Government Technology - November 2008 - (Page 36) justice of speeds that is harmful where people are merging, getting off, changing lanes, that kind of thing.” In Seattle’s yearlong pilot, results showed red light running decreased by 50 percent at the four intersections where cameras were present, according to Mike Quinn, strategic adviser to Seattle Police Chief Gil “If as a byproduct, we more than break even and have more dollars to go to our general fund purposes, that’s OK.” Mike Quinn, strategic adviser to Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske present much tougher safety situations than others. Some have good sightlines in all directions; others have terrible sightlines, and if you make a bad judgment, it could be lethal because you can’t see.” That variance among intersections, along with the negative results of some red light camera deployments, led the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to lean toward re-engineering of intersections rather than using red light cameras, said Jake Kononov, director of research for CDOT. “Prior to installing the red light cameras, we ought to examine accident causality and the reason for overrepresentation [in red light running or accidents] and if nothing else works, which is unlikely, then let’s talk about the red light cameras,” Kononov said. Timing is Everything In Aurora, Colo., accidents increased by 36 percent in 2006 at four intersections where cameras were installed. In Fort Collins, Colo., 10 years after a camera was installed at one intersection, accidents had increased there consistently. After the timing of the yellow light was increased by one second, crashes dropped 29 percent and tickets fell from 166 a month to 21 per month. Yellow light timing is one of several factors that could lead to a dangerous intersection, Kononov said. “If we [CDOT] see a pattern of broadsides, we may observe that the yellow plus red light interval is not properly timed or you have something blocking the signal head. If we have an unusually high number of broadsides, it is not because we have bad drivers; it’s probably because there is something about this particular intersection, such as signal-head visibility or arterial progression; these are the kinds of issues that lead to overrepresentation of broadsides.” There are federal guidelines for how long the yellow light should be, and most states and municipalities follow them. It’s usually three to five seconds. It’s recommended that yellow light times are one second for every 10 mph. Kononov said there’s no reason to go below the three-second mark, and extending the yellow can make a big difference. In Dallas, for example, the city shut down a quarter of its red light cameras because the city cameras weren’t bringing in revenue after the city extended the yellow light interval. Quinn said the Seattle Department of Transportation considers many alternatives Technology Upgrade The first red light cameras used film and radar and generally weren’t very practical to use. That has changed. Though radar is still used, in-ground loops and sensors more accurately record the speed of individual cars, and digital photographs have replaced film. The loops and sensors are buried in the street and measure a vehicle’s speed, signaling the camera. While radar is confused by dense traffic, sensors can be placed in each lane and catch individual speeders or red light runners. Two sensors are placed at intervals in each lane to record the vehicle’s speed as it nears the intersection and signal the camera that a car is approaching too fast to stop in time. Wireless vehicle detectors — an even newer technology — are less intrusive than the sensors, which require the street to be dug up. The wireless detectors are the size of a tuna can and fit just under the street surface. Like the sensors, they provide a point-to-point distance calculation that signals the antenna on the red light camera pole. The camera records images of the vehicle, including a shot of the license plate and a 12-second video. The data is sent to the vendor, which checks the images and video for quality, then turns the images over to the city’s enforcement agency, which mails the ticket to the car owner. NOV_08 Kerlikowske. “We also found that the severity of accidents decreased as well,” he said. That would suggest a drop in the number of broadside collisions. Opponents of red light cameras suggest that a decrease in the broadside collisions (one of the most common and dangerous types of accidents) coincides with an increase in rear-end crashes as drivers slam on their brakes to avoid going through red lights. But Seattle’s pilot found no increase in rear-end collisions, Quinn said. “That’s worth noting because that’s not what we’ve seen from other research nationally,” he said. The goal of expanding the program is to reach a point where motorists drive safely on a consistent basis. “As we get the technology more uniformly present in the city, I think driver caution will increase even more than it has to date,” Quinn said. Seattle placed six cameras at four intersections where red light running and broadside accidents were relatively frequent and had positive results from all of the intersections. “They all had plenty of business,” Quinn said. But that doesn’t mean the answer to an unsafe intersection is necessarily a red light camera program. The geometry of intersections varies, and those variations can impact safety. “They’re not all created equal,” Quinn said. “Some 36 http://www.govtech.com
Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Government Technology - November 2008 Government Technology - November 2008 Contents Point of View On the Scene Big Picture Four Questions for … Forward Thinkers Taking Tech Home Virtual Frontier Hidden Costs Uncovered Seeing Red For the Record In the Loop Benign Dictatorship Home-Field Advantage A Better Way to Park New Tools for Fighting Crime How It Works Spectrum Products Two Cents signal:noise Government Technology - November 2008 Government Technology - November 2008 - Government Technology - November 2008 (Page Cover1) Government Technology - November 2008 - Government Technology - November 2008 (Page Cover2) Government Technology - November 2008 - Contents (Page 3) Government Technology - November 2008 - Contents (Page 4) Government Technology - November 2008 - Contents (Page 5) Government Technology - November 2008 - Point of View (Page 6) Government Technology - November 2008 - Point of View (Page 7) Government Technology - November 2008 - On the Scene (Page 8) Government Technology - November 2008 - On the Scene (Page 9) Government Technology - November 2008 - Big Picture (Page 10) Government Technology - November 2008 - Big Picture (Page 11) Government Technology - November 2008 - Four Questions for … (Page 12) Government Technology - November 2008 - Four Questions for … (Page 13) Government Technology - November 2008 - Forward Thinkers (Page 14) Government Technology - November 2008 - Forward Thinkers (Page 15) Government Technology - November 2008 - Forward Thinkers (Page 16) Government Technology - November 2008 - Forward Thinkers (Page 17) Government Technology - November 2008 - Forward Thinkers (Page 18) Government Technology - November 2008 - Forward Thinkers (Page 19) Government Technology - November 2008 - Taking Tech Home (Page 20) Government Technology - November 2008 - Taking Tech Home (Page 21) Government Technology - November 2008 - Taking Tech Home (Page 22) Government Technology - November 2008 - Taking Tech Home (Page 23) Government Technology - November 2008 - Taking Tech Home (Page 24) Government Technology - November 2008 - Taking Tech Home (Page 25) Government Technology - November 2008 - Virtual Frontier (Page 26) Government Technology - November 2008 - Virtual Frontier (Page 27) Government Technology - November 2008 - Virtual Frontier (Page 28) Government Technology - November 2008 - Virtual Frontier (Page 29) Government Technology - November 2008 - Virtual Frontier (Page 30) Government Technology - November 2008 - Virtual Frontier (Page 31) Government Technology - November 2008 - Hidden Costs Uncovered (Page 32) Government Technology - November 2008 - Hidden Costs Uncovered (Page 33) Government Technology - November 2008 - Seeing Red (Page 34) Government Technology - November 2008 - Seeing Red (Page 35) Government Technology - November 2008 - Seeing Red (Page 36) Government Technology - November 2008 - Seeing Red (Page 37) Government Technology - November 2008 - For the Record (Page 38) Government Technology - November 2008 - For the Record (Page 39) Government Technology - November 2008 - In the Loop (Page 40) Government Technology - November 2008 - In the Loop (Page 41) Government Technology - November 2008 - Benign Dictatorship (Page 42) Government Technology - November 2008 - Benign Dictatorship (Page 43) Government Technology - November 2008 - Home-Field Advantage (Page 44) Government Technology - November 2008 - Home-Field Advantage (Page 45) Government Technology - November 2008 - A Better Way to Park (Page 46) Government Technology - November 2008 - A Better Way to Park (Page 47) Government Technology - November 2008 - New Tools for Fighting Crime (Page 48) Government Technology - November 2008 - New Tools for Fighting Crime (Page 49) Government Technology - November 2008 - How It Works (Page 50) Government Technology - November 2008 - How It Works (Page 51) Government Technology - November 2008 - Spectrum (Page 52) Government Technology - November 2008 - Spectrum (Page 53) Government Technology - November 2008 - Products (Page 54) Government Technology - November 2008 - Products (Page 55) Government Technology - November 2008 - Two Cents (Page 56) Government Technology - November 2008 - Two Cents (Page 57) Government Technology - November 2008 - signal:noise (Page 58) Government Technology - November 2008 - signal:noise (Page Cover3) Government Technology - November 2008 - signal:noise (Page Cover4)
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.