What would proabably help all this is a good (and accurate) traffic study that focused on examining how frequently cars run reds and how frequently they don't stop at marked crosswalks (without traffic lights). Perhaps starting with main thoroughfares that you mention - 15th, 16th, etc. Then the City might be able to "crack down" in the most problematic areas in the best way possible. I wouldn't see why they wouldn't want to, especially since it could be a good source of revenue.

Cheesendorf - The focus of this "operation" is to go after drivers (vehicles) by ticketing them for not stopping for pedestrians & cyclists crossing. They aren't ticketing the pedestrian or cyclist in this case. Pedestrians are frequently injured or killed at crosswalks (that have no traffic calming devices) because of cars not voluntarily stopping for them, as they should. I see it all the time downtown, particularly at 14th & P Streets and 16th and O Streets.

In theory, consolidation should produce economies of scale which allows cost savings to be achieved – average costs are reduced when spread out over a wider set of users. However, this isn't always the case when city and counties consolidate services, and costs can actually go up (previous studies on U.S. cities have shown this). There are a few reasons, including: labor intensive services (police, fire protection, etc.) that require replication from one neighborhood to the next may in fact result in diseconomies of scale, mergining personnel related costs, mergining service quality costs (“averaging up” effect may occur with service levels and standards for equipment & facilities), and one-time trasition costs (one time operating & capital expenses) that can add up.

William: I know the numbers related to transportation funding in SF and I realize there is a tax structure difference, and I know that no public transit is self-supporting. I think ridership plays a role in this as well... I've traveled and read enough about the east coast subways (NY, DC Metro, Atlanta MARTA) and their level of ridership is quite a bit higher (for a multitude of reasons). I'm also aware of the Pearl Dists. development (and how often it is cited); however that took place during a more fluid and stable economic time. While I do agree that development of public transit is intergral to the development of a city, Sacramento is too car dependent..and I think it's obviously a mentality issue (probably the result of all those car-centric suburbs). I would like to do actual research on this someday...examining if rail transit does actually drive density (it didn't in parts of Florida), since there are so many variables at play... Anyway, good thoughts on the subject!

Perhaps the City Council should take a look at this study (done is SF) before making their determination on surveillance cameras: http://groups.ischool.berkeley.edu/samuelsonclinic/files/CITRIS%20SF%20CSC%20Study%20Final%20Dec%202008.pdf This study concluded that while the program decreased property crime within the view of the cameras by twenty percent, other forms of crime, including violent crime, one of the primary targets of the program, were not affected. It also specified the many costs associated with this camera program.