Like a lot of city residents, I was skeptical about the city’s motives when it announced it would be installing several speed cameras at various locations around the city. I had no proof, of course, but the cynic in me was pretty sure that 1) the cameras would slow traffic within range of their lenses and, 2) the city’s interest in the cameras had more to do with revenue than safety—a perspective encouraged by information such as the following from the city’s website:
NOTICE - IMPLEMENTATION OF COLLEGE PARK SPEED MONITORING SYSTEMS
The Mayor and City Council of the City of College Park have authorized the use of speed monitoring systems in designated school zones and within one-half mile of the University of Maryland property. The City of College Park will start operations of its speed monitoring systems with a 30-day warning period on October 15, 2010. The location of the first speed monitoring system will be on Paint Branch Parkway between Route 1, Baltimore Avenue to the City boundary, at or about Old Calvert Road. The system will be placed initially in the vicinity of the intersection of Paint Branch Parkway and the Trolley Trail. In accordance with State Law, beginning on November 15, 2010, the City of College Park will issue $40.00 civil citations to vehicles that exceed the posted speed limit by 12 miles per hour or more.
Look closely: the word “safety” doesn’t even appear in the text (!), although, I guess, technically, it is implied. But c'mon...
Anyway, clearly, I wasn’t alone in my skepticism. Critics of the cameras vented on local e-mail lists and the Gazette ran articles and printed letters from city residents who shared my belief that, in the end, the cameras were all about money.
As College Park resident Richard Heath put it in a letter to the Gazette, “[City officials] talk about the need for drivers to slow down, obey the law, and keep the roads safe. This is always the standard line from the municipal officials that choose to install such devices when they are really laughing all the way to the bank.”
It’s hard not to agree with Mr. Heath. In tough economic climate when cities across the country are scrambling to make up lost revenues, speed cameras can seem like a dream come true. After all, reported in an earlier Gazette article, “College Park cameras caught speeders by the thousands,”
“Optotraffic (the company the city contracted with to install and service the cameras) receives about 40 percent of revenue from all tickets, while the city can keep remaining revenue equal to 10 percent of its annual budget, or about $1.3 million, for public safety use. The city would have to issue more than 54,000 tickets to reach its revenue limit, and any remaining funds would go to the county or state.”
And yet, cynical as I might be, I must admit that, since the cameras have been in place, people do seem to be driving slower—and I’m not talking about driving slower just in front of the cameras. For example, during the week, I drive past the camera on Rhode Island Avenue at least four times a day (as I take my daughter to and from school) and, although I haven’t conducted a scientific study, there is no question that traffic now moves at a less frenzied pace.
Could it be that the city officials who believed that the cameras would get drivers to slow down were right? I don’t know. I wonder whether the other cameras have had the same effect, or if there is something unique about the location of the camera on Rhode Island that compels people to take it down a notch. Nevertheless, you can’t argue with results, and so I’ve been thinking: what other city initiatives have I been or might I be wrong about?
I also been thinking about the other issues that have people talking in North College Park and throughout the city—the rent control ordinance, development at the Maryland Book Exchange site, the Purple Line, East Campus, so on and so forth—and how, despite the optimistic forecasts or dire predictions associated with each matter, we just might be surprised how something turns out. But hey, don’t take my word for it, just look at the streetlights on Lackawanna Avenue.
Smith is a resident of North College Park and treasurer of the North College Park Citizens Association.
Matthew Byrd
11:57 am on Wednesday, January 26, 2011
I think it's too early to close the book on the speed cameras. Of course people are driving slower, how many of us can afford even one of these tickets? I think we're going to see the true motivations come out as time goes on, and the City stops making fistfuls of money from the cams. Then, I predict that we will see either a lowering of the 12 mph wiggle-room in the cameras, or we will see the speed limit dropped to new lows, which is exactly what happened in Cheverly. These changes will only happen after the City becomes accustomed to the revenue, and starts factoring it into the budget, though.
Given that the debt-service on the downtown parking garage is about to hit the City's budget, I would plea with the staff and Council to devote the speed camera revenue, down to the last penny, toward paying down the garage. If we come out ahead, great. If not, at least we'll be in a better position with it.
The City is also considering dragging-out the amortization on the 10-year bond for the garage to 20 or 30 years. I would urge the council to resist this move. The reasoning is that it lowers the payments, but the downside is that we add millions to the cost of the garage by doing so. I hope the City will "bite the bullet", and pay down the garage in the 10-year timeframe. A call at the 10-year mark would be disatrous for the City, if we used a 30-year amortization schedule. Responsible handling of debt by the City should be a priority, especially now.
Matthew Byrd
9:08 pm on Thursday, January 27, 2011
It's transportation related. I'm hoping that's close enough to meet whatever restraints have been placed on us for using the funds.
Robert Catlin
2:37 pm on Thursday, January 27, 2011
The 2007 financing plan for the parking garage involves (1) parking garage revenues (hourly and monthly permits), (2) the 25 cents per hour surcharge that was added to the hourly meter fees (from 50 to 75 cents), (3) the $2.50 surcharge on parking tickets (beginning July 2010) for expired meters (from $17.50 to $20.00), (4) the Ledo Restaurant lease, (5) interest from Ledo's loan repayment to the city to finance the restaurant buildout, (6) any payments in lieu for providing commercial parking for new downtown developments, and (7) reserves from the 25 cent parking surcharge which was instituted more than 2 1/2 years ago.
These revenues should support a 20-year loan for the parking garage immediately, and over the next few years generate an increasing surplus in our parking program.
Matthew Byrd
4:43 pm on Tuesday, February 1, 2011
That's just the point, Bob. We don't HAVE a 20 year loan. We have a 10 year loan, which we are going to knowingly underpay the interest on, from the outset. That might be the way other municipalities do things, but I would hope we'd exercise better sense here.
Since the bond will be backed by the full faith and credit of the city, it makes more sense to focus our resources on getting out of the hole we've dug for ourselves. Will it hurt? Probably. But I'd rather endure 10 years of harsh reality, than to be forced to watch the City government play games with the budget for the next generation or two, because of this fiasco.
Patrick Wojahn
3:10 pm on Sunday, January 30, 2011
The statistics that the City has gotten from the speed cameras show that, indeed, average speed has decreased - by about 2 mph on Rhode Island Ave. and about 4 mph on Metzerott Road. The results with the Paint Branch Parkway camera are a little more mixed - but this may be because the students were gone for most of the past month, and may not be accustomed to the speed cameras being there yet. We'll see what happens from here.
Kevin Carter
12:58 pm on Saturday, March 12, 2011
As a local resident, I am severely disappointed at the sneaky tactics our City has undertaken in the latest round of speed cameras. Don't get me wrong, I do see the benefit of these devices enforcing EXISTING traffic laws in our community in the pursuit of safety. An example that comes to mind was the speed camera on Paint Branch Parkway at the dangerous cross walk. Responsible citizens should respect the traffic laws for the safety of themselves and their fellow citizens. However, the new practice of lowering or moving speed limit zones at nearly the same time as the deployment of speed cameras reeks of greed rather then a true interest in public safety. The patterns of camera deployment too closely match the recommendations of the for-profit speed camera company (40% of all tickets goes to these companies rather then the city). The strategy clearly follows a pattern of trickery and maximum profit for Optotraffic and the city. How much time passed between the lowering of the speed limit on Route 1 and the placement of the "revenue augmenting device?" Does our City leadership think its residents are not smart enough to notice that their tactics are designed to trick residents?
http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2010/12/speed-limit-changed-at-college-park.html
"We did this basically at no cost to the city,” Wojahn said.
No cost? Without any value on ones' morality or credibility as our elected officials, then I guess it is cost free!
Patrick Wojahn
1:18 pm on Saturday, March 12, 2011
The City has not changed any speed limits, and in fact, does not have the legal authority to. The speed limit on Metzerott Road did not change, although additional signs were placed to make clear to drivers where it did change. The speed cameras are a low-cost way to address serious traffic problems in our city, which have often led to death or serious harm to pedestrian, drivers, and cyclists.