What's the point of the new Verizon cell tower? Is Verizon looking to do something within the community, or is it just expansion on their part and they need an additional tower? This many year Sprint service plan member wants to know.
Over the years the RCSC has been allowing cell towers on available land. When they first started they were bringing in about a $1000 per month but that's grown over the years. Works out well for owners as the money helps reduce the yearly costs and helps with cell phone reception. Win/win all the way around.
except they are ugly....but ok. In addition to Verizon, who else has a tower in Sun City? My corporate discount is going to end soon.
You probably don't even notice some of the Sun City cell towers as they are disguised as either palm trees or some variety of pine tree. There are maybe at least a dozen hidden among the real vegetation. I'm sure we have Sprint, Verizon and AT & T towers as reception is excellent. I used to have T Mobile and even that was good.
I've been with Verizon since they were Air touch and the one thing I can say is I'm always surprised just how great the coverage is especially in remote area's as when my buddies need to use a phone that works, Just wish I could say the same about the Verizon customer service.
The cell towers are way better these days looking like palm trees on steroids; healthy buggars with nary a lean. I've told the story before, so I'll be brief: There was a time when a "Sun City activist" was fighting cell towers on RCSC property...something about having to wear tinfoil hats or the like. I once did a post on what her antics cost Sun City residents on just this matter over 10 years and for whatever reason she got off that horse. It's things like this, our ability to tap into potential revenue streams, that will allow us to keep costs reasonable for years to come.
The closest speed lights they have are in El Mirage (on Grand Ave west of Sun City) and are getting all kinds of notoriety. Seems folks who get caught think it's unfair. I understand their anger, but really? When we first moved to Arizona (2003), we were stunned at how fast people drove on the freeways. There were too few Highway patrolmen, and people knew it. The likelihood of getting caught was tiny. Within years the state came to grips with the fact speed kills. Radar lights went up all along the I 10 and other major freeways. The Scottsdale area on the 101 was the worst as people were clocked regularly doing 100 plus miles an hour. The proverbial stuff hit the fan as those caught screamed foul. The righties were indignant their rights were being infringed on. Governor Brewer and the republican controlled house and senate bowed to the wishes of their supporters and deemed them illegal. Now there are none on the interstates and freeways. Local municipalities can still have them, but again people caught speeding or running lights hate them with a passion. Sorry for the rant, but this is one of those topics that turns my crank.
Actually the camera looking things are detecting traffic to change the traffic signals. These camera sensors replaced the ones that were under the pavement and tripped the signals when a car drove over them. They can also be used by MCDOT or ADOT to view traffic at any given intersection. The emergency light switchers/beacons are just that little light on a stick near the center of the signal arm. They can be activated with a remote by emergency vehicles and go off(sometimes verrrrry slowly) on a timer.
My only problem with the red light/speed cameras is the number of vehicles that are exempt from paying the fines. I believe that government vehicles, fleet vehicles, most rental cars, cars with temporary paper plates and some out of state vehicles are all safe when the light flashes on them. It has something to do with proving who is actually the driver. The operator of the vehicle must be ticketed in order to collect.
I know there were issues with the speed camera's, but working through the problems made far more sense to me than taking them down. What we do know is, when people were driving the freeways and they were out there, people drove slower. Here's the better news...on my golf car, I have hardly any issues with speeding.
The only ticket I've had in my life was from a red light camera (cost $400 15 years ago). Red light cameras can also cause accidents. Problem is if you are in the intersection and someone suddenly slows ahead of you and you think you will get flashed you have the tendency to speed up to get out of the flash. That means you can easily rear-end the car in front. I think you have to be there to understand exactly how easily it can happen. They get added and removed frequently in L.A. as people complain and sue. I've also gotten flashed when going though a intersection when it was all green. Then you wait and see if the ticket/photo will arrive in the mail and will you have to waste time going to court. They are big money makers for the owners of the cameras...generally they are privately owned and share the profits with the city.
Holy crap C, $400 15 years ago? Damn that's a lot of green even for California. I'm not anywhere as passionate about the red light camera's. It's the speed camera's that get my juices flowing.
Around here, red - yellow - green, they all seem like suggestions to most people. I am not kidding, if you don't wait a couple of beats after the light turns green, you will be t-boned. And can we get physical barriers that go up at cross walks so pedestrians stop wandering into the road? For God's sake people, they are tall buildings, stop craning your necks and get out of the street!
