State Politics

Chesapeake’s New Red Light Camera

As Chesapeake begins its quest to join Virginia Beach as a photo-enforced city, I once again must question the need for red light cameras. Before I go further, let me say that I do not believe in their effectiveness. I think that increase the number of rear-end accidents at each intersection and I do believe that each jurisdiction uses them for a source of revenue and not to actually protect the public. You can’t really argue too much with the part about accidents increasing. VDOT’s own study in 2007 (The Impact of Red Light Cameras [Photo-Red Enforcement] on Crashes in Virginia) indicated that accidents increased at many Virginia intersections with red light cameras. True, they did reduce accidents at some, but the effectiveness is relatively unpredictable. The reason that I think that cameras are use for revenue rather than for safety: If it was truly about safety and the public was in danger, Police Departments would divert resources from other areas to fight the epidemic of red light running. A police-issued summons would add points to a driver’s license, a hefty fine and/or community service, and increased insurance costs for that individual. The impact of a camera-issued summons? $50. That is of course, if you choose to pay it. Thats the best part. By law in Virginia, you do not have to pay your ticket just because a ticket came in the mail. I discovered this recently in a Virginia Motorists Association article from 2009. Their article was commenting on an editorial at the time in the Washington Post. Basically, they cited two Virginia laws. The first, § 15.2-968.1, specifies how to send the summons. It says,

G. A summons for a violation of this section may be executed pursuant to § 19.2-76.2. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 19.2-76, a summons for a violation of this section may be executed by mailing by first class mail a copy thereof to the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle. In the case of a vehicle owner, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles; in the case of a vehicle lessee or renter, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the lessor or renter. Every such mailing shall include, in addition to the summons, a notice of (i) the summoned person’s ability to rebut the presumption that he was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation through the filing of an affidavit as provided in subsection D and (ii) instructions for filing such affidavit, including the address to which the affidavit is to be sent. If the summoned person fails to appear on the date of return set out in the summons mailed pursuant to this section, the summons shall be executed in the manner set out in § 19.2-76.3. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of a person summoned by mailing shall be instituted for failure to appear on the return date of the summons. Any summons executed for a violation of this section shall provide to the person summoned at least 30 business days from the mailing of the summons to inspect information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system in connection with the violation.

In other words, the city can send you a violation notice if you run a red light. It will be address to the registered owner. You can use the information contained on the violation to file an affidavit affirming that you were not the driver at the time of the violation. If you fail to pay or appear in court, the city must them serve a second summons. The next law tell the city how that summons must be served. § 19.2-76.3 says,

A. If any person fails to appear on the date of the return contained in the summons issued in accordance with § 19.2-76.2, then a summons shall be delivered to the sheriff of the county, city or town for service on that person as set out in § 8.01-296.
B. If such person then fails to appear on the date of return as contained in the summons so issued, a summons shall be executed in the manner set out in § 19.2-76. C. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of any person summoned under the provisions of this section shall be instituted unless such person has been personally served with a summons and has failed to appear on the return date contained therein.

That means that they have to physically serve you with a summons before you can be  fined for running the red light or for failing to appear. So what should you do if you disagree with the use of traffic cameras and you happen to run that red light? Forget about the violation. Chances are they wont serve you with anything. That costs a lot of money and cuts into the potential profits. If they do, its no big deal, just go pay the ticket.

Note: Running red lights is dangerous and you should never run a red light just in spite of it. Please, for the sake of everyone else, this is only for those times that you, say, don’t want to be rear-ended by the moron tailgating you three inches from your back bumper. Also, I have presented the text of the law for you to interpret and use as you see fit. While I have pointed out that the law requires the hand-serving of a second summons, my opinion does not constitute legal advice. If you want that, talk to a lawyer. Or, just don’t run red lights. If you do, it is your responsibility to know the law and to make appropriate decisions.

Still No (Legal) Radar Detectors for VA

It seems as if the General Assembly has once again voted down the bill to repeal Virginia’s unique ban on radar detectors. Their reasoning? “Speed on the roads of the commonwealth is a major problem,I don’t think we ought to be passing laws that make our roads less safe.” Well, that was Del. Manoli Loupassi’s (R-Richmond) reason. I wonder if that is the same reasoning behind raising the speed limit to 70. If they are, however, trying to make our roads safer, why have they not passed other laws. That might include banning cell phone use while driving. Or making a stiffer penalty for the guy I saw shaving, eating, and trying to read the paper a while back on the interstate. I would have taken a picture, but I felt the irony of crashing while trying to take a picture of a distracted driver would be too great.

Here is my list of activities that I have seen that should be banned while driving:

  • All phone use
  • shaving
  • eating anything that requires two hands or a table
  • any kind of sexual activity
  • reading books, newspapers, reports, etc.
  • photography
  • applying makeup
  • looking at other accidents
  • actually programming your radio
  • watching TV/DVDs
  • Smoking (ban smoking because you can’t just ban dropping it in your crotch)
  • writing
  • searching the internet

Have I touched the tip of the iceberg yet? I won’t claim that I have never done at least one (or five). I will say though, that it is decidedly riskier to attempt one of these actions than it is to simply drive over the speed limit. There are many roads around (especially in Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and Suffolk) that were actually designed for speeds as high as 65 mph, but their speeds are lowered due to residential areas, schools, etc. It is not the speed that causes the accidents, it is the combination of other activities with the speed. The only speed that contributes to accidents is the low speed of slow interstate drivers. They themselves are rarely involved, but the drivers going the speed limit have to pay extra attention (that they may not have due to other activities) to avoid them.

Come on General Assembly. Allow radar detectors. Work on actual problems. I will file this story with the one about Norfolk trying to ban low riding pants awhile back.

“Public Transit Is The Future of Transportation

A side note from the High Speed Rail meeting that I wanted everyone to know. When Thelma Drake (who is now the new Director of the Department of Rail and Public Transportation) arrived to the meeting, she apologized for being late due to a State Senate Appropriations meeting. She said that “when the appropriations committee wants to meet with you, you don’t miss it.” She also, more importantly, made the comment that the committee had told her that “public transit is the future of transportation” and that we simply “cannot afford to build more roads.”

I want to emphasize the fact that the committee in charge of handing our money stated that “public transit is the future of transportation.” This is a huge leap forward for state policy on transportation. I can only hope and pray that they follow through with some HSR money and maybe some more LRT money.

New Governor McDonnell’s First Speech

Our new governor made his first speech to the General Assembly yesterday. His major issue was, of course, the budget deficit that Virginia faces. He promised to make the cuts necessary to balance the budget without raising taxes. To lead this charge, he promised to take a pay cut and his most of his staff take pay cuts and decrease the number of support staff. Once again, he also swore to privatize the ABC stores, asserting the more than $500 million could be raised with the proceeds. He promised to push for off-shore drilling. Amidst all of this, very little was actually mentioned about our transportation problems. Aside from raising the speed limit and reopening rest stops, he made no push for more highway or transit money. To help his campaign promise to create more jobs, he wants to raise the amount of money available for small businesses and lower the threshold for jobs required to be created to qualify for tax credit. He also proposed to drastically increase the amount of money available to state tourism advertising and movie recruiting, citing a new movie called “Secretariat,” about a Virginia race horse. The movie was filmed in Kentucky and West Virginia due to a lack of state promotional money. Finally, he pushed for promotional money for Virginia’s wineries and Virginia’s commercial spaceport at Wallop’s Island.

He seems to be full of ideas. Some of them I agree with (Privatizing ABC) and some of them I think are terrible ideas (off-shore drilling). I only hope that he can muster the political will to fix our transportation system. We need more money to be devoted to transit construction and operation and we need to focus highway money on the construction of rebuilt choke points.

Good Luck Governor. Good Luck GA. Good Luck Virginia. There is definitely a lot to be done.

Cities Without Suburbs – A Book Review

Cities Without Suburbs - By: David Rusk

I recently finished reading a book by David Rusk called “Cities without Suburbs.” I highly recommend this book to everyone. The book argues in support of regional cooperation and/or consolidation of suburbs with their historically central cities. Going beyond your typical benefits of regional cooperation, this book explains, with evidence, that there are many benefits for regional consolidation of services. He thoroughly identifies the problems facing inner cities today including, increasing poverty rates, decreasing tax revenues, and the inherent problems with solving complicated social, transportation, housing, economic, and budgetary problems when cooperating with a number of municipalities. Using census data, he explains why cities that have expanded their boundaries to encompass their own suburbs have historically done much better than cities that are unable to expand their boundaries.These locked-in cities lose revenue, resources, and opportunities in the long run to their independent suburbs. This same reason is also why suburbanites fight consolidation/annexation. They believe that their suburbs are doing well and that they don’t want to take on the inner city’s problems. There are a couple of problems with this philosophy, however. First, history and statistics have shown that suburbs that are independent from their central city do not grow as fast as suburbs that are connected to their city. In fact, the average income for the entire region is lower for regions that are segmented versus those that are not. Second, when connected to their suburbs, central cities have fewer problems and the region as a whole has a lower crime rate and a better quality of life.

While I have always felt that a regional Hampton Roads would be a good thing, this book got me thinking that it should go further than that. It is certainly a step in a positive direction to have regional organizations. Certainly don’t get me wrong. Our current institutions such as HRT, SPSA, HRPDC, HRTPO etc all have their problems but when it comes down to it, they make certain things simpler for our area. Imagine if each city had to run its own bus service. You would have to transfer to another bus every time you crossed a city boundary. What if each city had to compete individually for transportation money from the state and federal government? You think we get shorted our share now? Despite current and planned or possible future regional entities, we still need to go further.

Let’s look at one thing that our region does. It may seem minor but think about it. Tourism. Our region has many great tourist attractions. From the Virginia Beach Oceanfront and Ocean Breeze to Colonial Williamsburg and Busch Gardens/Water Country and everything in between such as Nauticus and the Wisconsin, Hampton Roads has a lot to offer. Each city spends millions a year in tourism advertising money to attempt to attract visitors to patronize their respective city. While places like Virginia Beach and Williamsburg spend money to directly advertise their attractions, other places such as Chesapeake advertise to attract visitors to stay in their hotels, hoping to capture tourists’ shopping dollars at Greenbrier, etc. The reason this has to be done is because otherwise, Chesapeake makes no money off of Virginia Beach’s tourists. If our cities were one jurisdiction, however, things would be much different. We could combine our money to advertise for our regional attractions and the whole area would benefit. The area of Chesapeake would benefit just as much from tourists that came to Greenbrier as from those that never shopped west of Lynnhaven.

The same goes for transportation. Think of our major projects. The HRBT is a good example. As it stands, Hampton and Newport News want an expanded HRBT. Norfolk, however, is against it because the outcome on our side of the water would be destroyed properties. If we were one city, though, we would be much more likely to support it. An expanded HRBT would almost certainly be a catalyst for a better business climate on the Peninsula. Norfolk doesn’t really care about that. Hampton voters can’t vote for Norfolk’s City Council. As one city, the Peninsula’s economic climate would be Norfolk’s economic climate meaning that the expanded HRBT would benefit the city. Same goes for the Dominion Blvd. project. Peninsula, Norfolk and VB leaders can see how it is important to Chesapeake and the region overall. Secretly, though, they also know that Chesapeake residents are not their constituency. They can support Chesapeake’s project but at the same time they are obligated to do what is best for their constituency.

We can look at social issues. Public housing for example. First, current housing projects were built in Norfolk, Portsmouth, Newport News, and Hampton simply because the cities were there. Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, Suffolk and the counties of Hampton Roads did not have the capacity to support large scale housing projects at the time. Current housing policy no longer supports concentrated ‘projects.’ Studies have shown that everyone does better when the poor are dispersed throughout the middle class housing areas. This dispersion keeps the poor from feeling hopeless about their situation. Their income rates increase as does the pass rate for their school children. College attendance and graduation rates increase. Despite the objections by some middle class areas, the property values do not decrease and crime does not increase. In cities that are serious about this policy, overall crime rates tend to decrease and overall income averages go up. In our area, however, due to our segmented cities and therefore our segmented housing authorities, the residents of the current projects cannot be transferred to other cities using funds from their home city to pay the rent. This condition severely limits the ability of our housing authorities to successfully assist the poor residents of the housing projects. As one city, the authority could move residents freely around the region to make sure that they have the best opportunity to advance their situations.

I think that this can be accomplished with the right amount of public support. This will not be easy, however, and will take careful consideration to make a thorough proposal to the General Assembly (required for consolidation in Virginia). This will require public education and public input to make sure that all issues are addressed. I know that not everyone will support this but that is typical of any major proposal. I also know that if we could consolidate our area so that the central cities encompasses 60-75 % of our regional population that we would be a force to be reckoned with at the state, federal, and economic levels.