HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Report on Red Light Camera Programs
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Page 1 of 8
Agenda Item 8.2
DATE: September 2, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Colleen Tribby, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Report on Red Light Camera Programs
Prepared by: Jordan Foss, Senior Management Analyst
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will review a report on the feasibility of implementing a red light camera
program as a tool to enhance public safety, including potential benefits and drawbacks of such
a program. The report is the result of Staff’s review of programs in eight California cities and
evaluation of whether similar needs exist locally.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the report and provide direction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact associated with receiving the report. Analysis of specific fiscal
impacts will be necessary if the City Council directs Staff to pursue a red light camera program.
DESCRIPTION:
Background
On April 1, 2025, the City Council directed Staff to bring back a report on the feasibility of
implementing a red light camera program as a tool to enhance public safety. As part of this
effort, the City Council requested that the report also include an evaluation of the potential
benefits and drawbacks of such a program.
Red Light Cameras
Red light cameras are traffic enforcement systems that use a combination of sensors and
cameras to detect and record vehicles that enter an intersection after the traffic signal has
turned red. There are three types of pole-mounted red light camera systems as identified in
Table 1.
100
Page 2 of 8
Table 1: Pole Mounted Red Light Camera Systems
Type Detection Method
Inductive Loop-Based In-pavement sensors detect vehicles crossing stop line after red;
camera mounted on nearby pole records violation.
Radar-Based Radar unit mounted on traffic pole tracks vehicle approach and
entry into intersection.
Video/Computer
Vision-Based
Camera with built-in video analytics detects vehicles and violations
directly from pole.
Red light cameras are typically installed at signalized intersections with a documented history
of red light violations or collisions. The technology is designed to monitor specific “approaches”
to an intersection, meaning each direction of travel (northbound, southbound, eastbound, or
westbound) that enters the intersection. For example, a four-way intersection may have up to
four monitored approaches, but research shows that agencies often select only one or two
approaches based on traffic volume, collision patterns, or community concerns. Each
monitored approach is treated as a separate enforcement location.
Red Light Camera – Efficacy
Research indicates that red light camera enforcement is associated with meaningful reductions
in fatal crashes and collisions in jurisdictions with identif ied problems. Nationwide studies show
that after activation of camera programs, fatal crashes due to red-light violations dropped by
approximately 21 percent, and all fatal crashes at signalized intersections declined by 14
percent, compared to what would have been expected without cameras1. According to the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), violation rates typically decline 30 -50% within the
first year of implementation.
Despite these safety benefits, certain studies have observed a rise in rear-end collisions. A
Federal Highway Administration study (2005) found a 10-15% rise in rear-end collisions at
camera-equipped intersections, likely due to abrupt stopping by drivers trying to avoi d
citations2. These crashes tend to be less severe and point to the need for engineering
strategies, such as appropriate yellow light intervals, to maximize overall safety.
Red Light Camera – Citation Fines and Fees
In California, citation fines are set by the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and fines are fixed;
however, the State and counties assess additional fees. For example, the base citation fine for
making an illegal right turn at a red light per the CVC is $35, and the base citation fine for
going through a solid or flashing red light is $100. However, fees can range from $100-$500
depending on the jurisdiction and severity of the infraction. Table 2 below provides a citation
cost breakdown, using Alameda County as an example.
1 Hu, Wen, and Jessica B. Cicchino. "Effects of Turning on and off Red Light Cameras on Fatal Crashes in Large U.S. Cities." Journal of
Safety Research 61 (June 2017): 1-8.
2 Federal Highway Administration, Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras – Executive Summary, FHWA-HRT-05-049 (Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Transportation, April 2005), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/.
101
Page 3 of 8
Table 2. Red Light Camera Citation Fines and Fees
Component
Right on Red
Light
Violation
Red
Light
Violation Description
Base Fine $35 $100 Set by California Vehicle Code.
State Penalty
Assessment Fees
$60 $150 Includes fees for the State Trail Court
Trust Fund, Automated Fingerprint
System Fund, DNA Identification Fund,
and State Court Facilities Construction
Fund.
County Penalty
Assessment Fees
$28 $70 Varies by county. Dispersed to the
County General Fund.
County Court Fund $20 $50 Varies by county. Supports County
courthouse and jail construction.
20% Criminal
Surcharge
$7 $20 Applied to the base fine.
EMS Assessment
Fee
$8 $20 Dispersed to Emergency Medical
Services funds.
Flat-Fee Additions $76 $76 Includes fees for County Court
operations, criminal conviction
assessment, and night court.
Cumulative Effect $234 $486 Total citation greatly exceeds the base
fine.
Red Light Camera - Operation
Red light camera programs are mostly operated through vendor contracts that include
installation, maintenance, and back-office processing services. Attachment 1 shows a
summary of the different vendors, average monthly cost per monitored approach, typical
installation costs, different services provided, and other notes. In summary, Verra Mobility (aka
Redflex) is the largest and most frequently used vendor in California, with Modaxo being the
other large vendor in the state. Both vendors provide similar services, such as enforcement,
monitoring, maintenance, and citation processing.
City Findings
Analysis of Comparable Cities
Staff reviewed red light camera programs in various California jurisdictions to understand how
they operate and identify the financial impacts. This research included cities that currently
operate such programs, as well as those that have discontinued them. Data was collected from
staff reports, vendor contracts, and publicly available sources, offering information on different
program structures, operations, and effectiveness. These findings provide context for
evaluating the feasibility and key considerations of implementing a red light camera program in
Dublin.
Attachment 2 includes a matrix summarizing the eight cities that were compared. The
comparison shows that California cities have varied experiences with red light camera
programs, with some (e.g., Fremont, Citrus Heights, and Napa) continuing operations under
102
Page 4 of 8
vendor contracts, while others (e.g., Los Angeles, El Cajon) discontinued due to concerns
about effectiveness, safety, or costs. Contract structures and program outcomes differ widely,
with annual costs ranging from around $375,000 to nearly $900,000.
Program Costs and Revenues. Staff focused on cities located in the Bay Area to
better understand cost structures in the local service area. In these cities, vendor contracts for
red light enforcement generally range between $4,000 and $6,000 per monitored approach per
month. These costs generally include equipment, installation, maintenance, and vendor review
of violations, and are usually fixed under multi-year agreements.
Vendor contracts, though, do not reflect the full cost of operating a program. Cities also
allocate staff resources for administration and oversight, along with one-time startup expenses
such as public outreach, signage, and intersection engineering adjustments. Based on
comparable cities, sworn officers, non-sworn personnel, or community services officers are
often assigned to citation review, court appearances, and program management, representing
an average of 0.50 full-time equivalent (FTE), depending on citation volume and number of
approaches in each jurisdiction.
The estimated total citation (fine and fees) for a red light violation is $490. The issuing
jurisdiction receives the base citation fine (either $35 or $100 depending on the type of
violation) and the remaining fees are distributed to county and State funds. The funding
received from these citations is used to offset program expenditures, however, it should be
noted that revenue generation is dependent upon the number of citations, while the costs are
generally fixed. Thus, sometimes the revenues fall short of full cost recovery because of the
associated staff time involved, and sometimes agencies achieve full cost recovery and even
generate additional revenues that can be used for other traffic safety improvements.
City of Napa Example. To provide an example of total program costs, Staff analyzed
the City of Napa’s red light camera program and used actual contract costs and estimated
staffing and startup costs. The City of Napa operates automated red light cameras at four
intersections, with a total of 16 monitored approaches. The cameras were installed as a result
of data from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) showing that Napa ranked 9th highest
(in 2020) out of 105 comparable jurisdictions in total fatal and injury crashes, with 90 percent of
collisions taking place at intersections. Using the Napa example, the following cost projections
illustrate the estimated cost of operating a red light camera program in 2025.
Startup Costs – Prior to the launch of their current program in December 2024,
Napa conducted community outreach, built a program website, and undertook engineering
services on existing traffic signals, such as signal timing, signage installation, and review of
traffic signal structure integrity. Startup costs are estimated at up to $75,000 per intersection.
The cost is estimated based on projections for equipment, installation, integration, staff time,
and setup fees. The total estimated startup cost for the four monitored intersections in Napa is
up to $300,000.
Ongoing Costs – The City of Napa has ongoing costs associated with their
program that are estimated to be more than $1 million annually as shown in Table 3.
103
Page 5 of 8
Contracted services costs are fixed, regardless of the number of citations issued.
Table 3: City of Napa Annual Ongoing Costs
Ongoing Cost Type Annual Amount
Contract with Modaxo (4 intersections/16 approaches) $882,240
Police Department Staffing
Community Services Officer (1 FTE)
Patrol Officer (0.25 FTE)
~$160,000
Total Estimated Annual Cost $1,042,240
Citation Fines and Fees – In the City of Napa, citations are $445 for running a
red light or turning left on a red arrow, $217 for failing to stop for a red light then turning right,
and $363 for turning right on a red light where there is a no right on red sign posted. As the
program was just initiated in December 2024, revenue data from citations is not currently
available. However, a 2023 Staff Report indicated that Napa staff estimated full cost recovery
as well as the generation of additional revenue to be available for traffic safety programs and
traffic enforcement equipment related to reducing collisions.
Benefits and Drawbacks
Potential Benefits. Red light camera programs have been linked to measurable safety
and operational improvements, including:
Violation and Collision Reductions
o Traffic violations and fatalities may see a decrease in communities with
identified problems.
Continuous Enforcement
o Cameras operate 24/7, supplementing rather than replacing sworn officer
presence.
Objective Evidence
o Systems capture photographic and video records that support citation
review and court hearings.
Potential Disadvantages. Red light camera programs present several challenges,
including:
Increased Rear-End Collisions
o Studies show that red light cameras can be associated with an increase in
rear-end collisions due to sudden braking to avoid a fine.
Public Perception Concerns
o According to a 2012 IIHS study3, some community members may question
the fairness of automated enforcement or perceive it primarily as a
revenue-generating tool.
Variable Financial Performance
o Citation revenue is often higher during early implementation but may
decline as compliance improves, creating inconsistencies in program
3 Anne T. McCartt and Angela H. Eichelberger, “Attitudes toward Red Light Camera Enforcement in Cities with Camera Programs,” Traffic
Injury Prevention, January 2012, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, accessed August 25, 2025, https://www.iihs.org/research-
areas/bibliography/ref/1886.
104
Page 6 of 8
funding over time.
Operational and Administrative Demands
o Programs require ongoing oversight by law enforcement personnel for
citation review, processing, and court appearances, contributing to annual
expenditures that must be sustained.
Needs Assessment
In assessing whether there is a need for red light cameras in Dublin, Staff looked at Dublin’s
OTS ranking among similar jurisdictions, actual collision data, and the City’s Local Roadway
Safety Plan.
OTS Ranking and Data. In 2022, Dublin ranked 85th highest out of 104 comparable
jurisdictions in total fatal and injury crashes according to OTS, with 82 percent of collisions
taking place at intersections (signalized and non-signalized) over a five-year period. Dublin
Police Services looked at overall crash data for select signalized intersections along Dublin
Boulevard between July 1, 2020 and July 1, 2025 , and identified the number that were
specifically related to red light violations. The results, shown in Table 4, indicate that these
types of collisions are relatively infrequent. In addition, it is also important to note that, over the
past five years, there have not been any fatal crashes in Dublin that were attributed to red light
violations.
Table 4: Crash Data from Red Light Violations at Select Intersections, July 1, 2020 – July
1, 2025
Major Intersection
Number
of
Collisions
Average # of
Collisions Per
Year
Dougherty Road at Dublin Boulevard 9 1.8
Hacienda Drive at Dublin Boulevard 6 1.2
Fallon Road at Dublin Boulevard 0 0
San Ramon Road at Dublin Boulevard 10 2
Tassajara Road at Dublin Boulevard 7 1.4
Village Parkway at Dublin Boulevard 15 3
Total 47 9.4
For additional reference, Table 5 provides a comparison of intersection-related collisions
(signalized and unsignalized) for a few Alameda County cities, as reported in the
Transportation Injury Mapping System data from UC Berkeley for the most recent five-year
period (2020 to 2024). These do not specify whether the collisions involved a red light
violation, but the data provides more context for the discussion. Of the total number of
collisions at intersections in Dublin, under half resulted in a broadside accident (which might
typically occur if speeding through a red light or a stop sign).
105
Page 7 of 8
Table 5: Collisions at Intersections, 2020-2024
Total
Intersection
Collisions
Broadside
Accidents
Percent
Broadside
Dublin 237 108 46%
San Leandro* 607 271 45%
Pleasanton 360 218 61%
Livermore 415 272 66%
Fremont* 972 560 58%
* Currently has a red light camera program.
Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). An LRSP uses historical collision data and an
understanding of local context to assess existing roadway safety conditions, identify areas for
improvement, and provide recommended actions with an implementation plan. Essentially, an
LRSP creates a data-driven decision-making framework to reduce the number of fatal and
severe injury collisions on local roadways. The recommendations included in the plan are both
site-specific as well as systemic safety improvements that can be applied agencywide.
Dublin’s LRSP, adopted by the City Council in January 2023, identified five emphasis areas
that deserve special focus and priority and help guide the LRSP’s recommended actions and
implementation strategies. Emphasis areas represent crash factors whose reduction would
have the greatest overall effect on traffic safety. In Dublin’s LRSP, the emphasis areas are
pedestrian collisions, nighttime safety, aging drivers (65 and older), signalized arterial/local
intersections, and aggressive and impaired driving. The LRSP collision analysis indicates that
intersections, particularly signalized ones, account for a larger share of crashes in Dublin
compared to roadway segment collisions. Rear-end and broadside crashes are the most
frequent, with contributing factors such as unsafe speed, failure to yield, and traffic signal or
sign-related violations.
Based on the analysis of the type and frequency of intersection collisions (not just for red light
violations), Dublin’s LRSP does not identify automated enforcement (i.e., red light cameras) as
a recommended strategy. Instead, it emphasizes engineering and signal timing improvements,
such as leading pedestrian intervals, bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements, and visibility
enhancements, to address the prevailing collision patterns.
Conclusion
In looking at the data, Staff does not believe that red light cameras are currently warranted,
however, there are measures identified in the Local Roadway Safety Plan that deserve a
focus, particularly in priority locations such as the signalized intersection along the Village
Parkway corridor. The next LRSP will be completed in 2028, with new data , focus areas, and
implementation strategies.
In addition, Staff will continue to monitor existing conditions and use the Traffic Safety
Committee, comprising representatives from Dublin Police Services’ traffic unit, Public Works’
transportation staff, and City maintenance staff, to discuss and resolve potential traffic safety
issues around the City.
106
Page 8 of 8
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The City Council Agenda was posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Red Light Camera Vendor Matrix
2) California Cities Comparison Matrix
107
Vendor
Average Monthly Cost per
Approach (CA or U.S.
contracts)
Typical Install / Mobilization Costs (per
intersection)Services Provided Important Notes
Verra Mobility (ATS / Redflex)
$3,000 – $6,000 (Encinitas:
$3,000; Fremont: $4,000;
Daly City historical: $6,000;
SF not disclosed but
benchmarked in range)
~$67,000 – $80,000
Full turnkey: camera install/O&M;
evidence review; citation processing;
mailing & payment; court/adjudication
support; analytics
Largest CA operator. Long-running
contracts (Fremont since 2000). San
Francisco contract extended to 2028.
CPI escalators and outage proration
used.
Modaxo (formerly
Xerox/ACS/Conduent)
~$3,700 per camera/month
(older Beverly Hills contract;
current terms not published)
~$67,000 – $80,000
Red-light enforcement; back-office
citation processing; payments; data
hosting; analytics
Current vendor in Beverly Hills and
Napa. Fixed monthly fee structure (no
per-ticket pay). Legacy provider
transitioned from ACS → Xerox →
Conduent → Modaxo
Sensys Gatso USA
$1,500 – $3,000 per
location/month (based on
Ohio/Iowa/Illinois contracts;
no active CA contracts
found)
~$67,000 – $80,000
Turnkey TRaaS (“Traffic Enforcement as a
Service”): red-light & speed
enforcement; O&M; citation processing;
payment portal; program analytics
Not currently active in CA. Active in
Midwest/East Coast. Known for
bundled speed + Red Light programs.
RedSpeed USA
$3,300 – $3,500 per
camera/month (historical
Albany, NY bid); purchase +
maintenance option (~$57k
upfront + ~$2k/mo)
~$60,000 – $80,000
Turnkey red-light & speed enforcement;
hardware; O&M; citation & payment
services
Focused in Illinois; no active CA
contracts found. Some proposals offer
“cost-neutral” (fee from fines) models.
NovoaGlobal
~$5,700 per system/month
(Everett, WA portable
system contract); no CA
contracts found
~$65,000 – $80,000
Red-light, speed, and school-zone
enforcement; citation processing; court
support; analytics
Active in Tennessee, Washington, and
Midwest; no verifiable CA contracts.
Jenoptik (hardware OEM,
TraffiStar series)
Varies — typically hardware
purchase + integrator O&M
(not published per
approach)
~$70,000+ if bundled with integrator
install
Supplies hardware (TraffiStar SR systems
for RL + speed); ANPR options; housings
Primarily a hardware provider. Turnkey
services delivered through
partners/integrators. Not documented
as direct CA operator.
Red Light Camera Vendors Attachment 1
108
City Population
(2024)Size Program Period Cameras Operated Camera Vendor Contract Cost per
Approach
Appx. Annual
Contract Cost Notes
Bakersfield 417,468 151 sq. mi. 2003 - present 10 intersections;
approaches unknown
Redflex Traffic
Systems
$3,133 per intersection,
not per approach $375,960 According to report, only 54% of citations issued
were paid.
Citrus Heights 86,909 14.2 sq. mi 2018 - present 10 cameras Redflex Traffic
Systems $4,100/month $492,000 City operates a cost-neutral contract with vendor,
but that does not account for City overhead costs.
Daly City 101,418 7.7 sq. mi.2008 - present 4 intersections;
approaches unknown
Redflex Traffic
Systems $6,000/month Unknown
approaches
No adequate data available on program and
efficiency.
El Cajon 103,291 14.4 sq. mi.1996 - 2013 Unknown American Traffic
Solutions (ATS)N/A N/A
Discontinued by City Council vote due to concerns
of safety benefits, revenue distribution, and no
significant reduction in collisions.
Fremont 228,192 77.5 sq. mi.2000 - present 12 intersections; 12
approaches
Redflex Traffic
Systems
$4,000/month
(approximately)$576,000 Vast majority of citations are for illegal right hand
turns.
Los Angeles 3,878,704 468.7 sq. mi.2001 - 2022 240 intersections; 404
approaches Private Vendor N/A N/A
Discontinued by City Council vote due to lack of
efficiency, no significant reduction in collisions,
difficulties with enforcement.
Napa 76,921 18.21 sq. mi.2024 - present 4 intersections; 16
approaches Modaxo N/A $882,240
Operated from 2011 – 2017 then discontinued due
to false citations and lawsuit. Implemented again
in 2024 at community request and executed a 5-
year contract with Modaxo.
San Leandro 86,571 13.3 sq. mi.2008 - present 4 intersections; 14
approaches
Redflex Traffic
Systems $5,200/month $873,600 Program shows fiscal vulnerabilities as it operates
on a slight loss.
California Cities Comparison Matrix
Attachment 2
109
Red Light Camera
Programs
September 2, 2025
110
Background
April 1, 2025 – City Council
direction
Staff conducted research and
analysis
111
Red Light Cameras
•What are they?
•Types of pole-mounted
camera systems:
•Inductive Loop-Based
•Radar-Based
•Video/Computer Vision-
Based
Inductive Loop System
112
Efficacy
•Reductions in fatal
crashes and collisions.
•Behavioral changes
within the first year of
implementation.
•Increase in rear-end
collisions.
113
Operation
•Mostly operated through vendor
contracts. Includes:
•Installation
•Maintenance
•Monitoring
•Administrative processing
•Cost varies on number of monitored
approaches and services provided.
114
Citation and Fines
•Fines are set by the California
Vehicle Code (CVC) and are fixed.
•$35 for making an illegal right turn at
a red light.
•$100 for going through a solid or
flashing red light.
•State and Counties assess
additional fees, which can
fluctuate.
115
Alameda County Example
Description
Red Light
Violation
Right on Red
Light ViolationComponent
Set by California Vehicle Code.$100$35Base Fine
Includes fees for the State Trail Court Trust Fund, Automated
Fingerprint System Fund, DNA Identification Fund, and State
Court Facilities Construction Fund.
$150$60State Penalty Assessment
Fees
Varies by county. Dispersed to the County General Fund.$70$28County Penalty Assessment
Fees
Varies by county. Supports County courthouse and jail
construction.
$50$20County Court Fund
Applied to the base fine.$20$720% Criminal Surcharge
Dispersed to Emergency Medical Services funds. $20$8EMS Assessment Fee
Includes fees for County Court operations, criminal conviction
assessment, and night court.
$76$76Flat-Fee Additions
Total citation greatly exceeds the base fine.$486$234Cumulative Effect
116
Comparable Cities
•Staff researched eight California
jurisdictions:
•Bakersfield
•Citrus Heights
•Daly City
•El Cajon
•Fremont
•Los Angeles
•Napa
•San Leandro
117
Comparable Cities, 2
Program Revenues
•Estimated total citation for
violation is $490.
•Issuing jurisdiction receives the
base fine ($35 or $100)
•Revenue received is used to
offset program expenses.
•Dependent on number of
citations.
Program Expenses
•Vendor contracts between $4,000
to $6,000 per approach.
•Staff Resources:
•Administration and Oversight
•Public Outreach and Signage
•Intersection Engineering
•Police Services:
•Citation Review
•Court appearances
•Program Management
118
Comparable Cities, 3
City of Napa Example
•9th / 105 comparable cities in fatal and injury
crashes.
•4 intersections; 16 approaches
•Startup Costs (estimates)
•Up to $300,000 in total
•Ongoing Costs
•Estimated Annual Cost - $1.04m
•Citation Fines and Fees
•Revenue data not currently available
•Estimated at full cost recovery
119
Benefits and Disadvantages
Potential Benefits
•Violation and Collision
Reductions
•Continuous Enforcement
•Objective Evidence
Potential Disadvantages
•Increased Rear-End Collisions
•Public Perception Concerns
•Variable Financial
Performance
•Operational and Administrative
Demands
120
Needs Assessment
•Office of Traffic Safety Ranking
•85th / 104 comparable jurisdictions.
•82% of accidents occurred at intersections over
a five-year period.
•Dublin Police Services Data
•Collisions associated to red light violations are
relatively infrequent.
•No fatal accidents in Dublin attributed to red light
violations over past five years.
121
Needs Assessment, 2
Crash Data from Red Light Violations at Select Intersections,
July 1, 2020 – July 1, 2025
Average # of Collisions Per
Year
Number of
CollisionsMajor Intersection
1.89Dougherty Road at Dublin Boulevard
1.26Hacienda Drive at Dublin Boulevard
00Fallon Road at Dublin Boulevard
210San Ramon Road at Dublin Boulevard
1.47Tassajara Road at Dublin Boulevard
315Village Parkway at Dublin Boulevard
9.447Total
122
Needs Assessment, 3
Intersection-Related Collision Data in Alameda County (2020-2024)
Percent
Broadside
Broadside
Accidents
Total Intersection
Collisions
46%108237Dublin
45%271607San Leandro*
61%218360Pleasanton
66%272415Livermore
58%560972Fremont*
*Currently has a red light program.
123
Needs Assessment, 4
Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
•Adopted by City Council in January 2023.
•Five Emphasis Areas for Special Focus and
Priority:
•Pedestrian Collisions
•Nighttime Safety
•Aging Drivers (65 and older)
•Signalized arterial/local intersections
•Aggressive and Impaired Driving
•LRSP does not identify automated
enforcement as a recommended strategy.
•Emphasizes engineering and signal timing
improvements.
124
Conclusion
•Through data analysis, red light cameras currently
not warranted.
•Local Roadway Safety Plan identified safety
measures at priority intersections.
•Next LRSP to be completed in 2028.
•Traffic Safety Committee
•Continue to monitor existing conditions.
125