Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 24, 2015 2:30pm-3:01pm PDT

2:30 pm
, i'm a young organizer for chinatown cbc, we're really excited and encouraged that you are having thation safe route for seniors. we were thinking about education component, we're hoping that you consult a gerontologist and take into consideration the behaviors and changes as you age. so that we're really creating a curriculum that is comprehensive and takes into account human behaviors and really looks to the needs of individual communities. so that we are hearing also feedback from our elders in terms of what they want to see? thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ] i would like to have a motion to adjourn this meeting. >> so moved. >> without objection, the meeting is adjourned. [ gavel ] we'll continue to other items as a workshop. it won't be on the record, but
2:31 pm
whoever is here will be able to hear the information and comment on it. okay. so why don't you call item no. 4. >> item 4. automated safety enforcement presentation this. is an information item. >> good afternoon commissioners kate breen san francisco municipal transportation agency and really appreciate you taking the time to hear the presentation this afternoon about automated speed enforcement. automated speed enforcement or the opportunity for automated speed enforcement is actually a key component of adopt vision zero action strategy. and it has been included in the city and county of san francisco, as well as the sfmta's 2015 legislative program. so this afternoon, clair phillips performance analyst from the controller's office is going to give you an update on the body of research that really supported the recommendations for automated speed enforcementment while we didn't get an author this yeah, in the middle of a two-year
2:32 pm
session we'll continue to develop this concept. claire, if you would like to come up and walk through the presentation. >> thank you, kate.
2:33 pm
good afternoon, i'm claire phillips with the controller's office and i'm here today to give an overview of some preliminary research on automated speed enforcement. so first i would like to start off with what "automated speed enforcement" is and talk about how it works and go through a couple of case studis from other jurisdictions that we reached out to and then talk about some legislative challenges. so first of all, automated speed enforcement also known as ase is the use of speed camera photo enforcement that has been proven effective to reduce speeding incidents. the data that we have collected and looked at from other jurisdictions across the country, and also in other countries, have shown that automated speed enforcement is an effective way to reduce speeding, and also severe injuries and collisions as a result of speeding vehicles.
2:34 pm
automated speed cameras can be fixed on existing infrastructure, or they can be mobile usually by way of vans that can be moved around to different problematic locations. currently california vehicle code allows use of automated enforcement for red light, but it's specifically prohibits the use of automated enforcement for speeding. so a legislative change at the state-level would be necessary in order to implement a program like this. so how it works is very similar to how a police officer is currently catching speeding vehicles now, which is the use of radar. and so the cameras either fixed or mobile, they use radar beams to individually capture the speeding vehicle. typically two photos are taken of the license plates, and the
2:35 pm
speed cameras are set to a particular threshold. so when a speeding vehicle is going through that radar beam above the set threshold then that is when the camera is triggered. and it would take a photo, zooming in on just the license plate of that speeding vehicle. you see this map shows currently the jurisdictions across the country that use ase, as well as -- for speed and also for red light. you will see that the jurisdictions in green are those that have red light and speed enforcement systems currently. you will see that california is in blue; which signifies that we have red light cameras, but our legislation right now, the vehicle code prohibits california from using speed cameras. and in total, there are -- as
2:36 pm
of right now, 134 communities across the country that have speed camera programs. when you compare that to the red light program numbers, there are 459 that have red light programs. so a lot more red light programs than there are automated speed enforcement programs, but there are 134 currently across the country. and so based on this research our office worked with mta to come up with a draft proposal based on fixed jurisdictions that we spoke, chicago denver, seattle, new york city, permit, seattle and washington, d.c.. based on the preliminary research we gathered, working
2:37 pm
with mta to draft a legislative proposal. included in that proposal would be both fixed and mobile cameras. the enforcement area would be within a quarter of a mile of a school or senior center. again, really targeting those vulnerable populations, and public announcements, 30 days in advance of when speed cameras would go into effect. most jurisdictions give anywhere from two week to two months and so this proposal included 30 days, where instead of a ticket or citation that they would receive a notice that lets them know you were speeding and you were speeding at this location. and this is the photo from that camera. and two photos of the vehicle license plate. there would not be a photo of the driver. and so a violation would then
2:38 pm
be sent to the registered owner of that vehicle. so coordination would be needed with the dmv to get names and addresses of those who were in violation and citations would be sent to the registered owner of the vehicle. revenue use would be treated like a parking ticket, rather than a moving violation. this would decriminalize the speeding -- for speed cameras only. so if a speeding camera was in place and a violation was sent, that person would pay the ticket just like it is a parking ticket, rather than getting points on a driver's license or having insurance premiums go up and those other types of things. and then also this proposal included the revenue being tied to road or safety programs
2:39 pm
if there was additional revenue would be directed to safety and street improvements. of course this would need to be a collaborative effort. based on the other jurisdictions that we spoke, typically the city's department of transportation, the police department, the dmv and also the state department of transportation. and in some cases also the -- in california's case, the chp. so a couple of case studies that i wanted to share today that give us an idea of how different cities implement these types of programs and kind of the different options that san francisco could have are the comparable jurisdictions that we choose
2:40 pm
for today are chicago and new york. so chicago, the police department and the department of transportation, as well as the mayor's office of legislative affairs pursued state legislative change to allow automated speed enforcement and targeted the population in state of over a million. that is how they really focused in and zeroed in on chicago. and so their program was specific to that city. they created safety zones, which were an 1/8th mile from a school or park and that is where we they were able to implement their cameras. when implementation first started they had 40 cameras. and their revenue did go to the general fund, but about 5% was invested in safety initiatives. they have a 30-day warning period, and their warning was per license plate. for the first license plate, they didn't have to pay a fine
2:41 pm
and got a warning. by threshold, if they were speeding between 6-10 miles over the speed limit, it was a $35 fine and beyond that was a $100 fine. new york city passed legislation in july of 2013, and when we spoke to them, they said it was ten years' in the making. it took them ten years in order to gather the legislative support and craft legislation that was accountable to both the public and legislature. they finally did pass a bill in july of 2013 and it was also for cities of 1 million or more and that allowed for a five-year demonstration program and they started their pilot in 2013. they located with school zones and it was only in school zones
2:42 pm
when school is in session and children are present. that speaks to some of the limitations that these programs endure based on what is palatable for the legislature. their violations are enforced by the parking violations bureau. so they are kind of treating like a parking ticket. and the new york city department of transportation receives the revenues, but due to complexity, they didn't earmark them for a specific purpose. but it does go to that department. and they found a flat fine of $50 is what they could put into the legislation that they could get to pass and having a flat fine was also simpler for administrative reasons. they did not actually post signs or post locations. where chicago on their website, you can find a list of locations. so some of the
2:43 pm
legislative challenges that the city would be facing when pursuing an automated speed enforcement bill are the right to privacy. and so potential solutions there, as i mentioned photographs just of the license plate and not of the driver. having privacy policy, and data confidentiality and ensuring that data is only used for the purposes of the citation and only for law enforcement reasons. another issue is in some cases and this is say while ago, but vendors were incentivized based on volume of citation and the solution is that vendors should only be compensated on cost of maintenance for equipment and it would not be based on the number of citations or fines.
2:44 pm
the purpose is to remind the public and legislature, that the purpose of this is to change behavior and it's really about safety and not about generating revenue and that is what we heard from many jurisdictions. the next is liability. we found that the registered vehicle own and not taking into consideration who the driver is, but sending the violation to the registered vehicle owner; that that is a solution for liability there. in cases where maybe a car was stolen or something like that, that is a law enforcement issue that would be handled differently. but in most cases it's the registered owner of the vehicle and jurisdictions aren't necessarily changing violations or citations based on who was driving. in some cases some citis would
2:45 pm
have a sworn affidavit somebody could sign saying i wasn't driving. and they have a process that they can go through. other jurisdictions only send it just to the registered owner of the vehicle and say that they are responsible. the last thing that i also wanted to touch on in the next slide is about public perception and community support. many times what you hear about ase is that the public sees it as a cash-cow for the city and it's just another tax and there is this public perception and idea that everybody speeds. so potential solutions there are education and outreach about the effectiveness of ase and also making it a data-driven process, especially here in other jurisdictions we spoke to, we have data on high-injury locations and we know where
2:46 pm
collisions are occurring and knowing those problematic spots and to let the public know this is to deter speeding for safety reasons. it's not for funding and this isn't driven by revenue, but it's driven by creating a safer environment for all road users. so the level of public support as the data shows us is actually higher on roads where cameras are near schools and where fatal collisions have occurred in the past. something that helped them pass their legislation just a couple of years ago, they had some high-profile collisions and fatalities. they found that the public supports putting speed cameras and really curbing speeding near schools, and where fatality incidents have happened. also earlier this year the aaa
2:47 pm
traffic safety culture index came out and they asked 384 licensed california drivers and found that 46% actually supported speed cameras on residential streets when ticketing 10 miles plus beyond the speed limit. so just about half there. so public opinion it seems to be in the direction that in certain areas, depending on how the program is employed, that the public does support it in some areas. so just briefly about next steps: again, this is preliminary research that we did last year, stemming from the walk first project. and so our next steps is that our office will be working with the mta to identify research gaps, specifically on key privacy, revenue, technology,
2:48 pm
and other implementation considerations. we will be reaching out to the six jurisdictions that we did last year and doing some follow-up with them. we have identified key research questions and we'll be sending out a survey and doing follow-up with those jurisdictions. and then this fall we'll be putting this into a report and have our findings and more in-depth analysis that the mta will then use with their efforts as kate mentioned, to find an author for the bill in the next legislative session. with that, i can answer any questions. >> can you, in regards to the legislative proposal, the two things that i would like to know more of, and the thinking behind it, in regards to who would get the notice of violation? it would go to the owner of the
2:49 pm
vehicle, rather than the driver. and related to that is giving a ticket as a parking ticket when it's a moving violation. so why are we doing that when it's a moving violation? i think is did because it's easier to pass legislation? what is the rationale? >> sure. so what we heard from other jurisdictions is that it has been difficult to pass legislation when they are considered a moving violation, when there is a potential to book points to the license. some of the issues about privacy and actually having a police officer witness the speeding and those kinds of questions have come up in response to those concerns. so what we found was that a couple of ways to address those issues is just to take a photo of the license plate, rather than of
2:50 pm
the driver. so that people don't think that they are being tracked or that you can see who is driving where? there is some conception that the cameras are always on and they take video and that they are going to be following people and that is really not the case. so each jurisdiction does implement it differently, but we found for effectiveness purposes and also from an administrative standpoint and to pass legislation, to just focus on the license plate and vehicle owner, rather than focusing on the driver and who was driving. that that could potentially create some administrative confusion. >> so i guess the question for me is has there been any studies or research done to support, if we were to go in that direction? that it
2:51 pm
actually has any impact? >> that is not something that we looked at as part of this research. but going forward, we are going to ask more about those kind of privacy issues and implementation questions. so i think that is something that we will get in the research that we are doing in the coming months and then once we have that report, and that information, we would be happy to come back and share what we find. >> okay. commissioner farrell, do you have any questions? thank you very much. any public comments? come on up and if you could like to line up to make comments. >> good afternoon again. committee members my name is nicole executive director [speaker not understood] and we strongly support this program. what we have seen from the literature where it has been done, it actually not only reduces the incidents of speeding, but it actually reduces the severe and fatal
2:52 pm
injuries on our streets. to supervisor mar's question earlier about how are we actually going to achieve vision zero? this is by and large one of the most critical measures to getting there, and because of how successful it has been in other places. and it also can help create this revenue stream for projects that also encourage people to slow down, and not speed. so it's not just the stick, but creating those projects that create that carrot. i wanted to thank also the mta for their leadership on this, kate breen and the controller's office for all of their great research. this is something that is going to be a tough battle politically, but i think it's -- especially in the sacramento area, we need the approval. but they have been putting together all of the research on
2:53 pm
how effective this has been and it's really remarkable. thanks. >> thank you. come on up. >> hi. madeline, founder/director of polk and vision zero coalition and task force member. i also would like to support the idea that we really push for this in the city. i have lived in a place this has been very, very effective. and i also further suggest from that experience, that we try to aim to make it be the drivers. recently we have seen several cases where there have been stolen cars, or non-registered drivers for that car, who have been riding rather recklessly and also killed people doing so. there are several problems with that, but it more carefully assigns responsibility. yes, so those are the two --
2:54 pm
depending on how this is framed as a public health and public safety issue that this is totally doable and hope that we will. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners, alice rogers from the south beach rincon neighborhood association. our neighborhood strongly is advocating for red light and don't block the box automatic enforcement. a recent survey done by mta last year shows that more than 50% of us walk to work. we're on the streets all the time. and just coming here today, every intersection that i walked through was blocked and there simply can't the person-power to enforce. it's really not the best use of manpower. we would rather see the police targeting more serious behaviors. so we feel this is really, really important and appreciate you continuing work on this. >> thank you.
2:55 pm
any other public comments? if none, then public comment is now closed. [ gavel ] can you please, mr. clerk, can you call item 5. >> item 5, vision zero education strategy, this an information item. >> good afternoon. i'm john knox white with the san francisco municipal transportation agency. >> i'm ana validzic program manager for san francisco [tko*-efrp/] doh. >> as you know, at the beginning of last year, launch of vision zero, supervisor yee and the full board of the transportation authority challenged city staff to find a
2:56 pm
better way to coordinate and collaborate on education across the city. since that time, we have adopted a project charter that includes seven agencies and departments across the city. we have been working monthly, working and meeting monthly to develop a strategy, to identify best practices, et cetera, so that we have a citywide strategy for moving forward for the long-term. i know we have been here a number of time and talked about how it's important for us to start identifying a way to do education long-term over the ten-years' of this. rather than kind of three months here and three months there. i wanted to acknowledge the very large amount of work that aerial flescher from mta has done in creating this document. i hope you have a copy of it. we brought a copy of the actual strategy for you today and it will be available soon on the vision zero website.
2:57 pm
the strategy outlines an approach that is going to guide the efforts of our education over the next ten years. including how we're going to work with engineering, enforcement, data and policy subcommittees in eliminating danielle and serious injury from san francisco streets? our goal is to utilize educational out reach to change san francisco's traffic culture towards one that prioritizes human safety. a a culture, where the community norms reject that behavior and encourage individuals to take steps to make our streets safe err. historically or over the last few years, san francisco has run a number of different education campaigns including safe routes to school, which the department of health and department of education and individual groups also go into the school and do campaigns. we have run banner ads through
2:58 pm
the police precincts and community group and media campaigns that have been run by the department of health or da or the police department. so while these effort were notable, they were carried out by single agencys and silos and again with our commitment to vision zero and the creation of this subcommittee we have spent some time to work together to identify what are the educational priorities for the city? again, seven departments, mta, department of public health, police department, unified school district, district attorney's office, department of the environment and the ta, meet regularly, typically once a month, to discuss what it is that we want to be doing? we're currently writing an active transportation program grant in support of our educational efforts. it's money that we won't see until 2017, if we are successful, but it's
2:59 pm
one of the things that we discussed as a committee. this committee has not only already developed a strategy, and working to approach campaign concepts, but is and will continue to provide feedback on safety campaigns. while we've spent the last year strengthening our partnerships we are committed to doing more in the future. >> so when it comes to the educational campaigns, what we are really trying to achieve is a culture shift in san francisco. and that is -- that is not just dependent on teaching people individual skills. we have adopted the spectrum of prevention as our working framework in our theory and how we are going to move forward an educational campaign. this is a public health theory that we use quite often and what we are trying to do is
3:00 pm
change both the micro level and macro level all at the same time. most people when they think of education campaigns they think of the bottom three rows that we're teaching individual behavior and doing media campaigns that reach communities, but it's really the full spectrum that you see here. where we want to be fostering coalitions and changing organizational practices and influencing policy such as the previous item on the agenda and helping to provide education towards that first effort. so the perfect example is the training that mta just recently rolled out that is targeting drivers, but an organizational change at mta, reach all of those drivers who drive these huge trucks on our city streets. so this is an example of how we are addressing multiple-levels all at the same time. and so all of the agencies that have developed this strategy, we have committed to a certain