Keeping an eye on things
City using cameras to monitor traffic at intersections, govern duration of signals
Some Yuma Sun readers have noticed cameras mounted to traffic signals at intersections, such as 4th Avenue and 16th Street, and wondered about their purpose. Some have asked if the cameras are “spying” on them. The newspaper reached out to the City of Yuma to find out.
“There are detection systems on some intersections to help govern the duration of traffic signals. This is fairly common across the U.S.,” Dave Nash, public affairs coordinator, said.
These overhead cameras are solely for detecting vehicles. They are in no way tied to any recording, surveillance or law enforcement system, Nash added.
The cameras produce fixed-focus, location images, which are analyzed only for the presence of motor vehicles within the defined zones. When the camera processor detects a vehicle, a signal is sent to the traffic light controller requesting green time for that zone.
This process used to be done through in-ground detection systems, but more cities are switching over to video detection. Accordingly, the Yuma Public Works Department is systemati-
cally upgrading to video detection.
Video detection is considered more cost-effective because the cameras are less expensive to repair and/or replace than cutting into the asphalt to replace in-ground detectors, which also disrupts traffic.
“An overall comparison of in-ground loops vs. the overhead cameras shows that, currently, it is more efficient from a maintenance and budget standpoint to use video detection where possible rather than the in-ground loops,” Nash explained.
The Yuma Public Works Department noted that the prime reason for the switch to video detection is to reduce maintenance. The video detection cameras will have larger vehicle detection zones, allow for more construction work to be conducted in the area of the intersection and will allow for future off-site traffic management. Plus, maintenance can be operated from the cabinet box.
And another perk might be less wait for some people, especially those driving motorcycles and bicycles. Lucy Valencia, another public affairs coordinator for the city, said that the Public Works Department confirmed that since motorcyclists (and bicyclists) have a smaller footprint than a vehicle, it could be possible that the motorcycle will be less effective in disturbing the magnetic field over the electrical inground detectors, which is what leads to its proper detection.
“The switch to video detection will both reduce the maintenance cycle and improve detection across the board,” Valencia said.
However, these traffic signal cameras are different from those that will be installed throughout the city in mid-2018. Through a private-public partnership with the city, any-COMM Holdings Corp. will invest $10 million through the placement of “smart” nodes atop of streetlights. These devices will have video- and audio-recording cameras that will be used for “improved public safety and security.” This project is being done in conjunction with a citywide conversion to LED streetlights.
Mayor Doug Nicholls expressed concerns with the privacy of these cameras during a Dec. 5 discussion of a draft resolution outlin- ing how the city may use the data obtained from the devices “to ensure that legal privacy and rights of citizens are protected.”
Nicholls did not think the draft resolution went far enough in addressing privacy issues and asked for more “explicit” details on how the city could and could not use the technology “so there isn’t room for violation of personal rights or monitoring or abuse of the system.” Nicholls said his concerns were based on those voiced by citizens.
Nicholls was especially concerned that the technology would be used to invade people’s privacy and monitor their activities without warrants, such as using it for facial recognition or identifying people’s vehicles.
At that time, City Administrator Greg Wilkinson pointed out that the city is already allowed to do some of the activities brought up by Nicholls without warrants, such as scanning license plates. He said he was concerned that the final resolution would contain “restrictions that we don’t need.”
Wilkinson said the only time data from the node cameras could be used would be after a crime has been committed. It could be used by law enforcement to identify suspects, for example, in cases of graffiti taggings or shootings.
The draft document notes that real-time surveillance can’t be conducted without a warrant and that it allows police to access data collected by the nodes “post event,” such as after a car accident.
Wilkinson clarified that listening capabilities could not be used to monitor conversations in “people’s private yards” but could be used to investigate possible crimes, such as those involving gunshots.
The draft resolution calls for the formation of a Citizens Oversight Committee consisting of the mayor and four citizens appointed by the council. It would “meet at least semiannually to provide oversight and review the purpose for accessing city information and data collected by the nodes.”
The draft document also calls for the city administrator to form a Review Committee “to provide operations, oversight, internal policies and procedures for all access and retrieval of information and data collected by the nodes.
The draft also states that only the city will be allowed direct access to the data — live or recorded — and notes that until accessed by city staff, such data is not in the possession of the city and therefore not subject to public records requests, which would be handled by the Review Committee.