Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

This month the City Council is considering legislation to end the City’s Red Light Camera Program, with an expected vote at the Dec. 20 City Council meeting. Since receiving the legislation the Council has heard many passionate pleas from our constituents, some in favor of ending the program and some requesting that the program stay in place. The City Council will hold a public forum at 5:15 p.m. Monday p.m. in Council Chambers providing residents an opportunity to share their opinions on the proposed termination of the Red Light Camera Program.

For some, the Red Light Camera Program represents a money grab by the City and they are pleased to see that the Council is considering Mayor Warren’s proposed legislation to end this program. We are not those people. We feel strongly that the Red Light Camera Program has increased safety in our community and that the program merits continuation.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety cites that municipalities that have eliminated Red Light Camera Programs in their communities have seen increases in crash rates. Specifically, these cities have seen a 30 percent increase in fatal crashes involving the running of a red light and a 16 percent increase in fatal crashes at signalized intersections.

The SRF Associates evaluation of the Rochester Red Light Cameras showed a positive impact on safety. Did the cameras prevent all accidents; did they completely stop the running of all red lights — no. That, however, is not a reason to take them away.

There has been a 20.9 percent reduction in total crash rate (right angle and rear end) on approaches at intersections with Red Light Cameras. In fact, 20 intersections saw a reduction in right angle crashes (9 increased and 3 were unchanged), and 20 intersections also saw rear end crashes decrease (8 increased and 4 were unchanged). The SRF study further suggests that some intersections with an increased number of crashes should be evaluated to reduce driver confusion, thus improving the intersection. It is clear to us that the next step should be to evaluate how safety can improve at those intersections, not dismantle the program. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We know everyone wants to keep our community as safe as possible, so why consider eliminating a program aimed to do just that? If the heart of the issue is the impact of the fine, let’s work to find innovative and even alternative options for payment. Options to explore could include: a warning for a first violation, creating payment plans, advocating for a reduction in the fine, or look to develop community service options in lieu of a payment.

Frankly, we believe this is a hasty approach to ending a program geared toward safety, especially since the program does not impact anyone following traffic laws. A better alternative would be to take the time needed to explore alternatives or changes to the program, all while keeping drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians safe while on our roads. We urge our fellow Councilmembers and the Mayor to explore alternatives before moving forward with the elimination of this program.

Carolee A. Conklin and Matt Haag are both at-large members of Rochester City Council.