Perhaps the most alarming factor is that this shortfall comes after a massive capital investment in both cameras at intersections and also new parking enforcement vehicles equipped with GPS locators. City planners had expected that these new enforcement mechanisms would make it easier to catch violators and thus increase the revenue.
Approved in May of 2005, this system was put into place due to a number of concerns. First, efficiency, the parking enforcement officers were said to not be able to effectively monitor all regulated districts in the City. This system would be capable of scanning over 1000 license plates per hour and would therefore increase both the area covered by a single officer and the number of vehicles that can be monitored. Moreover it would eliminate the chalk marking system and therefore eliminate the problem of violators removing the chalk marks rather than moving their vehicles.
This system was authorized at $81,000 one-time fee plus a $14,000 maintenance.
The obvious sell of that system from the staff report was this was a way to catch more violators. Instead, what has happened is that the new technology combined with the stricter prohibitions against reparking have encouraged citizens to take more care when parking to avoid citations and fines. In other words, the enforcement system is so good, that it has taken away incentive for people to violate the system.
The result of this expenditure for new technology has been a drastic decline in the number of citations and thus a massive shortfall from the projected budgeted revenue.
In previous blog entries we have lamented the fact that the city relies on fines as a source of revenue.
It is probably the reparking rules more than the new GPS enforcement vehicles that has led to the fewer citations. The budget shortfall would probably be worth it if the new policies freed up parking in the core downtown area. However, that does not appear to be the case. As we have written in the past, vehicles are now simply rotating from street to street and block to block rather than occupying a single space. The net result is the lack of street parking.
There are a number of lessons here. First, technology can at times be a double-edged sword. If the city’s goal was to maintain a steady revenue from parking citations, they would have been better served not trying to fix a system that was already working well. The city got a bit too greedy believing that they could create a system that would be more efficient and would catch those who would have erased the chalk rather than moving the car. What I think they did not anticipate is that those people in a chalkless system would simply move their car.
Second, the city should not be budgeting revenue from fines. That leads to a perverse incentive structure where the city relies on people violating the law and when people do not violate the law, rather than being considered a good thing, it creates a problem.
Third, you cannot finesse parking problems using enforcement means. The city should re-examine how it chooses to deal with the issue of long-term parking in the core downtown area. It should then think about how to incorporate and accommodate individuals who come to the downtown in order to do shopping or perhaps have a meal during the day.
A few weeks ago the suggestion was offered that perhaps the city needs a parking commission because the safety commission deals primarily with other issues. While it is not clear that a 20th city commission is needed, there does need to be at least a permanent subcommittee examining the issue of parking, parking enforcement, revenue, and parking allocation in both neighborhoods but also in the core downtown area.
The city in this realm seems to have been too smart for its own good. By investing in new technology the city managed to reduce its revenue flow, the irony of this situation should not be lost on its residents.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Bureaucracies are made up of people with all our very human flaws, i.e. desire to be part of something larger, powerful and important as well as fascination with techological “adult toys”. Add the fact that the money being spent is not their own and you have a problem. Council meetings with REAL in-depth discussions and more not less citizen commission oversight is the best remedy at hand. Personal staff assistance for the council members would greatly help their ability to analyze recommendations by staff.
Bureaucracies are made up of people with all our very human flaws, i.e. desire to be part of something larger, powerful and important as well as fascination with techological “adult toys”. Add the fact that the money being spent is not their own and you have a problem. Council meetings with REAL in-depth discussions and more not less citizen commission oversight is the best remedy at hand. Personal staff assistance for the council members would greatly help their ability to analyze recommendations by staff.
Bureaucracies are made up of people with all our very human flaws, i.e. desire to be part of something larger, powerful and important as well as fascination with techological “adult toys”. Add the fact that the money being spent is not their own and you have a problem. Council meetings with REAL in-depth discussions and more not less citizen commission oversight is the best remedy at hand. Personal staff assistance for the council members would greatly help their ability to analyze recommendations by staff.
Bureaucracies are made up of people with all our very human flaws, i.e. desire to be part of something larger, powerful and important as well as fascination with techological “adult toys”. Add the fact that the money being spent is not their own and you have a problem. Council meetings with REAL in-depth discussions and more not less citizen commission oversight is the best remedy at hand. Personal staff assistance for the council members would greatly help their ability to analyze recommendations by staff.
It seems all of us (at least all registered Republicans) should be cheering this victory of law enforcement over law breaking. We’ve proved that with a sophisticated and expensive law enforcement program the population can be made to obey laws that they were previously willing to violate.
It’s a fascinating sociological scenario to me since I’m not a sociologist. It’s as if all of those folks who were being cited for various parking and traffic violations were engaged in some kind of recreational game of cops and robbers that was only fun when the playing field was level. That is, the cops have to see you or catch you in the act like hide and seek. Once there is a technological intervention that catches and fines you in a more mechanical and less personal fashion, it takes the fun out of it. So, may as well not play the game. Life becomes a little more gray and less stimulating.
Aside from promoting a program to snare more out of towners to get parking ticket revenues back up, it appears our only alternatives are to 1) ride our bikes downtown, 2) take the bus, or 3) park in a safe area and walk a little further to our destinations.
I only have one suggestion for modifying the re-parking rules: Your reparking ticket would be dismissed if you can supply copies of your receipt for plumbing fixtures to prove you had to go back to the hardware store repeatedly to get a job finished. Or, impose the same restriction on Hibbert’s parking lot to level the re-parking playing field for such situations.
It seems all of us (at least all registered Republicans) should be cheering this victory of law enforcement over law breaking. We’ve proved that with a sophisticated and expensive law enforcement program the population can be made to obey laws that they were previously willing to violate.
It’s a fascinating sociological scenario to me since I’m not a sociologist. It’s as if all of those folks who were being cited for various parking and traffic violations were engaged in some kind of recreational game of cops and robbers that was only fun when the playing field was level. That is, the cops have to see you or catch you in the act like hide and seek. Once there is a technological intervention that catches and fines you in a more mechanical and less personal fashion, it takes the fun out of it. So, may as well not play the game. Life becomes a little more gray and less stimulating.
Aside from promoting a program to snare more out of towners to get parking ticket revenues back up, it appears our only alternatives are to 1) ride our bikes downtown, 2) take the bus, or 3) park in a safe area and walk a little further to our destinations.
I only have one suggestion for modifying the re-parking rules: Your reparking ticket would be dismissed if you can supply copies of your receipt for plumbing fixtures to prove you had to go back to the hardware store repeatedly to get a job finished. Or, impose the same restriction on Hibbert’s parking lot to level the re-parking playing field for such situations.
It seems all of us (at least all registered Republicans) should be cheering this victory of law enforcement over law breaking. We’ve proved that with a sophisticated and expensive law enforcement program the population can be made to obey laws that they were previously willing to violate.
It’s a fascinating sociological scenario to me since I’m not a sociologist. It’s as if all of those folks who were being cited for various parking and traffic violations were engaged in some kind of recreational game of cops and robbers that was only fun when the playing field was level. That is, the cops have to see you or catch you in the act like hide and seek. Once there is a technological intervention that catches and fines you in a more mechanical and less personal fashion, it takes the fun out of it. So, may as well not play the game. Life becomes a little more gray and less stimulating.
Aside from promoting a program to snare more out of towners to get parking ticket revenues back up, it appears our only alternatives are to 1) ride our bikes downtown, 2) take the bus, or 3) park in a safe area and walk a little further to our destinations.
I only have one suggestion for modifying the re-parking rules: Your reparking ticket would be dismissed if you can supply copies of your receipt for plumbing fixtures to prove you had to go back to the hardware store repeatedly to get a job finished. Or, impose the same restriction on Hibbert’s parking lot to level the re-parking playing field for such situations.
It seems all of us (at least all registered Republicans) should be cheering this victory of law enforcement over law breaking. We’ve proved that with a sophisticated and expensive law enforcement program the population can be made to obey laws that they were previously willing to violate.
It’s a fascinating sociological scenario to me since I’m not a sociologist. It’s as if all of those folks who were being cited for various parking and traffic violations were engaged in some kind of recreational game of cops and robbers that was only fun when the playing field was level. That is, the cops have to see you or catch you in the act like hide and seek. Once there is a technological intervention that catches and fines you in a more mechanical and less personal fashion, it takes the fun out of it. So, may as well not play the game. Life becomes a little more gray and less stimulating.
Aside from promoting a program to snare more out of towners to get parking ticket revenues back up, it appears our only alternatives are to 1) ride our bikes downtown, 2) take the bus, or 3) park in a safe area and walk a little further to our destinations.
I only have one suggestion for modifying the re-parking rules: Your reparking ticket would be dismissed if you can supply copies of your receipt for plumbing fixtures to prove you had to go back to the hardware store repeatedly to get a job finished. Or, impose the same restriction on Hibbert’s parking lot to level the re-parking playing field for such situations.
“impose the same restriction on Hibbert’s parking lot”
It’s privately owned.
“impose the same restriction on Hibbert’s parking lot”
It’s privately owned.
“impose the same restriction on Hibbert’s parking lot”
It’s privately owned.
“impose the same restriction on Hibbert’s parking lot”
It’s privately owned.
Dave… As an aside, I read your comment on Dunning’s piece(which I
didn’t read then) about Rachel Corrie’s death. I would have been right behind you(in spades) in the Letters to the Editor if I had come across it.
Yes.. We are strange and facinating
creatures. I agree that the impersonal and mechanical nature of the technology “unnerves” us since we can’t influence it. We all still labor under the illusion that weak explanations and finally begging can prevent that traffic ticket.
Dave… As an aside, I read your comment on Dunning’s piece(which I
didn’t read then) about Rachel Corrie’s death. I would have been right behind you(in spades) in the Letters to the Editor if I had come across it.
Yes.. We are strange and facinating
creatures. I agree that the impersonal and mechanical nature of the technology “unnerves” us since we can’t influence it. We all still labor under the illusion that weak explanations and finally begging can prevent that traffic ticket.
Dave… As an aside, I read your comment on Dunning’s piece(which I
didn’t read then) about Rachel Corrie’s death. I would have been right behind you(in spades) in the Letters to the Editor if I had come across it.
Yes.. We are strange and facinating
creatures. I agree that the impersonal and mechanical nature of the technology “unnerves” us since we can’t influence it. We all still labor under the illusion that weak explanations and finally begging can prevent that traffic ticket.
Dave… As an aside, I read your comment on Dunning’s piece(which I
didn’t read then) about Rachel Corrie’s death. I would have been right behind you(in spades) in the Letters to the Editor if I had come across it.
Yes.. We are strange and facinating
creatures. I agree that the impersonal and mechanical nature of the technology “unnerves” us since we can’t influence it. We all still labor under the illusion that weak explanations and finally begging can prevent that traffic ticket.
I wonder whether the fall in traffic violation revenue is related to fewer traffic tickets actually being written by the police? Every police stop and ticket written potentially generates a Davis citizen with negative feelings about the Davis Police Department… something that would not have been helpful PR-wise in last year’s overheated police/citizen oversight politics.
I wonder whether the fall in traffic violation revenue is related to fewer traffic tickets actually being written by the police? Every police stop and ticket written potentially generates a Davis citizen with negative feelings about the Davis Police Department… something that would not have been helpful PR-wise in last year’s overheated police/citizen oversight politics.
I wonder whether the fall in traffic violation revenue is related to fewer traffic tickets actually being written by the police? Every police stop and ticket written potentially generates a Davis citizen with negative feelings about the Davis Police Department… something that would not have been helpful PR-wise in last year’s overheated police/citizen oversight politics.
I wonder whether the fall in traffic violation revenue is related to fewer traffic tickets actually being written by the police? Every police stop and ticket written potentially generates a Davis citizen with negative feelings about the Davis Police Department… something that would not have been helpful PR-wise in last year’s overheated police/citizen oversight politics.
David,
This was a good column. I suspect that everything your write here is correct. However, it’s possible that there is another explanation.
You write: “Instead, what has happened is that the new technology combined with the stricter prohibitions against reparking have encouraged citizens to take more care when parking to avoid citations and fines. In other words, the enforcement system is so good, that it has taken away incentive for people to violate the system.”
I have no doubt that this is part of the explanation. It may be most or all of it.
But there may be another important factor: the dollar amount for parking violations went up at roughly the same time that the new no-reparking rules went into effect.
In July of last year, the fine went up from $30 to $35. Just a few years ago, the fine was about $20. Thus, the city of Davis is giving car parkers a stronger incentive to not violate the parking rules.
In economics, there are plenty of examples where an enterprise can raise its prices and lower its revenues. Perhaps that is happening here.
Also, I think there is a learning curve when it comes to parking violations. Once a person has received a ticket, or two tickets, his behavior is apt to change. I know that I got a parking ticket about 5 years ago and I have been much more careful ever since.
If the “learning curve” explains anything, it may be that, as a community, we have all had enough experience with mistakes that collectively we are aware that it does not pay to violate the parking rules. As such, the violations were bound to peak at some point — say a few years ago — and then fall back.
Maybe there are many other cities, whose population totals have been relatively stable, whose parking fine revenues peaked and then fell off, even though they did not change their enforcement technologies. If that is so, it would suggest the learning curve theory.
David,
This was a good column. I suspect that everything your write here is correct. However, it’s possible that there is another explanation.
You write: “Instead, what has happened is that the new technology combined with the stricter prohibitions against reparking have encouraged citizens to take more care when parking to avoid citations and fines. In other words, the enforcement system is so good, that it has taken away incentive for people to violate the system.”
I have no doubt that this is part of the explanation. It may be most or all of it.
But there may be another important factor: the dollar amount for parking violations went up at roughly the same time that the new no-reparking rules went into effect.
In July of last year, the fine went up from $30 to $35. Just a few years ago, the fine was about $20. Thus, the city of Davis is giving car parkers a stronger incentive to not violate the parking rules.
In economics, there are plenty of examples where an enterprise can raise its prices and lower its revenues. Perhaps that is happening here.
Also, I think there is a learning curve when it comes to parking violations. Once a person has received a ticket, or two tickets, his behavior is apt to change. I know that I got a parking ticket about 5 years ago and I have been much more careful ever since.
If the “learning curve” explains anything, it may be that, as a community, we have all had enough experience with mistakes that collectively we are aware that it does not pay to violate the parking rules. As such, the violations were bound to peak at some point — say a few years ago — and then fall back.
Maybe there are many other cities, whose population totals have been relatively stable, whose parking fine revenues peaked and then fell off, even though they did not change their enforcement technologies. If that is so, it would suggest the learning curve theory.
David,
This was a good column. I suspect that everything your write here is correct. However, it’s possible that there is another explanation.
You write: “Instead, what has happened is that the new technology combined with the stricter prohibitions against reparking have encouraged citizens to take more care when parking to avoid citations and fines. In other words, the enforcement system is so good, that it has taken away incentive for people to violate the system.”
I have no doubt that this is part of the explanation. It may be most or all of it.
But there may be another important factor: the dollar amount for parking violations went up at roughly the same time that the new no-reparking rules went into effect.
In July of last year, the fine went up from $30 to $35. Just a few years ago, the fine was about $20. Thus, the city of Davis is giving car parkers a stronger incentive to not violate the parking rules.
In economics, there are plenty of examples where an enterprise can raise its prices and lower its revenues. Perhaps that is happening here.
Also, I think there is a learning curve when it comes to parking violations. Once a person has received a ticket, or two tickets, his behavior is apt to change. I know that I got a parking ticket about 5 years ago and I have been much more careful ever since.
If the “learning curve” explains anything, it may be that, as a community, we have all had enough experience with mistakes that collectively we are aware that it does not pay to violate the parking rules. As such, the violations were bound to peak at some point — say a few years ago — and then fall back.
Maybe there are many other cities, whose population totals have been relatively stable, whose parking fine revenues peaked and then fell off, even though they did not change their enforcement technologies. If that is so, it would suggest the learning curve theory.
David,
This was a good column. I suspect that everything your write here is correct. However, it’s possible that there is another explanation.
You write: “Instead, what has happened is that the new technology combined with the stricter prohibitions against reparking have encouraged citizens to take more care when parking to avoid citations and fines. In other words, the enforcement system is so good, that it has taken away incentive for people to violate the system.”
I have no doubt that this is part of the explanation. It may be most or all of it.
But there may be another important factor: the dollar amount for parking violations went up at roughly the same time that the new no-reparking rules went into effect.
In July of last year, the fine went up from $30 to $35. Just a few years ago, the fine was about $20. Thus, the city of Davis is giving car parkers a stronger incentive to not violate the parking rules.
In economics, there are plenty of examples where an enterprise can raise its prices and lower its revenues. Perhaps that is happening here.
Also, I think there is a learning curve when it comes to parking violations. Once a person has received a ticket, or two tickets, his behavior is apt to change. I know that I got a parking ticket about 5 years ago and I have been much more careful ever since.
If the “learning curve” explains anything, it may be that, as a community, we have all had enough experience with mistakes that collectively we are aware that it does not pay to violate the parking rules. As such, the violations were bound to peak at some point — say a few years ago — and then fall back.
Maybe there are many other cities, whose population totals have been relatively stable, whose parking fine revenues peaked and then fell off, even though they did not change their enforcement technologies. If that is so, it would suggest the learning curve theory.
Rich:
That’s a good point as well. Although it had been $30 per ticket up from $20 for at least two years (I think). I would be interested to look and see if that change–which we can isolate from the technological and reparking changes caused a drop in violations sufficient to offset the increased revenue.
We’re talking about a 50 percent increase in rates there, that would have to cause a drop by a one-third to decrease revenue.
Then if you start at 30 and increase it to 35, that is only an 18% increase in cost, but it would still need to cause a huge decrease in the number to reduce the revenue by half (or at least a sizable margin).
So if we were working at a string of causes, I would certainly include cost of the infraction, but I suspect the increased certainty of capture was the larger variable.
Rich:
That’s a good point as well. Although it had been $30 per ticket up from $20 for at least two years (I think). I would be interested to look and see if that change–which we can isolate from the technological and reparking changes caused a drop in violations sufficient to offset the increased revenue.
We’re talking about a 50 percent increase in rates there, that would have to cause a drop by a one-third to decrease revenue.
Then if you start at 30 and increase it to 35, that is only an 18% increase in cost, but it would still need to cause a huge decrease in the number to reduce the revenue by half (or at least a sizable margin).
So if we were working at a string of causes, I would certainly include cost of the infraction, but I suspect the increased certainty of capture was the larger variable.
Rich:
That’s a good point as well. Although it had been $30 per ticket up from $20 for at least two years (I think). I would be interested to look and see if that change–which we can isolate from the technological and reparking changes caused a drop in violations sufficient to offset the increased revenue.
We’re talking about a 50 percent increase in rates there, that would have to cause a drop by a one-third to decrease revenue.
Then if you start at 30 and increase it to 35, that is only an 18% increase in cost, but it would still need to cause a huge decrease in the number to reduce the revenue by half (or at least a sizable margin).
So if we were working at a string of causes, I would certainly include cost of the infraction, but I suspect the increased certainty of capture was the larger variable.
Rich:
That’s a good point as well. Although it had been $30 per ticket up from $20 for at least two years (I think). I would be interested to look and see if that change–which we can isolate from the technological and reparking changes caused a drop in violations sufficient to offset the increased revenue.
We’re talking about a 50 percent increase in rates there, that would have to cause a drop by a one-third to decrease revenue.
Then if you start at 30 and increase it to 35, that is only an 18% increase in cost, but it would still need to cause a huge decrease in the number to reduce the revenue by half (or at least a sizable margin).
So if we were working at a string of causes, I would certainly include cost of the infraction, but I suspect the increased certainty of capture was the larger variable.
To be clear, this shortfall covers both parking tickets and moving violations.
The assumption that better technology and/or higher ticket prices influenced better behavior. That conclusion assumes most people had knowledge about the changes. That is possible but I doubt it.
A 50% drop in ticket revenue means something more is happening than better equipment and higher fines. I think you have to go back to the ticket writers and find out what is really going on.
To be clear, this shortfall covers both parking tickets and moving violations.
The assumption that better technology and/or higher ticket prices influenced better behavior. That conclusion assumes most people had knowledge about the changes. That is possible but I doubt it.
A 50% drop in ticket revenue means something more is happening than better equipment and higher fines. I think you have to go back to the ticket writers and find out what is really going on.
To be clear, this shortfall covers both parking tickets and moving violations.
The assumption that better technology and/or higher ticket prices influenced better behavior. That conclusion assumes most people had knowledge about the changes. That is possible but I doubt it.
A 50% drop in ticket revenue means something more is happening than better equipment and higher fines. I think you have to go back to the ticket writers and find out what is really going on.
To be clear, this shortfall covers both parking tickets and moving violations.
The assumption that better technology and/or higher ticket prices influenced better behavior. That conclusion assumes most people had knowledge about the changes. That is possible but I doubt it.
A 50% drop in ticket revenue means something more is happening than better equipment and higher fines. I think you have to go back to the ticket writers and find out what is really going on.
We are all aware of the potential for the heated police/citizen oversight/Buzayan controversy to affect the “morale” of the Davis police personnel. Were we experiencing some sort of work “slowdown” here? An analysis of the data could help us dismiss this possibility.
We are all aware of the potential for the heated police/citizen oversight/Buzayan controversy to affect the “morale” of the Davis police personnel. Were we experiencing some sort of work “slowdown” here? An analysis of the data could help us dismiss this possibility.
We are all aware of the potential for the heated police/citizen oversight/Buzayan controversy to affect the “morale” of the Davis police personnel. Were we experiencing some sort of work “slowdown” here? An analysis of the data could help us dismiss this possibility.
We are all aware of the potential for the heated police/citizen oversight/Buzayan controversy to affect the “morale” of the Davis police personnel. Were we experiencing some sort of work “slowdown” here? An analysis of the data could help us dismiss this possibility.
As Anonymous above.. I am also concerned about the reported DRAMATIC drop in revenue. Drawing from personal experience, I change my driving/parking behavior after I have been ticketed, not at the time when the fines/rules are officially announced (which I am unaware of). This would suggest that the revenue drop should have been much more gradual than it evidently was.
As Anonymous above.. I am also concerned about the reported DRAMATIC drop in revenue. Drawing from personal experience, I change my driving/parking behavior after I have been ticketed, not at the time when the fines/rules are officially announced (which I am unaware of). This would suggest that the revenue drop should have been much more gradual than it evidently was.
As Anonymous above.. I am also concerned about the reported DRAMATIC drop in revenue. Drawing from personal experience, I change my driving/parking behavior after I have been ticketed, not at the time when the fines/rules are officially announced (which I am unaware of). This would suggest that the revenue drop should have been much more gradual than it evidently was.
As Anonymous above.. I am also concerned about the reported DRAMATIC drop in revenue. Drawing from personal experience, I change my driving/parking behavior after I have been ticketed, not at the time when the fines/rules are officially announced (which I am unaware of). This would suggest that the revenue drop should have been much more gradual than it evidently was.
“That conclusion assumes most people had knowledge about the changes. That is possible but I doubt it.”
Not necessarily ‘most people.’ Just most people who park downtown fairly often.
Considering that the new meter-maid vehicles, with their oversized outer-space looking radar guns, are pretty ubiquitous, it would be hard to not notice a change in the enforcement, even if a person did not read the newspaper.
Also, word of mouth can pretty effectively spread this kind of message.
Third, if my theory about a learning curve is correct, then the knowledge has been accruing over time and would not have to come to everyone all at once.
“A 50% drop in ticket revenue means something more is happening than better equipment and higher fines. I think you have to go back to the ticket writers and find out what is really going on.”
I think the meter-maids probably do have the answers to this: or at least some insight. However, any suggestion that they are intentionally not doing their jobs, as Borack suggests, is offensive to suggest, less you have some substantial evidence of that.
“That conclusion assumes most people had knowledge about the changes. That is possible but I doubt it.”
Not necessarily ‘most people.’ Just most people who park downtown fairly often.
Considering that the new meter-maid vehicles, with their oversized outer-space looking radar guns, are pretty ubiquitous, it would be hard to not notice a change in the enforcement, even if a person did not read the newspaper.
Also, word of mouth can pretty effectively spread this kind of message.
Third, if my theory about a learning curve is correct, then the knowledge has been accruing over time and would not have to come to everyone all at once.
“A 50% drop in ticket revenue means something more is happening than better equipment and higher fines. I think you have to go back to the ticket writers and find out what is really going on.”
I think the meter-maids probably do have the answers to this: or at least some insight. However, any suggestion that they are intentionally not doing their jobs, as Borack suggests, is offensive to suggest, less you have some substantial evidence of that.
“That conclusion assumes most people had knowledge about the changes. That is possible but I doubt it.”
Not necessarily ‘most people.’ Just most people who park downtown fairly often.
Considering that the new meter-maid vehicles, with their oversized outer-space looking radar guns, are pretty ubiquitous, it would be hard to not notice a change in the enforcement, even if a person did not read the newspaper.
Also, word of mouth can pretty effectively spread this kind of message.
Third, if my theory about a learning curve is correct, then the knowledge has been accruing over time and would not have to come to everyone all at once.
“A 50% drop in ticket revenue means something more is happening than better equipment and higher fines. I think you have to go back to the ticket writers and find out what is really going on.”
I think the meter-maids probably do have the answers to this: or at least some insight. However, any suggestion that they are intentionally not doing their jobs, as Borack suggests, is offensive to suggest, less you have some substantial evidence of that.
“That conclusion assumes most people had knowledge about the changes. That is possible but I doubt it.”
Not necessarily ‘most people.’ Just most people who park downtown fairly often.
Considering that the new meter-maid vehicles, with their oversized outer-space looking radar guns, are pretty ubiquitous, it would be hard to not notice a change in the enforcement, even if a person did not read the newspaper.
Also, word of mouth can pretty effectively spread this kind of message.
Third, if my theory about a learning curve is correct, then the knowledge has been accruing over time and would not have to come to everyone all at once.
“A 50% drop in ticket revenue means something more is happening than better equipment and higher fines. I think you have to go back to the ticket writers and find out what is really going on.”
I think the meter-maids probably do have the answers to this: or at least some insight. However, any suggestion that they are intentionally not doing their jobs, as Borack suggests, is offensive to suggest, less you have some substantial evidence of that.
I think most people became aware of the increased enforcement because there was plenty of advance advertising regarding the new technology, both in the media and around downtown. Even if you weren’t someone who parks downtown regularly, you knew about the new AVI (automatic vehicle identification)equipment. If that didn’t do the trick, then seeing the parking enforcement officers with the cameras probably did the trick. So I’m not surprised at the dramatic decline. People’s behavior changed. It would be interesting to see if a similar rate of decline in red light violations occurred at the various intersections where cameras were installed.
I think most people became aware of the increased enforcement because there was plenty of advance advertising regarding the new technology, both in the media and around downtown. Even if you weren’t someone who parks downtown regularly, you knew about the new AVI (automatic vehicle identification)equipment. If that didn’t do the trick, then seeing the parking enforcement officers with the cameras probably did the trick. So I’m not surprised at the dramatic decline. People’s behavior changed. It would be interesting to see if a similar rate of decline in red light violations occurred at the various intersections where cameras were installed.
I think most people became aware of the increased enforcement because there was plenty of advance advertising regarding the new technology, both in the media and around downtown. Even if you weren’t someone who parks downtown regularly, you knew about the new AVI (automatic vehicle identification)equipment. If that didn’t do the trick, then seeing the parking enforcement officers with the cameras probably did the trick. So I’m not surprised at the dramatic decline. People’s behavior changed. It would be interesting to see if a similar rate of decline in red light violations occurred at the various intersections where cameras were installed.
I think most people became aware of the increased enforcement because there was plenty of advance advertising regarding the new technology, both in the media and around downtown. Even if you weren’t someone who parks downtown regularly, you knew about the new AVI (automatic vehicle identification)equipment. If that didn’t do the trick, then seeing the parking enforcement officers with the cameras probably did the trick. So I’m not surprised at the dramatic decline. People’s behavior changed. It would be interesting to see if a similar rate of decline in red light violations occurred at the various intersections where cameras were installed.
Brian.. my point of interest was directed towards the moving violation numbers and revenue. The numbers offered do not break it down into parking and moving violation revenue.
If the officers were now not on traffic patrol as much(relying on the automated red light surveillance system), this would also account for the reducd revenue as well. I would imagine that many of the officer stops are for stop sign, lane change and speeding violations.
Brian.. my point of interest was directed towards the moving violation numbers and revenue. The numbers offered do not break it down into parking and moving violation revenue.
If the officers were now not on traffic patrol as much(relying on the automated red light surveillance system), this would also account for the reducd revenue as well. I would imagine that many of the officer stops are for stop sign, lane change and speeding violations.
Brian.. my point of interest was directed towards the moving violation numbers and revenue. The numbers offered do not break it down into parking and moving violation revenue.
If the officers were now not on traffic patrol as much(relying on the automated red light surveillance system), this would also account for the reducd revenue as well. I would imagine that many of the officer stops are for stop sign, lane change and speeding violations.
Brian.. my point of interest was directed towards the moving violation numbers and revenue. The numbers offered do not break it down into parking and moving violation revenue.
If the officers were now not on traffic patrol as much(relying on the automated red light surveillance system), this would also account for the reducd revenue as well. I would imagine that many of the officer stops are for stop sign, lane change and speeding violations.