Originally Posted By: 3311
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
These changes reduced accidents by drivers running red lights to almost zero.
But where would the revenue come from. Where would the campaign contributions come from?
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Every "high-performing" camera in the San Diego area circa 1990s was directly tied to bad intersection design, which includes yellow light timing vs. speed limit.
The problem is that it was not in the interest of either the city nor the camera contractor to raise these issues, as both took 50% of the revenues.
City of Irvine has budget surplus for many years. Property tax from private and business/corporate alone was more than their budget, adding sale tax and other fees they have more money than they can spend.
They don't need red light camera to get extra revenue. The city just likes to reduce/eliminate accidents at intersections as much as possible. Increase yellow light time and delay green light are as good solution as it can be.
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
These changes reduced accidents by drivers running red lights to almost zero.
But where would the revenue come from. Where would the campaign contributions come from?
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Every "high-performing" camera in the San Diego area circa 1990s was directly tied to bad intersection design, which includes yellow light timing vs. speed limit.
The problem is that it was not in the interest of either the city nor the camera contractor to raise these issues, as both took 50% of the revenues.
City of Irvine has budget surplus for many years. Property tax from private and business/corporate alone was more than their budget, adding sale tax and other fees they have more money than they can spend.
They don't need red light camera to get extra revenue. The city just likes to reduce/eliminate accidents at intersections as much as possible. Increase yellow light time and delay green light are as good solution as it can be.