My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2010-08-23
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
AgdaPkt 2010-08-23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/23/2013 12:55:23 PM
Creation date
8/19/2010 12:36:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
8/23/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
177
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
6.1 G <br /> Page 19 <br /> shall not exceed six months from fihe dafie of publication of the Grand Jury <br /> report. <br /> 4. The recommendation wil! not be implemented because it is not warranted <br /> or reasonable, with an explanation #herefore. <br /> The Gity Councsl has authorized me to present the City's response to the Court. <br /> The Redwood City Council, a� its meeting of August 23, 201 Q approved the <br /> responses fo the findings and recommendations. <br /> FiNDINGS <br /> Find�ng #1 <br /> The cifres choose iocafions tor rhe two suppliers red iight cameras ro evalua�e. <br /> The vendors then recommend the locafion of cameras basecf on studies which <br /> evaluate fhe pofentia/number vf posslble red light violations and not necessarily <br /> �he number of acc�denfs fhat car� be preven�ecl. <br /> Respanse <br /> The City disagrees partiai(y with the finding. The City considered RedFlex <br /> Traffic Systems and American Traffic Solu#ions (ATS}, However, because <br /> ATS did not have access to the Department of Motor Vehicle access <br /> codes to fully suppor� citation processing, the City only had RedFlex <br /> evaluate locations. <br /> Consideration was given to the number of vehicle coliisions at the <br /> intersection where the cameras were installed (Whipple A�enue and <br /> Veterans Boulevard). [n addition consideration was gi�en to the number of <br /> violations at the intersection as the violations indicate a propensity for <br /> collisions. Potential revenue was never a consideration to the placemenfi <br /> of the cameras. <br /> The City's objec�ive in employing the pho#o enforcement system is to <br /> , reduce accident rates, and citafions are a measure of potential accidenfs. <br /> The effectiveness vf the cameras should also be measured by the number <br /> of violations captured and the reduction of the violations over time. !t is <br /> hoped that the cameras are a deterrent and drivers are becoming <br /> educated to become more cognizant of traffic control signals. <br /> Fin ding #2 <br /> Police Departments and traffie engineers provide thelr input as fo where cameras <br /> should be installed wifh primary emphasis on safety rather fhan fhe number of <br /> cifations fhat can be issued. Ul�ima�ely, both the city and the venafor must agree <br /> on fhe location for installafion. <br /> Response <br /> The City agrees with the finding. <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.