If these revenue numbers are correct and the assumptions I make are correct, Plainfield’s RLC program is nothing but a lucrative revenue generator for the vendor.

To my mind, at worst, the revenue generated for a town through RLC enforcement should be split 50/50 with the vendor. Then, the city side of the revenue should be used strictly to improve traffic safety whether that is in the form of education or re-engineering intersections or improving traffic lights, etc.

Plainfield’s situation seems unhealthily one sided to me.

120,000.00 in generated Revenue in 2012 so far with only 2,000.00 paid to the city YTD? That’s a Joke.

Even Chicago City Contracts are not that Lopsided.

Most RLC tickets tend to be right turns on red, stop line and split seconds.

So what is the breakdown???

(another ATS town showed that most “violations’ were slow right turns on red. http://www.banthecams.org/Studies-Show/ats-mukilteo-survey-proves-most-of-the-qviolationsq-were-right-turns.html

You could go from here to the planet Jupiter before getting in a wreck making a right turn on red. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2693.asp

Most RLV crashes are plus 5 second into red events..)

I bring this up since towns have been known to “adjust” the violations they cite. One game played by ATS was the “rejection” rate in Baytown TX. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3173.asp Quote: “Statistics show that, in response, city officials and American Traffic Solutions have deliberately issued fewer citations. The program rejected 29 percent of violations in July 2008, but documents show the rate of rejections climbed to 54 percent in December.”