Slowing Arizona

posted by Josh Goodman

Arizona is doing something that, so far as I know, nowhere else has tried: A statewide effort (see the second item) to automate speeding enforcement on state highways.

I don't know why speed cameras have been much more common on local roads than state highways up until now, but I do know why Arizona is making this a statewide effort. A six-month pilot project in 2006 on Loop 101 in Scottsdale showed that the cameras reduced speeds and accidents.

They also had unintended consequences, as Janet Cornell, Scottsdale's court administrator, documented in an article in "The Court Manager" (which isn't available online). Cornell notes the administrative difficulties associated with the pilot project.

Compared to the same period the preceding year, phone calls went up by 41%, civil traffic hearings were up 42%, defensive driving classes increased by 100% and processed correspondence was up 561%. Phone call wait times increased, the backlog of cases grew, complaints increased and staff members were exhausted.

Cornell has a bunch of suggestions on a how court system can address a challenge like this one, from using technology to shifting staff responsibilities to preparing for media coverage. The bottom line, though, is that when a court system's case volume increases it needs more money.

This seems to get at the heart of the second impetus, other than safety, for governments to try to catch more speeders. The reason: money. The question is whether fines and other financial benefits associated with expanded traffic enforcement, such as fewer accidents to clean up, make up for the administrative costs Cornell mentions. Hopefully, governments know the answer to that question when they are planning enforcement efforts and budget accordingly.

I actually think, however, that the first consequence I mentioned -- reduced speeding -- is more relevant to determining whether, over the long term, enhanced speeding enforcement efforts pay for themselves. It's not hard to imagine a time in the not-too-distant future when technology catches every speeder instantly.

If that happens, no one will speed. Places that are counting on traffic enforcement as a revenue source will be out of luck. I'm looking at you, Virginia.

Comments

[Tim Goodman]

I guess that depends on if your vision of the future is more "Star Trek" or more "1984". Maybe we'll have a future where technology *detects* every speeder, but only X% are actually fined -- with X carefully calculated to maximize government revenue.

[Klint A. Johnson]

Actually, the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) is only attempting to implement a state-wide traffic enforcement program using photo radar on state highways. The problem is they have yet to receive any funding for such a project. They have taken over the Scottsdale 101 project, as it comes complete with cash flows and is an already existing program (which they have done through IGA between Scottsdale and DPS). However, the extension of this program would require either an appropriation from the Arizona State Legislature (and many of them actually want to ban the use of photo radar on highways), hundreds of IGAs between cities and DPS, or a handful of IGAs between the 15 counties in the state and DPS. The other two non-Legislature options are possible because traffic violations can be cited into both municipal or justice courts and photo radar enforcement can generate revenue sufficient to fund the on-going costs of the program. The problems lie in the start-up costs, as well as how these cases are adjudicated. In Arizona most traffic violations cited by DPS are filed in the justice of the peace courts, which are staffed by elected justices and the number of courts are determined by "judicial productivity credits." Although the municipalities in Arizona are chartered governments and are able to staff their municipal courts as they please, the counties (which are nothing more than legal subdivisions of the state) must operate the justice courts according to statutory mandate, which limits the number of judicial productivity credits per justice. DPS is not currently in the market to be asking the Legislature for additional funding, so they are currently going the IGA route. Unfortunately, the fewer the number of IGAs, the easier such a route becomes. The problem lies in the number of judicial productivity credits that each photo enforced ticket generates if cited into a justice court and how that relates to county operations. Since the counties must fund the justice courts they prefer to only have as many justice courts as is absolutely necessary for efficient function (as the counties are subject to expenditure limitations as well as tax limitations). Each photo enforced ticket counts as 1/60th of a judicial productivity credit (as do most non-criminal traffic violations), however, well over 95% of all photo enforced traffic violations are non-contested – meaning they are never heard in court. This means that the additional tickets filed under photo enforcement (which is at a MUCH higher rate than traditional radar enforcement) would force the creation of new justice courts. Maricopa County alone would be forced under state statute to add an additional 4-7 new justice courts (complete with a justice of the peace, court room, staff, etc...); yet the added workload of the Justices would be negligible. Although increased traffic enforcement has proven to significantly decrease accidents and death rates on the state highways (as was proven with the Scottsdale project), the question is how to fund such a program in spite of the opposition at the Legislature. The counties will not enter into IGAs that will unnecessarily force a multi-million dollar expansion of the justice court system, and DPS sees inherent difficulty in arranging IGAs with hundreds of cities that have no jurisdiction over non-incorporated areas where some of the speeding violations are at their worst. So it looks like the state legislature has control of this issue, and as of today they have done nothing but show opposition. I suppose the members feel they would like to race back to Phoenix when the new legislative session begins without fear of any photo enforced tickets.

[Texas Defensive Driving]

I never was able to find the stats that conclusively, comparing apples to apples, show that speed limits do decrease accident and mortality rate.

Out of available publicly stats I would rather conclude the opposite - that speed limits increase the death toll on our roads.

They do increase the state revenues on all levels, though...

[Nithya]

Maddalozzo said prevention is often the key to preventing obesity in society. More than 50 percent of adults in the United States do not get enough physical activity. Recent studies suggest that whole-body vibration has been proposed as a potential alternative, or adjuvant, to exercise. Whole-body vibration has been reported to increase energy metabolism through an increased oxygen uptake to values comparable to moderate walking.
---------------
Nithya

Arizona Alcohol Addiction Treatment

[Nithya]

Maddalozzo said prevention is often the key to preventing obesity in society. More than 50 percent of adults in the United States do not get enough physical activity. Recent studies suggest that whole-body vibration has been proposed as a potential alternative, or adjuvant, to exercise. Whole-body vibration has been reported to increase energy metabolism through an increased oxygen uptake to values comparable to moderate walking.
---------------
Nithya

Arizona Alcohol Addiction Treatment