It's been great to hear from so many of you in reaction to this column coming over here to CommuterPage.com. Although we haven't really started to get into some of the issues yet, it's nice to know that you have found us and that you will become a part of the fun. I would ask that you bookmark the main page here and get in that way in the future. I would also ask that you participate in the whole process by clicking on the "Comments" button to react directly to something that I've written or the response of another reader. In that way we can develop more of a "blog" feel to the whole thing. My spellchecker still doesn't recognize that word though. As I understand it it is short for "weblog" and in the internet (web) and a list of things (log). I also promise not to include a lot of LOLs or ROTFLMAOs in that we have a lot more bandwidth here than some texter on some hand-held device might. I must say though that I am a fan of creative emoticons even though I don't think there is a place for them here. Nevertheless, here we go.
The Washington Times (this is cool because I can actually refer to the local newspapers since I am not actually working for one of their competitors) has raised an issue with the speed cameras in Montgomery County. Apparently, and in violation of state law, the county and the City of Rockville have entered into an agreement with a company called Affiliated Computer Services Inc. (ACS) to operate fixed-position and mobile speed camera set-ups. The county wouldn't let the paper see the contract which should send up red flags and all sorts of alerts that something stinks. After all, this is a public contract that should be open to all. It's interesting to note that there are a lot of "deals" that get done with local jurisdictions when it comes to red light and speed enforcement cameras. Maybe that's because there is so much money to be made. Several weeks ago Montgomery County released a report touting the instant success of its brand new cameras. It was said that the camera locations had all been picked to maximize safety. Interestingly, one of the cameras that was generating the most revenue, meaning that people were violating the speed limit, was one that was in a 25 MPH zone. That thing used to go off like a 4th of July celebration because it was at the bottom of a hill and was on the way to the Costco. It turns out that this location at the bottom of the hill used to be the location of a one-lane bridge and that's why the speed limit was so low. Just up the road by less than a quarter mile is a rather large elementary school on a curve in the road. The speed limit there (outside of school hours) is 40 MPH and not a camera in sight. So much for the safety rationale.
The revenue that speed and red-light cameras can generate is significant. Too often it blinds those who are responsible for the safety of the residents and others at the local level. The big companies that sell, set-up and operate these systems are very slick and they know how to exploit the loopholes in local and state laws. Until safety is truly first and revenue is truly the second reason for installing these cameras then we should all be skeptical about how and why they are being installed.
Steve Eldridge is a long-time reporter, observer and commentator on the Washington region's transportation issues. You can contact him directly by writing to: Steve@SprawlandCrawl.com. Unless otherwise requested, letters or portions of letters can be used within future columns. Letter writers will be identified by their first name and city/neighborhood.
With respect to the times article, at least some of the members of the Montgomery County delegation knew of the conflict with the law prior to their votes on the bill. And Montgomery County Council member Phil Andrews apparently knew of the intent of the law in 2006 prior to the bidding, because in the council minutes from 5/8/06 he stated "contractors are not paid based on the number of citations, that's built-in". Council Member Andrews has been very close to the speed camera program and knew perfectly well the terms of this contract. The county and the legislators were just trying to keep this quiet until after the new speed camera bills went through.
The prohibition on per-ticket payments to contractors has been used as a selling point for this law by several legislators. The same legal language exits in the new bills currently being discussed. To date, no amendments have been proposed which would close the loophole or force Montgomery County into compliance. If they do not fix this, how can anyone trust the state to comply with inconvenient portions of the law?
Posted by: Concerned Citizen | April 03, 2008 at 07:15 AM