Initiative 985 undermines local control over traffic safety

Summary 

  • I-985 eliminates local control over red light camera revenues. I-985 redirects this revenue to a nebulous state traffic fund that local residents have no control over.
  • I-985 likely eliminates all of the funding that currently pays for red light cameras—undermining local efforts to make school zones, railroad crossings, and major intersections safer.
  • I-985’s supporters’ statements about red light cameras are simply inconsistent with the text of the initiative. Worse, I-985’s red light camera provisions are poorly drafted, and a lawsuit may be required to clarify their meaning.

Details 

There’s a quite a bit of confusion about the issue of how I-985 affects red light enforcement cameras. Tim Eyman’s initiative is so poorly drafted, and his statements are so off base, that it’s hard to sort out the truth. Here’s the lay of the land. 

I-985 eliminates local control over red light camera revenues. 

Washington state law allows cities to install red light cameras in school speed zones, railroad crossings, and at intersections where major traffic arterials cross. Thirteen cities so far have installed, or plan to install, these cameras. 

Under current law, local governments get to decide what’s done with most of the revenue from red light camera fines. Typically, those revenues can be pretty high in the first year that a camera is installed, as drivers get used to the new enforcement system. (Often, cameras are installed at dangerous intersections where drivers have habitually violated red light laws, creating crash and safety risks.) But Washington’s experience so far is that total fines fall dramatically in the year after a camera is installed, as drivers learn to be more careful at these intersections—evidence that the red light cameras really are effective. 

The chief use for red light camera revenue is to pay for the cameras themselves. The cameras are expensive to install and operate, and paying enforcement staff also costs money. Some cities with red light cameras have seen small excess revenues from their camera programs, at least in the early years. These cities have used the proceeds of traffic fines for city priorities: traffic safety, road maintenance, or whatever other priorities the city deems appropriate. In fact (as discussed below) if it weren’t for the money from red light camera fines, those cities wouldn’t have the money to install and operate the cameras. 

I-985 may actually eliminate red light cameras entirely. 

It may take a lawsuit to settle this issue. But I-985 is so poorly drafted that it’s not clear whether it only takes some red light camera revenue, or all of it. Here’s exactly what I-985 says about red light camera fines:

Revenue to be deposited into the county or city current expense fund from infractions issued under RCW 46.63.170 [the Washington State red light camera law] shall instead be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and be deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act.

Reading the initiative at face value, I-985 siphons all local proceeds from traffic fines off to the state traffic fund. But those proceeds pay for the cameras themselves. In essense, I-985 would leave cities with no money from red light camera fines to pay for installing, operating, and maintaining the red light cameras. Cities that wanted red light cameras to improve safety would either have to raise taxes or cut other services to pay for them. 

Another possible interpretation of I-985 is that it only siphons a small amount of each red light camera fine—$11.50 to be exact—to the state traffic fund. (This interpretation comes from the unusual placement of the above text in the statute, in a part of the law that requires the state to reimburse cities for the costs of state mandates.) Either way, I-985 raids money from local coffers, turning local enforcement of state traffic laws into an unfunded mandate. 

Tim Eyman’s own statements seem to suggest yet another interpretation—that he only intended to keep cities from making a “profit” from red light cameras. Other observers have taken his statements to mean that I-985 only redirects net red light camera fines to the state, after the costs of the cameras themselves are paid for. Yet this interpretation is simply contradicted by the text of I-985: the initiative either redirects total, gross revenue from local red light camera fines to the state traffic fund; or it raids the stream of funding that state law sets aside to pay cities for the costs of enforcing state law. 

If I-985 passes, expect this issue to result in lengthy and costly legal wrangling.