The Streets Department doesn't give control. Why are you staying away from City Council control? Who made the State -- who made the effort to put in two-thirds of the nine belonging, apparently, to the Chairman of the Committee? Someone must have researched that to say this is how we get control. I think we're being sold the bill of goods here by well-meaning people who don't understand that there are a lot of other methods that could be employed. Why are we rushing into this? Start your education program. That would be very important. Tell people the dangers of running red lights and of the casualties that occur. And 186 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 don't confine it to few streets. We've got hundreds of streets in Philadelphia, don't we? How many intersections are there?
I think, Councilman Cohen, there was earlier testimony -- it may have been Mr. Dickson or someone else on that panel -- that it would be a minimum of about six months before we even get to do the installation of the first camera. So there will be some education leading up to that. Certainly, the public is getting educated before.
As the media will cover this, I'm sure, quite intensively over the next few days and months.
I don't know what the rush is to get into legislation, unless it is to make some businesses happy. That's the only thing I can see. An education program, which is really what's important, can go on without this.
Councilwoman Miller needs to leave. We're going to recess temporarily the hearing on the Committee of Streets and Services 187 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 and go into our public meeting for the purpose of Councilwoman Miller leaving her vote. (Public hearing recessed.) - - - (PUBLIC MEETING.)
Thank you. I'd like to be recorded as voting favorably for this Bill to move out of Committee.
There may be amendments, as well, if you care to leave your vote on amendments.
I'd also like to leave my aye vote on the amendments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to also be recorded as voting aye on all amendments and on the Bill's disposition in this Committee.
Thank you. Councilman Mariano. 188 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to do the same thing. I tried to stick it out, especially when Charlie Trainor was in favor of something. It's the first time I seen him vote in favor of anything. I would also like to vote aye to this Bill and all of the amendments.
We will now go back into the public hearing. Councilman Cohen, do you still wish to be recognized?
Yes. I think we're all being duped, and I think that the whole plan involves money, and that's the whole purpose of it. What's important here would be an educational program. You're going to concentrate on a few streets when we have hundreds and hundreds of streets in Philadelphia where the problem exists everywhere, where the City Council is again being turned down as being the guiding body of the City of 189 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Philadelphia. We're told that the Parking Authority will intervene on behalf of the City Council. What nonsense is that? City Council ought to make the decision. We're ones that ought to pick the streets. Yes, the Council-At-Large work closely with the district Councilmembers. We all know the City better than any other group. We're also more interested than any other group in making sure that the people in the City understand their rights and understand that they're being protected by the City. Streets Department doesn't listen to the people. They just keep saying, no. And I have no reason why except I expect they want to indicate that it's the Streets Department that runs the City, not the City Council. So I just think we're being duped by the Streets Department again acting in concert with the State, Mr. Chairman. I don't think the case has been made at all. Are there any other methods around? Nobody's told us of other methodologies that are available to control this rampant red light running. Why has Philadelphia had this problem all this time and 190 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 never taken a serious educational step forward? Why do they have to wait until they can find a way to take money from taxpayers and award contracts to get campaign contributions from them?
Councilman, as a former court administrator of Philadelphia Traffic Court, we spent the better part of years at the 9 Philadelphia Traffic Court in a number of different 10 positions. I can assure you that my experience at 11 the court with the majority of the judges during 12 that 16-year period had much to do with education. 13 Many of the judges, including former 14 Judge Ceremele, who is here today, took the time of 15 -- their own personal time -- to visit high schools 16 throughout this Philadelphia community to talk about the safe driving habits and talk about the laws and what the penalties for violating those laws would be if and when they got their licenses in the City of Philadelphia and violated any of the Motor Vehicle Codes. I'm well aware -- again, 16 years is a long time to spend with one agency. Approximately four of those years was as a court administrator. Our whole purpose was not to be a fining mill, as 191 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 some people suggest, even until today. Our whole purpose was to give folks an opportunity to be heard on a citation that was issued to them by a police officer in the interest of fairness and good government, but also an opportunity to heighten the awareness of folks and educate people to the laws governing this Commonwealth as they pertain to the Motor Vehicle Code and safe driving habits. I can expect that we will continue to do that, probably even more so, because I don't think this is the end of this issue. I think it's actually the beginning. Because over the next several months, as the City, with the PennDOT folks and the Streets Department and the Parking Authority and all the other entities, begin to install these cameras, there will probably be more awareness of red light violation issues and what that means to individual voters in the City of Philadelphia than ever before -- cumulatively ever before. This is going to be an educational process in and of itself. And I don't mean that to be an -- it's not argumentative.
Mr. Chairman, let's have an amendment that gives City Council the right 192 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 to name the streets. Why do we have to go on our knees to the Parking Authority and have them intercede with the Streets Department? Why don't we say clearly in the legislation that City Council shall designate the streets, the intersections, that will be used in a pilot program. That's our power. We ought to have that.
Councilman, I personally have no problem doing that. I don't know if -- again, you're a lot more familiar with the laws, being an attorney, and I respect that. I suspect that the State's authority to supercede us in many our issues would apply again, but I'm not giving up to that.
Well, let's put the burden on them to do it. Why don't we stand up and say, "This our City." We're 17 of the 18 members that make the laws. This is an important law to the people of Philadelphia. If that's how you feel, therefore, City Council will make the decision on the intersections. Then I'd have more confidence. I don't want to maintain the system in which City Council is having the thumb thrown in its face all the time, being told, you don't count. We 193 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 in the Streets Department are going to make the decisions with the Parking Authority and, oh, we'll consult with you. That's sounds like Mayor Street telling us about things he consults with us in order to convince us that he's right. He never consults with us to discuss a problem and to try to get our input. And that's the kind of consultation we're going to get here. Let's assert our power. We have the right to name these streets and these intersections. Let's do that. We would have the right to do it.
Are there any other questions for these witnesses? Is there anyone else here to testify? Seeing none, we will actually recess for a couple of minutes. We're waiting for another Member of this Committee to return. They should be here momentarily. We will then go into our public meeting for the purpose of voting on the Bill. Thank you. Thank all of you for your patience and your testimony. I think today was one of the better meetings of this Committee in terms of the testimony. Thank you. (Public hearing recessed.) 194 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Tuesday, May 6, 2003 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Streets and Services, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILL 000682. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER - - - 195
I believe we will now have the public meeting of the Streets and Services Committee.
That's correct. Thank you, Madam President. The public meeting on the Committee of Streets and Services is now back in session. While the amendments are being distributed, I'd just like to once again for the record, earlier this morning Council President appointed two City Council members to the Streets and Services Committee. The reason for those appointments was that yesterday we were informed that two regular members of the Streets and Services Committee did not believe that they would be in session today, so in order to ensure that we had a quorum, those two members being Council Member Jim Kenney and Council Member Michael Nutter were appointed to the Streets and Services Committee. Will the clerk please read the title of the amendments to Bill No. 000682.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The original amendments that we proposed will be changed in certain respects and the 196 following provisions will be added or changed: The original Section 12-3005 entitled Intersections at which this chapter applies, delete Subsection 1 in its entirety and the new subsection will read as follows: Automated red light enforcement systems that are approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation may be used to enforce this chapter 9 only at the following intersections, and as this list may be amended from time to time by ordinance.
Subsection 1 will read as follows: Automated red light enforcement systems that are approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation may be used to enforce this chapter 20 only at the following intersections, and as this list may be amended from time to time by ordinance, subject to the designation of such intersections by agreement of the system administrator and the Pennsylvania Secretary of Transportation: Subsection A, U.S. Route 1, Roosevelt Boulevard at 197 Grant Avenue, at Red Lion Road and at Cottman Street; Subsection B, Kensington Avenue at Clearfield Street; Subsection C, Richmond Street at Allegheny Avenue and at Castor Avenue; Subsection D, Aramingo Avenue at York Street; Subsection E, Thompson Street at Lehigh Avenue; Subsection F, Broad Street at Washington Avenue. Under Section 12-3012, Limitations, Section 2 will add the following provision: Section 11 2, in furtherance of Council's power to amend Section 12-30051 of the Code to revise the list of intersections at which automated red light enforcement systems may be installed, subject to the designation of such intersections by agreement of the system administrator and the Pennsylvania Secretary of Transportation. We have added a Section 5. Section 5 will read Non-Severability. The provisions of Section 12-30051 of the Code has added by Section 1 of this ordinance providing that automated red light enforcement systems may be used only at the intersections listed in this subsection, and as that list may be amended from time to time by ordinance, are not severable from the remaining provisions of 198 this ordinance, but are essentially and inseparably connected with all other provisions of this ordinance. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent of Council that Council would not have enacted this ordinance or any portion of this ordinance unless such provisions of Section 12-30051 of the Code were a valid part of such enactment. That, together with the rest of the amendments that we circulated earlier.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Council Member Rizzo for the motion on the proposed amendments to Bill No. 000682. The amendments that were originally distributed to members of City Council and in addition to those amendments that included deletions and additions that have just been read into the record.
Mr. Chairman, I move for the adoption of the amendments to Bill No. 22 000682 which have been circulated to the members of the Committee. (Motion seconded.)
It's been properly 199 moved and seconded that the amendments to Bill No. 3 000682 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MEMBERS: Aye.
The amendments are approved. The Chair recognizes Council Member Rizzo for a motion on the amended Bill 000682.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 000682 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, with the recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended --
Councilman Cohen, would you please speak into the microphone.
I would request Councilman Rizzo not to include a suspension of rules in order to give additional time for thinking on this. 200
Mr. Chairman, I recommend that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit first reading of this bill at our next session of City Council. (Motion seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 000682 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended.
I originally had been totally opposed to this as a big brother watching you bill, but I thought the Council acted commendably on the amendments. I'm not quite sure what they achieve, but it seems to me they reassert the authority of City Council and they also limit this to a trial period, and no further step can be taken without the involvement of City Council, but I'm not absolutely certain about that and I want to be able to have opportunity to consider it further. There were a lot of questions raised at the hearings. Information is supposed to be 201 furnished to us. I think the appropriate time for action would be not rush at the next meeting, but two weeks from now. And, therefore, if the motion remains as it is, instead of abstaining as I was intending to do, I will have to vote no on this.
To the sponsor of the bill, there's been a request that you withdraw the motion to suspend the rules for one week. What is your pleasure?
So be it. There's a motion on the floor to report Bill No. 000682 out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Motion seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MEMBERS: Aye.
Let the record reflect that Councilman Cohen is voting no. 4 Thank you all of you for your patience and time at this hearing. This now concludes -- Councilman Rizzo.
Do we have to vote on the amendments or did we do that?
We did. That was done. Thank all of our for your attendance today. This concludes the public meeting on the Committee of Streets and Services. (Streets and Services Committee adjourned at 3:50 p.m.) - - - 203 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on May 6, 2003, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ LISA BRADLEY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)