Posts about Traffic Cameras

At the task force meetings, participants expressed a desire to keep higher fines for these. They felt that more excessive speeding is far more reckless and not something one can chalk up to not paying close attention, or a road designed for a too-high speed, or something like that.

For red lights, the task force heard evidence that while there isn't a relationship between the size of speed fines and compliance, there is one for red lights. Many felt that running red lights is something drivers more clearly recognize is wrong. I've still heard drivers argue that running a red light is better than coming to a stop because of the risk of getting rear-ended, or dispute the timings of yellow lights, but MPD's Lisa Sutter said that she is focusing on enforcing the more egregious red light running.

DC is going to start rolling out cameras for some of these infractions which don't have cameras now, like not yielding to pedestrians. Many drivers don't understand that it's wrong to make a turn quickly across a crosswalk and block a pedestrian's path. MPD has promised a substantial public information campaign, but an appropriate level of fine will hopefully ensure that there isn't too much backlash against stopping this very dangerous behavior.

Bill proposes 30-day warning period

Under the bill, every vehicle will get one warning period. The first time the vehicle gets an automated ticket, MPD will send the owner a notice about the ticket and more information on the kinds of infractions that cameras catch. They will then get 7 days after the letter gets mailed, or 30 days after the initial violation, as a grace period.

I had suggested an approach like this in the meetings, because some people have said they got 9 speeding tickets all in a couple of weeks and then found themselves owing over $1,000 before they even found out about the first ticket. If the purpose of the program is to stop speeding, there's no point in giving someone multiple tickets at once.

On the other hand, this could significantly cut into revenue, especially since most violations are from vehicles that only violate once. Many of those might be casual visitors to the District, and one could argue both sides about whether we ought to give expensive tickets to tourists who drive recklessly.

There won't be a separate warning for speeding versus blocking the box; a driver just gets one warning, total. Shared cars and rental cars won't get new warnings for new drivers.

Half of revenue would go to safety programs

One of the most important provisions of the bill is one dedicating half of the revenue from the camera program to safety programs. Some of the revenue can go toward MPD buying new cameras. This is critical, because the best way to reduce unsafe driving is to have greater "certainty of enforcement"—a higher chance of getting caught in more places. More cameras is what justifies lower fines.

It took MPD years to get budget approval to buy the upcoming set of cameras. For the program to really improve safety, that has to change, and this bill would make it easier for MPD to buy more cameras.

Money will also go toward educating drivers, possibly setting up a traffic safety unit at MPD, or projects at DDOT to redesign the roadway. The best way to cut down on speeding is to design a road that gives drivers subtle cues that a slower speed is appropriate, instead of one that encourages faster speeds.

Hearing is November 5

Councilmember Cheh already has scheduled a hearing for November 5, 11:00 am in room 412 of the Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. You can sign up to testify using this form.

What do you think of the bill?

Traffic cameras work

The task force had its first meeting yesterday. I am a member of the task force, at the request of co-chairman Councilmember Mary Cheh. Sutter presented a number of slides, including this chart of traffic fatalities:

Sutter also relayed a tragic story of an elderly woman killed in a crash that one of their cameras caught on video. A driver blew through a red light and got T-boned. The crash pushed the car up onto the sidewalk, killing the woman, who wasn't breaking any laws and wasn't even in the street.

This is the real human toll of unsafe driving. More people died already this year, just in the District, than in the Metro Red Line crash. We can't ignore the problem.

Can science set the fine?

The other co-chair, Tommy Wells, started off the meeting with a statement that he feels the current fines are too high, and contribute to the public perception that the cameras are a source of revenue rather than a safety tool. Cheh agreed with the goal of revising the fines, but added that they serve several purposes.

One is to simply deter people from "reckless and unsafe behavior." Relatedly, a fine is a kind of punishment for doing something inherently dangerous, as red-light running is, she said. Ultimately, the fine needs to change a culture of lawbreaking, and sometimes a high penalty might be necessary.

Cheh and Wells asked many thoughtful and detailed questions to try to identify a proper level for a fine. Wells pointed out that it could be very helpful if photo tickets included an explanation of why the District is charging what it's charging.

AU Professor Laura Langbein suggested an analysis which would estimate the economic and actuarial cost of the typical crash, then divide that by the chance any individual speeding or red light running would end in a crash, to get an optimal fine. That would peg a fine to the damage the behavior causes. Another approach would be to set the level around what it takes to get people to comply, but it may be hard to determine that scientifically other than through experimentation.

Where is AAA?

The task force included a representative from regional towing-services company AAA Mid-Atlantic, John Townsend. Unfortunately, he seemed little interested in any real meeting of the minds. He didn't even participate in the first half of the meeting, when people were mainly asking questions to MPD and DDOT about the current program. Instead, he left the table for a while to go talk to the press and get himself into news stories on the issue.

Later, Townsend criticized DC's plans to add cameras to catch people who blow through stop signs or recklessly turn across crosswalks where people on foot are crossing. These are serious safety issues in neighborhoods. If cameras can curb unsafe driving as much as they have for speeding and red light running, it can save lives and boost the quality of life in neighborhoods.

DC will only have 2-3 per ward of each type in the coming year, and I'd like to see any bill in the Council around fines also give MPD authority to buy more cameras with some of the money they raise from existing ones.

I also recommended that we discuss how to curb speeding under 10 mph over the limit. When a neighborhood limit is 30, most drivers assume that really means 40. 40 can be a dangerous speed in residential areas. MPD's Lisa Sutter confirmed that while DC law allows MPD to ticket people for speeding less than 10 mph, they are not currently doing that with the automated cameras.

Some cities are lowering the limits to 20 in order to get drivers to stay under 30, but is that the best approach? A $75 ticket for going 32 in a 30 would be grossly unfair, but how about a $5 ticket for going 5 mph over? Or how about a $1 ticket? Can a small "nudge" change the culture from 30-means-40 to 30-means-30?

That also might mean raising some speed limits, if transportation departments have set limits artificially low. James Cheeks from DDOT said that they never set speed limits 10 mph too low because of this, but many commenters believe that at least some jurisdictions do.

Unfortunately, Townsend immediately jumped in to call the idea of any enforcement below 10 mph over the limit "a non-starter." It sounds like he came to the meeting expecting that the only outcome would be to give drivers more of a pass for unsafe behavior.

I agree fines can come down as the number of cameras increases. However, it's not appropriate simply to cater to the whining and lower the fines unilaterally. Will lower fines actually make drivers believe the fines are for safety instead of revenue?

Many speeders will take their cue from their chief enabler, Townsend. He can set an example by agreeing to stop the constant camera complaints if fines come down. He says AAA doesn't condone breaking traffic laws or unsafe driving. Will he start being constructive, or is his real goal just to get attention and feed the egos of those who don't want to change their dangerous behavior?

Notify drivers faster

A friend, who works outside the District in a car-dependent area, got 11 camera tickets before finding out about even the first one. If she was driving 11-15 miles over the speed limit, that would come out to $1,375 in fines. What does this achieve?

Since the goal of cameras needs to be getting people to obey speed limits, red lights, and other traffic laws, the quicker DC tells people they've gotten a ticket, the better. Psychologists call this "contiguity," and found that whether one's punishing animals, children or adult humans, the closer a punishment is to the infraction, the more effective the punishment.

We'd actually get the most behavior change if every time someone sped or ran a red light, a sign lit up a bit down the road saying, "You just got a ticket. Please don't speed/run red lights." However, this could anger and possibly distract drivers, and also, current cameras require a human to review each ticket to be sure it's fair. Therefore, this is probably impractical.

However, we can ensure that the tickets come as quickly as possible. A bill around ensuring safety could require that the contractor mail tickets within a set period of time.

The DC DMV also has a system where you can sign up with an email address to get notified about tickets, deadlines for late penalties, and more. Unfortunately, right now you have to get a ticket and then use that ticket number to sign up with the system, "for privacy reasons." At least for DC drivers, the DMV could sign up people for this service when they renew a car registration. Is there anything else that could be done for out-of-state drivers, besides having the DMVs of neighboring states work together?

Let MPD use camera money to buy new cameras

AS we discussed previously, more cameras with lower fines is a more effective way to get people to follow laws than fewer cameras with higher fines. In order to have more cameras with lower fines, however, DC needs to be able to buy more cameras.

The current crop of cameras MPD is ordering were in the pipeline for at least two years, and they're still not in place. That's largely a consequence of the procurement process. Even though the cameras bring in money, all of that money goes to the general fund. If MPD wants another camera or even if an existing one breaks, they need a line item in the annual capital budget specifically authorizing spending that amount of money on cameras.

There are reasons to budget this way. It forces more transparency and ensures that spending follows the priorities of the mayor and council. However, it also makes everything really, really slow.

A bill around cameras could give MPD the power to buy more cameras out of the revenue from other cameras. This would dovetail well with the suggestion from last week that fines automatically lower as more cameras come in. That way, safety improves, but drivers also get the reduction they want, and we maintain the overall balance of severity against certainty.

Use revenue for safety programs

There are other ways to make the streets safer. In particular, often the "design speed" of a road does not match the speed we want people to drive. For a long time, traffic engineers thought that it would be safest if they built every road to handle faster traffic than people actually wanted. The thinking went that if they did this, if a driver sped, they would still be able to avoid hitting a tree or something.

However, this created roads that sent psychological signals to drivers that they should travel faster. Drivers did, and a conventional wisdom evolved that faster driving was appropriate in that area. Standards evolved around setting a speed limit at the 85th percentile of how fast cars are traveling, which meant that the road design, which created a general practice, then became its own law.

To slow down traffic in residential areas, we can set lower speed limits, but most people ignore them. We can then put up cameras, but drivers will continue to feel tension between the signals they get from road design and the posted limits. The best way to solve this is to redesign the road with the right design speed.

There are many ways to reduce design speeds. Bulb-outs at corners reduce the distance pedestrians have to cross and create visual signals to travel slower. Cycle tracks reduce the visual width of a street. Bioswales, medians, and gently curving lanes (chicanes), like those suggested for C Street, NE, can add green features and slow traffic.

The camera law could mandate that camera revenue, over and above the revenue dedicated to the FY2013 budget and which doesn't go to cameras, would go into a special fund that DDOT can use to redesign roadways. Those roadways need to be ones with speeding problems today, where the change reduces the design speed of the road.

What else would you suggest?

In recent years, DC has raised fines during its budget process, to plug gaps without raising any taxes, and expanded speed cameras in the same way. That might be the only time it's politically palatable to some, but when fines are too high, it erodes public support for enforcement.

Therefore, we need to base any recommendation on scientific evidence about what level makes the streets safest. There is a tradeoff between the certainty of getting caught committing a crime, and the necessary level of punishment to deter lawbreaking. When a camera replaces occasional human enforcement by police, the certainty of getting caught goes up. Therefore, the fine can go down.

Moreover, research has shown that low severity, high certainty enforcement—exactly what traffic cameras achieve—is more effective. In other words, people are more likely to follow a law if they know they will get punished, even a small amount, most of the time they do.

What is the right fine for a fixed camera?

The first question is, how much does a fine need to be in order to get drivers to follow the law? Today, the fines in DC range from $75, for speeding up to 10 mph over the limit, to $250 for 26-30 mph over the limit.

Maryland has a $40 fine for 12+ mph over the limit, which does indeed seem to work. That would suggest that $40 may be sufficient, at least for the 11-20 range.

What about lower? What would happen with a $5-10 fine? At that range, some people, especially ones with more money, might conclude that they are in a hurry and just treat it as a toll. It might be interesting to try something like this in the 1-10 mph over the limit range, which some jurisdictions (like Maryland) exclude entirely.

Exempting slight speeding is not really good policy, as it just means every driver treats a 30 mph sign as meaning 40 mph limit, and 10 extra mph of speed makes a pedestrian about 40% more likely to die in a crash. On the other hand, many drivers have become conditioned to believe that such speeding is fine. What about charging a very small amount for such an infraction, to acclimate people to the idea that it's both illegal and dangerous, but gently?

Is the right fine the same for a mobile camera?

MPD also has a number of mobile cameras, and is buying some more. Mobile cameras move around to spots where there is danger and/or resident complaints but which don't have fixed cameras. They publish a list of locations that could have mobile cameras, but don't cover all of them every time.

Should the fine be the same? On the one hand, each camera catches about as many people as a fixed one. On the other hand, though, the certainty factor has now dropped for mobile cameras. Instead of a driver being sure they will get caught if they speed in one area, now they are only somewhat likely. Does this cut down on compliance? If so, does the fine need to be a little higher?

Should the fine automatically change as more cameras come in?

DC could lower fines somewhat today, and then lower them more once there are more cameras. It would make adding cameras less of a revenue play. DC can add cameras, but that automatically cuts the fines, meaning that the budget stays closer to constant.

If a deal in the Council lowers fines for all time, groups like AAA that complain about cameras might crow about getting the fines lowered and then still fight any more cameras. If some of the reduction ties into more cameras, then this can function as a sort of pact between safety advocates and camera opponents: the fines come down, but in exchange, more cameras go in.

Whatever the level, it's important to monitor compliance and adjust the rates if they're not working. If a fine is too low and people aren't obeying the law, it needs to go up. The council could simply revisit the issue every so often, or could even set up a rule that every so often, perhaps twice a year, the fines change based on criteria, like going up if people are speeding too much or down if they are speeding very little.

What do you think the right fine should be, and how can we make it most scientific?

Ultimately, Gray's mayoralty will leave a lasting effect on the budget and city services, and residents, whether they voted for and endorsed Adrian Fenty (as I did) or Gray, should care a great deal about what the capable people in the administration, unconnected to the campaign or any campaign finance, are doing.

We've also yet to find out whether the mayor himself was part of any illegal activity or knew about it. Based on what we know thus far, it appears that Gray made some very poor choices about whom to trust early on. Since then, he's replaced most of these poor hires with better staff, who are better at sharing the administration's positive accomplishments, such as:

One City One Hire

The administration's program to help unemployed residents find jobs has now suc­cee­ded in getting employers to hire 3,000 unemployed District residents in the past year.

There are numerous obstacles to getting people into jobs, but employers' lack of trust in DC's jobless has been among the most intractable. One City One Hire officials work to restore this trust by personally vetting resumes of unemployed DC residents and asking employers to consider a couple of handpicked resumes for each opening.

Some feel that this is what the Department of Employment Services (DOES) was supposed to be doing all along. This is technically true. It's also true that DC Public Schools are supposed to be properly educating our children. We shouldn't withhold credit where credit is due when DCPS or DOES fulfills its mission.

Sector-specific economic development

Under previous administrations, the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development was concerned almost exclusively with real estate deals. Although targeted real estate deals are important, only Mayor Gray has really invested in developing other sectors that are strategically important to the city.

The Mayor's broader focus has produced new positions critical to the city's economy, even if the officers filling those positions often operate behind the scenes. For example, newly hired DMPED officials regularly meet with leaders of the technology, government contractor, and health care communities to align identify ways DC can support these strategically important sectors.

A newly reconstituted Workforce Investment Council, whose executive director Alison Gerber was recruited from the Aspen Institute, has made it clear that workforce development dollars must be targeted to high demand sectors. As a result, for the first time, workforce development in DC is no longer scattershot, with the Gray Administration targeting key sectors.

DOES has cut off funding to several training providers whose training wasn't aligned with these sectors. A new Workforce Intermediary will ensure that the needs of hospitality and construction employers are addressed by training providers.

Continued capital investments without raiding city's reserves

DC residents were aware of the many capital improvements made under former Mayor Fenty, but fewer were aware that Fenty drew down the "rainy day" fund of $700 million to pay for some of these improvements.

Mayor Gray has continued the pace of capital improvements, with renovations of Takoma Education Campus and Woodson, Cardozo and Anacostia High Schools. While maintaining the pace of the previous Administration, Mayor Gray has managed to replenish our reserve fund, bringing it up to $1.1 billion.

Sustainability plan

If you haven't seen the objectives Mayor Gray set for 2032 in his Sustainable DC plan, then you should take a look. These objectives should provide the basis for numerous DC government initiatives over the next two decades covering issues as diverse as our food supply and obesity, along with transportation, tree canopy, and waste.

For some these strategic plans and objectives may seem mere feel-good talk, but these objectives matter. Historically, DC government has looked to such comprehensive plans and small area plans in designing legislation and framing countless policy debates in subsequent years.

Cameras and parking

Study after study proves that traffic cameras save lives. Mayor Gray significantly expanded traffic cameras in this year's budget, a politically courageous move that will continue DC's trend of lower and lower traffic fatalities.

While the DC Council created visionary pilots in performance parking, the previous administration never made it much of a priority to adjust meter rates to manage curbside space effectively. The Gray administration has expanded performance parking and made it clear this is a priority.

Continued momentum in education reform, streetcars and bike lanes

Some predicted that education reform, the streetcar and bike lanes would stop under Mayor Gray. Let's be clear: that hasn't happened. Mayor Gray has increased the investment in streetcars, pledging $100 million in capital funds starting last year.

The pace of bike lane construction slowed a bit at first, but DDOT is now putting in bike lanes on many streets throughout the city, and is on track to build the L Street track this summer and M street soon after. He even vociferously defended Capital Bikeshare over Twitter to skeptical New York reporters.

Finally, Mayor Gray has continued the process of education reform, despite the fears of many DC residents. Teachers are still being evaluated and sometimes fired based on performance, not on seniority.

The Gray administration's education reforms have included important initiatives which haven't received the same attention and publicity accorded the teacher firings. The administration has already made strides toward improving our special education system and opened multiple Early Stages centers aimed at early identification of kids with special needs. These investments have reduced by 20% the number of children bused, at DC's expense, to non-public special education, saving significant money.

I'm not nominating Mayor Gray for sainthood, but residents need to reexamine the fairly widespread belief that the administration is not getting anything done. While Adrian Fenty was very good at getting press attention for his actions, this administration is acting more quietly.

We should condemn any illegal behavior from the campaign, but we must also give the mayor and his staff credit for the ways the administration is making DC greater for the long term.

Now, an example, namely Porter Street/Klingle Road between Cleveland Park and Mount Pleasant. This looks like a bit of interstate highway plunked down in the middle of the city, evidence of a long-forgotten plan to make Piney Branch Parkway into an inner-city crosstown highway. It's a four-lane divided roadway, limited access, no residences, no businesses, no crosswalks, no cross traffic, and it's no wonder that drivers speed up at this point, not because they're crazy speedsters, but because the road is clearly built for higher speeds.

The 85th-percentile speed for this road is 41 mph, as indicated by the 2006 Speed Study Map. Hence, the speed limit should be 40 mph, or maybe, if we're being conservative, 35 mph. But in actual fact, the posted limit is 30 mph, which is more than "slightly lower" than the 85th percentile. It comes as no surprise that the speed camera placed at this location has been a bountiful source of speeding tickets.

The MPD belatedly argues that "there is a lot of pedestrian and bicycle traffic accessing the park" here. But there's no bike lane, no sidewalk on the north side ("Pedestrians Prohibited" is posted), and the sidewalk on the south side is virtually covered by vegetation. These are indications that pedestrian access is, to say the least, discouraged. As for bicyclists, as one of that tribe, I can say that this is one of the most bicycle-hostile locations in the city, and not because of traffic speed, but because of road design.

So, is the 30 mph speed limit appropriate? There's no apparent justification for such a large deviation from the 85th percentile speed. In fact, just to the west of this location there are apartment houses and parked cars and driveways, and traffic speed there might be expected to be a greater concern than down where this "highway" opens up. But that's not where the speed camera is pointed, suggesting that the MPD is not really interested in the safety of residents, but in issuing lots of $125 speeding tickets.

The speed camera wouldn't matter if the speed limit were reasonable. Nobody can complain about a ticket for going much over the 85th percentile speed. The problem is not the speed camera, but the unreasonable speed limit, such that that 85th-percentile driver would, in this case, be exceeding the posted limit by a solid 11 mph.

So one has to wonder about other speed-camera locations in the District. The question is not the speed camera, but the appropriateness of the speed limit where the camera is located. Anyone defending a speed camera at a certain location should begin by confirming that the speed limit at that location is reasonable.