County to Add More Speed, Red Light Cameras
Proposed contract adds seven new speed cameras and seven new redlight cameras and would pay ACS State and Local Solutions up to $9.1 million over seven years.
Photos
Updated(8:25 a.m.)—Baltimore County will add seven new speed cameras and seven new red light cameras under the terms of a proposed contract to be discussed on Tuesday.
The contract with ACS State and Local Solutions would add the cameras within five months of approval of the contract by the County Council, according to notes on the contract prepared by the county auditor's office.
Currently, the county has 15 speed cameras installed in school zones around the county. Last year the council removed the cap on the number of cameras that could be installed.
The county also has eight red light cameras in intersections around the county. There is no limit to the number of red light cameras that can be installed. The county had nearly two dozen when the program began in the 1990s.
Under the terms of the contract which covers 37 total cameras, ACS State and Local Solutions would be paid about $6.2 million for the cameras over the initial five-year term. The contract contains two additional one-year extensions.
Over the life of the full seven years, ACS State and Local Solutions could receive more than $9.1 million.
In return, the company agrees to:
- Complete site evaluations on 15 red light camera locations as well as 60 possible speed camera sites.
- Install the initial 14 cameras within 5 months of contract approval.
- The total number of new cameras over the initial term of the contract is capped at 18 cameras.
Speed cameras in Baltimore County are restricted to school zones. Drivers who exceed the posted speed limit by more than 12 mph are issued a $40 ticket with no points.
Red light camera violations carry a $75 fine.
Last year Patch reported that ACS State and Local Solutions received nearly 90 cents of every dollar in speed camera fines that the county collects.
The county estimates that the new contract will generate nearly $1.2 million in fines paid. ACS State and Local Solutions will be paid nearly $19 per citation paid. The county estimates the program will cost about $1.1 million annually over the first five years of the contract, based on 55,440 paid tickets.
Last year the county collected nearly $3.2 million in speed camera fines. ACS State and Local Solutions was paid nearly $3.1 million. The county kept more than $184,000 that went to the general fund.
The county is still owed nearly $1.3 million in fines from 31,798 outstanding citations.
The county expects to generate about $97,000 in red light camera violations. Of that, about $69,000 will be paid to ACS State and Local Solutions. The estimate is based on the expectation that the county will be paid for more than 2,200 tickets, according to the auditor's note.
Most councilmembers were not immediately available to comment on the contract.
David Marks, a Perry Hall Republican, said the contract should be closely examined.
"I voted against the speed camera bill, but it's now the law and I recognize the county has a right to implement the program," said Marks. "Still, the council should scrutinize the contract. Questions have been raised about the revenue the contractor receives, and I really don't like waiting until 2017 to decide whether or not to renew the contract once we approve it. "
Tim
8:06 am on Friday, January 6, 2012
This is the only part that's messed up is the fact the county is allowing itself to be fleeced by this company.
Bryan: Any idea if this is a situation where ACS has a monopoly on this traffic camera business? I'm wondering specifically why BC allows itself to get continually fleeced over this.
Honestly, if the county were after revenues, it'd raise the ticket price. I would.
PMM49
9:11 am on Sunday, January 8, 2012
Why not put this contract out for competitive bids? Aren't there other companies that provide these services. Even if it isn't about the revenue, why should the County concede that much of it to ACS. Doesn't seem to make sense. Perhaps someone could "follow the money" and see where ACS spends in Baltimore County.
M. Sullivan
9:55 am on Friday, January 6, 2012
If you want to see the future of Baltimore County regarding speed cameras, just check out http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/ to see how speed cameras have been shown to be innacurate time and time again. See how red light cameras are giving out tickets for being stopped just a little over the line. See how the wonderful judges in Montgomery and PG counties are refusing to accept any reasonable arguments from people contesting these tickets (Are they just too lazy to consider each case, or are they being influenced? Hmmm). Citizens are being fleeced by this latest scam that lines the pockets of a private company with no benefit the the people paying for it. Baltimore Co. traffic studies have already shown that there is no effect on the accident rate in the locations surrounding current speed camera placement. It really makes one wonder whose pockets are being lined among those approving these cameras.
Tim
11:03 am on Friday, January 6, 2012
I think it's no question who's pockets are being lined here, and it's not the County. I can't believe the County doesn't make more on these tickets. I'd raise the speeding ticket prices to 50 bucks, and red light ones to 100. Running red lights (let's say 18 hours out of 24) is ridiculously dangerous. If anything, the county's going out of their way to NOT look like they are raking in revenue (because clearly, they aren't).
This slays me, time and again. Complaining about penalties for breaking the law. The effectiveness of speed cameras (specifically) is definitely debatable. What's not debatable is that speeding is against the law.
You want to talk about big brother junk, let's talk about the entire Homeland Security department.
Karebear
10:18 am on Friday, January 6, 2012
So, if my calculations are correct, of the fines collected, the County only retained 14% of them? This seems like a waste of taxpayer money. I completely understand the need for better traffic control, especially around schools. However, would it not be more fiscally prudent to pay police officers to issue citations, rather than fork over nearly 85% of the fines to an outside company?
al walker
1:31 pm on Friday, January 6, 2012
it boils down to the people who are speeding. who cares whos pockets are getting lines. they should make the fines higher and then after so many start revoking the drivers license to those that cant seem to understand what the cameras are there for in the first place. once people arent able to drive anymore the cameras will not be needed, air quailty will get better, and people will start getting off their butts and walking more. i say raise the fines make stiffer laws on how many tickets can be issued before you lose the privilege!
John Doe
1:51 pm on Friday, January 6, 2012
"If you obey, then you don't pay" should be the slogan - I agree with al.
Karebear
2:05 pm on Friday, January 6, 2012
I totally agree that people should not speed/break the law. However, I can not agree with the county spending money for the cameras and forking over most of the fees collected to a private company--especially given the uncertain economic times.
I am all for enforcing the law, but we have measure in place now to do such, without paying a private company ridiculous amounts of money.
Jim
2:41 pm on Friday, January 6, 2012
ACS, which specializes in printing thousands of tickets, is a division of (wait for it)... Xerox Corp. How fitting!
JK
4:47 pm on Friday, January 6, 2012
First of all, if someone TRULY deserves a ticket, per COMMON SENSE, LOGIC & ETHICS, then I agree with Corey, Al & Tim (CAT). If someone is so reckless and obscenely over the speed, then yes, I agree. However, I suggest that CAT get their facts straight and wake up. The "StopBigBrother" site mentioned is an excellent place to start and is a good summary of more in depth investigative work. My wife, who could be Poster Girl for the Scam Cam (SC) Program, for as safe and cautious as she is, got one for 1mph over the 12mph "allowed". From all the people I've interviewed, I can guarantee that a large percentage of those spouting oversimplified "Do-Gooderisms" like CAT will get SC'd! If an SC is placed where there has never been an accident, How is the road being made safer? It's the hypocritical and/or ignorant puritan attitudes, complacency and apathy of those who don't "Question Authority" (when applicable, of course), as the famed bumper sticker says, who let people like Hitler come to power, or let Britain get to the point where our Founding Fathers had to take matters into their own hands. So, I guess our Founding Fathers weren't law-abiding citizens and maybe even criminals...acording to the law?
al walker
6:47 pm on Friday, January 6, 2012
JK. so your wife got a ticket because she was going 13 miles over the speed limit. do you know how fast that is? Ok. say 1mile over the 12 and the judge lets her go. the next person comes up with 1mile over the 13 miles that the judge just let you wife slide on. they too say well. it was only 1 mile over what you just let the lady before me off on. then the next person and the next person. when would it end. how about going a couple miles UNDER the speed limit so you dont have to worry about if you are breaking the law or not. really. they are already giving you 12 miles over as a lead. dont take advantage.
Karebear
11:38 am on Saturday, January 7, 2012
So, JK, you have an issue that your wife received a ticket for speeding? She was already over the legal posted limit. Had that been a cop issuing the ticket, she'd gotten one for going much slower than 13 miles over the limit.
Bart
12:34 pm on Saturday, January 7, 2012
JK, while the ticket is a big annoyance, you wife was, indeed, speeding. It probably was out of character for her, as you say, but at least all she has to pay is the fine; no points on her record. She'll be more aware in thew future.
Some in my household have received those tickets - one more than one. Vhalk it up to a learning experience, and watch the lead foot.
Buzz Beeler
1:12 pm on Saturday, January 7, 2012
Good comment. Most people are concerned with the points. It's kinda like a parking ticket, pay the fine and it's over.
We all make mistakes and I can testify to that, but you have to pony up and move on.
Rob Smith
12:50 pm on Saturday, January 7, 2012
Do not be fooled people. This is nothing more than a replacement for the lost tax base in a down economy. It is simple and collectable. Shame on those that continue to buy into the concept of "safety" as the purpose.
Buzz Beeler
1:17 pm on Saturday, January 7, 2012
Rob, you might have a point regarding the money issue, but how would you handle the safety one. I-95 has become a highway to hell!
Up until the new configuration at 95 and 695 that area was one of the deadliest in the county and state.
Bart
2:52 pm on Saturday, January 7, 2012
Rob, in other articles in the news lately there are complaints that Baltimore county is losing money on these systems. So it's not for the money as some would like everybody to believe.
kevin
3:10 pm on Saturday, January 7, 2012
Yet when a democrat gets nailed on 0.17 alcohol the judge in Anne Arundel throws the case out because there is percieved quota? By estimating revenue these cameras will draw aren't they in fact baced on a percieved quota ? So should all these tickets be thrown out ?
Robert Armstrong
3:41 pm on Saturday, January 7, 2012
You don't know whether she was a Democrat or not.
Buzz Beeler
4:20 pm on Saturday, January 7, 2012
Patch's article on this issue regarding money.
http://perryhall.patch.com/articles/baltimore-county-makes-less-money-from-speed-cameras
kevin
7:42 pm on Saturday, January 7, 2012
Wrong Robert use your Google you'll find her family tree,and affiliation.actually parents good friends of O'Malley,
Skip Howe
9:22 am on Sunday, January 8, 2012
I got a speed camera ticket on Charles Street near Cold Spring Lane. I was going 31 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. I was in the right hand lane and a car going 43 MPH was in the left hand lane. He passed me as we passed the camera. I saw the flash of the camera and hoped that the person reviewing it would notice which of us was speeding. I do not know if he got a ticket, but I did. Now I check to see if any speeders are approaching before going through this camera zone. Fighting this ticket would cost me way more than $40, and I might not win.
Buzz Beeler
10:10 am on Sunday, January 8, 2012
Skip, I would check the photo evidence and see if this was a possibility. I thought they were supposed to send you a picture of the alleged violation.
Bart
10:20 am on Sunday, January 8, 2012
Agreed. They always send you a picture, along with your speed and the posted speed. I seriously doubt a ticket would be given for 1 mile over the limit. Even though the location is in Baltimore City, they follow the same plan.
Buzz Beeler
11:30 am on Sunday, January 8, 2012
Bart, If i recall correctly when our office handled the red-light notifications there was always a photo with the suspect vehicle in it. I'm just not sure as to whether or not camera violations would indicate any potential for other vehicles who could interfere with that in how wide the angle was.
In radar school the bouncing effect was a problem in that the radar picked up the fastest and closest moving vehicle. There was a chance for other fasting moving cars speed to show up due to the volume of traffic and speed.
They dealt with that by training the operators to use visual aids along with the reading being provided by the radar.
There will always be tolerances allowed for speed violations, e.g. 12+ MPH over and so forth. I would always allow for such tolerances but I would tell people the citation does not rely on a specific speed but by definition it states - exceeding the posted limit. The amount of MPH over that limit impacts the fine and points not the charge.
For example I would say to those who felt they were only going one mile over as in Skips case, that from one to ten miles over the limit the TA calls for one point and that the citation is issued on the sole bases of exceeding the posted limit.
There aren't enough cops or cameras in the world to capture everyone who goes one mile over the limit. That is why a certain tolerance is allowed.
Buck Harmon
12:10 pm on Sunday, January 8, 2012
Any funding that is generated by the camera's is more than the County would have without them..
Any dangerous speeder that is slowed down because of camera's is a safer driver.
I REALLY don't like the camera's that are constantly invading privacy in the name of perceived public safety though...
Buck Harmon
12:11 pm on Sunday, January 8, 2012
Who pays for those camera's..... that's what I'd love to know...
K Blue
2:42 pm on Sunday, January 8, 2012
Buck, I believe that the individuals paying the tickets are the ones that collectively pay for the program ideally. The question is whether there will come a point in time that the money collected by the County is insufficient to pay the contractor plus the actual costs to the County which include paying dedicated officers to oversee this program. Under the old contract, the contractor got a fixed amount per camera (regardless of how many tickets were issued and collected) plus a large percentage of the ticket amount. In my opinion, that raised the issue that the program (if it worked the way it was designed to and decrease speeding, thus decreasing tickets over time and collections) would eventually become cost-prohibitive and the County would be owing money. I am curious to know the fixed cost per camera owed to the contractor under the new contract and whether it increased, decreased or remained substantially unchanged.
Buzz Beeler
1:02 pm on Sunday, January 8, 2012
Buck, the taxpayers. The revenues are generally earmarked for numerous projects until budget shortfalls get in the way and then it's - helter skelter!
Tom Sharp
10:41 am on Monday, January 9, 2012
Funny how no matter where these speed camera companies go, council members and mayors always seem to end up in jail.
Jennifer
10:27 am on Saturday, January 14, 2012
These cameras never seem to be placed in wealthy areas. However, if I was going to place one, it would be on Parker's Farm Road in New Town.
farmer bob
10:52 am on Wednesday, July 18, 2012
If you lived on jarrettsville pike,dulaney valley, or glenarm rd. you would not be opposed to speed cameras. It seems that those who are opposed to the cameras live in a cul-de-sac. 7 deaths in this area in the last 2 months. Give points and lower fines enough to cover costs would be more of a deterent and make cameras mobile