Red-light cameras in Chicago already faced “mismanagement, malfunction and a $2 million bribery scandal.”
The Tribune cautions that the small sample size of cameras they tested and their related incidences make some cause-and-effect conclusions difficult to draw, but the newspaper’s staff say they are sure that the cameras did not help make many intersections any safer than they were before the cameras.
The Tribune says it set out to find:
“So is it worth putting the cameras at those locations?
“That’s a question you may want to ask the mayor.”
And the mayor responded. He said the city’s calculations may have been off, but he stood by the program overall.
From the Tribune:
After examining the Tribune’s study of crash rates at red light camera intersections, the Emanuel administration has conceded that there was a key flaw in its own claim in October that right-angle crashes at such intersections were down 47 percent.
At intersections that already saw more than four injury-causing crashes a year, before cameras, researchers at Texas A&M found that the cameras offered a safety benefit. But when cameras were added to intersections where there were already fewer than four injury-causing crashes a year, the intersections didn’t see an improvement in safety with the addition of cameras. Cameras were added to 73 such intersections (out of 190 total in 2012), making up to $140 million in revenue for the city.
The study says that the cameras actually could have increased some kinds of dangerous crashes. Even though Emanuel said the cameras are responsible for a 47 percent reduction in right-angle crashes, the study found that the cameras could only be responsible for a 15-percent reduction in these crashes when accounting for other variables.
Even though right-angle crashes saw a small decrease thanks to the cameras, other kinds of crashes, including rear-ends, increased by up to 22 percent. Those kinds of crashes also can cause injury.
But even those improvements were only seen in intersections where there already was a high volume of crashes in the first place–a qualification only met by 40 percent of the intersections chosen to host the cameras.
From the Tribune:
“So the question now is: If we eliminate a certain type of collision and increase the other and overall it stays the same, is there an argument that it is fair to go with the program?” [study co-author Dominique] Lord said. “That is a question that I cannot answer.
“Just the elected officials can answer for that.”
The study, conducted by Lord and Srinivas Geedipally, examined 90 of the 190 total camera-equipped intersections. After analyzing the traffic trends and crash statistics, the takeaway is that the cameras helped to decrease some crashes while increasing others:
The study results showed red light cameras are responsible for “a non-significant increase of 5 percent in the total number of injury crashes, a statistically significant reduction of 15 percent in angle and turning injury crashes, and a statistically significant increase of 22 percent in rear-end injury collisions,” the authors wrote.
The Tribune reports that the study results show that the city could decrease its red-light camera volume by 40 percent to reap the program’s full benefits.
City representatives, including Chicago Transportation Commissioner Rebekah Scheinfeld and David Zavaretto, the deputy transportation director, said the numbers offered a new perspective.
With Emanuel under fire for the red light camera program’s results, mayoral candidates are taking the opportunity to stand in opposition as the February election draws nearer. The Chicago Sun-Times says that Ald. Bob Fioretti and Cook County Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Garcia both slammed the program. Garcia called for a stop to the camera-induced tickets.
From CBS Chicago:
Garcia said City Hall is blind to the red light camera problems because of the money they bring in. Since 2002, they’ve generated 500 million dollars in tickets.
But both the Sun-Times and Emanuel pointed out that Garcia had an interaction with the camera company in March.
From the Sun-Times:
That’s when he accepted a $1,500 donation from Safespeed LLC the day before casting a “yes” vote that cleared the way for the company to install a red-light camera in River Forest, records show.
Emanuel fired back, says the Sun-Times:
“Before Commissioner Garcia can attack a program that is critical to public safety . . . he needs to explain his own questionable record on red-light cameras,” Mayberry said in an email. “With all of the tough decisions we as a city must face in the next four years, the voters deserve better from a candidate for mayor.”
In a profile of Garcia in Crain’s Chicago Business, Garcia told supporters he is running “a good case and a strong case” against Emanuel.
From Crain’s:
After his three-decade career on the ramparts of independent politics, no one should mistake Garcia’s low-key demeanor for a lack of tenaciousness about the issues that divide Chicago. Coming off as humble and reserved, yet driven by the same passion for the rights of the downtrodden that got him into politics, he offers a sharp contrast in both style and substance in his uphill battle against the mayor.
He has said he is going to focus on pointing out to voters what exactly went wrong during the Emanuel administration. He was elected to the city council in 1986 before going on to be Illinois’ first Mexican-American state senator in 1992. He is currently the Cook County Commissioner. He is known for his opposition to gentrification in his home neighborhood of Pilsen and elsewhere in the city and anti-gang initiatives.
From Crain’s:
Since he announced for mayor, “I’m taken aback” by the response, he tells the group in Miner’s home. “People aren’t calling me Commissioner Garcia, they’re calling me Chuy. It’s a sign they’re paying attention.”
As Chicago faces its own political dramas, state politics are also seeing their fair share of intrigue as the term winds down. The Associated Press reports that Illinois Treasurer Dan Rutherford, who is leaving office in January, has issued pay raises for dozens of employees by up to 36 percent, plus almost $90,000 in one-time bonuses to non-union employees.
From the AP:
Rutherford spokeswoman Mary Frances Bragiel defended the salary increases — given to more than 25 non-union employees — and one-time payments.
She said they were “all based on performance , job duty changes and more responsibility.”
But one union leader called the move “profiteering,” because union employees didn’t see such high pay raises.
From the AP:
“It is a disgrace to dedicated state employees and public servants,” [Frank Prochaska, spokesman for Council 31 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees] said.
Rutherford is on his way out in January. Only time will tell if the red-light camera investigation will make for a tougher re-election fight for Emanuel.
NEXT ARTICLE: Cartoon: Chicago red light cameras: Trick or treat!
[RECOMMENDED]
- Nine gear up to take on Mayor Rahm Emanuel in February
- Paul Green: 2015 Chicago mayoral election won’t be pleasant
- Last-minute gifts for Illinois’ top politicians
- Miller: Rauner will miss Topinka, who would have challenged him
- Want to tell your elected officials what you think of the state of government in Illinois? Use our Sound Off tool.