HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Traffic Safety Issues
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Traffic Safety Options
Meeting Date: February 21, 2007 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Tom Larsen
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-4959
ISSUE STATEMENT
Councilor Pryor has requested a work session focused on evaluating the traffic safety options available
to the City to reduce red light crashes.
BACKGROUND
In the mid- to late-1990s, many U.S. cities, including Eugene, saw a dramatic rise in the incidence and
frequency of red light running. The most common explanations for this increase are incidental resulting
from driver inattention or distraction, and deliberate resulting from driver frustration with increased
traffic volumes and congestion making it more urgent to get through signalized intersections. The risk of
a long delay at a signal vs. the small risk of being cited or in a crash may lead many drivers to believe it
is to their benefit to run the red indication. In Eugene, Public Works and Police Department staff
perform to national standards regarding traffic signal operation and enforcement of existing traffic laws.
City Council History
The City Council 2001-2002 Goals included an item for red light running cameras. The staff response is
contained in Attachments A and B, the December 5, 2002, memorandum to the council.
The May 11, 2005, memorandum to the City Council, Attachment C, followed up on the question of the
AIRS upgrade and the status of other red light running programs in Oregon.
The October 16, 2006, memorandum to the council, Attachment D, provides more details on the reports
from other Oregon cities with successful red light running camera programs.
In response to the 2002 staff report, the Police Commission and Budget Committee adopted several
strategies including additional Traffic Enforcement Unit personnel and targeted enforcement.
Eugene Red Light Running Crashes
Specific statistics on red light running and related crashes are difficult to compile and compare. The
Federal Highway Administration (FHA) Highway Safety Information System estimates that 260,000 red
light running crashes occur annually, representing between 16% and 20% of crashes at intersections.
Oregon law requires reporting of crashes and the resulting state data base lists several causes for
reported crashes including “Disregard of a traffic signal.” Red light running is not specifically tracked
in the Oregon crash reporting system. Table 1 compares the five-year history of crashes in eight Oregon
cities where “Disregard of the traffic signal” was listed on the crash report as a cause of the crash. Cities
are listed in ascending order of rate of disregard crashes per 1000 population.
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070221\S070221A.doc
TOTAL Disregard Disregard
TOTAL DISREGARD % of crashes per
CITY POPULATION CRASHES CRASHES Total 1000 pop
SPRINGFIELD 54,773 3184 87 2.73% 1.58
NEWBERG 18,084 952 48 5.04% 2.65
EUGENE 142,185 10488 464 4.42% 3.26
ALBANY 43,091 2734 211 7.72% 4.89
MEDFORD 66,638 4894 378 7.72% 5.67
BEAVERTON 80,520 8116 522 6.43% 6.48
PORTLAND 538,544 53520 4081 7.63% 7.57
SALEM 142,914 12497 1163 9.31% 8.13
Population is 2003 US Census estimate.
Total and Disregard crashes are totals from January 2001 thru December 2005
Disregard % of Total crashes is disregard crashes divided by total crashes
TABLE 1
Eugene has half the per capita disregard signal crash rate of Beaverton, 43% of the Portland rate and
40% of Salem rate. The percentage of disregard crashes compared to total crashes in Eugene is the
second lowest percentage of the cities compared. Of the cities with higher percentages of “disregard the
traffic signal” crashes than Eugene, Medford, Beaverton and Portland all use photo radar. As described
in Attachment D, their biannual reports say the programs are effective at reducing crashes and supported
by the community. Salem plans to implement photo radar this year.
For comparison, of the 10,488 crashes reported in Eugene in the five-year period, driving “too fast for
conditions” was listed as a cause in 5,122 or 49%. Ten times more crashes are related to this violation
as compared to failure to obey a traffic signal. Beaverton, Portland and Salem all have more total
crashes per capita than Eugene.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Public Works Maintenance has existing policies and practices in place to set yellow and red intervals at
signals to the appropriate length to serve public safety and mobility needs. No council action is needed
to continue these efforts.
The Eugene Police Department and Traffic Enforcement Unit in particular, engages in enforcement of
all traffic issues including targeted enforcement of red light violators. No council action is needed to
continue these efforts.
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for the 2007 session includes VI.C.5:
The City supports giving communities the authority to use photo radarand photo red light
technologies as traffic enforcement tools. The City supports efforts to extend both technologies to
cities on a wider basis.
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070221\S070221A.doc
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council may support current levels of staff activity and financial resources related to signal
operation and traffic enforcement.
The council may direct staff to update the December 2002 cost analysis and recommendation which
postponed use of photo red light enforcement.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the council support current Traffic Enforcement Unit and PW
Maintenance efforts.
SUGGESTED MOTION
None.
ATTACHMENTS
A. December 2002 Memorandum to City Council
B. December 2002 Memorandum to City Council, attachments
C. May 2005 Memorandum to City Council
D. October 2006 Memorandum to City Council
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Tom Larsen
Telephone: 682-4959
Staff E-Mail: tom.c.larsen@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070221\S070221A.doc
ATTACHMENT A
Finance & Court Services
Financial Services
City of Eugene
860 W. Park Street, Suite 300
M
EMORANDUM
Eugene, Oregon 97401-2793
(541) 682-5021
(541) 682-5802 FAX
Date:
December 5, 2002
To:
Mayor Torrey and City Council
From:
Patricia Boyle, Financial Analyst
Subject:
Photo Red Light Cameras
During the development of the 2001-2002 Council Goals, a work item regarding the use of a Photo
Red Light Program was included. At the time, the use of cameras to enforce failure to stop violations
was relatively new technology, and was being considered or was in the early stages of implementation
in a small number of communities in Oregon. Since that time, technology has improved and three
cities have implemented systems. While more is now known about the operational and financial
aspects of camera systems, there are still significant questions regarding the effectiveness of camera
systems in improving the overall level of traffic safety within a community. The following information
summarizes the status and staff recommendation regarding the use of cameras to enforce red light
violations at up to four intersections in Eugene.
Legislative Limitations
At this time, any Oregon city with a population of 30,000 or more may operate cameras designed to
photograph drivers that fail to obey a traffic control device (ORS 810.434). A city that chooses to
operate a camera system must provide a public information campaign to inform local drivers about the
use of cameras before citations are actually issued and conduct a process and outcome evaluation each
biennium for the Department of Transportation. The evaluation must include the effect of the use of
cameras on traffic safety, the degree of public acceptance of the use of cameras, and the process of
administration of the use of cameras. Cities with a population less than 300,000 are limited to placing
cameras at 4 intersections.
Examples from Other Communities
At this time, Portland, Beaverton and Medford are operating camera enforcement programs. Although
the State Legislature deliberately included Newberg in the communities authorized to implement camera
systems, no systems are currently in operation in Newberg.
Portland
-- In October 2000 the City of Portland installed 3 camera systems at intersections where they
were expected to have the greatest effect in reducing collisions. Traffic volume and geographic
distribution were also considered. Two additional camera systems were installed in January 2002.
According to the Red Light Camera Update from July 1, 2002, initial data indicates an approximate 20%
reduction in red light violations at the first three locations over the first six months that the cameras were
in operation. When compared to the data gathered prior to the installation of signs informing motorists
of the upcoming installation of cameras, the reduction appears to be greater than 50%. During the first
full year of the program, operational and capital costs are expected to exceed revenues by about
ATTACHMENT A
$250,000, including $175,000 in one-time capital costs.
Beaverton
– The City of Beaverton currently operates camera systems at 4 intersections. Beaverton
staff report that the number of tickets issued at those 4 intersections is significantly less than the national
average of 5 tickets per hour. Beaverton’s initial $265,000 investment has generated approximately a
total of $200,000 in revenues in the past two years.
Medford
-- Medford has only recently implemented camera systems at two intersections and does not
yet have data regarding the number of tickets issued. However, Medford staff report actual revenue
collection is not likely to meet their initial projections.
Key Elements to a Photo Red Light Program
Based on information from other communities, there appear to be a few key elements related to the
implementation of a photo red light program.
The primary purpose of the project is to increase the level of compliance with red light
?
(stop) signals which may reduce the incidence of collisions directly related to red light
violations.
This affects the location, and therefore the traffic volume, anticipated under the
program. Prior to actual implementation of a camera system, staff would conduct traffic
surveys at intersections where historically high levels of red-light running have occurred.
Based on the long-term experience of other communities, collisions directly related to red
light violations are reduced by approximately 25% after the implementation of a camera
system. A 25% reduction is roughly equivalent to 10-15 avoided collisions per year in Eugene
assuming cameras were installed at four intersections. However, it’s important to note that
collisions at signalized intersections may be caused by a variety of factors that a camera
system will not impact, so there is no guarantee that a camera system will be an effective
strategy to improve overall traffic safety.
A camera system may augment, but should not replace, any part of the City’s current
?
traffic enforcement efforts.
Camera systems may be an effective deterrent to red-light
running but do not necessarily impact other driving habits/actions. For example, recent
targeted enforcement efforts have shown that contact with an officer often produces several
additional beneficial outcomes by improving community safety through DUII enforcement,
impounding vehicles from drivers lacking insurance or driving with a suspended license, etc.
Staff recommends that resources currently devoted to traffic enforcement or any other public
safety activity should not be diverted to this effort.
Revenue generation should not be a goal of the system.
Other jurisdictions have
?
experienced significant public criticism in part due to the perception of implementing red light
cameras in order to generate funds.
ATTACHMENT A
Estimate of Start-up Expenses and On-going Costs
Using the limited, preliminary data available, a range of on-going revenues and expenses based on a 10%
margin of error has been estimated and is shown in the following table.
Low High
Revenues $250,000 $300,000
Less Ongoing costs
Vendor Administration (149,000) (186,000)
Municipal Court (61,000) (65,000)
Police Department (52,000) (95,000)
Estimated Net Ongoing Impact
to the General Fund $ (12,000) $ (46,000)
Estimated One-Time Costs of
Cameral Installation $ (300,000) $ (300,000)
AIRS system compatibility issues may increase the on-going costs associated with the program by
approximately $57,000 per year. When the current AIRS system upgrade is completed an assessment of
the relative ease or difficulty of data transfer between the upgraded AIRS system and any proposed
camera system will be required. Additional system enhancements to the upgraded AIRS system may be
necessary to allow the data transfer, and potential costs to develop such transfer capabilities are
unknown. Until data transfer between the camera system and AIRS can be implemented, the ongoing
cost to the General Fund would increase by $57,000 for a total of $69,000 and $103,000 under its
respective scenario.
Because these figures are based on a limited set of data, and other jurisdictions have reported significant
variation from their initial projections it is important to keep in mind that these estimates are very rough,
and further refinement of these projections is recommended prior to resource commitment. See
Attachment A for a more detailed description of the revenue and expense estimates.
Public Information/ Community Acceptance
State statute requires cities intending to implement a camera system to complete a public information
campaign informing local drivers about the use of cameras before citations are actually issued. A public
information campaign is likely to generate both positive and negative feedback regarding the program.
Staff Recommendation
Given current limitations on the City’s resources, staff recommend that Council postpone further
evaluation and discussion of camera systems at least until the cities of Portland and Beaverton have
submitted their biennial process and outcome evaluations to the State Department of Transportation
during the 2003 legislative session. Additionally, staff recommends that the Council consider including
further evaluation of a red light camera system with a more comprehensive review of traffic safety issues
during the 2003-2004 Council Goals Process. This effort could include a review of other traffic safety
issues such as speeding in residential areas, pedestrian and bicycle traffic safety, and the incidence of
drunk driving. Staff will continue to monitor legislation and operational issues related to the program.
Please feel free to contact me at Patricia.A.Boyle@ci.eugene.or.us for additional information.
ATTACHMENT B
Red Light Cost/Revenue Estimates -- Assumes 2-Camera Systems Installed at 4 Intersections
in FY04
Revenues
FY02 Average Collection Rate for Failure to Obey a Traffic Signal$ 84.00
Estimated number of annual convictions 3,900
Total Estimated Annual Gross Revenues$ 327,600
Less 15% Allowance for Uncollectable Fines (49,140)
Total Net Revenues$ 278,460
Assuming a 10% margin of error, the four camera systems are expected to generate between $250,000 and $300,000 per year.
Revenues
$ 250,000 $ 300,000
Expenses
(Figures rounded to the nearest $1,000)
On-Going
Vendor Administration
1
Citation Processing Fee
115,000 144,000
Vendor Operations & Maintenance Fee 34,000 42,000
Municipal Court
Court Personnel including Fringe & Benefits 54,000 54,000
Judicial Service Contracts 6,000 8,000
Prosecution Cost 1,000 3,000
Police Department
2
Police Officer Personnel Cost 29,000 49,000
3
Records Personnel including Fringe & Benefits
23,000 46,000
Total Annual On-going Expenses$ 262,000 $ 346,000
Estimated Net Ongoing Impact to the General Fund$ (12,000) $ (46,000)
One-Time Expenditures
Transportation
Camera Equipment and Installation Costs 252,000 252,000
Installation Preparation 12,000 12,000
Signage @ 4 Intersections & City Entrance Points 3,000 3,000
Public Information Campaign 2,000 2,000
Municipal Court
Computer equipment 5,000 5,000
Police Department
Police Officer Computer & Equipment 4,000 6,000
Records Equipment & Computer 4,000 9,000
Total One-Time Expenses 282,000 289,000
Total One-Time and Ongoing Expenses$ 544,000 $ 635,000
Notes
1
Vendor Citation Processing Fee
includes violation image review, citation creation, delivery for approval by Eugene law enforcement,
mailing of citation and tracking citation status.
2
Because only full (1.0 FTE) Officer FTE's
are recruited, hired and trained. This effort would need to be implemented in conjunction with
additional budgetary authority to increase staff.
3
Police Department Records costs
are based on the assumption that the photo red light program will be implemented when citations can be
electronically downloaded to the AIRS system. The current AIRS system is not capable of electronic transfer. If the program is implemented
prior to an AIRS upgrade including this feature, citations will need to be manually entered in the AIRS system. The ongoing cost estimate
would increase by approximately $57,000 representing an additional .5 FTE Records Specialist A and .5 FTE Records Administrative Aide.
This would increase the total cost to the General Fund to approximately $69,000 and $103,000 under each respective scenario.
ATTACHMENT C
Eugene PoliceDepartment
777 Pearl St, Room 107
Eugene, Oregon 97401
M
EMORANDUM
(541) 682-5111
www.ci.eugene.or.us
Date:
May 11, 2005
To:
Mayor Piercy and City Council
From:
Robert M. Lehner, Chief of Police, 682-5102
Kurt Corey, Director of Public Works, 682-5241
Subject:
COUNCIL ASSIGNMENT: PHOTO RED LIGHT CAMERAS
The City Council has discussed the efficacy of red light cameras on several prior occasions, including
receiving a report on traffic safety in the spring of 2003 from the Police Commission and as a work item
of the 2001-2002 Council Goals. In 2002 an inter-departmental team completed the Council Goals work
item and submitted to Council an analysis of the costs and benefits of implementing a photo red light
program in Eugene. Following a considerable public review, the Police Commission addressed traffic
safety in their report of April 2003, which produced specific recommendations in the areas of speeding
and red light running. Their report recommended the addition of traffic enforcement officers because of
the additional safety issues that could be addressed by officers, as well as several new initiatives such as
targeted enforcement activities, the addition of a decoy car and increased public information regarding
traffic safety. All of these recommendations have since been implemented. Both the Police Commission
review and the staff report concluded that although camera systems maybe an effective deterrent to red
light running they do not necessarily impact other driving habits or actions.
In 2002 the staff team’s report to Council on photo red light cameras found that “there were still
significant questions regarding the effectiveness of camera systems in improving the overall level of
traffic safety within a community.” The staff report identified some inherent legislative limitations built
into the state’s process for authorizing the use of red light cameras. The current legislative session has
introduced SB 153-A which, if signed into law, would clarify the use of “certificates of innocence” to
eliminate variations in how cities currently interpret the law.
The City of Eugene also has systems limitations which would have a direct effect on the cost of a photo
red light program. It has been estimated that the Area Information Regional System (AIRS) compatibility
issues which were identified in 2002 would increase the on-going costs associated with the program by
approximately $57,000 (2002 dollars) per year until the AIRS system is upgraded. (At this point in time
the upgrade for AIRS has been pushed out to FY08.) Further, using 2002 dollars the ongoing cost to the
General Fund was estimated to range between $69,000 and $102,000 per year. In 2002 the estimated one-
time costs to install cameras at the four intersections allowed by Oregon statute for a community of
Eugene’s size were $300,000. Although revenue generation should not be the goal of a red light system,
the significant on-going costs to the General Fund would require a steady revenue stream to ensure that
the program did not operate at a deficit.
Staff will continue to monitor legislation and the biennial reports of cities participating in the photo red
light programs.
ATTACHMENT D
Public Works
Maintenance Division
City of Eugene
1820 Roosevelt Blvd.
M
Eugene, Oregon 97402
EMORANDUM
(541) 682-4800
(541) 682-4882 FAX
www.ci.eugene-or.gov
Date:
October 16, 2006
To:
Mayor and City Council
From:
Thomas C. Larsen
, Traffic Engineer
Subject:R
ED LIGHT RUNNING REDUCTION STRATEGIES
Three questions were asked about differing strategies to reduce red light running: photo-
enforcement, all red phasing and extending the yellow interval.
PHOTO ENFORCEMENT
Photo-enforcement of red light running was once considered a council goal. At that time, the late
1990s, vendors offered to install the technology for a percentage of the citation revenue.
Technical difficulties with some early installations, court cases dealing with a vested interest in
revenue generation, insinuation that the yellow change interval was manipulated to increase
violations, and poor financial returns in actual installations have led to the current market in
which most agencies pay outright for the hardware or contract for the service. In Oregon none of
the current systems in place generate significant revenue.
Oregon State law allows the City of Eugene to install up to 4 cameras for the purpose of citing
drivers who enter the intersection on red. Portland currently has six cameras in place, Beaverton
has 4 and Medford operates cameras at one intersection. All jurisdictions in Oregon operating
red light running photo enforcement are required to submit periodic reports to the State. In all
three Cities the latest report describes a decrease in the number of violations, a decrease in
crashes relating to red light running, and a corresponding increase in safety. They all report
positive acceptance in the community; Portland reports 71% citizen support, Beaverton reports
66%, Medford reports 68%.
In Beaverton the photo-enforcement system is described as breaking even with net revenue
offsetting $31,500 monthly costs. Medford estimates a net revenue of $6.47 per citation and
about 200 citations per year. The Portland system has cost exceeding net revenue and requires
about $34,000 in annual subsidy.
Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT D
In 2002 a staff team evaluated red light photo-enforcement. The staff report from that process is
attached. The cost of the enforcement camera system, associated administrative and court costs
of citation processing and uncertainty about public acceptance contributed to the
recommendation to delay implementation of a red light running camera program. The biennial
review process has been completed and highlights of the cost and public acceptance reported for
Portland, Medford and Beaverton are given above. The May 11, 2005 update on Photo red light
cameras is also attached. Staff continues to recommend delay in red light camera implementation
until after the AIRS upgrade anticipated in FY08.
ALL RED PHASING
All red phasing is often used in wider intersections to allow additional clearance time. The added
red time also gives red light violators extra time to cross the intersection safely. The most recent
studies show an all red phase of 1.5 to 2 seconds does reduce the number of crashes associated
with red light violations. A limited number of Eugene intersections already have one or two
seconds of all red. We have not implemented all red as a standard practice. The difficulty with all
red phasing is the associated increase in congestion and reduction of capacity at congested
intersections. For most of our simple downtown two phase (north-south and east-west)
intersections adding 1.5 seconds of all red will reduce the green time by just over 4%. For the
fixed time signal network downtown, all red phasing would show little benefit and increase
congestion.
At more complicated intersections with left turns or separated phasing the capacity reduction will
be greater. During rush hour we have capacity and congestion problems in several corridors. All
red phasing will make these problems worse. At signals that have vehicle detection, outside of
peak hours, the increase in congestion will not present a capacity issue. Traffic Operations staff
are currently analyzing several intersections and will continue to add all red phasing when
intersection geometry, crash history, length of intersection crossing and impact on traffic
progression make all red appropriate.
YELLOW CLEARANCE INTERVAL
The City of Eugene uses a minimum 4.0 yellow change interval for all signals with approach
speeds 40 MPH and under. This builds in a buffer of yellow time and represents an existing
extension of yellow time beyond established minimums. The Manual of Traffic Signal Design
calculates a value of 3.2 seconds for a 30 MPH signal approach. We have rounded up the yellow
interval for all the downtown signals and other signals on 30 MPH roads by at least 25% or 0.8
seconds. In comparison, the City of Beaverton uses 3.5 seconds at photo-enforced streets with 30
MPH approach speeds. At speeds of 35 MPH and 40 MPH Beaverton uses 4.0 second yellow
interval. Extending the yellow interval too much leads to poor compliance as the driver who
reached a complete stop on yellow may be tempted to continue through the next yellow
indication. Excessive yellow will also reduce available green time similar to an all red phase.
Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENT D
When additional clearance time is needed an all red phase will be preferable to further extension
of the yellow interval.
ATTACHMENTS
2005 Memo to Council
2002 Memo to Council
Page 3 of 3