* The Chicago Tribune ran a big story over the weekend about how suburban towns are seeing revenues fall from red light cameras…
In Bellwood, which in late 2006 became the first suburb to install the cameras, photographed violations brought in $1.1 million at their peak in 2008, instead of the projected $1.5 million to $2 million. Revenues dropped almost by half last year, and officials say net revenues this year are near $250,000. […]
The number of tickets exceeded 14,000 in 2008, fell to 11,000 last year and was slightly more than 7,000 through October. But [Melrose Park] village spokesman Nathan Brown said that’s what officials were hoping.
But they buried something…
Chicago has more red-light cameras than any other U.S. city, with 189 intersections covered. The city took in $59 million in fines during 2009, officials said, and is on pace for more in 2010, after adding cameras late last year.
Violations are down at individual sites, so the city simply added more cams. Clever.
* And then there’s this…
The number of accidents fell significantly last year at the first suburban intersections to be patrolled with cameras, but state officials caution that a change in reporting requirements makes a year-to-year comparison suspect.
Overall, the number of collisions at the 14 suburban intersections in 2009 dropped 36 percent from the number in 2008. Collisions decreased at 11 of the 14, according to the Illinois Department of Transportation.
Accidents increased at two intersections and showed no change at another. But the state raised the minimum level to report a property damage accident from $500 to $1,500, reducing the number of reported crashes statewide by 28 percent and potentially skewing the results, officials said.
At the same time, the number of accidents in which someone was injured, a figure unaffected by the reporting change, fell to 30 from 39 at the same sites last year, according to IDOT statistics.
* The paper also took a look at some notorious speed trap towns, including Carol Stream…
Using another tactic that has drawn fire from critics, the department this year joined an area police trend to charge an extra $500 impound fee — separate of any criminal fines — to motorists caught for specific crimes, ranging from DUI to suspended licenses. So far this year, it’s collected about $350,000 from just over 700 tows.
Civil libertarians complain that such impounds have few safeguards to ensure the innocent aren’t forced to pay up or lose their cars.
The department also helped pioneer another trend in policing that has prompted criticism — going incognito to nab violators. Officers have hidden in bushes, behind disabled vehicles and beside lampposts to conduct stings for speeding as well as seat belt and child seat violations.
Among their disguises: homeless wanderer, garbage collector, postal carrier, public works employee, landscaper and utility worker.
Go read the whole thing. There are several sidebars…
* Move to ban ticket quotas hasn’t gotten very far - Bill proposed by police union dies in Illinois House
* Graphic: Where the tickets are
* Database: Chicagoland Traffic Stops
* Questions about traffic enforcement
* How ticketing study was conducted
* And this looks like a pretty good idea…
The flip-side of Chicago’s 1.25 million city stickers would carry advertising to generate $15 million-a-year — enough to hire 100 new police officers and give motorists a modest break — under a plan proposed by the frontrunner for city clerk.
State Rep. Susana Mendoza (D-Chicago) wants to turn city stickers into money makers, much the way Mayor Daley has talked about letting private companies put holiday decorations and their corporate logos on bridge houses along the Chicago River.
The front-side of Chicago city stickers bears the winning entry of a design competition among student artists. The flip-side that motorists stare at on the inside of the windshield includes a grey scale of the city seal and signatures of the mayor and city clerk.
“It really advertises me, if I’m elected. It’s a complete waste of real estate. We have an opportunity to open it up to corporate advertisers to raise $15 million,” said Mendoza, who’s running for city clerk with the backing of powerful City Council Finance Committee Chairman Ald. Edward M. Burke (14th).
Thoughts?
- 47th Ward - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 11:28 am:
I’m not opposed to Mendoza’s idea to put advertising on the city sticker, but I think $15 million is somebody’s fantasy. I find it impossible to believe any advertiser would pony up that kind of dough for this kind of advertising.
Maybe they dropped a decimel point, but even $1.5 million seems like wishful thinking. On the other hand, at least she’s thinking about raising new revenue at all. That’s progress I suppose.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 11:30 am:
===I find it impossible to believe any advertiser would pony up that kind of dough for this kind of advertising.===
A permanent advertisement on every single automobile registered in the city which will likely be seen every time passengers are in that car is some pretty expensive real estate.
===but even $1.5 million seems like wishful thinking.===
That’s barely three weeks of Chicago TV ads.
- Lincoln Parker - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 11:31 am:
Everyone thinks they can sell advertising rights on things for ridiculous amounts of money and I have yet to see it materialize.
Speaking of those bridge houses, have any of them actually been sold? I haven’t seen one.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 11:38 am:
===I have yet to see it materialize.==
Ever see a city bus?
- Spliff - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 11:40 am:
I think it is a great idea …. We could have Budweiser or since it is Chicago Old Style right there on the old windshield to remind us to pick up a sixer on the way home.
- Plutocrat03 - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 11:43 am:
How can Mendoza’s idea be a good one?
The government is going to force private citizens to carry adverting on their vehicles. It is silly enough to place vehicle stickers on display to prove you have paid the local vehicle tax. However to be forced to put advertising on one’s personal property is really arrogant.
- Cincinnatus - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 11:44 am:
I don’t allow the auto dealer to put his logo anywhere on my vehicle. Why should I allow some company to use my vehicle as a rolling billboard, especially when I have no say in the content of the advertising? If I wanted a billboard on my car, I would install one, but I am sure there are several restrictions and ordinances which would limit my choice of type and placement, yet the village can force me to carry whatever ad they want?
Ridiculous, from the point of civil liberties alone. I think every police car should carry an ad, and they can be changed at the village’s whim. We can make the cop cars look like NASCAR…
- Bill F. - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 12:04 pm:
All things being equal we probably would prefer to avoid ads in places like the flipside of the city sticker.
All things aren’t equal. The national, state and local economies are stagnant at best. Every idea should be on the table.
This is great forward thinking. It isn’t as if local government agencies don’t utilize advertising. Utility bills have ad inserts. County web sites have ads.
An directing funds to add cops is a great idea. Good for Mendoza.
- bored now - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 12:08 pm:
Cincinnatus: it never occurred to me that you were a chicago resident.
it’s interesting how everyone misses the point here: mendoza isn’t proposing to *introduce* advertising on the city sticker, she’s talking about exchanging advertising for one entity (an elected official) for another. more to the point, this is a radical suggestion, since elected officials in illinois feel free to advertise themselves on just about anything owned by whatever they oversee. people who come from out of the state notice it immediately (and wonder what fantasyland they came into). now if we could just ban all the political advertising on government property, then i’d think people would have a point…
- Lee - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 12:08 pm:
I’d rather the city sticker space be used for public education “advertising” around driver safety. Remind drivers they must stop for pedestrians and look for cyclists before opening a door into traffic. People die on our streets every day, and those reminders stuck on windshields could save lives.
- Conservative Veteran - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 12:14 pm:
I hope that more towns will use cameras to enforce traffic laws. The majority of drivers, I see, make right turns into left lanes, make left turns into right lanes, and/or change lanes without signaling. The police officers are too busy to pull over all of the law-breakers, but cameras might ensure that the majority of the law-breakers receive tickets.
- Wondering... - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 12:14 pm:
How often do you get in your car and look at the back of the city sticker that is tucked in the corner of the windshield?
Thinking about it… me?… never.
Exactly who will pay for this space? And it is not comprable to placing an ad on a bus or an el train or the like.
- Been There - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 12:17 pm:
I think Medoza’s idea has some merit as long as it is only on the inside of the vehicle. There could be a method to let people opt of the ad or they can just cover it up on the inside. Putting it on the outside (which I don’t think she is proposint) I think would cross the line. The guy who owns a hot dog stand might be driving around in a car that has a McDonalds logo on it and that isnt right.
- Logic not emotion - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 12:28 pm:
It could be good marketing and good for the budget; but it just seems wrong to force people to put advertising on their personal property. If the city is going to do it, at least give them a choice among several or maybe allow them to pay a premium for one without anything on back (no signatures even).
- Lincoln Parker - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 12:50 pm:
===Ever see a city bus?====
Yes, and the CTA makes about $15-$20 million off advertising across the entire system. The most you could make off the city stickers is $1 million, and that would only be from the PR they’ll get the first year.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 12:55 pm:
===The most you could make off the city stickers is $1 million===
And you base that on what?
Also, ads on city buses are different. They ain’t in your car 24/7.
- Objective Dem - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 1:03 pm:
I don’t like the sticker idea because it crosses the boundary of public space to personal space. I don’t like the idea of advertising on license plates or driver’s license for the same reason. But I don’t mind CTA fare card ads or bus stop ads.
There is limited truth to the name of the clerk being advertising, but the clerk is an elected official not a business. It is standard for official documents, such as building permits and elevator permits to be signed. Plus the name is a simple script, not a bold attraction seeking logo.
Plus there are issues with people not wanting to be associated with the firm. Do Sox fans want to see a Cubs sticker? Do liberals want to see an ad for Glen Beck? Do conservatives want to see an ad for Planned Parenthood. Its one thing to have a piece of paper come in the mail that you can throw away. Its another if you have it permanently affixed to your car in a place the front seat passengers have to see daily.
- IL Yeezy - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 1:07 pm:
What’s interesting to me about the red-light cameras in Chicago is that there aren’t any in the downtown-loop area, but they’re all over the neighborhoods outside the loop. If you’ve ever been downtown, you know how many people regularly blow red lights, plus there’s a lot of out-of-town drivers there, too. It bugs me that the city’s chosen to target its own residents for revenue in their own neighborhoods, but not those from out of town and in areas that could be high-revenue makers.
- Lincoln Parker - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 1:38 pm:
===And you base that on what?===
The fact I’ve worked in the sponsorship and advertising industry for the last 7 years, just a rough estimate.
The fact they are in your car 24/7 means nothing, have you seen a Chicago city sticker lately? The part with the design is very small. Also, Chicago Municipal Code requires they be displayed in the lower corner of the passengers side, so the driver is rarely going to see the stickers.
It’s nice she is trying to think outside the box to generate revenue, I just don’t think its a practical idea.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 1:53 pm:
Rich, why the push back on how much ads on city stickers might (or might not) generate? Was it your idea or something?
Heck, I hope I’m wrong. Years ago I worked for the Clerk, and IIRC, it costs about $2 million just to print the stickers. This year, they went with the low bidder and got stickers that didn’t stick. That doesn’t give me a lot of confidence that this is some untapped revenue bomb for the city. Like I said, I hope I’m wrong. I’d love nothing more than for the city to find ways to ease my tax burden and I applaud Mendoza for raising the idea.
But your push back seems odd given that Mendoza didn’t source her claim and you’re not only accepting it at face value, your defending it against skeptics like me.
Final thought, Ed Burke has controlled the office of City Clerk for decades. Now he’s backing Mendoza. That’s fine, but any real reforms that will come out of her office will have to be OK’d by him first. Just like Laski, just like Kozobowski. She’d be well-advised to keep his support on the down-low given that he isn’t exactly a reformer.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 1:55 pm:
===Was it your idea or something?===
LOL. No.
- Jake From Elwood - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 2:11 pm:
Some towns in other states have actually leased space on the side of fire trucks, police cars and ambulances for advertisers. Maybe this has happened in Illinois also–I do not know. There was a company who approached some munis on this idea. The numbers were not high enough to draw much interest. Water towers have ads too. Who cares if the City sticker has advertising? Do not scoff at another possible revenue source in this economy.
- Steve Pampagana - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 2:39 pm:
I think it is intrusive for government to force people to have “ads” in their cars in public places for a private company.
What if I don’t want to have an ad on my city sticker? What if it is an ad I have moral or religious objections to? What if I block it out?
I am fine to advertise on buses, walls etc but NOT on private property. My car is MY private property. If I have to get an ad on it than I should make the money.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 4:44 pm:
Kudos to our next City Clerk for her outside-the-box thinking.
I think Steve’s correct though that there might be some First Amendment, Freedom of Association issues there.
Say, for example, the city sells the ad space to some auto insurance company with a right wing agenda…now I have to look at that sticker every day?
Taken a step further, if the city can sell the rights on the back of the sticker, why not the front? Nike? McDonald’s??
I don’t know of any precedent, but it could be an issue.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 5:08 pm:
I’ll add this thought: I wonder how much we could save by not printing anything on the reverse side?
- Objective Dem - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 5:43 pm:
Just to be cynical, I also wonder if the advertising might go to a vendor with clout for a below market price. Back a few years ago, I could see Blago trying to have license plates with ads from some Rezco company, like Panda Express. Then again panda bears would be cuter than Lincoln’s face.
- wordslinger - Monday, Dec 20, 10 @ 8:12 pm:
Red light cameras have been a pretty good business for some of the boys out in the West Suburbs. There’s a synergy there among the Leyden-Elmwood Park-Rosemont crew.