Making a profit on safety

The long road leading to the current dust-up over Cedar Rapids' automated traffic enforcement cameras actually started in Davenport in 2006. It was St. Patrick's Day, but Thomas Seymour didn't have the luck of the Irish.

That day, Seymour was driving 49 mph in a 35 mph zone. On April 28, 2006, Seymour received a citation in the mail for speeding, issued by an automated traffic camera that snapped his car's license plate.

Seymour contested the citation, arguing that his due process had been violated and that Davenport's camera ordinance is invalid under state traffic enforcement laws.

But a Scott County judge rejected Seymour's argument and ordered him to pay a $125 fine. Meanwhile, in a separate case, another Scott County judge ruled that Davenport's ordinance did conflict with state traffic laws.

With the legal fate of cameras in limbo, the Iowa Supreme Court agreed to take up Seymour's case.

He confined his appeal to the argument that Davenport's ordinance isn't allowed under the state's expansive, prescriptive traffic laws.

But in a 5-1 ruling on Aug. 29, 2008, the Supreme Court found that state law does not pre-empt Davenport from installing cameras and issuing civil citations to the owners of vehicles caught running red lights or speeding.

'The Davenport ATE ordinance simply cannot be said to authorize what the legislature has expressly prohibited, or to prohibit what the legislature has authorized,” Justice Brent Appel wrote in the court's opinion.

Green light for Cedar Rapids

Seeing the high court's green light, in December 2008 the Cedar Rapids City Council gave the Police Department the go-ahead to explore a camera program. In June 2009, council members approved a camera ordinance, following a public hearing that drew no public comments.

In October that same year, the council approved a contract with enforcement camera vendor and operator Gatso USA of Beverly, Mass. Gatso would get a $30 cut from each red light and speed citation, with the city keeping the rest.

At that time, it was estimated the city would receive $750,000 in annual revenue. But officials said increased roadway safety, not revenue, was the true motivation for installing automated cameras.

On several occasions since the 2008 court ruling, state lawmakers have tried and failed to ban use of automated cameras by municipalities, arguing that its revenue, not safety, that motivates cities to install the systems. Those efforts gained new life with the 2010 re-election of Gov. Terry Branstad, who favors such a ban. But even the governor's support couldn't turn the legislative tide.

New rules adopted

Then, in 2013, the Iowa Department of Transportation created a new set of stringent rules that local governments must abide by to install or continue operation of automated traffic cameras. Cedar Rapids and five other cities already deploying cameras are required to file an annual report including crash statistics and other data justifying their use. The rules were approved in December 2013 and took effect in February.

'The whole idea here is the for DOT to provide a fair level of oversight, a check and balance system, so everybody is really assured that these systems are out there for safety,” said Steve Gent, director of traffic and safety for DOT.

Cedar Rapids filed its annual camera report in May. In August, the city received word from the DOT that two of its speed cameras installed at the northbound and southbound entrances to Interstate 380's downtown 'S-curve” aren't in compliance. Namely, the cameras are less than 1,000 feet from points where the speed limit drops from 60 mph to 55 mph, giving drivers less distance to slow down before reaching the speed cameras.

City officials and the DOT are in the process of exchanging information on the dispute, and the cameras in question remain in operation. Meanwhile, a class-action lawsuit has been filed seeking to invalidate the camera program on multiple grounds and refund two years' worth of fines handed out by the cameras.

Safety or revenue?

So is it safety or revenue? Both, actually.

The $750,000 Cedar Rapids revenue estimate turned out to be very, very conservative.

During Fiscal Year 2014 alone, according to the city, automated traffic cameras brought in $5.8 million. Since Fiscal Year 2010, total traffic camera revenue has topped $22.6 million, which flows into the police department budget.

In 2013, four cameras installed along I-380 issued 86,050 citations.

But it's also true, according to the city's report, that accidents on the S-curve have declined, from 35 in 2008 and 47 in 2009 before the cameras were installed to 26 in 2012 and 33 in 2013. There hasn't been a fatality on the S-curve since 2009, when two died.

'At the end of the day, we're happy to see that the crashes come down,” said Cedar Rapids police Sgt. Mike Wallerstedt.

According to the data, the number of single-vehicle crashes on the curve have declined, from 20 in 2009 to 10 in 2013. Rear-end collisions have increased, from 8 in 2009 to 10 in 2013. Wallerstedt rejects the notion that breaking for cameras played a factor.

'I can tell you that not one rear-end crash has occurred as a result of someone slowing for a speed limit sign,” he said.

Accidents where officers say driving 'too fast” is a contributing factor have stayed relatively consistent, with 6 in 2009 and 5 in 2013. But accidents where a driver lost control dropped from 33 in 2009 to 16 in 2013.

Transparency needed

We've been supportive of the city's camera program, so long as we continued to see evidence of improved safety on streets and highways. We still believe the cameras have had and are having a positive effect on safety.

But after collecting $22.6 million over five fiscal years, it strains the bounds of reasonableness for city officials to continue arguing that safety, not revenue collection, is the one and only motivation for installing the system. City leaders should acknowledge camera fines have become an important source of public safety revenue. It's time to play it straight with the public on cameras.

Early on, city officials predicted camera fines would drop as driver behavior changed. That hasn't happened. Camera fines totaled $5.5 million in Fiscal year 2011, $5.4 million in 2013 and $5.8 million in 2014.

In three consecutive city budgets, officials estimated camera fines at $4.7 million. Those budgets contained no separate line-item for camera fine revenues. Instead, those dollars were rolled into the broader 'fines and forfeitures” category, including other fines and fees.

It's unnecessarily difficult for citizens to find out or track how much money the cameras are generating.

A city website for the traffic camera program contains very little information for evaluating the program's performance.

We're willing to support continued use of the cameras, but only if the city is willing to become far more transparent in reporting how many tickets are being issued, how much revenue is being collected and exactly how that money is being spent. Currently, that information is available, but its' scattered and unduly difficult to find.

At the very least, a regular report should be made available to citizens providing deep details on the camera program. The public deserves to know more. The city also can benefit from dispelling many myths and rumors about the program.

We were not supportive of the DOT's decision to substitute its judgment for that of local officials, and its rules for legislation that couldn't pass. But we acknowledge now that its new camera rules must be followed.

We hope state and local officials can reach an agreement on the current dispute. But if that doesn't happen, the city must comply with the state rules.

We also think it would have been wise for the city to err on the side of caution and shut down the cameras at issue until the matter is resolved. We're concerned about the city's potential legal liability for operating cameras that don't comply.

Although the Supreme Court ruled that cameras don't run afoul of state traffic law, it was not asked to decide numerous other potential legal issues, some of which have been raised in the class action suit.

Bottom line, we continue to support the camera program because of its effect on safety, particularly on the S-curve. We urge the city to be more transparent and open about the program's performance and aims. And we think city officials should comply with state rules and take the potential risks of legal action seriously.

' Comments: editorial@thegazette.com or (319) 398-8292.