Red light camera testimony

November 14, 2011

Dear members of the Pennsylvania House Transportation Committee,

Thank you for your invitation to provide testimony to the Committee for today’s public hearing on the red light camera program. The comments below relate to both the Philadelphia Code (Chapter 12-3000) and Senate Bill 595, since both will come before your committee and we believe both contain similar strengths and weaknesses

The analysis below discusses four types of public protections that should be included in any enabling legislation for red-light camera programs. We discuss specific recommendations for best practice, as compared to provisions in the Philadelphia Code and Senate Bill 595.

Unfortunately, the Senate legislation and municipal code fall far short of best practice. We recommend against approving this legislation or a continuation of the Philadelphia code without amendments to meet best practice.

(1) Pennsylvania cities should put safety first in enforcing traffic laws. Fortunately, data from police accident records and traffic engineering studies make it relatively straightforward to put this principle into practice by addressing some basic questions:

•    Where does a problem really exist? Red-light cameras should only be placed at an intersection where authorities have documented a history of injuries from red-light running. Neither the Philadelphia Code nor Senate Bill 595 requires this clear and data-driven practice for screening applications. Instead, both documents designate the Secretary of Transportation to approve intersections (along with the Philadelphia Parking Authority in Philadelphia). The ordinance and proposed legislation fail to provide any criteria for issuing approvals or denials of these applications. The lack of criteria makes decisions inherently arbitrary. Without criteria it is also impossible for the public to challenge the basis or implementation of these decisions, or for outside experts to recommend improvements. Mandating a serious and systematic screening process may require extending the 60-day review period to make a proper level of analysis possible. The law should eliminate the provision in the Senate bill that automatically converts a delayed decision into an approval.

•    Are there alternative solutions? Before installing camera ticketing at an intersection, authorities should certify that they have already attempted alternative methods to reduce red-light-running injuries through traffic engineering that have failed to address the problem. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recommends this protocol in its guidance stating that, “Cameras should be considered/installed only after engineering solutions have been proven ineffective where there is a red-light-running problem.”  Traffic engineering solutions include, for instance, lengthening the yellow-light interval, removing visual obstructions to the traffic signal, or improving signage. Many of these remedies are also substantially cheaper than ongoing outlays to a red-light camera company. Unfortunately neither the Philadelphia Code nor Senate Bill 595 require this protocol to protect the public. Both documents forbid reducing yellow-light duration times to shorter than what is indicated on the city’s permit for installing a traffic signal; but they fail to make it possible to extend the yellow-light duration beyond that time.

•    Does it focus on the problem? Any camera ticketing should focus on deterring the type of red-light running that has caused injuries at that particular intersection. Otherwise, a traffic camera can be judged as inappropriately being used as a revenue generator rather than a safety enhancement.  This would be the case, for instance, if the city disproportionately issues tickets for right-turn-on-red violations at an intersection where right turns have not been a major cause of injuries. Neither the Philadelphia Code nor Senate Bill 595 require such consideration.

•    Is it effective? Once created, programs should come under regular review to assess whether red-light cameras are reducing injuries and fatalities. The evaluation should be made without regard to the amount of revenue that cameras generate. Both the Philadelphia Code and Senate Bill 595 mandate regular reporting, but neither dictates that a program should be terminated if evidence fails to indicate improved safety.

(2) Red-light camera contracts must not create additional incentives to issue more tickets.  People respond to financial incentives. Therefore legislation should forbid contract incentives for vendors that are based directly or indirectly on the volume of tickets or fines. Rewarding contractors for placing more fines on drivers will undermine public confidence in the program. Loss of public trust may further undermine societal compliance with traffic laws. Compliance ultimately depends more on broad beliefs about the fairness and usefulness of traffic laws, rather than calculations about the likelihood of receiving a fine.

Pennsylvania knows all too well how incentives for private enrichment can distort decisions about law enforcement. The recent conviction in Luzerne County of judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. for sentencing children to juvenile detention in return for $2.6 million in payments from the private detention center is a painful reminder of the potential for abuse.

Therefore, it is beneficial that Senate Bill 595 expressly forbid public payments based on the volume of tickets and requires that payment be accorded based on the value of equipment and services provided. Likewise greater separation between safety decisions and revenue implications is accomplished by sharing municipal revenues with the state. The municipal share is split with the state in the Senate bill with a maximum of 5 percent of the annual municipal budget. These mandates partially dilute the incentive to issue tickets for revenue.

(3) Public officials should retain control over transportation policy decisions, including the ability to withdraw from a contract early if dissatisfied with the service or its effects. Public control of red-light ticketing has been seriously compromised in other states where companies have issued lawsuits or when contract terms enable companies to levy financial penalties on municipalities if too few tickets are issued.

For instance, the camera vendor American Traffic Solution last week announced a law suit against Knoxville, Tennessee because the city no longer issues citations to drivers that do not come to a full stop on right turns. Reductions in company revenues should not be a reason to change public traffic policies.

(4) Extraordinary transparency and opportunities for public input should prevail when private contractors are enlisted to make decisions about law enforcement. Contractors’ decisions and rewards must be open to public scrutiny with ample opportunity for empowered public participation.

Online public access is crucial to ensure that the outcomes of camera ticketing contracts are fully transparent. Camera vendors should print the website with this information prominently on every ticket. We recommend that a regularly updated public website list the following information for each intersection with a red-light camera: the number and type of citations, the number of rejected citations of each type, the number of fines, and the amount of fine revenue going to the city, state and vendor. The websites should also detail the criteria the company uses to decide which automobiles will receive infractions. Contractors already track this information. Citizens should be empowered to scrutinize the outcomes and to pose questions based on the data in public hearings.

A positive transparency feature of both the Philadelphia Code and Senate Bill 595 is the requirement to clearly post signs announcing to drivers the use of red-light cameras ahead. Proper signage can increase safety by reducing the amount of red-light running. In doing so, improved signage may also reduce ticket revenues.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. We look forward to speaking with you more about these issues.