"It is like enforcement of anything. There has to be some consequence for not following the rules."
-Baytown Deputy city manager Bob Leiper, Lake Houston Sentinel 1-16-2009
Does this apply to the city as well Mr Leiper? What is the consequence for shortening yellow lights and profiting from it?
In a recent debate on red light cameras, Jay Heiler from the red light camera company, Redflex said this about cities that shorten yellow lights for profit. Mr Heiler, will you help up prosecute those that did so by their own admission in Baytown? Please contact me if you really mean what you said.
Heiler did concede that in at least one jurisdiction, safety was impaired by the city shortening the duration of the yellow signal warning time.
"To my knowledge it did happen in San Diego, California and anyone involved with it should be prosecuted and put in prison," Heiler said.
"Since the start of the 30-day warning period, more than 500 violations have occured"
- The Baytown Sun 4-16-09
"The number of violations so far during the warning period illustrates the scope of the problem and we are hoping to see a rapid decrease in the number of violations as safety is improved at intersections," Leiper said. "The purpose is to enhance traffic safety"
- Baytown Deputy city manager, Bob Leiper, The Baytown Sun 4-16-09
So the measure of how safe the program has made the streets is the number of violations. As people change their habits the violations will go down right? So what has actually happened with the violations?.............................................................
"Currently, he said, there are an average of 3,500 citations issued each month." "We were hoping that number would go down," Brumback said, "but it hasn't."
- City Manager, Gary Brumback, The Baytown Sun 5-20-2009
Doesn't this indicate a failure of the program by the city's own standards? Violations went up and stayed up proving people haven't changed their driving habits.
"we'll be monitoring the success or failure of the program through the BPD accident reports, and then we will review other options as necessary."
-City of Baytown Mayor, Stephen DonCarlos in an email to a citizen, 3-28-2008
Garth at West Baker BPD accident report for before and after cameras were installed.
Total accidents before cameras = 36. After cameras = 40. UP 11%
Red Light violation accidents before cameras = 6. After Cameras = 8. UP 33%
Rear end accidents before cameras = 19. After Cameras = 20. UP 5%
Is it time to review those other options Mr Mayor? Or do you consider an increase in every type of accident a success?
I have offered the Baytown city council and the Mayor up to a short paragraph to make a statement on what their position is on the red light camera issue and on where they stand on allowing the citizens to vote on the cameras. I contacted each of them on Wednesday 11-18-09 I informed them that any response not received in a week would be posted as "refuses to comment". To date only one council member has responded and the Mayor still has not responded. If a council member or the mayor wish to contact me with a statement at anytime I will be happy to post it here unedited for all of the citizens of Baytown to review. I intend to keep these statements here through the election cycle and the vote on the cameras. Feel free to contact your council member or the mayor directly for comment. If they refuse to offer statements voters will have to judge them by their voting record on the issue, including who voted for the original contract and who voted to extend the contract, which I will post soon.
>Mayor; Stephen H. DonCarlos.
email; mayor@baytown.org Phone; 281-420-6550
On the red light cameras; REFUSES TO COMMENT
On allowing a vote on the cameras; REFUSES TO COMMENT
>City Council district 1, Lena Yepez
email; district1@baytown.org
On the red light cameras; REFUSES TO COMMENT
On allowing a vote on the cameras; REFUSES TO COMMENT
>City Council district 2, Scott Sheley
email; district2@baytown.org
On the red light cameras; REFUSES TO COMMENT
On allowing a vote on the cameras; REFUSES TO COMMENT
>City Council District 3, Brandon Capetillo
email; district3@baytown.org
On the red light cameras; “As Mr. Shirmbeck’s councilman, I have met with him many times regarding issues related to timing and engineering methods. Based on Mr. Shirmbeck’s previous statements, I will pledge that if he can arrange for a TXDOT official to determine that Baytown’s red light practices are not in compliance with TXDOT’s regulations, I will make every effort to have an item placed on a council agenda to allow for a TXDOT official to address Baytown City Council regarding our practices.”
On allowing a vote on the cameras; “I will support a valid petition regarding this issue brought forth by Baytown citizens and will support the outcome of such election if held”
>City Council District 4, Terry Sain
email; district4@baytown.org
On the red light cameras; REFUSES TO COMMENT
On allowing a vote on the cameras; REFUSES TO COMMENT
>City council District 5, Lynn Caskey
email; district5@baytown.org
On the red light cameras; REFUSES TO COMMENT
On allowing a vote on the cameras; REFUSES TO COMMENT
>City Council district 6, David McCartney
email; district6@baytown.org
On the red light cameras; REFUSES TO COMMENT
On allowing a vote on the cameras; REFUSES TO COMMENT
Request for a statement on the speed limit and yellow change interval timing changes at Garth and West Baker. Sent to Baytown public information officer Patti Jett on 11-23-09
STATUS; 12-08-09 CITY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SAYS CITY WILL NOT ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS!
I confirmed by phone today that the Patti Jett, the city public information office received my request but says that the city will not issue a statement on these questions! That's right, the city doesn't think you deserve an answer on these important questions!
I am looking for a statement from the city for my website www.saferbaytown.com. A few weeks ago I noticed and reported to the city that the yellow change interval for Garth Southbound @ West Baker was lowered from 4.5 seconds to 4.0 seconds, too low for a 45mph approach as required by the ITE yellow change interval chart which is required by law to be used at any approach monitored by a red light camera. When I reported this to the city instead of making the signal timing legal they put up a brand new 40mph sign in front of krogers even though this approach has always been 45mph according to police records. Mr Leiper responded to my inquiry on this with the email you see below. Mr Leiper admits the yellow change timing was lowered but claimed that the approach is actually 40mph and further appears to refer to the ITE chart by saying 4.0 seconds is "appropriate" for the 40mph approach the only thing that suggests a certain yellow change interval timing according to speed is the ITE chart. He further claims that the new sign is an additional sign even though according to my research there has never been a 40mph sign there. Now as of at least 11-21-09 the same 40mph sign has been replaced with a new 45mph sign and the signal timing was raised again to 4.5 seconds again, consistent with a 45mph approach (you can see the pictures and video on my website. My questions I would like a statement from the city on are these;
1.Earlier this year the city was on record saying that the yellow change intervals only have to be 3 seconds long at camera controlled intersections, that the ITE timing chart based on speed was irrelevant. Now it appears the city has used to chart to justify lowering the timing temporarily to 4.0 seconds, and then back to 4.5 seconds to be consistent with the 45mph approach. Does the city now accept or deny that the ITE timing chart is the standard to follow when timing a yellow change interval at a camera monitored intersection?
2. What are the requirements the city must meet before changing a speed limit on a city road? (i.e. engineer report, law enforcement request etc) Were those proceedures followed when the speed limit was changed to 40mph and then back again to 45mph?
3. Who specifically ordered the light to be changed from 4.5 seconds to 4.0 seconds and back again to 4.5 seconds. Who ordered the new 40mph sign and who ordered the 45mph replacement? If not all the same people please list everyone that made those decisions.
4. When I originally started to defend myself against the red light violation I received in May, Ford Hamilton informed me that the yellow change intervals at garth and west baker were set at 4.0 seconds but for some unknown reason were apparently going off in the lower 3 seconds range, therefore, they raised the timing to 4.5 seconds to make sure there was a cushion for any variences. Since the city went back to 4.0 seconds have there been any improvements repairs or upgrades on the signal control equipment that would have fixed whatever this problem was before? Have there been any measures at all taken to make sure the timing does not vary to the same degree as before?