|
RED LIGHT
CAMERAS
|
|
www.highwayrobbery.net
|
|
If you
haven't
already done so, please read the Newark section on the Camera
Towns
page Newark
Documents Some of Newark's "tickets" can possibly be
ignored.
If your ticket does not have the Superior Court's name and
address on it, it is a fake ticket, what I call a "Snitch Ticket."
For more
details, see the Snitch Ticket
section
on the Your Ticket page. If you have a Newark red light camera ticket, be sure to look at the Countywide Information, on the Oakland Documents page.
Newark Docs
Set # 1 Total Violations,
Notices Printed [4] New 8-14-10, updated 12-22-11
This table made by highwayrobbery.net, using official reports provided by the City under the California Public Records Act. The official reports for April - June 2010 are part of Docs Set # 3, below. Official reports, 2006 - 2010 Official reports, late 2010 Official reports, 2011 If you would like to crunch or graph the numbers, use this Excel spreadsheet: Activations and Citations, 2006 - 2010 [ ] indicates a footnote. [1] Totals are as provided by the City. [2] YTD = Year-to-date total. [3] Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system. [4] Except where noted otherwise, the figures given in the table are for the single calendar month indicated. Any figures in red type (or, if you are looking at this table in black and white, the upper figure when there are two or more figures in a cell) are what RedFlex calls Total Violations, or all incidents recorded by the cameras, and due to time limitations may have been posted here only for selected months or locations. If there is sufficient public interest, the remaining months will be posted. The figures in black type are what RedFlex calls Notices Printed, and represent the sum of genuine citations issued (those filed with the court) plus any Nominations mailed (not filed with the court, a.k.a. Snitch Tickets). [5] Additional monthly or half-year data, and annual totals, are available in the spreadsheet linked above. [6] The camera enforcement is believed to be on traffic on the first-named street, but the direction of enforcement (north, south, east, west, thru, left, right) may not be accurate. [7] Direction of enforcement from list provided by the City. Newark Docs Set
# 2
"Late Time" Graphs These graphs track violations recorded, not tickets issued. Where there is a large number of long Late Time violations in a curb lane, it is believed to indicate heavy ticketing on right turns. (The curb lane will be the lane with the highest lane number.) The City has provided bar graphs for a 12-month period in 2009 & 2010, plus July 2007, 2010, and 2011. See the links, below. ![]() The picture above is an example from another city. CEMO-01 Jul07 CEMO-01 Jul10 CEMO-01 Nov09 - Oct10 CEMO-01 Jul11 CEMO-01 Jan12 CHMO-01 Jul07 CHMO-01 Jul10 CHMO-01 Nov09 - Oct10 CHMO-01 Jul11 CHMO-01 Jan12 MOCE-01 Jul07 MOCE-01 Jul10 MOCE-01 Nov09 - Oct10 MOCE-01 Jul11 MOCE-01 Jan12 NEJA-01 Jul07 NEJA-01 Jul10 NEJA-01 Nov09 - Oct10 NEJA-03 Jul07 NEJA-03 Jul10 NEJA-03 Nov09 - Oct10 NEJA-03 Jul11 NEJA-03 Jan12 Bar graphs are available for more than forty other cities - see the list in the expanded version of Defect # 9. Newark Docs Set
# 3
Newark Docs Set # 4 2006
Contract Until a Jan. 20, 2010
amendment, the 2006 contract included an illegal "cost neutrality"
clause, whereby the city did not have to pay RedFlex 2011: New Contract On Apr. 14, 2011 the city
council voted
5 - 0 to accept a new 5-year contact under which the City will pay
$5700 monthly
rent per camera for four of the five existing cameras. The camera
covering northbound Newark/Jarvis is to be removed. They paid way too much. Had the council
negotiated a $3052 rent like that in the 2010 contract
of the
City of Oceanside (available on the Oceanside Documents page), it could
have saved $2648
per
camera per month, or $635,520 for the four cameras over the
60 months of
the contract.
The city council didn't need to agree to a five-year term in order to get a good price. The City of Hawthorne's three-year contract (available on the Hawthorne Documents page) sets a $2800 rent for its seven original cameras. Had the council negotiated a $2800 rent like Hawthorne's, it could have saved $2900 per camera per month, or $696,000 over the 60 months of the contract. Nor did the city council need to agree to pay $6200 for the new cameras that are to be added to the system. A close-by example: Burlingame paid only $5870. Had Newark obtained the same rate as Burlingame, the City could have saved $118,800 over five years. Thus, the city council gave away over $800,000 of City money, just because it failed to negotiate hard on the rent. There is another problem with the contract. The contract contains no adequate escape clause should a future council wish to terminate the contract, or if the voters terminate the contract via initiative. A complete contract will include a formula by which the full cost of such a "for convenience" termination is to be calculated. While Section 6.1 of the contract does specify $1000 per month per camera - a figure that is much too high to retire five-year-old (or more) equipment - the section also requires the City to pay unspecified "...out-of-pocket and/or direct costs and expenses." For an example of a more complete formula - albeit one still having much-too-high prices - see Section 6.2 in the City of Victorville's original contract (available on the Victorville Documents page). The Newark contracts may also be available at
the
NPD website - see Set # 5, below. Newark Docs Set # 5 The Newark PD has extensive materials on its
website,
including
copies
of
the
contracts
(see
Exh.
1
of
the
Court
Discovery
Documents
on
the
site).
Newark Docs Set
# 6
Newark Docs Set
# 7
More Coming There may be some more Newark information posted in the next few weeks. Mark your calendar to remind you to come back here and look! --------------------------------- |