More Red Light Cameras on the Way


Whether you think they’re big brother in operation, or the greatest thing out there for safety, Portland will soon have more red light cameras:

CITY OF PORTLAND OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION
MEDIA ADVISORY
For Immediate Release
May 31, 2007
Contact: Cheryl E. Kuck
Phone: (503) 823-5552 or (503) 823-5909 cell
Email: cherylemma.kuck@pdxtrans.org

CITY TO INSTALL RED LIGHT CAMERAS AT SIX ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS

(PORTLAND, OR) – The Portland Office of Transportation will request that Portland City Council on June 6, 2007, will approve the installation of six additional red light cameras at selected intersections in the city, with five on the city’s east side. The cameras, authorized by the Oregon Legislature in 1999, capture vehicles and their drivers running red lights and are meant to reduce crashes caused by this dangerous and illegal behavior.

Below is a list of the six intersections to receive the cameras. Each has a history of high numbers of crashes caused by red light running in the last four years.

• SW 4th at Jefferson – 29 red light crashes
• SE Stark at 99th – 19 red light crashes
• SE Stark at 102nd – 44 red light crashes
• SE Foster at 96th – 53 red light crashes
• NE Broadway at Vancouver – 28 red light crashes
• SE Washington at 103rd – 35 red light crashes

Traffic specialists say that when red light violations occur, they most often result in an angle or turning collision. These broadside collisions, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, are especially dangerous because the sides are the most vulnerable areas of cars.

“The most serious crashes that occur at intersections are caused by someone running a red light,” said Sergeant Dan Costello of the Portland Police Bureau’s Traffic Division. In Portland, turning and angle crashes are 2.5 times more likely to result in serious injuries and fatalities than rear-end crashes. “Adding six more cameras will further decrease these types of crashes,” says Costello.

There are currently six red light cameras operating at five intersections in Portland, enforcing the entering traffic as follows:

• E Burnside at Grand Avenue, northbound approach
• NE Sandy Blvd at 39th Avenue, westbound approach
• NE Sandy Blvd at 39th Avenue, northbound approach
• SE Grand Avenue at Madison Street, northbound approach
• W Burnside at 19th Avenue, eastbound approach
• NE Broadway at Grand Avenue, westbound approach

Studies show that Portland’s red light camera program has reduced red light running at the existing five camera intersections and the injuries and fatalities that red light running causes.
“No matter how pressed for time you are, please stop for a red light,” says City Commissioner Sam Adams. “Gambling on saving a minute or two by running a red light could kill or seriously injure you or someone else. Red light running has very serious consequences.”

The six new cameras will be installed by the end of August, with three going in by the end of June (4th/Jefferson, 99th/Stark, 102nd/Stark). Signage will be posted to alert drivers to the cameras.

DATA AND BACKGROUND

For intersection approaches with red light cameras, crashes went down after the cameras were installed. During the three-year period before installation of the cameras at the five intersections, there were 136 total crashes, 33 of which involved red light violators. In the three years after installation, there were 122 crashes on the enforced approaches, 29 of which involved red light violators.

Red light cameras can only serve one direction of travel. The red light camera program is intended to discourage red light running for the specific intersection approaches that are enforced. However, a broader goal for the program is to have a more generalized reduction in red light running behavior at locations without red light cameras. One indication of this more generalized effect relates to crash activity at the non-enforced approaches at intersections with red light cameras.

Crashes at the entire intersections, not just for the approach with red light cameras, have dropped as well. During the three-year period before installation of the cameras at the five intersections, there were 252 crashes, 78 of which involved drivers going against the red light. In the three years after installation, there were 199 crashes at the intersection, 54 of which involved red light violators.

In addition to a reduction in total crash activity, injury crashes have also dropped at locations where red light cameras are operating. There were 26% fewer injuries for the enforced approaches for the four years after camera operation than there was for the four years before. Total injury crashes for all approaches at the intersections were reduced by 30% over the same time period.

According to Greg Raisman, a City traffic safety specialist, fines from red light cameras are dedicated to a traffic safety account. “These funds are used to make our roads safer through engineering, education, and enforcement efforts,” says Raisman. “The program is set up so that violators pay to make our streets safer and so that they are less likely to violate again in the future.”

In 1999, the Oregon Legislature approved the use of 12 red light cameras in Portland. The first six were installed between October 2001 and April 2003. The cameras take photographs of cars running red lights, generating tickets that are sent to the car’s owner. Police oversee the issuance of tickets, which carry a $245 fine, and the money goes in to the City’s General Fund. Over a five-year period, the red light camera program netted the City nearly $60,000 per year.
The Federal Highway Administration estimates that red light cameras have a positive economic benefit of about $40,000 each year per camera by reducing the number of severe crashes at enforced locations. This means that Portlanders will realize an estimated $1.8 million in economic benefit in the first 10 years of operation of six new red light cameras. The estimated cost of installing cameras at six locations is $250,000. This represents a benefit/cost ratio of over 7 for the investment.

Two City agencies administer the program. The Police Bureau reviews and signs the issued citations to the drivers, provides officers to testify if the driver requests a trial, and works with program vendors on maintenance issues. The Portland Office of Transportation monitors the effectiveness of the cameras. Both agencies are responsible for choosing which intersections receive the cameras. Locations are selected for red light camera enforcement because they have high numbers of crashes caused by red light running compared to other intersections in the city.

For more information about the red light camera program, go to the City of Portland’s website at www.portlandonline.com, and in the search field, type: red light running.


18 responses to “More Red Light Cameras on the Way”

  1. It would be super helpful for actual police to enforce these laws, too. I have personally witnessed several gross violations in plain sight of police who did nothing whatsoever. In one case I was narrowly missed while legally walking in a crosswalk, in full view of police who did nothing whatsoever.

    The deliberate running of red lights and stop signs is a horribly selfish and dangerous crime that is comparable to driving drunk. We have become very tolerant of this behavior in the past few years. Why? If the same kind of social and legal pressure as used for drunk driving came to bear on light runners, it would quickly cease to be the problem it is now.

  2. No matter which way the lens is aimed, red light cameras are discriminatory. The prime example that comes to mind came occurred when waiting for a red light to turn green on 39th at Sandy Boulevard and a bicyclist just whizzed past right through the intersection and cross traffic. Until bicycles can trigger the cameras and have visible front license plates on them with numbers large enough to be easily read by the cameras, the City of Portland and PDOT are practicing discrimination with red light cameras.

  3. The City insists this is to help reduce t-bone accidents, mainly because the sides of a car are the weakest and makes injuries more likely. A bicyclist t-boning a car isn’t going to hurt the occupants of that car, so it’s not all that discriminating.

  4. If the cameras help to prevent even one fatal accident, then they’re worth it IMO. As far as bicyclists blowing through red lights, even cameras can’t prevent someone with a deathwish from committing suicide.

  5. I’m surprised the City doesn’t mention the additional benefit of cars and trucks no longer clogging the intersection into gridlock, which was a huge problem at SE Madison & Grand before they put in the red light camera.

  6. What is more scary, bicyclists with death wishes or drivers who don’t recognize there is a difference between their responsibilities when operating a multi-ton vehicle at high speeds and someone on a bike?

  7. What is more scary, bicyclists with death wishes…

    I often walk home over the Hawthorne Bridge, Ross (and did so long before the County expanded the bridge’s sidewalks). Both then, and now, it’s VERY scary to have bicyclists racing as fast as they can ON THE SIDEWALK passing me from behind, within inches of me, as I’m crossing the river.

    Every time. Dozens of cyclists. Passing each OTHER as they pass me. As aggessive as any car-driver…but on the sidewalk they share with me, and all the other “walkers” who many, many cyclists treat with contempt.

    Don’t belittle the effect aggressive cyclists have on our “multi-modal” transportation system.

  8. Re: “Don’t belittle the effect aggressive cyclists have on our “multi-modal” transportation system.”

    The US cycling model seems to be based too much on balls-to-the-walls athleticism. Too bad. It is not only dangerous to fellow users on sidewalks, etc., but it turns off other potential cyclists to joining into everyday cycling.

  9. I often walk home over the Hawthorne Bridge,

    Frank, I walked regularly both to and from downtown over the Hawthorne bridge and I think your description is an exaggeration. Although there certainly are a few cyclists who lack good sense and ride too fast for a shared space. Same with the esplanade.

    On the other hand, I have never been hit or seen anyone actually hit by a bicycle.

    Don’t belittle the effect aggressive cyclists have on our “multi-modal” transportation system.

    I will simply repeat what I said “What is more scary … drivers who don’t recognize there is a difference between their responsibilities when operating a multi-ton vehicle at high speeds and someone on a bike?”

    I don’t think a bicyclist, even an “aggressive” one, is remotely the threat of someone behind the wheel of a car.

  10. A few years ago I was walking along the Burke-Gilman Trail in the U District in Seattle.

    Every single bicyclist – yes, EVERY ONE – politely rang their bell and called out “Bike on your left” each time they approach. As I moved out of their way they smiled and thanked me.

    In Portland (the supposedly “friendliest” city for a lack of road rage), I have had bicyclists nearly bean me at 20 MPH on the Springwater Trail.

    In Seattle, it’s the law. Pedestrians must yield, but only if the bike signals in advance. If they don’t signal, the pedestrian has the right of way. It’s also strictly enforced.

    Maybe the Bicycle Transportation Alliance would do well to educate the bicyclists of Portland on how to ride their bikes politely and respectfully – which includes following the law, not exceeding reasonable speeds, and treating mixed-use trail users with respect.

    Of course, I’m not going to hold my breath; this is the same group that actually petitioned the state legislature to waive bikes from having to obey traffic control devices.

  11. Of course, I’m not going to hold my breath; this is the same group that actually petitioned the state legislature to waive bikes from having to obey traffic control devices.

    They petitioned the state legislature to change the law to allow variances for bikes where appropriate, consistent with proposals and laws in other states and countries.

    They didn’t ask for the law to be “waived”, they asked for it to be changed.

    I do agree that the Seattle law, the way you describe it, is a good idea.

    – Bob R.

  12. I have a bell on my bike. I used to use it regularly, and 80% of the time it worked great, the other 20% of the time, the person I was passing jumped wildly in some random direction and acts like I tried to shoot them. I can be going 5 mph and be 50 feet behind them, and the response will be the same. And no, I’m not special, I’ve talked to many cyclists that have had the same problem. Non-cyclists don’t understand this problem, but if you don’t believe me, you should go down to the esplanade with a bell, (you can be on foot, it doesn’t matter,) and ring it every few minutes and observe what happens. (I’ve also tried saying “On your left” but it seemed to result in a lot more jumping left, where as bell ringing made the jumping more of a random direction.)

    The BTA was giving away bells a few weeks ago. But we all know that they hate pedestrians, in fact I even heard that they were just trying to see if they could make a few of them have heart attacks.

  13. Today I rode eastbound across the Hawthorne bridge about 3 PM. It was not crowded and the riding was easy. I deliberated rode at a casual pace and was passed by another bike going much faster. On the down hill stretch on the east side I glanced at my speedometer. 20 MPH! The bike that passed me was doing at least 25. 25 mph, even 20 mph, is perhaps too fast on a shared mode bike and pedestrian path. I, for one, would not mind using that particular shared path with a limit of 15 mph. It would make the trip across take a couple minutes longer. That is not much of a sacrifice for the safety and sanity for all.

  14. Frank, I walked regularly both to and from downtown over the Hawthorne bridge and I think your description is an exaggeration. Although there certainly are a few cyclists who lack good sense and ride too fast for a shared space. Same with the esplanade.

    No exaggeration. My walks across the brige aren’t past tense either. I used the bridge for walking across four times last week, and every single time there is some unpleasantness or other. And I’ve little interest in being knocked from behind over the rail and into the river. 99 out of a hundred cyclists don’t use a bell or call out…despite the fact that it’s the law.

    There’s a reason that OMSI is forced to post PLEASE SLOW DOWN signs for cyclists…not that everyone does. And so OMSI has to post signs for the parents, and children: WATCH OUT FOR BIKES.

    We all need to slow down and enjoy the ride, whatever the mode.

  15. ‘ve little interest in being knocked from behind over the rail and into the river.

    But no exaggeration?

    There’s a reason that OMSI is forced to post PLEASE SLOW DOWN signs for cyclists.

    Well yes, there is. Unless one is familiar with the trail around OMSI it is not apparent that people would be crossing the trail. It often looks like a deserted path with no place for cross traffic. So signs warning cyclists make a lot sense.

    the other 20% of the time, the person I was passing jumped wildly in some random direction and acts like I tried to shoot them.

    I have been on the receiving end of those bells and if you are startled you don’t necessarily respond appropriately. You are operating a vehicle, they aren’t. They are just out for a walk.

    As a cyclist, I try to ring my bell well before they need to jump in any direction and don’t assume I have their attention until it is apparent. If someone can jump into your path you are either ringing the bell too late or going too fast.

    The BTA was giving away bells a few weeks ago. But we all know that they hate pedestrians,

    Exactly. That’s also why they give classes that teach young people about their responsibilities as bicyclists. They figure if they tell kids to be careful of pedestrians they will rebel against being told what to do by running over a few. Its all an insidious plot.

    I rode eastbound across the Hawthorne bridge … On the down hill stretch on the east side

    Are you talking about past the entrance to the esplanade? The bike path isn’t shared there, but I can’t figure out where else there is a downhill stretch going east.

    In any case, one can go pretty fast on the bridge when there are no pedestrians. There is no cross traffic and nothing to obstruct your views.

  16. Records show there were no reductions in violations whatsoever after fifteen months of brutal cam enforcement under ongoing dangerous conditions at US1 and Gibbon Street in Alexandria. On March 1, 1999, “red light running” miraculously dropped almost 80 percent overnight. The yellow lights had been secretly increased one second you see.

    Not to worry. Presto. Alexandria cam officials concealed the facts about the lights and simply told the public their red light camera “worked”.

    “We have no shortage of places to put these,” Nelson [Capt. Patrick Nelson, who heads the Portland, Oregon Police Bureau’s Traffic Division] said. “They’re the intersections we have wrecks at every day because people are driving with their heads up their tailpipes.” [“But city wants cameras to catch the scofflaws”, Associated Press, January 22, 1999, Seattle Post Intelligencer]

    Do you suppose red light cam officials in Portland can point to even a single example of them implementing a precribed engineering safety countermeasures that works and telling the public the reductions in violations from doing so? Don’t hold your breath as that is not how red light cameras “work”.

    As for unsuspecting people called motorists hurt or worse by red light cam lunatics, they obviously deserve what they get …. according to the phony red light cam crowd.

  17. While I too am concerned about the seeming lack of reductions of illegal motorist behavior in intersections with red-light cams, Gene’s comments strike me as beyond-the-pale hyperbole.

    I also agree that where yellow-light timing proves effective in the long term (with proof that drivers simply don’t eventually “learn” the new timing and increase violations again), it should be implemented.

    But Gene, you aren’t going to win any converts to your cause with verbiage like this:

    after fifteen months of brutal cam enforcement

    Brutal? Were cameras shooting bullets at law-breaking motorists? Did cameras suddenly leap down from the poles and bludgeon uncooperative drivers? Did pepper spray emerge from subterranean ducts? Did tazer prods pierce windshields in a campaign of shock and awe? Brutal?

    motorists hurt or worse by red light cam lunatics

    Are there vigilante bands of cam supporters running around slashing the tires of lawbreaking motorists or kicking them in the shins when they park at the mall? “hurt or worse”… what’s worse than “hurt”? Physical injury, death?

    Unless you have data to show that red light cams nab innocent people at a rate greater than human police officers, your cries of agony for the poor downtrodden red light runners seem more than a tad out of place.

    – Bob R.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *