Smile, Red-Light Runners . . . You're on Automated Camera

FROM THE MPA PROGRAM

Smile, Red-Light Runners . . . You’re on Automated Camera

Randy Jay Harrington

he Insurance Institute for High- way Safety estimates that more At a SafeLight intersection T than 800 deaths occur annually in Charlotte, a camera as a result of red-light running (RLR).1 mounted atop a 15-foot pole Further, the Insurance Institute reports is activated when a vehicle that the number of fatal crashes at inter- runs a red light. sections with traffic signals (signalized intersections) increased by 24 percent from 1992 to 1997. A 1990–91 study of urban police reports indicated that 22 percent of all urban crashes resulted from the drivers’ running traffic con- trols. Of these, 24 percent involved their running red lights.2 With police resources declining in relation to the number of vehicles on the road, local officials around the country have begun exploring the use of cameras to detect traffic signal violators.3 In 1993, New York City became the first U.S. jurisdiction to place cameras at selected intersections in order to reduce RLR. Now, close to fifty cities in ten states operate 250 cameras in programs enforcing the requirement that drivers stop at red lights (red-light photo enforcement programs, for short). Camera suppliers predict that the number of operating cameras will double annually.4 Arizona and California are the only states that regard the camera-caught red- light violation as a criminal moving violation, subject to fines and license and insurance points. For points to be assessed, which could lead to revocation of a person’s license and higher insurance rates, cities in Arizona and California must clearly identify the driver. Therefore they must produce a frontal photo of the driver and identify the license plate.

The author, a 2000 graduate of UNC–CH’s Master of Public Administration Program, ARRINGTON is a Presidential Management Intern with H AY the U.S. Department of Transportation. J ANDY

Contact him at [email protected]. R

40 popular government winter 2001 Other states, including North Caro- lina, authorize municipalities to impose a civil penalty only, with no assessment of driver’s license points. Therefore they require photographic verification of the license plate only, usually from the rear of the vehicle. In North Carolina a civil penalty citation is issued to the vehicle’s registered owner. If it is not paid, the mu- nicipality issuing the citation may institute a civil action to collect the penalty. This article summarizes the experience of Charlotte, North Carolina, in establishing and operating a red-light photo enforcement program, which it

calls SafeLight Charlotte. The program HARLOTTE C appears to have reduced the number of IGHT L

RLR violations and associated crashes at AFE S 5 SafeLight intersections. The city also has The automated camera takes two photos of the vehicle and the light, one before the gained revenue from increased enforce- vehicle enters the intersection, and one after. Above, the second photo, with relevant ment of red-light violations. data superimposed: “17 04” is the time of the violation; “28-08-98,” the date it At each of Charlotte’s intersections occurred; “0.67,” the elapsed time between the two photos; “R 0 57,” the total using red-light photo enforcement, called elapsed time of the red phase at the time of the second photo (here, 5.7 seconds); SafeLight intersections, there are at least “014,” the violation number on the camera film; and “V = 30,” the vehicle speed. two electric-wire loops per lane of travel buried in the pavement, a 35-millimeter camera atop a 15-foot pole, and a con- ing incidences of RLR in the city.13 RLR To obtain state and local authorization, trol box near the sidewalk that coordi- even became a frequent topic on morn- Charlotte took seven steps. First, man- nates the traffic light with the loops and ing radio. agers in the Charlotte Department of the camera. When the light turns red and The statistics and the public concern Transportation (CDOT) obtained the ap- after a .03-second grace period, the system drew the attention of Charlotte’s city proval of their department head. Second, becomes active. Once it does, a vehicle council, police department, and depart- CDOT secured approval of the city man- traveling more than 15 miles per hour ment of transportation. Led by the latter, ager. Third, CDOT presented the city triggers the loops (located directly in these groups determined that photo council with statistics and information front of the painted, white stop bar).6 enforcement offered the most effective about the need for red-light photo en- This causes the camera to take a rear and easiest method for reducing RLR forcement. The council unanimously sup- photograph of the vehicle showing the and RLR–associated crashes. ported the idea and authorized CDOT to light in its red phase and verifying that pursue state approval. Fourth, before ap- the light turned red before the vehicle How did Charlotte obtain authori- proaching the legislature, CDOT worked entered the intersection. A second rear zation for its plan? with AAA Carolinas and local media to photograph then captures the vehicle in Before engaging in red-light photo en- educate the public on the reasons for pur- the intersection during the red phase.7 forcement, jurisdictions must obtain en- suing red-light photo enforcement (as op- abling legislation from both the General posed to increasing traditional enforce- What led Charlotte to pursue Assembly and their local governing bodies. ment). Fifth, CDOT took the proposal to red-light photo enforcement? In 1997 the General Assembly passed Mecklenburg County’s state legislative Charlotte’s ranking among North Caro- Section 160A-300.1 of the North Caro- delegation. Sixth, the delegation presented lina urban jurisdictions for number of lina General Statutes (hereinafter G.S.). the proposal to the General Assembly, vehicle crashes rose from eighteenth in The initial version of the statute applied which approved it through enactment of 1996 to first in 1998.8 In 1996, 34 percent to Charlotte only, authorizing the city to G.S. 160A-300.1. Finally, the city council of Charlotte’s vehicle crashes were attri- engage in this form of enforcement activ- enacted an ordinance establishing the buted to RLR.9 Further, 49 percent of the ity if the activity also was authorized by SafeLight program. Two years elapsed crashes at the 179 signalized intersections local ordinance and complied with the from inception of the idea to operation on Charlotte’s 1998 list of high-accident requirements set forth in the statute (de- of the first camera. locations (HAL)10 resulted from RLR.11 scribed later). Since then, the statute has Citizen concern matched crash statis- been amended to extend this authority What concerns were expressed tics. Seventy-six percent of the city’s resi- to several more cities and towns, as well about red-light photo enforcement? dents believed RLR to be a major safety as to clarify the requirements for use of Several issues framed the debate about hazard,12 and the media reported alarm- the technique.14 red-light photo enforcement. Most nota-

popular government winter 2001 41 Figure 1. Crashes at SafeLight Intersections

100

Aug 1997–July 1998 (before SafeLight) 80

Aug 1998–July 1999 (after SafeLight) 70

40 Number of Crashes 30

Poplar & 4th Tryon & Harris Graham & 10th 11th & Brevard South & Archdale Fairview & Sharon Brookshire & Hovis Albemarle & Harris Eastway & Kilborne Morehead & College Tyvola & Wedgewood Sardis North & MonroeWestinghouseBeatties & TryonFord & Hoskins Morehead & McDowell Sharon IdlewildAmity & &Central Independence Sugar CreekArrowood & I-85 RandolphService & Nations & FordSharon Amity Intersection

Source: Data from CHARLOTTE DEP’TOFTRANSP., SAFELIGHT PROGRAM, YEARLY ACCIDENT STATISTICS @ SAFELIGHT INTERSECTIONS (AUG.–JUL.) 1 (Charlotte, N.C.: SafeLight Program, CDOT, Dec. 1999). bly, critics argued that the cameras $90 in court costs, and an assessment of as a mechanism for altering people’s driv- would invade people’s privacy. Concerns points against the driver’s license. A ve- ing habits.18 Charlotte officials also em- about rising RLR violations overrode hicle’s owner may avoid liability for the phasized that the police did not possess this argument,15 although the legislature civil nonmoving violation by signing an the resources to increase traditional en- included a requirement that signs be affidavit identifying the actual driver at forcement at Charlotte intersections. posted at all camera-equipped intersec- the time of the violation. Cameras, in contrast, could monitor in- tions notifying approaching motorists of In North Carolina, criminal motor ve- tersections twenty-four hours a day, the cameras. hicle fines go to the schools.16 However, seven days a week. Critics also argued that government because camera-caught RLR is charac- Charlotte contracted out the daily op- should not penalize the vehicle’s owner terized as a civil offense, the SafeLight erations and management of the Safe- and assess insurance points against him program is able to retain all the resulting Light program, and some critics argued or her without proof that the owner was revenue.17 In response to the concerns of that the involvement of a private, for- driving the vehicle. In response, the legis- some citizens that the program was sim- profit company created a conflict of in- lature classified an RLR violation detected ply a government money-making scheme, terest. Camera proponents countered by photographic means as a civil non- Charlotte officials emphasized that the that the public-private partnership had moving offense, punishable by a $50 program’s goal was to reduce the number the benefit of imposing no new tax bur- penalty only. In contrast, if RLR is de- of crashes and deaths at intersections, den while producing additional local tected by a law enforcement officer, it is thus making Charlotte a safer communi- government revenue. Proponents also a moving violation, carrying a $25 fine, ty. The monetary penalties were to serve argued that any potential abuses would

42 popular government winter 2001 Figure 2. RLR—Associated Crashes at SafeLight Intersections

Aug 1997–July 1998 (before SafeLight) 35 Aug 1998–July 1999 (after SafeLight) 30

Number of RLR–Associated Crashes 10

Poplar & 4th Tryon & Harris Graham & 10th 11th & Brevard South & ArchdaleFairview & Sharon Brookshire & Hovis Albemarle & Harris Eastway & Kilborne Morehead & College Tyvola &Morehead Wedgewood & McDowell Sardis North & MonroeWestinghouseBeatties & TryonFord & Hoskins Sharon AmityIdlewild & Central& Independence Sugar CreekArrowood & I-85Randolph Service & Nations & SharonFord Amity Intersection

Source: Data from CHARLOTTE DEP’TOFTRANSP., SAFELIGHT PROGRAM, YEARLY ACCIDENT STATISTICS @ SAFELIGHT INTERSECTIONS (AUG.–JUL.) 2 (Charlotte, N.C.: SafeLight Program, CDOT, Dec. 1999). be held in check by a neutral, third-party cle’s owner.21 After IMS obtains a positive SafeLight intersections had grown from 2 19 appeal process. DMV verification, it mails a citation to to 22. By April 2000, 32—now 30 be- the owner. The citation includes an expla- cause of removal of two cameras during How has Charlotte implemented nation of the violation, a description of road construction—of Charlotte’s 572 the SafeLight program? the location of the intersection, a photo of intersections were equipped to use cam- Lockheed Martin IMS (IMS) operates the the vehicle’s license plate, and a photo of eras. Twenty intersections have perma- SafeLight program under a contractual the vehicle in the intersection during the nent cameras, while two cameras rotate arrangement. One city employee oversees light’s red phase. among the remaining 10 intersections. the program and conducts its public rela- The steps just described occur within SafeLight reports the following results tions. IMS employs nine people full-time forty-eight hours of the violation. If the for August 1997 through July 1999 22 and two people part-time to operate the violator fails to respond, IMS issues a (except as noted): 20 project. Technicians service the cameras Failure to Comply notice. If the violator • Citywide, the number of crashes daily and remove the used film. The film still fails to respond, IMS turns the citation increased 5.7 percent. is then scanned into a computer and ana- over to a collection agency, and an attor- • SafeLight intersections experienced a lyzed to verify picture integrity and li- ney sends a notice to the vehicle’s owner. 9.1 percent decrease in the number cense plate numbers. A verified license of crashes (see Figure 1). plate number is then checked against What have been the results? • The number of crashes on North Carolina Division of Motor Ve- SafeLight began issuing citations in August approaches toward the camera hicle (DMV) records to identify the vehi- 1998. By October 1998 the number of decreased 27.1 percent.

popular government winter 2001 43 Figure 3. RLR Citations Issued by Police vs. SafeLight Program

4,500

Police-Issued Citations 4,000 SafeLight–Issued Citations 3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500 Number of Citations Issued

1,000

500

Jan '98 Feb '98Mar '98Apr '98May '98June '98July '98Aug '98Sep '98 Oct '98 Nov '98 Dec '98 Jan '99 Feb '99 Mar '99Apr '99May '99Jun '99 Jul '99

Source: Data for police-issued citations from Personal Interview with Capt. Larry Blydenburgh, Head of Highway Interdiction and Traffic Safety, Charlotte Police Dep’t (Jan. 21, 2000); data for SafeLight–issued citations from CHARLOTTE DEP’TOFTRANSP., SAFELIGHT FIRST-YEAR REPORT 5 (Charlotte, N.C.: SafeLight Program, CDOT, Fall 1999).

• The number of RLR–associated tion (August 1998–July 1999), it issued workloads and allow officers to address crashes decreased 19.3 percent at 27,870 citations (see Figure 3). The recip- other police needs.26 SafeLight intersections (see Figure 2, ients of 369 of these citations filed for an The SafeLight program is financed page 43). administrative hearing, and 62 (17 per- entirely by citation revenue. Under the • Severity per crash decreased 27.1 cent) had their citations dismissed. In the contractual arrangement, Charlotte re- percent at SafeLight intersections.23 second year of operation, 46,199 cita- ceives $22 (44 percent) of each $50 RLR • At eight SafeLight intersections tions were issued. Four hundred thirty- citation.27 The rest goes to the contrac- studied in August 1999, RLR four recipients filed for an administrative tor, IMS. During SafeLight’s first year, 24 decreased 93.0 percent. hearing, and of those, 68 (16 percent) penalties totaled $1.39 million. IMS col- Spillover effects on non–SafeLight had their citations dismissed. lected $1.06 million of that. It received intersections have not been determined. According to the Charlotte Police $611,522, Charlotte $447,835. SafeLight However, examination of statistics on a Department’s traffic unit director, it takes collected $2.1 million in penalties during random sample of three SafeLight and an officer twelve to thirteen minutes to the 1999–2000 operating year.28 Of this three non–SafeLight intersections sug- apprehend a red-light violator and issue amount, $889,108 went to Charlotte, gests that Charlotte has yet to experience an RLR citation.25 At SafeLight intersec- $1.2 million to IMS. After boosting the a reduction in RLR–associated crashes tions alone, the decrease in the number number of cameras from two to twenty- at non–SafeLight intersections. of crashes allowed the Charlotte police two in October 1998, Charlotte’s first- SafeLight has produced a far higher to save, or reallocate, approximately year monthly revenue averaged $52,787 number of citations than has traditional fifty-nine enforcement hours during the (see Figure 4). enforcement. In 1999 the city processed program’s first year. A Charlotte police The capital costs to implement the 1,420 citations issued in the traditional official predicts that, in the long run, SafeLight program are considerable but manner. In SafeLight’s first year of opera- fewer intersection crashes will reduce are borne by the contractor. (It would be

44 popular government winter 2001 Figure 4. Monthly SafeLight Revenue Received by Charlotte ($22 of Every $50 Penalty) $80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000 Revenue

30,000

20,000

10,000

ar '99 Aug '98 Sep '98 Oct '98 Nov '98 Dec '98 Jan '99 Feb '99 M Apr '99 May '99 Jun '99 Jul '99 Aug '99 Sep '99 Oct '99 Nov '99 Dec '99

Source: Charlotte Dep’t of Transp., SafeLight Program, SafeLight Monthly Deposit Tracking Sheet (internal document, obtained from Brett Vines, SafeLight Director, Jan. 15, 2000).

incorrect, however, to say that there were its first year of operation (1998–99) and crete findings require additional data no costs to Charlotte to implement the $1.2 million in its second year, and it and analysis over longer periods of time. SafeLight program. Significant staff time estimates receipts of $1.6 million in was required from CDOT and the City 2000–2001,30 the project manager ex- What recommendations do Attorney’s Office to get the program pects SafeLight to become profitable research and experience suggest established and operating.) According to within the next couple of years.31 for other local governments? IMS, the equipment and installation Other red-light photo enforcement The literature on RLR and interviews costs per intersection in Charlotte aver- programs in the United States have expe- with CDOT officials, IMS personnel, age $72,000, which includes a $50,000 rienced similar reductions in RLR and and the Mecklenburg County legislative camera. IMS also spent approximately associated crashes.32 The U.S. Federal delegation suggest that photo enforce- $55,000 in SafeLight’s first year to mail Highway Administration predicts that ment can reduce RLR violations and notices to violators. IMS’s mailing costs RLR camera programs will result in a associated crashes. Following are eight rose to approximately $86,000 in fiscal reduction in RLR violations of 20 to 60 recommendations for optimizing red- year 1999–2000 because of an increase in percent.33 light photo enforcement programs: the volume of citations. Additionally, However, caution is in order when personnel, data center, and other admin- interpreting violation and crash results. 1. Impose a civil penalty only. istrative expenses exceed $1 million First, the number of violations may or Imposing driver’s license points on annually.29 may not be related to the number and drivers who run red lights requires posi- According to IMS’s project manager the severity of collisions. Second, the tive driver identification and thus the of municipal services in Charlotte, the results cited may or may not be the result need for an additional, frontal camera. company has yet to turn a profit. But of controlled, scientific studies.34 Al- Sun visors and rear-view mirrors, sun considering that it received $611,522 in though initial results are promising, con- glare, and the wearing of sunglasses and

popular government winter 2001 45 n the first year of operation, Charlotte’s ISafeLight intersections experienced a 9.1 percent reduction in the number of crashes overall, a 19.3 percent reduction in the number of RLR–associated crashes, and a 27.1 percent reduction in the number of crashes on the camera ARRINGTON H AY approach. J ANDY R Electric-wire loops embedded in the hats hamper positive driver identifica- out the SafeLight program has been pavement, two per lane of travel, tion. Research indicates that RLR cita- wiser financially for Charlotte than trigger camera operation when a tion rates (the number of citations operating it in-house. Clearly, though, vehicle passes over them at a speed issued to violators in relation to the total the public-private partnership has pro- greater than 15 miles per hour during number of recorded violations on film) duced revenue for Charlotte. Contrac- the light’s red phase. vary from 13 to 30 percent in jurisdic- tual arrangements have two major tions that classify RLR as a moving vio- benefits. First, contractors specializing lation.35 Such low rates reduce a pro- in this field enjoy technological advan- 5. Use more than the legally required gram’s ability to achieve its goals and tages over most local government staffs. number of roadway signs to notify the support itself financially.36 Therefore, Second, contracting simplifies abandon- public of red-light photo enforcement. North Carolina’s enabling legislation, ment should the program fail to achieve Although Charlotte’s cameras monitor which authorizes local governments to expected results.38 only one approach to an intersection, impose only a civil penalty for RLR vio- all four approaches at a SafeLight inter- lations detected by camera, appears to 4. Choose appropriate intersections. section display warning signs within be the most prudent course. Initially, Charlotte placed all its cameras 300 feet of the intersection. This is at HAL (high-accident location) inter- mandated by the statute authorizing 2. Conduct a public information and sections. However, Charlotte learned red-light photo enforcement.40 Addi- education campaign. An effective cam- that HAL intersections are not necessar- tionally, Charlotte posts warning signs paign is critical to obtaining support for ily intersections that experience high on major roadways at the city limits. a red-light photo enforcement program numbers of red-light runners. In fact, Howard County, Maryland, posts and for the program’s continued suc- research only tentatively supports using warning signs on freeways and other cess. In fact, the U.S. Federal Highway HAL intersections as camera locations; major highways leading into the county Administration identifies this as the more definitive research is needed. but not at specific intersections. New most critical issue.37 Citizen support can Other factors to consider when choos- York City posts no warning signs. be garnered through early and frequent ing a red-light camera intersection Charlotte’s and Howard County’s ap- dissemination of information regarding include number of right-angle crashes, proach of posting signs at the city and the need for automated enforcement police reports, citizen complaints, num- county limits would seem to increase and the results of automated camera ber of RLR violations, and specific the visibility of the program and to use. Media support also can be pursued intersection studies. Also, planners encourage safe driving habits at all as a means of gaining citizen support. should keep in mind that RLR problems intersections, rather than at the camera- As a program’s first camera-equipped may be the result of poorly designed equipped intersections alone. North intersections begin operation, an ele- intersections, poor sight lines to the traf- Carolina cities and towns should post ment of the public information and edu- fic light, or poor timing of traffic-light warning signs according to the require- cation campaign might be a period of phases. Interestingly, research warns ments of G.S. 160A-300.1 and consider one or two months during which only against relying on traffic volume to posting additional signs at major streets warning tickets are issued. determine camera locations. Instead, leading into the city or the town, to potential camera locations should be increase the program’s visibility and its 3. Consider contracting out program chosen on the basis of the estimated or spin-off value in reducing RLR viola- operation. I was not able to determine actual number of RLR violations occur- tions and associated crashes at noncam- as part of my study whether contracting ring at particular intersections.39 era intersections.

46 popular government winter 2001 6. Prepare for success. Charlotte SafeLight intersections revealed an RLR considered: (1) the number of crashes occur- administrators recommend performing reduction of 93 percent. Without reli- ring in a three-year period at the particular extra homework, including site visits to ance on additional taxpayer support, intersection, (2) the total volume of traffic entering the particular intersection in a twenty- other operating programs, to learn Charlotte received $447,835 in new rev- four-hour period, and (3) the severity of the about camera technology and its record enue from penalties assessed during the injuries sustained for each crash occurring at of success and failure. Elected officials, program’s first year. Initial results suggest the particular intersection. The three factors citizens, and city supervisors are more that the SafeLight program is achieving are used to calculate the Estimated Property apt to support a red-light photo enforce- its goal of creating a safer Charlotte by Damage Only (EPDO) index. The resulting ment program when time is taken to improving highway safety at signalized index determines the ranking of the HAL inform them of the requirements and intersections.42 intersections. The HAL list includes the 221 most unsafe intersections. the potential results of such a tool.41 Notes 11. City of Charlotte, N.C., SafeLight Pro- 7. Budget time wisely. There will be gram (last modified Dec. 31, 1999), available at significant time requirements in three 1. Richard Retting, Automated Enforce- http://www.ci.charlotte.nc.us/citransportation/ programs/ltfacts.htm. areas. First, some time will have to be ment of Traffic Laws, TR [TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH] NEWS, Mar.–Apr. 1999, at 15, 29. 12. CHARLOTTE DEP’TOFTRANSP., SAFE- spent at the state legislature: legislative 2. Insurance Inst. for Highway Safety, LIGHT FIRST-YEAR REPORT 4 (Charlotte, N.C.: approval is not pro forma. Second, mar- Safety Facts (last modified Dec. 16, 1999), SafeLight Program, CDOT, Fall 1999). keting the idea to the media and the available at http://www.highwaysafety.org/ MarketWise, Inc., conducted a survey of public should be a continuing effort. safety_facts/qanda/rlc.htm. Charlotte residents in fall 1997, before Third, sufficient time should be allowed 3. M. Freedman & N. Paek, Enforcement implementation. MarketWise also conducted for the process of requesting proposals Resources Relative to Need: Changes during a post-implementation survey of 404 Mecklenburg County residents in August from potential contractors. Charlotte’s 1978–89 (Arlington, Va.: Insurance Inst. for Highway Safety, 1992). 1999. This later study indicated that 78 per- process took nine months and proved 4. Cameras Working against Light- cent supported the SafeLight program, while challenging. The process should allow Runners, USA TODAY, Jan. 13, 2000, available only 8 percent opposed it. Thirty-six percent extra time for planners to understand at http://www.usatoday.com/news/ expressed the opinion that the program had and evaluate the proposals and for washdc/ncswed03.htm. changed driving habits of people in general, prospective contractors to demonstrate 5. CHARLOTTE DEP’TOFTRANSP., at intersections. their experience in operating a fully SAFELIGHT PROGRAM, YEARLY ACCIDENT 13. Dianne Whitacre, Drivers Flouting the Rules, City Tries to Stem Rise in Accidents functioning system. STATISTICS @ SAFELIGHT INTERSECTIONS (AUG.–JUL.) (Charlotte, N.C.: SafeLight [press release], Charlotte, N.C.: SafeLight 8. Consider using digital cameras. Program, CDOT, Dec. 1999) (hereinafter cited Program (last modified Nov. 29, 1997), Digital cameras offer significant benefits as SAFELIGHT STATISTICS). available at http://www.ci.charlotte.nc.us/ citransportation/programs/press25.htm. over 35-millimeter cameras. They cap- 6. The use of a minimum travel speed helps eliminate potential false-positive viola- 14. The North Carolina General Assembly ture higher resolution photos and allow tions associated with left-turn-only lanes, has approved camera use for the following photos to be sent electronically from the right-turn-on-red maneuvers, and emergency cities and towns: Charlotte, Cornelius, intersection’s camera directly to the pro- vehicles. Some intersections in Charlotte Fayetteville, Greensboro, Greenville, High gram’s main computers. This eliminates require a higher threshold speed (16 or 18 Point, Huntersville, Lumberton, Matthews, the need for film removal and develop- miles per hour) to activate the cameras. Pineville, Rocky Mount, and Wilmington. ing, and that in turn reduces time and 7. On the first photo, the computer prints The General Assembly has denied camera approval to Chapel Hill and Raleigh. See S.L. personnel needs. the date, the time, the elapsed time since the beginning of the red phase of the light, the 2000-37 (H 1553). duration of the yellow phase, the violation 15. For example, North Carolina State number, the lane number, and the code for the Senator T. LaFontine Odom, Sr. (D–Mecklen- Conclusion intersection’s location. On the second photo, burg, Iredell, and Lincoln counties) noted that the computer prints the date, the time, the “it’s the responsibility of city government to Since the introduction of red-light photo elapsed time between photos, the total elapsed enforce [the] law[,] . . . and cameras seemed to enforcement in the United States in red-light time at the time of the second viola- work best.” Sen. T. LaFontine Odom, Sr., Re: 1993, the technology has shown promis- tion photo, the vehicle’s speed, and the viola- Charlotte’s SafeLight Program, e-mail to the author (Jan. 13, 2000). ing results in reducing the number of tion number. 8. NORTH CAROLINA DEP’TOFTRANSP., 16. N.C. CONST. art. IX, § 7; Cauble v. City RLR violations and associated crashes. TRAFFIC CRASH FACTS 1996, at 106; TRAFFIC of Asheville, 314 N.C. 518, 336 S.E.2d 59 Additionally, jurisdictions have gained CRASH FACTS 1997, at 156; TRAFFIC CRASH (1985). valuable experience operating successful FACTS 1998, at 156 (Raleigh, N.C.: NCDOT, 17. The legality of cities retaining such rev- programs. In the first year of operation, 1997, 1998, 1999). enue has yet to be challenged in court. Randy Charlotte’s SafeLight intersections ex- 9. Personal Interview with Brett Vines, Jones, former manager of public service for perienced a 9.1 percent reduction in City of Charlotte Special Programs Manager/ CDOT, noted that cities probably could not the number of crashes overall, a 19.3 per- SafeLight Director (Dec. 16, 1999). afford the high costs of camera programs if 10. The HAL list, produced by the they could not offset costs with penalty rev- cent reduction in the number of RLR– Charlotte Department of Transportation, enue. Personal Interview (Jan. 19, 2000). associated crashes, and a 27.1 percent ranks an intersection on the basis of its dan- 18. Vicki Hyman, Charlotte Program reduction in the number of crashes on gerousness compared with that of all other Credited with Reducing Crashes 27 Percent, the camera approach. A study of eight intersections in Charlotte. Three factors are RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER, Oct. 24, 1999, at

popular government winter 2001 47 26A. Brett Vines, SafeLight director, noted in burgh, Head of Highway Interdiction and TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENFORCEMENT INNOVATIONS Hyman’s newspaper article that Charlotte Traffic Safety, Charlotte Police Dep’t (Jan. 21, FOR NORTH CAROLINA 24 (Report submitted spends its SafeLight–generated revenue on 2000). This article does not examine the mon- to the North Carolina Governor’s Highway pedestrian safety, public safety campaigns, etary costs associated with traditional red- Safety Program, Raleigh: North Carolina and sidewalk construction. According to the light enforcement in Charlotte. However, a State Univ., Oct. 29, 1999). 1999–2000 SafeLight Annual Report, about 1997 report found that in Howard County, 32. Fairfax, Virginia’s violation rate across $400,000 of SafeLight revenue will fund Maryland, traditional, team-oriented red-light camera and noncamera intersections had major safety-improvement projects at local enforcement cost $25.40 per citation. Passetti, decreased by approximately 40 percent one schools, including road widening and turn- Use of Automated Enforcement, at J-30. year after photo enforcement began. Richard lane construction. The report is available at 27. If it issues fewer than 35,000 citations A. Retting et al., Evaluation of Red Light http://www.charmeck.nc.us/citransportation/ per year, IMS receives $28 of each $50 cita- Camera Enforcement in Fairfax, Va., USA, programs/report2.htm#Revenue. tion. If it issues more than 35,000 but fewer ITE [INSTITUTE OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERS] 19. The appeals process includes an admin- than 60,000 citations per year, it receives an JOURNAL, Aug. 1999, at 30. In Oxnard, istrative hearing before an independent hear- extra $4 per citation (applicable only to the California, the violation rate across camera ing officer and an appeal through the Superior number between 35,000 and 60,000). If it and noncamera intersections decreased by Court of Mecklenburg County. issues more than 60,000 citations per year, it approximately 42 percent. Richard A. Retting 20. Lockheed Martin IMS employs its earns an extra $1.50 per citation (applicable et al., Evaluation of Red Light Camera En- own project manager to oversee its Charlotte only to the number over 60,000). If the penal- forcement in Oxnard, California, 31 ACCI- operation and work closely with the city’s ty is not paid or appealed within twenty-one DENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION 169 (1999). SafeLight Director. days, a $50 late penalty is charged. IMS col- New York City experienced a 38 percent 21. The system is able to obtain motor vehi- lects $23 of each $50 late penalty, CDOT $27. reduction in RLR violations. UNITED STATES cle owner records from virtually all fifty However, if a violator does not pay until a DEP’TOFTRANSP., SYNTHESIS AND EVALUATION states. For rental cars, IMS contacts the rental third notice is sent, IMS receives $76 of the OF RED LIGHT RUNNING AUTOMATED EN- car company to obtain the renter’s name and total $100 charge, and CDOT $24. FORCEMENT PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES, mailing address. If it cannot obtain the name, 28. CHARLOTTE DEP’TOFTRANSP., SAFE- FHWA-IF-00-004 at 17 (Washington, D.C.: it sends the violation to the rental car compa- LIGHT PROGRAM, CITY OF CHARLOTTE SAFE- Federal Highway Admin., Sept. 1999). San ny to forward to the driver. According to IMS, LIGHT PROGRAM SUMMARY OF REVENUES AND Francisco experienced a 42 percent reduction most rental car companies are cooperative, EXPENDITURES (Charlotte, N.C.: SafeLight in violation rates during a six-month pilot helpful, and supportive. Program, CDOT, Dec. 1999) (hereinafter cited program. Preliminary crash data suggested 22. CHARLOTTE DEP’TOFTRANSP., SAFE- as REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES). that the cameras in San Francisco reduced LIGHT PROGRAM, SAFELIGHT STATISTICS. 29. Terence J. Lynam, Director, Customer citywide crashes and injuries by red-light run- 23. The EPDO index determines estimated and Constituent Relations, Lockheed Martin ners. HUMMER ET AL., TRAFFIC SIGNAL, at 24. crash severity. See note 10. IMS, Re: Charlotte Red Light Program, e-mail Howard County, Maryland, experienced a 23 24. CITY OF CHARLOTTE, SAFELIGHT FIRST- to the author (Dec. 21, 1999). percent reduction in the number of RLR viola- YEAR REPORT 10. A test conducted by CDOT 30. CHARLOTTE DEP’TOFTRANSP., SAFE- tions. Passetti, Use of Automated Enforce- before installation of cameras examined eight LIGHT PROGRAM, REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES. ment, at J-30. intersections for one twelve-hour segment 31. Personal Interview with Johnnie Fogg, 33. UNITED STATES DEP’TOFTRANSP., SYN- (7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.). The pretest deter- Project Manager of Mun. Serv., Lockheed THESIS AND EVALUATION, at 27. mined that motorists ran red lights 875 times. Martin IMS (Dec. 16, 1999). According to 34. HUMMER ET AL., TRAFFIC SIGNAL, at 25. A test conducted after camera installation John Veneziano, Director of Public Works for 35. HUMMER ET AL., TRAFFIC SIGNAL, at 23. revealed that the number of violations at the Fairfax, Virginia, the city’s three-camera 36. Brett Vines (current SafeLight director) same eight intersections decreased to 58 over Photo Red Light Program returned a profit and Randy Jones (former manager of public a twenty-four-hour period. after fifteen months. As of December 1999, service for CDOT) both posit that categoriz- 25. Court appearance time and other Fairfax had paid $831,380.00 in total con- ing an automated enforcement RLR violation forms of down time were excluded from the tractual costs, and the city’s net revenue as a civil nonmoving violation produces just calculation. Traditional enforcement by a sin- totaled $131,819.70. Fairfax contracts out the as good results (in reductions in RLR viola- gle officer also can be difficult and dangerous. intersection installation, camera maintenance, tions and associated crashes), if not better, The officer must be able to see the vehicle, and film developing. The police department than making the offense a (more punishable) the stop bar, and the traffic signal clearly at reviews the photo violations, mails the cita- moving violation. Interviews with Vines, the same time. In apprehending a red-light tions, handles customer service, and supports Jones. violator, the officer may have to pursue the the appeals process. Personal Interview with 37. UNITED STATES DEP’TOFTRANSP., violator through the red phase, thus endanger- Veneziano (Jan. 24, 2000). I did not audit SYNTHESIS AND EVALUATION, at 25. ing himself or herself, other motorists, and IMS’s cost figures. However, the approximate 38. Interviews with Jones, Vines. pedestrians. Karl A. Passetti, Use of Auto- $50,000 purchase price for each of Charlotte’s 39. HUMMER ET AL., TRAFFIC SIGNAL, at mated Enforcement for Red Light Violations, Gatsometer 35-millimeter cameras is consis- 61, 73. in COMPENDIUM: GRADUATE STUDENT PAPERS tent with prices charged for such high- 40. G.S. 160A-300.1(b). ON ADVANCED SURFACE TRANSPORTATION speed/high-resolution cameras. Research by 41. Interviews with Jones, Vines. SYSTEMS, at J-5 through J-6 (College Station: Hummer et al. found that in Howard County, 42. I could not have completed this article Texas Transp. Inst., Aug. 1997). Maryland, installation of the pavement loops without the assistance of many people. In par- 26. Captain Larry Blydenburgh, head of and the poles for the camera cost between ticular, warm thanks go to Capt. Larry Bly- Highway Interdiction and Traffic Safety for $3,000 and $7,000. Significant price differ- denburgh of the Charlotte Police Department; the Charlotte Police Department, estimated ences can exist among types of cameras (35- Elizabeth Babson of CDOT; and Randy Jones, that an officer spends one hour performing millimeter and digital) and types of vehicle formerly of CDOT. Special thanks go to Brett professional duties at a typical RLR crash detectors (air tubes, inductive loops, earth Vines, SafeLight director, and David N. Am- scene and filing subsequent paperwork. magnetic loops, piezoelectric strips, video mons, Institute of Government faculty mem- Personal Interview with Capt. Larry Blyden- loops, and laser). JOSEPH E. HUMMER ET AL., ber, for their help at all stages of this project.

48 popular government winter 2001