Mayor’s Budget Expects $30 Million In Speed Cam Revenue
Long Term, Cams Could Generate Hundreds Of Millions A Year
During Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s push to bring speed camera enforcement to Chicago, he consistently claimed it was about the safety of children.
But based on the Mayor’s 2013 proposed budget, all those safe children are going to generate a lot of revenue for the city.
The city is projecting $30 million in revenue from speed cameras, from just 40 locations around the city next year according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
With fines of $35 for anyone driving between 6-10 mph over the speed limit and $100 fines for exceeding the speed limit by 11 mph or more within 1/8 of a mile of a school or park, that $30 million estimate would break down to about 670,000 speed cam tickets next year.
The Sun-Times reports that Budget Director Alex Holt felt it was important to move quickly in the first quarter of 2013 to get cameras functional to begin issuing violations in order to meet revenue projections.
But while the city says it will have 40 speed cameras installed and working in 2013, if the city installs the maximum 300 cameras allowed under the municipal code, it could generate whopping $225 million a year based on city estimates.
The city’s estimates are perhaps conservative based on the Chicago Department of Transportation’s own studies which showed 26% of vehicles at seven locations exceeded the speed limit by 5 mph or more. The Expired Meter’s analysis, based on those same numbers show speed cameras could produce a huge cash windfall for the city.
The law puts a cap on the number of speed cameras at 20% of the total number of traffic safety zones. The city identified over 1,500 of these zones defined as being with 1/8 of a mile of any school or park.
If grown to it’s fullest potential, revenue from Chicago’s speed camera program would dwarf the $60-$70 million a year the city’s red light camera system generates every year.
Here’s the Sun-Times’ full story, “Speed-camera revenues figure in Emanuel’s ‘children first’ budget.”
I thought the city was having big problems due to the whole child-must-be-in-sight thing and wasn’t going to have the cameras going all that quickly.
Geek, don’t believe them. They’ll never make that kind of money. For example, after the bottled water tax was passed, the city estimated making 10 million the first year. I believe they made 3. A driver may get one or two speeding camera tickets but will then learn to slow down or avoid those zones. Additionally, when red light cameras started here, they were making almost a million off each camera. Some cameras made more money than others but it was good money. The city added more cameras but revenue didn’t explode like they hoped because…people learn. I hope that one day they turn off all these cameras or they are made unconstitutional like in other states. I always feel that Chicago is behind the times. Other places are turning their cameras off, but we add? Money hungry politicians.
This will never be used for safety. Safety is pulling over drivers acting dangerously.
What you will get most likely is ever more petty enforcement.
See what happen in MD: http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/search/label/Shameless%20Exploitation%20of%20Children%20for%20Money
Heck they don’t even care there if the tickets are even ACCURATE! http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2012/10/trucking-company-questions-accuracy-of.html
Fight the photo enforcement FRAUD!
BAN THE CAMS!
http://www.motorists.org
http://www.banthecams.org
Camerafraud on Facebook.
Oh did we say it was about the Children? Nothing to see here please move along…..If Rahm was really concerned about the Children, he’d do something about them being shot on a daily basis. Also the child in sight thing is a small bump. Don’t be surprised if a bill pops up in Springfield rectifying that problem. Because nothing can stand in the way of generating revenue, er I mean protecting the Children.
Come 2015 when a new Mayor is being sworn in and Rahm and Gabe take their show on the road, maybe we can get rid of these damn things.
If all the speed camera revenue above the actual expenses to the camera vendor were required to be donated to the United Way in another state, the support for the program would evaporate.
I don’t understand why people think those who operate the institution known as government care about anyone but themselves. They don’t have customers to please (can’t withhold taxes if you’re not pleased). They can use force. They have no reason to have any concern for anyone but themselves.
Because practically anywhere in the city can be considered a ‘safety zone’ I’ll just have to drive 15mph everywhere to be safe. Drivers who don’t like it can complain to city hall.
Now what I wonder is how long will it take Rahm to figure out that these cameras can be placed on the interstates.
Note the weaseling in the text of the law:
“does not include any portion of the roadway known
as Lake Shore Drive or any controlled access highway with 8 or
more lanes of traffic.”
There are parts of the interstate system with less than 8 lanes in the city of chicago. For instance, the edens expressway has 6. Parts of I57 have six. The Calumet (aka Bishop Ford) has six. Various ramps and such have two. The commutes will be so much fun when the traffic jams take up more of the day due to some drivers crawling along at 50mph or less to avoid a ticket.
Got to make the interstates safe for children to play on!
I think when that’s set up I’ll build some goals and get some friends and we’ll play street hockey on the interstate. CAR!
Mike -
Well, if revenue is indeed going down, the city should be happy, right? Because its all about safety, and if revenue is going down, that means violations are going down, which means people are learning to drive safer! I’m sure the city looks forward to the day when everyone drives within the law and red light cameras and speed cameras are unnecessary!
Its all about safety, right?
Greg, you’re funny. That was pretty tongue in cheek humor. I also laugh because if red light cameras at a particular intersection aren’t making money (safety has been achieved, hooray), they move them…to make another intersection safer, I mean make money.
Mike,
I get your point about the revenue estimates. I’m not sure I disagree, mainly because I’m not knowledgeable (yet) about how speed cams will perform as far as generating revenue (safety) over time.
Red light cameras are still pretty consistent in the revenue they produce so I’m not sure why speed cams would not be that much different.
I think we need to just wait and see how much safety, I mean revenue is generated once the cams begin getting installed.
Great points B!
Here’s what I don’t understand about speed cameras – and I’ve asked this before, and never really gotten an answer.
With red light cameras, the defense is the clear photos and videos. No one from the city needs be at the hearing, because the prrof is the photos.
But where is the proof for speed cameras? A computer says you were speeding, and you have no defense. When you are caught speeding by a cop, he is expected in court. You have the right to ask him if he checked his radar to be sure if it was working properly that day, and the prosecuting attorney will usually ask that to confirm upfront. You can argue he clocked someone else and mistook you when he pulled you over. These defenses rarely work, but you do have the right to question your accuser.
But with speed cameras, you have no right to do that – its your word versus a readout on a computer. How do you question that?
It just seems the rights to question the accuser are being thrown out the window.
I don’t see how this can be legal.
I’m starting to think the camera problem might end up resolving itself.
In yesterday’s Tribune, there was an article about some bone-headed plan to make Ashland and Western avenues routes for “rapid bus transit”, as if such a thing could ever exist. In order to do this, there would be dedicated bus-only lanes all the time, which would reduce Ashland and Western to one travel lane in each direction.
The city’s plan is clearly to remove ALL free-flowing traffic routes as part of their ongoing War on Cars. Bus lanes combined with the ever-increasing bike lanes will eventually result in all roads being gridlocked all the time, by design.
Anyway, the speed cameras will be doomed to failure simply because there will be no remaining streets in Chicago where cars will be able to exceed 20 MPH for any period of time. Camera revenue will be almost non-existent which will lead to the “safety cameras” being removed.
This becomes legal If the City Passes an Ordinance to De-Criminalize Speeding Tickets in the City of Chicago.
If the ticket is processed like a RLC ticket (EG: Video/Picture plus Speed limit ) then it has to be decriminalized….otherwise the technicians that manage the equipment will spend every shift in court for each and every ticket issued.
Now…I am not against the Concept of Speed Cameras…And this is why:
The Chicago Police Department has a Small number of officers that are sufficiently trained on Laser and Radar to be doing that particular Moving Violation daily. And calibration of the equipment is unknown as to the frequency of it getting done.
More importantly…a Camera Enforcement Zone is Impartial. You can’t flash your 36 Double C cups at a Camera and get out of a speeding ticket. You can’t Bribe a Camera. A camera doesn’t care if your the POS Aldercreature of ward 44 or the Plumber from Northbrook in to do a job on Suzie Soccer Moms indoor Plumbing. A camera doesn’t care how connected the driver of the car is.
And I know that Da Mayor has be crying “Its for Da Children” and I call 50% bullshit on that.
Child Safety is important all over the city…not just in School Zones and around Chicago Parks.
You want Child Safety in School Zones and around Parks?
Put in Speed Bumps every 50 feet.
You want to raise Revenue? Let Revenue PEA’s issue tickets for the “nitpicky” ANOV’s that the CPD choose to ignore in their Union Action Slowdown on Ticket Writing (unless it’s Street Cleaning and Rush Hour).
And Put is Speed Cameras on every Street and RLC’s in every Intersection…And be HONEST about it.
Greg,
I’m going to leave your questions for Barnet. He can answer your questions much more comprehensively than me. He will weigh in soon.