Today's Broward County Comm. action on red-light cameras; My take on "Sight distances" of red-light camera signs; county won't be involved the future

Today's Broward County Comm. action on red-light cameras; My take on "Sight distances" of red-light camera warning signs - Agenda Item 33- Allows traffic infraction detection equipment by municipalities to connect to the County’s traffic signal infrastructure

-------

Below is a copy of an email that I sent early Tuesday morning to Hallandale Beach's two representatives on the Broward County Commission, Sue Gunzburger and Barbara Sharief, plus County Administrator Bertha Henry, regarding Agenda item #33 on this morning's schedule. Below it is the response I received from Comm. Gunzburger, the presiding officer.

October 11th, 2011

Dear Commissioners Gunzburger and Sharief:

Despite my longstanding interest in this issue, I will be unable to be present in person for today's, Broward County Commission meeting and therefore am sending this email to you to to represent, my personal thoughts and to share with you some facts that I fear will otherwise NOT come up today, namely, Broward cities taking advantage of their citizens and NOT acting in a manner that's reasonable, prudent or even legal with regard to their use of red-light cameras.

For months I've waited for the opportunity to formally share this bit of information with you, where it would do some public good, and show that not all municipalities in Broward County are eager to comply with the specific standards set to allow red-light camera enforcement to take place in Broward County.

Below are some photos of a self-evident fact that I and many tens of thousands of other Hallandale Beach and Hollywood residents have known about ever since the red-light camera was installed on Hallandale Beach Blvd. & N.W. 10th Terrace, Hallandale Beach, with the so-called warning sign posted a block farther east on the corner of N.W. 9th Terrace, which, as it happens, is also a popular area for dangerous U-turns.

It's here somewhere...

It's right around here somewhere.

In what way, exactly, is the red-light camera warning sign "visible" from this distance?

September 25, 2011

Or this distance? August 19, 2011

Or from this distance? September 25, 2011

Where did it go? Shouldn't we see it by now? September 11, 2011

Oh, there you are, red-light camera warning sign, intentionally placed right between two trees!

You only see the sign above because of the reflection of my camera flash.

You'd almost say they were hiding it, yes?

Looking west on W. Hallandale Beach Blvd. & N.W 10th Terrace, Hallandale Beach, April 24, 2011.

In fact, it's not until you are almost parallel to the sign itself, assuming you notice it among the other signs preceding it, that it's visible to west-bound drivers in the road lane that is actually CLOSEST to the sign. That seems illogical on its face doesn't it?

Shouldn't the lane closest to the sign at least see it at roughly the same instant others do?

Instead, the driver closest to it is the one driver most likely to NEVER see it.

How exactly is that common sense?

The fact that there is no street light there only makes it even worse at night, as this photo below

amply demonstrates.

Above, the red-light camera warning sign on the north-side of west-bound W. Hallandale Beach Blvd. at N.W. 9th Terrace on February 27, 2011 at 6:40 p.m., a bit past sundown.

The ONLY reason that you even see the sign above is because I'm standing on the curb and pointing my camera directly at it, using my camera's flash.

And that assumes that you the driver aren't distracted -and a bit un-nerved- by the sight of the over-grown palm fronds that obstruct the electronic message board directly behind it.

September 11, 2011

Hmm-m... erecting an electronic message board behind a palm tree on a west-bound road where a setting sun is often brutal at times?

No, nothing bad could ever go wrong with that sort of well-organized plan.

Well, unless it rains .. and the palm fronds get larger.

And aren't properly maintained and cut.

Like the reality in Hallandale Beach since that particular red-light cameras went up.

Where's that red-light camera warning sign?
Looking west on W. Hallandale Beach Blvd. approaching N.W 10th Terrace, Hallandale Beach. About 6:50 p.m., April 24, 2011.

Where did you say that red-light camera warning sign was, again?

No, it's not that silver-colored one next to the curb, that the Merge/Bike lane sign. Looking west on W. Hallandale Beach Blvd. & N.W 10th Terrace, Hallandale Beach, April 24, 2011.

That red-light camera is there merely to catch drivers trying to get onto I-95 ASAP, not because of any dangerous safety situation there ever mentioned or disclosed by the City of Hallandale Beach or known by its residents prior to the installation of a camera.

In fact, the last very bad accident near there, in front of the Denny's, was actually caused by a high-speed police pursuit from... the other direction. Yes, a high-speed pursuit approaching slow-moving traffic trying to get onto the I-95 entrance ramps.

Sure, because nothing could go wrong with that sort of strategy.

Proof of the lack of safety concern here is how how many street lights near that area have been out for months or years, and yet the city seems never quite able to make that necessary phone call to FDOT or FP&L.

They act completely oblivious, but the facts are common knowledge.

Going south-bound on N.W. 10th Terrace, as you approach that same intersection at Hallandale

Beach Blvd., the one that the city says is a problem without ever offering a scintilla of proof, tell me, when can you even see the traffic signal because of all the obstructing tree branches?

Answer: When you are one of the first two cars there, maybe, otherwise, forget it.

The traffic signal can barely be seen.

This longstanding safety situation with obstructions as you approach BCTE traffic signals

exists all throughout Hallandale Beach and Hollywood and neither city does a thing about it,

even when they are specifically told about it.

In one ear, out the other.

Rhonda Calhoun of the Broward League of Cities and their counsel, Sam Goren -that is, when he isn't wearing his other hat as Pembroke Pines City Attorney- where so many of his city's red-light cameras cases were dismissed by judges back in January, are saying all the predictable things their bosses, the cities of Broward, want you all to hear, but they are wrong, particularly as it applies to the City of Hallandale Beach.

Here, it's about revenue, not public safety, as red-light cameras were specifically cited by city residents (in a $38,000 City Commission-paid poll) as their number-one complaint about Hallandale Beach.

That's not by accident. That's from personal experience in seeing the city do whatever it wanted even before the state approved the cameras for July of 2010, even to the point of having the one-and-only red-light camera warning sign on U.S.-1 hidden away for months and months by a County Bus shelter. (And even then. unbelievably, the warning sign was on the other side of the sidewalk!)

How, exactly, was that "visible" to drivers and consistent with sight distances?

It wasn't, but the city didn't care.

They did it anyway.

I've got contemporaneous photos of that 'invisible' warning sign from every single angle, having been there when the red-light camera was erected. On purpose!

I even spoke to the engineer/technician installing it and specifically asked him about the fact that

the so-called required 'warning" sign was, for all practical purposes, "hidden" by the bus shelter.

He said that was the city's decision.

And he would know.

The City of Hallandale Beach is NOT trusted by its citizens on this matter, and for very good reason: personal experience.They've even told the city, via the poll conducted by an independent company in Kansas,

http://www.hallandalebeachfl.gov/files/2011-09-07/Item%208G/index.html

but the city STILL refuses to listen because it doesn't care.

Pages 11, 68, 106 and 135 deals with red-light cameras.

Question (Q6) Satisfaction with Various Aspect of Public Safety ranked the use of red light cameras at an “unsatisfied” rating of 45%. According to ETC Institute, the entity administering the survey, any rating above 20% requires the City’s immediate attention.
The Public Safety Importance-Satisfaction Analysis (Section 3, page 4) red-light cameras rates “High Priority” ahead of visibility of police and crime prevention.

Therefore, in my opinion, based on the preceding facts, the county-wide policy you should adopt is a simple one: "Trust but verify."

-----

http://205.166.161.204/agenda_publish.cfm?mt=ALL&get_month=10&get_year=2011&dsp=agm&seq=9448&rev=0&ag=269&ln=45252&nseq=&nrev=&pseq=&prev=#ReturnTo45252

Meeting Agendas

---

Print Return Previous Next
AI-9448			Item #: 33.
Broward County Commission Regular Meeting
Date: 10/11/2011 Director's Name: Thomas Hutka Department: Public Works
Information
Requested Action
MOTION TO APPROVE standard form, shell revocable license agreement for use between Broward County and various municipalities for their use of County equipment to connect traffic infraction detection systems, effective for five years from date of execution; authorizing the County Administrator, or designee, to execute the approved standard form, shell agreement on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners; authorizing the County Administrator to approve renewal for additional five-year terms if the County Administrator determines it is in the best interest of the County; and authorizing the County Administrator to amend the standard form, shell agreement or executed agreements to add or remove affected intersections and revise the affected locations and layouts (Exhibit A of agreement), to revise the conditions of use (Exhibit B) or special technical provisions (Exhibit C), as may be necessary. (All Commission Districts) (Deferred from September 27, 2011 - Item No. 65)
Why Action is Necessary
Broward County Commission approval is required for all agreements between the County and municipalities.
What Action Accomplishes
Allows traffic infraction detection equipment by municipalities to connect to the County’s traffic signal infrastructure.
Is this Action Goal Related
Previous Action Taken
This item was deferred from the December 14, 2010 Commission meeting (Item No. 50), from the March 1, 2011 Commission meeting (Item No. 23), from the August 30, 2011 Commision meeting (Item No. 51), and again from the September 27, 2011 Commission meeting.
Summary Explanation/ Background
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING DIVISION RECOMMEND APPROVAL. The Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act (Act) was signed into law, with an effective date of July 1, 2010, authorizing the use of traffic infraction detectors, commonly known as red light running cameras, on State, County and municipal roadways in the State of Florida. Broward County is somewhat unique among most Florida traffic maintaining agencies in that the County operates all traffic signals (the County owns all signals on County and local roads and maintains all signals on State roads for FDOT). However, the traffic infraction detection equipment is being installed by municipalities within their municipal boundaries. Prior to the passage of the Act, several cities installed and operated non-intrusive traffic infraction detection systems (no connection to the County’s traffic signals) outside of the road right-of-way. With the passage of the Act, these systems can be installed within the road right-of-way as long as they comply with traffic safety conditions (i.e. outside of clear zone, crash worthiness standards, sight distances, etc.). In general, non-intrusive systems in the County's right-of-way can be permitted by the Broward County Highway Construction and Engineering Division under Section 6.48, Broward County Administrative Code; non-intrusive systems in State or city rights-of-way are permitted by those respective agencies. Recently, County staff became aware, from a vendor (American Traffic Solutions, Inc.) representing several municipalities, that the municipalities would like to install intrusive systems (systems with some equipment connecting to the County’s traffic signals) to supplement the required photographic evidence of violation. If the Board were to approve the municipalities’ request to connect to the County’s traffic signals, staff has developed the subject shell revocable licensing agreement (RLA) that would protect the County’s interests. This shell RLA will only be required as part of the permit review and approval process for the installations that connect to the County’s traffic signals. Municipalities installing non-intrusive systems would not be subject to this RLA. The main conditions of the shell RLA are as follows: Establish the locations and conditions that the traffic infraction detection equipment can be connected to the County’s traffic signals without compromising the signals' effectiveness and reliability. Establish the responsibility of the municipalities to install, maintain and operate the traffic infraction detection equipment and to remove the equipment from the right-of-way when no longer in use. Establish the responsibility of the municipalities for repairs and damages to the County’s infrastructure as a result of the connections between the municipality and County equipment. Establish the County’s right to disconnect any equipment connected to the traffic signal control system, if necessary during emergency repairs, in order to maintain or return the traffic signals to normal operation as quickly as possible. Municipalities may reconnect to the County infrastructure at a later time at their own costs. Establish an hourly rate reimbursement schedule for County staff to inspect equipment installation, adjust signal timing, and to provide court testimony for traffic infraction violations. The hourly rates will increase at the same annual increases to salaries, administrative support, benefits, and vehicle costs. As part of the Board's approval of the municipalities' request, staff is requesting approval of this shell RLA, effective for five years from date of execution; authorizing the County Administrator, or designee, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Board; authorizing the County Administrator to approve renewal for additional five-year terms if County Administrator determines it is in the best interest of the County; and authorizing the County Administrator to execute amendments to the agreement or the approved shell agreement to add or remove affected intersections and revise the affected locations and layouts (Exhibit A of agreement), or to revise the conditions of use and special technical provisions (Exhibits B and C of agreement), as may be necessary. This agreement may be terminated by County, through the Broward County Commission or the Broward County Administrator, or Licensee, with or without cause and at any time during the term hereof upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other of its desire to terminate this agreement. Attachment B-1 of the agreement, Reimbursement Hourly Rates, has been updated to incorporate the clarification on future annual increases that was yellow-sheeted for the December 14, 2010 meeting and to include the provision to charge overtime for work required outside of normal business hours. At the December 14, 2010 meeting, the Board deferred this item and directed staff to solicit comments from the League of Cities and the Clerk of the Court. Comments from the Broward League of Cities dated February 8, 2011 are attached as Exhibit 3. At the March 1, 2011 meeting, the Board deferred this item and directed staff to provide additional information on several issues and also requested that the Broward League of Cities consider developing uniform traffic enforcement procedures among the cities. Responses from County staff and the Broward League of Cities are included as Exhibits 7 and 8, respectively. At the August 30, 2011 meeting, the Board deferred this item and directed staff to bring the item back to the Board with recommendations relating to initial permitting fees and annual fee costs. A memo of the recommendation is included as Exhibit 11. At the September 27, 2011 meeting, the Board deferred this item at the request of the Mayor on behalf of the City of Pembroke Pines. If a license agreement is approved by the Board, staff will provide a quarterly report to the Board summarizing the number of license agreements that have been submitted or executed over that period. The Office of the County Attorney has approved the agreement as to legal form. Sources of additional information: Anthony M. Hui, P.E., Deputy Director, Public Works Department, 954-357-6308; Thomas J. Hutka, P.E., Director, Public Works Department, 954-357-6410.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Impact/Cost Summary:
Fiscal impact is anticipated to be cost neutral. The reimbursement schedule will allow the County to recover costs for its involvement with the traffic infraction detection systems.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Agreement Summary
Exhibit 2 - Revocable License Agreement
Exhibit 3 - Broward League of Cities Position Statement
Exhibit 4 - Additional Agenda Material Item 23-1
Exhibit 5 - Additional Agenda Material Item 23-2
Exhibit 6 - Additional Agenda Material Item 23-3
Exhibit 7 - Memo to the Board
Exhibit 8 - Letter from League of Cities
Exhibit 9 - Additional Information - Item 51-1
Exhibit 10 - Additional Information - Item 51-2
Exhibit 11 - Additional Information
Exhibit 12 - Additional Material
Exhibit 13 - Additional Material
Additional Material - Information
Additional Material - Information
Additional Material - Information

-----

See also:

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2011/10/driving_while_deceased_lieberm.html

Later in the morning, I received this response from Comm. Gunzburger, who is the presiding officer, whom I last spoke to in person in June at Comm. Keith London's monthly Resident Forum meeting, where she spoke and answered citizen's public policy questions for about an hour. Comm. Sharief had attended the previous month.

This item has been permanently pulled from our agenda by the cities. The county will not be involved in the red light cameras. The place to protest is at the city.

Sue Gunzburger, Mayor

Broward County Commission - District 6

Phone 954-357-7006 Fax 954-357-7129

www.broward.org/sue

At Broward IG Selection Comm. meeting, former Broward State's Attorney Philip S. Shailer was invited to be fourth member of five-person committee

Former Broward State's Attorney Philip S. Shailer was invited this afternoon to be the fourth member of a five-person committee that will select an independent Inspector General, an office created by Broward voters in November.

Current members Timothy Donnelly, Sam Goren, Jan Jacobowitz and Shailer will select a fifth and final member at the next meeting and together must select an IG by March 12th. Next meeting is Tuesday the 15th at 3 pm in Room 422, the Broward Commission Chambers.

Personally, I would like to see at least one non-lawyer on the selection committee.

At the end of the meeting around 5 p.m., there were four people in the audience: Broward activist/gadfly Russell Setti, an attorney from Goren's firm, a reporter and... me.

It was an underwhelming start to say the least for Broward's new anti-corruption era, but a baby step is still better than the woeful status quo.

More on this tomorrow, hopefully with photos and video.