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?