The Sept. 13, 2011 Council meeting was an interesting look at Council process and leadership. Administration provided an update on the Capital Regional Transportation Plan and Council engaged on a lengthy debate on photo radar. Other matters brought to Council were the announcement of the public engagement for Public Transit, River Valley Alliance project funding and a report on the updated Apiculture bylaw. I recommend that you refer to the reports and minutes.
Webcast
Residents will have to go to the webcast to get the full flavour of how decisions are made tune into the webcast. The webcast is timed and titled so that you can refer immediately to your topic of interest.
Photo Radar – Mobile Speed Cameras
Council supported Councillor Botterill’s motion to cease operation of the mobile speed cameras.
I did not support the motion. My residents are asking why I took the stand that I did.
This is a complex issue. Each side can produce “highly credible” studies speaking for or against. This is a hotly debated topic in jurisdictions throughout North America. There may actually be no right or wrong answer.
Here is the problem, as I see it, with the process your Council went through:
Two weeks ago a notice of motion was presented to Council. Last Thursday Council received a rudimentary 8 page report from RCMP Traffic Services. One hour prior to Council, we received a nine slide power point presentation. Neither the Traffic Safety Office nor the RCMP Traffic Services were required to prepare and bring forward a presentation. I do not agree with moving forward on such a significant decision without requiring our administration to bring forward a comprehensive report and recommendation on the implication to road safety and budget.
Councillor Gariepy did force the issue and insisted that the RCMP representatives come forward and answer questions of Council. RCMP Superintendent Steinke and Traffic Sgt. Narbonne both spoke of the current statistics of an all-time low of fatalities and injuries and the need to move forward but not at the cost of systems and tools that have proven their effectiveness. RCMP representatives stated that officers are more effective than photo radar – but the cost to tax payers is significant – that is why they use a variety of enforcement tools.
I stand by my belief that inadequate research and debate went into this decision. I put forward a motion to have administration bring in an external firm to prepare a report on the merits and challenges of:
- ceasing operation of mobile cameras
- increasing the complement of officers
- looking at speed limits throughout the county.
I called for public engagement. Both requests were defeated.
Subsequent motions and debate were required as Council members came to a sudden realization that it took 6 to 12 months to hire officers...but they had just passed a motion to cease all mobile camera speed vans.
So here we are. Within the next 12 months, five Safety Enforcement Officers will be hired to replace the photo radar mobile vans. (RCMP stated that 11 Officers would be required). When five are hired and trained, the photo radar will be discontinued. Safety Enforcement Officers can issue demerit points; they cannot act on criminal code offences such as impaired driving and outstanding warrants.
Was the system perfect? No. Was it abused? At times it was. Could it have been improved? Yes. But your Council chose to throw it out entirely. My issue is not with the final outcome, it is with the way in which we got there. Don’t get me wrong, the elimination of mobile speed vans has worked in other jurisdictions. It can work here. I will be putting my efforts into supporting this and other subsequent suggestions that will improve road safety in a fiscally responsible manner.
On Sept. 8, 2011 the Integrated Regional Transportation Plan and our requested amendments were accepted by the Capital Region Board. Their acceptance of the changes to identify Twp Rd 540 (rather than 542) as the East /West road slated for expansion is a relief to those residents affected. It is also a credit to their persistence and the unflagging support of their Councillor.
Public Transit Report
The public engagement section of the second phase of transit restructuring will begin on Sept. 25, 2011 and will continue for five weeks. I urge you to review the document and attend at least one of the upcoming open houses. Council needs you as the public users and non users to give your comments and opinions on proposed changes to SCAT, route structures and scheduling.
River Valley Alliance
Council approved $306,280 dollars to be allocated to trail expansion in the parklands adjacent to the North
Saskatchewan River Valley. Funding will be matched by federal funding.
Apiculture By Law
Bylaw 43-2011 received two readings from Council. The intent is to define the geographical area where apiculture is allowed in our municipality. All bee keepers are regulated by the provincial government. They must have a provincial registration and premise ID number. Our County regulations are now clearer. Agriculture producers on Agriculture lands may have hives without permits. However RA and Country residential zoned lands must apply to the Transportation and Agriculture Department for a permit. Basically that permit is a way for the County to ensure that people living within a 1 km area all know about the hives and can express any concerns they may have.
Administration has chosen not to address the changing trends in urban land use due to previous concerns raised in 1996 and a lack of interest shown in this go round. I have asked that apiculture be defined in our land use bylaws as they are refined in the next several months.
I send out an E-News Bulletin to residents on community information and issues. It gives me an opportunity to ‘touch base’ with you on a regular basis. You can obtain your copy by sending me your e mail address.
First off, from what I heard in the council debate, there doesn’t seem to be any disagreement that police handing out tickets is a much more immediate and effective deterrent to speeding than the flash of a photo radar unit and a ticket in the mail some weeks later. A peace officer can use discretion and also look out for other infractions than speeding; infractions such as impaired or distracted driving, stolen vehicles, insurance lapses and suspended drivers. Photo radar cannot deal with any of those offences.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the outcome desired by speed enforcement, whether manned or photo radar, is increased safety for the travelling public and therefore fewer collisions and eventually lower costs in health care and insurance for everyone.
Mobile photo enforcement currently is done with two roving units with a single officer in each. Council’s motion will see those mobile units taken off the road in favour of five new full-time equivalent traffic safety officers. On the surface, that sounds like a good trade off. However, using my admittedly rudimentary calculations, I think we could end up with less traffic enforcement than we have now.
If we take those five FTEs and assume (my assumption; I don’t know this is fact) there will be two officers at each speed trap (one officer with the radar and one further down the road handing out tickets). We’d need two shifts per day to cover approximately what photo-radar covers now. So, with two officers per trap, two traps per shift and two shifts per day, we’re at 2x2x2=8 officer-shifts per day. This is already more than the five new FTEs being considered and I’m not even accounting for weekends and vacation time.
Rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water, why not combine new traffic safety officers with and altered photo radar program? If people think that photo radar is a ‘trap’ to catch those who don’t notice the photo-vehicles, make the vehicles more visible and place a sign that indicates there’s radar around. The desired result of getting people to slow down is still accomplished. The RCMP has said there are locations that are “dangerous and ill advised” for manned enforcement. If non-photo enforcement is to be continued at those locations, how will that be accomplished?
If people are getting caught because the speed limits in some areas vary significantly (i.e. Granada Blvd.), then review the policy that sets speed limits or address reasons why people aren’t noticing the speed limit changes. While you’re at it, review the policy about where photo radar can be used. Maybe more visible concentration around school zones, parks, playgrounds and residential streets is in order while less photo enforcement on thoroughfares like Baseline and 17th street occurs?
I’ve not commented on the intersection cameras (red light cameras & speed on green) because I think they’re outside the purview of this debate.
To conclude, I think that saying a black-and-white ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to photo radar is too simplistic. If the desired outcome is increased traffic safety, then the photo radar discussion is part of it, but it’s not the entirety.