Green or red for traffic cameras?

By The Gazette Editorial Board

----

CONTROVERSIAL

Use of traffic enforcement cameras have been a controversial issue ever since the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that local municipalities had the constitutional right to use them. Cities using the systems issue civil citations and fines on the vehicle's owner, who may or may not have been the driver at the time the infraction image was captured by a camera. Last spring, the Iowa House passed a statewide ban on the cameras, but the measure didn't advance in the Senate.

However, in June, the Iowa Department of Transportation announced, without any legislative mandate and with little fanfare, its first formal guidelines for using cameras on Iowa's primary highway system - interstate, U.S. and state highways, which total about 9 percent of Iowa's public road system and are the state's responsibility for maintaining.

Some of these highways run through cities, and that's where the new DOT guidelines are causing Iowa City officials some angst and delay. Cities previously were required to get DOT permission for cameras on primary highways, but there was no formal policy until the guidelines were created. In Iowa City, they affect eight intersections of the 11 intersections where officials want to install red-light cameras (no speed cameras planned so far).

THE REQUIREMENTS

The guidelines, among other things, call for:

l A “justification” report from cities wanting to install a camera system that provides evidence for its need, based primarily on potential safety benefits.

l A list of criteria for suitable site selection.

l Criteria for public awareness and signage alerting drivers in advance that cameras are being used, including for mobile cameras.

l And, once installed, annual reports evaluating the effectiveness of the cameras, including comparison data on accidents, fees assessed and collected, operating costs. These must be submitted to the DOT in February.

The last one is retroactive for cities that are already using the cameras.

And if cities don't comply, the Iowa DOT “reserves the right to require removal or modification of a system in a particular location, as deemed appropriate.”

So, essentially, the state now has the power to remove or ban cameras from some sites on a case-by-case basis.

We previously took a position that the decision on whether to use traffic cameras should be a local one. We still hold that view. Local law enforcement and community leaders best understand the need on their roadways, while local residents, through their city council representatives or petition and the ballot box, can send messages of support or removal.

That said, we also see merit in uniform statewide guidelines for such things as effective, consistent signage, ensuring a fair appeal process, and preventing abusive or excessive use of fines and revenues from citations. Also, tracking data regularly to document whether the cameras are producing safety benefits - which should be the primary reason to justify their use - is essential.

RED FLAGS

While we see value in the new state guidelines, we also have concerns:

l There don't appear to be any clear standards defining what determines enough safety benefit to justify the cameras' use.

l Does it makes sense for the state guidelines to affect only those city intersections involving primary highways? After all, municipalities have primary law enforcement duties on all streets within city limits.

l Potential scenarios include the state rejecting cameras at one intersection along a primary road within city limits, while others on the route remain. Does that serve local needs?

l Are the guidelines a step toward even more state intrusion into local decision-making? For example, a year ago, Gov. Terry Branstad - who has supported banning traffic cameras - indicated that if cameras continue to be used, he'd like to see revenue from fines funneled into the state road-use fund to help the DOT address a projected $200 million annual shortfall for maintaining the state's road system. “Then there's no incentive for a community to do it just for the revenue for themselves,” Branstad said.

However, Steve Gent, DOT director of Traffic and Safety, told us the governor's office did not direct the DOT to create the guidelines. Instead, “many conversations” among DOT officials and experts led them to conclude that the growing use of cameras warranted formal state guidelines.

l Will the guidelines convince enough legislators to pass legislation mandating inclusion of all traffic cameras, not just those on primary highways, or lead to an all-out ban?

PROVING BENEFITS

Meanwhile, there's some compelling data about the safety benefits where cameras have been in place for at least a couple of years. Cedar Rapids' first two years of using traffic cameras resulted in a 75 percent reduction in injury accidents on the dangerous section of I-380 through the downtown area, where speed monitors are used, as well a 22 percent decrease in such accidents at seven intersections with red-light cameras operating.

Council Bluffs cited an overall 35 percent reduction in accidents in areas where the cameras are used. And city leaders and police officials in the seven Iowa communities using the systems insist it's a relatively low-cost method of improving enforcement and freeing up officers for other investigative and public safety priorities.

Certainly, the citation revenue remaining after paying the camera vendors boosts cities' budgets. You can argue about how the money should be used. But we think that's a local decision, not a new source of state revenue. Most Iowa cities are much more financially challenged these days than our state government, which has a relatively healthy budget surplus.

We understand the need for some uniformity in traffic camera use. The new DOT guidelines attempt to provide that. Yet they also complicate the local-control issue.

More clarity is needed. Legislators could take a stab at requiring clearer standards. But we don't think it's their business to pass a statewide ban as the remedy.

l Comments: editorial@sourcemedia.net or (319) 398-8262