Staff Response to Previous Council Questions

1. Solicit proposals from private contractors for automated traffic enforcement of red-light running:  We sent the Request for Proposals (RFP) to 16 companies, and seven companies attended the mandatory pre-proposal meeting on April 12, 2002 at the Town Hall.  A copy of the RFP was also placed on the Town’s web page.  A copy of RFP Section III, Service Standards and Section V, Pricing Proposal, are provided in Attachment #3 for reference.  These sections establish the service standards and financing proposals for the proposed automated enforcement program.

2. Receiving and evaluating contractor proposals, and recommendations about proceeding further with program implementation:  We received four proposals on or before the submittal deadline of May 03, 2002.  Staff from the Town Engineering Department and Police Department, in addition to staff from UNC Highway Safety Research Center, evaluated the proposals based on the following criteria:

· Experience of the firm with similar projects.

· Financial stability of the firm.

· Proposed personnel and staffing plan.

· Proposer’s response to RFP, including ability to meet Service Standards outlined in Section III.

· Proposer’s experience and interest.

· Financial arrangement with the Town. 

· Evaluation of Financial Proposals: In order to fairly evaluate proposed financial packages, the following conditions were to be assumed in preparing the proposal:

· 10 intersections will be monitored.

· Each of the 10 intersections will average 20 violations (not necessarily citations) per day.

· 80% of the citations will be collected and,  of this 80%:

75% will be collected after the original citation has been sent.

                        20% will be collected after the second late notice.

                                    5% will require civil action or use of a collection agency.

3. Number of citations issued by the Police Department for red-light running:  The Chapel Hill Police Department issued 311 citations in 2001 and 480 citations in 2000 for red light violations.

4. Develop a model to assist the Police Department in more closely monitoring the seven identified intersections, avoiding use of cameras: The Chapel Hill Police Department does not routinely monitor intersections for red light running violations under its current traffic enforcement program.  In most cases in Chapel Hill, if a police officer observes a driver running a red light without causing an accident or creating an obviously dangerous situation, the driver will be given a warning but not a traffic ticket.  Thus, our local statistics for the number of red light running violations reflect only those occurrences where a ticket was issued due to an accident or when an officer observed a violation that created a dangerous situation.

The Police Department follows the following steps in monitoring high accident locations:

1. Identify the location;

2. Implement Periodic Enforcement

3. Conduct Follow-up studies

We recommend continuing the same model for the intersections with high number of red light violations.

5. New technology that would detect speeding cars approaching an intersection and alter traffic signal timing accordingly to avoid red-light running:  Such technology is not permitted on State system traffic signals in North Carolina. Traffic signal timing plans are developed and sealed by professional engineers to provide safe and efficient traffic movements for drivers and pedestrians who obey the law.  It is the State’s opinion, and we concur, that ad hoc adjustments in traffic signal timing would create liability problems for the signal owner/operator if an accident did occur during or as a result of the adjusted timing sequence.  There is also concern that, in effect, adjusting traffic signal timing to accommodate violators sends the wrong message to drivers and encourages scoff-law mentality.

6. Quotes from companies that have technology that can anticipate accidents:  We received a proposal from one company that can provide this technology. However, we do not recommend this technology due to the above mentioned reasons. Also, during the evaluation process, this company was not recommended for reasons noted in attachment #4.

7. Feasibility, resources, and costs of implementing and operating an automated enforcement program with Town forces rather than with contracted services:  It is difficult to determine the cost of an in-house program for Chapel Hill until we determine the extent of the program that is necessary.  The following figures provide some unit costs which would have multiples depending on the nature and size of the enforcement program decided upon:

Ø Initial intersection evaluation study: $30,000

Ø Equipment:

Camera:                       $65,000/ea.

Processing Unit:            $150,000/ea.

Ø Staff:

Technician:                   $50,000/year

Customer Service         $35,000/year

We do not recommend an in-house program due to the following reasons:

· Lack of staffing resources

· Installation and maintenance of the system is not practicable by the Town staff

· Complexity involved in collection and processing of citations