Well, you also have to think about this. The six police officers would be writing citations... for speeding, DUI's, etc. And most of those tickets would be more than the $70 limit that the camera has. So, again, the net cost of $53k could actually be a less if you look at the price of the cops employment minus the revenue they generate. We would have to do a study and look at those numbers.More importantly, public safety is not (entirely) about money, its about safety. And, I really feel I would rather have police officers responding to violent and property crimes than traffic violations.It is just a thought, and maybe we should not "cut" them right now, but there needs to be some long term planning on this stuff. I would rather have more cops on the street than more cameras.

I'm not a budgeting expert, but I highly doubt you could fit 6 officers into a budget on $278K. Maybe, four at most, with health care benefits premiums for families, with all the additional expenses of training, outfitting, and such for each. Still, your analysis is right: we have to consider the revenue generated alongside the cost.

The costs are probably connected to paying a sworn officer (or officers) to review the footage, make determinations based on what's there if a violation took place, run a GCIC check on the vehicle owner, cross-reference and locate the owner, then swear an affidavit a violation occurred and issue a civil citation to the vehicle's owner. It's also possible, and more likely, ACC is using an automated GCIC plate checking system, but some corroboration with the software's prediction of the readout and the actual footage has to occur, as well as a sworn officer determining a violation has (probably) occurred. Then these citations are printed and mailed out. Any that return with a check or some payment have to be processed by administrative staff; any time someone contests it has to be handled through the bureaucratic mechanisms in place. And then there's having to ensure the cameras are all in working order, additional costs in paying the electric bills and maintaining a wireless/wired network connection to all the cameras and the servers and routers. This is probably also run by some proprietary software cobbled together from horrible code written for various entirely different systems, so it fails often and enough to require visits by a software rep who then sells ACC more services on top of the steep licensing fee while the IT guys have to hack the code again to make it work.

So allow me to muddy the waters even more. Forget cost-effectiveness, let's talk about whether they're really that effective in any sense.

Every couple of years, the General Assembly has the debate on whether we ought to even have red light cameras at all. Usually, the Republicans (or one or two specific Republicans) bring it up, and guys, they have a point. I'm kind of on the "bag all the traffic cameras" side of the debate. Here's some food for thought:

I'd like to actually find some data on this, and maybe later today I'll hunt around for some, but it's usually mentioned that while red light cameras are a deterrent to actually, you know, running red lights, intersections where such cameras are placed (and where signage is posted to that effect) also have higher proportions of other accidents, mainly rear-enders. Like I said, I've heard more rhetoric than data on this, but it does seem quite plausible. You've got a yellow light, you know the intersection is wired for video, so you slam on brakes to avoid a ticket. The guy behind you doesn't. The threat of a red light camera has the potential to modify normal driving behavior (i.e. you're less likely to scoot through on a yellow, even if that's a more rational option than sudden braking.)

Now I say all that to be more contrarian than actually persuasive. I'm agnostic about traffic cameras; I don't think they help that much, and as Blake's numbers pointed out, they're a net loss for the county. $53K is a fairly small sum in government budgeting terms. As Polemos showed with the math on the $287,000 figure, $53,000 probably isn't enough to hire even one more cop, once you count in the costs of salary, benefits, training, and equipment.

I can think of better uses for the $53K.

Martin,There is a lot of data on the effectiveness of the cameras.  You don't have to like them but the data is rock-solid that they reduce accidents with injuries.   The same data will show an increase in rear-ender-fender-benders exactly as you have described and will show that those will be increased initially and then begin to recede to normal or below-normal levels.   The issue is public safety - not car safety.   In other words, most folks care more about people getting hurt than they do about bumpers getting wrinkled.  Modifying driver behavior is exactly what it's all about because cars don't crash themselves.   Most drivers do whatever they think they can get away with.   To paraphrase Bob Dylan "everything's legal as long as you don't get caught" - that's how 99% of drivers tend to drive.A great many folks have serious issues with redlight cameras but you can't argue that they are inneffective or inefficient.  They work.Anybody who wants to talk about saving money in government operations should lead a crusade to get people to behave themselves.   We could save maybe half the county budget if everyone would suddenly start following all the rules and laws and being nice to each other.   Utopia is much cheaper to operate than the wild, wild west.  ;-)     

"To paraphrase Bob Dylan "everything's legal as long as you don't get caught" - that's how 99% of drivers tend to drive."I don't know what's better, that the first husband can so accurately create statistics to support the policies he supports or that the inspiration for these policies may be attributed to Dylan. Let me guess, TNR came from listening to The Nuge!!!!!!!!  

From the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.html) "

Cameras have been shown to substantially reduce red light violations. Institute evaluations in Fairfax, Virginia, and Oxnard, California, showed that camera enforcement reduced red light running violations by about 40 percent.3,7 In addition to reducing red light running at camera-equipped sites, violation reductions in both communities carried over to signalized intersections not equipped with red light cameras, indicating community-wide changes in driver behavior. An Institute evaluation of red light cameras in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, found that after red light violations were reduced by 36 percent following increased yellow signal timing, the addition of red light cameras further reduced red light violations by 96 percent.8 In addition to reducing red light violations, cameras have been shown to reduce intersection crashes. In Oxnard, California, significant citywide crash reductions followed the introduction of red light cameras, and injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals were reduced by 29 percent.9 Front-into-side collisions — the crash type most closely associated with red light running — were reduced by 32 percent overall, and front-into-side crashes involving injuries were reduced by 68 percent. An Institute review of international red light camera studies concluded that cameras reduce red light violations by 40-50 percent and reduce injury crashes by 25-30 percent.10 Some studies have reported that while red light cameras reduce front-into-side collisions and overall injury crashes, they can increase rear-end crashes. Because the types of crashes prevented by red light cameras tend to be more severe than rear-end crashes, research has shown there is a positive aggregate benefit. A study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light camera programs in seven cities.11 The study found that, overall, right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent while rear-end collisions increased by 15 percent. Results showed a positive aggregate economic benefit of more than $18.5 million over 370 site years, which translates into a crash reduction benefit of approximately $39,000 per site year. The authors concluded that the economic costs from the increase in rear-end crashes were more than offset by the economic benefits from the decrease in right-angle crashes targeted by red light cameras. Not all studies have reported increases in rear-end crashes. The Cochrane Collaboration (an international organization that conducts systematic reviews of the scientific literature on public health issues) reviewed 10 controlled before-after studies of red light camera effectiveness in Australia, Singapore, and the United States.12 Using techniques of meta-analysis, the authors estimated a 16 percent reduction in all types of injury crashes and a 24 percent reduction in right-angle crashes. The review did not find a statistically significant change in rear-end crashes."

Will you change your nickname to Martmeth in honor of my contribution?