[Carfreeliving] Put cameras on street sweepers/buses & redeploy PCOs to enforce safety/efficiency violations?

[Jeremy Nelson]

- Dave Snyder wrote:  "One solution is to use cameras mounted on the street
sweeping machines to ticket all the cars that don't move for the street
sweepers, freeing up jars and jars of peanut butter for other parts of the
bread. Similarly, buses could be equipped with cameras for ticketing the
owners of cars parked in bus stops. This latter idea has a positive effect
that would be very popular socially: the bus stops would become extremely
short-term parking zones, available for free parking until a bus comes, when
the driver would have to get out of the way or else face a guaranteed $275
ticket."


- Mike Sallaberry wrote:  "I like it...intriguing approach.  Does any place
use cameras like this?"


- Jeremy Nelson writes:  Yes! Several California cities already use cameras
on street sweepers to automatically issue tickets to parking violators,
including Redwood City, Palmdale, and Richmond (see 8/17/04 CCT article
below).

I pitched this idea to Commander Sylvia Harper (Director of PCO Enforcement)
last summer (see e-mail below).  She brought it up internally at DPT Deputy
Directors' meeting with Bond Yee.  She follow-up with me to say the idea was
met with general interest but then asked TLC to do more research on
cost-effectiveness and how well the cameras are working in other cities.  I
assigned this task to an intern who promptly got a paying job and could not
do the research.

Trying to revive the idea, I also recently talked with MTA Director Peter
Mezey about this in relation to the MTA structural budget deficit as a way
to "do more with less."  He also seemed very interested, and mentioned that
this would be a good model for the MTA to transition to in order to be able
to redeploy PCOs who are currently being used during morning rush hours
solely for street-sweeping to enforce violations that impact the safety and
efficiency of the transportation system (parking on the sidewalk, bike
lanes, and bus lanes; we call these 'Quality of Service' violations and
believe that DPT should prioritize these types of violations).

TLC would be happy to meet with any interested MTA staff and transportation
advocates to discuss this idea, discuss who should take the lead, and put
together a proposed workplan for how DPT might shift to this model.  Perhaps
there are Prop K funds for this kind project under the rubric of 'better
system management' or similar category?

Ideally, MTA/DPT would pursue this on their own as a "cost-savings" and/or
"best practice management technique" that are politically popular right now.
If that's not possible, TLC could work with other groups to advocate for the
MTA/DPT to transition to this model; unfortunately we can't take the lead on
this project right now, unless someone out there can identify some financial
resources for us to hire a part-time intern specifically for this research
project and subsequent advocacy campaign (likely cost: 100 hours at $10/hr =
$1000).

Hope to continue the conversation with anyone interested- Jeremy


=========================


Hi Cmdr. Harper- How are you?  I wanted to thank you and your staff again
for taking the time to meet with TLC and our partner groups San Francisco
Bicycle Coalition, Walk SF, Rescue Muni, and Senior Action Network a few
months ago to discuss how we can work with DPT to pursue more robust parking
enforcement so that San Francisco's transportation system is safer and works
better for all modes of travel, especially pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit passengers.

Along those lines, I thought you might be interested in the article below
about how Redwood City and Palmdale are using cameras attached to
street-sweeper machines which allow them to redeploy the PCOs that had
previously been exclusively dedicated for street-sweeping enforcement.

DPT could also pursue this cost-effective strategy to free up more PCOs to
enforce sidewalk parking, double-parking in bike lanes, and parking in bus
zones, etc.  Could you let me know if this is something DPT would consider
and how TLC could help advocate for the use of this technology to do better
parking enforcement without more resources?  Best-Jeremy


=========================


"Richmond to use sweeper-camera to enforce parking"

Published Tuesday, August 17, 2004, in the Contra Costa Times
By Karl Fischer, Contra Costa Times

RICHMOND -- Last year, residents complained that city street sweepers often
failed to follow their routes. City officials
attached global-positioning satellite trackers to them and the problem
improved.

This year, Richmond faces crushing budget cuts and drastic understaffing at
the Police Department, which can't easily spare an officer to ticket
illegally parked cars that clutter the path of the GPS-enabled sweepers.

The solution: Sweeper-cameras will help enforce parking rules.

"We're taking it to the next level. We're going to put a video recorder on
one and see whether we can use it for parking
enforcement," acting Police Chief Charles Bennett said. "It just doesn't
make sense to have an officer or police assistant follow around the
sweepers, writing tickets as they go."

If trials this fall prove successful, Richmond will become only the second
California city to mount video cameras on street sweepers.

In coming months, when a Richmond sweeper encounters a parked car blocking
its route, the operator will flick on the camera to record the license plate
and the infraction in progress, as well as the time and location. Later,
police will review recordings and mail $36 tickets to car owners.

Bennett says his plan, though unconventional, will generate consistent
revenue for the cash-strapped city.

City officials don't know how much revenue or how many tickets sweeper-cams
would generate, but expect to learn more after the one-sweeper test.

If that camera performs as Bennett expects, the Police Department will spend
about $20,000 to outfit all five city sweepers with higher-quality cameras.

Operators will not record continuously and will only document parking
infractions, Bennett added. The sweepers will only record on blocks with
signs warning motorists of their schedule.

Few issues have enflamed Richmond residents in recent years more than street
sweepers. Upset residents have packed City Council meetings and City Hall
phone lines over poor service, lack of service, parking tickets for
violating sweeper zones, a lack of parking tickets for scofflaws and, above
all, the hated sweeper-schedule signs.

Some neighborhoods so despised plans to post signs warning car owners of the
sweeping schedule that the city held a mail-in vote last summer about
whether all neighborhoods must have them. As a result, Carriage Hills,
Richmond Annex and Richmore Village opted out.

Public Works Director Rich McCoy sees potential in sweeper-cams.

Just as last year's satellite tracking system add-on helped resolve many
complaints about absent sweepers, cameras could combat another common
complaint: Poor steering.

"Right now, the proposal is to hang the camera right over the edge on the
right of the sweeper," McCoy said. "If you say your car was dinged by a
passing sweeper ... this is recorded evidence" of whether it did.

Richmond's interest in sweeper-cams follows a path first blazed by the Los
Angeles County city of Palmdale.

That city installed dashboard cameras in its four sweepers a year ago. In
addition to sweeping, they also help city workers inspect curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, trees and other publicly maintained roadside features.

"We really haven't had any major problems with them," Palmdale street
maintenance supervisor Bruce Roadhouse said. "The sweeper will sometimes
vibrate the camera, and sometimes dust obscures the view. But that's about
it."

Reach Karl Fischer at 510-262-2728 or kfischer at cctimes.com