Rochester City Council members had an intense debate this afternoon over the city’s red-light camera program. Council members questioned the efficacy of the program, whether the cameras unfairly target the city’s poorest neighborhoods, whether the city has become dependent on the revenue from the program, and if the benefits outweigh the ill will that the program engenders from the community.
The discussion took place during Council’s review of Mayor Lovely Warren’s $502-million proposed budget.
The red-light program angers people more than any other city program or policy, Council President Loretta Scott said. She said she gets more complaints about the program than about police issues or the city’s snowplowing services.
She said that the tickets disproportionately punish poorer people with less disposable income. And losing access to their cars could prevent them from finding jobs and-or getting to work, she said.
Council member Adam McFadden made a similar argument. He said that the map of red-light camera locations looks similar to the shape of Rochester’s troubled crescent neighborhoods.
Warren responded that the cameras are located at the intersections with the most accidents.
Council’s angst seems tied, in part, to the city’s decision last year to start booting the vehicles of people with multiple unpaid tickets. Between towing, impound, and other charges, the fees add up, some Council people said, and the person’s credit could be hit. McFadden called for a temporary amnesty program so that people could come in and pay their fines without threat of punishment.
Warren said that people are given multiple opportunities and multiple ways to take care of their tickets before the situation escalates. The bottom line, she said, is that people are never going to fall in love with the red-light program, and it’s up to Council whether to continue it.
“No matter what we do, they’re not going to like it,” Warren said. “These issues are not going to go away. Either you’re going to do it or you’re not.”
Council member Elaine Spaull said she thought that the idea of the program is to change people’s driving behavior, which means that violations and collections should go down. But, she said, violations are going up.
“So I’m not sure it’s working in terms of changing behaviors,” she said.
The red-light program brings in about $1 million annually for the city.
This article appears in Jun 3-9, 2015.
The mayor and city council can very easily and at anytime go to each red-light camera with a technician and turn off the power. I can think of a million reasons why this won’t happen.
We all agree that the problem of urban poverty is multifaceted. Getting rid of red-light cameras would be a drop-in-the-bucket as far as poverty solutions. However, you have to ask whether the red-light camera program is more of a liability to improving police/community relations than it is a public safety benefit. To me, this seems more like harassment, especially when poor people are unable to pay multiple tickets. Loss of transportation and loss of a job isn’t the direction of progress. Funding a police department on the backs of poor people is shameful.
Remember also, that the red-light program is set up as a money maker. The cameras are painted different colors depending on location so they blend in. The idea is for drivers to get caught and fined. So, it’s not surprising when the studies can’t find safety benefits. One intersection did have increased rear-end collisions after violations went down. Drivers at this location were changing their behaviors. I’m sure that unexpected braking and acceleration was causing rear-end collisions. New York State politians approved all the automated enforcement legislation last year at the last minute and without debate. One representative said, “This is a quality of life issue.” You have to wonder who our state representatives are working for. It’s not us.
It’s clear that the cameras only serve the purpose of generating funds for the city. They have not worked at increasing safety. The council needs to be honest and admit the mistake and get rid of them.
Is there any data available on whether the cameras have made the intersections any safer?
The city says the red light cameras are for safety, yet they stepped up the collection of fines by booting cars and adding penalties. If they want to increase safety maybe they should consider speed cameras. Are there any red light cameras in Monroe County other than in the city of Rochester? I find it hard to believe that the only unsafe intersections (which require cameras) are within the city limits.
Maybe “safer” is the wrong term; nothing is safe; however, if everyone followed the traffic rules, such as stopping at a red light and waiting to go on green, there would probably be fewer collisions.
It does’nt matter if you’re rich or poor, everyone should obey traffic rules if they plan on driving, for the benefit of themselves, other drivers and pedestrians.
If people complain about the cameras, then they should simply follow the traffic rules or get off the road and not be a potential hazard to everyone.
There were no controls in the red-light camera program study. Lacking were comparisons with intersections that didn’t have cameras. Traffic volume also needed to have been considered. It can’t be assumed that accident numbers were declining because of the cameras.
I’m responsible and not a troublemaker. If I get a ticket, I’ll pay it right away despite being furious. However, City hall should be concerned with REAL safety improvements and not this nonsense. The free easy money is skewing the judgement of those in power.
Rochester City Hall should fire this contractor and end the program today in view of the national red light cameras bribery scandal.
Even if the Mayor’s “inhouse” investigation finds Redflex did not also bribe any officials in Rochester, there is now proof that Redflex bribed the cities Rochester used as justification and validation to bring the system here.
Rochester’s red light camera$ program is no longer trustworthy.
See the comments on my law firm Facebook page for the negative experiences countless law-abiding drivers have had at:
http://www.facebook.com/RochesterNYAttorney
I have heard of situations in other cities where Redflex was cooperating with city officials to temporarily turn off some red-light cameras. “It’s turning off a switch.” was what Redflex had to say.
Redflex will shut the program down. If that’s what Mayor Lovely Warren wants.