- The City's Director of Neighborhood Services sent out an email Monday announcing the 2010 Traffic Calming Program. This program is an opportunity for neighborhoods to apply for funding for traffic calming projects. Money to fund these projects is generated by the Photo Red Program.
- Neighborhoods have until June 11 to submit applications. Types of roads eligible for funding include all non-residential, non state highway/roadways. Types of traffic calming projects eligible are speeed indicator signs (permanent and mobile), curb bump outs, crosswalk striping, crossing signage, bike lanes, sharrows, trees, sequence lights, and sidewalks.
- Only $50,000 per city council district is available, so not all projects will receive funding. City engineers will evaluate all proposed projects based on their costs and expected impact on traffic speeds and safety.
- Three representatives from City Council (one from each district) will make the final determination of which projects are funded.
- The funds are expected to be available again in 2011 so those neighborhoods who don't receive them this year can reapply then.
Every time I mention red light cameras on here, I get a LOT of comments. Well warm up your typing fingers because I'm about to do it again. On their morning show this morning, KXLY did a couple promo pieces for a big sweeps piece they're airing tonight called 'Red Light Roulette.' The piece talks about local red light cameras, how many tickets have been issued because of them, how much money has been collected on tickets, etc. and shows some pretty amazing video of the worst offenders caught running red lights.
Lots of collision video too. The video really grabbed me, I couldn't stop watching. There is some really amazing stuff that drivers are doing out there. Apparently some people think that red lights are more a suggestion to stop than a command.
Even if you hate red light cameras, I think you'll be amazed at some of the stuff going on in our intersections and agree that enforcement is needed. The KXLY piece airs at 5:00 tonight on channel 4.
9 comments:
I don't know that I would characterize the comments as angry, but I'll make one since you asked for it.
I agree that there are problems with people running red lights. I dodge people running the lights just like everyone else. But to quote the description (yours?) of the segment:
The piece talks about local red light cameras, how many tickets have been issued because of them, how much money has been collected on tickets, etc. and shows some pretty amazing video of the worst offenders caught running red lights.
As long as there is a financial incentive that comes with installing the cameras, I have a problem with them. There's too much temptation to use them as a budgetary tool. It doesn't matter that the money is restricted for certain uses -- the net result is that the temptation will be there to install additional red light cameras to generate additional revenue.
I have heard all the arguments about "don't run red lights and you won't have to pay," "it makes sense that those who contribute to traffic safety problems pay for them," "think about the children," etc. I'm sorry, but I don't trusted elected officials (or many of those that work for them) to keep their hands out of the cookie jar.
Make them revenue-neutral (for the city, and ideally for the company that installs them and collects part of the money), and I'll drop my objection.
Thanks for the comment Steve. I shouldn't have used the term 'angry,' should have said something like 'critical.' Was just trying to convey that it's definetely a hot button issue but I didn't do a very good job of it.
So when you say 'revenue neutral' you mean that the City only makes enough money to pay for the installation and upkeep of the cameras? That's fair, except that they're trying to teach drivers a lesson- by fining them.
As for the company that installs them and gets part of the money, it's just like any other company out there; they're going to charge as much as they can get away with in order to make their company profitable. As long as it's a private company, it's going to be exhorbitantly priced. Unfortunately, no one is giving the service away for free. But I understand your concern that right now the money raised is being used for improvements, but later someone might get greedy and try to tap it for other uses.
So when you say 'revenue neutral' you mean that the City only makes enough money to pay for the installation and upkeep of the cameras? That's fair, except that they're trying to teach drivers a lesson- by fining them.
That's what I mean. I think it's reasonable that the city's revenue should cover the cost of installing and maintaining the cameras, along with the cost of reviewing camera footage, sending citations, and other directly associated costs. If it's revenue neutral to the city, the decision to install a camera is hopefully driven by public safety rather than potential profit.
During the first year of the program, Officer Fuller did a great job of reinforcing the idea that the city looked at this as a revenue source. Every article about the cameras included a quote from her talking about the dollars collected. I don't know whether that mentality persists at city hall, but at least the city seems to have learned from that mistake.
Even with the program being revenue-neutral to the city, there is still a concern that the for-profit company could exert ... influence ... with those at the city who are responsible for making the decision to place the cameras. Call me cynical.
I agree that the ultimate goal should be to help drivers change their habits. Remove the potential profit motive and my objections go away.
I am curious to obtain the answers to two questions; were traffic engineering studies performed prior to the camera installation(s) and is any of the ticket revenue used to make intersection engineering safety improvements?
TheTicketDoctor.net
I'm a bike commuter who hesitates before entering ANY Spokane intersection to make sure everyone understands that red means STOP (a poorly understood concept since Spokane drivers think yellow means SPEED UP).
I have to figure that if they're getting lots of people running the lights (aka "lots of revenue") then they installed them at intersections with a lot of people who deserve the tickets they get.
I too hope any excess revenue goes to address the safety issues such as line of sight at Sprague and Division and overall education and enforcement programs so we can all share the road more safely. I serve on the city's Bicycle Advisory Board and will ask about this question.
@BarbChamberlain
Co-chair, Bike to Work Spokane
www.biketoworkspokane.org
@Bike2WrkSpokane
www.facebook.com/BiketoWorkSpokane
Ticket Doctor- Everything I have been able to dig up indicates that traffic engineering studies were NOT conducted prior to the camera installations. Several old media articles I looked up said '...the city and ATS (the company that provides the cameras) will select locations with the highest number of collisions, such as Sprague and Division.'
As for how the revenue raised from the cameras is spent, City Council members stipulated fines be used only for 'traffic safety projects,' but didn't specify what kind of projects that includes.
The reasoning behind that, according to several articles, is to ensure the aim of the program is traffic safety and the city doesn't become dependent on the fines to balance the city budget.
There needs to be frequent checks to make sure the technology is functioning as rightfully intended. Otherwise, what a great use of tax dollars! I thought folks were all about saving money! This does a great job that any police officer would be bored stiff doing and for a fraction of the cost. And just think... If the technology is working as intended, all you need to do is NOT RUN A RED LIGHT! It's so dam# simple it hurts.
Since drivers continue to run red lights, we must conclude that the nominal fine imposed is not a strong enough disincentive.
So, in order to make them effective and revenue neutral, just suspend the licenses and impound the vehicles of the offenders, along with whatever fine is necessary to achieve revenue neutrality.
What I'd like to see, though it's obviously not feasible, are stop sign cameras. It seems that most drivers do stop at red lights, but many Spokane drivers fail to stop at stop signs (outside of 4-way stops.)
- Ventura
Wow Ventura, I like your style! You're right about the stop sign cameras though- not feasible at this time for a lot of reasons. You're right though- stop signs seem to be more of a 'suggestion' than a mandate at a lot of locations around here. And since there are so many of them, it's really tough to enforce.
Post a Comment