Traffic Cameras - Greater Greater Washington

Traffic cameras are popular

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:37:00 EDT

87% of DC residents support red light cameras and 76% support speed cameras, a study found. 59% of people who'd gotten tickets said they deserved them. John Townsend seems unusually subdued. (Examiner)

Comment

Police unions differ on cameras

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:33:00 EDT

by David Alpert

New York's police union opposes adding traffic cameras, while DC's police union has fought for them and for the existing fines. GGW contributor alum Stephen Miller investigates the difference. (Streetsblog)

Comment

This camera's a fake

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:33:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Laurel is using two decoy speed cameras in an effort to slow down speeders. The decoy cameras are just the normal boxes that normally hold cameras, just without a working camera inside them. (Post)

Comment

Cheh wants safety not money

Wed, 03 Apr 2013 08:29:00 EDT

by David Alpert

The New York Times uses DC as the centerpiece of an article on speed cameras nationwide. Mary Cheh says, "I know citizens sometimes don't believe this ... I don't want your money. I want you to stop speeding."

Comment

Who got tickets?

Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:55:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Who got the city's free tickets for NCAA Sweet 16 games? (NBC4) ... Who got over 60 speeding tickets in Montgomery or Prince George's? (NBC4)

Comment

Gray will maintain most lower traffic camera fines

Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:28:00 EDT

by David Alpert

In the budget released today, Mayor Gray has allocated money to keep many traffic camera fines, which DC recently lowered, from automatically rising again. He will also propose raising fines a tiny bit for moderate speeding and considerably for major speeding.

Photo by Gerard :-[ on Flickr.

Last year, Councilmembers Tommy Wells, Mary Cheh, and Marion Barry introduced a bill to lower fines for speeding up to 20 mph over the limit, for blocking the box, turning right on red without stopping, and other violations. This responded to public sentiment that fines were too high and that camera tickets were an unfair cash cow for the District.

The original bill reduced fines to $50 for speeding up to 20 mph but left high fines ($200-250) for more speeding, on the logic that such egregious speeding is really reckless and clearly intentional. Phil Mendelson, however, pushed to modify the bill to use a linear scale instead of one with a sudden jump.

To lower the fines cost money, and the Council didn't find enough money to lower all speed fines. Instead, the fine for speeding 11-15 mph over the limit only dropped from $100 to $92. It would have made more sense to use the limited funds to drop the lower-speed fines first instead of the higher-speed ones, but that's not what happened.

They also only allocated money in the current fiscal year. Unless this budget said otherwise, the fines would have automatically jumped back up on October 1. Mayor Gray indeed allocated money to keep many of the lower fines, including ones for infractions besides speeding.

However, the administration proposes to set the fine for 11-15 mph and 16-20 mph over both at $100, said budget director Eric Goulet, and also raise the fine for speeding over 20 mph to ~~$250~~ $200 and over 25 mph to $300. This is actually the same fine schedule Gray previously proposed when the Council was debating lowering fines.

Fines for running red lights did not go down in the last bill. That's in part because AAA's John Townsend actually argued in the task force for maintaining higher red light fines, though he's since started spewing press releases complaining about them, despite his earlier stance.

Here is a table of the old fines, what Cheh and Wells proposed, what passed in the final bill both as the authorized level and the actual level that got funding, and what Gray is proposing for 2014.

Offense	2012	Cheh/ Wells	Auth. 2013	Funded 2013	Gray 2014
Speeding 1-10 mph (not enforced)	$75	$50	$50	$50	$50
Speeding 11-15 mph	$125	$50	$75	$92	$100
Speeding 16-20 mph	$150	$50	$100	$100	$100
Speeding 21-25 mph	$200	$200	$150	$150	$200
Speeding 26-30 mph	$250	$250	$250	$250	$300

Running red light	$150	$150	$150	$150	$150
Blocking the box	$100	$50	$50	$50	$50
Not stopping at stop sign	$100	$50	$50	$50	$50
Not yielding to pedestrian in crosswalk	$250	$50	$75	$75	$75
Not stopping before right on red	$100	$50	$50	$50	$50
Right on red when prohibited	$100	$50	$50	$50	$50

The Budget Support Act is not yet available, so all of the information here is based on my conversation with Goulet, and I am checking to confirm their proposal for the never-enforced 1-10 mph violation and whether not yielding to a pedestrian is $50 or $75. I will update the post when that is available. Update: After talking to Goulet, I have updated the table and added a row for speeding 26-30 mph, whose fine will be rising from $250 to $300 as well.

I originally pushed for even lower fines from cameras, on the logic that the fine should just be high enough to deter speeding or other behaviors, and that it could buy peace. Unfortunately, we really don't have good evidence about what deters speeding. Also, AAA has stepped up the pace of camera complaints and attack press releases, so it's become clear that there's no partner for peace over there.

Therefore, Gray's proposal is a reasonable position. It keeps some of the formerly most egregious fines down and should deter some of the most reckless behavior.

It's not waging any kind of "war on drivers," but if AAA is going to claim there is one even after DC leaders make a good faith effort to address the group's concerns, DC may as well prioritize making neighborhoods safe for residents by adding cameras and maintaining fines.

73 comments

NBC story on cameras actually discusses safety

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:23:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Something astounding has happened: A news story about speed camera tickets actually discusses whether or not they deter drivers from speeding, one of the acts which makes roads unsafe.

Mark Segraves dug up some information on whether drivers get more repeat tickets at DC or Maryland cameras:

Segraves got data from DC, Montgomery, and Prince George's about the percentage of drivers who get multiple tickets, out of all the drivers who get a ticket from the cameras. Ticketed drivers are twice as likely to have multiple tickets in the Maryland counties, and 20 times as likely to have 5 or 10 tickets.

What would cause this discrepancy?

This could be because the fines were much higher in DC in Maryland (they decreased in DC thanks the last year's camera bill). It could be that the lower fines mean people are less worried about getting caught. Prince George's County Executive Rushern Baker thinks that's true. Anecdotally, I've heard from other drivers who say they're much more afraid of speeding in DC.

It also could be that different groups of drivers get tickets in each jurisdiction. John Townsend of AAA (who can sound entirely reasonable when he tries) thinks that the Maryland cameras are in neighborhoods where the same drivers ply the roads day after day. A possible counter-argument is that drivers who live nearby know where the cameras are, so they shouldn't get tickets.

Another possibility is that DC gets more tourists, who come in, speed, get a ticket, and then aren't around to get more. Martin Austermuhle muses that perhaps Maryland drivers are just worse.

One way to better analyze these possibilities would be to break the data down by state. Are DC drivers re-offending at the same rate on DC cameras as Maryland drivers on Maryland cameras? Are Maryland drivers (most of whom do commute) getting more or fewer tickets on DC cameras than the DC drivers do?

Or, to investigate Townsend's claim, what about just the DC cameras that are in neighborhoods? AAA mostly complains about the ones on freeways, but the most serious safety problems are where major streets cut through neighborhoods. Do people get multiple tickets at higher rates on those DC cameras?

Was it wise to lower fines?

The task force Councilmembers Tommy Wells (ward 6) and Mary Cheh (ward 3) put together couldn't find convincing evidence one way or the other, so the councilmembers decided to lower the fines because of the political blowback. I argued at the time that AAA is orchestrating a lot of that blowback, so if they want to trade peace for lower fines, they'll have to follow through.

Townsend hasn't. Instead, they've sent out a stream of press releases attacking the cameras, and given lots of juicy quotes to the press. He's called cameras "the mother's milk of additional revenue" for government, even though DC lowered the fines.

Townsend even complained about red light cameras after arguing in the task force for keeping the fines high. He told Ashley Halsey III, "The District collects nearly two-thirds, a stunning 61.6 percent, of the [red-light camera] revenue total for the national capital area."

Let's debate the actual safety, not the fake anti-government frame

Maybe cameras won't work. Mount Pleasant ANC Commissioner Jack McKay doesn't think they do. MPD does, but doesn't have good enough data to really prove it. It would be great to have a real debate about what measures will and won't make streets safer.

That's not the debate we are having, however. Instead, AAA is using misdirection. They aren't saying the measures don't improve safety; they are saying the whole thing is a government conspiracy to squeeze money out of drivers. And the non-revenue elements like bike lanes are a "war on drivers" and an attempt to force people out of cars.

This is a pernicious theme because it plays right into the press's existing biases to cover stories as government vs. the people. AAA doesn't want to talk about the people who get hurt from drivers turning right without stopping; they want everyone to blame the evil gummint.

For some reason which escapes me, most reporters seem to eat it up. Halsey led off his story with the extremely biased line, "The lucrative battle to keep drivers in the District from running red lights seems to be achieving more profit than success." It's amazing that there had to be a letter to the editor to point out that illegal driving is more than a revenue issue, it's a safety issue.

Let's look at that success, seriously. A debate about the cameras based on safety would be welcome. There are plenty of angles for reporters to investigate that relate to the actual safety, or the appropriate level of fines. Mark Segraves has taken one step toward that. Will others follow?

72 comments

AAA still misleads

Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:56:00 EDT

by David Alpert

AAA's John Townsend is still complaining about speed camera and red-light camera revenue increasing, but that's likely because DC has added cameras and people keep speeding/running red lights. (RPUS, Post, Examiner)

Comment

Fairfax considers red light cameras

Wed, 06 Mar 2013 08:52:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Fairfax supervisors might try red light cameras again after reading a study that they "dramatically improved safety" in Arlington. Alexandria and Fairfax City also use them. (Post)

Comment

Camera camera works

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:03:00 EDT

by David Alpert

After Prince George's posted a security camera to watch for people vandalizing its speed cameras, nobody has tried to destroy the cameras. Police also say residents constantly ask for more cameras. (WTOP)

Comment

Distribute enforcement camera money to residents, Alaska-style (Dec 9, 2009)
Speed camera becomes a lottery (Dec 7, 2010)
Lower camera fines? Sure, once we have more cameras (Feb 22, 2012)
Gray slightly tweaks camera fines to stave off larger change (Nov 2, 2012)
What is the right level for speed camera fines? (Aug 2, 2012)

The facts in the case of M. Driver

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:43:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

A Crownsville resident complains that DC's new L Street bike lane, traffic lights, and speeding tickets make her drive into DC for work unpleasant and cyclists break laws. WashCycle rebuts the arguments; plus, let's not forget the many cars parked illegally in the L Street lanes. (Post, Examiner)

Comment

Not stopping doesn't make every cyclist a "rogue" (Feb 9, 2009)
WashCycle weighs in on Georgetown (May 29, 2008)
Are protected bike lanes actually more dangerous? (Jan 14, 2008)
DDOT may restore two-way traffic on 15th Street (Jan 10, 2008)
Gaithersburg police target people in the way of cars (Oct 4, 2010)

And...

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:31:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Hyattsville may soon get speed cameras. (Gazette) ... 4 Senators introduce a DC statehood bill in the Senate. (Examiner) ... Groups using the Mall will now have to pay for any damage they cause. (Examiner)

Comment

Distribute enforcement camera money to residents, Alaska-style (Dec 9, 2009)

Can we get more proportionality in criminal justice?

Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:28:00 EDT

by David Alpert

I was heartbroken to read that Aaron Swartz, a 26-year-old Internet freedom activist, author of RSS, and Reddit cofounder, killed himself on Friday. I'd met Aaron a few times; on April 6, 2009, he emailed me to ask about books he should read on city policy issues.

Photo by okfn on Flickr.

Aaron clearly suffered from depression, but his family, law professor Lawrence Lessig, and many others are also criticizing prosecutors in the Boston US Attorney's office who hounded Aaron with multiple felony charges after he downloaded large numbers of academic articles at MIT, but never distributed them.

Aaron, and many others, find a major injustice in the the way academic journals pay authors nothing for articles but then charge large amounts of money for online access to the journals. That doesn't justify lawbreaking, but his also wasn't a transgression that merits multiple felony counts and jail time.

In a post entitled "Prosecutor as bully," Lessig wrote:

If what the government alleged was true ... then what [Aaron] did was wrong. ... But all this shows is that if the government proved its case, some punishment was appropriate. So what was that appropriate punishment? ... Our government continued to push as if it had caught the 9/11 terrorists red-handed. ...
From the beginning, the government worked as hard as it could to characterize what Aaron did in the most extreme and absurd way. ... I get wrong. But I also get proportionality. And if you don't get both, you don't deserve to have the power of the United States government behind you.
For remember, we live in a world where the architects of the financial crisis regularly dine at the White House—and where even those brought to "justice" never even have to admit any wrongdoing, let alone be labeled "felons."

Our local criminal justice system also has plenty of examples of proportionality failures.

Drivers who behave recklessly and kill pedestrians and cyclists usually face little punishment unless they are drunk or flee. When a driver was caught on tape assaulting a cyclist, authorities didn't press charges. After police worked hard to investigate a driver who was allegedly on his cell phone when he hit and killed a senior crossing the street, prosecutors brought charges, but a grand jury refused to indict.

Meanwhile, our punishments for some transgressions often go far beyond what's appropriate or what is necessary to stop crime, like suspending students for taking their prescription medication without proper paperwork or a 6-year-old for making a gun shape with a hand.

Even for violent crimes, which we absolutely must vehemently combat, prison terms often far exceed what's necessary or effective. In his most recent column, David Brooks wrote:

If you want to deter crime, it seems that you'd want to lengthen prison sentences so that criminals would face steeper costs for breaking the law. In fact, a mountain of research shows that increases in prison terms have done nothing to deter crime. Criminals, like the rest of us, aren't much influenced by things they might have to experience far in the future.

Instead, it's more effective to fight lawbreaking by adding actual enforcement, so that more perpetrators get caught and punished. In the lingo of the field, you want to increase certainty rather than severity.

Based on this logic, our local government just passed a bill to relieve punitive burdens on drivers who speed. It made sense not to charge punitively high fees on speeders, since the primary objective must be safety rather than revenue. (Unfortunately, Phil Mendelson, who never participated in the task force that pored over research and debated options, then rewrote or deleted most of the key provisions in the bill that would increase certainty, and added new sections that will reduce safety in other ways.)

Now we've applied the certainty-over-severity analysis, or at least the less-severity half, to an area of crime that has a politically powerful constituency—drivers—behind it. Will the council now do the same for other areas of our criminal justice?

Unlike speeding, injustices in the way we prosecute drug laws or the "school to prison pipeline" disproportionately affect poorer and minority communities that have less political clout. The families who suffer from over-incarceration are less likely to be the ones having lunch with a councilmember than the business leader who might complain about some speeding tickets.

Will Wells try to fix laws that over-punish some people to little end, and under-punish others who today don't face any consequences for serious transgressions? Will the rest of the council agree to such measures?

It's not possible to devise a perfectly fair criminal justice system. Some people will get away with serious malfeasance while others suffer excessively. What we can do, both nationally by recalibrating our response to journal article downloading versus financial fraud, or locally in our response to speeding versus shooting transgendered people, is push for more proportionality where possible. There's a lot of work to do.

40 comments

Lower camera fines? Sure, once we have more cameras (Feb 22, 2012)
What is the right level for speed camera fines? (Aug 2, 2012)
Gray slightly tweaks camera fines to stave off larger change (Nov 2, 2012)
DC Council bill would lower traffic camera fines (Oct 16, 2012)
Petula Dvorak puts a few minutes' convenience over Montgomery residents' lives (Nov 5, 2010)

Baltimore gets new cameras

Wed, 09 Jan 2013 08:52:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

Baltimore will replace all 83 of its speed cameras after revelations that some cameras' error rates exceeded 5%. (Baltimore Sun)

Comment

Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits (May 21, 2012)
Distribute enforcement camera money to residents, Alaska-style (Dec 9, 2009)
Speed camera becomes a lottery (Dec 7, 2010)
Lower camera fines? Sure, once we have more cameras (Feb 22, 2012)
Petula Dvorak puts a few minutes' convenience over Montgomery residents' lives (Nov 5, 2010)

Generous camera illegal?

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:20:00 EDT

by David Alpert

A police officer is insisting 14,000 tickets are invalid from a speed camera because it was set at a higher speed limit than the posted one. (Post)

Comment

Speed camera bill now would make streets more dangerous

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:09:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Tomorrow, the DC Council will take its second vote on its bill to lower speed fines. It's likely to pass, given that it passed unanimously on first reading, but it contains some extremely dangerous provisions, including one that would force the District to set speed limits based on the "engineering perspective" over neighborhood livability.

Photo by ph-stop on Flickr.

ANC 3E goes further and argues, in a unanimous resolution, that the bill would harm safety rather than enhance it. I have a hard time disagreeing, given that Chairman Phil Mendelson removed many of the important provisions in the original bill that came from the task force I served on, and added some harmful new ones.

I previously listed some troubling provisions that made it into the transportation committee markup, mostly at Mendelson's behest, but the most damaging is this section, which the committee didn't pass but which Mendelson added anyway:

(a) By November 1, 2013, the Mayor shall complete a District-wide assessment that evaluates the speed limits on the District's arterials and other streets. The report of the assessment shall include the criteria used for assessing the speed limits. Upon its completion, the assessment shall be posted to the District Department of Transportation's website. The assessment shall:
(1) Utilize factors common among transportation officials for the determination of speed limit;

(2) Evaluate whether comparable arterials should have comparable speed limits, and similarly do so for other streets;

(3) Include, based solely on an engineering perspective, speed limits for the District's arterials and other streets.

(b) By January 1, 2014, the Mayor shall revise, through rulemaking, existing speed limits throughout the District. The speed limits shall include comparable speeds for comparable arterials, and other comparable streets. Notwithstanding this requirement, the Mayor shall not cause an anti-deficiency as determined by a fiscal impact statement obtained by the Mayor from the Chief Financial Officer.

"Engineering perspective" shouldn't be only factor in speed limits

Mendelson apparently is trying to ensure that speed limits get set without regard for revenue or politics, and fairly between different arterials in various parts of the city.

Those are good instincts, but requiring an "engineering perspective" for speed limits is the wrong approach. The traffic engineering profession has a deeply ingrained practice of setting speed limits solely for car traffic, and with the motivation of making roads move traffic as fast as possible for the safety of drivers.

They traditionally use a simple "80% rule": Set the limit at the rate that 80% of drivers move on a particular road. The idea is that some people are speeding, but if most people travel at a particular rate, that rate is probably safe. And on a limited-access highway, that's not a terrible idea, because there is only one kind of road user (maybe two, if motorcycles are separate).

But our neighborhood streets, including arterials, have to balance the needs of many modes. 80% of drivers gives no thought whatsoever to the speed that will allow people to cross the street at unsignalized intersections (where it's legal) without the danger that a driver won't come around a curve so fast that they can't see the pedestrian or stop in time. It doesn't consider the traffic flow that would allow bicyclists and drivers to coexist safely and efficiently.

The "engineering perspective" doesn't have to ignore these factors; engineers could easily devise another algorithm that is better. But they generally haven't, and the guy in charge of speed limits for DDOT, James Cheeks, personally wrote a whitepaper when he worked for the Institute of Transportation Engineers advocating for the 80% rule.

That document says the 80% rule is "a case of majority rule." Actually, we often don't set laws just based on majority rule. We protect vulnerable minority groups and have legal processes to ensure majorities don't trample their needs. On the roads, motorists are the majority but pedestrians and cyclists are a vulnerable minority we need to protect.

At the task force meetings, Cheeks reiterated that the 80% rule was his preferred way to set speed limits, but when pushed, also added that DDOT always talks to residents and also thinks about pedestrian and bicycle safety. My fear is that the "engineering perspective" in Mendelson's provision will specifically push DDOT to follow the dangerous method in this whitepaper, which specifically comes from engineers, and not to incorporate other needs or listen to communities.

ANC 3E wants escalating fines

The Advisory Neighborhood Commission for Tenleytown, AU Park and Friendship Heights, ANC 3E, asked the Council to turn down the bill entirely, saying, "We believe the stated basis for enacting the Bill does not support the Bill's passage. Without material changes, we believe the Bill would fail adequately deter repeat offenders and lead to unnecessary deaths and injuries."

The ANC primarily is concerned that repeat offenders will get off easy for ignoring the laws time and again. The task force originally supported having some system that would give first offenders lower penalties, and chronic repeat offenders higher ones. The original bill also prescribed much higher fines for higher levels of speeding on the belief that traveling 20-30 mph over the limit is act much more intentionally flouting the law than speeding 11 mph over.

The ANC's resolution states:

ANC 3E believes the current fine regime, which per the legislative history puts DC near the middle of state fine regimes, is not unduly harsh. Evidence is strong that speed cameras save lives in DC. By contrast, the evidence is weak that higher fines do not promote more safety, as economic theory predicts, or that a majority of DC residents want to see fines lowered.
Whether or not the Council chooses to reduce some fines, however, we strenuously urge the Council to establish a system of fines for moving violations that escalates after a set number of offenses of a given severity. The escalation scheme should parallel the point system for violations in a police officer's presence. Thus, an owner whose vehicle is ticketed three times in a two year period for driving 16 mph over the limit should receive a fine on the third offense whose magnitude would be akin to the magnitude of license suspension for a 6+ months. Although we do not formally recommend such a sum, we believe that it should be at least $500.
If the Council does not amend the Bill to create such an escalating scheme, we respectfully urge the Mayor to veto it, and respectfully urge the Council to reconsider creating such a scheme.

The resolution also argues that absent more evidence that lower fines don't lead to more speeding, it doesn't make sense to lower the fines. It says that most residents do support the fines, and asks the Council not to listen to organized lobbying from a few special interest groups.

Update: Tina pointed out that this gem of a video is very relevant here. Everyone who thinks that the same old "engineering perspective" is the right way to make traffic decisions needs to see this.

57 comments

Gray slightly tweaks camera fines to stave off larger change (Nov 2, 2012)
Sausage machine generates great contractor parking bill, enfeebles speed camera bill (Nov 28, 2012)
What is the right level for speed camera fines? (Aug 2, 2012)
DC Council bill would lower traffic camera fines (Oct 16, 2012)
Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits (May 21, 2012)

Fine camera operators for errors?

Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:51:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Jon Cardin wants traffic camera operators to pay a $1,000 fine for each erroneous ticket they write. There had been reports of a few malfunctioning cameras in Baltimore. (DC's process is different, with police directly involved in approving every ticket. (Baltimore Sun)

Comment

DC Council votes

Wed, 05 Dec 2012 08:36:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

The DC Council approved bills to reduce traffic fines and deregulate Uber, and passed the tax break for Howard Town Center, but narrowly voted down red-top parking meters for drivers with disabilities. (Post, Examiner)

Comment

Montgomery council votes for townhouses at Chelsea School (Jun 14, 2012)
Howard Town Center doesn't need an $11 million tax break (Dec 4, 2012)
Council balks at bike lane parking fines (Jul 16, 2008)
DC Council bill would lower traffic camera fines (Oct 16, 2012)
City Council takes some stupid pills (Jul 31, 2005)

Sausage machine generates great contractor parking bill, enfeebles speed camera bill

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:13:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Today, Mary Cheh's DC Council committee, which oversees transportation, is marking up 13 bills on topics from Bloomingdale flooding (affected homeowners can get money) to recycling demolished building materials (contractors have to do it). 2 we've been closely following have changed significantly in this round: one to let contractors park on residential streets, and the much-ballyhooed bill to lower speed camera fines.

Photo by Cowgirl Jules on Flickr.

On contractor parking, Cheh proposes a system of passes which licensed contractors can buy to park, for one day per pass, on residential streets. This is a great approach that points the way to a better solution for guest passes and much more.

The speed camera bill, meanwhile, lost some important provisions, like the fund dedicating some revenue to better streets and more safety programs. However, it gained a sunset provision which lets us see whether, as proponents hope, lowering fines would end the outcry against cameras or just give something away for little gain.

Contractor parking bill takes the right approach

The contractor parking bill (committee report) will let licensed contractors get day passes to park on residential streets where they have jobs. Each pass will let them park for one day, until 5 pm. DDOT will set up a system for them to buy these passes, at a cost of $10 per day, and can adjust the rates in the future with a rulemaking.

This is a terrific solution to an important problem. (Full disclosure: I talked with Cheh's staff about this approach.) Our streets are reserved for residents, but residents often have contractors working at their houses. Contractors currently get in the habit of just parking illegally and absorbing some number of tickets as the cost of business, a cost they broadly pass on to homeowners.

Instead of making a contractor play a "reverse lottery" that they might get a big ticket, it makes far more sense to simply charge a reasonable fee. Over time, it would make sense for DDOT to customize the fee to different areas. In neighborhoods with plentiful daytime parking, the fee could be lower, and maybe in the neighborhoods with greatest demand it should be higher.

You might ask, should this just apply to contractors? Some people have housecleaners, or nannies, or elder caregivers come to the house. What about them? The answer is simple: a day pass program can work for them too. Maybe the rates would be lower, but this is generally a good solution to the weaknesses of the residential permit parking (RPP) program, and a better approach than annual placards that are too easily abused for areas with high parking demand.

Will the speed camera bill bring peace?

Meanwhile, a committee print of Tommy Wells' and Mary Cheh's bill on lowering speed camera fines (committee report) has many changes, which Council sources say mostly came from Chairman Phil Mendelson. Mendelson is still chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and he referred the bill sequentially to both committees. Therefore, he has the opportunity to make changes.

One significant change is that the bill no longer dedicates any revenue from cameras to more cameras, safety education, traffic officers, or redesigning roads for lower "design speeds," as the original bill did.

As I've written many times, from an abstract policy point of view, lower fines make sense, as the level of fine doesn't appear to correlate with driver behavior. However, also from an abstract policy point of view, politicians shouldn't base their decisions on who shouts loudest, yet we know they do.

As Cheh noted in her opening statement at the hearing on the bill, the biggest motivation behind the bill is to remove public opposition that could stand in the way of more widespread safety-based enforcement. The question is, will this bill do that?

It could be that lowering fines suddenly creates a peace in the District where drivers and driver organizations generally accept cameras. Or, it might be that people who get tickets will scream about it just the same. While the purpose of the cameras shouldn't be and shouldn't have been revenue, now that they're here, there are other things one could spend money on besides buying down fines. Is it worth it?

We can't really know. The rationale for creating a special fund to help with future camera purchases was that it would make it easier for MPD to get new cameras without such a long and tortured process as it had for this last round. On the other hand, DC budget director Eric Goulet argued in his testimony that the fund wouldn't really end the need for the council to specifically approve new camera spending and contracts anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Another way to deal with this uncertainty would be to make the new fines temporary. Let's see how things work out for a year or so. If there's peace in camera land, then it was the right move and should be permanent. If we're still having the same arguments, then DC might as well take the revenue for all the headaches.

Fortunately, the new committee print does just that. It includes a sunset provision that it will expire at the end of the 2013 fiscal year (in September 2013). This also means that this bill wouldn't affect the FY2014 budget, which the Council will debate this spring.

It still does mean the bill would use up some of the "unanticipated revenue" that is coming in this year, instead of it going to another program such as the Housing Production Trust Fund.

On the other hand, the fines now aren't going down as much. The original bill set fines at $50 for speeding up to 20 mph over the limit, but now proposes levels of $50 for up to 10 mph over (which MPD doesn't usually ticket for) and $75 for 11-20 over. That probably means it will cost less, though it also means it might be less likely to assuage angry drivers who got a lot of tickets.

Another change, and not a great one, is that the bill now does not distinguish between fines for automated enforcement and fines from a police officer. This is simpler, but wrong. The idea behind lower automated fines is that there should be an inverse relationship between severity and certainty: if the chance of getting caught is higher, the punishment needn't be so high. With a camera, that's the case.

But if there's an area without cameras, but officers are doing some in-person ticket writing, the certainty is low again, so the fine needs to stay higher. Besides, low fines could make it harder for MPD to assign officers to writing tickets in safety trouble spots, since the tickets might not pay for the officer's time any more.

Cheh's committee is marking up the bill today, and then Mendelson's will mark it up tomorrow. He could push for changes, for better or worse, at that point. Then it will go before the Council, where members could try to amend it to further change provisions or restore some from the original bill.

12 comments

Gray slightly tweaks camera fines to stave off larger change (Nov 2, 2012)
DC Council bill would lower traffic camera fines (Oct 16, 2012)
How else can DC's camera program improve safety? (Aug 8, 2012)
Task force tries to make peace over cameras; AAA doesn't (Aug 29, 2012)
Lower camera fines? Sure, once we have more cameras (Feb 22, 2012)

Don't let affordable housing become a victim of speeding

Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:50:00 EDT

by Elizabeth Falcon

It doesn't seem like there would be a connection between the amount of affordable housing DC builds, and the cost of a speeding ticket. But those two things might become directly connected this winter.

Photo by Damien [Phototrend.fr] on Flickr.

Last week, the DC Fiscal Policy Institute revealed that the Gray administration plans to pay for lower fines with $25 million in "unexpected revenue," the money which becomes available if revenue projections in the DC budget are too conservative.

There has been much outcry from drivers about the cost of these tickets, yielding proposals to lower fines from the Council, particularly Councilmember Tommy Wells. This response, however, does more than just lower punishments for unsafe driving. It also penalizes District programs, including affordable housing, which District leaders have already deemed top priorities for unexpected revenue.

In March, Mayor Gray's proposed budget included $84 million in revenue from speeding tickets, cuts to many human services and affordable housing programs, and a "priority restoration list." Top on the list are homeless shelters, youth mental health services, and the Housing Production Trust Fund.

The latest budget is the second year the Housing Production Trust Fund has had the majority of its funding used for other programs, with a commitment that it would be a priority for restoration. Of the $38 million removed in the last two years, however, the District has only restored $2 million.

Spending money first on lowering speeding tickets runs counter to the Mayor's and Council's own commitments to fund key programs with the first available resources. The Mayor and Council agreed to the list during budget negotiations. This allowed residents directly see the trade-offs between programs, and represented as a set of promises to residents about how it would spend extra revenue.

The Mayor and Council want to act quickly to respond to the public concern over the cost of traffic violations, but they have dragged their feet finding funding to restore the Housing Production Trust Fund and funding the other critical areas. They should not speed to a resolution, without looking at the other impacts this choice would bring to many people in the District of Columbia.

63 comments

How will Gray's budget address affordable housing? (Mar 19, 2012)
Gray budget boosts streetcar, traffic cameras; cuts housing (Mar 23, 2012)
At 10, DC's housing trust fund has had a tough childhood (Oct 9, 2012)
DC budget unfairly hits affordable housing and more (May 4, 2011)
Kwame Brown pushing tax cuts over his prior promises (Jul 6, 2011)

Gray slightly tweaks camera fines to stave off larger change

Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:24:00 EDT

by David Alpert

This morning, DC Mayor Vince Gray proposed some changes to the District's speed camera fines. It seems to be an attempt to stave off more significant changes in a bill from Tommy Wells and Mary Cheh, which is having a hearing on Monday.

Photo by Wayan Vota on Flickr.

Gray's plan would lower fines for speeding up to 10 mph from $75 to $50, though MPD is generally not writing tickets for speeding at this level (though the law lets them if they choose). Speeding from 11-20 mph over the limit would decrease from $125 to $100.

Meanwhile, Gray would raise the fine for speeding over 20 mph from $250 to $300. He also announced something DDOT previously said at the task force, which is that they are reviewing speed limits and may raise some.

The Wells-Cheh bill, by contrast, would lower fines for 0-10 and 11-20 to $50, as well as fines for other infractions like blocking the box or not fully stopping at a stop sign.

Gray said he will use some of the money to hire 100 new police officers. That's fine, though if the police officers don't focus on traffic, then it ultimately is just using camera revenue for things other than road safety.

We need to do more for traffic safety. DC is adding a few cameras which will make a big impact, but there's a lot of dangerous driving out there. A few cameras with high fines will stem a little bit of it and raise a bunch of money. I want to see us stem a lot more of it, and the only realistic way to do that is to expand the cameras significantly.

A major element of the Wells-Cheh bill is a provision that some camera revenue goes into a fund the Metropolitan Police Department can use to buy more cameras. Regardless of the level of fines, it's critical to set up a system whereby the stock of cameras can automatically grow over time.

It's also critical to ensure that the political blowback from speed cameras doesn't stop the District government from adding more. Now, it's not clear what exactly is necessary to achieve this. If Gray had 3-4 more years on his mayoralty, there might be little need to change the fines. Gray shows no interest in curtailing the plan whatsoever, regardless of fines, and in fact is resistant to lowering fines.

The DC Council might have disapproved some contracts for new cameras, but it couldn't. The next year's budget counts on a lot of revenue from cameras, which means that if councilmembers had wanted to delete the cameras, they would have had to fill a big budget hole.

What about in the future? If Gray doesn't run for reelection, as most speculate he won't, then the next mayor might have a different view. Maybe the next mayor will be so hostile to cameras that it won't matter how high or low the fines are. Or maybe he or she will keep cameras going no matter what.

From a safety point of view, fines don't need to be high as long as it's having a deterrent effect. At the press conference, Police Chief Cathy Lanier said she doesn't believe $50 fines are enough to deter, but council staff could find no studies that showed any conclusive correlation between fine size and driving behavior.

That suggest that high fines don't really improve safety. On the other hand, it also means that lowering fines probably won't do anything for safety either—unless lowering fines changes the political dynamic and allows more cameras.

It's not clear it will. AAA's John Townsend participated in the task force, and said in the meetings that AAA would support cameras as long as they're not for revenue. But then, last week AAA still came out with a provcative study of how many dollars certain cameras brought in, and got a raft of sympathetic stories in the press.

From a purely abstract point of view, lowering fines is the right thing to do. Punishments should be high enough to deter lawbreaking, but don't need to be higher just to punish. A lot of people believe, despite academic evidence to the contrary, that cranking up punishments fights crime or unsafe driving; past a certain point, it doesn't.

From a political point of view, on the other hand, it's worth doing this right thing if it achieves a greater goal. Expanding cameras, and making streets safer, should be that goal. If the bill sets aside a fund for MPD to buy more cameras, that could significantly streamline the process.

If lowering fines blunts political blowback, that's worth a lot. However, if speeders still complain, and AAA's Townsend will continue to say anything to get attention in the press regardless of lower fines, then lower fines would just give dangerous lawbreakers a windfall for little benefit.

59 comments

Lower camera fines? Sure, once we have more cameras (Feb 22, 2012)
DC Council bill would lower traffic camera fines (Oct 16, 2012)
Task force tries to make peace over cameras; AAA doesn't (Aug 29, 2012)
What is the right level for speed camera fines? (Aug 2, 2012)
How else can DC's camera program improve safety? (Aug 8, 2012)

The poll of everything

Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:31:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

In a City Paper politics poll, 55% of respondents attending a neighborhood meeting in the last year, 59% support Uber, and 56% support speed cameras. A neat tool lets you graph any question, like Presidential candidate support or at-large preference, against any other.

Comment