red light camera effectiveness evaluation

8/16/2019 Red Light Camera Effectiveness Evaluation

1/33

Red Light Camera Effectiveness Evaluation

C i t y o f R o c h e s t e rM o n r o e C o u n t y , N e w Y o r k

Project No. 35002

November 2014Updated March 2016

Prepared For:

C i t y o f R o c h e s t e r

C i t y H a l l , 3 0 C h u r c h S t , R o o m 3 0 0 BR o c h e s t e r , N Y 1 4 6 1 4

A t t n : M r . J a m e s R . M c I n t o s h

Prepared By:

3 4 9 5 W i n t o n P l a c eB u i l d i n g E , S u i t e 1 1 0

R o c h e s t e r , N e w Y o r k 1 4 6 2 3


2/33

ii November 2014

Updated March 2016

Traffic Study Red Light Camera Effectiveness Evaluation City of Rochester, NY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1

II. PURPOSE OF RED LIGHT CAMERA ENFORCEMENT ...............................................................1

III. RED LIGHT CAMERA LOCATIONS & OPERATION ..................................................................2

IV. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RED LIGHT CAMERAS ........................................................................4

V. COST ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 23

VI. CONSIDERATION OF CAMERA REMOVAL .............................................................................. 23

VII. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 24

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE I RED LIGHT CAMERA LOCATIONS & ACTIVATION DATES ........................................3

TABLE II CRASHES AND VIOLATIONS AT RED LIGHT CAMERA INTERSECTIONS .............5

TABLE III CHANGES IN CRASH RATES AND VIOLATIONS ............................................................5

TABLE IV CRASH ANALYSIS & VIOLATIONS BY INTERSECTIONS ...............................................7

TABLE V COST SAVINGS .......................................................................................................................... 23

LIST OF REFERENCES

1.

City of Albuquerque Red Light Camera Study Final Report. Institute for Social Research,University of New Mexico, October 2010.

2. New York City Red Light Camera Program 2007 Report. New York City Departmentof Transportation.

3. City of Rochester website. Retrieved from http://www.cityofrochester.gov/redlight/

4. Average Accident Costs/Severity Distribution State Highways. NYSDOT SafetyInformation Management System. August 1 2011-July 31 2013, dated April 16, 2014.


3/33

1 November 2014

Updated March 2016


I. INTRODUCTION

Improving intersection safety is important forthe health and well-being of the community’sresidents and visitors. Safety improvementstrategies may range from educationalmaterials and enforcement campaigns, to

engineering enhancements. The City ofRochester, since November 2010, hasinstalled red light cameras at 32 cityintersections using 48 total cameras. The goalof the program has been to improve trafficand public safety and reduce the frequency ofright angle1 crashes and crashes whereby drivers have disregarded the traffic controldevice. With the program operational for over three years, the primary task of this studyis to evaluate the effectiveness the red light cameras in reducing the frequency and severityof accidents due to red light running through data-driven analysis.

II. PURPOSE OF RED LIGHT CAMERA ENFORCEMENT

Red light running is defined as “a vehicle that enters the intersection or passes the stopline after the red light turns on.” This may include not fully stopping before turning righton red, passing through the all-red interval immediately following the yellow, and goingthrough a red light while other movements in the intersection are being served.

Red-light running is a serious intersection safety issue across the nation. According to theNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Traffic Safety Facts 2012Report, there were more than 2.5 million reported intersection-related crashes, resulting

in more than 2,850 fatalities and approximately 680,000 injury crashes in 2012. Red lightrunning is estimated to cause more than 100,000 crashes and approximately 1,000 deathsper year in the United States.

Red light running is complex and there is no single reason to explain why drivers run redlights. Red light running is generally a result of drivers wanting to save time, however,some factors also include eating while driving, drowsiness, and distracted driving, othersfactors may include speeding and aggressive driving. Motorists are more likely to beinjured in urban crashes involving red light running than in any other type of urbancrashes.2 A study of urban crashes conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety(IIHS) found that running red lights and other traffic controls was the most common cause

of all accidents.

1 Two vehicles approaching from non-opposing angular directions collide, typically resulting as one vehicle failed toeither stop or yield right of way from a Stop or Yield sign, ran a red light, or was not cleared from the intersectionupon the onset of the conflicting movement's green signal.2 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)

Image 1 – State St @ Jay St, Rochester, NY


4/33

2 November 2014

Updated March 2016


Several studies have found that red light camera programs reduce the number of and rateof red light running violations. In short periods after red light camera programs areimplemented, violation rates drop dramatically.

Red light cameras have been used for over adecade in over 400 American cities. Theyhave been used to increase traffic signalenforcement at intersections where there isa noted history of red light running andcrashes, and record the violations for legalprosecution. For signalized intersections, redlight running affects the public health andsafety of passing motorists and pedestrians.The most frequent crashes resulting from redlight running at signalized intersections areright angle and rear end3 crashes with right angle crashes resulting in greater injuryseverity. To that end, the installations of red light cameras are intended to reduce thefrequency of crashes, particularly the more severe right angle crashes, to improve publicsafety.

III. RED LIGHT CAMERA LOCATIONS & OPERATION

The City of Rochester initiated a Red Light Photographic Enforcement Program inOctober 2010. Since that time, 48 cameras have been installed at 32 intersectionsthroughout the City. The camera locations were selected based upon the followingcriteria:

Recommendations from the Rochester Police Department based on intersectionaccident history,

Review of accident data by City staff, and Traffic volumes.

Once potential locations were identified, a portable camera was placed at each locationfor a 12 hour period to determine signal compliance. An intersection approach wasrecommended for installation of a red light camera upon consideration of the followingconditions:

1. Fifteen or more vehicles were observed running the red light or turning left onthe red indication during the 12 hour test period.

2. The intersection exhibited a history of pedestrian/cyclist/vehicle accidents.3. Criteria determined by the camera manufacturer.

A team comprised of City staff from the Rochester Police, Information Technology,Engineering, Law, and Budget departments made the final decision on red light camera

3 Two vehicles in a position of one behind the other and collide, regardless of what movement(s) either vehicle wasin the process of making with the exception of one or both vehicles backing.

Image 2 - Right angle crash, FHWA


5/33

3 November 2014

Updated March 2016


locations. Of the 207 potential locations recommended for study, 48 were selected forthe program based upon the above criteria.

Table 1 lists the current camera locations and the dates of installation.

T A B L E IR E D L I G H T C A M E R A L O C A T I O N S & A C T I V A T I O N

D A T E S

IntersectionApproach/Direction

Go-LiveDate Intersection

Approach/Direction

Go-LiveDate

Alexander St. &Broadway St. WB 11/9/10 Lyell Ave. & Murray St. WB 9/30/11

Alexander St. &Broadway St. EB 11/9/10 Maple St. & Saxton St. WB 9/30/11

State St. & Jay St. NB 11/9/10 Norton/Hudson SB 10/17/11

State St. & Jay St. SB 11/9/10Broad /Ford St. & W. MainSt. EB 10/31/11

North St. & CliffordAve. NB 11/9/10 West Ridge and Ridgeway EB 11/23/11

North St. & CliffordAve. SB 11/9/10 West Ridge and Ridgeway WB 11/23/11

Dewey & Ridgeway EB 2/19/11 Lake Ave. & W. Ridge Rd. EB 11/23/11

Dewey & Ridgeway SB 2/19/11 Lake Ave. & W. Ridge Rd. WB 11/23/11

Clinton Ave. & NortonSt. NB 1/27/11 Lake Ave. & Driving Park SB 12/12/11

Clinton Ave. & NortonSt. SB 2/19/11 Lake Ave. & Driving Park NB 12/12/11

Culver Rd. & East Ave. NB 2/19/11 Lake Ave. & Ridgeway NB 12/12/11

Culver Rd. & East Ave. WB 2/19/11West Ridge and BonesteelSt. EB 01/12/12

N. Clinton Ave. &

Andrews St. NB 1/27/11 Mt. Read Blvd. & Lyell Ave. EB 02/11/12West Ave. & Ames St. SB 6/3/11 Mt. Read Blvd. & Lyell Ave. SB 02/11/12

West Main St. & BrownSt./Genesee St. EB 6/3/11

Mt. Read Blvd. & EmersonSt. NB 4/4/12

St. Paul St. & PedestrianCrossing NB 6/3/11

Mt. Read Blvd. & EmersonSt. SB 4/4/12

St. Paul St. & PedestrianCrossing SB 6/3/11

Mt. Read Blvd. & DrivingPark SB 4/4/12

Goodman St. & I-490 NB 7/31/11 Monroe/Alexander SB 04/12/12

State St. & Allen St. NB 7/31/11 Goodman/Clifford NB 04/12/12

State St. & Allen St. SB 10/17/11E. Main St. & N. GoodmanSt. EB 08/10/12

St. Paul St. & UpperFalls Blvd. EB 9/30/11

E. Main St. & N GoodmanSt. WB 08/10/12

St. Paul St. & UpperFalls Blvd. WB 9/30/11 Alexander/University WB 12/07/12

Brown St. & Broad St. WB 9/30/11 Chestnut St. & Court St. SB 12/07/12

Lyell Ave. & Murray St. EB 9/30/11Mt Hope Ave. &Elmwood Ave. SB 09/13/13


6/33

4 November 2014

Updated March 2016


The red light cameras capture still and video images of vehicles in the act of a red-lightviolation, which then initiates the procedure to deliver a Notice of Liability to theregistered owner of the vehicle. The violation is a civil matter and is not reported toinsurance companies nor does it generate points on a driver’s license.

Evidence captured by the red light cameras is reviewed by the camera vendor andpotential violations are forwarded to the Rochester Police Department where a swornofficer determines whether a violation has occurred. A Notice of Liability is then deliveredin the mail to the registered owner of the vehicle. The cameras operate 24 hours a dayand capture still photographs and video of every vehicle that runs a red light at theintersection. Cameras photograph only the vehicle and license plate of vehicles runningthe red lights. No images of the driver or passengers are captured.

IV. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RED LIGHT CAMERAS

Crash data at each red light camera intersection was provided by the Rochester PoliceDepartment. The data encompassed all crashes occurring at the study intersectionsbetween January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2014. The data was then sorted for analysisas follows:

1) Intersection approaches without red light cameras were omitted from the analysis.2) As noted above, crash data for each intersection covers the same time period (January

1, 2007 through December 31, 2014). However, given that the cameras went live ondifferent dates at each location, the pre-camera time period and post-camera timeperiods differ from intersection to intersection depending upon the date of cameraactivation.

3) “Total crashes” include only right angle and rear end crashes for analysis purposes in

this study.

The analysis includes crash results for:

Total crashes (right angle + rear end)

Total right angle crashes

Right angle crashes with injury

Total rear end crashes

Rear end crashes with injury

Total crashes involving disregard of a traffic control

Disregard of a traffic control devices with injury

Cost associated with each crash

Since every camera was activated on a different date, the before and after evaluation timeperiods differ from location to location as indicated above. In order to provide datacomparisons at each location, the crash data was converted into a rate (in crashes peryear) that can be compared from intersection to intersection. It is noted that thecalculated crash rates are not volume weighted and in no way account for traffic volumes


7/33

5 November 2014

Updated March 2016


at their respective intersections. Table II summarizes the overall results of the evaluationinclusive of all of the camera locations as well as total red light camera violations 4. TableIII summarizes the overall results for all of the camera locations.

The average crash rate for total crashes5 on the red light camera approaches has beenreduced by 20.9%. The average crash rate for crashes involving disregard for a trafficcontrol device (TCD) have been reduced by 53.2%. Red light camera violations havedecreased 44% from the time that the cameras were installed. It is noted that the resultsvary from intersection to intersection, however, when reviewing the combined impact ofthe red light cameras on a Citywide basis, the number and severity of crashes aresignificantly reduced.

T A B L E I IC R A S H E S A N D V I O L A T I O N S A T R E D L I G H T C A M E R A

I N T E R S E C T I O N S 5

Average Pre-Camera

Crash Rate(crashes/year)/

Violations

Average Post-Camera

Crash Rate(crashes/year)/

Violations

% Change inCrash Rate/Violations

Average Crash Rate for Total Crashes5 7.6 6.0 -20.9%

Total Injury Crashes 1.7 1.3 -21.8%

Total Right Angle Crashes 2.4 1.7 -29.3%

Total Right Angle Crashes with Injury 1.0 0.6 -37.5%

Total Rear End Crashes 5.2 4.3 -16.7%

Total Crashes Involving Disregard of TCD 1.4 0.6 -53.2%

Total Injury Crashes Involving Disregard of TCD 0.6 0.2 -60.2%

Total Red Light Camera Violations1st 3 Months

Post-Installation:

42,376

June 1, 2015 thruAugust 31, 2015:

23,746

-44.0%

T A B L E I I IC H A N G E S I N C R A S H R A T E S A N D V I O L A T I O N S

No. of Intersections w/Increases in

CrashRates/Violations

No. of Intersections w/ no change in


No. of Intersections w/Decreases in


Total Crashes 8 1 23

Total Right Angle Crashes 9 2 20

Total Rear End Crashes8 3 20

Total Violations 9 1 22

4 Violations summarized in the tables in this report include only those incidents where the Rochester Police

Department determined that a violation occurred and a citation was issued.5 The analyses in this study include all right angle and rear end crashes occurring on the approaches that are

monitored by red light cameras.


8/33

6 November 2014

Updated March 2016


Overall, eight locations experienced increases in the crash rate for total crashes while 23experienced decreases in the crash rate for total crashes; and one location experiencedno change. The right angle crash rate increased at nine intersections, decreased at 20intersections, and stayed the same at two locations. The rear end crash rate increased at8 intersections, decreased at 20 intersections and stayed the same at 3 intersections.Violations increased at nine locations and decreased at 22 locations; one location stayedthe same. All of the crash rates and violations noted in the following tables are alsosummarized in a complete table listing all of the intersections in the Appendix of thisReport.

The pre- and post-camera crash rates are also summarized in Figure 1 on the followingpage which graphically depicts the data in bar chart format. Figure 2 presents the samepre- and post-camera crash rates in the form of a heat map. The map goes from the lowestcrash rate using a purple/gray color to the highest crash rate using a red color to showwhere there are higher crash rates and how the crash rates have changed since thecameras were installed. Figure 3 is also a heat map showing the difference in red lightcamera violations from the first three months after camera installation to the most recentthree months of data currently available.

The eight intersections experiencing increases in crash rates were evaluated in greaterdetail to determine any potential causes and/or mitigation that would decrease the crashrates. The majority of the crashes reviewed in detail indicate driver error resulting frominattention or poor decisions. There were no identifiable causes or obvious mitigation atCourt & Chestnut, Goodman & Clifford, Mt. Read & Lyell, St Paul & Upper Falls, and State& Jay intersections. However, review of the Lake & West Ridge, Lake & Ridgeway, andWest Ridge & Ridgeway intersections indicates that there may be some confusion on thepart of motorists as to which signal indications apply to their direction of travel. Thistriangle of intersections are currently under review by NYSDOT to determine additionalimprovements that may be appropriate for this location.

Table IV summarizes the analysis results at each individual intersection. The table alsosummarizes the number of violations recorded by the cameras during the three monthsimmediately following the camera’s activation as well as the most recent three monthperiod of data available between June 1, 2015 and August 31, 2015. The comparison ofviolations provides an indication of motorists’ reaction to greater enforcement at theselocations.

All of the intersection locations are operated and maintained by either the MonroeCounty Department of Transportation (MCDOT) or the New York State Department ofTransportation (NYSDOT). Both agencies were contacted to determine if any changeswere made to signal timings or phasing after installation of the cameras. Any changes arenoted in the discussions following each table. If no changes are noted, then no changeshave been made since installation of the cameras.


9/33

0 2 4 6 8 1 0

1 2

1 4

1 6

1 8

C r a s h e s p e r y e a r

I n t e r s e c t i o n

C r a s h r a t e b y I n t e r s e c t i o n p r e

‐

a n d p o s t ‐ c a m e r

a

P r e

‐ C a m e r a r a t e

P o s t ‐ C a m e r a r a t e

FIGURE 1: PRE- AND POST-CAMERA CRASH RATE COMPARISON


10/33

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

R e d L i g h t C a m e r a E f f e c t i v e n e s s E v a l u a t i o n

C i t y o f R o c h e s t e r , N Y

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 5

P r e - C a m e r a C r a s h R a t e H e a t M a p

¯

!

S t u d y I n t e r s e c t i o n s

C r a s h R a t e I n t e n s i t y

H i g h

L o w

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!



O c t o b e r 2 0 1 5

P o s t - C a m e r a C r a s h R a t e H e a t M a p

¯

!


C r a s h R a t e I n t e n s i t y

H i g h

L o w

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

D o w n t o w n C r a s h e s O n l y

D o w n t o w n C r a s h e s O n l y

E L M W O O D

W I N T O N

W I L S O N

B R O

O K S

S O U T

H

C L I N T

O N M E I G S

E A S T

P A R K

H A R V A R D I -

4 9 0

I - 4 9 0

C U L V E

R

C U L V E R

A T L A N T I C

G O O D

M A N

G O O D

M A N

B A Y

N O R T O N

U P P E R F A L L S

S T P A U L

S T P A U

L

L A K E

S T A T E

B R O A D

L Y E L L

E M E R S O N L

E X I N G T O N

D R I V I N G P A

R K

C L I F F O R D

P O R T L

A N D

N O R T H

HUDSON

JOSE PH

C LINT ON

C ONK E Y

C L I N T O N

E M A I N

W M

A I N

W E S T

M T R E A D

M U R R A Y

JAY

J A Y

B R O

W N

MAP

LE

A M E S

S A X T O N

M T R E A D

D E W E Y

SENECA

RIDGEWAY

KODAKPARK

B O N E S T E E L

R I D G E

R I D G E

T I T U S

W A R I N

G

1 0 4

F O R D

E X C H

A N G E

P L Y M O T H

S O U T H

A N D R E W S

A L L E N

C O U R T

C H E S T N U T

B U F F A L

O

U N I V E R S I T Y

A L E X A N

D E R

B R O A D W

A Y

M O N R O E

W E S T F A L L

M T H O

P E

M T H O

P E

E L M W O O D

W I N T O N

W I L S O N

B R O

O K S

S O U T

H

C L I N T

O N M E I G S

E A S T

P A R K

H A R V A R D I -

4 9 0

I - 4 9 0

C U L V E

R

C U L V E R

A T L A N T I C

G O O D

M A N

G O O D

M A N

G O O D

M A N

B A Y

N O R T O N

U P P E R F A L L S

U P P E R F A L L S

S T P A U L

S T P A U L

S T P A

U L

L A K E

S T A T E

S T A T E

B R O A D

L Y E L L

E M E R S O N L

E X I N G T O N

D R I V I N G P A

R K

C L I F F O R D

P O R T L

A N D

N O R T H

HUDSON

JOSE PH

C LINT ON

C ONK E Y

C L I N T O N

C L I N T O N

E M A I N

W M

A I N

W E S T

M T R E A D

M U R R A Y

JAY

J A Y

J A Y

B R O

W N

MAP

LE

A M E S

S A X T O N

M T R E A D

D E W E Y

SENECA

RIDGEWAY

KODAKPARK

B O N E S T E E L

R I D G E

R I D G E

T I T U S

W A R I N

G

1 0 4

G E N E S E E

J E F F E R S O N

G E N E S E E

J E F F E R S O N

F O R D

E X C H

A N G E

P L Y M O T H

S O U T H

A N D R E W S

A L L E N

A L L E N

C O U R T

C H E S T N U T

B U F F A L

O

I N N E R

L O O P

W M

A I N

E M A I N

E A S T

B R O A D

S T P A U

L

E X C H

A N G E

I - 4 9 0

A L E X A N

D E R M

O N R

O E

I - 4 9 0

U N I V E R S I T Y

U N I V E R S I T Y

A L E X A N

D E R

B R O A

D W A Y

B R O A

D W A Y

G O O D

M A N

U P P E R F A L L S

S T A T E

C L I N T O N

J A Y

A L L E N

I N N E R

L O O P

W M

A I N

E M A I N

E A S T

B R O A D

S T P A U

L

E X C H

A N G E

I - 4 9 0

A L E X A N

D E R M

O N R

O E

I - 4 9 0

U N I V E R S I T Y

B R O A

D W A Y

M O N R O E

W E S T F A L L

M T H O

P E

M T H O

P E


11/33

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!



O c t o b e r 2 0 1 5

V i o l a t i o n s H e a t M a p - F i r s t 3 M o n t h s A f t e r I n s t a l l a t i o n

¯

!


M o r e V i o l a t i o n s

L e s s V i o l a t i o n s

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!



O c t o b e r 2 0 1 5

V i o l a t i o n s H e a t M a p - 6 / 1 / 1 5 - 8 / 3 1 / 1 5

¯

!


M o r e V i o l a t i o n s

L e s s V i o l a t i o n s

E L M W O O D

W I N T O N

W I L S O N

B R O

O K S

S O U T

H

C L I N T

O N M E I G S

E A S T

P A R K

H A R V A R D I -

4 9 0

I - 4 9 0

C U L V E

R

C U L V E R

A T L A N T I C

G O O D

M A N

G O O D

M A N

B A Y

N O R T O N

U P P E R F

A L L S

S T P A U L

S T P A U

L

L A K E

S T A T E

B R O A D

L Y E L L

E M E R S O N L

E X I N G T O N

D R I V I N G P A

R K

C L I F F O R D

P O R T L

A N D

N O R T H

HUDSON

JOSE PH

C LINT ON

C ONK E Y

C L I N T O N

E M A I N

W M

A I N

W E S T

M T R E A D

M U R R A Y

JAY

J A Y

B R O

W N

MAP

LE

A M E S

S A X T O N

M T R E A D

D E W E Y

SENECA

RIDGEWAY

KODAKPARK

B O N E S T E E L

R I D G E

R I D G E

T I T U S

W A R I N

G

1 0 4

T H U R S T O N

G E N E S E E

J E F F E R S O N

F O R D

E X C H

A N G E

P L Y M O T H

S O U T H

A N D R E W S

A L L E N

C O U R T

C H E S T N U T

B U F F A L

O

C H I L I

U N I V E R S I T Y

A L E X A N

D E R

B R O A D W

A Y

M O N R O E

W E S T F A L L

M T H O

P E

M T H O

P E

K E N D R I

C K

E A S T R I V E R

I - 3 9 0

E L M W O O D

W I N T O N

W I L S O N

B R O

O K S

S O U T

H

C L I N T

O N M E I G S

E A S T

P A R K

H A R V A R D I -

4 9 0

I - 4 9 0

C U L V E

R

C U L V E R

A T L A N T I C

G O O D

M A N

G O O D

M A N

B A Y

N O R T O N

U P P E R F

A L L S

S T P A U L

S T P A

U L

L A K E

S T A T E

B R O A D

L Y E L L

E M E R S O N L

E X I N G T O N

D R I V I N G P A

R K

C L I F F O R D

P O R T L

A N D

N O R T H

HUDSON

JOSE PH

C LINT ON

C ONK E Y

C L I N T O N

E M A I N

W M

A I N

W E S T

M T R E A D

M U R R A Y

JAY

J A Y

B R O

W N

MAP

LE

A M E S

S A X T O N

M T R E A D

D E W E Y

SENECA

RIDGEWAY

KODAKPARK

B O N E S T E E L

R I D G E

R I D G E

T I T U S

W A R I N

G

1 0 4

T H U R S T O N

G E N E S E E

J E F F E R S O N

F O R D

E X C H

A N G E

P L Y M O T H

S O U T H

A N D R E W S

A L L E N

C O U R T

C H E S T N U T

B U F F A L

O

C H I L I

U N I V E R S I T Y

A L E X A N

D E R

B R O A

D W A Y

M O N R O E

W E S T F A L L

M T H O

P E

M T H O

P E

K E N D R I

C K

E A S T R I V E R

I - 3 9 0

E L M W O O D

W I N T O N

W I L S O N

B R O

O K S

S O U T

H

C L I N T

O N M E I G S

E A S T

P A R K

H A R V A R D I -

4 9 0

I - 4 9 0

C U L V E

R

C U L V E R

A T L A N T I C

G O O D

M A N

G O O D

M A N

B A Y

N O R T O N

U P P E R F

A L L S

S T P A U L

S T P A U

L

L A K E

S T A T E

B R O A D

L Y E L L

E M E R S O N L

E X I N G T O N

D R I V I N G P A

R K

C L I F F O R D

P O R T L

A N D

N O R T H

HUDSON

JOSE PH

C LINT ON

C ONK E Y

C L I N T O N

E M A I N

W M

A I N

W E S T

M T R E A D

M U R R A Y

JAY

J A Y

B R O

W N

MAP

LE

A M E S

S A X T O N

M T R E A D

D E W E Y

SENECA

RIDGEWAY

KODAKPARK

B O N E S T E E L

R I D G E

R I D G E

T I T U S

W A R I N

G

1 0 4

T H U R S T O N

G E N E S E E

J E F F E R S O N

F O R D

E X C H

A N G E

P L Y M O T H

S O U T H

A N D R E W S

A L L E N

C O U R T

C H E S T N U T

B U F F A L

O

C H I L I

U N I V E R S I T Y

A L E X A N

D E R

B R O A D W

A Y

M O N R O E

W E S T F A L L

M T H O

P E

M T H O

P E

K E N D R I

C K

E A S T R I V E R

I - 3 9 0

E L M W O O D

W I N T O N

W I L S O N

B R O

O K S

S O U T

H

C L I N T

O N M E I G S

E A S T

P A R K

H A R V A R D I -

4 9 0

I - 4 9 0

C U L V E

R

C U L V E R

A T L A N T I C

G O O D

M A N

G O O D

M A N

B A Y

N O R T O N

U P P E R F

A L L S

S T P A U L

S T P A

U L

L A K E

S T A T E

B R O A D

L Y E L L

E M E R S O N L

E X I N G T O N

D R I V I N G P A

R K

C L I F F O R D

P O R T L

A N D

N O R T H

HUDSON

JOSE PH

C LINT ON

C ONK E Y

C L I N T O N

E M A I N

W M

A I N

W E S T

M T R E A D

M U R R A Y

JAY

J A Y

B R O

W N

MAP

LE

A M E S

S A X T O N

M T R E A D

D E W E Y

SENECA

RIDGEWAY

KODAKPARK

B O N E S T E E L

R I D G E

R I D G E

T I T U S

W A R I N

G

1 0 4

T H U R S T O N

G E N E S E E

J E F F E R S O N

F O R D

E X C H

A N G E

P L Y M O T H

S O U T H

A N D R E W S

A L L E N

C O U R T

C H E S T N U T

B U F F A L

O

C H I L I

U N I V E R S I T Y

A L E X A N

D E R

B R O A

D W A Y

M O N R O E

W E S T F A L L

M T H O

P E

M T H O

P E

K E N D R I

C K

E A S T R I V E R

I - 3 9 0


12/33

7 November 2014

Updated March 2016


T A B L E I VC R A S H A N A L Y S I S & V I O L A T I O N S B Y I N T E R S E C T I O N

Intersection: N. Goodman @ Clifford, Go Live Date: 4/12/12

Camera location(s): Northbound

Pre-Camera

1/1/07-4/12/12

Post-Camera

4/12/12-12/31/14

Total

Crashes

Crash Rate

(crashes/year)

Total

Crashes

Crash Rate

(crashes/year)Total Crashes 17 3.2 11 4.0Total Injury 2 0.4 2 0.7

Total Right Angle 5 0.9 5 1.8Total Right Angle w/Injury 1 0.4 2 0.7

Total Rear End 12 2.3 6 2.2Total crashes involving disregard of

a traffic control device 3 0.6 1 0.4Total Injury crashes involving

disregard of a traffic control device 2 0.4 0 0

Violations1st 3 months after

camera installation une 1, 2015 thruAugust 31, 2015

222 222

The crash rate related to the northbound approach at the North Goodman/CliffordStreet intersection has increased since the camera was installed on April 12, 2012. Whilethe right angle crash rate has increased, the rear end crash rate has decreased slightly.The number of violations is the same.

Intersection: Monroe @ Alexander, Go Live Date: 4/12/12

Camera location(s): Southbound

Pre-Camera1/1/07-4/12/12

Post-Camera4/12/12-12/31/14

TotalCrashes

Crash Rate(crashes/year)

TotalCrashes


Total Crashes 56 10.6 12 4.4

Total Injury 6 1.1 0 0

Total Right Angle 25 4.7 4 1.5

Total Right Angle w/Injury 3 0.6 0 0

Total Rear End 31 5.9 8 2.9

Total crashes involving disregardof a traffic control device

12 2.3 2 0.7

Total Injury crashes involvingdisregard of a traffic control device

2 0.6 0 0


camera installation June 1, 2015 thruAugust 31, 2015

242 325

Overall the total crash rates, right angle crash rates, and rear end crash rates havedecreased since camera installation. Violations have increased slightly, approximately34.3%.


13/33

8 November 2014

Updated March 2016


Intersection: Alexander @ Broadway, Go Live Date: 11/09/10

Camera location(s):Eastbound & Westbound

Pre-Camera1/1/07-11/09/10

Post-Camera11/09/10-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes


Total Crashes 26 6.7 17 4.1Total Injury 10 2.6 3 0.7




disregard of a traffic control device 9 2.3 1 0.2

Violations

1st 3 months aftercamera installation

une 1, 2015 thruAugust 31, 2015

1,172 414

The total crash rate at the Alexander/Broadway intersection has decreased since thecamera was installed as well as the right angle crash rate and rear end crash rate. Theviolations have decreased significantly since the cameras were installed, approximately64.7%. It is noted that MCDOT extended the yellow clearance interval by 0.5 seconds onAlexander Street at the Broadway/Alexander intersection on March 15, 2010, prior tothe camera’s Go live Date.

Intersection: State @ Jay, Go Live Date: 11/09/10

Camera location(s):

Northbound & Southbound

Pre-Camera

1/01/07-11/09/10

Post-Camera

11/09/10-12/31/14Total

CrashesCrash Rate

(crashes/year)Total

CrashesCrash Rate

(crashes/year)


Total Injury 1 0.3 4 1.0


Total Right Angle w/Injury 0 0 3 0.7


Total crashes involving disregardof a traffic control device

4 1.0 2 0.5

Total Injury crashes involvingdisregard of a traffic control

device0 0 2 0.5

Violations


June 1, 2015 thruAugust 31, 2015

2,210 459

The total crash rate, right angle crash rate and rear-end crash rates have increased slightly.However, violations have decreased significantly, 79.2%.


14/33

9 November 2014

Updated March 2016


Intersection: North @ Clifford, Go Live Date: 11/09/10

Camera location(s):Northbound & Southbound

Pre-Camera1/01/07-11/09/10

Post-Camera11/09/10-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes





a traffic control device 8 2.1 2 0.5

Total Injury crashes involvingdisregard of a traffic control device 3 0.8 2 0.5


camera installation une 1, 2015 thruAugust 31, 2015

383 474

In general crash rates have decreased significantly at North & Clifford. Violations have

increased slightly, approximately 23.8%, from 383 during the first three months followingcamera installation to 474 during the last three months of this study.

Intersection: Dewey@ Ridgeway, Go Live Date: 2/19/11

Camera location(s):Eastbound & Southbound

Pre-Camera

1/01/07-2/19/11

Post-Camera

2/19/11-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes





Total Right Angle w/Injury 6 1.5 1 0.3


Total crashes involving disregard ofa traffic control device

10 2.4 2 0.5


5 1.2 0 0

Violations



595 896

All crash rates have decreased significantly at Dewey & Ridgeway. Violations haveincreased from 595 to 896, approximately 50.6%.

Intersection: Clinton @ Norton, Go Live Date: 1/27/11


15/33

10 November 2014

Updated March 2016


Camera location(s):


Pre-Camera1/01/07-1/27/11

Post-Camera1/27/11-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes


Total Crashes 24 5.9 8 2 .0




Total Rear End 17 4.2 7 1 .8Total crashes involving disregard of

a traffic control device 3 0.7 0 0Total Injury crashes involving


Violations



619 891

All crash rates have decreased at Clinton & Norton; however violations have increased

approximately 43.9% from 619 to 891.

Intersection: Culver @ East, Go Live Date: 2/12/11

Camera location(s):Northbound & Westbound

Pre-Camera1/01/07-2/12/11

Post-Camera2/12/11-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes



Total Injury 8 2.0 3 0.8Total Right Angle 20 4.9 10 2.6




11 2.7 3 0.8


1 0.2 0 0



892 411

In general, crash rates and violations have both decreased significantly (more than 50% inboth cases) at the Culver/East intersection.

Intersection: Clinton @ Andrews, Go Live Date: 1/27/11


16/33

11 November 2014

Updated March 2016


Camera location(s):

Northbound

Pre-Camera1/01/07-1/27/11

Post-Camera1/27/11-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes





Total Right Angle w/Injury 7 1.7 6 1.5Total Rear End 3 0.7 3 0.8


6 1.5 7 1.8


3 0.7 4 1.0

Violations



174 259

Total crash rates and right angle crash rates have decreased at Clinton & Andrews whilerear end crash rates have increased slightly. Violations have also increased, approximately48.9%, from 174 to 259.

Intersection: West @ Ames, Go Live Date: 6/03/11

Camera location(s):

Southbound

Pre-Camera1/01/07-6/03/11

Post-Camera6/03/11-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes



Total Injury 4 0.9 0 0Total Right Angle 3 0.7 0 0




1 0.2 0 0


0 0 0 0

Violations



3176 764

All types of crash rates have decreased significantly, more than 70%, at this intersection.In addition, violations have decreased very significantly (approximately 75.6%) from 3,176to 764.


17/33

12 November 2014

Updated March 2016


Intersection: W. Main @ Brown @ Genesee,Go Live Date: 6/03/11

Camera location(s):Eastbound

Pre-Camera

1/01/07-6/03/11

Post-Camera

6/03/11-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes







5 1.1 1 0.3


4 0.9 0 0



563 474

All types of crash rates have decreased at W. Main & Brown. Violations are downapproximately 15.8%.

Intersection: State @ Allen, Go Live Date: 7/31/11

Camera location(s):


Pre-Camera1/01/07-7/31/11

Post-Camera7/31/11-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes







a traffic control device19 4.1 7 2.1


9 2.0 3 0.9

Violations



2969 356

All types of crash rates have decreased at the State & Allen intersection with theexception of total injury and rear end crash rates which have both increased slightly. It is

noted that the lane configurations were modified in the fall of 2012 to eliminate thesouthbound dual left from State Street onto the Inner Loop eastbound. The approachbecame a single left turn lane and a through only lane (instead of a left turn lane and sharedleft and through lane). In addition, NYSDOT added back plates to the signal heads inMarch 2015. Violations have decreased by the greatest amount, 88%, at this intersection.


18/33

13 November 2014

Updated March 2016


Intersection: St. Paul @ Upper Falls Blvd, Go Live Date: 9/30/11


Pre-Camera1/01/07-9/30/11

Post-Camera9/30/11-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes


Total Crashes 31 6.5 27 8.3Total Injury 10 2.1 8 3 .0




disregard of a traffic control device 4 0.8 2 0.6

Violations



1431 426

Total crash rates, injury crash rates, and rear end crash rates have increased at the St.Paul/Upper Falls Blvd intersection. However, violations have decreased significantly from1,431 to 426, approximately 70.2%.

Intersection: Brown @ Broad, Go Live Date: 9/30/11

Camera location(s):

Westbound

Pre-Camera1/01/07-9/30/11

Post-Camera9/30/11-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes








7 1.5 0 0


0 0 0 0



1083 800

All types of crash rates have decreased along with violations (approximately 26.1%) at the

Brown/Broad intersection.


19/33

14 November 2014

Updated March 2016


Intersection: Lyell @ Murray, Go Live Date: 9/30/11


Pre-Camera1/01/07-9/30/11

Post-Camera9/30/11-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes







2 0.4 0 0


2 0.4 0 0

Violations



685 633

Crash rates have decreased at Lyell and Murray during the study period and violationshave decreased slightly from 685 to 633 (7.6%).

Intersection: Maple @ Saxton, Go Live Date: 9/30/11

Camera location(s): Westbound

Pre-Camera1/01/07-9/30/11

Post-Camera9/30/11-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes




Total Right Angle w/Injury 0 0 1 0.3

Total Rear End 3 0.6 0 0


0 0 1 0


0 0 1 0.3

Violations



73 25

Based on the available data at Maple and Saxton, there were very few crashes during thepre and post-camera periods. Violations have decreased significantly from 73 to 25(65.8%).


20/33

15 November 2014

Updated March 2016


Intersection: Norton @ Hudson, Go Live Date: 10/17/11

Camera location(s):Southbound

Pre-Camera1/01/07-10/17/11

Post-Camera10/17/11-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes







5 1.0 0 0


1 0.2 0 0



1425 832

All types of crash rates have decreased during the study period at the Norton/Hudson

intersection with the exception of the total injury crash rate which remainedapproximately the same. Violations have also decreased by 41.6%.

Intersection: Broad @ Ford @ W Main, Go Live Date: 10/31/11


Pre-Camera1/01/07-10/31/11

Post-Camera10/31/11-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes




Total Right Angle w/Injury 3 0.6 0 0Total Rear End 40 8.3 14 4.4

Total crashes involving disregard ofa traffic control device 6 1.2 0 0

Total Injury crashes involvingdisregard of a traffic control device 3 0.6 0 0

Violations



4871 1976

All types of crash rates have decreased at Broad and Ford. Violations have also decreasedsignificantly from 4,871 to 1,976 or 59.4%.


21/33

16 November 2014

Updated March 2016


Intersection: W. Ridge @ Ridgeway, Go Live Date: 11/23/11


Pre-Camera1/07/07-11/23/11

Post-Camera11/23/11-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes







2 0.4 2 0.7


1 0.2 1 0.3

Violations



1680 803

Based on the available data at W. Ridge and Ridgeway, all types of crash rates haveincreased since installation of the cameras. Although violations have decreased 52.2% from1,680 to 803.

Intersection: Lake @ Driving Park, Go Live Date: 12/12/11

Camera location(s):Northbound & Southbound

Pre-Camera1/01/07-12/12/11

Post-Camera12/12/11-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes







2 0.4 3 1.0


1 0.2 2 0.7



1688 1986

At the Lake and Driving Park intersection, all types of crash rates have decreased withthe exception of right angle and right angle injury crash rates which have increased.Violations have increased from 1,688 to 1,986 (an increase of 17.7%).


22/33

17 November 2014

Updated March 2016


Intersection: Lake @ Ridgeway, Go Live Date: 12/12/11

Camera location(s):Northbound

Pre-Camera1/01/07-12/12/11

Post-Camera12/12/11-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes







12 2.4 3 1.0


2 0.4 2 0.7

Violations



1275 1681

The total crash rates, rear end crash rates, and injury crash rates involving disregard of atraffic control device have increased. All other crash rates have decreased. In addition,violations have increased from 1,275 to 1,681 or 31.8%.

Intersection: W. Ridge @ Bonesteel, Go Live Date: 1/12/12


Pre-Camera1/01/07-1/12/12

Post-Camera1/12/12-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes







2 0.4 0 0


1 0.2 0 0

Violations



739 440

All types of crash rates have decreased at W. Ridge and Bonesteel with the exception ofright angle crash rates which have approximately the same crash rate before and aftercamera installation. Violations have decreased 40.5% from 739 to 440.


23/33

18 November 2014

Updated March 2016


Intersection: Mt. Read @ Lyell, Go Live Date: 2/12/11

Camera location(s):Eastbound & Southbound

Pre-Camera1/01/07-2/12/11

Post-Camera2/12/11-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes



Total Right Angle 2 0.5 4 1.0Total Right Angle w/Injury 0 0 1 0.3



disregard of a traffic control device 0 0 1 0.3



918 366

Overall there is no significant change in the crash rates at Mt. Read and Lyell. Violationshave decreased significantly from 918 to 366 or 60.1%

Intersection: Mt. Read @ Emerson, Go Live Date: 4/04/12

Camera location(s):


Pre-Camera1/01/07-4/04/12

Post-Camera4/04/12-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes



Total Right Angle 19 3.6 3 1 .1Total Right Angle w/Injury 13 2.5 0 0




Violations



2982 762

Overall crash rates have decreased at Mt. Read and Emerson with the exception of rearend crash rates which have increased. Violations have decreased significantly, 74.4%, from2,982 to 762. It is noted that NYSDOT extended the clearance interval at this intersectionafter the cameras were installed to correct a programming error.


24/33

19 November 2014

Updated March 2016


Intersection: N. Goodman @ E. Main, Go Live Date: 8/10/12


Pre-Camera1/01/07-8/10/12

Post-Camera8/10/12-12/31/14

TotalCrashes


TotalCrashes



Total Right Angle 4 0.7 0 0Total Right Angle w/Injury 2 0.4 0 0


a traffic control device 0 0 0 0Total Injury crashes involving

disregard of a traffic control device 0 0 0 0

Violations


June 1, 2015 th

red light camera effectiveness evaluation

Documents