BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
AB 1041 (Ma)
As Amended June 10, 2011
Hearing Date: July 5, 2011
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
BCP
FOR VOTE ONLY
SUBJECT
Vehicles: Delinquent Parking Violations
DESCRIPTION
This bill would extend the authority of the City and County of
San Francisco to use automated parking control devices (i.e.,
video cameras) on public transit vehicles to enforce transit
lane parking violations until January 1, 2016.
This bill would expand the above pilot program to any transit
lane within the city, and remove the prohibition on wireless
transmission of video images.
BACKGROUND
While some counties may have already installed certain automated
systems, legislative authorization for automated enforcement
procedures relating to traffic violations began in 1994 with SB
1802 (Rosenthal, Chapter 1216, Statutes of 1994). That bill
authorized the use of "automated rail crossing enforcement
systems" to enforce prohibitions on drivers from passing around
or under rail crossings while the gates are closed. (Veh. Code
Sec. 22451.) Those systems functioned by photographing the
front license plate and the driver of vehicles who proceeded
around closed rail crossing gates in violation of the Vehicle
Code provisions. Those drivers, in turn, received citations for
their violations.
In 1995, the Legislature authorized a three-year trial red light
(more)
AB 1041 (Ma)
Page 2 of ?
camera enforcement system program. (SB 833, Kopp, Chapter 922,
Statutes of 1995.) Using similar technology, that program used
sensors connected to cameras to take photographs of the front
license plate and driver upon entering an intersection on a red
light. That program was permanently extended in 1998 by SB 1136
(Kopp, Chapter 54, Statutes of 1998).
In 2007, the Legislature authorized a four-year pilot project
where the City and County of San Francisco was authorized to
install video cameras on city-owned public transit for the
purpose of video imaging parking violations occurring in
transit-only traffic lanes. (AB 101, Ma, Chapter 377, Statutes
of 2007.) The City and County of San Francisco was required to
provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of that program no
later than March 1, 2011, and the authorization itself sunsets
on January 1, 2012.
This bill would extend that pilot project until January 1, 2016,
expand the application of the project by broadening the
definition of "transit-only traffic lane" and remove the
prohibition on wireless transmission of video images. It should
be noted that since the passage of AB 101, the Legislature also
authorized a five-year statewide pilot project to allow local
public agencies to use automated parking enforcement systems for
street sweeping-related violations. (AB 2567 (Bradford, Chapter
471, Statutes of 2010).)
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law authorizes the use of an automated enforcement
system for enforcement of red light violations by a governmental
agency, subject to specific requirements and limitations. (Veh.
Code Sec. 21455.5.) Existing law provides that a violation of
any regulation governing the standing or parking of a vehicle
under the Vehicle Code, federal statute or regulation, or local
ordinance, is subject to a civil penalty. (Veh. Code Sec.
40200.)
Existing law provides that notice of a delinquent parking
violation must contain various information, including a notice
that unless the parking penalty is paid or contested within 21
calendar days from the issuance of a citation, or 14 calendar
days from the mailing of a delinquent parking violation, as
specified, the renewal of the vehicle registration is contingent
upon compliance with the notice. (Veh. Code Sec. 40207.)
AB 1041 (Ma)
Page 3 of ?
Existing law authorizes the City and County of San Francisco
(San Francisco), until January 1, 2012, to enforce parking
violations in specified transit-only traffic lanes through the
use of video image evidence. San Francisco was authorized to
install automated forward facing parking control devices on
city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of
video-imaging parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes.
San Francisco was required to submit an evaluation of the
program on or before March 1, 2011. (Veh. Code Sec. 40240.)
Existing law further limits the above San Francisco pilot
project by, among other things:
imposing a requirement that the registered owner shall
be permitted to review video image evidence of the alleged
violation during normal business hours at no cost;
requiring video image evidence that does not contain evidence
of a parking violation be destroyed within 15 days after the
information was first obtained; remaining video image evidence
may be retained for up to six months, or 60 days after final
disposition, whichever is later;
defining "transit-only traffic lane" as 19 specified streets;
and
prohibiting the wireless transmission of video images.
This bill would extend the authorization for San Francisco to
use cameras to enforce parking violations in transit-only
traffic lanes until January 1, 2016, and require an evaluation
of the effectiveness of the program to be submitted to the
Legislature by March 1, 2015, as specified.
This bill would require the automated parking control devices to
record the date and time of the violation at the same time as
the video images are captured.
This bill would redefine "transit-only traffic lane" to mean
designated transit-only lanes on which use is restricted to mass
transit vehicles, or other designated vehicles including taxis
and vanpools, during posted times.
This bill would remove the prohibition on the wireless
transmission of video images.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
AB 1041 (Ma)
Page 4 of ?
According to the author:
As a method to reduce the congestion and accidents within
the City of San Francisco, AB 101 (Chaptered in 2008),
implemented a pilot program that enforces parking violations
in transit-only traffic lanes through video camera evidence.
In January 2008 the San Francisco Municipal Transportation
Agency (SFMTA) launched the transit Lane Enforcement Pilot
project. This program allows the placement of
forward-facing cameras on Muni vehicles to detect violations
of parking restrictions in transit-only lanes, and issue
parking citations based on video evidence . The forward
facing cameras are aimed to allow traffic, including Muni
vehicles, to move quickly and efficiently through the City.
Existing law requires that the video image records be
confidential and available only to public agencies to
enforce parking violations.
As required by AB 101, a study was conducted to determine
the success of the pilot program. Since the start of the
pilot program, results have shown a significant decrease in
the number of transit lane violations. During the initial
three-month phase of the pilot, the camera-equipped vehicles
traveled on Mission Street between Main Street and 11th
Street and on Geary Street between Market Street and Gough
Street during posted enforcement hours.
It is evident that this pilot program is working. According
to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
(SFMTA), fewer cars are parking in transit lanes based on
the reduction of tickets issued for transit lane violations.
From 2009 to 2010, there has been a 47% decrease in bus
zone violations, and a 44% decrease for double parking
violations in transit lanes.
The benefits derived from the pilot project include:
noticeable driver response to approaching transit vehicles,
reduction in potential accidents, and Ý] reliable and
predictable bus travel time on congested routes.
AB 101 maintains this important program as a permanent
method of reducing traffic, street congestion, and our
carbon footprint.
2. Considerations in extending the sunset date until January 1,
AB 1041 (Ma)
Page 5 of ?
2016
By extending the sunset date, this bill would allow the City and
County of San Francisco to continue to use video cameras to
enforce parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes. Those
cameras are required to be angled and focused so as to capture
video images of parking violations and not unnecessarily capture
identifying images of other drivers, vehicles, and pedestrians.
As noted below, while the author of AB 101 contended that the
program was essential to the timeliness of the city's public
transportation system because "Ýp]arking in these lanes can
significantly increase the time it takes to make even a short
bus journey," the report required by AB 101 noted that there was
no significant change in runtime during the second year of the
program. Should the authorization be extended another four
years, the City and County should use that additional time to
formulate a program that can be shown to increase transit
efficiency while minimizing the impact on the privacy of
individuals.
a. Prior concerns about camera use
This committee's analysis of AB 101 raised questions about the
privacy implications resulting from the placement of outward
facing cameras on transit vehicles and stated:
While previously allowing citations based upon
photographic evidence for dangerous rail crossings and
red light violations appeared to be mainly supported by
the lives that would be saved by increased enforcement,
and deterrence of reckless conduct, parking violations do
not rise to that level.
. . . Thus, the program proposed by this bill represents
a fundamental shift in the justification required in
order to implement an automatic enforcement system. If
cost savings are considered sufficient justification for
such automation, many additional types of violations
could be modified pursuant to the precedent set by ÝAB
101].
Similarly, this committee's analysis of AB 2567 (Bradford,
2010), which authorized local public agencies to install and
operate automated parking enforcement systems on street
sweepers, noted:
ÝAB 2567] would rely upon the precedent set by AB 101
(Ma, 2007) to allow street sweepers throughout the state
AB 1041 (Ma)
Page 6 of ?
to capture digital photographs for purposes of issuing
parking citations. That precedent - authorizing the use
of cameras to save on costs - represents a fundamental
change in how California has historically used cameras to
enforce violations. This legislation represents another
step away from the rationale previously used to justify
the use of cameras for automated enforcement. Although
this bill could arguably result in reduced employee costs
for local governments (and increased revenue from
citations), part of that cost reduction could also come
in the form of fewer employees needed to patrol for those
violations.
The fundamental policy question raised by this bill is whether
to reaffirm the ability to use cameras to issue parking
citations instead of designating or hiring parking control
officers to perform that same task. The report submitted by
the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)
notes while the cameras appeared to change driver behavior,
there was "no statistically significant change in run-time"
during the second year as a result of the cameras.
Alternatively, the provided monthly citations numbers do
demonstrate a significant increase in the number of issued
tickets as a result of the cameras. From a policy standpoint,
this bill, similar to AB 2567, reflects a policy choice to
sacrifice a certain amount of privacy in exchange for the
potential fiscal benefits of using cameras to do the job
formerly left to individuals (parking control officers).
b. Findings of the report
SFMTA's report concluded that: "Comparing the monthly average
January 2010 trip within Ýtransit preferential street (TPS)]
lanes to January 2011 results in no statistically significant
change in run-time. However . . . violations for Double
Parking and Bus Zones are declining as a percentage of issued
tickets." Regarding the types of violations, the report
stated:
Project staff notes that initially it was easier for the
PCOs to spot double parked cars and vehicles in bus zones;
drivers were not thinking about the possibility of a
camera for photo enforcement being on the bus. However,
after the first year the reviewers observed cars moving as
they saw buses approaching to avoid risking a citation in
case the bus had a camera. This trend continues today.
AB 1041 (Ma)
Page 7 of ?
With the tow away zones, the reverse seems to be true, the
public seems to forget the approaching buses are likely to
have a camera and remain in the tow away zones well after
the camera has recorded a violation. These drivers tend to
wait until they observe a PCO approaching before moving.
When these drivers observeÝ] a PCO sweeping a tow away
zone on the opposite side or end of the street they tend
to remain in the tow away zone until the PCO chases them
away. In 2009, Double Parking and Bus Zone Violations
accounted for 77% of all citations issued under the pilot
program, and Tow Away Zone Violation only accounted for
23%. In 2010, Tow Away Zone Violations account for 74% of
all citations issued, and Double Parking and Bus Zone
Violation only account for 26%.
To the extent that the parking violations enforced by this
program are not increasing (or maintaining) transit vehicle
run-time, the policy question arises as to whether cameras
should be used as a method of parking enforcement when that
result does not translate to greater transportation
efficiency. Alternatively, it may also be individuals who
would double park are aware of the pilot program, and that its
continued authorization will avoid transit delays should the
program sunset. If the goal of the program is to deter
parking violations and not to generate revenue, the City and
County of San Francisco should consider a public awareness
campaign to let all individuals know that the cameras are
enforcing violations beyond just double parking in a bus zone.
Although such an awareness program could reduce the number of
violations (and penalty revenue), it could arguably help San
Francisco increase the efficiency of its public transportation
system. It should be noted that the report similarly
recommended that SFMTA should "Ýi]ncrease public awareness
regarding TPS lanes including hours of operation, use and
street markings."
As far as "lessons learned" from the first four years, SFMTA's
report noted that labor demands exceeded initial expectations
and budget, that physical hardware issues remain to be solved,
and "that software and related improvements to streamline the
video i) transmission, ii) event identification, iii) review,
iv) record, and v) recall processes are more significant.
Until these processes have automated assistance, citation
issuance via TOLE evidence will remain highly
labor-intensive."
AB 1041 (Ma)
Page 8 of ?
c. Wireless transmission and transit-only lanes
As approved by this Committee, AB 101 permitted cameras to
only record images when the driver actually observes a parking
violation. The committee analysis noted that the proposed
"limited use of video recording would prevent unnecessary,
potentially privacy invasive video footage from being
captured." While floor amendments removed that provision,
those compromise amendments sought to respond to the privacy
concerns by, among other things, prohibiting the wireless
transmission of video images, and allowing citations only for
violations occurring in specifically named transit-only
traffic lanes. This bill would delete the prohibition on
wireless transmission, and strike the restriction on
transit-only traffic lanes to named streets.
Although a ban on wireless transmission was not initially
requested by this Committee, and not included in AB 2567
(Bradford, 2010), that ban acts to prevent the unwarranted
eavesdropping on images taken by public transit vehicles.
Under the current program, images taken by transit vehicles
must physically be transported (like a VHS tape) so that they
can be evaluated. If wireless transmission is authorized, an
individual who hacks into the system could potentially see
live images from wherever the vehicle happens to be. Should a
wireless system be implemented as a result of this bill, the
security of that system is paramount to ensure that the
integrity of the transmitted images remains intact.
This bill would also strike language limiting the pilot
project to specified transit-only lanes. Those specific lanes
were initially selected for various reasons, including the
privacy implications of authorizing cameras in more
residential, non-downtown, areas of San Francisco. The
expansion of this provision is consistent with the
recommendation in SFMTA's report to amend the "AB 101
legislation to allow for TOLE enforcement across future
designated TPS lanes, not just those in place when the
original legislation was passed."
d. Recording date and time of violation
In addition to adding the sunset date of January 1, 2016, the
June 10, 2011 amendments also required automated parking
control devices to record the date and time of the violation
AB 1041 (Ma)
Page 9 of ?
at the same time as the video images are captured. That
amendment, accepted in the Senate Transportation and Housing
Committee, sought to ensure that the image which resulted in
the citation arguably includes sufficient information for the
individual to evaluate whether or not the lane was a
"transit-only" lane at the time of the alleged violation.
3. Report should include an evaluation of the privacy
implications of the program
To provide the Legislature with information to evaluate this
pilot program, the bill would require San Francisco to provide
the transportation committees with an evaluation of the pilot
program's effectiveness, as specified. Considering the privacy
issues raised above, the report should also include an
evaluation of the privacy impacts, and be submitted to this
Committee (in addition to the Transportation Committees of both
houses).
Suggested amendments:
1) On page 5, line 33 after "transportation" insert:
judiciary
2) On page 5, line 34, after "effectiveness" insert:
and impact on privacy
Support : California Public Parking Association; California
Transit Association
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : City and County of San Francisco; San Francisco
Municipal Transportation Agency
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 101 (Ma, Chapter 377, Statutes of 2007), See Background.
AB 2567 (Bradford, Chapter 471, Statutes of 2010), See
Background.
Prior Vote :
AB 1041 (Ma)
Page 10 of ?
Senate Judiciary Committee (Ayes 2, Noes 2)
Senate Transportation and Housing Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 0)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 70, Noes 2)
Assembly Transportation Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0)
**************