New Carrollton Police Chief Lies to Press

The Montgomery County Gazette did a story on the reaction of local governments to the lawsuit against Montgomery County’s contingent fee contract. The story points out how several other governments actually followed Montgomery County’s lead by signing contracts which pay the contractor based on the number of tickets issued. The governments doing so include Baltimore City and New Carrolton. Strangely enough their claims as to why their respective deals are legal are almost the same as the arguments Montgomery County makes, just as their contracts are very much the same as Montgomery County’s contract (paying a cut of each ticket to a vendor who owns, maintains, and processes violations from the cameras). So it appears that what they have learned from the Montgomery County lawsuit is a) that it takes years for a plaintiff to bring such a case to trial b) that even if they are found to be in violation they will be allowed to keep most of the loot.

In that article New Carrollton Police Chief David Rice make s a very specific claim: "We operate it ourselves," he said of the program. "[The contractor] isn't allowed to touch [the cameras]." Now that is very interesting, because we have obtained both a copy of New Carrollton’s contract, which pays Optotraffic a 40.5% cut of the paid ticket revenue (or $16.20 per ticket). That contract states “Optotraffic will perform routine maintenance on its equipment”. Optotraffic also arrange to have the annual calibration checks performed on the devices. So they do that without touching the cameras? And more to the point, this website had already obtained and previously posted a photo of two technicians who identified themselves as Optotraffic Employees, driving a vehicle which was apparently not county or city owned, but clearly performing work on an active speed camera without a city representative present.

So why is Police Chief David Rice telling the media and the public a BOLDFACED LIE that their contractor never touches the cameras?

We do not make a habit of criticizing police for following orders. We do support strict enforcement of traffic laws by humans, and we also have it on good information that many police officers do not like speed cameras. But police chiefs are political appointees, beholding to local elected officials. Under Police Chief Rice’s watch New Carrolton used red light cameras to systematically ticket drivers who came to a full stop at intersections. Even though a district court rejected by throwing out many of these tickets, the new Carrollton PD’s websites states in its FAQ that they still engage in this practice: “Q: I received a Red Light Camera ticket in the mail, but I am sure I stopped for the light. Why did I receive this? A:In addition to vehicles which proceed through the intersection while the light is in the red phase, red light camera violations are also triggered by vehicles which pass the clearly marked "stop line" or enter the pedestrian crosswalk. “ And New Carrollton was one of the first locations in the state to being the practice of creating new school zones solely for the purpose of putting up speed cameras. In this case, one does begin to see a pattern.

This would not be the first time a government official has lied about the contingent fee issue. Just before the truth about Montgomery County's contract came out, County Executive Legget told the public "Under the contract, we pay a flat fee". The county had also previously promised AAA that there would be no per-ticket contracts. After the story broke Montgomery County officials made statements no less than three times in 2008 that the per ticket payments would be eliminated, but instead the contract was renewed in early 2009.

So if some officials becomes overzealous about perverting our justice system into a revenue generating venture, enough so to lie to the public about it, is that their fault or the fault of the state lawmakers who voted to enable this with statewide speed cameras and put every out of town driver at the mercy of the state’s most corrupt local governments?

Montgomery County Speed Camera Lawsuit Progresses

On Friday January 29, 2010 a Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge approved class certification in the lawsuit against Montgomery County's contingent fee speed camera contract with ACS State and Local Solutions. This is a significant step forwards in the case which was originally filed in May 2008. A jury trial is scheduled for July 12th, 2010.

The lawsuit alleges that because the county pays ACS a $16.25 cut of each ticket it violates a provision of the state’s speed camera law which specifies that "If a contractor operates a speed monitoring system on behalf of a local jurisdiction, the contractor’s fee may not be contingent on the number of citations issued or paid." Montgomery County claims that the provision does not apply because they assert that the county rather than ACS "operate" the cameras. ACS has substantial control over the system with their own press releases stating that "ACS processes violations; generates and mails notices; schedules adjudication and appeals appointments; provides document imaging and correspondence management; provides walk-in customer service; maintains camera equipment; and provides pay-by-web, pay-by-phone, and integrated voice response systems."

The State Attorney General's office issued a Letter of Advice supporting the county's position in March 2008. That letter of advice a) is not an official attorney General's opinion and did not go though the same extensive review process (read about the difference on the OAG website) b) nullifies itself with the hedging language "if the facts are different than I have understood them, a reviewing court may well come to the opposite conclusion.", and c) was written a full year after the contract was in effect at a time when the governor was trying to push statewide speed cameras through the 2008 General Assembly.

Per-ticket payment contracts are preferred because they can guarantee the programs will make money for the government. However they also give the contractor an incentive to try to maximize the number of tickets issued, and may be seen as a legal conflict of interest because the contractor who gathers and processes evidence for court cases has a financial stake in finding defendants guilty.

Montgomery County officials publicly stated several times in 2008 that they would eliminate the per-ticket payments from their contract, including in statements to the Gazette, in an online forum held by County Executive Leggett, and in a letter from Police Chief Manger to AAA. Instead the county quietly renewed the current per-ticket agreement in early 2009.

The governments which are defendants in this case have issued a total of over 1.3million citations to drivers under their contracts with ACS since they started in 2007. Montgomery County expects to reach $62million in net revenue by June of 2010.

If the jury rules against the County, many of the tickets issued under the contract might need to be refunded, however the Local Tort Claims Act may to some extent allow the county to dodge liability for having broken the law. The cities of Rockville, Gaithersburg, and Chevy Chase Village are also defendants in the case. A judgment is unlikely to end the county's program since alternative contract arrangements such as flat monthly fees, time and materials, or purchasing cameras outright are still possible. Many other local governments have signed similar contingent fee contracts within the past year, including (but not limited to) Baltimore City, Bowie, New Carrollton, and Riverdale Park. Those cities would not automatically be forced to refund any tickets if Montgomery County loses its case, however they could be forced to change their contracts and/or be held liable in another lawsuit should the court decide against Montgomery County.

The case will also decide a very important principal: is the government required to obey the law, or are they allowed to interpret any inconvenient restriction out of existence, or simply break them, if it is expedient to do so?

Recipients of tickets issued by Montgomery County, Gaithersburg, Rockville, or Chevy Chase Village who wish to join this suit should send a letter to the respective local government stating that they will be making a claim against them regarding their citation. Under the circuit court ruling, a requirement of the Local Tort Claims Act may limit the case to those ticket recipients who notify the government issuing the citation within 180 days of the alleged violation about their intent to make a claim. We will provide more details on this and a sample letter in the near future so please check back.
========================
Additional coverage in the Montgomery County Gazette

Legislation Proposed to Limit Work Zone Cameras

Bills have been introduced into the General Assembly which would changethe law regarding 'work zone' speed cameras. The legislation passed last year authorizes speed cameras to be used in work zones on freeways 'regardless of whether workers are present'. The proposed legislation would change this to require workers to be present, meaning 'active' work zones only.

Versions of the legislation have been introduced into the Senate (Senate Bill 124) and the House of Delegates (House Bill 143). The Sponsors of SB124 are Senator Brochin (D, District 42), Senator Kittleman(R, District 9), Senator Zirkin (D, District 11), and the sponsor of HB 143 is Delegate Morhaim (D, District 11).

This legislation does not get us to where many of us would like to be: NO speed cameras. But we think those who oppose speed cameras should support this particular legislation. The reason is that the current law is open to abuse by keeping work zones open long after all work has ceased, or even creating 'artificial' work zones just to collect speed camera revenue. Does that sound crazy? Well, that would require no more dishonesty than the widepsread creation of new school zones solely for the purpose to installing speed cameras which is taking place right now.

The current work zone speed cameras are merely a pilot program, we fully anticipate that program to vastly expand after the 2010 elections, and that is when we will see the rules being bent on those cameras in a serious way. Should what we describe take place, it would no doubt adversely affect traffic congestion on our already strained road system. One might also consider the effect on Maryland's economy. Many of those tickets will go to out of state drivers who will get the tickets 30 days after leaving the state, when their recollection is that they were driving in a perfectly safe manner for conditions. Some of those citations could be for reduced work zones speed limits which an out of town driver might reasonably have thought was not in effect on a freeway work zone which was in fact empty. Hopefully the state will make good use of the approximately $24 it collects after the contractor's fees, because it will be the last money it gets from these irate visitors who will not be returning to spend money here again.

We could debate statistics regarding the safety benefits or lack thereof of work zone cameras, but the simple fact is that worker safety is not an issue if there are no workers. Nonetheless the state administration has made it clear that they DO currently intend to use workzone speed cameras when there are no workers.

There will be a comittee hearing on this February 2nd. If you do not want to see what I have described happen, go to www.mdelect.net, find your state lawmakers, and tell them to support SB124 and HB143, but that what you really think is needed is for them to repeal the speed camera law outright.

Close-Up View of New Carrollton's Speed Cameras

A reader has submitted some interesting photos of the New Carrollton speed cameras taken in January, 2010 on Riverdale Road near Lamont Drive. Here you can see a typical setup of a mobile OptoTraffic Speed Camera trailer. Note the multiple cameras and sensors on the telescoping pole which places the sensitive instruments right next to high voltage power lines. Click on the images for a full sized view.

The next image provides a nice view of the camera device itself and the location on Riverdale Road where it is being set up. In this image you can see the ruts formed where the vehicles that deploy and maintain the device park ( in a spot which would most likely been a parking violation for ordinary drivers ).

The trailer (which has serial numbers and technical specifications displayed but no license plate), was positioned just before the end of the school zone... so close that vehicles would be within 2 seconds of passing the "end school zone" sign marking the end point of the "school zone" camera's authority to issue tickets.

The location of this "school zone" speed camera was in fact not marked as a school zone until very recently. On the top image you can see the recent image of the camera. Note the "End School Zone" sign. On the top bottom you can see the old image of the same image pulled from Google Street View, that sign is not present. A wooden sign at that location reads "Veterans Memorial Park", rather than the name of a school.

This website previously documented the widespread creation of school zones solely for the purpose of establishing speed cameras despite state highway administration guidelines specifically stating that this should not be done. Below are more photos showing the beginning of that school zone at "Mahoney Rd" taken in January 2010 (top), about 0.4 miles before the camera location, along with an image pulled from street view showing the sign was not previously there (bottom). We have obscured the image of bystanders in these photos.

We have learned that New Carrollton's contract pays OptoTraffic a 40.5% cut of each paid ticket ($16.20 per ticket) with the city receiving the remaining 59.5%. The terms are similar to contracts which Optotraffic has been signing with other towns in the region. There is a provision of Maryland law which states "If a contractor operates a speed monitoring system on behalf of a local jurisdiction, the contractor’s fee may not be contingent on the number of citations issued or paid" which was intended to ban per-ticket bounties. Because per-ticket contracts are more lucrative, New Carrollton's contract attempts to circumvent this restriction by claiming that the city "operates" the devices, whereas OptoTraffic merely own them, transport them, do the initial processing of violations, mail citations, and collects payments. This contract is in many respects the same as the one Montgomery County is currently being sued over.

It so happens that our reader/photographer actually caught two Optotraffic employees "operating" the device on film. The individuals confirmed that they were employed by OptoTraffic. Some of what they did included refueling the portable generator that powers the camera and power cycling it -- an act which could have affected any internal settings for the camera. We have chosen not to post the Optotraffic employees faces or identities here out of concern for their safety, but you can see their company owned vehicle in the background which does not display any county, state, or city markings or special registration plates.

We have also been informed by another reader that New Carrollton has recently held its first District Court "Speed Camera Day". According to that courtroom report several defendants reported on procedural errors by the city. The judge at first did not believe the claims were authentic, finding the first defendant guilty despite them. However after other defendants provided consistent stories and additional documentation the judge was convinced dismissed the several defendants' citations.

We'd like to thank our anonymous contributors. Much of the information on website is due to tips and information from readers. Such contributions are critical to our efforts to keep the public informed and to root out government corruption. We encourage those with information to contact us.

The Big School Zone Scam Continues

Since statewide speed cameras were authorized by Senate Bill 277 which took effect in October 2009, Cities and Towns all across Maryland are scrambling to install new ‘school zone’ speed cameras. What they do not like to mention, is that most of the school zones where they are going up did not exist before the approval of speed cameras.
Let’s start out by examining what a school zone actually is. The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) has published guidelines for automated school zone enforcement which includes the following description.

"What’s a School Zone?
Maryland law allows ASE systems in designated school zones. A clear definition of “school zone” must be established in order to implement an effective ASE program.
The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) defines a “School Area” as the area surrounding, and within one‐half mile of, a school building or property and within which motor vehicle, pedestrian or bicycle traffic is substantially generated or influenced by the school.
Within this “School Area”, “School Zones” may be designated.
SHA defines a “School Zone” as a segment of highway located within a School Area that is:
(1) Routinely used by pupils for access to or egress from school buildings or grounds,
(2) Established by official action, and
(3) Designated by appropriate signs.
The Maryland Annotated Code (TR § 21‐803.1) allows School Zones to be established within a one‐half mile radius of any school. However, this does not mean that all roads within a one‐half mile radius of a school are considered School Zones. The SHA, or the local authority having jurisdiction over the road, must officially establish a School Zone and designate it with the appropriate signs before it becomes a School Zone. School zones should not be established solely for the purpose of installing speed cameras. Similarly, all school zones do not automatically qualify for speed cameras. Speed camera deployments should be based on a traffic safety study.
** Not all roadways within a ½ mile radius of schools are considered School Zones **"

As you can see, the SHA guidelines unambiguously state that school zones are not ‘all roads within ½ mile of a school’. They must be designated and marked as such. And note those words "School zones should not be established solely for the purpose of installing speed cameras." Another point, the ability to establish school zones was NOT created by senate bill 277. If you read that piece of legislation (which unfortunately many ‘professional journalists’ and apparently many local lawmakers have not), you will see that it did not alter TR § 21‐803.1, and you will also see that the authorization for speed cameras is ‘inside school zones’ not ‘within a ½ mile radius of schools’.

However what is actually happening is that school zones are in fact being created or greatly expanded ‘solely for the purpose of installing speed cameras’ exactly as SHA guidelines state that they should not be, and that this is happening on a huge scale. In some case they are being broadly defined to cover all roads within a ½ mile radius of anything that could even remotely be considered a school.

See how these local governments are attempting to promote their revenue enhancing camera programs use children and schools for cover:
Baltimore City: StopBigBrotherMD documented using Google View several speed camera locations that were not previously marked as school zones and which are on roads not adjacent to the grounds of any school. Baltimore also confirmed in a letter as well as in an interview with ABC news 2 that the cameras were not going up in pre-existing school zones. The city has also asserted that it has a right to create school zones on state highways without SHA approval, or to not post all standardized signage such as ‘end school zone’ signs as specified by SHA guidelines. 86% of the city falls within ½ mile of ‘something that could be considered a school’. Baltimore apparently selected the locations because their contractor agreed to convert existing red light cameras to speed cameras. Baltimore City wrote $7.1million worth of speed camera revenue into their budget before the camera ordinance was approved or any locations selected.

New Carrollton: We documented with Google View that the locations selected by the city for speed cameras were not previously marked as school zones. The city police told the Gazette that they had ‘not fully mapped out its school zones’ as of August 2009, which means they were not in place until right before the cameras went up. The city's web site stated that the zones were 'designated by the City for speed enforcement cameras' and as such they were clearly ‘established solely for the purpose of installing speed cameras’.

Riverdale Park : Tried to create several new school zones on state highways in the same ordinance authorizing speed cameras. The zone for William Wirt Middle School on state highway 201 is a full 1/2 mile from the school grounds. That road only barely intersects the 1/2 mile radius and never touches the grounds of the school. According to a traffic engineer at the SHA, no school zones on US 1 and State Highway 201 previously existed. One zone on state highway 410 did exist but was a much smaller area than in the Riverdale Park ordinance. All of these state highways are major arterial roads. As of mid January the SHA was still considering their request to use speed cameras at these locations.

Mount Rainier: School zones were created as 1/2 mile radius areas which cover the entire town. This was done right after speed cameras were approved.

Glenarden: School zones were authorized in several 1/2 mile radius circles which cover the entire town. At the time of this writing the Glenarden city website did not contain a copy of the ordinance or any notice of this new ordinance, even tough state law requires 'public hearings' and public notice of locations before speed cameras are used in any local jurisdiction.

Cheverly: Not only is the town establishing new school zones, but it is going so far that they are introducing an ordinance Jan 14 to lower most speed limits. Most roads in the town will have the speed limit lowered from 25mph to 20mph, and the newly created school zones will drop to 15mph (ref 1, ref2). Some council members went on the record for their reasons for lowering speed limits in town meeting minutes: "CM Schachter will have questions about how creatively and expansive the Town could be in interpreting the law regarding the expenditure of these funds. Noted that it doesn’t bother him one bit to make money to be used for additional public good. Can we lower speed limits around the schools? "
The next Cheverly town council work session is scheduled for January 28th and the next town meeting scheduled for February 11, where they are planning to approve their speed camera contract, as well as discussing "Approving Speed Designation and School Zone Designation" according to the meeting agenda.

Berwyn Heights: expanded its school zones to cover all of Pontiac Street, and added a new one on Edmonston Road.

District Heights: On November 24th the town passed ordinances to authorize speed cameras in3 new school zones which cover the entire town. At the time of this writing the city website (www.districtheights.org) did not contain ANY information about speed cameras or the new ordinance.

Sykesville (Carroll County): is currently considering an ordinance to enact speed cameras and cover much of the town with new school zones. These zones cover several roads which are not adjacent to any school. One example is a new zone for a daycare center located inside of a church located at 7300 Spout Hill Rd with the zone covers ‘Harlen Lane’ which at its closest barely comes within 12 mile of that location, if at all (you can see the proposed school zones on this map shown on the town website, Harlan lane is the road right above 'Kalorama Rd' on the extreme limit of the leftmost 1/2 mile radius circle shown). The speed limit for all roads in the zone are being set to 25mph. Town meetings are set for January 25th and February 8th.

Brentwood: The town's December newsletter stated that the council had passed ordinances "Authorizing Speed Camera Enforcement Program" and "Adopt Brentwood School Zones" in the same meeting in November. The town website states that the area includes "Allison, Windom, and/or Webster streets between 34th and 38th street", these streets were not previously marked as school zones. The ordinances themselves and the town meeting minutes from November were not available on the website.

Bowie: Has also tried expanding or creating new school zones. However a letter between Bowie and Prince George's County shows WHY there has been such a rush to create all of these school zones. The county denied the city’s request for some locations because they had just voted to establish the school zones and put up the cameras first. As a result the county, not the city, would keep the money. Local governments are in a race to add cameras before someone else. We do not know at this time whether the County Executive’s decision to curtail the county's program means that these locations will simply revert back to the city or if they will become mobile camera locations controlled by the county.

And noted earlier, all of these local governments do have authority to create school zones (albeit requiring SHA approval for state highways). But they also had the authority to do this for no less than the last 13 years (21-803 was amended in 1997 so it was obviously in place at that time). The locations above where not selected to be school zones until last year when there was a revenue motive to do so. If these cities and towns felt there was a safety issue for students, they had many years to decide to notify drivers of the presence of a school, install other types of safety devices, even lower speed limits if the situation called for it. BUT THEY DID NOT DO SO.

And in most of the above cased the stated purpose was to install speed cameras, so how does that fit with the SHA’s statement that ‘School zones should not be established solely for the purpose of installing speed cameras’ ?

One might ask what would happen to traffic patterns and the region's already bad traffic congestion if everyone did what some of these towns are trying to do, putting up school zones far from schools without oversight or traffic studies. Even worse what would happen if they all did what Cheverly is doing as explicitly lowering speed limits just to hand out more tickets? One might ask that, but oh they used the word ‘school’ so we’re not supposed to ask questions are we? But we’re going to ask anyways: Given that they never previously took the bare minimum step of notifying drivers that there were schools in the area, is this really about safety or is this all a big fraudulent revenue scheme which is shamelessly using children for cover?

====
We should note one more twist to this story, which is that there is one speed camera community in the state where the vast expansion of school zones is NOT taking place: Montgomery County. Montgomery County alone was authorized to add cameras in ‘residential’ roads rather than just school zones. The distinction is that 'residential' cameras do not have the restriction of running only on weekdays, which is a requirement only on cameras ‘inside a school zone’. Strangely enough a few ‘residential’ cameras are located IMMEDIATELY outside marked school zones. In one case a camera located on Quince Orchard Road is located 1/5th of a mile before a sign marking the beginning of a school zone for Quince Orchard High school (1/4 mile farther down the road on the opposite side of route 28). A short distance before that speed camera, the now fading remnants of the word ‘school’ can be seen painted across the road -- apparently the old boundary of the school zone. Yet this camera is designated as ‘residential’ according to a document put out by the Office of Legislative Oversight, and thus it is permitted to issue tickets 7 days per week. (Sneaky devils!)

Prince George's County Executive Calls Speed Cameras "A Tax"

In a surprising reversal, Prince George's County Executive Jack B. Johnson has announced that the county will scale back its original plan to install fixed pole speed cameras at 50 sites and instead use a fleet of mobile cameras.

"It seems to me like it's more a revenue-raising issue than public safety, and it's going to take too many dollars out of the hands of our citizens" Johnson said describing the fixed-pole speed camera plan.

"It's disguised as a fee and a fine, but it's a tax," WTOP news quoted Jack Johnson.

The county will still proceed to issue citations using a more modest number of mobile camera vans which can be easily moved between many sites. These would have locations which are less well known to local drivers and the cameras would be less conspicuous. Prince George's could also still decide to add fixed pole cameras at a later time: when Montgomery County began their program they started with a modest number of fixed pole cameras the first year along with a number of mobile sites, which has since ballooned to over 60 fixed pole locations and dozens of mobile camera locations.

The decision will not affect the many towns in the county that have started their own independent speed camera programs, using mostly mobile cameras. These towns include Bowie, New Carrollton, Berwynn Heights, District Heights, Capitol Heights, Cheverly, Mount Rainier, Brentwood, Riverdale Park, and Glenarden. Most if not all of them are creating new school zones or extending existing zones specifically for the purpose of adding speed cameras: those locations were never previously considered school zones even though the towns have had the authority to designate and mark school zones for many years. So if you own stock in ACS or Sigma Space do not worry, there will still be no shortage of cameras and tickets going out in 2010.

Refs:
WTOP
Washington Post
Gazette

Chestertown Council Wants To Put Citizens Under Surveillance

The small town of Chestertown Maryland (Kent County, pop 4740) is currently considering adding speed cameras. The minutes of the December 7th 2009 meeting show that Town Manager Ingersoll introduced a proposed change to the town code for an ordinance to authorize speed cameras. Almost the entire town could legally have speed cameras deployed.

The minutes made it clear what the limited extent of human review and local police involvement would be in issuing citations: "Mr. Ingersoll stated that a computer print-out would go to the Police Department who checked off the list and then it was sent back to the vendor for the issuance of citations. He said that the police would make sure that only the proper vehicles were issued citations, citing an example that if an ambulance or fire truck was going over the speed limit, they would not be issued a citation."

The minutes state that "the Ordinance would be adopted at the meeting of December 21st and it will become effective January 10th. He said that he would try to bring the contract to the next meeting." The town website does not display the ordinance or show any notice of public hearings at the time of this posting.

Links:
Meeting Minutes
ChesterTown Council

2010 May Bring New Speed Camera Legislation

With their victory passing statewide speed cameras one might think Big Brother would take a breather before pushing the line any farther. Apparently not so for a few lawmakers.

Sen. David Harrington from Prince George's County has sponsored a new bill, PG307-10, which would authorize the cameras on two specific roads -- Chillum Road and Sargent Road. Apparently Prince George's County found a few small segments of road where they could not legally create new school zones solely for the purpose of deploying speed cameras, as was done by Baltimore City and almost every town in Prince George's County which has authorized the cameras so far. (Towns and counties had the ability to create school zones long before Senate Bill 277 was passed in 2009 -- in fact SB 277 did not change the criteria for or definition of school zones at all -- but those local governments never thought it was worthwhile to create these school zones until the revenue motive for adding cameras was introduced). PG307-10 would allow cameras to be added on these two additional roads without the need to create school zones. This would set a precedent for creating case-by-case exemptions for any location which does not meet the existing legal criteria for using speed cameras.

Elsewhere, Montgomery County Delegation chairman Brian Feldman is sponsoring bill MC10-10 which would create a new revenue sharing system between Montgomery County and small towns like Poolsville and Barnesville. Currently towns which do not have their own police forces or speed camera programs have had cameras placed on roads in their jurisdiction by the county. However unlike towns which run their own programs (such as Takoma Park or Chevy Chase Village) do not receive a cut of that revenue. Strangely enough, some of those towns have complained about the cameras when they do not get their piece of the pie. A "side benefit" to this legislation would be that towns with particularly lucrative cameras in their jurisdictions (such as those managed by Chevy Chase) would have the option of turning them over to the county and issue twice as many citations before hitting the revenue cap built into SB 277, with the revenue divided between the local jurisdiction and the county rather than going to the state -- even if (as is the case of affluent Chevy Chase Village) the town's cameras are on state owned roads paid for with state tax dollars.

The above bills would need to be approved by both the state House of Delegates and Senate and if so would take effect October 1, 2010. However we predict that there will not be major changes to speed camera laws this year because all state lawmakers are all up for re-election in November 2010, and many would prefer that the hundreds of thousands of voters who will receive those citations will not recall their 2009 voting record on statewide speed cameras, which you can see HERE.

Speed Cameras Soon Coming to Delmarva

The small town of Fruitland, Maryland (Wicomico County, near Salisbury) has signed an ordinance authorizing Speed Monitoring systems. This may make them the first town in the Delmarva area to defraud er I mean protect its citizens with the devices. The town council approved a contract with RedSpeed, a company which, in partnership with Brekford only recently set up shop in Maryland. The town council was lured to the agreement by the chance to receive a discounted rate, and of course a portion of the revenues.

Cheverly Maryland to Lower Speed Limits after Approving Cameras

The town of Chevery, which recently approved the use of speed cameras, is also now discussing lowering the speed limit on one of the main arteries through the town to 20MPH. In the Minutes of a recent town meeting shows how speed limits and sausages are made in this particular Prince George's County Town, and we suspect many other places as well:

"CM Schachter Cheverly Avenue has been 25 mph for a long time, but it has been a problem with speeding. So, I think we should consider lowering Cheverly Avenue to 20 mph. Mayor is there any reason why that would be a problem. Mr. Warrington not regarding enforcement, but it is a Federal Connector with a designated route. An engineer coming out and doing an evaluation will not result in an analysis recommending 20 mph.

CM Schachter I think an engineer will tell us you can’t have something slower. We can make a political decision to make it lower. Mr. Warrington that is the key phrase political. The Maryland Uniform Traffic Code is set-up to prevent political decisions to set it at 6 mph. The engineer looks at the capacity, volume and capabilities of the road. If you ignore this and lower it you will have all the tickets thrown out and you will have greater liability.

Mr. Colaresi State law does not allow it. It says after a study and you are lowering below 25 mph then you must have a really good reason. David is correct in that the engineers follow certain standards. It is not true that lower is safer. Mr. Schachter then we do have the possibility of picking a speed limit that is lower provided we have a good reason. Mr. Colaresi I would rather let the process happen and then look at this issue.

Mayor we need to see if is there a consensus on the Council that we would like to see Cheverly Avenue as 20 mph and see what the engineering study results are. I am attempting to narrow this discussion so we can logically look at each and every street. Is the Council tonight, for discussion purposes, dropped to 20 mph or defer to the Worksession. CM Watson I would like to see it 20 mph, but only if we aren’t going to lose funding or something else. Mayor we will look for 20 mph and Mr. Warrington will look for the administrative aspects of that issue."


The minutes of that meeting also stated "We will have to look at some 20 mph streets and see whether they should be lowered to 15 mph and why?"

From a previous meeting in May discussing speed camera revenue council member Schachter
"CM Schachter will have questions about how creatively and expansive the Town could be in interpreting the law regarding the expenditure of these funds. Noted that it doesn’t bother him one bit to make money to be used for additional public good. Can we lower speed limits around the schools? "


From the July 9th meeting minutes:
"CM Tevault 12 miles per hour seems like quite a fast clip in going over 25 miles per hour. Can we consider the starting speed when adding 12 miles per hour over?

Mr. Warrington noted that the speed limits are up to the Mayor and Council. Also, that some of the revenue requirements are still somewhat unclear."

Of course it was not their intent to ticket their own residents, but rather out of town visitors: "All the schools and their parents will be notified so no one is surprised." the minutes state.

New Carrollton Speed Cams Milk Drivers by the Thousands

New Carrollton's fledgling speed camera program is now in full swing and we have been getting many reports of tickets issued from there. The Gazette reported that in its first month New Carrollton issued 7,653 citations issued for a camera posted at the intersection of Good Luck Road and Cathedral Avenue, and 6,608 at the intersection of Riverdale Road and Lamont Drive[1]. That total (14,261 citations) is more than the number of residents in New Carrollton. Assuming all citations were paid this works out to about $342,000 of net revenue for the City and about $228,000 of income for the contractor, Optotraffic.

Strangely enough the number of Citations issued in November is vastly more than the mere 150 warnings which the city previously stated they had given out during the legally required 30 day warning period in October[2]. This indicates that New Carrollton may not have made a serious effort to issue warnings to drivers during the warning period.

New Carrollton has been using mobile units, apparently trailer based, which can function both as speed and red light cameras (See Company's description).

We have received multiple reports from ticket recipients who were given less than a week to either pay or challenge a citation from New Carrollton after the date it was received, in one case they even reportedly were unable to pay because the payment website was down. It is unclear whether New Carrollton will follow the policy of tacking on late charges immediately after the due date.

We have also received multiple reports from drivers who received citations more than 2 weeks after the date of the alleged violation. The Maryland law governing speed cameras specifies that citations issued to Maryland residents must be mailed within 2 weeks, or 30 days for out of state drivers. We strongly recommend you NOT pay any citations mailed outside of this due date. It is unreasonable to expect a defendant to be able to gather evidence in their defense weeks after an alleged violation has ocurred, especially signs may have been added or changed in that location in the interim. You should insist that these citations be dismissed without your having to go to court. Remember that the burden of proof is on the government: If you receive a citation 18 days later the fact that they deliberately did not include a postmark does not excuse the city's failure to comply with state law!

New Carrolton's program is particularly disturbing given their history of violating state and federal guidelines with their red light camera program resulting in large numbers of citations being mailed to drivers who came to a complete stop at intersections.

If you want to protest this situation, you should always direct criticisms and complaints to the state lawmakers who voted for the cameras, or to the local elected officials in New Carrollton:

Mayor Andrew C. Hanko
Phone: 301-577-0256 ; Fax: 301-459-8172 ;
E-mail: ahanko@new-carrollton.md.us

Councilmember Duane H. Rosenberg
Phone: 301-441-3324; Fax: 301-459-8172 ;
Email: drosenberg@new-carrollton.md.us

Councilmember James A. Wildoner
Phone: 301-577-0992 ; Fax: 301-459-8172 ; Email: jwildoner@new-carrollton.md.us

Councilmember June D. Garrett
Phone: 301-459-6100 ; Fax: 301-459-8172 ; Email: jgarrett@new-carrollton.md.us

Councilmember Katrina R. Dodro
Phone: 301-513-9239 ; Fax: 301-459-8172 ; E-mail: kdodro@new-carrollton.md.us

Councilmember Richard Bechtold
Phone: 240-770-7581 ; Fax: 301-459-8172 ; Email: rbechtold@new-carrollton.md.us

Mailing Address for Mayor and Council Members:
6016 Princess Garden Parkway
New Carrollton, MD 20784

If you are challenging a citation you should contact Police in New Carrollton (or the appropriate jurisdiction) to request information pertaining to the defense of your case, but speed cameras are a political issue and police do not set public policy so you should not send them letters regarding public policy. You should never consider it acceptable for an elected official to have a police officer respond on their behalf (as the County Executive in Montgomery County frequently did for that county's program[ref]).

If you wish to contact the contractor, Optotraffic, they are a division of Sigma Space Corporation is headquartered at 4801 Forbes Boulevard, Lanham, Maryland, 20706; ph# 301-552-6300.

Other towns in Prince George's County are about to follow suit: Bowie, Berwyn Heights, Capitol Heights, Riverdale Park, District Heights, Cheverly, and Brentwood are among the towns which are in the process of adding cameras. Most of the planned locations are in school zones which were recently created specifically for the purpose of adding cameras, in some cases on major state highways which only barely come within 1/2 mile of the grounds of a school. And the county government has asked the County Revenue Authority to select approximately 50 camera locations. That is just for starters. Within a few years Prince George's County may have more ticket cameras per capita than any other part of the country.

It is now up to the people of Prince George's County whether they will allow themselves to be surrounded by so many cameras that even diligent drivers end up paying a monthly bill to every small town which sets their own standards without oversight, or whether The People are going to be patriots and fight back. Every time someone 'just pays the fine', they are saying 'I won't speak up, please add more cameras and send me more tickets'. Every time someone fails to challenge a citation, they say 'I'm willing to surrender my constitutional rights to face my accuser and to be presumed innocent'.

What are YOU going to do?

Red Light Camera Vendors Fight Over Baltimore Contract

As Baltimore rapidly rolls out its new speed camera program, two photo enforcement vendors, two red light camera vendors are fighting it out in court over ownership of the city's red light cameras.

According to Baltimore, Maryland officials, a photo enforcement vendor has threatened to unplug the city's red light camera program unless its financial demands are met. The charges were leveled in a federal lawsuit initially filed by Dallas-based Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) against Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions (ATS). Baltimore inserted itself into the lawsuit last month claiming it had more of a stake in the matter.
"The contract between ACS and the city for the operation of the red light camera system generates significant revenues for the city of Baltimore," Baltimore's Chief Solicitor Michael S. Elder explained in court documents. "These revenues are utilized to fund other important governmental functions. Any interruption in the operation of the system will deprive the city of revenues that are desperately needed for essential functions in the current economic climate... The city's interest in its ability to fund vital government functions through its share of the revenue stream derived from the red light traffic camera system program is an interest that is plainly not shared by ACS."

ATS claims that it owns the City's red light cameras, which had been previously installed by Nestor Traffic Solutions (under a subcontract with ACS). Nestor's assets were purchased by ATS. ACS and the city of Baltimore claim that ATS was bound by Nestor's obligation to transfer ownership of the cameras to the City. According to court documents, "threatened to disable and/or remove red light camera devices in the City of Baltimore." ATS has yet to formally answer charges made in the lawsuit.

A similar but reversed dispute over equipment happened in DC when ATS took over control of that city's red light cameras from ACS in 2007. It was found that ACS had left large amounts of city owned equipment in disrepair.

See Story on TheNewspaper.com

Maryland Lawmaker, DC Parking Scofflaw

In March of this year a poster to the website NowPublic.com caught one state lawmaker, Delegate Craig L Rice (D, Montgomery County, District 15) in the act of illegally parking in DC. When confronted by the Baltimore Sun about it his response was that he had only been there for a few minutes would have moved along if a police or parking enforcement officer had asked him to move.

Well it turns out that someone with Maryland license plate number 46A (the same as Rice's legislative plate number) was issued a DC parking ticket on that day, in the same area where the NowPublic photo was taken, and as of November 29th, 2009 that citation for $60 was still unpaid.

It is unclear why this citation went unpaid. However we do know that Maryland Lawmakers can receive special legislative license plates for which the state of Maryland pays the fees. We also found many other 'low numbered' license plates in the DC parking ticket database, some dating back 9 or 10 years, so it's possible that DC has a hard time enforcing tickets against plates registered to state governments. However since Delegate Rice voted in favor of Senate Bill 277 authorizing statewide speed cameras in Maryland, we assume he is OK with the idea of being hounded by cameras all time time and being presumed guilty. So we suggest that he 'just pay the fine' as local govt officials in Maryland are keen on telling citizens to do.

More Maryland Towns Adopt Speed Cams

Frederick City Aldermen voted 4-1 on November 20th to approve the use of speed cameras. Alderman C. Paul Smith who was the sole vote against the cameras, expressed a concern that he had no idea how many cameras might eventually be installed. Mayor Jeff Holtzinger said that he expects the city would make a "boatload of cash" if it put speed cameras along Key Parkway or Shookstown Road. Some city aldermen previously expressed a concern that limiting the cameras to school zones was too confining, but Police Chief Kim Dine said the half-mile radius and the number of schools in the city would create a large area for cameras to operate... indicating that the city may follow the lead of Baltimore and invent new school zones to install cameras in.

Berwyn Heigths has begun selecting locations for its speed cameras. The council already selected Pontiac Street and Edmonston road. The existing 15mph speed limit on Pontiac Street would mean the city will hand out speed camera tickets to drivers who are traveling at the reckless speed of 27mph. The city is planning to create a new school zone on Edmonston road and and expand the existing school zone on Pontiac Street, "Edmonston Road has a tremendous amount of volume, but it's not currently in a school zone," Mayor Calvo said. The town will also ask the SHA for approval to put the cameras on Greenbelt Road (a 6-lane state highway), running from 62nd to Kenilworth avenues. The town has been in discussions with Optotraffic/Sigma Space about using dual red-light/speed cameras. Optotraffic conducted a study for the town to see which locations could ensure a minimum 616 tickets per month (30 tickets per day), since neither the city nor the contractor are willing to accept an arrangement unless both are assured to make money. Under the deal Optotraffic would keep $16 of every speed camera ticket and the town would keep all of the remaining revenue up to 10% of the town's current total budget. Berwyn Heights residents will have a chance to voice their opinions at the Dec. 9 town meeting.

Sykesville (Carroll County) is conducting a study to see if the cameras are viable. 'The Traffic Group, Inc', a Baltimore-based vendor, will do the study free of charge. Town officials will receive the results of that study in their Monday, Nov. 23th meeting. The City of Laurel has begun discussing speed cameras as well, and is investigating whether they will be cost effective. The city's camera's would be in addition to the freeway speed cameras which the state has set up on 65mph I-95 at the ICC construction site.

Baltimore Speed Cameras Used For Surveillance

Officials and Politicians who support speed cameras have often stated "if you don't speed you won't get your picture taken". But in the case of Baltimore City's speed cameras that is apparently not the case, according to a recent story by WBAL. These speed cameras, in addition to taking still photos, are equipt with video capability which is monitored live 24/7.

The cameras all feed into Baltimore City's Metropolitan Transportation Center where the video feeds can be viewed at any time by city workers. "Now as a side note, because it is a camera, we can on occasions look at the...roadway through the camera, because its there. We are using it for surveillance purposes, not that we're monitoring what the actual speeds are," WBAL quotes Randall Scott, Baltimore Traffic Division Director. "From time to time we can call up to look at the video image of the speed cameras," a city official states in a recorded interview.

City officials state that they are not recording this video. However this could be changed at any time the city police choose, assuming they can acquire the sophisticated equipment needed... such as a VCR.

Baltimore is installing 51 speed cameras in "school zones", many of these school zones were not designated as such prior to the introduction of speed cameras. City officials say "most" of the cameras are already installed (no word on whether all the 'school zone' signs are or not). Baltimore's contractor receives a percentage cut of each citation paid. "Transportation department workers are also trained in how to maintain, and calibrate the cameras, by the company that operates them, ACS State and Local Solutions." states WBAL.

Speed Cam Tickets Now For Real

The 30 day waiting period required by Maryland's new speed camera law has elapsed and it now appears that drivers have been receiving tickets from New Carrollton and Baltimore City. It may be that some drivers -- and perhaps some local governments -- are not aware of all of the restrictions on the use of speed cameras in Maryland. Some drivers pay the fines without questioning, but we urge the recipients of those tickets to examine them closely and ensure the following:
- Citations must be for at less than 12mph over the posted speed limit.
- Citations may be mailed no more than 2 weeks (for Maryland drivers) or 30 days (for out of state drivers) after the alleged violation. A citation dated more than 30 days prior is probably not valid, drivers should not accept the explanation that they attempted to mail it earlier. There have been cases of citations mailed with invalid timestamps.
- Citations must inform you of your right to contest a citation in court. You should always specifically request the operator be present or they are not required to present any witness at all.
- Speed cameras can only be set up in properly marked school zones with standardized signage or in highway work zones. A school zone does not automatically exist within 1/2 mile of a school, and both Baltimore City and New Carrollton have created new school zones simply to install cameras. It may be the case that some cameras were installed before signs were posted, this would not be in compliance with state law and ticket recipients should contest that.
- Locations where the cameras are used must include signs stating that photo enforcement is in use.

If you have recently received a citation which they believe to be in violation of one of the above please contact us.

Camera Company Van Caught Breaking State Law

A visitor to our website has videotaped a red-light camera vendor's van in violation of state law. Maryland law requires all vehicles (with the exception of motorcycles, tractors, and trailers) to have both front and back license plate. But red light camera vendor 'LaserCraft' appears to be operating a vehicle in violation of this statute, a vehicle without a front license plate.

We'd encourage LaserCraft to pay the government the $60 fine they owe. And we'd encourage any of our viewers who see such violations to report them to the proper authorities (that would be us). Yes camera pushers, the people whom you would watch are going to be watching you.

Public Rejects Cameras in Texas, Ohio

On November 3rd three US cities put speed and/or red light cameras to a popular vote, and all three voted them down. The People of Chilliccothe, Ohio passed a total ban on speed and red light cameras. Voters in College Station, Texas and Heath, Ohio voted to ban red light cameras. In each of these cities the camera vendors funded PR campaigns to try to affect the outcome of the vote, and in Chillicothe the Mayor tried to get the Ohio supreme court to block the referendum. So far of the 9 US cities where the public was given a direct vote on speed or red light cameras, and the cameras were rejected every time.

Regrettably referendum power in Maryland is pathetic. Perhaps it is time we get a real referendum process or change our lawmakers.

Sources:
TheNewspaper.com
Washington Times

School Zones Expanded to Allow Speed Cameras

When Senate Bill 277 was passed this year, supporters frequently pointed to the fact that the cameras would be limited to school and work zones only. In the case of work zones, a loophole was built into the law, permitting their use 'regardless of whether workers were present'. Now StopBigBrotherMD.org has learned that Baltimore City has created new school zones specifically for the purpose of installing school zone speed cameras.

According to state law (TR § 21‐803.1) and Maryland State Highway Administration ASE guidelines, a school zone does not automatically appear within all roads within a 1/2 mile radius of a school, but are defined as follows:
'“School Zone” is a segment of a highway located within a School Area that is (1) routinely used by pupils for access to or egress from school buildings or grounds, (2) established by official action, and (3) designated by appropriate signs."'[...]
and
"A school zone is officially designated as such when the required signs are installed. Designated school zone signs should only be installed where school facilities are in actual use for school activities."
Standard signage is required at the beginning and end of the zones.
After Baltimore City released the locations of 51 planned speed camera sites, a member of StopBigBrotherMD investigated several of these locations. It is possible to view most locations using Google Maps and in Google Street View. Google Street view provides 360 degree scrollable imagery of many roadways, albeit typically one or two years old. It turns out many of the locations had no signs indicating school zones or any 'End School Zone' signs preceding them. A number of the sites also did not appear to be located on roads adjacent to a school, but instead seemed to have been selected merely because there was an existing red light camera which Baltimore's Contractor (ACS) could easily convert into a speed camera. It was noted that some camera sites had been placed on State or US highways, which are not typically under the jurisdiction of or the property of a local municipality. The SHA ASE guidelines indicate that it is the SHA which has authority to establish school zones and authorize speed cameras on state highways.

An inquiry was made to the Baltimore City Transportation department and a little over a week later the following response was received:

"Thank you for your request. In response to your e-mail below:

You asked if the locations for speed cameras were all pre-existing school zones. No they were not.

You asked if the city will ensure that all of these locations have required signage before the speed cameras are installed. The answer is yes.

You asked if the State Highway Administration's approval was, or will be received for designating the locations for the speed cameras. The answer is no. The city maintains the state highways. We do not need SHA's approval."

StopBigBrotherMD.org also examined several roads designated for speed cameras in New Carrollton and could not find 'SCHOOL' or 'End School Zone' signs on any of the designated roads -- both on those designated roads which were not immediately adjacent to a school and on those which did in fact pass right by a school. It is unclear at this time whether the New Carrollton locations were supposed to be school zones but were improperly marked at the time the Street View images were recorded, or whether like Baltimore the school zones were simply added after there was the new motive of adding cameras.

We have created the following videos which document this situation for 4 locations in Baltimore and 2 locations in New Carrollton. Many other locations had similar lack of signage.

StopBigBrotherMD fully believes that safety in school zone is important. However given that these locations were not previously designated as school zones begs the question whether safety concerns was the real motivation for selecting them. Other means besides speed cameras have been proven effective at reducing speeding and/or reducing accidents, but apparently those were not tried in many of these locations. Speaking as a parent of two small children myself, IF these were legitimate locations for school zones we might ask why public officials put the safety of children at risk by not bothering to do the inexpensive bare minimum step of marking the locations as school zones and alerting drivers to the presence of a school nearby... until there was a revenue motive for doing so.

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

Additional Coverage as of 11/4/2009 : ABC2News has investigated this further. Apparently cameras are being installed before the signs are going up. Referring to a new camera on Norther Parkway "Workers installed speed cameras at the intersection today, the signs formally calling it a school zone will come later. " See TV Story.

Transporation Planning Board Pushes to Track, Tax Area Drivers

The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB) voted at its October 21rst meeting to seek federal funding to conduct a study of a controversial per-mile tax on drivers throughout the DC metro area, including suburban Maryland and Virginia. The road pricing plan, if implemented, would involve charging tolls on existing roads in DC and suburban Maryland and Virginia. The tolls would be adjusted based on time of day and location in order to discourage less wealthy drivers from using roads during peak periods and to raise up to $4.8 billion per year in new revenue from the pockets of area drivers (compared to $420 billion extracted right now through area gas taxes). In order to accomplish this all cars in the region would need to be fitted with GPS transponders and according to the proposal "This device would record the type of vehicle, the distance traveled, and the time and location of travel."

Road pricing systems are already in use in London and in Stockholm, but a proposal to implement it in New York city was shot down by New York state. The purpose of the study would be not to determine whether the system is a wise choice (the TPB members have already concluded they want the money), but rather to determine how to re-brand or repackage this new tax in a way that would avoid widespread organized opposition. The study will take place in 2010. After it is complete, the next step would be a demonstration of project of tolling via GPS tracking on one or more local roads.

A representative from AAA made a scathing commentary on the proposal : "The charges for driving as proposed in the Brookings paper are so high that they are no longer tolls, they are fines, intended to penalize and discourage driving" and "You know, it's illegal for motorists to drive intoxicated. Apparently no such rule exists concerning consumption while writing grant proposals." However WTOP quoted Arlington County Board member Chris Zimmerman voiced his support for the new revenue road taxes would generate: "Most of us sitting at the (Virginia) table have voted for every single tax that we have had a chance to vote for, and we still can not get anything done. "

Some local government officials responsible for setting tolls and transportation are often exempt from EZPass tolls since they have been issued free EZPass transponders by their state. According to an article by WTOP last year, Virginia issued a free EZPass to their Transportation Commissioner and 16 members of the VA Commonwealth Transportation board. Maryland issued transponders to citizens appointed to the Maryland Transportation Authority and to the Secretary of Transportation, as well as "vehicles of officials and employees of the executive, legislative and judicial departments of the State" with total of 15,00 free transponders in use by the state of MD. Maryland lawmakers are currently involved in a scuffle regarding their free ezpasses, but regardless of the outcome they will still retain a $500/year travel expense account which can be used to pay tolls.

Because several members of the TPB are local elected officials who are up for re-election on November 3rd 2009, a supporter of StopBigBrotherMD.org and area resident attempted to acquire the TPB's voting record on this issue for the public. After two requests to contacts at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments to acquire this information the response was that the TPB does not record individual votes and that, and that the minutes of the meeting would not be made available until shortly before the next TPB meeting (ie after the 2009 elections). Here are the members of the transportation planning board; we suggest our readers contact their area's TPB representative and advise them to make the TPB more transparent and accountable. You may wish to talk to your area's representatives on the MWCOG board of directors, which also approved the study.

Coverage on WTOP
Coverage on TheNewspaper.Com
Text of the Road Pricing Plan Proposal

Prince George's County asks Revenue Authority to Select Camera Sites

Prince George's County is moving ahead with plans to deploy speed cameras by asking the County Revenue Authority to select 50 speed camera sites. Yes you read that correctly. This Freudian slip caused certain vocal speed camera supporters to have a tizzy fit. I don't understand the problem, at least they're being honest about it.

According to the Gazette article Prince George's will start with a fleet of 10 vans outfitted with cameras to be posted at potential sites, and then a private company will install fixed cameras at a rate of five locations every three months. (and, if they follow the same type of contract arrangement as Montgomery County and Baltimore, that company will likely receive a cut of every ticket).

Prince George's county officials also expressed discontent over restrictions in the law (that the cameras are restricted to within 1/2 mile of schools and in freeway work zones without workers):
"I think we should, maybe next session, be asking the state to modify it," said Councilman Thomas Dernoga (D-Dist. 1) of Laurel, adding that the council should make speed camera expansion a priority with the General Assembly.
Prince George's County had originally asked the council for speed cameras on 'Primary Highways' with lower ticket thresholds, and higher fines[see 2009 bill, 2008 bill]. Frederick City officials have expressed similar wishes. Montgomery County has also recently whined that some of the restrictions in the law (part of the compromise used to sell the idea of statewide cameras and speed cameras on 55 and 65mph freeway workzones-without-workers) would cost them money. Montgomery County had written $13million into their FY10 budget in fines for violations which had not yet been committed (apparently once the county plans on a certain number of violations taking place, it is already their money and they are entitled to have those violations occur and receive the revenue from them), and the county had doubled their number of cameras to reach this quota. No, the the government will not rest on its laurels and accept any restrictions on what it can do. In fact they don't intend to stop until they can bill you for every mile you drive.

====================================
Addendum 0n 11/10/2009
Prince George's County has been trying to convince the public that the 'Revenue' authority is not a money collection organization by stating "the Revenue Authority, despite its name, is not a tax collection agency but the operator of the county's parking facilities. " While that is in fact true, the Revenue Authority's Mission statement on its own website makes it clear that this is a deception, and that it's primary function is in fact revenue collection, and that it does not have responsibility for public safety related functions:
" MISSION
The Revenue Authority is dedicated to promoting the public interest of Prince George's County by:

• Facilitating economic development and employment growth
• Owning, operating and maintaining revenue-producing facilities
• Financing County capital improvement projects
• Managing a self-supporting public parking program"

DC Area Agency Wants to Track Every Vehicle

There's a new idea coming which is going to hit every DC-Metro area driver in the pocketbook, not to mention create an Orwellian nightmare which might make speed cameras seem quaint by comparison. The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board(TPB) is considering a pilot study to introduce 'Congestion Pricing' or 'Road Pricing' on existing roads in and around DC.

Congestion Pricing is used in some European cities like London and Stockholm. A plan to implement congestion pricing in New York City was rejected by the state legislature in 2008. However a bill by Oregon Representative Earl Blumenaur to spend $154million of taxpayer dollars to study the introduction of a Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax was met with enthusiasm by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments(MWCOG), which has asked the TPB to request funding for this study in DC, Maryland, and Virginia.

According to the proposal the TPB is considering, entitled 'Road-Pricing: How would you like to spend less time in traffic?' (but would have been more appropriately named 'Tolls Everywhere: How would you like to be taxed out of your car?') includes the following description:
"Vehicles would be fitted with a GPS transponder device similar to an E-ZPass, perhaps as part of the registration process. If the program expanded nationally, manufacturers might even integrate transponders into new vehicles, similar to General Motors OnStar system. Insurance companies could also encourage motorists to use transponders as the companies transition to their own VMT-based risk model, as some have already begun to do. This device would record the type of vehicle, the distance traveled, and the time and location of travel. The transponder would sort the data into various toll categories"

Alternative forms of congestion pricing which MWCOG is considering are not much better and would consist of converting most major metro-area roads into toll roads. That would essentially necessitate everyone to use EZPasses to drive anywhere, and coerce them into doing so by charging exorbitant fees or causing additional delays to vehicles without the devices. EZPass malfunctions have resulted in large numbers of drivers being improperly fined with photo tickets or overcharged. The devices can also be used to track people's movements.

If such tolls were implemented the same way the ICC tolls are planned, cameras equipt with Automated Plate recognition technology would be used to photograph non-EZPass users and mail them a bill for their tolls plus a service charge (so much for 'if your not speeding you won't get your picture taken'). This technology has become so annoying to some Europeans that a black market in fake license plates has developed.

MWCOG's plan would first conduct study about how to best dupe the public into accepting the system. Next would come a pilot program on some number of local roads. This would eventually be expanded to all major roads in and out of DC. The theory behind it is that by charging people for each mile of driving, those who cannot afford the new exhorbitant tolls will be forced to ride the bus whether they want to or not, and traffic congestion will improve as a result. Plus the government has a new source of revenue which, after paying the overhead imposed by the vast new bureaucracy the system will create, will generate more money for transportation projects, or whatever else the government decides to quiety divert the money to.

Members of the TPB must still approve this regressive taxation program an request that the Federal Highway Administration to get initial funding for the pilot study out of your tax dollars. The TPB will be meeting on Wed October 21rst, 2009 to discuss this. Maryland and Virginia drivers should fight this plan by anti-car activists to charge the American Taxpayers admission to the nation's capital and force drivers to accept the continuous tracking of their vehicles. Write or call your representative on the TPB, or email the TPB and and tell them where to cram their GPS transponders.

Related News Coverage on: wtop, myfoxdc, bizjournals

Cameras Lied 24,000 Times

Check your scamera tickets boys and girls!

Page 35 of Montgomery County's recent speed camera report revealed that of the thousands of citations which were rejected before being mailed, 24,868 listed the reason as 'No Violation/Operator Error'. That is 24,868 speed camera errors which were discovered, but there is no way to know how many others actually went out and the drivers simply assumed that "pictures don't lie".

The county has asserted that it is conducting a review of every citation, and that such errors are almost always caught. However the fact is that some of these errors are known to have slipped through. Innocent drivers were clocked at 100mph, wrong vehicles have been cited, as well as duplicate citations were mailed months later with incorrect dates. And some those drivers simply paid the invalid tickets without question.

It has also been revealed recently that most of Montgomery County's cameras were not designed to distinguish the speeds of two vehicles close to each other (and are only now being replaced by a new generation of cameras which can). Many citations were apparently discarded because there were multiple vehicles in the photo. However apparently some of those citations still go out. In the case of the citation shown here, three vehicles are in the image. The ticket recipient (who had never received a speeding ticket before in decades of driving) contacted the head of Montgomery County's speed camera program calling attention to the 2nd vehicle in the citation. She was told "I have reviewed your citation and find it in good order." and that she needed to go to court if she wished to challenge it -- this despite the fact that the county's procedures acknowledge that the cameras could not distinguish the speeds of nearby vehicles and that such citations should be discarded. Despite this setback, in this instance the defendant challenged the ticket and was, after spending much more than $40 worth of time and effort preparing her defense, able to get her citation dismissed.

The question is, given the difficulty of remembering and proving what your speed was weeks after the fact, and that out of state drivers have no practical way to challenge a citation in court, will we ever know how many wrongly accused drivers were not so fortunate? Remember that paying a citation is an admission of guilt. If you think you weren't speeding don't just take their word for it, fight it.