Say Good-Bye To the Red Light Camera at Clairemont/Scott
Decatur Metro | July 22, 2009On Monday, the City Manager presented the City Commission with some daunting figures. Losses of over $40,000 in 2008, and a projected loss of $72,000 in 2009. What insidious instrument could possibly be leaching away funds from our city coffers at such an alarming rate?
If you’ve ever turned left from Scott onto Clairemont (or vice-versa) you’re well-aware of the answer. It’s the red-light camera at the intersection of Clairemont and Scott Boulevard!
According to the City Manager’s letter to the commission (page 97), this camera is the grand-daddy of all red-light cameras in the state; the very first. Since it’s installation in 2004, there have been no reported fatalities at the intersection and the number of vehicles running the light has declined. The ongoing problem has been that the money brought in from fines has never off-set costs. And while those costs were once “tolerable”, the city can no longer stomach the growing cost.
The city has attempted to renegoiate contract fees, but has been unsuccessful. So the City Manager has decided the best course of action was to take the camera down. “Therefore, unless the City Commission wants to continue this program, we will begin steps to end the City’s current program. It is regretful that this action is necessary but given the current financial environment, it does not seem prudent to continue a program that incurs significant program costs.”
In a note to DM, the City Manager confirms that while the city commission regrets the “demise of the program”, they have gone along with the decision. She continues, “We will retain the equipment and should the need arise in the future, we’ll have the ability to reestablish the program.”
And just like that, Decatur is now just the latest in a long line of Georgia cities that have abandoned their red-light cameras, because they were just too darn expensive.
Latest from Decaturish
So…was the camera a safety measure or a revenue generating gimmick?
According to the City Manager, the city only hoped that it cover costs, not generate revenue.
Yup. Two truths about red light cameras: 1) They work; and 2) In working, they eradicate the behavior the finances the operation.
D’oh. If only they weren’t effective and people kept running the lights. Then there’d be enough money to maintain them. Oh, wait…
“Since it’s installation in 2004, there have been no reported fatalities at the intersection and the number of vehicles running the light has declined.”
So, leave the signs and boxes up and just turn the equipment off. No need to tell anyone.
Agreed.
Agreed, agreed.
In terms of cost to society, the accidents, injuries, and deaths averted might have more than paid for the equipment. But the money saved unfortunately doesn’t go back to the City of Decatur. I imagine that it’s health care insurance companies and Medicaid that get the financial benefit. Of course, the residents whose health has been protected by not being hit by crazy left-turners have benefitted but those benefits don’t put money in the City’s coffers. Unfortunately, there’s not a ton of money at the state or federal level for injury prevention but ideally, that kind of funding from DHHS or the Center for Medicaid Services or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or large health insurers would be available to cities who are proactive with equipment like this.
Scott is exactly right that there’s a flaw in trying to fund a traffic safety program with revenue from traffic offenders. When it’s successful, the revenue goes away.
Is it ethical for the City to fake the program? Keep the camera up and any warnings about the camera? It might work for awhile. Kind of like when you discontinue a home alarm service but keep the sign up on your lawn. Eventually, offenders would learn that transgressions didn’t result in a fine, especially if they read this blog….
I’m bet the police will be there waiting to get anyone who runs the light.
Which will mean that they’re going to be expending time/funds/energy watching for speeders instead of patrolling neighborhoods. Given the flurry of break-ins & other such incidents that have been reported over the past couple of months, that’s not very comforting to me. It’s not that I think traffic watch is unimportant, but surely having the red-light camera there is less expensive than having paid officers stationed there 24/7. Decatur doesn’t have a very large police force. No easy answers, I know, but if I had my druthers, I’d rather have a higher concentration of police on neighborhood patrols than monitoring that intersection.
Actually, the city knows what time, from the camera, to place an officer at the intersection . . . maybe the motorcycle police officer.
They could hire another police officer with the money saved.
Why in the world does it cost so much to operate a red light camera?
I agree. If $72,000 is the projected 2009 “loss”, it does make one wonder what the total operating cost is! I could sit there with my Canon Sureshot for a lot cheaper – although I wouldn’t fancy doing it in winter, or in the rain, or at night, or if it was too hot, or…..
Seriously though, I do agree with the other posters who questioned the logic of announcing that the camera will be disabled.
I didn’t know someone died every 5 years at that intersection.
At night, you can actually hear the wheels screaching and impact from over a mile away when crashes occur at that intersection. It’s pretty bad. The driving culture in Atlanta is to drive both fast and recklessly. In Los Angeles, drivers tend to be much faster than those in most other cities, but the culture is to drive well and follow rules like stopping for pedestrians and not driving on the shoulder as though it’s another lane. North Carolina has some of the worst driving I’ve seen, but the culture is to meander slowly.
Agree with everyone that the costs of the light seem high but I suspect they are including the administrative, enforcement, and legal costs of the program, not just the cost of the camera. It costs a lot to protect health. It’s often cheaper to let people die or be disabled and in pain. Vaccine programs don’t have to prove that they have generated revenue; in fact, analyses have shown that it’s cheapest to let the elderly die than to vaccinate them against influenza and pneumonia. It’s too bad that we can’t view injury prevention the same way as we do vaccine programs or stopping disease transmission.
[...] From the Decatur Metro: [...]
How in the world are they losing money there? From my experience, I assumed this was a million dollar a year boondoggle for the city. A few months ago, I got a notice in the mail with a ticket for running that light going west on Scott through the Clairmont intersection. It had nice pictures showing my car before the intersection and as I went through it, with the light completely red. It also indicated that the light had been red for 89 seconds before I ran it (no short yellow problems there!). It also showed cars in both directions blatantly running this red light. The problem was that if you looked closely, you could see a police officer in the middle of the intersection directing traffic. There had been an accident on Clairmont, it was raining, cops were directing traffic, but they did not switch the light to blinking or shut off the traffic camera!
The kicker was that when I showed up for my court date, I was the only one there. Literally, it was me, the solicitor and the judge. I can’t even begin to estimate the number of cars that went through the red light while being directed by the cops. It was dozens at the least. Assuming that the court dates are assigned according to violation date, which I’m pretty sure they are in Decatur, then the city reaped in a few thousand bucks within 20 minutes or so. When I showed the solicitor and judge the photos, pointing out the cop directing traffic and the fact that all these cars were “running” a light that had been red for a minute and a half, they laughed. And then laughed again at all the folks who had likely gotten a similar ticket and just paid it to avoid coming to court, most probably not even realizing that they shouldn’t have gotten a ticket in the first place.
Anyways, I figured Decatur just pulled this once in a while, having cops direct traffic to trigger violations that most people would just pay without thinking about…
Ha ha!
and then we laughed and laughed and laughed…
all the way to the bank…
Seriously though.
1. What would the cost be to build and operate our own cameras?
2. Calm traffic on Scott. Good grief the average speed on that road must be 70mph!
I will volunteer to drive my very old, slow pickup truck up and down that road if it will help. (Stopping at the red light of course)
Maybe we could see if this guy still available:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23401703-details/Police%2B‘arrest’%2Bscarecrow%2B-%2Bfor%2Bimpersonating%2Ba%2Btraffic%2Bofficer/article.do
(OK, I apologize for posting another UK story)
I rec’d a ticket in the mail along with a picture of my license plate. I sent them a picture of a check.
Traffic along Church, Scott and Clairmont is way too fast, especially given the residential areas along the roads, with sidewalks and lots of pedestrians, etc. I am thinking especially of the part of Church between Glen Lake Park and North Decatur, where our townhouse is located. There may be some less expensive ways to avoid wrecks and slow traffic down along these areas, such as speed ridges or stepped-up police enforcement. I often worry about an accident involving a Glen Lake Park swimmer or anyone who lives in this area walking along the sidewalk on Church. Slowing down traffic in these areas is something I would like to explore.
As for physical changes to the street, which are by far the most effective at slowing traffic, Scott’s mostly a lost cause since it’s a state road. As for Church and Clairemont, the city’s already listed a ton of ideas in the Community Transportation Plan.
The Church Street on-street parking is just one idea from that plan that’s being tested as we speak.
And from one semi-public fellow to another, never forget to put an “e” in Clairemont when speaking about inside the city limits or the old Decatur intelligentsia will eat you alive.
And yes, I’m speaking from experience.
By my observation the “squeezing” of the lanes along Church near the park has had some effect on slowing the traffic. Bulb-outs are an accepted way of slowing traffic. There actually used to be some on S. McDonough St past the college.
As for increased police presence, it’s the same point made above; more police equals more $$ and more taxes.
More taxes? Where does Czar Merriss plan on allocating the $70k they are going to save?
Quit the name-calling Pete and please explain to us how you would cut taxes, balance the budget and continue to build the reserve fund.
Thanks, DM.
Why should we continue to build the reserve fund? If I remember correctly, the Mayor was bragging about how big it was just a few months ago. If we continue to build it up, doesn’t that mean we’re taxing too much already? How about some tax relief, for goodness sakes?
Thanks to taking $600,000 out of the reserve fund this year, the city was able to hold the millage rate from last year, even though they’re losing revenues. That’s unlike DeKalb, which raised it’s millage rate by 4% during an economic crisis.
If tax relief is your main concern, make sure to turn out and speak in favor of commercial annexation. The main reason taxes are so high here is because only 15% of our land is zoned commercial. That’s why the city commission wants to annex more commercial. Problem is, few people ever show up for those meetings in favor, because they need tax relief.
The tax rate each year is based upon budgeted expenditures and expected income from sources other than property taxes. If expenses are less or income is more, the surplus is sent to the reserve fund for future use if expenses exceed estimates or income is less than estimates. State Law requires a reserve fund. Through prudent management, Decatur’s reserve fund is much more then required and annual outside audits have complimented us on that. As DM pointed out, having such a fund allowed the City to hold the line on tax rates this year while still providing the same level of services.
Contrast that to the current situation in Gwinnett County, where holding the line on tax rates and not having a reserve to draw from is translating to massive cuts in government services.
Remember, too, that, pending the outcome of the longstanding lawsuit, DeKalb County potentially owes Decatur large $$. I wonder where that will come from; I’m sure the County long since spent that money.
I have no idea if this is the cause of the increased camera revenue deficit in Decatur , BUT:
A new law went into effect this year that has caused operating losses across the board for Georgia’s red light cameras. One more second was added to the minimum amount of time required for yellow lights before they turn red. That one second difference has had such an impact on revenues that every municipality in Georgia with a red light camera program is scrapping it.
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090705/COLUMNISTS02/90702113/1007
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2713.asp
Great point Mooncat. The city manager actually mentioned that new yellow light law in her note, and it’s reflected in the data that she forwarded me regarding that particular light.
In 2004, there were 2,792 citations issued. By 2005, the number had dropped to 2,032 and then dropped steadily until last year when sat at 1,426. However, from January to June of this year only 149 citations have been issued…and took a huge dip in March when the second was added to the yellow light (from 40 to 10). So, we went from 2,792 to less than 300.
In terms of the camera paying for itself, the only time it did so was in it’s first year, when the city made $118,200 in revenues and the camera cost $107,253 to operate. But in 2005, revenues dropped to $82,951 while the cost hovered around $100,000, so Scott’s rule applies. Since then it’s been losing money. But nothing like this year. The city’s only made around $9,660 so far in 2009.
BTW, the last time there were injuries at that intersection was in 2002 when there were 6. The last time there was a fatality was in 2001.
Take down the cameras – (No fees/charges)
Leave up the signs – (No accidents)
QED
I got a ticket from this stupid camera in 2005. I was at the red light, inside the intersection line. It took months of fighting, but I would not pay a ticket ($75!) for NOT committing a crime.
These cameras are a joke.
Interesting update in the AJC regarding the red light cameras in Duluth:
http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/duluth-gives-green-light-101817.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab
Hmmmm…that IS interesting, PMcG– seems once LaserCraft re-negotiated the contract (dignificantly) downward on cost, Duluth signed back on. Maybe that will happen with Decatur (hope so, anyway)…
If the contractor was able to reduce the price of the service by two-thirds (expecting that other municipalities would want the same treatment), and still think they can remain in business, then their profit margin must have been enormous.
Maybe I should be a government contractor.
Oh, no. Haven’t you heard? Using government contractors and reducing the size of government is the way to go. It may cost the taxpayers billions more in overhead and indirect and inflated charges but hey, at least we’ve reduced the size of government by .00001%
Just kidding in this particular case. I think it makes sense to use a camera instead of a whole police officer to monitor an intersection but I do hope we can continue the service at reasonable rates.
Another piece on the return of cameras in Gwinnett: http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=133116&catid=40