Traffic Enforcement Cameras: Refocus on safety

The city of Cedar Rapids, in our view, should have picked compromise over court.

At issue are the city's automated traffic enforcement cameras installed to catch speeders as they enter and leave the S-curve on Interstate 380 downtown. The Iowa Department of Transportation, under rules it adopted and that took effect last year, has ordered the city to move two cameras installed at the northbound and southbound entrances to the curve, placing them a full 1,000 feet from the point where the speed limit drops from 60 mph to 55 mph in the curve. They're currently closer to those points.

The DOT also ordered the city to turn off two cameras that issue citations to vehicles caught speeding after they leave the curve, arguing that their value to highway safety is lower than their value as a revenue generator for the city and its camera vendor.

Originally, we didn't want the DOT to meddle in what we saw as a local issue. But the agency weighed in anyway, and makes a compelling case as to its jurisdiction over primary highways and responsibility for enforcing uniform standards. After meeting with both city and DOT officials, and reviewing the record, we're convinced that both sides are keenly interested in keeping the S-curve safe. The department has conceded that cameras clocking inbound S-curve traffic are a safety enhancement that can remain.

But only one side, the city, is insisting on its way or the highway.

'The program is achieving results and benefits,” said Police Chief Wayne Jerman, who urged the council to take legal action. He and other city leaders point to the fact that there have been no fatalities on the S-curve since the cameras have been in place, contending that turning off cameras would put lives at risk.

'What price are you going to put on the life of someone when that life is lost?” Jerman said.

Steve Gent, who directs the DOT's Office of Traffic Safety, strongly disagrees that his agency's camera directives would lead to deaths.

'That is something that nobody would ever want. I've spent my career in safety, and everybody at the DOT wants this roadway to be safe,” Gent said. 'To even imply that, is craziness. I'm sorry, that's how I feel about it.”

CONFLICTING STATISTICS

Both sides use crash data to buttress their arguments.

Last year, in its report to the DOT, the city's data showed 82 S-curve crashes combined in 2008 and 2009, before the cameras were installed, and 59 crashes combined in 2012-13, after the cameras were installed. But the DOT, using a broader window of crash data, says the S-curve averaged 32.17 crashes annually in 2004-09, before cameras, and 32.33 crashes annually between 2012-14, with a drop in severe crashes.

In this year's report, the city has augmented its crash data from police with crash reports filed by drivers, resulting in a more dramatic drop in crashes. With those added crashes, the city says total accidents on the curve have dropped from 213 in 2007 through early 2010 to 164 from 2010 to 2014, with a drop in injury crashes from 92 to 48.

So how do we measure whether the cameras are making the roadway safer? City leaders would argue the true measurement that matters is the fact that no fatalities have occured on the S-curve since cameras were activated. Obviously, that is a welcome change.

But is it due to the cameras? It's impossible to say. Just because two things happen at once doesn't mean that one causes the other, and other safety measures that have been taken on the curve, including cable median barriers, high-friction surface coating, upgraded warning signs, pavement markings and light replacements, also must be taken into account. And as terrible as every serious accident can be, we agree with Chief Jerman that the discussion of enforcement cameras should be about facts, not emotion. That's why we are most persuaded by a third set of numbers, which shows that in the four years the traffic enforcement cameras have been in use, the number of citations for speeding is not falling.

A RECORD-BREAKING YEAR

The northbound camera at J Avenue, which the DOT would shut down, issued 39,402 citations in 2014, its highest annual total. The southbound J Avenue camera, which the DOT would move closer to the curve, issued 56,650 citations in 2014, also its highest-ever total, up from 38,052 in 2012 and 44,529 in 2013. The numbers lead us to doubt that the cameras have dramatically altered driver behavior.

The city says rising traffic volume explains the increase. DOT traffic figures do show a slight increase (I-380 daily average traffic volume north of the S-curve rose from 81,400 in 2005 to 82,300 in 2013. Southbound, the count jumped from 73,000 in 2005 to 73,600 in 2013.) But even so, if cameras were acting as any kind of deterrent, we would expect the numbers to go down. In fact, that's the scenario that was painted by former Cedar Rapids Police Chief Greg Graham when he proposed enforcement cameras in the first place.

Instead, we hear repeatedly from drivers who say they had no idea they were speeding (or didn't realize they would get caught). Often, those stories round around to questions of whether they were 'tricked” by the camera. But those questions are beside the point, which is that the cameras aren't an effective deterrent if drivers do not know they are there.

Earlier this summer, a newcomer to the area who said he didn't know about the cameras was surprised to receive a stack of 11 citations in his mailbox. Cedar Rapids police agreed to dismiss 10 of the citations.

A RISKY MISTAKE

We've read the city's request for judicial review, which argues that the DOT lacks the legal authority to create camera rules, that it violated the rule-making process and ran afoul of local home rule authority and, that even if the new rules are valid, they shouldn't apply to Cedar Rapids. That's because the DOT gave the city permission to install cameras in 2010 during the Culver administration.

We see the city's legal road leading steeply uphill. That's our read, anyway, and that's all we have. During our meeting with city officials, City Attorney Jim Flitz declined to answer our questions on the city's position or its prospects, referring us instead to the court filing.

In the meantime, Cedar Rapids officials have decided to keep the disputed cameras operating. Mayor Ron Corbett insists there is little or no risk that the courts will order the city to refund potentially millions of dollars in fines collected since the DOT's final order. After all, the DOT gave the city permission to keep the cameras running while state officials considered and then rejected the city's administrative appeal last spring.

But does that permission extend to the current court fight, which could drag on many months and perhaps years?

'Absolutely not,” Gent said. 'The DOT is not taking legal action against the city to have the cameras removed. But that is not permission. It's totally the city's choice.”

We think the city's choice to take that risk is a mistake. And although we applaud city leaders' strong commitment to traffic safety, we're not convinced that removing the two outbound cameras will make the curve less safe.

We believe a system that checks vehicles as they enter the curve is sufficient to enhance safety and relieve the need for traditional, more costly, enforcement options. And because the DOT has told the city it still would be allowed to operate the two outbound cameras without issuing citations, we'll have data on whether that belief turns out to be fact. If outbound speeds jump, that data can be used to change the DOT's mind.

REFOCUS ON SAFETY

In all of this conflict, we are at risk of losing our focus on what everyone agrees is the ultimate goal: making the S-curve safer. If they change driver behavior, cameras can be one part of an overall strategy, but they can't be an end in themselves.

We think the DOT's directive strikes a balance between a desire for safety and concerns about the camera's appetite for revenue, especially from visitors. A community spending considerable time and resources pitching its attractions and attributes to newcomers can't ignore implications of becoming known nationally and beyond as 'Speeder Trapids.”

At the same time, we think the DOT should drop its reluctance to install more visible signage on I-380 warning motorists of the S-curve's potential dangers. Gent said the department is reluctant to use any signage that doesn't fit within its statewide standards, but we think need should trump a desire for uniformity.

Instead of focusing so much energy on the camera battle, the city and DOT should spend more time working together on other creative ways to improve I-380 safety. A 2009 road safety audit yielded dozens of ideas to build on.

We continue to support the camera program but believe the DOT's statewide regulatory role can't be ignored. A balanced, cooperative approach is possible and far preferable to a potentially costly legal fight.

'Comments: (319) 398-8469; editorial@thegazette.com