Three more red light cams coming

...
written by Rob , May 06, 2009 - 11:32 pm

I'm all for red light cameras. People need to change their driving habits...its' just that simple. Don't blame LCG.

...
written by citizen , May 07, 2009 - 07:01 am

does redflex own these cameras too?

...
written by JP , May 07, 2009 - 12:37 pm

I'm for it too, but I'm not for some Arizona company making $1.6 million off our backs in 14 months.

...
written by bedbug , May 07, 2009 - 05:14 pm

We need more.

...
written by PlumpyBoy , May 07, 2009 - 07:08 pm

YES ! .. MORE !... AT EVERY TRAFFIC LIGHT INTERSECTION ! PUT REDFLEX SPEED VAN'S ON INTERSTATE 10 !...

...
written by Jason D. Faulk , May 07, 2009 - 09:24 pm

It would be preferable to have a local provider deliver the "service" of intersection cameras, though a purely non-profit motive would be the superior alternative, so that all funds could be redirected into some local effort. In addition, it would be preferable to have a more than one provider, to ensure ongoing "service" competition, as competitive bidding for exclusive contracts that persist for years, is not necessarily real-time, "keep 'em honest" competition.

What is not preferable is an international corporate monopoly, which has a vested profit interest in influencing public policy across the country to facilitate the implementation of this technology, which no matter how you slice it, has a "little" brother effect alongside the "big" brother effect of government. This is evident by the public dissemination of the video footage as information and entertainment for use by the Lafayette daily newspaper.

But, finally, what we are missing here in the discussion about traffic cameras as tools to improve safety and reduce crashes, is the alternative, a major multi-lane urban roundabout. Such a structure would improve safety, service times, reduce equipment costs, reduce the overly large pedestrian crossing distances, and not unimportantly, remediate the pervasive ugliness of our community. By ugly, I mean the visual clutter of the multitude of poles and signs sticking about, along with the placelessness of these increasingly larger intersections, which have been and are being rebuilt to managed ever more increasing traffic loads, which lead up to greater congestion at single points where our main roads meet up. A roundabout offers a destination for the eye of the driver, a temporary end in the horizon. It also offers the opportunity for installations of public art serving as landmarks, which are crucial for our shared sense of place, that is our ability to identify with something that makes us a little bit unique.

It is encouraging to see that the City-Parish government included so many Round-abouts in its wish list for stimulus package monies. What we need now is to move to implement an alternative design, of a roundabout for our main intersections. One glaring example of this pervasive ugliness, an intersection which appears to have nearly the necessary room for a large multi-lane urban roundabout is that of West Congress Street at Bertrand Drive. Ever since the widening project of approximately 1999, the lack of trees alongside the shopping center, along with at least two pedestrian deaths, and typical emptiness of the traffic lanes during off peak hours, have served as cause begging for beautification and improvement.

I would hope that the proceeds of all this "traffic safety" money could be diverted to implement such a project. There's no reason why we can't do this. These roadway designs have been implemented across the world, and we here are the leader of the state in installing those smaller ones that have been placed on 2-lane roads.

And hey, no one would ever get a traffic ticket for speeding through a roundabout, it really just isn't possible.

...
written by good driver , May 07, 2009 - 11:59 pm

what about Amb. caff. @ Johnston?

...
written by Less Government , May 12, 2009 - 03:08 am

What about "Upper Lafayette" ? According to information provided by LCG, cameras are placed at intersections based on the number of accidents. Are we to believe then, that there are no speeders or accidents in "Upper Lafayette" or is this an attempt to place these cameras at more "profitable" locations on the southside, I guess now referred to as "Lower Lafayette" ? I'd love to see the accident statistics on Camelia Blvd, I travel this road everyday and I don't think I have ever seen an accident there.........And for as long as I think numbers have been kept, Johnston Street and Ambassador Caffery has always had the highest number of accidents of any intersection in Lafayette. Shouldn't these cameras be placed by priority where the most accidents are first, then other places (that is at least if this program is truly about safety instead of profit).

...
written by Jason D. Faulk , May 12, 2009 - 09:33 am

Well, there is a proposed list of future camera locations...
( http://www.lafayettela.gov/tra...ations.asp )

I believe removal of cameras was effected at one or more locations on the "Northside", which apparently does not include Upper Lafayette.

I would like to note here, that Camellia should be safer throughout the majority of it's length, as it has firstly a lower speed limit, secondly, it has fewer driveways to turn into, thirdly, half of it is undeveloped and lastly, all turns into driveways require right turns in and out only. This reduces the number of turning movements onto any one direction of traffic flow to 2, one right from the side, and one left from the crossover, not counting a crossover going straight across onto a side street. All left turns are restricted to the crossover/turnarounds. This can be compared to the constant weaving in and out of the turn lanes and the ability to crossover head-on into oncoming traffic across the turn lane.

The red light runs are probably exacerbated by frustrated motorists seeking to out run the uncoordinated traffic lights which often I have noticed merely turn green to send drivers along to the next light, where a premature or out of sync red light stops all momentum again, holding them up for another 60-120 seconds (estimate only). Do that 10-15 or more times on your way out to the hinterlands, and the temptation to run a light becomes profound. Lafayette has applied to use stimulus money on a traffic light timing study. That's great, our lights will be synchronized again, as they were earlier this decade. Eventually, that timing will undo itself as patterns of traffic change, as more growth happens, and as the traffic engineers adjust the timing when new lights are installed in a particular area. One way to combat this would be something on the order of Baton Rouge Mayor, Kip Holden's GreenLight plan. It's expensive, but it means most of the traffic light network is centrally controlled with some form of intelligent software that can manage traffic flows on the fly. (greenlight.csrsonline.com)

"Less Government" also addressed the concern of Camellia, versus Johnston or Ambassador Caffery. I'd suggest to the writer, that these problems are far worse not only at the traffic lights along Johnston and Ambassador, but throughout the length of the roadway along each because of the prescence of the continuous turning lane. Doing away with the turning lane and rebuilding the roadway with a median strip, wide enough to facilitate U-Turns would improve traffic flow and improve safety.

One can look at this with a mind to economics and biology. The costs of anything are borne somewhere in our society. If a cost isn't shouldered in one arena, then it is reflected somewhere, someway else as a cost. Often, we simply aren't accustomed to looking at it that way. In this discussion of traffic safety, the cost is either a payment made in common by the citizenry (business and individual) together, as government to invest in these safe streets, or the cost is born on the backs of the survivors of our dead and injured fellow citizens, (which is also an increased risk to business, as it relates to an overall climate of doing business concerning health/safety factors and risk insurance and so forth.) If government was a corporation in that sense, we would have long since sued it for externalizing the costs of their activities upon the rest of us (or failure to act in a preventative manner when presented with a hazard of it's creation), just like the polluters used to do when using the public waterways as dumping channels for their toxic waste by-products.

...
written by Jason D. Faulk , May 12, 2009 - 09:37 am

These cameras, ultimately are just privatized fixes for bad intersection design, and not intended for the rest of the roadway. If the camera companies had a solution for the rest of the turning-lane roadway, as well as for drunk driver and weaving driver immobilization, they would have "come to market" with it by now.

Here is where some info exists as to the fines, and how much faster than the limit you would have to be traveling in order to be "fined" civilly. http://www.lafayettela.gov/tra...ghtfaq.asp

I could not find out the exact raw LCG traffic crash data on its website. This obviously should be posted on the traffic and transportation page along with the other SafeSpeed/SafeLight info as it is pertinent material often cited by journalists doing stories on this subject. The following link does contain Mr. Tramel's report to the council on this subject.
http://www.lafayettela.gov/upload/images/traffic/pdf/safelight_safespeed_statusreport.pdf

I would be curious to know from an estimate, what the averted insurance property and health care payments and loss of earnings would be based on typical averages for collisions of this sort.
It would also be helpful for the public to know clearly on the website, what the equipment is costing the vendor and how soon they expect to start turning a pure profit on investment. If we did all stop violating the speed limits and red lights, would the equipment be removed? Probably just deployed elsewhere. Would the government be willing to lose the stick of the light looking over your activities after 5, 10, or more years?

Finally, for all the folks annoyed with the privacy angle of this matter, I hate to break it to you, but slowly, monitoring cameras are being rolled out at every traffic light. In time these will be deployed along the length of every major roadway. People, and software will be monitoring the images, mostly for harmless ends. The potential does exist though, for abuse. That is an entirely accessory discussion though.