Local stuff that matters to you.

Did you know about Eaton Lake Tonics — playing at City Tavern today?

News & events for

Saturday, November

57° F
Partly cloudy in DFW

Marketplace:

Sunday, September 9, 2007

Dallas adding even more red light cameras

by Bob Reynolds of Metro City Beat

Dallas City Council Meeting

When:	Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2007, 9 a.m.
Where:	Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas
Cost:	Free
Age limit:	All ages
Full event details »

DALLAS — The Dallas City Council will be asked to approve forty (40) additional red-light cameras at its meeting on Wednesday, September 12.

This item is on the Consent Agenda (Addendum) and calls for an increase of $15.8 million in the City’s contract with ACS State and Local Solutions, Inc. The original 5-year contract in the amount of $13.3 million with ACS was approved a year ago.

The City estimates that the FY 2007 profit from that contract will be approximately $5.5 million.

Starting September 1, the all local governments must share one-half of the profits from their red-light cameras with the State of Texas. The State is expected to receive about $165,000 for the month of September.

Both the City and the State are expected to receive about $19.5 million in net revenue profits for the six subsequent years.

Pegasus News content partner: Metro City Beat

Staff
Verified User
Anonymous

Wait, what?

The cams <a href="http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2007/aug/22/violations-and-revenue-red-light-cameras-are-down-/">aren't bringing in the revenue anticipated</a>...so they're going to sink costs into installing more?

Scott Doyle Verified

2 years, 2 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Brilliant! Problem: Not enough money coming in. Solution: Throw money at the problem! Such a better idea than what they taught us in business school about limiting your losses.

Aaron Johnson Verified

2 years, 2 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Aaron: Obviously, you didn't go to HBS. There, they apparently teach that when you have a quagmire, you need to create a Surge to win it.

kirk Anonymous

2 years, 2 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

No, I obviously didn't.

Aaron Johnson Verified

2 years, 2 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

At $19.5M revenue for $29.1M in expenses we only end up with a 33% loss, I guess that's pretty good for government. I personally look for a positive net present value with an IRR in the teens, but then again I subscribe to the old world theory of logic.

Aaron Johnson Verified

2 years, 2 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Depends, really. Bob referred to the $19.5M as "revenue profits" which isn't terribly clear - profit is entirely different than revenue.

I think the $19.5M is half of anticipated revenue considering the state now gets 50% of whatever revenue is generated, and Bob states Dallas & TX expect this figure. So, seems they're projecting this deal to pay out $39M total...but TX gets almost $20M for doing absolutely nothing (that I know of).

Scott Doyle Verified

2 years, 2 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

If you law abiding folks would just do your part and run the red lights, you would be contributing much needed funding to the city. The city can not sustain such a program if you continue to abide by the law.

John McClelland Verified

2 years, 2 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

I'm going to stop at red lights just to spite the city of Dallas! That'll teach them!

Aaron Johnson Verified

2 years, 2 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Maybe they should tie the revenue from the red light cameras to the Trinity River Project...

'If y'all don't start runnin them there red lights we're ganna need to build a toll road in the trinny rivver'

Clay213 Anonymous

2 years, 2 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Think it's not about the money?:

http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2007...

Mike Orren Staff

2 years, 2 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Just moved here from Scottsdale AZ. Their traffic courts border on violating your civil rights. 90% of all tickets in Arizona are issued in Scottsdale by cameras. That's a fact. Red light cameras do somewhat prevent runners, however the next step is speeding cameras. While it may seem that these are good methods of prevention they are a violation of our due process rights and eliminate the human element. Not all people that seemingly run lights, (innocent till proven guilty), or allegedly speed should be ticketed. How do you determine if they were really running the light or not? The line in the sand is firm with cameras, but may be in reality out of focus. Cases are not always black and white. That's a fact. The purpose of government is to protect people's interests not to generate thousands of extra dollars without regard to particular situations or citizen's extra legal expenses to fight bad policy. The City of Scottsdale has a lot of cameras and they also have about 30+ windows at there traffic court. It is only to generate new revenue. This is unethical politics. Do we really want this oppression in Dallas? Scottsdale's traffic court lobby looks more like a race track betting counter. It's basically big business. The municipalities should be required to have an officer cite you at the time of violation, not an envelope mailed to an address that they can't verify whether you received it. Due process means humans serving the warrant or violation, promptly. Due process isn't 4-5 weeks later, it's at the time of violation. If governments weren't so large they wouldn't need extra revenue generators. Cameras don't give the ticket at the time you commit the crime. Speeding and red light citations, have the intention of prevention, and should not exist to supplement a municipality or states revenue. I say no to more cameras and I am not alone in this opinion. Just ask anyone that has ever lived in Scottsdale and moved out of there because of this oppressive policy...Cameras really need a second look, there are intended to generate income and do not really prevent as much as they generate income for greedy municipalities!

rkeytech Anonymous

2 years, 1 month ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Welcome to town, rkeytech!

Mike Orren Staff

2 years, 1 month ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

And then, they start shutting them down:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedconte...

Dumb enough government jackanapes to be picked up on Fark and Engadget too.

Mike Orren Staff

1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

According to the linked article, the cameras, along with lengthened yellow lights, have reduced red light running by up to 50% at certain intersections. Isn't that a good thing?

But they are crying about the results anyway. So what they're confirming for me is that they really just did this for the money. My world is shaken.

Erin Rice Verified

1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Obvious solution is to do away with yellow lights altogether (but only at intersections with cameras).

Not only would revenue skyrocket, we'd have some awesome collision pics to fear-monger with!

Scott Doyle Verified

1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

It's a great thing if you want to stop fatalities and stuff. But if you're also interested in revenue from ticketing people who run red lights, then it's not really that great.

Pavel Lishin Verified

1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

I wonder how much of the revenue shortfall arose from people who caught wind of the fact that these civil citations can be pretty much ignored with impunity.

Scott Anonymous

1 year, 8 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

Scott (anonymous), not sure about collection rates...but <a href="http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2007/aug/22/violations-and-revenue-red-light-cameras-are-down-/">apparently </a> there was an anticipated 21 violations per day per camera, while reality yields only 15 (half a year ago...on prime numbered days).