In Chicago, intersections that have been equipped with red-light cameras have seen traffic accident occurrences decrease by 20%. In addition, they have generated revenue for the city to the tune of $122 million, valuable at a time when city budgets across the country are coming up short due to lower than expected tax revenues. However, they are extremely controversial.
An intersection with a new red-light camera starts by issuing many tickets to violators. Intersections with the most violations have reached almost 3,000 in a month initially. Once drivers become conscious of the cameras, they change their driving habits, and the number of violations come down dramatically by about 75% over 5 years.
The success in Chicago has not been seen everywhere. In Houston, it appears the number of accidents may have increased at monitored intersections because of a rise in rear-end collisions and drivers slam on their brakes to avoid a violation (though other studies show that this can be avoided by increasing the length of yellow light). In Dallas, some of the monitored intersections have been turned off because they were not generating enough revenue. In L.A., it appears the 80% of the tickets issued by red-light cameras were for rolling right turns; still an illegal activity, but a much less dangerous one, and so a frustrating observation if the main claim of the camera installation is to improve safety.
If the numbers do not show that the cameras are having the desired effect, camera opponents have a valid argument. However, in places like Chicago where they are being proven to work, more cameras should be installed.
A previous post discussed the idea that city revenue sources like property taxes and income taxes and sales taxes are burdens on citizens for doing positive or neutral things, like owning a home, earning an income, or buying a fishing pole. Revenue generated from red-light blowers places the burden on someone whose actions are having a negative impact on society, in several ways:
- Blowing a red light is against the law.
- The action endangers everyone on the road, causing about 8,000 deaths in the US per year.
- The action causes as many as 4,000,000 non-fatal accidents per year.
- These accidents cause insurance rates to go up
- The accidents cause injuries, which bring financial hardship.
We don’t like the idea of bigger government, but if the choice is between increasing the sales tax on everyone or charging higher fees for violations, the answer seems obvious.
What if cameras were on every signalized intersection in Chicago.
The city is currently monitoring 143 of the worst (based on number of traffic accidents) intersections with cameras from Redflex Traffic Systems. There are over 2900 intersections in Chicago with traffic signals. The fine is currently $100 per violation, and with the deal in place for the 143 cameras and monitoring service, the intersection must generate 39 violations per month to be cost effective for the city.
If a camera was placed on every intersection in the city that has a traffic signal, and each camera captured 2 violations per day (60/month), it would generate $73 million per year - not bad. However, of the 143 monitored sites now, the fewest tickets generated per month is 85. Leaving out the first 39/month as break-even money, the city would be looking at $160 million per year. Friday the City of Chicago announced a $300 million budget deficit along with the layoff of 1500 city workers. Could red-light cameras have saved half of those jobs?
How many fewer accidents would occur?
The city is reporting that accidents have dropped by 20% at the intersections monitored by cameras. There are currently about 140,000 traffic accidents per year in Chicago. Between 20% and 40% occur at intersections. We will use 30% in our calculation and say 8,4000 accidents could be avoided each year in Chicago with cameras at each signaled intersection.
Miscellaneous Costs
8,400 accidents avoided translated to a compounding savings rate. Each driver involved in the accident would see his/her auto insurance rates increase by 20% - 40%. There may be additional repair costs that are not covered by insurance. There may be missed wages to arrange the repairs, or because a car is not operable. And of course a most serious implication of the accident is that there will be injuries, and possibly death.
A camera on every traffic signal may be extreme, and may not be financially prudent. However the general concept of taxing violators and those whose actions have a negative impact on society should be considered a viable revenue option.