<![CDATA[PRISM ENGINEERING, SAFETY FIRST FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING & PLANNING

<![CDATA[PRISM ENGINEERING, SAFETY FIRST FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING & PLANNING - NEWS]]>Thu, 01 Oct 2026 11:11:28 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[PRISM Engineering's Traffic Engineering Expert Witness Discipline is Expanding]]>Wed, 21 Jun 2023 21:54:49 GMThttps://www.prism.engineering/news/prism-engineerings-traffic-engineering-expert-witness-discipline-is-expandingGrant P. Johnson, Registered Traffic Engineering in the State of California, has been taking on numerous expert witness cases for defense and plaintiff cases. A champion of safety, he has a common sense approach to finding the details needed to win the case on the merits of the evidence and potential for defense or liability.

see EXPERT WITNESS in Traffic Engineering page

An extension of Traffic Engineering,

Expert Witness Research and Testimony

is about having intimate knowledge of the regulations,
and details, and precedent for Traffic Engineering standards.

Grant P. Johnson, TE is a registered Traffic Engineer in the State of California, the only state in the union with this special distinction. Now a requirement of many government jurisdictions to qualify traffic studies, the Traffic Engineer is being asked to sign documents as an authority on the subject of all things pertaining to traffic and regulation. In Expert Witness testimony and research, the title of Traffic Engineer enhances credibility.

He is currently working on several cases as an Expert Witness throughout Northern, Central, and Southern California cities and counties, including working with Caltrans.

Grant Johnson has current "hands-on" experience in all things traffic engineering. When making a visit to an accident site, he gathers the best information and evidence possible.

As a commercial pilot for drone cameras licensed by the FAA, he is fully registered and highly skilled with a flying camera that he uses for commercial purposes. As an information gathering tool, he has found that properly placed drone footage can significantly enhance understanding of the situation with unique visual perspective.

Taking video of streets, intersections, parking lots, using multiple drones simultaneously if needed, he can get all needed angles and make a better assessment of the technical situation, from a bird's eye view, as well as the drivers perspective in the car.

The elevated video(s) can show signal operations from multiple approaches simultaneously and capture signal malfunctions or even mis-programming.

From a defense standpoint, he can determine the proper design of intersections, signal systems, or freeway ramps, etc. Using the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or the MUTCD as a starting point, he can defend a properly installed traffic control on a street system.

He has the experience needed to detect and determine proper/improper design or installation of traffic control devicesby observing from a high level view, combined with drivers eye ground level video, to see how drivers see the situation(s) and react to a poorly designed or outdated installation.

Do drivers consistently run red lights at or near the accident location?
Do they disregard traffic control of another type, such as a stop sign?
Is the design poorly thought out or implemented?

In Marin County, Mr. Johnson worked with County Counsel and the Department of Public Works to study and determine the problems at the Four Corners intersection, where a lawsuit was brought against the county after an accident. PRISM Engineering worked with the county staff to provide a new design for the intersection that addressed existing problems and created a more modern and safe standard, for not more than the cost of paint and some minor engineering design fees.

PRISM's custom design actually helped to slow speeds through installation of special striping and pavement markings, using the available pavement space to relocate striping, adjust the stop bars to better locations, and better define the travel pathways (less ambiguous) to achieve smoother flows of vehicles and bikes. PRISM creates movies from our videos to clearly show the complete picture from many viewpoints.

Using this capability to quickly make the movie, we can showcase how drivers behave in the accident location, good or bad behavior, which helps to establish the patterns with visual proof. All accident records in the vicinity are researched to see if there are significant data or not, to show a pattern of similar accidents.

Mr. Johnson is an expert in regulation and design standards such as the MUTCD and related materials and manuals on lighting, road and intersection design. He can determine if a roadway has been properly or improperly designed, and also knows the traffic engineering law and principles of safety related to all traffic control devices in use today. He also personally drives through the site and inspects traffic conditions and sight distance from the drivers point of view, to make a determination if there are factors related to safety compromises or safety enhancements for all drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

His engineering work in China enhanced specific skills for great attention to detail. In the physical transportation world, he has extensive experience in checking complex plans for construction of China's major High Speed Rail projects dealing with regulations and standards and safety conditions.

Given the top inspection responsibility there on site as the Chief Site Engineer (CSE), he was in responsible charge of all quality control and safety on a 70 kilometer section of high speed rail construction, a new HSR rail line connecting Beijing to Shenyangin Northern China. The job included:

Overseeing the entire construction process,
Having "Stop Order" authority over construction companies there, to shut down construction if standards were not met or if safety was ignored
Closely examining and reviewing construction and design plan sheets in the office, to be prepared in the field to inspect specific high speed rail projects in the entire 70km section, including tunnel, bridge, box culvert, open cut, piles and piers, and foundations construction.

As a part of the job, surprise inspections in the field were conducted to make sure plans were followed closely by construction companies, and to document all activities and exceptions for correction by photo and video on the numerous variety of construction sites. Regular formal meetings were held with the national HSR authorities in the Communist government, where he reported on compliance on the site and for all aspects of construction and safety protocols, as well as quality of materials. He kept a daily journal, a spreadsheet database, and prepared weekly extensive reports written in English and in Chinese Mandarin officially documenting all of this information for the government.

Grant says: "The work was challenging and trained my eye for looking for all details of transportation construction, and installations of what was done right and what was done incorrectly."

When I examine the transportation systems in the US where an accident took place, whether it be a bike, a pedestrian, a train, freeway, city street, or two-lane highway, I'm looking for the big picture of whether the traffic control or road design or construction was done properly with safety in mind, according to the accepted design standards such as the AASHTO Green Book, the MUTCD, or from Engineering Judgment by Inspection and Analysis and Experience.

]]><![CDATA[Red Light Cameras, perhaps the worst Traffic Engineering blunder, ever.]]>Wed, 21 Jun 2023 21:37:22 GMThttps://www.prism.engineering/news/red-light-cameras-perhaps-the-worst-traffic-engineering-blunder-ever

Red Light Cameras, actually INCREASING accidents. FACT.
David Goldstein of Los Angeles television station KCAL:

When we asked, the LAPD became very defensive. The sergeant in charge told me in an e-mail, “The city would hope that it is the goal of KCBS/KCAL to discuss the positive aspects of the photo red light program.” So we filed a public records request. The department charged us more than $500 for a computer run. When we got the numbers back, they told a different story. We looked at every accident at every red light camera intersection for six months of data before the cameras were installed and six months after.
The final figures? Twenty of the 32 intersections show accidents up after the cameras were installed! Three remained the same and only nine intersections showed accidents decreasing.

story source:
https:/www.motorists.org/issues/red-light-cameras/increase-accidents/

I myself, as a Traffic Engineer, and being an advocate of SAFETY FIRST always, side with their removal. I also having personal stake in the game, having direct experience with dangerous and erratic drivers at red light camera installations, who carry out bad driving behavior especially at red light camera intersections, where they try to avoid a ticket once the light is no longer green. SLAM BRAKES!

LOS F intersection in Fresno, CA,
where vehicles in left turn lanes try to get through and the headway between vehicles is TYPICAL at 20-30 feet. Slamming brakes in the midst of these flows causes an accident! Photo source: PRISM EngineeringThis happened to us, so I have some personal data on the matter and have witnessed up close and personal, where an accident with our personal vehicle many years back was directly related to an erratic driver in front of us slamming his brakes at 20 mph as cars, including ours, were uniformly making their way through a green light. Once yellow, this driver SLAMS his brakes, unexpectedly, even after he crosses the limit line. No warning, just slam the brakes. You can almost stop on a dime at 20 mph. And the driver just a car length behind you has no chance to react in time. The way our system works...? ...the person behind is always at fault. This is just wrong. Nobody has a 2 second headway as cars are clearing a left turn pocket. NOBODY has this. That would be equivalent to about 60 feet or 3 or 4 car lengths, to get a 2 second headway. You would get honked at it you did this, not many cars would clear the light. So drivers who slam brakes in such situations are actually the irresponsible driver. I think we all know this.

The Right Turn Red Light Camera Fiasco
And then there is the driver making a right turn, pulling just past the stop line to get into position to make the right turn, and then stopping, waiting for traffic, but the camera doesn't process this, the camera makes a decision to snap a photo and call that "running a red light" as if it compares to a driver in a through lane actually doing that, posing great danger! The right turn is interesting. You can make a right turn on red in most situations. You have to get your car over the line to make that move, to find the gap in traffic. It is not running a red light, and there is no crime for crossing the limit line to do that, in fact, you must cross a limit line. But the letter of the law. This is a pet peeve of mine, that law enforcement would actually enforce such minor minor "infractions" of stopping, given the so-called California stop, the common sense stop, which doesn't annoy drivers behind them, which is not only common, but safe. When enforced, its just wrong. Enforcing this is in the same category as the red light camera, causing more harm than good. Especially when compared to someone who blasts through a stop sign or signal posing great danger to cross traffic. Get the real criminals here, and stop trying to collect money from good drivers. A driver can actually make the determination if it is safe enough, if there is adequate vision of the situation. We can use common sense. But there are also some law enforcement officers, and cameras, who think otherwise, and they enforce the letter of the law, which would convict 99% of all drivers who might be at that wrong place at the wrong time. Gotcha!
Car making right turn. Photo source: PRISM Engineering, Hollywood, CA

Today, the Governor of Texas did the right thing, and BANNED them from their state.
Actually, Governor, this was too long in coming. I have been against these red light camera installations, instinctively knowing that they were more dangerous than good, more unfair than just, and just a bad idea of how local cities can make more money by partnering with some tech company who wrote a bad app, bad software designed to nab people without people fair to people, without involving a human that could make some judgment calls. It was always a bad idea. And I also know that not all Traffic Engineers share my view, in fact, I have debated many of these over the years. Turns out that they were wrong after all. I am glad to see the menace of technology catching humans making mistakes, and not allowing for some humanity, get reduced... even while some countries are upping their ante by installing more and more cameras all over their countries, to nab humans making mistakes. It's not a good trend elsewhere. But I applaud the trend in the United States on this matter.
In California, some cities are still using these. MOST have been discontinued. Program Status as of 2017. Links to active locations on list below.
One of the few remaining red light camera installations in California, in Bakersfield. Most all cities have yanked them out already. They have been on the whole, VERY UNFAIR to drivers.
Source: Google Street View, 2019

CITY NAME RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM STATUS:
AlhambraRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
BakersfiledBakersfield Red Light Camera Intersection Locations
Baldwin ParkRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Bell GardensRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
BellRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
BellflowerRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
BelmontRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
BerkeleyRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Beverly HillsBeverly Hills Red Light Camera Intersection Locations
Boyle HeightsRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
BurlingameRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Canyon CountryRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
CapitolaCAPITOLA RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
CarmichaelRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
CarsonRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Cathedral CityCATHEDRAL CITY RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
Century CityRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
CerritosRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
ChinoRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Chula VistaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Citrus HeightsCITRUS HEIGHTS RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
City of CommerceCITY OF COMMERCE RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
City of IndustryRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
ComptonRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
ConcordRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
CoronaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Costa MesaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
CovinaCOVINA RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
Culver CityCULVER CITY RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
CupertinoRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Daly CityDALY CITY RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
DavisRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Del MarDEL MAR RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
DowneyRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
DublinRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Echo ParkRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
El CajonRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
El MonteRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
El SegundoRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
El SobranteRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
El ToroRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Elk GroveELK GROVE RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
EmeryvilleRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
EncinitasENCINITAS RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
EscondidoRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
FairfiledRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Foster CityRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
FremontFREMONT RED LIGHT CAMERA TICKET INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
FresnoRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
FullertonRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Garden GroveGARDEN GROVE RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATION
GardenaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
GlendaleRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
GlendoraRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Grand TerraceRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Hacienda HeightsRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
HawthorneHAWTHORNE RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
HaywardRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
HemetRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
HesperiaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
HighlandRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Hubtington BeachRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Hubtington ParkRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Indian WellsRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
IndioRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
InglewoodRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Kearny MesaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
La JollaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Laguna HillsRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Laguna WoodsRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Lake ForestRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Lake MercedRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
LA MTALA MTA Red Light Camera Intersection
LancasterRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Linda VistaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Loma LindaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Long BeachRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Los AlamitosLOS ALAMITOS RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
Los AltosRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Los AlgelesRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Los OsosRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
LynwoodLYNWOOD RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
MantecaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Mar VistaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
MarysvilleRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Menlo ParkMENLO PARK RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
MillbraeMILLBRAE RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
MilpitasRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Mira MesaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Mission ValleyRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Mission ViejoRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
ModestoRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
MontclairRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
MontebelloMONTEBELLO RED LIGHT CAMERA TICKET INTERSECTION LOCATIONS

LOS F intersections in Fresno, CA

The Right Turn Red Light Camera Fiasco

Car making right turn. Photo source: PRISM Engineering, Hollywood, CA

CITY NAME RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM STATUS
Monterey ParkRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
MoonclairRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Moreno ValleyRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Morgan HillRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
MurrietaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
NapaNAPA RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
National CityRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
NewhallRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
NewarkNEWARK RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
North HighlandsRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
North HollywoodRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
NorthridgeRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
OaklandRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
OceansideRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Orange CountyRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Orange CountyRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
OxnardOXNARD RED LIGHT CAMERA TICKET INTERSECTIONS
Palm DesertRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Oanorama CityRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
ParamountRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
PasadenaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Pico UnionRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
PlacentiaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Playa Del ReyRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
PomonaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Porter RanchRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
PowayRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Ranco CordovaRANCHO CORDOVA RED LIGHT CAMERA TICKET INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
Rancho CucamongaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
ReddingREDDING RED LIGHT CAMERA TICKET INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
RedlandsRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Redwood CityRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
ResedaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
RialtoRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
RiversideRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
RocklinRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
RosevilleRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Rowland HeightsRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
SacramentoSACRAMENTO RED LIGHT CAMERA TICKET INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
San BernardinoRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
San BrunoRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
San CarlosRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
San ClementeRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
San DiegoRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
San FranciscoSAN FRANCISCO RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
San JoseRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
San Juan CapistranoRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
San LeandroSAN LEANDRO RED LIGHT CAMERA TICKET INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
San MateoSAN MATEO RED LIGHT CAMERA TICKET INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
San RaphaelRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
San RamonRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Santa AnaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Santa ClaritaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Santa CruzRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Santa MariaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Santa RosaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Solano BeachSOLANO BEACH RED LIGHT CAMERA TICKET INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
South GateRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
South San FranciscoRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
StocktonRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Suisun CityRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
SunnyvaleRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
TemeculaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Thousand OaksRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
TierrasantaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
TorrenceRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
TracyRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Union CityRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
University HeightsRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
UplandRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
ValenciaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
VenturaVENTURA RED LIGHT CAMERA TICKET INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
Vero BeachRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
VictorvilleRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
VistaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
WalnutRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
West CovinaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
West HollywoodWest Hollywood Red Light Camera Intersection Locations
WestchesterRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
WestwoodRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
WhittierRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
WilmingtonRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
Yuba CityRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED
YucaipaRED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM DISCONTINUED

]]><![CDATA[AAA Study Found Electric Vehicles Range Lacking in Cold Weather]]>Fri, 08 Feb 2019 16:19:14 GMThttps://www.prism.engineering/news/aaa-study-found-electric-vehicles-range-lacking-in-cold-weatherOne of the drawbacks to green alternatives in automobiles is the extreme amount of amps it takes to run a heater than can compete with the heat given from an internal combustion engine. The electric cars must drain the battery to run a heater, and according to tests, extreme winter coldness can cut the range by HALF. What this means, is that it takes as much energy to run the heater as is does to actually run and move the car! With the internal combustion engine alternative, the heater is run just fine from merely an offload transfer of heat from the cooling system fluid passing through a heat transfer box in the cab. Compare that "free heat" to running COILS that glow orange with a fan to blow air past it in the electric vehicle, an energy cost you paid for the night before when you charged your electric car. Like running 10 blow dryers at the same time to heat the car!! Think what kind of cost that is. I would think twice before using that kind of energy on myself for heat, because AFTER ALL, we would be paying for that car heat specifically, charging our hypothetical electric car right out of our own electrical bill for our home. Would you run 10 blow dryers at home to heat yourself temporarily in a small space that has lots of glass windows continually getting cooled by freezing winds against the glass? In an electric car, that's what takes place. Your electric bill is going right out the windows. In a gas powered car? It's a "free" heat, going to be used one way or another, so there is no additional loss from using gas.
"If an EV requires 40 kWh to recharge a fully depleted battery, and the rate is 18 cents per kWh, that's $7.20 for a fill-up. Depending on the Southern California Edison rate plan, a 2018 Tesla Model 3, rated at 26 kWh/100 miles, would cost as little as $1.56 for 50 miles' worth of power if home charging started at 11 p.m. Or it could cost four times as much, $6.37, if the car was routinely charged during peak hours." (source: EDMUNDS.COM)

source: Ford.com Focus

DETROIT (AP) — Cold temperatures can sap electric car batteries, temporarily reducing their range by more than 40 percent when interior heaters are used, a new study found.

“It would easily use double the amount of power for that 15-mile trip,” said Hughes, who owns four Teslas and runs a business that refurbishes and sells salvaged Tesla parts."
Electric cars are far more expensive than meets the eye. If you have PGandE in California for home energy, then you are going to be paying the absolute top dollar rates, making it potentially close to a $10/gallon equivalent in cost to run an electric vehicle, and maybe even more in the winter if you run your heater.

It costs 12 cents an hour to run a blow dryer, up to 25 cents in high energy cost areas. But to run a heater in a Tesla, for instance, this can sap your car's battery
Read full article here:
https://www.apnews.com/04029bd1e0a94cd59ff9540a398c12d1

]]><![CDATA[So long, steering wheel]]>Mon, 08 Oct 2018 23:32:04 GMThttps://www.prism.engineering/news/so-long-steering-wheelTransportation is changing rapidly. The United States Department of Transportation has a new plan released to fast-track the adoption of autonomous vehicles. It is at the doors already. By adjusting the "standards" for vehicle safety to remove certain items like steering wheels, foot pedals, etc., a truly autonomous car can be made, taking the human driver element and removing it altogether!

Under current US safety rules, a motor vehicle must have traditional controls, like a steering wheel, mirrors, and foot pedals, before it is allowed to operate on public roads. But that could all change under a new plan released on Thursday by the Department of Transportation that’s intended to open the floodgates for fully driverless cars.
The department, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “intends to reconsider the necessity and appropriateness of its current safety standards” as applied to autonomous vehicles, the 80-page document reads. In particular, regulators say they will look to change those safety standards “to accommodate automated vehicle technologies and the possibility of setting exceptions to certain standards — that are relevant only when human drivers are present.”

PRISM Engineering sees the whole landscape changing, and rapidly. The status quo in transportation planning is outdated already. Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners are going to be updating all of their methods to morph into what will be the future of transportation: autonomous smart and programmed driverless vehicles. It is going to require a wholesale revision to street systems, sidewalks, bike paths, and freeway systems. It is going to see a repurposing of roadways that only need 7 foot lanes instead of 12, unless the width of the vehicles are widened to 10 feet, which would be nice. Vehicles are going to travel much closer together, much much closer, so you will have a greatly enhanced capacity, and if travel demand remains the same, you are going to see all congestion completely disappear. Capacity will be increased, 10 fold, or an order of magnitude.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/4/17936576/self-driving-car-av-guidelines-3-nhtsa-elaine-chao

]]><![CDATA[Bike and Pedestrian Fatalities Higher than Ever in USA in 2018]]>Mon, 07 May 2018 07:00:00 GMThttps://www.prism.engineering/news/bike-and-pedestrian-fatalities-higher-than-ever-in-usa-in-2018Bike and Pedestrian Fatalities Higher than Ever in USA. Current Methods of Safety Not Working to Reduce Fatalities

The bottom line is, the needle is not moving in the right direction to make people safer.

With all of the billions that have been spent in the last decade to improve bike facilities and pedestrian facilities, we should see the number of fatalities each year drop. But just the opposite has been happening.

Isn't it is time to wake up and acknowledge this and consider current methods? Methods like Cycle Tracks, more frequent Cross Walks, more Pedestrian Signals, Road Diets, and Complete Streets. All of these are relatively new pushes in the USA, and we are seeing now the data that shows fatalities are UP.

Way up.

The graph to the left shows that pedestrians are being killed in much higher numbers and rates now compared to a decade ago.

If there are 37,000+ vehicle related deaths each year in the USA, and Pedestrians account for 15% of these, and they used to be only 11%, then this 4% increase represents 1,500 MORE pedestrian deaths each year compare to just 10 years ago. The 37,000+ number is also at a peak.

Obviously, whatever is the mainstream safety push for transportation is not working to even bring down the number of fatalities each year in the USA, in fact, it is going the opposite direction. Current methods are clearly not working and should be reconsidered as a whole. Nobody quite understands this counter-intuitive result, but the Governor's Highway safety Association is aware of it. Here is what they are saying:

"IT IS ALARMING," says GHSA* executive director Jonathan Adkins, "and it's counter-intuitive." (*Governor's Highway safety Association).  

We need to pay attention to the facts, the accident history. "There's been an assumption that, because of increased safety of vehicles as we move toward semi-autonomous vehicles, that traffic deaths were going to go down," Adkins says. "We're seeing just the opposite, unfortunately, with a particular spike as it relates to pedestrians and cyclists."

from NPR's Pedestrian Fatalities Remain At 25-Year High For Second Year In A Row:

After two years of marked increases, the number of pedestrian fatalities in the U.S. is holding steady with nearly 6,000 pedestrians killed in 2017, according to estimates from the Governors Highway Safety Association.

That's a 25-year high, GHSA says. While the rise "appears to be tapering off," the group said, the "continuation of pedestrian fatalities at virtually the same pace ... raises continued concerns about the nation's alarming pedestrian death toll."

New traffic methods for PEDS/Bikes have not moved the needle. They LOOK good, but... Cycle Tracks and XWalks are not solving it. PED bridges are not cutting the fatalities (UP! to 40k / year in USA) ...no improvements! "Vision Zero" as currently envisioned seems beyond reach. We need new Engineered & real solutions that will eliminate mixing of vulnerable travel modes with vehicles. J-Walkers, PEDS crossing paths with vehicles, cyclists mixing with cars/trucks assuming safety, while traveling along side some incompetent or risk-taking drivers: HUMAN factors... and not Improving. 

The assumption that any kind of "new and improved" traffic control device specifically for PEDS or BIKES will make them safer needs to be questioned, since the accident fatality data does not bear this out. The needle has been moving in just the opposite direction, and we can no longer assume that more striping, different striping, or even complete streets will make pedestrians safer. What needs to happen is a realization that MORE pedestrians mingled with Vehicles on roadways where cars/trucks can hit people directly, is turning out to be a dangerous thing.

]]><![CDATA[UBER Autonomous Car FAILED in 2018, but...given ANY other car, the same accident would have happened.]]>Sat, 24 Mar 2018 00:50:58 GMThttps://www.prism.engineering/news/uber-autonomous-car-failed-butgiven-any-other-car-the-same-accident-would-have-happenedYes, this UBER car completely FAILED to even slow down, BUT... a human would have failed to slow down too, in fact, by the time a human could have possibly even seen this pedestrian, they could not get their foot on the brake in time, or swerve the wheel in time. Read on...

Let's be reasonable... there is liability on all sides enough to go around. No human could have stopped in time, there wasn't enough PERCEPTION TIME, or REACTION TIME, let alone braking time. Total distance needed to stop: 300 feet according to Caltrans. The pedestrian lady shows up on camera at 100 feet. This is also when a human could see her. 60 feet is just the perception time for a human at 40 mph. Also we know from several studies that humans can't see so well at night. In fact, in testing, humans 65 and older can only begin to see a pedestrian in the dark at about 65 feet. Young people 18-30 at 105 feet. This correlates with the video. You can only perceive what you can see.

Let's also not forget about the environment. It practically INVITED this lady to cross the street where she did, at about the most dangerous place you could jaywalk, she was on a sidewalk in the median that actually LED HER THERE. The median was decorated just like a park, and had a sidewalk that led to it from the bridge, but had no way out except to JWALK. This is a liability too. It is a pedestrian trap.

Illustration: Grant Johnson, TE

Bloomberg Forensic crash analysts who reviewed the video said a human driver could have responded more quickly to the situation. Really?

When I read this sensational article, I cringed at the bold statement. I too reviewed the video. The pedestrian was wearing DENIM pants and a BLACK shirt. Her bike was behind her and had no visible reflectors. I could see that there were only THREE lane stripes visible between the vehicle and the pedestrian, a distance of about 100 feet on Mill Ave. This would be the beginning of perception if a driver is alert. Reviewing the "Safe Stopping Sight Distance" standards from Caltrans Highway Design Manual Table 201.1 , it states that a vehicle traveling 40 mph (the speed of the UBER car) would need 300 feet of distance to safely stop. There was only had 100 feet. How is it then that these analysts are stating that a human could have responded quicker, when the traffic engineering knowledge in place says that more than three times the distance would be needed (300 feet needed to prevent collision) ?

Bloomberg Analyst states that UBER car should have detected pedestrian in median, and BRAKED. Really?

False. First of all, there is a little grove of trees and thick brush between the car's vantage point (below) and where the pedestrian/bike wouold have been in the median before entering the road. Is that how we humans drive, when we see a pedestrian near the edge of a roadway, we begin to brake? Hardly. We sail on past unless they enter the road. Why would programmers make autonomous vehicles brake whenever they saw a pedestrian that is not in the road? Its ridiculous to assume that, or that there would be a human behavior prediction model on random things. Also, there is no way software using lidar could effectively detect a human behind a grove of trees and bushes blocking the view, anymore than it could detect a pedestrian about to come around the corner of a building. It would ignore it just like a human would ignore it because they actually can't see it at all, in the dark.

STUDIES on VISIBILITY at NIGHT with DARK CLOTHES

The pedestrian hit by the UBER car was wearing a black shirt, and Levis.

Visibility of a Young Person: Age 18-30 = 105 feet
Visibility of an Old Person: Age 65+ = 65 feet

These are measurements while driver is looking slightly to the left of lane, and this visibility is also related to the fact that headlights are slightly aimed more to the right than they are to the left, a safety feature for not blinding oncoming traffic.

When a pedestrian gets in front of us, then is the time that we will brake, not when they are behind trees and bushes where we can not see them or prepare for their entry into the road, because they are hidden. These newspaper analysts are assigning blame to autonomous technology as if a human could have done a better job of it, as if they know, ...they don't know. The fact is, when pedestrians suddenly enter a high speed road into oncoming traffic, it takes a certain significant distance for a driver to first,
   1) PERCEIVE that they need to brake, then
   2) REACT by engaging their foot to the brake (or alternatively, swerving), and then the
    3) BRAKING time after the first two time periods to bring the vehicle to a stop, a time which depends on weather, tires, friction, weight of vehicle, etc etc.
The first step, in this case at 40 mph, takes 60 feet to perceive. The second step takes at least that long again, to react and move a foot to the brake, so the vehicle has effectively already moved 120 feet, at least, before the vehicle even begins to mechanically slow down by the braking process. The pedestrian is not even seen before 105 feet by a young driver, 65 feet by an old drive, so this pedestrian will be hit at FULL SPEED in ANY case with a human driver. You can't brake for that which you can not see. UBER had a chance to improve on this with LIDAR, but UBER did fail to deliver on shaving down that 120 perception and reaction time. On an autonomous vehicle this is theoretically supposed to be a near zero time, instantaneous computer processing, so they say. Was UBER software still trying to calculate what in the world it was seeing? If it knew, it could have saved this woman, like no other human possibly could. So I say, let's not bag on UBER and autonomous, let's be reasonable and hope for better autonomous reactions in highly confusing situations in the future.

Street Lights (luminaires) are in the Wrong Place. Lighting LIABILITY.

What appear to be pedestrian pathways are leading to darkened areas of the road at night. Why were these pathways built and not properly supported with signage and lighting? Why would they intersect the road at a location where drivers would least expect a pedestrian to cross (JWALK)?

I find it strange that there is a paved walkway / pathway in the median that leads to the street in two locations (the X path in the median), but the street lamps are positioned between these, effectively making the intersection of these pathways with the roadway completely in the dark at night. Coupled with trees and bushes, you have a serious visibility problem. This is the liability: Expectations.

There is a lot of LIABILITY to go around here, in Road Design, in Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety too.

Maybe it is just me, but this median is attractive. It actually looks like a park.
It looks like park with trees and pathways and rocks.
It looks inviting. But its in the wrong location. And at night, there is a serious problem with lighting in the wrong places, and pathways leading to a JWALK situation without a crosswalk or warning signs. At the ground level, it is confusing for both pedestrians and drivers who may see a ped crossing in a strange place, unexpected.

After taking a tour with Google street view, I could see that there is a sidewalk that is on the adjacent bridge that actually leads pedestrians into this DEAD END median "park" complete with pathways with no way out, except to JWALK.

See the pedestrians on the sidewalk that leads to the median which is just past the freeway ? There is even a pedestrian sitting booth in the side of the bridge here, a bridge with no way out up ahead. It is a beautiful walkway on the bridge, but with deadends at both ends of the bridge. Why are pedestrians using it?
If you build it, they will come.
Note: this bridge is one-way traffic for the SB traffic, Mill Ave.

A Dead-End sidewalk, with no safe way out, and no warnings for peds already in the median.

Sure, there is a sign there that says NO PEDESTRIANS and USE CROSSWALK (see photo below), but look at what direction it is facing. It is facing west, perpindicular to the sidewalk, to warn pedestrians on the other sidewalk to not come over into the median. In other words, if you are a pedestrian from the bridge on that side of this one way segment of road, you will not see this sign. You have no warnings on the bridge. In fact, if a pedestrian tried to view this sign they might interpret it to mean, "continue forward to the crosswalk" (in the direction of the arrow) rather than cross to leave the median. Then the pedestrian has this beautiful paved brick pathway that leads them, not to a crosswalk, but to a curb, faced with a decision to cross four lanes of high speed traffic without a crosswalk, without a warning, without a street light.

I can see many pedestrians making a serious mistake with this kind of design and lack of guidance. I believe there is serious liability here.

Architects, Planners and Engineers in their quest to make beautiful transportation facilities need to also think about safety in design and how the user will use the feature or facility. They must also think about if the transportation "art" is confusing, especially from a safety standpoint. This particular design should have had fences, no paved pathways to confuse, and certainly some guidance to peds. The pathways in no case should have connected directly to the curbs of the roadway as if to lead a pedestrian there. The bridge should not have encouraged pedestrians to use the median side of the bridges, as this can only lead to this dead end, on both bridges!

Also, a pedestrian seeing a paved pathway, a short cut, and a sign that says in effect "don't use me" is a very mixed message.

Grant Johnson, TE

Sources: All street view and aerial photos from Google Maps. Illustrations by Grant Johnson, TE

]]><![CDATA[Autonomous Self-Driving Cars and Trucks and Transit]]>Fri, 09 Mar 2018 23:29:40 GMThttps://www.prism.engineering/news/autonomous-self-driving-cars-and-trucks-and-transitOften depicted in way over simplified conceptual drawings, the Autonomous Vehicle is consistently misunderstood.

Autonomous Vehicles: In order for there to be compelling reason to incur the impact and expense of potentially retooling the entire vehicle industry, there would need to be compelling improvements to safety, capacity / efficiency, as well as the environment. The autonomous vehicle has in principle, the capacity to improve all three, but the conceptual illustrations one can find today on the internet when searching for "autonomous vehicles" leave much to be desired... they generate more questions than answers in one's mind. They are confusing. Such as why does a picture show all this "connectivity and sensors" from each vehicle, but the traffic pattern on the freeway is identical to existing conditions? Where is the benefit? Capacity increase? Or why would one think that it would be a good idea to show vehicles criss-crossing past each other at right angles in an uncontrolled intersection, narrowly missing bumpers, as if that is a safe idea or design? Logically, it's not. A roundabout would be a much better idea, lower speeds, and significantly reduced conflict points (goes from 9 potential conflicts down to just 1). In fact, it doesn't make any sense to introduce such a fallible and dangerous situation where serious injury can take place if technology fails in any way. Also, what about bikes and pedestrians in such a situation? Its as if there were no serious thought put into these concepts when it comes to having Complete Streets.

UBER Autonomous car hits pedestrian. news makes it look like autonomous is not safe

In my view, to be fair, a pedestrian was walking their bike across two lanes of a four lane boulevard that had a large median, in the dark, no crosswalks, becasue it was nowhere near an intersection opening (she was crossing a left turn bay first, an area where pedestrians are never expected. Technically, the pedestrian walking her bike was jaywalking in a high speed area, in the dark. In the video the bike is visible at a distance of about 60-100 feet (only three dashed stripes visible, 72 feet distance) . However, for a 45 mph roadway, the Safe Stopping Sight Distance is 360 feet. The car was traveling 40 mph, and a human would need 300 feet to stop in time. There is no way this was possible for a human driver to avoid even if they had seen her 200 feet back instead of 100. By the time a human's foot lifts from the floor to press the brake pedal, at least one second has gone by. They would have already hit this pedestrian before the vehicle even had a chance to slow down. Thne formula for this is dPRT = 1.47 Vt (US Customary), which means there is at least 60 feet of travel distance at 40 mph before the driver would even PERCEIVE that they need to hit the brake. Then there is the time for the foot to lift from the floor to the pedal and hit the brake. The pedestrian in the mean time, in this case, is hit, with or without an autonomous vehicle.

The cyclist/pedestrian did not look at the approaching car, until the last second, it was as if they were oblivious to the dangers of crossing a street, a straight street, where it would be extremely easy to see oncoming headlights. Who is at fault? In my view, absolutely the pedestrian. Because it was dark, this pedestrian was not readily visible with headlights. Yes, the UBER car's lidar or radar most certainly should have picked this up in the dark as it does not need light to function, but it failed on that. This is irrelevant as to why this accident happened, it would have happened with a regular driver and a regular car. A human would not have been able to react in time based on our most basic standards of road design. This is a completely unfair story and writeup, painting some narrative that driverless cars are more dangerous than human drivers. Not if this accident would have happened otherwise. How often pedestrians in the path of moving vehicles at night, have been hit. How dangerous it is for a pedestrian to cross a street in the dark, with oncoming traffic, and fail to yield the right of way, while remaining mostly invisible?

what components are in an autonomous car ?

Stopping Sight Distance = PERCEPTION TIME + REACTION TIME + BRAKING TIME
Autonomous vehicles theoretically change this equation to: SuperFast PERCEPTION TIME + SuperFast REACTION TIME + BRAKING TIME where the braking time remains the same because it is a function of tires, speed, friction, etc., but the Perception Time is a fraction of what humans need to make a decision that they need to brake...theoretically, and the Reaction Time is greatly shortened because no human foot has to move from the floor to get above the pedal to push it.

Any Autonomous Vehicle solution MUST also take into consideration the entire body of transportation modes, especially pedestrians and bikes. A pedestrian or cyclist will never be in the autonomous category, so these are mixed transportation use situations.

Good examples of extreme traffic situations can be found in China where density is consistently very high throughout urban cities. n Chongqing China there are residential and business skyscrapers that go on and on for miles and miles, averaging 30 stories tall.

Sidewalks are necessarily very wide, from 10 to 20 feet, to accommodate numerous pedestrians. The video to the right shows an area of the massive City of Chongqing where vehicle traffic has been completely separated from pedestrian traffic as a need. There are so many pedestrians in the area of skyscrapers, that it was not practical to have these interact with vehicles via crosswalks controlled by signal. There is not enough capacity.

The solution in this video was to literally BURY the traffic in a submerged roadway, and build a pedestrian square that extended numerous blocks and built on top of the submerged four lane road. The pedestrians never hear the traffic below, and safety is greatly enhanced.

THIS is a compelling reason to implement such an expensive change for the benefit of all, including drivers of vehicles. 90% of residents in Chongqing do NOT own or drive a car. As one watches the video of regular drivers on these massive 9-lane roadways, one can think of what benefit would come to the system if all vehicles were autonomous. In my view, safety would not only improve, but efficiency as well and capacity could be tripled as vehicles perfectly coordinate the merging, with tighter headways, and regulated speeds.

So What will an Autonomous Vehicle transportation system look like? What must it look like?

First of all, it must be safe for pedestrians. In the China video above, the pedestrians are completely separated from the vehicle traffic, because it is not safe or practical to ever have these meet in such high numbers. So there must be separation. There must be grade separation (or in the case of the China video above, a complete separation of vehicle traffic by tunnel if necessary). Grade separations are expensive, but to have a truly autonomous system and remove the human error factor that introduces accidents, often fatal accidents, a separation is needed. If a car is going 60 mph autonomously, and a child runs in front of it, the car no matter how automated, cannot stop in time, and fatality may occur, traffic will come to standstill, etc. We grade separate freeways, and now all roads with autonomous vehicles will need some method of separation in order to achieve the desired levels of safety, of capacity, of efficiency, even the environment and air quality. Fences. Ped and Bike bridges. Even signal systems tied in to the autonomous computer system, coordinated and optimized for safety of peds and bikes.

The future of traffic engineering will be to develop solutions that actually make sense, are safe and efficient, and which can take existing right-of way and turn it into a system where cars are separated from the pedestrians and bikes to improve safety, capacity, efficiency and air quality.

]]><![CDATA[Bike, Ped, and Vehicle Traffic Safety getting a much bigger emphasis in CEQA]]>Wed, 02 Mar 2016 06:58:33 GMThttps://www.prism.engineering/news/traffic-safety-at-the-forefront-of-ceqaTraffic Engineering and analysis in California has been evolving with the advent of SB 743. Safety has always been the primary focus of true Traffic Engineering, creating safe travel conditions for all modes of travel. SB 743 in California has specific elements within this law that place more focus on traffic safety including:

(3) Local Safety.
In addition to a project’s effect on vehicle miles traveled, a lead agency may also consider localized effects of project-related transportation on safety.
Examples of objective factors that may be relevant may include:

(A) Increase exposure of bicyclists and pedestrians in vehicle conflict areas (i.e., remove pedestrian and bicycle facilities, increase roadway crossing times or distances, etc.).
(B) Contribute to queuing on freeway off-ramps where queues extend onto the mainline.
(C) Contribute to speed differentials of greater than 15 miles per hour between adjacent travel lanes.
(D) Increase motor vehicle speeds.
(E) Increase distance between pedestrian or bicycle crossings.

source: New Section 15064.3(b)(3) (preliminary OPR guidance for SB 743)

Staff at PRISM Engineering have decades of experience in preparing traffic and transportation plans with emphasis on traffic safety, utilizing guidance found in AASHTO publications, Highway Design Manual, MUTCD publications, etc., which focus on time-tested methods of design and implementation that enhance and improve safety.

]]>