One of the red-light cameras at Queen and Geary on the afternoon of Dec. 6, 2022.
For one reason or another, Albany’s red-light cameras were on my mind the other day, and it cost me eleven bucks that I didn’t need to spend.
It started when a reader told me about getting a ticket for making a right on red there, presumably for not stopping completely before making the turn.
That rang a bell. First because I had done the same, or thought I had, a few weeks before without the flash going off, and no ticket came in the mail.
And second because I vaguely remembered that years ago, the city’s red-light-camera report to the legislature showed that most of the violations caught by the cameras were right turns on red from southbound Geary.
So I went looking for the most recent of those reports. which a state law says Oregon cities with photo red-light enforcement have to file every two years.
The next report is due in 2023, the police department reminded me. So I went online for the 2021 version.
No such luck at first, so I dropped by the police headquarters on Pacific, hoping they could give me a link. I was told no link was available because the report was not online. But they made me a paper copy, for which the department charged me the aforesaid $11.
Long story short: Back at my laptop, I tried a different internet search just to be sure. And up popped the entire six-page report, along with four pages of data: “Photo Red Light Report to Legislature, Process and Outcome Evaluation, February 2021.”
If you want to read it, the link is here.
There are two cameras at the intersection. One checks vehicles coming south on Geary. The other watches for vehicles going west on Queen.
In 2020, the Geary Street camera went off 1,315 times, and the police authorized 422 tickets. The other instances didn’t qualify for various reasons, such as the driver pictured not being the registered owner of the vehicle.
In 179 cases, the Geary camera caught a “safe turn on red.” And in 177 other cases, there was a problem with incorrect or incomplete information at the DMV.
The Queen Avenue camera flashed much less often, only 136 times, resulting in 45 tickets being issued.
How many of the citations were for right on red, the main thing I was looking for, the report unfortunately doesn’t say. I suspect it was most of them.
The red light cameras may come back into the local news next year, when the city’s contract with Redflex, the company operating them, presumably comes up for renewal.
It was in April 2016 that the council extended the contract for seven years. Dick Olsen was the only member voting “no” that year, and his time on the council ends this month.
One concluding thought: Photo enforcement is of interest to the public, so the Albany police should consider posting the next biennial report on their website, the place where people would look for it first. (hh)
That thing, on the post there, is the camera -and-light setup checking on Geary Street traffic.
Wow! Thanks for the info, Hasso.
I don’t even use that Geary and Queen intersection any longer. I go out of my way and use extra gasoline, unfortunately, to avoid it.
The city council should amend the AMC to say:
The right to not be policed or fined by an inanimate traffic monitoring device shall not be infringed.
An inanimate traffic monitoring device may be used for accident investigation purposes only.
So, if 1300+ times the camera went off, but only 400+ times tickets were sent, does that meat APD personally looks at each video to determine if a ticket is legitimate?
Thanks!
The red light camera vendor (redflex) determines if there was a violation, and if the driver matches the owner of the vehicle. It’s not clear how they do it but is likely a combination of automated systems and manual review by humans.
The real question is if the fines from 467 tickets cover the cost of having the cameras, the cost of an officer to review all 1451 possible infractions, the cost to print and mail the ticket, the cost to review any appeals, and the cost to process the payment when returned (at a minimum)?
I’m curious. Why would the police claim “there is no online report” (and charge you $11 in copy fees) when turns out there was an online report? Was the police report and the online report any different or made by a different agency? Or, was this a case of bureaucratic ignorance?
Philosophically, I don’t care for outsourced “law enforcement”. Redflex and other companies that operate these systems do this for profit. Law enforcement should NOT be implemented on a for-profit basis. In addition, these companies now have more access to sensitive private information for the purpose of “processing” these violations.
If government cannot not manage the laws that are passed by state and local municipalities, then don’t pass them. Otherwise, it’s is a continuation of unfunded mandates. In this case, being funded by a portion of the fine being redirected to the for-profit company that is happy to get it.
Outsourcing has its place, but IMHO not with law enforcement.
We lived in that area a few years ago. At the time, it seemed like every car triggered the flash of the cameras. I couldn’t figure out what the cars had done wrong.
In the Southbound lane of Geary, stopping abruptly just short of the cross walk on RED, will trigger the flash. I think the camera may actually take 2 pictures with a slight time interval between, to verify the car is actually moving. Therefore, the person making the legal right turn after stop gets nailed.
The incessant caterwauling here is hilarious. I’m on camera (no pun intended) as being in favor of more of these cameras – and will continue to be.
We have absolutely no problem believing you’d extract money from the citizens of Albany by any means possible. Your record as a councilman proves it. Provide ONE instance when you didn’t that you didn’t change your mind on later.
No doubt somebody rolling through the intersection at 2 MPH deserves a ticket.
It must be refreshing for Albany to know that at least one councilor advocates a prying, overly-controlling central authority to monitor the behavior of the peasants.
Politically non-affiliated, of course.
Why?
In a previous life I lived in Texas. Loved it. They had the good sense to ban red light cameras.
Oregon needs to be more like Texas.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.707.htm
Heard in Missouri–
“You can always tell a Texan.
You just can’t tell him much.”
Well now we know the baseline cost of curiosity. $11.00
No doubt cost it will be more and more from this moment forward.
And gross Ray! This big brotherism is just gross!
Gadfrey
Seems some folk dislike regulation by the gummint. I’m reminded of a joke call from the 60s — “Anarchists Unite”
If memory serves, there is a police officer who reviews the “pictures” before any ticket is issued.
IIRC, the company initially does a weeding out process and then sends the remaining “hopefuls” for local review.
Curious if the council didn’t know or didn’t care that Redflex had long been at the center of high-profile investigations into their bribery of public officials when the contract was renewed in 2016.
Apparently it didn’t come up. Google is an amazing, free, low-effort tool for researching potential vendors. The council should consider using it for basic due diligence.
From the meeting minutes:
Adoption of Resolution
Waiving competitive bidding and awarding a special procurement contract for the continued operation of a photo red light enforcement program to Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.
There was an email on the dais from Jim Lissner that the Councilors had received (see agenda file).
Police Chief Mario Lattanzio said this is a special procurement for continuing a contract we have with Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. Lattanzio said there are no changes; it is the same contract with the same company, but we must use a special procurement procedure in order to continue the service.
Lattanzio said that Redflex has been good to work with. He said they have received emails mostly from people out of state complaining about Redflex. When he was going to be the traffic lieutenant at his former agency, they had 34 traffic control systems for photo safety by another vendor, and in their first year the loss was one million dollars because the program was not managed and the contract was not well written. The goal for photo safety is not to generate money, but to improve traffic safety. At the same time, we want to be good stewards of the program to make sure it is working the way it should. There can be issues with the equipment and if the vendor is not making repairs in a timely manner, the city may lose revenues, which was Lattanzio’s experience at his previous agency. With Redflex, Lattanzio said, the City of Albany does not lose money.
Lattanzio showed traffic slides (see agenda file). The slides are posted to the website at http://www.cityofalbany.net. The slides are updated frequently so officers can focus their attention in areas that need it. Lattanzio said that photo safety is just one tool in the tool box. He described collisions and why they occur.
Lattanzio showed video clips from 2015 that showed vehicles running red lights. Lattanzio said the number one collision intersection is Queen Avenue and Geary Street based on the data they have available to date. The highest injury incidents occur at Waverly Drive and Santiam Highway, then Waverly Drive and Grand Prairie, and finally Geary Street and Queen Avenue. When the RedFlex program started in 2008 they distributed 1,119 citations; now they distribute about 500 a year. Lattanzio said the City only pays Redflex when a citation has been fully paid.
Lieutenant Alan Lynn said the state of Oregon sets the fines for tickets.
Lattanzio described the contract in detail. Before they add more cameras, they would ask the City Council. Discussion followed about violations and collisions. Lattanzio said the goal is to reduce injury accidents and serious injury accidents, and cameras help to reduce those numbers.
MOTION: Kopczynski moved to adopt the resolution and Collins seconded it.
Kellum said if this reduces accidents, he supports it. He asked, if a camera doesn’t reduce accidents, can they move the camera? Lattanzio said there is a cost associated with moving the cameras. Discussion followed.
Olsen said people tell him that they avoid certain intersections, because they get tickets and they don’t think it is right. Olsen said he will be voting no.
Lynn described the process from the point the camera takes a picture to the point when the driver receives the notification. Drivers have the option of claiming it is not them, or they can pay the fine, or they can plead not guilty. Discussion followed.
VOTE. A vote was taken on the motion and it passed 5-1, with Olsen voting no, and it was designated Resolution No. 649
Councilor Ray K – Perhaps all the increased revenues that are being auto-collected (pardon the pun) by profitable RLCs can go towards surface improvements, including better striping to guide drivers from hitting medians while turning left, esp. during nighttime travels through Albany’s large intersections. Imagine all the abundantly cautious “violators” getting through Albany’s intersections more swiftly and safely so as not to be zapped by the City like an overly cautious insect and punished to pay for the needed surface improvements for vehicle-friendly Hub City. In the most attractive destination cities, the proverbial stick doesn’t work nearly as well as the delicious carrot.
I have gotten a ticket at this light. I moved here back in 2000 legally changed my last name in 2001. Have been known as my real last name many years and ive had several tickets given to me and now all of a sudden it’s my divorced last name. My car is under my legal name but in the court they have it apparently under my old last name. When I went to tell them the information you have is not correct they tried to blame it on the DMV I showed them papers to my car which is not my old last name they still said well DMV must have it wrong. I was upset at this point trying to get my point across but still payed the ticket off.