TC 04-28-08 Meeting AgendaCOUNT' of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee
FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation
RE: April 28, 2008 Transportation Committee Meeting
DATE: April 21, 2008
The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, April
28, 2008 in the first floor meeting room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North
Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.
AGENDA
1. Updated Draft of Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements
2. Secondary Road Project Prioritization
3. TIA Standards
4. Red Light Cameras
5. MPO Update
6. Other
Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting.
Attachments
JAB/bad
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Item 1: Updated Draft of VDOT Secondary Street Acceptance
Requirements
Staff has received another draft of VDOT Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements. We are
reviewing and will provide an update of ongoing concerns at the meeting. There will be a public
hearing on this topic on Wednesday April 30 that staff is planning to attend.
0
Item 2: Secondary Road Project Prioritization
As VDOT plans for future Six Year Program projects, they have requested that the County provide
guidance on what should be the next one or two major Secondary Road improvement projects. The
list below is made up of some preliminary suggestions, not in priority order of projects, that would
be worthy of consideration. Staff is seeking guidance on what projects from among those listed or
other projects that staff may have neglected to include should be forwarded to VDOT.
1. Spine Road from the Haggerty Development to Senseny Road
2. Double Church Road from Route 277 to the location of the future relocated 277
3. Warrior Drive from Route 277 to Double Church Road
4. Realignment of Brucetown Road
5. Realignment of Valley Mill Road at Route 7 (West)
6. Senseny Road widening
7. Extension of Smithfield Avenue to Brooke Road and associated disconnection of Brick Kiln
Road from Brooke Road
Staff has also been contacted by citizens regarding the condition of the Old Charles Town Road
Bridge crossing into Clarke County. Guidance from VDOT has been that if the County would like to
pursue that project, it might be best accomplished in partnership with Clarke County and their Six
Year Program with each jurisdiction furnishing half the funds.
3
Item 3: TIA Standards
Staff has begun drafting County TIA standards independent of VDOT's Chapter 527 standards and
will be bringing some preliminary work to the Committee for discussion. Staff will also be seeking
input and guidance from VDOT as this process moves forward. Once the Committee feels that the
standards are ready to go, they can be recommended to the Board of Supervisors, who will then
decided 1. If they are acceptable, and 2. How they wish to enact them.
Item 4: Red Light Cameras
As you may be aware, while not enabled to make use of speed enforcement cameras, Frederick
County is enabled to make use of red light enforcement cameras. Staff has been asked to make a
preliminary list of potentially good locations for making use of this tool. That list follows below and
is open for modifications and additions. Should the County wish to pursue red light cameras, staff
would recommend coordination with the County Sherriff s office.
1. Intersection of Route 50 and Route 522
2. Intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road
3. Some or all signals in the vicinity of the interchange of Route 7 and I-81
4. Intersection of Route 11 and Welltown Road
5. Some or all signals in the vicinity of the interchange of Route 37 and Route 522
The following pages include more information on red light enforcement cameras.
5
Red-light cameras won't return to Virginia
Beach anytime soon
A red light camera takes photos in
Virginia Beach in 2004.
(Charlie Meads / The Virginian -Pilot)
By DEIRDRE FERNANDES
The Virginian -Pilot
VIRGINIA BEACH - Bringing back the city's hard -fought -for red-light cameras will take more
than a flip of the switch.
This week, the General Assembly gave cities and counties the go-ahead to use cameras to catch
drivers going through red lights. Under the law, red-light cameras could be in place as early as
July 1.
Virginia Beach had such cameras until 2005, but getting the system up and running again could
take a while.
The city was one of seven communities statewide, most of them in Northern Virginia, that used
red-light cameras under a pilot program. The program ended in 2005, and Virginia Beach had to
turn off the cameras it had used for nine months at four intersections.
The city returned its eight leased cameras to the manufacturer late last year because the contract
expired, police spokeswoman Margie Long said.
To restart the program, the City Council will need to approve using the cameras again and
provide money for the program.
Cl
Police then must collect and analyze crash and summons data at intersections and pinpoint where
the cameras are most needed.
The Virginia Department of Transportation then must approve the camera locations and the city
must seek bids from camera operators.
How long that will take is unknown. "It's not a quick procedure," Long said.
Other local police departments said the cameras are a good idea, but they have no immediate
plans to install them.
Chesapeake police Lt. John Day said his department has spoken informally with the city's traffic
engineers to determine where the cameras could be installed. The department is waiting for Gov.
Timothy M. Kaine to sign the bill into law, and for the Chesapeake City Council to approve the
program before figuring out the details, Day said. Kaine has said he supports the bill.
In Virginia Beach, city officials - who have lobbied the General Assembly for the past two years
for the program - are eager to get started.
"It's a technology that saves lives and reduces the number of police officers that have to be on the
streets," Councilman Jim Wood said. "It works."
While the cameras were in use, Virginia Beach mailed 17,315 tickets to motorists accused of
running red lights. At Holland and Rosemont roads, police reported a 70 percent drop in red-light
violations at the peak of the cameras' use.
If Virginia Beach has the money, Wood said, he would like to see more cameras at more
intersections. The city spent $197,600 on the camera leases, signs, and processing and collecting
the tickets.
Under the approved bill, the city could have up to 25 cameras watching, Long said.
Staff writers Cindy Clayton, Matthew Roy and Dave Forster contributed to this report.
• Reach Deirdre Fernandes at (757) 222-5121 or deirdre.fernandes(&pilotonline.coln SIJ.
7
Research: Red-light cameras
work
tpda+2d 2/15/2007 S:v?_ Fad: =T
By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY
ATLANTA — Surveillance cameras at major intersections dramatically reduce the number of drivers who
barrel through red lights, two new research reports say.
The findings come as debate about the controversial devices continues a decade after they were
introduced. The battles include a proposal to ban the cameras here in Georgia, litigation in at least three
states and legislative efforts to permit them in six other states.
BACKLASH: Lawmakers express concerns over cameras
The cameras automatically photograph vehicles that drive into intersections after the light turns red.
Vehicle owners are then mailed citations instructing them to pay a fine or sign an affidavit that they weren't
driving at the time.
More than 850 people die and about 170,000 are injured each year in crashes caused by drivers running
red lights, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says.
Researchers studied the effectiveness of red light cameras in Philadelphia and Virginia Beach.
The Philadelphia study, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an industry group,
examined red light violations using a two-step approach. First, researchers found that violations dropped
by 36% after yellow lights were extended to give drivers more warning that the light was about to turn red.
After red light cameras were added, remaining violations dropped by 96%.
"There's a dramatic change in driver behavior when red light cameras are used," says Richard Retting,
senior transportation safety engineer for IIHS. "The jury is in on that question."
The Virginia Beach study, conducted by Old Dominion University, examined signal violations at four
intersections before red light cameras were installed, while they were operating and after they were
removed in 2005. Violations more than tripled by August 2006.
"That's a huge jump," says lead researcher Bryan Porter, an associate professor of psychology at Old
Dominion. "The rate of red light running was actually higher" than before the cameras were installed.
The popularity of the cameras is growing rapidly despite opposition that centers on constitutional grounds.
About 250 communities around the USA use the devices, according to the Insurance Institute. Just 10
years ago, only New York and San Francisco had them.
Opponents say the cameras deny drivers their right to confront their accusers in court and are a ploy by
local governments to raise revenue.
"There is a lot of money to be made with them," says Howard Bass, a Minnesota attorney who
successfully challenged Minneapolis' red-light camera system in a case that will be argued before the
state Supreme Court next month. "Ultimately, this is an issue that may have to be decided in the court of
public opinion rather than courts of law. It's a public policy issue of how much surveillance creep we will
tolerate in the 21st century."
V'\JTRODUCTION: RECD LIGHT CIANIERA SYSTEMS
Red light cameras, which capture images of cars that fail to stop at red lights to be used as
evidence to fine drivers (usually via mailed notices), have become increasingly popular in recent
years. While they have yet to reach widespread implementation in the U.S., more than 100
communities nationwide have installed red light cameras over the past decade, and that number
is growing. Drivers in Minneapolis, MN, where a red Iight camera program was implemented in
July 2005, receive a $142 ticket, along with photos taken by digital cameras placed at the
intersection, when they enter an intersection after the light has turned red. In Baltimore, MD—the
home of one of the country's first red light camera programs, begun in February, 1999—drivers
receive a $75 fine if they enter one of the city's camera -monitored intersections on a red light.
Red light violators in Australia and Europe have been captured on camera since the 1970s.
Proponents of red light cameras point out that it is safer to monitor red light violations by camera
than for police to issue tickets, since the latter usually involves a police officer following the
violator through the red light. A 2005 Federal Highway Administration report (pdf), which drew data
from 132 treatment sites, found that the cameras were associated with a decrease in right-angle
crashes. A 2005 Cochrane Review of studies worldwide
(http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/revabstr/AB003862.htm) found that red light cameras can
reduce the number of injuries from car crashes at intersections by up to 30 percent, though the
article's authors also noted that most studies did not account for the spillover effect, in which the
presence of cameras at intersections might cause different crash rates at those nearby. Federal
Highway Administration studies showed crashes reduced at a number of locations. In Fairfax,
VA, violations were reduced by 41 percent after one year of camera enforcement; in Charlotte,
NC, red light violations were reduced by more than 70 percent during the first year of operation.
Los Angeles experienced a 92 percent reduction in violations. (Studies located at
http://safely.fbwa.dot.gov/intersections/interbriefing/08came htm.) FHWA fact sheet on the
technology (2 -page pdf).
But despite their rising popularity and strong evidence indicating that they reduce some types of
crashesnamely, the high -injury right-angle crashes—red light cameras are not without their
critics. Privacy advocates see the cameras as further proof that the eye of "Big Brother" is
growing more intrusive by the day. Some argue that the cameras violate due process, while others
fear that private companies who install the cameras and, in some cases, send out the tickets (once
police have examined the photos) are only too eager to generate revenues in the name of traffic
safety (see the American Automobile Association's report at
http://www.csaa.com/global/articledetail/0,1398,1008020000%257C3725,OO.html).
Yet, for the more than 100 U.S. communities that now have red light cameras—Minneapolis,
MN, Auburn and Lewiston, ME, and Alpharetta, GA, are among the cities that began programs
in 2005—the benefits of red light cameras are clear, and far outweigh the skeptics' catalog of
drawbacks. According to the Canadian Safety Council Web site (http://www.safety-
council.org/info/traffic/redlite.html), a study of red light cameras in Oxnard, CA, found seven
percent fewer crashes overall and 29 percent fewer injury crashes at intersections after the
cameras were introduced. And, when the data were re -analyzed to take into account only those
crashes related to red light running, the findings showed much greater benefits -20 percent fewer
crashes and 46 percent fewer injury crashes. Red light programs in North Carolina, which ranks
W
third in the nation for number of communities using red light cameras, have produced significant
reductions in red light running crashes and violations, according to the National Campaign to
Stop Red Light Running Web site
(http://www.stopredlightrunning.com/html/newsrelease_011905.htm). In Raleigh, right-angle
crashes were reduced by 42 percent at red light camera intersections, with a 25 percent reduction
in rear -end collisions, while the total number of red-light related crashes dropped by 22 percent.
In Charlotte, crashes at red light camera intersections dropped by almost 40 percent.
Furthermore, red light camera programs are cheaper than the comparably safe alternative, which
is to have one police officer notify a second one to stop the violator without having to run the red
light. This is another element that makes cameras a practical, if somewhat controversial, traffic
safety measure.
THE NUMBERS: RED LIGHT RUNNING NATIONWIDE
According to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (FHWA) report
(http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/interbriefing/07redl.htm), about 6.4 million crashes
occurred in the U.S. in 2000. Approximately 40 percent of these were intersection -related, while
red light running was found to cause more than 180,000 crashes every year. For 2003, the most
recent year for which statistics are available, there were 206,000 red light running crashes,
resulting in 934 fatalities and 176,000 injuries (see the January 2005 report, Operational
Guidelines Red Light Camera Systems pdf). People are more likely to be injured in red light
running crashes: occupant injuries occurred in 45 percent of the red light running crashes,
compared to 30 percent for other crash types.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF RED LIGHT CAMERAS
According to a comprehensive synthesis of existing literature on the impact of red light cameras,
conducted by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program in 2005 (see Impact of Red
Light Camera Enforcement on Crash Experience pd{ , evidence suggests that red light cameras
improve the overall safety of intersections where they are installed. There is also evidence that
these cameras have a "spillover" effect, improving the safety of nearby intersections without
cameras. However, while data suggest that "automated enforcement of red light running can be
an effective safety countermeasure," the report cautioned that "there is not enough empirical
evidence based on a statistically rigorous experimental design to state that conclusively." Indeed,
determining the impact of red light cameras in any one jurisdiction is a complicated affair.
According to the report,
Nearly every study and crash analysis reviewed had some experimental design or analysis flaw.
In many cases the flaw in the analysis was because of the lack of a proper control group, which
would allow a valid comparison of the observed changes, increases or decreases, with changes
in signalized intersections that did not have cameras. Cameras tend to be installed at problem
locations; those with higher than average crash experience. Because of the manner in which
crashes occur over time at a given location, these types of locations can experience reductions in
subsequent years even without intervention.
Another complicating factor is that while angle crashes, where a driver proceeding through a red
10
light is hit by a driver who has entered the intersection legally, are usually reduced after cameras
are installed, the number of rear -end crashes rise in some cases, though usually to a lesser extent.
Rises in rear -end collisions are due to higher number of motorists stopping "all of a sudden" to
avoid being captured on camera. However, these crashes tend not to be as serious as angle
crashes and, one could argue, a modest rise in rear -end collisions is an acceptable price to pay for
a reduction in the former kind.
HOS''✓ RED LIGHT CAMERA, SYSTEMS TErN S VYORK
Red light cameras are connected via computer to sensors in the pavement, which detect when
vehicles pass the stop line after the light has turned red. Cameras record a picture of the vehicle
as it crosses into the intersection on red as well as an image of the vehicle's license plate. The
cameras do not photograph every vehicle that passes through an intersection, only those that enter
after the light has turned red. Motorists who have already entered the intersection when the light
turns red, such as those who have proceeded into the intersection and are waiting to turn left, are
not photographed.
In many jurisdictions, license plate photos alone are used to identify violators; no photograph of
the driver is taken. Using the license plate rather than a photograph of the driver to determine
blame diminishes issues of privacy violation, but also introduces a new problem the possibility
that someone other than the owner of the vehicle was driving. In most states, the owner is held
responsible regardless of who was driving, but some jurisdictions offer a range of options for an
owner who claims not to have been driving the car.
All photographs are screened by police, who weed out footage that does not warrant prosecution.
In Minneapolis, MN, which implemented a red light camera program in the summer of 2005,
3,792 violations were recorded between June 7 and July 5, 2005. (Visit the "Stop on Red" Web
site, at http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/stoponred/.) About 85 percent of those were eligible for
prosecution. In many jurisdictions, including Minneapolis, private companies receive the photos.
Those companies send photos to police, who in turn send photos that show wrongdoing back to
the company. The company then mails out citations along with photos documenting the violation
to the owner of the vehicle. In many jurisdictions, violators can also view the violation online
through the police department Web site.
In many jurisdictions with red light camera programs, the violation is considered a civil and not a
moving violation and is therefore not recorded on a driver's recorded, unlike a ticket issued by a
police officer at the scene. Read an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety fact sheet on
automated enforcement including red light cameras at
http://www.hwysafety.org/laws/state—laws/auto—enforce.html.
NPLEMENTING RED LIGHT CAMERAS
The first step in deciding whether to implement red light cameras is to determine if a specific
intersection has a high crash rate, public complaints, and problems with red light violations.
Suggested sources of intersection safety data include:
11
• Crash statistics and investigation records maintained by law enforcement and
traffic engineering agencies
• Crash statistics maintained by insurance companies, if available
• Counts of citations issued by law enforcement officers for red light running
• Camera surveys of driver behavior at intersections, including counts of red
light violations
• Field observations of driver behavior at intersections, including speed surveys,
by trained personnel
• Complaints or other inputs from motorists and the general public
It is important to be cautious in relying too heavily on any one kind of data. For example,
crash data from minor, non -injury crashes are typically not collected. Red light violation
data may reflect "targeted enforcement at selected intersections only," while the criteria
applied for issuing citations may vary according to the officer, according to the FHWA report.
A different FHWA report, "Priority, Market -Ready Technologies and Innovations")
recommends that officials take the following measures when implementing a red light
camera system:
• Conduct an engineering study
• Evaluate effective engineering and education steps
• Make sure the red light camera program is engineered and installed properly
• Measure, document, and make safety results available
• Ensure complete oversight and supervision by public agencies
• Avoid compensating vendors based on the number of citations
• Include an ongoing photo -enforcement public education program
According to the 2005 FHWA report, "Safety Evaluation of Red Light Cameras," because red
light cameras have been linked with an increase in rear -end collisions, cameras may be
most beneficial at intersections where rear -end collisions are scarce, and right-angle
collisions are frequent. Intersections with a higher proportion of average annual daily traffic,
shorter cycle lengths and "intergreen" periods are also good candidates for red light
cameras.
According to the FHWA, cameras have been most successful when they have been
integrated with other elements of an overall traffic safety management program. It
recommends the following preliminary steps for implementing a red light camera system:
• Establish a steering committee comprising stakeholders such as the
department of motor vehicles, state and local police and sheriff's department, the
traffic enaineerina department, and the public works department
• Establish program objectives
• Identify the legal requirements
• Assess system procurement options (whether to use a private contractor, etc.)
12
Establish a public awareness and information campaign
O'Llher fz!c � amrs to, coli id er
Although driver behavior is a significant contributing factor to intersections crashes, there
are a number of other factors including weather, intersection design, and vehicle
characteristics. Any effort to improve intersection safety should take these additional factors
into account. Red light cameras, while they address the problem of unsafe driver behavior,
should not be considered a cure-all for intersection crashes. Before implementing a red light
camera system, local traffic officials should determine whether intersection design can be
improved. They should also consider implementing a public education campaign to promote
intersection safety.
Red light cameras have come under criticism from privacy advocates such as the National
Motorists' Association, who assert that cameras violate motorists' privacy rights, invite
abuse from private companies who, contracted by local governments to install and maintain
the cameras, use traffic safety as a screen for profit-making, and are, in some cases, illegal
(see Virginia example). The issue of privacy violation, while a serious subject that hits a
tender nerve with many groups, is usually raised as one example in a broader movement to
draw attention to the supposed lengthening arm (and ever more deftly roving eye) of the
government. But those who object to the cameras on the grounds that they infringe on
motorists' rights to privacy generally do not have specific, concrete legal bases for their
claims. On the other hand, objectors in certain jurisdictions, such as San Diego, CA, a city
that came under fire for paying the company that installed and maintained its red light
cameras, Lockheed Martin, $70 for every fine (and thus motivating the company, critics
argued, to make the red light camera system tougher on motorists than necessary), and
Fairfax, VA, where it has come to light that elements of the red light program conflict with
existing state law, have enjoyed more solid legal footing for their claims.
Cameras stopped taking pictures in Fairfax, VA, in 2005 in part because, as a 2004 study of
red light camera systems in Virginia pointed out, the Code of the Commonwealth of Virginia
allows only an in-person summons and not notification by mail to compel a person to appear
in court. The rule was little known and seldom invoked, with most people paying their fines
via mail without complaint, but the study's detail of this oversight contributed to Fairfax's
decision not to renew the program, which had been in operation for 10 years. Communities
that are considering red light cameras should be well aware of existing traffic laws before
implementing camera systems.
The report on red light camera systems in Virginia, commissioned by Virginia's Secretary of
Transportation, observed problems with the cameras beyond failure to attend fully to
Virginia law. Perhaps more damaging to the camera programs was a statewide study that
found an overall increase in injury crashes since the program's inception. The study found
that while the number of crashes attributable to red light running decreased, the number of
rear -end collisions increased. These findings are in line with those of several red light
camera studies nationwide: rear -end collisions seem to be almost a "side effect" of red light
camera systems. This side effect is widely thought to present little argument against the
cameras, since rear -end collisions caused by a motorist who stops too quickly to avoid
running the red are considered to be less dangerous than the right-angle collisions caused
by red light running. However, the Virginia study complicates this presumption: the number
of injury crashes increased, despite the drop in right-angle crashes. The report noted,
however, that the nature of the right-angle injury crashes, an element not examined in the
study, may have been more severe.
13
In 2001, hundreds of California residents who received tickets in the mail filed suit against
their local governments, setting off a legal challenge to red light camera systems across the
state. They claimed that cameras transmitted faulty data, that tickets were being issued to
people despite the fact that they weren't the ones behind the wheel at the time, and that
the program was being driven by the private contractor's desire for profits, not traffic safety.
The suit resulted in dismissal of nearly 300 citations and the decision by officials in at least
one jurisdiction to turn off the cameras after technical flaws were found. In response to the
lawsuit, city officials made improvements to the program, including adding cameras that
took shots of the backs of cars and lengthening the timing of yellow lights.
The State Legislature responded with a bill in 2003, AB 1022. According to a report by the
American Automobile Association
(http://www.csaa.com/global/articledetai1/0,1398,1008020000%257C4098,OO.htm1), which
endorsed the legislation, it would
• Prohibit Questionable Profits: Companies that operate red light camera
systems will be barred from charging for services on a per -ticket basis, which
undermines public trust and raises the concern that these systems can be
manipulated for profit.
• Limit Lawsuits: Clarifying who controls red light systems will reduce legal
challenges against local governments, who have been sued because previous laws
did not specify what tasks can be delegated to red light camera vendors.
• Establish Ticket Review: Only citations that have been evaluated and
approved by law enforcement will be sent to violators, giving final authorization to
law enforcement, rather than companies that operate red light camera systems.
Links to information on red light cameras on the official city of San Diego Web site:
http://www.sandiego.gov/engineering-cip/services/public/rlphoto/index shtml
'fello'w light chiration
The issue of timing -lengths for yellow lights has sparked animated debate in San Diego and
elsewhere. The city of San Diego was accused of opting to put cameras at intersections with
short yellows. An attorney representing those who say they received tickets wrongly in San
Diego cited a report, drafted by House staff members for Majority Leader Dick Armey,
suggesting that traffic engineers in communities nationwide had deliberately shortened
yellow light time periods to make red light programs more profitable. Less inflammatory,
and perhaps more plausible, are the claims that the best way to reduce red light running is
to lengthen yellow light times. When yellow lights are too short, people are more likely to
run a red. Longer yellow lights give drivers more time to decide if they should stop or if it's
safe to proceed through the light.
CASE STUDIES,
�'x-:Ird, CA
Cameras were installed at 11 of 125 signalized intersections in Oxnard in 1997. Penalties
included a $271 fine and one point on the driver's record. Oxnard operates what is said to
be one of the most sophisticated red light camera systems available. Cameras capture four
still images of the violation, along with 12 seconds of video, giving six seconds before and
six second after the violation to allow screeners to consider possible mitigating
circumstances.
14
A 2001 study found that red light camera enforcement reduced the number of crashes at
signalized intersections throughout Oxnard by 7 percent. Right-angle crashes were reduced
by 32 percent, while injury crashes were reduced by 29 percent and right-angle injury
crashes by 68 percent.
Go to the Oxnard red light program Web pages,
http://www.oxnardpd.org/redlight/default.htm
Go to the Joint Program Office of the US DOT analysis of the costs and benefits of the
Oxnard program,
http://www. benefitcost. its.dot.gov/its/benecost. nsf/ID/DF76E7D2EFB4D9E985256CB4005A
650F.
North Carolina
North Carolina ranks third in the nation for the number of communities using red light
camera technology, according to one national study. But there is no consensus on how these
systems have performed.
A review of more than a dozen intersections with red light cameras in Raleigh, NC,
conducted by the Institute for Transportation and Education, in cooperation with North
Carolina State University, found that right-angle collisions had been reduced by 42 percent
since the cameras went up. Rear -end collisions were reduced by 25 percent, and the total
number of crashes at these intersections dropped by 22 percent. According to the report,
red light cameras
appear to have a positive effect on driver behavior. Focus groups indicate that overall there
is a positive perception of RLCs [red light cameras] as a countermeasure to deter red light
running. Based on the comparison group collision study, all collision group types decreased
considerably. Lastly, red light running violations related to dangerous red light violation
times dramatically decreased, providing further justification for the use of RLCs as a red
light running countermeasure.
Another study, released in 2005, analyzed data from several U.S. communities with red light
cameras, including Charlotte, NC. It was found that crashes at Charlotte's red light camera
intersections dropped by almost 40 percent after the cameras were installed. Right-angle
crashes dropped by almost 30 percent, according to the study, and rear -end crashes—the
crash type often determined to increase after cameras are installed --decreased by almost 50
percent.
However, another study of red light cameras in North Carolina, conducted by the Urban
Transit Institute at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University and released
in 2004, discovered a very different picture. Researchers analyzed reported crashes
occurring near 303 intersections over a 57 -month period, a data set that included 26
months before the introduction of the cameras.
According to the report, cameras 'pare associated with higher levels of many types and
severity categories of crashes." The study found that while intersection crashes across the
state dropped, the same could not be said of crashes at red light camera intersections.
According to the report, there was an overall increase in crashes at red light camera
intersections. The number of rear -end collisions, sideswipes, and collisions involving cars
turning left (traveling on the same roadway) all went up. However, collisions involving a left
turning car and a car traveling on a different roadway went down. The study also found that
there was a 40-50 percent increase of property -damage only crashes and "possible injury
crashes," and a "statistically insignificant" increase of severe injury crashes.
saftimorea, MO
15
Baltimore began its red light program in February 1999, installing cameras at six
intersections that had numerous red light violations or high crash rates. Due to the success
of these cameras, the program was expanded to include 47 intersections, creating,
according to Baltimore's Department of Transportation Web site, "one of the largest red light
programs in the country." Violators receive a $75 fine, and violations are not recorded on
the driver's record. According to the Web site, since the red light program began, "the city
has seen a dramatic drop in red light violations. At city intersections equipped with cameras,
the number of violations has decreased up to 60 percent."
Go to City of Baltimore Web site on red light cameras,
http://www.ci.baItimore.md.us/government/transportation/redIightcameras.htmI
B1BL-IOGF..APHY
Aeron-Thomas, A.S. & Hess, S. for the Cochrane Review. 2005. "Red light cameras for the
prevention of road traffic crashes." The Cochrane Library, Issue 2.
Burkey, M. & Obeng, K. 2004. "A Detailed Investigation of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting
from Red Light Cameras in Small Urban Areas." North Carolina Agricultural & Technical
State University: Urban Transit Institute. Prepared for: U.S. Department of Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration.
Cunningham, C.M., & Hummer, J.S. 2004. "Evaluating the Use of Red Light Running
Photographic Enforcement Using Collisions and Red Light Running Violations." Presented to
the North Carolina Governors Highway Safety Program. North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina: Institute for Transportation Research and Education.
Federal Highway Administration (with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).
2005. "Red Light Camera Systems• Operational Guidelines."
Federal Highway Administration. 2005. "Safety Evaluation of Red Light Cameras."
Publication No. FHWA-HRT-05-048.
Federal Highway Administration. 2004. "Priority, Market -Ready Technologies and
Innovations: Red Light Cameras." Publication No. FHWA-HRT-04-063.
Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 2003.
Impact of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Crash Experience• A Synthesis of Highway
Practice." Synthesis 310.
Virginia Transportation Research Council. "An Evaluation of Red Light Camera (Photo -red)
Enforcement Program in Virginia• A Report in Response to a Request by Virginia's Secretary
of Transportation."
16
Item 5: MPO Update
The MPO recently approved a new Unified Planning Work Program (UP WP) for the upcoming fiscal
year. Some projects that it includes are corridor studies for Route 7 and Route 522, Phase 2 of the
Route 37 Access Management Study, and the City and County Wide Transit Study. Staff has
recently participated in interviewing respondents to the RFP for the Transit study and expect a
contract shortly.
17
Item 6: Other
18