BILL ANALYSIS SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: ab 2729 SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: ammiano VERSION: 4/26/10 Analysis by: Jennifer Gress FISCAL: no Hearing date: June 22, 2010 SUBJECT: Automated traffic enforcement system: City and County of San Francisco DESCRIPTION: This bill authorizes, until January 1, 2014, the City and County of San Francisco to use an automated traffic enforcement system (i.e., red light cameras) to enforce a prohibition against turning at a specified intersection. ANALYSIS: Existing law authorizes the use of automated traffic enforcement systems at railroad crossings and intersections to record violations of unlawful grade crossings and red light running. Only a governmental agency, in cooperation with a law enforcement agency, may operate an automated enforcement system. "Operating" a system means that a governmental agency does the following: Develops uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violations, processing and storing confidential information, and selecting locations where automated enforcements systems will be utilized. Establishes procedures to ensure compliance with those guidelines. Certifies that the equipment is properly installed and calibrated and is operating properly. Ensures that the equipment is regularly inspected. AB 2729 (AMMIANO) Page 2 Inspects and maintains signs that warn drivers that an automated enforcement system is in use. These signs must be visible to traffic approaching an intersection where an automated enforcement system operates and clearly identify the presence of the camera system at that intersection. Oversees the establishment or change of signal phases and timing. The yellow light change interval must be established in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which is maintained by the California Department of Transportation. Maintains controls necessary to assure that only those citations that law enforcement personnel have reviewed and approved are delivered to violators. A governmental agency may contract out its duties to certify that the equipment is installed and operating properly and to ensure that the equipment is regularly inspected, provided the agency maintains overall control and supervision of the system. Prior to entering into a contract with a vendor to implement an automated enforcement system, the legislative body of the local government (e.g., city council or county board of supervisors) must conduct a public hearing on the proposed use of the system. A contract between a governmental agency and a vendor of automated enforcement equipment may not include a provision for payment to the vendor based on the number of citations issued or the amount of revenue generated, unless the contract was entered into prior to January 1, 2004. Prior to issuing citations, an agency utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system must make a public announcement of the system and issue only warning notices for 30 days. A peace officer or "qualified employee" of a law enforcement agency reviews the photographs and issues citations, as appropriate. A citation involves a "notice to appear," which must use a form approved by the Judicial Council and contain particular information, including the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle identified in the photograph, the license plate number of the vehicle, the violation charged, and the time and place when the person may appear in court. A notice to appear must be mailed within 15 days of the alleged violation to the current address of the registered owner of the vehicle. AB 2729 (AMMIANO) Page 3 This bill : Authorizes, until January 1, 2014, the City and County of San Francisco to use an automated traffic enforcement system to enforce a prohibition against turning from Market Street onto the Central Freeway located at Octavia Boulevard, provided the system meets all of the requirements established in existing law for red light cameras. Requires San Francisco to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing and the Assembly Committee on Transportation on the safety and traffic flow impacts that have resulted from the use of an automated traffic enforcement system by January 1, 2014. COMMENTS: 1.Purpose . The Market-Octavia-Central Freeway intersection in San Francisco is located at the juncture of three neighborhoods with large bicycling and walking populations - the Mission, Castro, and Hayes Valley. While right turns are prohibited from Market Street onto the on-ramp for the Central Freeway due to the high volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic on Market Street, the Market-Octavia-Central Freeway intersection experiences a high rate of collisions due to vehicles making unlawful right turns at the intersection and hitting cyclists and pedestrians traveling on Market Street toward downtown. From 2002 to 2006, the intersection was listed among the top five locations with the highest incidence of automobile-bicycle collisions in the city. These collisions have continued through 2007 sometimes with tragic results. Market Street is considered to be San Francisco's main street, serving as a primary walking, cycling, driving, and public transit corridor. In December 2007, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority (SFMTA) installed a concrete barrier island and reflective signage to deter the illegal turns. The intersection nevertheless experienced the highest total number of injury collisions of any intersection in San Francisco in 2008 with nine reported collisions. Since the barrier was installed, the author believes that drivers violating the law and turning illegally are doing so willfully and that automated enforcement is the best way to improve cyclist and AB 2729 (AMMIANO) Page 4 pedestrian safety at this busy intersection. 2.Will automated enforcement help ? Based on data provided by the author's office, after the opening of Octavia Boulevard on September 9, 2005, SFMTA observed that while the majority of drivers complied with the prohibition on turning right onto the Central Freeway, a sizable minority began to violate it. Traffic counts conducted during the morning commute hours in September 2005, January 2006, and October 2006 found an average of 29.5 illegal right turns per hour. Based on those observations, SFMTA took several engineering measures to reduce right turns, including erecting extensive signage, painting a white "island" on the roadway, and installing safe-hit posts separating the bicycle lane and the right-most vehicle lane as the lanes approach the intersection. Traffic counts conducted between February 2007 and May 2007 immediately following these measures revealed an average of only two illegal right turns during the morning commute hours, a 93 percent reduction. Despite the reduction in the number of motorists turning right illegally, the number of collisions between bicycles and illegally right-turning vehicles actually increased during that same time period. Between September 2005 and January 2007, that intersection saw five collisions occurring between bicyclists and right-turning vehicles, a rate of 0.3 per month. After the installation of those measures, six such collisions occurred between February 2007 and December 2007, an increase in the collision rate to 0.6 per month. In December 2007, SFMTA replaced the painted traffic island with a raised concrete island, installed object markers on the island, installed new safe-hits and striping approaching the intersection, and adjusted the lane extension markings through the intersection. Between December 2007 and July 31, 2008, SFMTA continued to observe very few right-turn violations (traffic count data collected on January 15 and 16, 2008 revealed a total of one and zero illegal turns, respectively), but collisions continued to occur at a rate of 0.6 per month. In summary, SFMTA has implemented a number of engineering measures to the intersection that have proven successful in reducing the number of right-turn violations. While the violations have decreased, the collision rate has increased, suggesting that the correlation between violations and AB 2729 (AMMIANO) Page 5 collisions is not as strong as previously thought or that the engineering measures may be inadvertently increasing the likelihood of a collision when a violation does occur. It is unclear how increased enforcement will address this issue. While the effectiveness of using automated traffic enforcement to deter drivers from making specific turns has not been evaluated, red light cameras have been shown to reduce, but not eliminate, red light running violations and collisions associated with those violations. Automated enforcement may be successful in reducing violations at this intersection in San Francisco, but it is unlikely to eliminate them and the underlying problem appears to be the risk of collision when a violation does occur. Finally, it is unclear how much the city has increased the presence of law enforcement at this intersection or whether the presence of an enforcement officer might have the same deterrent effect as the automated system. While automated systems have the capacity to capture more violators than a police officer could on site, having an actual law enforcement officer issuing citations may provide greater opportunity to educate the violator of the dangers of turning right at that intersection. 3.Expanding authority . This bill expands the authority to use an automated traffic enforcement system, which is currently limited to capturing red light running and illegal grade crossings, to include the enforcement of unlawful turns. Furthermore, the bill limits the use of the system to a single intersection, rather than authorizing its use for this purpose statewide. What standard does this particular intersection meet to warrant expanding the use of red light cameras to enforce other traffic laws? The committee may wish to consider whether it wishes to establish a precedent of expanding the use of automated traffic enforcement and doing so for a single situation without defining a clear standard or threshold to justify its use in that situation. 4.Earlier sunset date . Under this bill, the authority to use an automated enforcement system expires after three years. SFMTA should, however, be able to determine whether the system has resulted in a reduction of collisions after one year. If the bill moves forward, the committee may wish to consider an amendment to limit the length of time that the City and County of San Francisco may use the system from three years to one AB 2729 (AMMIANO) Page 6 year to further narrow the scope of the bill. 5.Recent legislation . AB 23 (Ma), 2008, contained nearly identical provisions as this bill does, but did not include a sunset date or a reporting requirement. Failed passage in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. Assembly Votes: Floor: 49-24 Trans: 10-2 POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on Wednesday, June 16, 2010) SUPPORT: City and County of San Francisco (co-sponsor) San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (co-sponsor) Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association North Mission Neighborhood Alliance Walk San Francisco 1 individual OPPOSED: California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union California Teamsters Public Affairs Council