Where is the elephant? Have you seen the size of the DC budget deficit? Do you not think that the mayor and council are looking at every penny to close that? And do you not know that many of the parking/ticketing arguments in DC are shorthand for "tax the commuters".

A quick google look says the DC camera program was given to ATS in 2006 for 18.5 million, not including upgrades and other expenses. Given that this is DC, there was/is an investigation on this and the true cost will be much higher.

And let's be honest, the biggest beneficiaries of speed and red light camera are the companies that operate them: ACS (now Xerox) and Redflex. If the city was actually operating the camera this wouldn't be pure evil. But since most of these initiatives are coming from well greased lobbyists from the above companies, you have to smell a rat. Or mouse. Or whatever scares elephants.

by charlie on Dec 9, 2009 11:22 am • link • report

I'm a huge fan of red light and speed cameras. Of course, I don't drive, so as an "vulnurable" alternative road user, I appreciate efforts to get drivers to obey simple laws (like, 'Red means stop', simple, no?).

I think it bears mentioning this:
The goal of a red light camera or a speed camera is to generate no revenue.

If you know there's a red light camera (or a speed camera), and you still run the light, you have no excuse. Most applications of these contraptions come with signs ('Red Light Camera Enforced').

Unlike the elusive cop-behind-billboard method of enforcement, drivers know exactly where cameras are. To not speed (or run lights) at just those points is easy.

It would certainly be a public relations coup to give money back to the community, but honestly, I see no reason for governments not to leverege this source of revenue.

by Matt Johnson on Dec 9, 2009 11:39 am • link • report

The administrative cost of such a program would be too wasteful compared to the revenue distributed. Plus, money is fungible. The council can just raise taxes by the amount of the distribution and there would be no change.

A better solution would be to use to the fine revenue to fund complete streets which by definition should moderate traffic speeds and reduce the fine revenue.

by Cullen on Dec 9, 2009 11:41 am • link • report

This is nonsense. Fines and taxes are not collected to "socialistically" be returned to citizens. That is a useless whirl or money. It also gives people the idea that they have the 'right' to one or two infractions 'because they'll get the money back anyway'.

What governments should do is proudly hold up the totals in the end of the year and tell law-abiding citizens: 'Look, we got all this money from law-breakers, and guess what, not we can do this nice project that you asked for without collecting extra taxes from you!'

I would love to see a sign on a stadium/park/community center saying: 'This project was made possible by red-light runners in this neighborhood'.

by Jasper on Dec 9, 2009 11:41 am • link • report

How do the incentives change when the citizens get the money directly as opposed to in the form of offsetting taxes? It might be even worse! A speed camera on every intersection crossing into Maryland? Yes, please! And let's jack those fines up too! Sweet! "Free" money.

And, no, I don't hate speed cameras. In principle I like them.

by ah on Dec 9, 2009 11:51 am • link • report

Also, wasn't the origination of the Alaska Permanent Fund from a situation where a state with low expenses and small government was suddenly awash in a sea of oil revenues?

Suffice it to say, I don't think that scenario applies to DC here.

by Alex B. on Dec 9, 2009 11:57 am • link • report

According to Wikipedia, it was designed to prevent new revenues (from oil) from being spent by the legislature. While the state may not have been running a deficit, you could argue it's a comparable situation here: a new revenue source could either be spent on many things, or given to people directly.

by David Alpert on Dec 9, 2009 12:01 pm • link • report

This post doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I DO essentially get a check for $30 a year from these fines...it just comes in the form of paying less taxes.

Now, we can argue if the way things are done now is more regressive than just mailing checks(since it only helps people who do pay taxes, though it does reduce taxes by a greater percentage for those who pay less taxes). But it certainly has the advantage of lower administrative costs than printing and mailing thousands of checks.

by stacy on Dec 9, 2009 12:09 pm • link • report

"The goal of a red light camera or a speed camera is to generate no revenue."

actually, that isn't true.

There is a steady uptick of accidents after installed red-light camera as people brake early to avoid tickets. And the companies running them tinker with the yellow light timing. A city in georgia that extended the yellow light to 5 seconds found all the tickets vanished. Most companies use a 2 second yellow to maximize revenue.

And the most profitable speed camera in DC is on the off ramp of 295, where the speed limit of a limited access highway drops to 45. I certainly can see some situations where a speed camera could help in reducing speed on a road, but from where they are being placed revenue generation is the number one goal.

by charlie on Dec 9, 2009 12:16 pm • link • report

Still, regardless of budget situations, I think the Alaska Permanent Fund isn't just the leveraging of new revenue, but the leveraging of an asset. I think there's a fundamental difference between a resource like oil and traffic violations.

Also, as noted - the practical matter of scale is problematic. The APF's much larger scale makes setting up such a system possible. Doing so on a smaller scale probably doesn't make financial sense.

by Alex B. on Dec 9, 2009 12:26 pm • link • report

"I DO essentially get a check for $30 a year from these fines...it just comes in the form of paying less taxes."

Really? Could you point me towards the statute that cut taxes to account for traffic camera revenue? I have lived in DC since before any of these cameras were installed and don't recall my taxes going down. As far as I know the camera money has just gone into the general fund for such important proposes as paying off the mayor's friends and cronys and paying the multiple multi-million dollar settlements (not to mention litigation costs) brought on by having a Attorney General with utter contempt for the rule of law and a Chief of Police who seems to think the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to her department.

by Jacob on Dec 9, 2009 12:31 pm • link • report

From http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/078ftoqz.asp

"Lockheed Martin IMS ... is responsible for maintaining the equipment, processing the data, and sending out the citations--which entitles them to $32.50 out of every $75 red-light-camera ticket and $29 of every photo-radar ticket. (Since then, Lockheed sold their national automated enforcement business to Affiliated Computer Services.)"

And from http://www.acs-inc.com/publicsafetyandjustice.aspx

"ACSÂ’ customized solutions provide peace of mind for your residents and increased revenue and resource availability for your municipality."

See also http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:ACS - I wonder if any city leaders own stock?

by michael on Dec 9, 2009 12:38 pm • link • report

Alex B., yes, there is an important difference. The main one is that you can't make more oil, whereas you can make more speeding tickets. The APF also has the benefit of divorcing the timing of payouts to state residents from the timing of oil extraction, so that the state and oil cos. can make decisions about when it is most sensible to extract oil without direct concern about the need for revenue.

by ah on Dec 9, 2009 12:39 pm • link • report

@Matt Johnson: Though eliminating speeding/light running and therefore getting no revenue is a laudable goal, it's not really the goal. If that happened, the private contractors would stop profiting, and actually lose money, because they still need to keep the cameras running. Then they end their contracts, the cameras are gone, and people speed again. They need speeders in order for these things to work.

@Jasper: You put quotes around "socialistically." Who are you quoting?

@charlie: The contractors that run the cameras don't control the timing of the lights. But there has been the occasional instance of the contractor convincing the owner of the light (city, county, state, etc.) to shorten yellow times. Usually, when citizens find out about this, there's a huge backlash and the timing is restored. As for your allegation of an uptick in accidents, I'd like to see some proof.

I'm not opposed to the principle of red light and speed cameras, the principle being a low-cost way to punish people who break the law. But I'm vehemently opposed to any government contracting out its law enforcement to a private company.

by Tim on Dec 9, 2009 12:41 pm • link • report

@Tim;

sorry, quite right about the timing of yellows issue. And for the one red light camera I know in DC (on K Streeet) the yellow seems reasonable.

IN terms of accidents:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.html

"The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame. Traffic specialists say broadside collisions are especially dangerous because the sides are the most vulnerable areas of cars.

The number of crashes and injury collisions at intersections with cameras rose steadily through 2001, then dipped through 2003 before spiking again last year.

The results were similar or worse than figures at intersections that have traffic signals but no cameras. The number of overall crashes at those 1,520 locations increased 64 percent; injury and fatal crashes rose 54 percent; and broadside collisions rose 17 percent."

The general trend is to see more rear-end collisions, which generally are not fatal, although they are expensive in terms of repair. If you really want to go tin-foil hat, the real people who benefit are insurance companies, who then get to raise everyone's rates because of more minor accidents.

by charlie on Dec 9, 2009 12:53 pm • link • report

This has to be one of the most Pollyana-ish and poorly argued postings on this website in quite some time.

by Fritz on Dec 9, 2009 12:55 pm • link • report

Fritz: Please remember the How to disagree hierarchy. Disagreeing with this post is welcome. Charlie, Matt, Cullen, and Jasper are all doing that. But your comment is not helpful.

by David Alpert on Dec 9, 2009 1:05 pm • link • report

Not gonna work. Alaska's PFD is an endowment worth billions, one of the world's largest publicly-managed hedge funds. I don't really see the comparison. I'm all for forward thinking and big ideas but let's not get ridiculous.

by Chris on Dec 9, 2009 1:23 pm • link • report

Really? Could you point me towards the statute that cut taxes to account for traffic camera revenue? I have lived in DC since before any of these cameras were installed and don't recall my taxes going down.

I can point you to the statute (47 D.C. Code 1806.03(a)) in which income tax rates were cut from 6%/8%/10% to 5%/7.5%/9.5% in 2000, then to 4.5%/7%/8.7% in 2005, then to 4.5%/7%/8.5% in 2006, while the brackets were indexed to inflation to avoid any additional revenue from bracket creep. (Real property tax rates also dropped during that period, but that can be credited to a booming real estate market that enabled the city to collect more tax on the same property even with a rate cut so any linkage is more attenuated.)

by cminus on Dec 9, 2009 1:43 pm • link • report

Supporters say the camera systems are to improve safety. Opponents claim they are for revenue generation.

In reality, they're both right.

But to give the camera ticket money back to D.C. residents, as Steve suggests, would only exacerbate what is already a contentious divide between D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. Better to use that money for public safety and/or infrastructure improvements that would benefit EVERYONE...

by Froggie on Dec 9, 2009 1:55 pm • link • report

Isn't Mr. Offutt's entire premise negated by the basic, essential, common sensical fact that no municipal or state government is going to be forsaking much-needed (and, in this case, rather easily obtained) revenue given the current economic climate?

Unless we all simply ignore that foundational aspect of the discussion, the rest of his argument fails because it is floating on a make-believe reality.

It's sort of like when Marion Barry was DC mayor and he said that except for all the murders, DC was actually a safe place to live.

Both arguments just leave you scratching your head.

by Fritz on Dec 9, 2009 2:13 pm • link • report

Whether or not the revenue from traffic cameras affect tax levels, if you get a ticket you were either speeding or ran a red light. Let's not lose sight of that.

The argument against traffic cameras is like arguing against security alarms in stores. If they catch lots of theives and fine them.... we are taking money from thieves? Running red lights and speeding are dangerous. Cameras help stop that.

by Cullen on Dec 9, 2009 3:03 pm • link • report

charlie, "tinkering with the length of the yellow" is a lie told by those who oppose the cameras. There are codes that mandate the length of time a yellow light must be displayed. It depends on the speed of the road and the width of the intersection.

What is possible is that at some point, a camera was installed at an intersection that was incorrectly timed. As they were already working on the signal, they fixed the timing so it would be up to code.

As for cameras "causing" more rear end accidents....if you have a cop car sitting at the intersection, what is the difference?

And remember in a rear end collision, the rear vehicle is always at fault.

by J on Dec 9, 2009 3:05 pm • link • report

@cminus

Unless I'm mistaken those tax cuts were not new legislation, they were automatic reductions based on economic triggers in the 1999 Tax Parity Act. Given that the first speed camera wasn't installed in DC until 2005 I think it is, at best, disingenuous to claim they have anything to do with revenue from traffic cameras.

by Jacob on Dec 9, 2009 3:45 pm • link • report

Jacob, not arguing with you there; the tax cuts had nothing to do with the cameras. The correlation isn't meaningful. But it's not accurate to say DC income taxes haven't gone down since the cameras were installed, because they have. (I concede that it would be just as meaningful to say that DC income taxes have gone down since Super Bowl XXXVII.)

by cminus on Dec 9, 2009 4:25 pm • link • report

@J: What provision of the DC Code or Municipal Regulations govern the length of a yellow signal?

Also, I believe AAA or some other group compared traffic accident data from locations that had red light cameras pre- and post-installation. There was a correlation between a red light camera and increased rear ending accidents. Is that causation? I don't know.

Let's assume there is in fact causation between red light cameras and increased rear ending accidents. Does anyone really believe that DC - or any other city - would forsake the essentially free revenue from red light cameras, even if it meant fewer rear ending accidents?

Bottom line is that jurisdictions love the revenue, love the argument that red light and speed cameras make roads safer, and will seek to expand both camera programs to bring in more revenues. The only way such an expansion would stop is likely if it's put to a popular vote.

by Fritz on Dec 9, 2009 4:43 pm • link • report

@fritz; the only thing you are missing in the companies that run the red light/speed cameras spend millions to "influence" your local elected officials and then take a cut of the revenue. A great deal for everyone but the citizen.

by charlie on Dec 9, 2009 5:01 pm • link • report

Fritz,/Charlie It's true, the AAA is wholly objective, and has never exerted influence on leaders...

The notion that these relatively small companies have bought the governments is unsupported.

by Neil Flanagan on Dec 9, 2009 5:11 pm • link • report

@Neil: ACS used to run DC's red light and speed cameras. They have claimed to administer more than two-thirds of all such cameras in the US. They also process a huge amount of the Medicaid, child support, and student loan payments, as well as several EZ Pass systems. Xerox bought ACS a few months ago for $6.4 billion.

If a company that's worth at least $6.4 billion qualifies as a "relatively small company," I'd love to see what a large company looks like.

by Fritz on Dec 9, 2009 5:24 pm • link • report

What is their Red Light Camera Division worth?

by Neil Flanagan on Dec 9, 2009 5:39 pm • link • report

Redflex, the largest has about $150 million a year in sales globally, and that is all they do.

Their estimate on the US market is $3 billion a year -- and that is contract, not total tickets. Also according to Redflex 1000 deaths a year are due to red light running, which gives you an idea of scale.

And Neil, the last time I checked, AAA gets it money from the dues members pay -- usually for towing service -- as well as travel and insurance sales. They aren't corrupt government contractors. You may not like their policy positions, but that is vastly different than ACS or Redflex pushing their cameras.

by charlie on Dec 9, 2009 6:05 pm • link • report

I was incorrect: it wasn't AAA that did the study; it was the Federal Highway Administration.

Some studies have reported that while red light cameras reduce front-into-side collisions and overall injury crashes, they can increase rear-end crashes. A study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light camera programs in seven cities. The study found that, overall, right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent while rear-end collisions increased by 15 percent.

Source: Council, F.; Persaud, B.; Eccles, K.; Lyon, C.; and Griffith, M. 2005. Safety evaluation of red-light cameras: executive summary. Report no. FHWA HRT-05-049. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.

by Fritz on Dec 9, 2009 9:03 pm • link • report

This may count as piling on, but FWIW:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-red-light-cameras-22-nov22,0,2590486.story

"Cars and trucks slammed into each other 28 times at Western Avenue and 63rd Street in 2006, the year before the Daley administration installed red-light cameras there in the name of safety. In 2008, the year after cameras went in, accidents at the Southwest Side intersection soared to 42, according to state data.

It was not an aberration. Cameras are said to reduce accidents, but collision records compiled by the Illinois Department of Transportation indicate that accidents increased at many city intersections the year after red-light cameras were installed. In fact slightly more intersections saw an increase than a decrease, the data show."

by charlie on Dec 9, 2009 9:58 pm • link • report

I'd like to see the money put into a fund to pay medical expenses and lost income for pedestrians and bicyclists who are hit by uninsured or underinsured motorists.

by Eileen on Dec 9, 2009 10:37 pm • link • report

Not only is the suggested measure completely pointless (mailing checks out to people just accomplishes the same thing as spending the money on things that would otherwise require tax revenue), but it also completely ignores that the people being subjected to automated enforcement are a different population than the residents. By this logic, shouldn't I also get a check if I drive into DC and past these cameras, even if I live somewhere else?

by David desJardins on Dec 9, 2009 11:00 pm • link • report

You have to love people who argue that enforcing the law is more dangerous than not enforcig the law. The fun thing is that it silently assumes that the law itself is unsafe, which is utterly absurd in this case.

by Jasper on Dec 9, 2009 11:10 pm • link • report

i live in and drive in dc and i totally support the speeding and redlight cameras.

i prefer speed activated red lights, but when revenue can be made from people breaking the law, i'm in favor!

most crimes cost the city money. maybe welfare payments should be tied to speeding camera revenue.

by a on Dec 9, 2009 11:16 pm • link • report

It's not really piling on. You got research. Now what about fatalities and injuries, not just collisions?

And what about speeding cameras?

by Neil Flanagan on Dec 10, 2009 4:14 am • link • report

In my experience (plus reading through old TRB reports), not just with red light cameras but with installing new traffic signals themselves, serious injury/fatality crashes tend to drop, but overall crashes tend to increase...mainly in the rear-end category as has already been mentioned.

As for speeding cameras, after the initial "switch-on" period, experience suggests that speeds drop in the immediate vicinity of the camera, but change little outside of that immediate camera vicinity. And one of the potential unintended consequences of this is it can produce a "wave" effect in traffic which disrupts normal traffic flow.

by Froggie on Dec 10, 2009 7:43 am • link • report

Come on folks. Don't abuse the art of statistics. The cameras do not cause extra crashes. They are inanimated non-moving objects. It is a absolutely absurd to blame the dangerous reaction of people were willfully driving dangerously anyway by (almost) running a red light onto the cameras. The cameras were not breaking the law. The driver (almost) was. Take some responsibility.

by Jasper on Dec 10, 2009 9:32 am • link • report

@Jasper: That's a bizarre statement. If cameras are causing a reaction among drivers, how is that an abuse of statistics? The studies seem to show that there were X number of accidents pre-camera installation, but then an increased Y number of accidents post-camera installation. The drivers undoubtedly cause the accidents. But it's ridiculous to say that there's no connection between the increase in accidents and the camera installations.

And my experience with speed cameras is that cars, when they know the location of a fixed speed camera, will be traveling at the speed of the surrounding flow of traffic, will suddenly slow down while passing the camera, and then will resume the normal rate of speed again when out of the camera's range.

by Fritz on Dec 10, 2009 10:57 am • link • report

This post misses the point: most people who oppose cameras do so not because of the fine, but because it's an (arguably un-Constitutional) invasion of privacy. The poster suggests that citizens should be ok with cameras as long as they're bribed with the revenues -that's a terrible tradeoff. Saying you're ok with cameras because you don't speed is like saying you're ok with random police searches because you don't commit crimes.

by David on Dec 11, 2009 11:49 am • link • report

This post misses the point: most people who oppose cameras do so not because of the fine, but because it's an (arguably un-Constitutional) invasion of privacy.

Do you have public polls to support that claim? I don't think it's true. I think that if you asked most people what think of traffic enforcement cameras, and why, those who object would primarily object to how they are used (speed traps in places where limits are unreasonable, enforcement procedures that are difficult to contest, lack of human judgment) and not to the very concept. I think you see much greater acceptance of red-light cameras than speed-enforcement cameras even though the "privacy" argument is exactly the same for both.

by David desJardins on Dec 11, 2009 11:56 am • link • report

Cameras have been upheld as constitutional so long as the grounds for issuing a ticket are fair. For example, you can't put a speed camera up on a road and then lower the speed limit to trap people. Shortening yellow times is also illegal, I believe. But that doesn't make the enforcement mechanism illegal.

by Alex B. on Dec 11, 2009 12:07 pm • link • report