Lights out for Tucson Pima County areas 11 speed enforcement cameras

 

Tucson / Pima County speed cameras contract expires 1/6/14.

"The county implemented the program in May 2009, signing a one year contract with American Traffic Solutions or ATS. The county renewed the contract four times, with the final renewal set to expire on January 5.

With that in mind, the county began to explore whether or not the cameras have been effective and transportation officials found the answer is no.

While the crash rate for the entire Pima County road system declined by 19% since the start of the photo enforcement program, the three year crash rate for the eleven photo enforcement locations declined by only 13%."

http://www.kvoa.com/news/lights-out-for-pima-county-speed-en...

Other pages

--
Garmin Drive Smart 55 - Samsung Note 10 Smartphone with Google Maps & HERE Apps

Had a feeling

Before I clicked the link, I had a feeling they'd mention something about the decline in revenue. The lights out on these cameras are only temporary, until they can figure out how to reactivate a more lucrative program. I mean, a safer and more lucrative program.

it was no longer a money maker

Yes, it appears that they had no problem with the areas with speed cameras not seeing the same decrease in accidents as areas without them until it was no longer a money maker.

Money first then safety second!

--
Garmin Drive Smart 55 - Samsung Note 10 Smartphone with Google Maps & HERE Apps

upon

twix wrote:

Before I clicked the link, I had a feeling they'd mention something about the decline in revenue. The lights out on these cameras are only temporary, until they can figure out how to reactivate a more lucrative program. I mean, a safer and more lucrative program.

researching the problem they will find the camera/radar was set too low and correct that problem and fix the revenue problem.

YES!!!

rjrsw wrote:

Yes, it appears that they had no problem with the areas with speed cameras not seeing the same decrease in accidents as areas without them until it was no longer a money maker.

Money first then safety second!

I think we have a BINGO!!!

--
nightrider --Nuvi's 660 & 680--

But we all know...

twix wrote:

Before I clicked the link, I had a feeling they'd mention something about the decline in revenue. The lights out on these cameras are only temporary, until they can figure out how to reactivate a more lucrative program. I mean, a safer and more lucrative program.

It's done for SAFETY reasons... and NOT for the m$o$n$e$y, grin wink

Nuvi1300WTGPS

--
I'm not really lost.... just temporarily misplaced!

Don't worry Chuckelberry will find a way

Watch the Sups pass some new laws under the radar that make getting the green easier. Then when nobody is looking bring em back.

Don't worry Chuckelberry will find a way

windwalker wrote:

Watch the Sups pass some new laws under the radar that make getting the green easier. Then when nobody is looking bring em back.

grin
I remember meeting with him when he was working in the department of transportation on a couple of housing subdivisions we were going for approval on back in the early 80's. I cannot believe he is still there, he left the county for a while and then came back and is now the head dog at the county. I guess he cannot retire and give up the big bucks he is pulling down now.

--
Garmin Drive Smart 55 - Samsung Note 10 Smartphone with Google Maps & HERE Apps

The Safety Aspect of Speed Caneras

rjrsw wrote:

Yes, it appears that they had no problem with the areas with speed cameras not seeing the same decrease in accidents as areas without them until it was no longer a money maker.

Money first then safety second!

Let's see... if the the number of of tickets issued declined, that means that the number of vehicles speeding declined over time. Isn't that the intention of safety enforcement equipment?

And if people expect their politicians to control spending, wouldn't it be financially prudent to reduce costs by removing cameras where their purpose has been achieved?

Pima's own strudy showed that the speed cameras weren't safer

DanielT wrote:
rjrsw wrote:

Yes, it appears that they had no problem with the areas with speed cameras not seeing the same decrease in accidents as areas without them until it was no longer a money maker.

Money first then safety second!

Let's see... if the the number of of tickets issued declined, that means that the number of vehicles speeding declined over time. Isn't that the intention of safety enforcement equipment?

And if people expect their politicians to control spending, wouldn't it be financially prudent to reduce costs by removing cameras where their purpose has been achieved?

You should have read the article because while the crash rate for the entire Pima County road system declined by 19% since the start of the photo enforcement program, the three year crash rate for the eleven photo enforcement locations declined by only 13%. They should have removed them because the area around them was less safe and not because they were no longer making money.

They didn't worry about the fact that the areas without speed cameras saw a 6% higher accident rate decline than the ones that had them until they started loosing money. So as long as they were generating revenue they were not concerned that they were actually less safe.

The accident rate dropped soon after the State passed SB1070 that resulted in many thousands of uninsured and unlicensed drivers leaving the State and off the road and not because of speed cameras.

--
Garmin Drive Smart 55 - Samsung Note 10 Smartphone with Google Maps & HERE Apps