A worker recently installed a video camera at Mendocino Avenue at Steele Lane, part
of a program allowing Santa Rosa traffic officials to monitor traffic at various intersections.
Next to the streetlight at top are traffic detection cameras that are linked to the intersection's traffic signals. Photo courtesy of a Road Warrior reader.
Santa Rosa officials have a new weapon in their battle against traffic congestion: Live video cameras.
Crews have been installing cameras across the city, recently at Mendocino Avenue and Steele Lane, that allow traffic officials to tap into a video feed to check on traffic flow.
Traffic Engineer Robert Sprinkle said the city installed the cameras at several major intersections where officials have received complaints about traffic. By monitoring the traffic, he said, officials can make adjustments to stop lights. The cameras are not used for enforcement of traffic laws.
Four of the cameras are up and running: Sebastopol Road at Stony Point Road, Guerneville Road at Marlow Road, Guerneville Road at Cleveland Avenue and Steele Lane at Illinois Street. Another camera will be installed at Bicentennial Way at Mendocino Avenue.
The cameras (see photo above) look like surveillance cameras you see in parking lots and in some stores. They’re not to be mistaken with other traffic cameras (again, please see photo above) that are tied in to traffic signals and that are used to detect traffic, or the lack of it, to make the signals more efficient.
Sprinkle said the city doesn’t record the video feeds, so officials can’t go back to check on accidents and such. Eventually, he said, he’d like to put the feeds online for public viewing.
Bryan
Money well spent for a city that cannot staff its fire stations?
December 1st, 2010 7:29 am
Jake
The video are not being recorded ….. YET.
Notice how they don’t explain precisely how the cameras “help” us…
Its a bit spooky having the government be able to watch us drive around. The technology to read license plates and hence to monitor our every move is already being used in Tiburon and East Palo Alto.
Government should NOT be allowed to view us as we drive.
December 1st, 2010 8:06 am
cara
Use them to ticket folks blocking intersections (suggest others installed at Steele Ln and 101 exits and intersection of Hearn and Santa Rosa Ave) and they will not only pay for themselves in spades but improve traffic flow.
December 1st, 2010 8:28 am
eratono
Who’s idea is this??? The ticket for a violation for these cameras will be at least $320. and up. It’s really a trap. There should be some angry people protesting this. To charge that much is just outrageous…not to mention what downtown S.R. has become with the little narrow streets with the setup there for violations. Money. It’s really about money… for who?
December 1st, 2010 9:01 am
bill
so law enforcement is mainly about cars
December 1st, 2010 9:20 am
doc holiday
Hey eratono, if you are so worried about the price of a ticket then dont block intersections or run red lights. If more people would use common sense while driving then we would have nothing to worry about.
December 1st, 2010 9:50 am
billie
While I don’t like being videotaped or photographed by anyone at anytime, I do, as a requirement of my work, spend a lot of time driving and welcome something, anything that will make traffic move better. My idea of fun is not sitting at traffic lights watching the person in the car next to me investigating the depths of their nostril for prolonged periods of time!
December 1st, 2010 9:57 am
kurt peterson
Every time our rights and freedoms are taken away it is ALWAYS TO “HELP” US! Wake Up!!!, to the police state that has taken over our country!!
December 1st, 2010 10:07 am
max
It’s a great idea! DOT uses these on freeways.
They work by monitoring traffic patterns and allowing adjustment of signals based on recent flow and not long term, old data.
Santa Rosa doesn’t need to afford all the firefighters. If you those who interact with them (police, ambulance, city counsel) they will tell you its a money drain and they do little to positively impact citizens well being.
These camera’s are not used for red light violations (old news) and if they were, isn’t that worth $320? I’d rather have somebody stop in fear of a ticket than plow into the side of my family and I.
December 1st, 2010 10:18 am
Oliver
A nice country town, population 160,000. Aggressive police every where. Unbearable parking meters. Out of control developers paving over the best farm land on earth. And we vote in a City Council who wants more of the same and now spy on us at our expense when they can’t pay the bills they already have. Shame on us.
December 1st, 2010 10:24 am
Brian
Didn’t Santa Rosa blow a ton of money on traffic cameras, only to find out they were too expensive to staff and maintain a few years back? Those cameras still perch on traffic signals like dead birds.
December 1st, 2010 11:03 am
Joe
I would hardly consider it spying, it’s not like we should have much of an expectation of privacy when driving around in our cars when the guy next to you can just look over and see in your car. Also, these cameras have nothing to do with reading license plates. The government has better things to do than watch your every move by reading your license plate. Things such as finding stolen cars, cars wanted in connection to crimes or missing people, etc.
December 1st, 2010 2:05 pm
fungusamongus
Two ways to save money for Santa Rosa and Sonoma County:
1. Erect dummy cameras but tell everyone the cameras are real. Don’t run the “cameras”, don’t service the “cameras.”
2. Since money ran short on the “SMART” train system, DON’T shorten the route that voters were promised when they voted to approve the system. Put in the entire TRACK system FIRST. Then later you can worry about the added money to purchase cars. Until the cars are purchased, use HPV (human powered vehicles) provided by the commuters themselves. Lease a Steampunk vehicle, build adapt-a-kit unit to put bikes on rails.
December 1st, 2010 2:46 pm
abe
Isn’t it great we can afford these cameras while the city turns off half of the existing street lights to save money? Trading off safety for traffic monitoring.
December 1st, 2010 3:15 pm
Thoughtful Citizen
This is just another example of big brother looking over our shoulders. What’s next Santa Rosa, full rectal exams? Toilet cams? Stop spending our money on surveillance and put it towards projects that really need it. Like bike lanes down the middle of the freeway!
December 1st, 2010 3:29 pm
Judson Spruce
Maybe I’m misreading the article, but it seems to be about improving traffic flow in the city. We all know (well, maybe not all of us) that traffic light timings and coordination between several traffic lights would make traffic flow much better, including the turn lanes. Hey Billie, hire me as a helper! I’ve got lots of ideas on how to do this.
December 1st, 2010 3:39 pm
Exasperated
Did half you people actually read completely through the article and then think about it? How could you get it so wrong?! Thank you Judson Spruce! Just yesterday I sat through I lost count how many cycles of the light at Steele and Illinois. It was horrible before the city allowed a popular fast food restaurant to build there. Now the traffic gridlock is laughable.
December 2nd, 2010 10:45 am
Pedro
VICHY FRANCE!!!!! All over again!!!
December 2nd, 2010 8:07 pm
Oliver
Yes, the thinking half seems to have read and understood this is a quality of life issue, not about someones momentary convenience.
December 3rd, 2010 9:24 am