Red-light rundown


Tuesday, the Portland Tribune ran an article to debunk some of the myths surrounding red light cameras in Portland. It is a fairly quick read and rather informative for those of us who aren’t familiar with the local version of the program.

While city leaders and city police still hear the complaints once in a while – about Big Brother, about traffic enforcement simply for revenue generation, about the inability to cross-examine a machine – the red-light cameras operating during the last several years at five of the city’s busiest intersections seem to have worked.

At least based on some important barometers: Red-light running at those intersections is down, as are vehicle crashes, and injuries in vehicle crashes.

So the city is doubling its red-light enforcement program. Last month, it added another intersection to those that have been monitored by cameras since late 2001 and early 2002 – an intersection right next to City Hall, coincidentally.

During the next three months or so, cameras will be added to five more intersections that have had high numbers of red-light running, vehicle crashes and crash injuries.

Continue reading Red-light rundown


15 responses to “Red-light rundown”

  1. here’s an even better quote from the Tribune article:

    “The company that runs Portland’s cameras, Affiliated Computer Services, based in Dallas, Texas, is one of the leaders in the industry. It has made $27 per paid citation in Portland.”

  2. It’s an interesting question about incentives: What is the best way to compensate a private contractor who runs law-enforcement devices?

    On the one hand, it seems the $27 per _paid_ citation make it in the company’s interest to minimize the issuance of invalid citations. On the other hand, does it create a sufficient incentive to crank out tickets, even invalid ones, under the assumption that most people will just pay them without challenge?

    If it were a payment per photograph taken, how would that positively or negatively affect incentives?

    Would a flat monthly rate be more fair? Or would that incentivise the contractor to minimize support and maintenance for a given location, once they have a guaranteed revenue stream?

    – Bob R.

  3. Would a flat monthly rate be more fair?

    That’s basically what San Diego had to do, after they were caught shortening yellow times to catch more drivers with the cameras.

    Rather than make intersections safer, the increased red light running and crashes. The newer system removed the incentive to make intersections more dangerous for the sake of profits.

  4. I’m against these “computer” red light camera’s for the same reason I am against computer voting booths.

    Can be tampered with and can make mistakes.

    As in:

    I see these things flashing all over the place sometimes, AND THERE IS NO ONE IN THE INTERSECTION!

  5. “That’s basically what San Diego had to do, after they were caught shortening yellow times to catch more drivers with the cameras.”

    Wait, are you saying the contractor for San Diego had control over the yellow timings, or are you saying the way San Diego paid the contractor tempted San Diego into changing the yellow timings?

    I don’t see how the actions of a city regarding signal timing are affected one way or another by how they pay the contractor.

    I’d like to know more details about this.

    – Bob R.

  6. There is no regulation regarding the timing of yellow lights is there?

    THAT IS REALLY STRANGE!

    Obviously if the yellows are shorter more people get tickets.

    Talk about entrapment!

    Big Brother is definitely taking over, this is bad, very bad!

  7. Al –

    I am in complete agreement that computerized paperless voting systems are inherently unreliable. The main reason for this is because in a system where we are constitutionally obligated to maintain the privacy and anonymity of the vote (and that’s a good thing), post-election electronic vote verification is not possible.

    However, in systems where anonymity is not a requirement, reliability and trustworthiness can be enhanced by numerous safeguards. For example, ATM transactions, by most standards, are highly reliable (certainly more reliable than the error rate in typical elections.)

    Because anonymity is not a requirement of electronic red light enforcement (although that doesn’t mean current systems are necessarily reliable), I am not opposed in principle to such systems, while I _am_ opposed to completely paperless voting systems.

    – Bob R.

  8. Bob R,

    Where we are talking about “civil liberties” issues, there can be no reliance on “electronic” as far as I am concerned.

    Too much potential for abuse.

    But I see your point.

  9. Bob R., it was motivated by more profits, and the camera operator happily went along, and if I recall correctly (I can’t find a source) actually worked with the city to identify profitable locations.

    This quote sums up a big part of why the city and contractor both were at fault, in my opinion:

    A memo found among these documents outlines the selection criteria used to determine placement of red light cameras in the city. “High traffic volume” is the first criterion listed. Heavy volume ensures a steady stream of profits. According to the document, cameras are only to be used where the yellow signal time is “less than 4 seconds.” In other words, find intersections where people don’t have enough time to stop. Putting cameras at locations with high volume and inadequate yellow time is not related to safety.

    From http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TickRedCamArmeyorwellatm.asp

    Interestingly, the situation actually worked out to the benefit of the public. It caused one second all-red periods, got the city to re-time large numbers of yellow light periods, as well as work for engineering solutions to increase sight lines and decrease sun glare. Overall, it made the city a much better place to drive or walk.

    Oh, and it barely cost anything to implement. I hope Portland has tried similar proactive measures before worrying about enforcement. If so, I don’t really have a problem with the cameras.

  10. Dave –

    Thanks for the follow-up and the reference.

    I would be curious to learn what standards (if any) the city of Portland has in place for setting yellow-light and all-red timings.

    Anecdotally (and probably totally unrelatedly) I do know for a fact that the city does not enforce carpool parking regulations in a manner consistent with state codes regarding signage. (Yes, I got a ticket. No, I didn’t get a lower court to agree with me and I didn’t pursue the matter further.)

    – Bob R.

  11. TriMet security cannot stop a crime on the buses or trains. They are not allowed to. They can only observe and call for help. Their cameras can only witness the event. If you are victimized in a violent assault, as seen in the multiple news stories recently, you are at the mercy of someone calling the police and the time it takes them to get there. A lot of pain and injury can take place in that time. As much as it is tempting to hold the police, TriMet and other accountable for protecting the community, as said in the article about the coming Milwaukie MAX, the communities have to participate in that much more than they do. Who will protect the community? We must. Or it won’t happen to the degree that it needs to. We need to do whatever we can, as a community, to stop the violent crime, in particular, before it gets on the train or bus; make the stations, stops and platforms a place they no longer want to hang out, for fear of the police coming when they do.

    The police and TriMet security help, even augment that, but we have to stand up and say, “No!” to all the violent and other crime in our neighborhoods and at our bus stops. We need to come together to find ways to fight the crime problems. We have to get together and make it inhospitable for those would-be attackers and criminals to hang out on the platforms, stations and ride the trains. Report anything and everything, reinstate the real, neighborhood watches, call the police on people who do not belong, or who are causing problems.

    Recently, the Angels dealt with an intoxicated (drugs more likely than alcohol in this case), aggressive, individual on the MAX. See Portland Tribune article, Tuesday Nov. 13th, 2007. This person was loudly intimidating some young girls and many other passengers on the train. We called the police while we kept him away from others, and the police did meet the train and remove him. But no one else on that train–and it was pretty full–did that, or seems to have thought to make that call. People need to make those calls, and consistently. If we hadn’t been there, the people on that train would likely have just rode, putting up with this guy, and to some degree, at risk to themselves. We need to make the calls. The police take those very seriously.

    We do need TriMet to step up and take action, make changes, to make their system more safe. Thanks to the media, this is happening more now. We do need the police, too. But, all of that won’t help if we, the community members, don’t make those calls, report, describe people who harass or attack others, and do everything we can to make sure those people are taken out of the community through arrest and/or by way of making it so uncomfortable for them to be on the train, the platform or at the station, for fear of the police being called, that they go elsewhere.

    Michael McDaniel
    Chapter Leader
    Portland Guardian Angels

  12. Nice to see you Michael!

    Several members of this blog are somewhat skeptical of the crime problems on Trimet.

    If they start up on you don’t get discouraged!

    They are in the very small minority on this issue, although they are very prominent on this blog.

    As a matter of fact, this is the only blog that I hang out in where there is doubt about the security issue at all.

    And you should post this on the other topic line,

    TriMet promises fresh eye on crime/Fearing Milwaukie’s MAX

  13. Michael –

    Welcome to the PortlandTransport blog — You may have posted in the wrong discussion, as this one is about red light cameras.

    I suggest you repost your comment in one of the other discussions where the topic of MAX security/crime has been hotly debated.

    – Bob R.

  14. Guys, let’s keep this issue in one of the other appropriate discussions, and leave this topic for photo-red-light talk.

    – Bob R.

Leave a Reply

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