LA Losing $100,000/Month on Red Light Cameras
in [Cars]
|
From: larry_scholnick on 23 Mar 2010 15:07 On Mar 23, 7:07 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > KTLA reports that LA is losing money on its red light camera program. > People ticketed by RLCs in LA can opt to perform community service > rather than pay a fine. So many people are opting for the community > service that the city of Los Angeles is losing $100,000 per month. > > All I can say is WAAAAAAAAAAAH! > -- Are they 'losing' or forgoing $100K/Mo? As written it sounds like they are merely forgoing that money. If, on the other hand, they were paying an outside processing agency for each ticket processed regardless of the eventual disposition, and the processing costs exceeded the net revenue by $100K/Mo, then that really would be a monthly loss.
From: larry_scholnick on 23 Mar 2010 15:14 On Mar 23, 12:07 pm, larry_scholnick <larry_scholn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 7:07 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> KTLA reports that LA is losing money on its red light camera program. > > People ticketed by RLCs in LA can opt to perform community service > > rather than pay a fine. So many people are opting for the community > > service that the city of Los Angeles is losing $100,000 per month. > > > All I can say is WAAAAAAAAAAAH! > > -- > > Are they 'losing' or forgoing $100K/Mo? As written it sounds like > they are merely forgoing that money. > > If, on the other hand, they were paying an outside processing agency > for each ticket processed regardless of the eventual disposition, and > the processing costs exceeded the net revenue by $100K/Mo, then that > really would be a monthly loss. Sorry for answering myself but ... I went to KTLA.com and listened to the news report. The processing costs are exceeding the net revenue. They really are Losing Money!
From: N8N on 23 Mar 2010 16:14 On Mar 23, 3:14 pm, larry_scholnick <larry_scholn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 12:07 pm, larry_scholnick <larry_scholn...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > On Mar 23, 7:07 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> KTLA reports that LA is losing money on its red light camera program. > > > People ticketed by RLCs in LA can opt to perform community service > > > rather than pay a fine. So many people are opting for the community > > > service that the city of Los Angeles is losing $100,000 per month. > > > > All I can say is WAAAAAAAAAAAH! > > > -- > > > Are they 'losing' or forgoing $100K/Mo? As written it sounds like > > they are merely forgoing that money. > > > If, on the other hand, they were paying an outside processing agency > > for each ticket processed regardless of the eventual disposition, and > > the processing costs exceeded the net revenue by $100K/Mo, then that > > really would be a monthly loss. > > Sorry for answering myself but ... > > I went to KTLA.com and listened to the news report. The processing > costs are exceeding the net revenue. They really are Losing Money! Of course they are. As more and more people become wise to the need for proper signal timing per ITE guidelines and other legalities surrounding RLC's, more and more municipalities will find that they are not a money making proposition. From what I've read, it seems that a properly set up intersection simply won't have enough violations to make the typical RLC contract anything but a loser. Allowing people to do community service rather than paying a fine defeats the whole purpo$e of the exercise! nate
From: gpsman on 23 Mar 2010 21:55 On Mar 23, 4:14 pm, N8N <njna...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 3:14 pm, larry_scholnick <larry_scholn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I went to KTLA.com and listened to the news report. The processing > > costs are exceeding the net revenue. They really are Losing Money! > > Of course they are. > > As more and more people become wise to the need for proper signal > timing per ITE guidelines and other legalities surrounding RLC's, more > and more municipalities will find that they are not a money making > proposition. Non sequitur. > From what I've read, it seems that a properly set up intersection > simply won't have enough violations to make the typical RLC contract > anything but a loser. From what you've read... there's a hoot. The stipulations of the contracts ensured that there was never a chance of much revenue generation. People are stupid, but they do occasionally read signs. > Allowing people to do community service rather > than paying a fine defeats the whole purpo$e of the exercise! No, Sparky, that's evidence ("irrefutable PROOF" in r.a.d. kook-speak) revenue is not the motive. You've read that... how many times? ----- - gpsman
From: necromancer on 24 Mar 2010 18:34
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 07:07:18 -0700, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >KTLA reports that LA is losing money on its red light camera program. >People ticketed by RLCs in LA can opt to perform community service >rather than pay a fine. So many people are opting for the community >service that the city of Los Angeles is losing $100,000 per month. > >All I can say is WAAAAAAAAAAAH! Someone call the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmbulance for the taxing authorities in LA! :) On a serious note, Brunswick recently decided to end their RLC program (granted it wasn't on the scale of LA's) claiming that the cameras had had the desited effect of making the intersections in question, "safer." (yeah, right) -- "Zed: Bring out the Gimp. Maynard: Gimp's sleeping. Zed: Well, I guess you're gonna have to go wake him up now, won't you?" |