If you want to know more about the program, go to the workshop. If you want to support program implementation, go to the workshop. If you want to comment on camera locations, or suggest additional dangerous intersections, go to the workshop.
Automated Red Light Cameras are NOT Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR).
Recently Flock Safety cameras, and similar cameras by other vendors, including the Motorola cameras used in the City of Sacramento, have been much in the news, and there growing public concern and desire to ban or tightly control their use. You can read up on how they have been mis-used by law enforcement agencies. They are a step toward a univeral surveillance state. ALPRs continuously record license plate numbers, and depending on the setup, also other information including vehicle identification and even facial recognition of the driver. Though law enforcement claims that license plates are correctly identified, and that data is shared only with those who need to know, it has been demonstrated that they are very inaccurate, and that the data is being accessed by almost anyone associated with law enforcement or government agencies. Including stalking by law enforcement officers.
Automated Red Light Cameras (and similar Automated Speed Enforcement Cameras) are completely different. They record only incidents of violation, such as running red lights, and capture only license plate numbers. They are not continuous, do not record any other information, and have retention periods only long enough to resolve the civil citations. You can read a good summary of the privacy safeguards on City of Sacramento’s Automated Red Light Camera Enforcement Program page, or more detail on the SB 770 legislation page.
If you get into or overhear a discussion that confuses ALPRs with red light cameras, I hope that you will jump in with the correct information. Being anti-Flock should not means being anti-red light cameras.
Some of this confusion is understandable. To the public, any camera may seem like the camera of concern. At a typical intersection, there may be upwards of ten cameras, all for different purposes, or overlapping purposes. Probably some are ALPRs. Some are for detection, that allow the signal to detect motor vehicles and bicyclists, some are for traffic detection, allowing an agency to adjust for traffic flows. Sadly, most agencies do not actively manage traffic, even though they have spent huge sums on the signals, controller boxes, and central traffic centers that would allow them to do so.
I know that much of the ‘confusion’ is intentional. There is a large subset of motor vehicle drivers who do not want to be held responsible for their driving behavior and the traffic violence they create. Lumping red light cameras (and speed cameras) in with surveillance cameras furthers their attempt to ban all cameras. Don’t fall for it! Help educate your friends, co-workers, agencies, elected officials, and organizations.
Note: I decided I would map the proposed Automated Red Light Camera and SB 535 areas, and the map is at bottom. Note that SB 535 is not the only criteria for identifying disadvantaged communities, but it is the one most commonly used.
Item 03 on the SacATC agenda for 2026-08-20 is ‘Automated Red Light Camera Program’ (staff report | presentation). This is a new program being established under Senate Bill 720 2025 (SB 720, Ashby. Automated traffic enforcement system programs.). Though this bill did not eliminate earlier programs, the City of Sacramento does not currently have a program because they participated in a county-wide program which the county cancelled. The new program addresses many of the objections that had been raised to the older program.
I support this program, and these locations.
The staff report contains the map below.
map of Automated Red Light Camera Program, from SacATC 2026-08-20
I like the distribution of locations, though would hope for more locations. Maybe in time. The locations demonstrate two things: the equity concerns about concentrating red light cameras, and any type of enforcement, in low-income neighborhoods, does not seem to be a significant issue. Most of the locations are in moderate to high income neighborhoods. This fits with my observations that most red light running is by drivers of high-value motor vehicles, not low-income people. It would be interesting to map the intersections against disadvantaged communities, and probably the city did so, but I don’t have time for that, and the city did not provide it. (see below)
To some degree, I’m not sure how important the distribution of red light camera is. I strongly believe that the majority of red light running is by a minority, but a significant minority, of drivers. Many of these drivers run red lights all over the city. It is also contagious behavior. Yes, it is an epidemic, and the disease spreads though observation of other drivers behavior. It is a visual contagion. Though the enforcement mechanism here is civil and not criminal, it would allow Public Works to identify repeated and egregious red light runners, and pass that information along to law enforcement.
I was curious about how these 20 recommended intersection locations overlapped with the Vision Zero Action Plan Update. The Red Light Camera list is in order of broadside crashes, which are almost always caused by red light running. However, the ordered list in the staff report does not match the ordered list on the map. I don’t know which is correct. The Top 20 intersections in the VZ Action Plan Update are numbered, but not in ranked order. There is an overlap of eight intersections. I also bold-faced the roadways that show up more than once in the list. There is a pattern here – these are the arterial roadways that the city designed to encourage unsafe speeds and unsafe driver behavior. No surprise that these are the locations of red light running crashes.
Rank
Red Light Camera intersections
Vision Zero Top 20 intersections
1
5th Street & I Street
no
2
Truxel Road & Arena Boulevard
yes
3
Del Paso Boulevard & Evergreen Street/Lampasas Avenue
yes
4
65th Street & Lemon Hill Avenue
no
5
Freeport Boulevard & Florin Road
no
6
Folsom Boulevard & Howe Avenue/Power Inn Road
no
7
Truxel Road & Gateway Park Boulevard
yes
8
Stockton & Elder Creek Road/47th Avenue
no
9
Fruitridge Road & Power Inn Road
no
10
65th Street & Fruitridge Road
no
11
Mack Road & Valley Hi Drive/La Mancha Way
yes (as La Mancha Way & Mack Rd)
12
El Camino Avenue & Northgate Boulevard
yes (as Northgate Blvd & W El Camino Ave)
13
16th Street & J Street
yes
14
12th Street & North 16th Street
yes (as North 12th St & Richards Blvd, and North 16th St & Richards Blvd)
15
3rd Street & Capitol Mall
no
16
El Camino Avenue & Evergreen Street
no
17
Florin Road & Greenhaven Drive
no
18
Franklin Boulevard & Brookfield Drive
no
19
Cosumnes River Boulevard & Bruceville Road
yes (as Bruceville Rd & Cosumnes River Blvd)
20
Truxel Road & Del Paso Road/Natomas Boulevard
no
Map of proposed Automated Red Light Camera locations, and SB 535 disadvantaged communities.
map of proposed Automated Red Light Camera locations and SB 535 disadvantaged communities
Of the 20 locations, seven are not in SB 535 areas, four at at the edge of SB 535 areas, and nine are within SB 535 areas. I would not say that the cameras are concentrated in low-income communities, however, many equity organizations have raised concerns about camera locations. My observations of red light running are that most violations are by drivers of high-value vehicles, not low-income drivers. The seven not-in-SB 535 locations are moderate to high-income communities. The three downtown Sacramento locations are not generally low-income, though the SB 535 criteria identifies them as such. SB 535 uses a variety of measures in addition to income.
