On the corner of Broad and Raymond in Newark, Mayor Cory Booker is about to run a red light. The press has assembled to watch Booker earn an honorary violation at the mid-December launch of Newark’s Project Red Light, a program to ticket red-light runners through the use of cameras at up to 22 city intersections.
Newark is the first city in New Jersey to turn on cameras at two intersections, though twenty municipalities have been approved for cameras under the state’s five-year pilot program. Addressing the crowd, Booker and other city officials lauded Project Red Light while folks from Redflex Traffic Systems, the photo-enforcement company, nodded their approval. Specifying the program’s aim, Booker repeated himself for emphasis: “public safety, public safety, public safety.”
Booker’s claim seems to make sense. It’s impossible to put police officers at every intersection to catch those scofflaws who run red lights and risk accidents, especially deadly broadside crashes. Cameras can do the job of enforcement for them—and catch more offenders than an individual officer.
The camera systems—principally marketed in New Jersey by two Arizona-based companies, Redflex and American Traffic Solutions (ATS)—use underground sensors to detect vehicles moving illegally through a monitored intersection. Run the light, and the sensors trigger the camera system. The resulting still pictures and video evidence are electronically transmitted to the photo-enforcement company, which verifies the violation and determines the identity of the car’s registered owner. A local officer signs off on the ticket, then the camera company mails it to the presumed offender.
Camera proponents say the systems’ deterrent effect works to ultimately change driver behavior, decreasing accidents. “These [cameras] are going to go a long way to change the culture of driving in our city and make Newark a safer city to drive in,” Booker told the media.
But research suggests that the use of red-light cameras is not the home run it is presumed to be. Several independent studies have found that cameras do not, in fact, improve safety. What’s worse, as reported last year in St. Louis magazine, a host of studies noted an increase in crashes, many of which were rear-end accidents caused by drivers slamming on their brakes to avoid a ticket.
In Washington, D.C., a five-year study by the Washington Post published in 2005 concluded that the number of crashes at locations with red-light cameras more than doubled; crashes resulting in injuries or fatalities increased 81 percent. In Greensboro, North Carolina, red-light cameras were associated with a 40 percent increase in the accident rate and possible injury crashes, according to a 2004 study covering 57 months of data by the Urban Transit Institute of North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. And in Virginia, cameras were linked to a 27 percent increase in rear-end crashes and a 12 percent increase in total crashes, according to a six-city, seven-year study produced by the Virginia Transportation Research Council in 2007.
In view of such research, how did red-light cameras get the green light in New Jersey?
The pilot program was created after legislation sponsored by Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D-Sayreville) and others was signed into law in January 2008. The Senate bill passed by a single vote.
Advocates of red-light cameras often refer to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which has data to indicate that the camera systems can decrease accidents and save lives. But a 2008 study by researchers at the University of South Florida, published in the Florida Public Health Review, questions the validity of IIHS data, citing design flaws in the studies and suggesting a conflict of interest. “As the IIHS admits, they are wholly funded by automobile insurers,” the USF report states. “While insurers may not set out to increase crashes and injuries, increases in crashes and injuries indirectly contribute to automobile insurance’s performance as a growth industry. Increases in crashes can raise the risk rating of drivers in a community, which can lead to disproportionately higher automobile insurance premiums, and, subsequently, rising profits for insurers.”
State Senator Nicholas Scutari (D-Linden), an outspoken critic of the red-light cameras, says the systems are more about municipal revenues than public safety. “Statistics show that this is nothing more than a generation of money for municipalities,” Scutari told his fellow senators during the debate over the legislation. “This sends a bad message to citizens in the state of New Jersey. If they were aware of this, I guarantee you they would not like it.”
Indeed, the cameras can be an effective means of raising money. Violators rarely fight the tickets due to the overwhelming evidence—the citation includes two photos of the vehicle in the intersection with the light on red and a close-up of the license plate; a corresponding website shows a 12-second video of the violation. In Newark, the Redflex cameras at two intersections mailed a whopping 3,000 warnings for the first month they were installed. As of December 16, the warnings stopped and violators have been issued $85 tickets. It adds up fast.
For their part, the photo-enforcement companies emphasize public safety in marketing their systems. “We don’t ever predict the revenue component,” says Kate Coulson, public relations specialist for ATS, adding, “This is a public safety program.”
But a February 17, 2009, council meeting in Brick suggested that ATS had in fact provided the town with revenue projections. At that meeting, members of the council discussed both the safety and revenue factors associated with red-light cameras.
“Safety first, that’s the reason why we’re putting them up,” said councilman Brian Deluca. He continued: “But the revenue that they’re looking at generating…they’re projecting $40,000-$50,000 a month in revenue…it’s a lot of money.”
“It’s a revenue producer right away,” echoed council president Joseph Sangiovanni. “Something we need very badly.”
As Charles Callari, regional business development director for ATS, answered the council’s questions, others voiced their support. “We can’t kid ourselves,” said council vice president Dan Toth. “Public safety yes, but it’s a heck of a money generator.”
In the end, Brick signed with ATS. The deal calls for the town to pay ATS a fixed rental fee of $38,000 per month for three years for cameras at two four-way intersections. For every paid $85 ticket beyond the ATS fee, Brick will receive $46, with the county and state pocketing the rest. If the cameras do not generate enough revenue to cover the ATS fee, the town is not obliged to make up the deficit. (In some municipalities, including Newark and Edison, the enforcement companies get a scaled percentage of the ticket revenue, as opposed to a fixed rental fee.)
Most red-light camera advocates claim that revenue is not their priority. In August 2009, police chief Ed Smith of Gloucester Township told the Philadelphia Inquirer, “I don’t care if it raises a dime. The purpose…is to reduce crashes.”
Wisniewski also put safety first in pushing his Assembly bill. “The statistics involving property damage and injuries resulting from accidents at red lights are alarming. This might be one way of reducing it,” he told the transportation committee he chairs. (For the record, Wisniewski received campaign contributions from Redflex and from an individual at ATS.)
At that same Assembly transportation committee meeting, Peter McNerney of Redflex waxed on about the benefits of red-light cameras. He listed endorsements from several transportation groups, and claimed cameras provide a 50 percent decrease in what he called “bad driving,” plus millions of dollars saved from emergency personnel dispatched to accidents. The systems, McNerney added, also can help reconstruct accidents through video, eliminating “he said, she said” arguments.
Two years after passage of New Jersey’s legislation, with the first cameras in place, those committed to the program are optimistic about its benefits. “I’d much rather have a rear-end collision than somebody hitting a pedestrian,” said Booker. “Every study we’ve looked at shows there’s a reduction of auto accidents, and there’s a reduction of injury to human beings.”
Around the nation, those who oppose red-light cameras continue to make their case, citing cheaper engineering alternatives that they say have proved effective in decreasing red-light running. Among those alternatives: longer yellow-light times, an all-red clearance interval (where traffic is stopped at all approaches), and improved signal visibility, to name a few.
Opponents also point out that because camera-generated tickets are mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle and not necessarily the driver, owners who were not the perpetrators have to go to court to point the finger at the person who was driving—sometimes a family member. They also cite instances in California and Tennessee where red-light tickets from camera intersections were refunded after yellow-light times were found to be below the federal three-second minimum. And then there are those who just equate red-light cameras with Big Brother.
Scutari remains steadfast in his opposition to the cameras and plans to introduce legislation to abolish the pilot program. Short of such legislation, the state’s transportation commissioner could deny new applications to the program. At press time, Assemblyman Alex DeCroce (R-Parsippany-Troy Hills) was rumored to be incoming Governor Chris Christie’s choice for the position. DeCroce voted against the pilot program.
Opponents of the cameras also note that the municipalities have the option of withdrawing their applications. Indeed, South Brunswick backed out after officials there expressed concerns over whether the technology might actually increase accidents.