March 11--Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to reform the city's scandal-ridden red light camera program. Challenger Jesus "Chuy" Garcia says if he's elected, he'll end it "on day one." If this were a game show, the host might take this moment to ask, "Is that your final answer?"
The candidates' positions on the cameras have been evolving, to put it charitably. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Nearly 3 in 4 Chicago voters want the robotic camera system eliminated or scaled back, according to a Tribune poll. Both candidates have heard them loud and clear.
So Emanuel, whose administration stonewalled Tribune reporters who sought the records that revealed problems with the cameras, now supports a proposed ordinance meant to assure the public that those $100 tickets are about safety, not revenue.
And Garcia, who first signed a pledge to abolish the cameras, then said he'd remove only some of them, is now firmly in the take-them-all-down camp.
This year's election is not a referendum on the red light cameras, despite some efforts to make it so. Almost 50 candidates for City Council signed that pledge to abolish the cameras, but fewer than a dozen of those candidates were still standing after the primary. Five were elected outright -- four of them incumbent aldermen -- and six are in runoffs.
The takeaway: Voters know the cameras are not their biggest problem. Not by a long shot.
That doesn't mean the credibility of the traffic cameras isn't a big deal.
Tribune reporters have spent the past two years documenting problems with Chicago's red light camera system, the largest in the nation.
Their stories revealed dramatic -- and still unexplained -- spikes in the number of tickets issued by dozens of cameras throughout the city. They found that the city set the yellow light cycle at most intersections at 3 seconds, the minimum federal guideline, despite research showing that longer yellow cycles lead to fewer crashes.
As we noted, reporters' requests for public documents were met with fierce resistance from city officials.
A scientific study paid for by the Tribune determined that the city's claims about improved safety were overstated or unsubstantiated. It also raised questions about why the cameras were installed at dozens of intersections where few accidents had occurred. That echoed a report by city Inspector General Joe Ferguson, who said the Chicago Department of Transportation failed to provide evidence that the cameras were installed at the most dangerous intersections or that they reduced accidents at those locations.
All of that reinforces public suspicion that the cameras were deployed where they'd bring in the most money, not where they were most needed.
Ald. Anthony Beale, 9th, was so angered by the stories that he signed the take-them-down pledge. But he soon thought better of it. He'd voted to approve the camera program in the first place after being sold on the safety benefits by then-Mayor Richard Daley. The city has made a sizable investment in the cameras, which have brought in more than $500 million since 2003. Shutting the system down to score political points is "irresponsible," he said.
Instead he co-authored an ordinance, with Ald. Tom Tunney, 44th, meant to salvage the program. Last week, Emanuel climbed aboard, though he wants to tweak the measure. We'd like to offer some tweaks of our own.
--The ordinance would require the city to do a traffic study to justify the need for cameras before installing them at any intersection. We would add that the criteria should be plainly and publicly spelled out.
--Yellow light cycles should be based on engineering studies that take into account variables such as the size and layout of the intersection and the prevailing speed of vehicles, instead of defaulting to the minimum federal guideline. The draft ordinance would set the yellow cycle at 3.2 seconds or the national standard plus one second, whichever is greater, but Beale said more specific federal guidelines are in the works.
--The ordinance calls for pedestrian countdown timers at all intersections that have cameras. The timers give drivers a good indication of how long before the light changes, so they can adjust their speed to avoid slamming on the brakes. The measure sets a six-month deadline to install the devices where cameras already are deployed. If the city can't meet that deadline, it should suspend ticketing until it does.
--The measure also calls for a public hearing and City Council approval before installing cameras at an intersection. This gives us pause. Traffic safety decisions are better based on scientific data (see above) than aldermanic privilege.
Emanuel announced last week that he'd ordered the cameras taken down at 25 intersections where the number of accidents has fallen. Earlier he'd ordered them removed from 16 other intersections. He's also proposed giving first-time offenders a "mulligan," allowing them to avoid the $100 fine by attending traffic school.
Perhaps the ordinance could also include a lower fine for the less dangerous right-on-red violations. That $100 is a huge hit, particularly to low-income drivers. The punishment should fit the crime.
The city has a legitimate safety interest in discouraging red light runners, and yes, the money comes in handy. We're glad Beale and Tunney are making a serious effort to salvage the program. The cameras have a bad rap, deservedly so. But the system can't be fixed simply by turning it off.
