.
Feedback

The Future of Brick's Red Light Cameras

New camera will most likely be up and running in 3-4 months

Brick has bucked the trend.

Despite most communities with red light cameras seeing a drop-off in ticket revenue after six months to a year, Brick's cameras at two intersections – Route 70 and Chambers Bridge Road and Brick Boulevard and Chambers Bridge Road – are recording just as many violations as ever.

That produces revenue for the township, but makes the jobs of those who must predict how much revenue the cameras will produce in the future that much harder.

Township officials have formally projected $200,000 in revenue from Brick's current traffic cameras this year, since most towns see revenue dip after word gets out that the cameras are live.

"People know that the cameras are out there," said Police Chief Nils R. Bergquist while addressing the overall police budget before the township council this week. "We can only go on the projections that the vendor provides us. I'd hate to rely on an income that doesn't materialize."

The township collected $552,101 in 2011 through the month of November out of $929,701 in summonses issued. The difference was collected by American Traffic Solutions, the company that owns Brick's red light cameras.

Despite the cautious approach, however, Business Administrator Scott Pezarras the township's red light cameras are producing as many tickets as ever.

In Brick, the rate of tickets issued remained steady through 2011. The camera at the Brick Boulevard intersection first came online in February 2010 and the Route 70 camera first started nabbing red-light runners in October 2010.

Brick Police Capt. John Rein said on average, 950 to 1,100 summonses are issued each month. In 2011, he said, police officers reviewed about 13,000 violations and issued 12,000 summonses.

"It fluctuates with holidays, seasons and traffic flow," Rein said.

The violations reviewed by Brick officers are first whittled down by American Traffic Solutions.

More Cams Planned

Last year, the township council approved cameras at two additional intersections – the merge of Route 70 and Brick Boulevard, and Route 88 and Post Road.

Revenue from those approved, but not yet built, cameras is not allowed to be counted in this year's budget.

Bergquist said one of the cameras, the one which will be placed at Route 70 and Brick Boulevard, is expected to be operational in the next three to four months. There will be a grace period before the cameras there begin issuing valid summonses.

State approvals may mean the camera at Route 88 and Post Road will take longer to bring online, officials said.

Future of Red Light Cams, Revenue in Question

If one state legislator has his way, however, the revenue stream public officials have come to rely on in the red light cameras could be unraveled.

Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon (R-Monmouth) has come out against red light cameras, telling the Newark Star-Ledger earlier this year that the cameras amount to "automatic taxing machines."

If the cameras, which are currently legal in New Jersey only in certain municipalities under a pilot program, must be removed, the police budget will take a hit, Bergquist said.

"We'd have to make some adjustments in a substantial way in our budget," said Bergquist. "It's something that we're following very closely."

Bergquist said red light cameras are designed to make intersections safer by training drivers to obey traffic signals. Over time, fewer tickets are issued as drivers become more aware that a camera is active.

Revenue aside, making up for such a level of traffic enforcement would be difficult, Bergquist said. The same level of enforcement by uniformed police officers – 24 hours per day at two intersections – would cost about $3 million.

The violations produced by the cameras are reviewed by officers several hours at a time, often by officers working light duty assignments due to injuries sustained on the job.

"In my opinion, the red light traffic camera is the ultimate in doing more with less, if you look at the production versus the costs," Bergquist said.

Joseph Woolston Brick March 9, 2012 at 02:12 am
EMN that's not the problem at that intersection, the problem is, there's a church and preschool, a real estate office and various private homes. Nobody wants the flashing of the camera all day and night. Hey EMN how would you like it if your daughter was getting married on a very cloudy day and your sitting in the church during the wedding and FLASH FLASH FLASH or how about your kids in the pre-school, FLASH FLASH FLASH or you trying to close a sale on a home FLASH FLASH FLASH or simply in your own home FLASH FLASH FLASH. THAT'S WHY! Why should the church, school and real estate office give up their peace? It's noisy enough without adding FLASH POLLUTION at the intersection! The town wants to make more money, put the damn thing somewhere else!
Joseph Woolston Brick March 9, 2012 at 02:31 am
So many towns across the country thought red light cameras would be the answer to all their problems and a great stream of revenue, at first this was true and then problems started to arise and many towns and even states banned them. Google red light cameras and read all the stories. There are many more stories in the minus side than the plus. A few of my neighbors who have received those tickets complain that they get them in the mail AFTER the time where they can fight them in court. Is this by design? Seems to me tickets received after the time for plead should be nullified as everyone has the right when charged to plead innocent or guilty. Well how can you if you receive the ticket in the mail after the fact. That to me seems to be where the illegality of the tickets prevail.
Fred Gee March 9, 2012 at 08:23 am
I think the Amber signals changes too fast to Red resulting in tickets. It seems you have to hit the brakes hard if the signal turns Amber as your just about to enter the intersection, because you know your not going to make it across in time. This results in people speeding up to make it across before it changes to avoid the ticket. I guess next they will have radar at the intersection to give a speeding ticket.
clark griswold March 9, 2012 at 11:24 am
come on people,dont you have anything better to do with your lives then cry about a stupid traffic camera??? JW from brick--take a break,go outside and take a deep breath before you have heart-attack!!! FLASH POLLUTION-really JW--------
clark griswold March 9, 2012 at 11:26 am
WOW A VOICE OF REASON IN A SEA OF CRY-BABIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
GaryR March 9, 2012 at 01:48 pm
So, if they add more red light cameras, does the Public Works Department get to stay?
BobD March 9, 2012 at 02:24 pm
Sad that decisions regarding the installation of photo-enforcement systems is based solely on projected revenue instead of improved safety and fewer accidents. They are installed all over Germany for safety reasons. Towns and highways don't hide them and rely on the "word" getting out so people are aware of their presence. When we visit friends and family there we are reminded of the cameras before we drive. Decoy police cars and officers don't work because locals know and ignore them. You only have to look at the 55mph stretch of the GS Parkway for more proof. Try driving it at 55mph and you will be passed on both sides, tail-gated and receive obscene gestures from other drivers far exceeding the 55mph limit making it far less safe than if they left the speed limit at 65. This stretch actually encourages aggressive driving behavior. It appears to be more about the 'double fines' for when the State Police are able to enforce the limit. If enforcement was more consistent and across the board, then you might convince people it was put there for safety reasons but the police clearly do not have enough resources to do this. Small towns and the Autobahn in Germany employ photo-enforcement for that very same reason. This is how you justify cost and see a return on investment in both dollars and safety, not only on the highways and local roads, but by freeing up officers to do more important law enforcement work to insure public safety.
Tom Cular March 9, 2012 at 02:40 pm
Hollowman,
There is NO state or federal mandate or law governing the duration of amber lights at intersections. The only thing that comes close is a guideline published in The Uniform Manual of Traffic Control Devices (a federal publication) that all states must follow. The guideline recommends 1 second for each 10 MPH of the speed limit.
Me March 9, 2012 at 02:48 pm
Ah yes, German law enforcement has been an example of justice and due process since Reinhard Heydrich was president of of Interpol.
Me March 9, 2012 at 03:25 pm
Actually, the forums that discuss the $cameras get far more attention from me than the actual $cameras do. Any demands for revenue they may mail are simply ignored.
Arlen March 9, 2012 at 04:15 pm
Here's some food for thought. in NY there are camera lights on most corners. One day, I was working in the city, made a right turn (on green) perfectly legal, 1 month later I got a red light ticket. Come to find out, the camera was broken and hundreds of people got ticketed. Since they "mail" the ticket 30 days later, who remembers? hundreds of people just mailed in the $50 and moved on with life. I knew I didnt run a red so I challenged it, went to "traffic court" took a vacation day, drove from NJ to NY to sit in a smelly nasty room ALL day. When they finally got to me, they said Opps were sorry, we found out the camera was broken!! our bad!! ticket dismissed. I asked the question, how many people just paid this and didnt challenge it? will you be refunding their money? the answer was, if they come in, we will issue a credit, you will have to complete paperwork and it will take 90-120 days for a refund. REALLY?? what about my vacation day that I lost? I didnt do anything wrong but you made me come here, lose a days pay, get totally aggrevated. They said too bad!! Do you think Bricktown will be different? NOT!!!
BobD March 9, 2012 at 04:41 pm
Really "Me"? Was your comment re: Nazi Reinhard Heydrich who was president of Interpol in 1940 and died in 1942 really necessary or even remotely relevant to my comment? Were you comparing today's German police and their efforts to protect their citizens from careless and aggressive drivers to the Nazi SS? Regardless of whether it was meant to be serious or humorous - it was an EPIC FAIL.
BW March 9, 2012 at 05:02 pm
Someone decided to hijack my nickname of "me" so i changed my nick so there would be no confusion between myself and the "me" who posted the comment about the nazi's.
Seriously, the powers to be will stop at nothing to bully harass and torment those who oppose their opinions. Very childish.
Me March 9, 2012 at 05:05 pm
Actually Bob, the comparison of the $camera $cam's respect for due process to Reinhard Heydrich's concept of due process is quite apt. It's guilty til proven innocent. I suspect the only problem Reinhard would have with the $cameras is that they're toothless when it comes to enforcing their revenue demands here in the US. I'll take the American tradition of revolution over the German tradition of obedience any day, thank you very much.
BobD March 9, 2012 at 06:06 pm
"Me" you are one dumb dude, and I am pretty certain my family and friends who, quite happily and of their own accord live in Germany, will agree. You obviously know little or nothing about modern Germany or its people. Apparently your knowledge comes from the History Channel and their WWII documentaries which btw are just that – history – and no reflection of life there now. I travel all over the US and photo-enforcement is used by other states. Most notably in areas of highway construction where it is safer than having police officers attempt to apprehend violators in an already congested area (ask any police officer and they will tell you the most dangerous assignment is traffic control). Exactly where is the notion of "guilty until proven innocent" here? You may contest any traffic summons in court if you can prove you weren't doing what the officer or camera says you did. If you are in the intersection when the light turns red, it’s a violation. If you are caught by a radar gun traveling at a speed in excess of the posted speed limit, it’s a violation. Whether a camera or police officer records it is immaterial. Have I been tagged by a red-light camera? Yes – due to my inattention and not some plot to take away my freedom. Have I had close-calls at intersections because of other people’s inattention? Many times. If these systems make people slow down and think, I’m all for them.
Me March 9, 2012 at 06:31 pm
"Exactly where is the notion of "guilty until proven innocent" here? You may contest any traffic summons in court if you can prove you weren't doing what the officer or camera says you did." LOL! Bob, you just proved my point! The defendant in a criminal action doesn't have to prove ANYTHING. The burden of proof is on the state and part of that burden of proof is the culpability of the alleged ACTOR. Merely being the registered owner of an inanimate object does not make one legally culpable for the use of that object. That's one reason why the $camera companies refuse to ask that their revenue demands be adjudicated as criminal offenses. They can't make the standard of proof. The $camera companies don't even want their claim handled as a civil suit in a court of law as that would kill the profitability as well. This $cam only works where one accepts the administrative judgement of another as binding and if that isn't accepted, the whole $cam becomes unenforceable.
BobD March 9, 2012 at 07:51 pm
"Merely being the registered owner of an inanimate object does not make one legally culpable for the use of that object." - Me
Oh yes it does. You are the registered owner of a vehicle hence you are responsible for said vehicle at all times. Insurance companies charge you a higher rate just for having a young licensed driver in your household based on the chance you might let them drive any of your vehicles. If your car gets a parking ticket, you are responsible for paying it regardless of who drove it and left it in the metered space. Face it "ME" - if you don't drive recklessly and don't let unresponsible/inattentive/reckless people drive your vehicle you won't have a problem with photo-enforcement. Nothing more to say on the subject or to you.
Me March 9, 2012 at 08:51 pm
Bob, that may be true in the commercial sphere, and insurance is, of course, a commercial contract. If, however, one is not engaged in commerce, the whole world of the admiralty law and its courts are inapplicable to the human being. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtgtiDtyykM&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLA3181B48DEF87E8F
BobD March 9, 2012 at 11:19 pm
Me, You just couldn't resist one more shot at showing the world how out of touch with reality you really are. No one likes laws and rules especially when they attempt to regulate what appears to be the smallest details of our lives. Unfortunately they exist because many humans can’t be counted on to be courteous or responsible, or show the slightest bit of common sense. Are noise ordinances fair? Not always, but they exist because some people think their rights supersede other people's rights. Police have better things to do than go around enforcing a noise ordinance, but if someone is trampling the rights of their neighbors, they have the law with which to enforce what should be courtesy and common sense. I will be the first to admit some agencies enforce laws/rules merely for revenue generation. Case in point, NJ State Park rangers will sneak through the woods to catch you quietly sitting by a campfire with a beer. Other states have the same rules, but only enforce them when behavior gets out of control. A gun is the same as a vehicle when it comes to inanimate objects. If you are a legal and responsible owner you obligated to securing them and knowing where and with whom they are at all times. You can’t feign ignorance when that inanimate object is used illegally, hurts or kills someone. Laws exist because humans can’t peacefully coexist without them. The challenge is enforcing them uniformly and fairly for the public good and not only when convenient or profitable.
Me March 9, 2012 at 11:40 pm
Well Bob, if humans can't be counted on "to be courteous or responsible, or show the slightest bit of common sense." what leads you to believe they can act "uniformly and fairly for the public good and not only when convenient or profitable."? The $cameras that you love so much rely on the premise that they can not be held to the standards of due process. They must begin with an assumption of guilt. The reality is that if one is not willing to accept that assumption, the $cameras fail. That is why they're failing all over the country. People refuse to accept the assumptions the $cameras require.
p ehlers March 10, 2012 at 04:04 am
First of all the length of an amber light is judged by the speed limit of the roadway, the higher the speed limit the longer the amber light. The length of the amber is set by law not by the Townships or by the Camera companies.
All intersections have a solid white line at the entrance to every intersection, if your vehicle has started to cross that line while the light is still amber you will not get a summons. I have a solution to all of you leadfooted people who do all of the complaining. Learn the traffic laws that you should have studied when you received a license to drive.
Dennis March 10, 2012 at 10:10 pm
finally, have you been drinking? The more money you give any government official, the more they spend. Wake up and stop looking at life with beer goggles
Joseph Woolston Brick March 11, 2012 at 02:15 pm
Clark, why don't you go spend some time at one of the intersections with the cameras when it's dark during the day or spend sometime at night and see how often those cameras flash, would you want your home to be by one? Downtown Brick (if you want to call it that) is like living in a permanent thunderstorm without the thunder. It's like silent lighting 24/7 365 and it's annoying as hell.
Mrgrumpass March 13, 2012 at 02:02 pm
This is ridicules, conspiracy, graft, mismanagement, it’s all BS you people have nothing better than to fabricate, have dreams, visions in the clouds of nothing, there are two intersections in town that have red light cams, what’s the bother? Prepare to stop on the yellow, stop on the red, it’s not brain surgery, if you fail to do so your picture gets taken and you receive a summons in the mail, the money from your fine is split between the town and the company that owns and installed the cameras. This allows the roads to safer frees up police officers from court dates and puts money in the town’s coffers. If you get a ticket for running a red light you deserve it your driving a 3000+lbs bullet and you are responsible for its safe use. You people are ridiculous, get out of your house get some fresh air clear the cobwebs out of your brain, the boogie main is not under your bed!
miki53 April 5, 2012 at 12:40 am
Mrgrumpass, sounds like YOU got it all figured out, just like alot of you on this post. But first, I see what happens when "others" disagree with you, and they have other concerns about these red light cameras. Your answer is "all you have to do is follow the rules!", well try re-reading ARIEN's post, what then? Some of you people think money grows on trees! I've heard that turning on red is a problem, tell me, why can't the TOWN correct that part (and don't tell me because its the law OK). The other thing is why not add another second or two to the yellow light time? Why, because it seems to me that this is ALL about the money, other wise these changes would have been done already.
darrell April 5, 2012 at 02:01 am
If I'm correct, I don't think the township has anything to do with setting the time on the traffic lights. Does anyone know if I'm right?
10% Tax Cut NOW April 5, 2012 at 02:17 am
There could be timed boxs, weighed intersections or
movement camera's maybe in place. Regarding the placement of the new red light camera @ 70 and Brick Blvd. is it strange that $ 300k was received last week for the same area ?
Not So Dumb April 5, 2012 at 10:34 am
I believe this was mentioned before. The State sets the timing on yellow lights. Typically a yellow light will last depending on the speed limit of the major road. Since Rt. 70 has a speed limit of 50mph the yellow light will last 5 seconds, pleanty of time to stop.
The inatallation of Red Light Camaras is in process on Rt. 70 and Brick Blvd. Won't be long before those that have gotten tickets will renew their complaining. And, there's no need to be concerned about turning on Red. The town nor the red light company can change the timing on any signal.
Hollowman April 12, 2012 at 07:48 pm
just re-reading some of these comments, thought I'd clear something that people seem to believe they know. pertaining to the people who all say the camera's take away from actual officers discretion if he was at that intersection, EVERY camera ticket has to be viewed and verified by a police officer in the Traffic Safety dept of brick police. so in reality, if he was not likely to pull you over for it on the road, you're not likely to get a ticket for it from the camera, since the officer is the one actually issuing the ticket.
Also, be mindful when rt 70/brick blvd camera goes up, as brick blvd is a 35 mph zone right there, and the yellow light onto 70 east bound is timed accord to that speed limit, so it is short. since most people dont do 35 there, and are speeding, most people also run the light as they feel they didnt have time to stop, or that the yellow is "too short." in fact it is not too short, you are simply going too fast. as far as you being in the intersection as it turns from yellow to red, and fearing you are going to be cited for running the red as you passed the opposite side while it was red, the camera takes three photos of a vehicle it believes ran a red light; one on its approach to the intersection, one in the intersection, and one as its leaving the intersection. either the company will see you did not in fact run the light, and will not submit the video for officer review, or the police officer will review the video and not issue you a ticket
Joseph Woolston Brick January 2, 2013 at 05:12 am
I don't think there will be any more red light cameras installed in Brick or anywhere else in the state, The report is in and...........
http://millburn.patch.com/articles/new-jerseys-red-light-camera-program-has-failed

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Brick Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
anonymous May 1, 2013 at 08:10 pm
We're hurting 6 months after Sandy... We're frustrated... We're MAD... We need action, not talk!Read More Come to the protest rally Sat. May 4th, 2-3PM, Joey Harrison's Surf Club, 1900 Ocean Ave., Ortley Beach.
Sue May 6, 2013 at 03:54 pm
FEMA says "PAY or go away"
Joe Ponisi Sr. April 9, 2013 at 03:12 pm
Great job Joe, we're proud of all the work you're doing at Rowan and for helping produce thisRead More telethon to help Restore the Shore.
Nathan Boulman April 10, 2013 at 06:35 pm
Good luck. I hope the Telethon raises a lot of money.