More than 150 U.S. cities use red-light cameras to nail traffic offenders, and Kansas City might be next. “I hope we look at it, we study it, and we find this is another tool to deal with safety issues on the road,” City Manager Wayne Cauthen said.

Remember the last time you stood on your brakes at an intersection to avoid a jerk who had just blown through a red light?

As you daubed at the spilled coffee, corralled the overturned groceries and calmed the frightened kids, did you think: “Sure wish a cop could have seen that”?

In Kansas City and several other cities around the metro area, solace soon may be yours.

At the urging of Mayor Kay Barnes and City Manager Wayne Cauthen, a Kansas City task force will consider the merits of installing cameras at selected intersections to combat both red-light runners and speeders. The group’s recommendations are expected later this spring. Other cities are awaiting Kansas City’s experience to try cameras of their own.

Nationally, the use of cameras to nab red-light runners and other traffic scofflaws has jumped from 30 cities in 1999 to more than 150 today.

Cauthen has experienced such cameras firsthand — a photo radar system nailed him for speeding when he served in the Denver mayor’s office. Now he’s interested in whether the cameras could reduce red-light running and speeding in Kansas City while providing additional money.

“I hope we look at it, we study it, and we find this is another tool to deal with safety issues on the road,” he said.

Traffic engineers tested red-light cameras in Overland Park and Olathe in 2002 and said they counted thousands of potential violators, but proposals to begin a formal program stalled in the Kansas Legislature.

Meanwhile, the cameras are starting to catch on in Missouri.

In October, red-light cameras went live at four intersections in Arnold, a St. Louis suburb. The cities of St. Louis and Springfield have approved their use. Closer to home, cameras will be installed by the end of June at a dangerous intersection in Sugar Creek.

A vendor representative said officials in Gladstone, Oak Grove, Belton and Independence are all interested in red-light cameras and are waiting to see what Kansas City will do.

But the task force also will have to confront a strong public perception that the cameras invade privacy and are a ploy to raise money. At a recent public forum, opponents outnumbered proponents by a large margin.

“I think the citizens are being taken advantage of. I feel the red-light situation is not about safety but about revenues,” said Mark Porter, who is active with urban community organizations. “How many people have died? Is this an epidemic? Are lights being run all of a sudden? It’s a fundraiser for the state and the city.”

Kansas City traffic statistics don’t indicate a rash of red-light running, and some police officers say privately they’re not convinced that red-light cameras are necessary. Speed is the biggest factor in KC accidents, but cameras to catch speeders are controversial in other places and might be here, too.

“We’re opposed to photo radar,” said Mike Right, a spokesman for AAA Missouri, who added that the organization generally supports red-light cameras if they are coupled with other traffic safety measures, such as roadway engineering improvements and additional patrol enforcement.

“There’s a certain degree of certainty about running a red light, as opposed to exceeding the speed limit by a few miles per hour,” Right said.

Alarm bells about roadway safety went off last year when Kansas City traffic deaths soared to 71, a 38 percent increase, after several years of unusually low numbers. In nine of those fatalities, red-light running was a contributing circumstance. Out of 21,700 crashes in Kansas City in 2005, red-light violations were a contributing circumstance in 713. Of those, 397 crashes involved injuries.

Since 2000, inattention and excessive speed have been by far the largest factors listed in Kansas City traffic fatalities and injury accidents.

Positive results

Still, some studies have found that red-light cameras make a significant difference.

An April 2005 study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration looked at red-light cameras in seven cities in California, Maryland and North Carolina. It found that right-angle crashes dropped 25 percent, while rear-end crashes increased 15 percent. Rear-end collisions can result when drivers slam on the brakes to avoid getting a ticket. But right-angle crashes generally result in more severe injuries and property damage.

“Red-light camera systems would be most beneficial at intersections where there are relatively few rear-end crashes and many right-angle ones,” the study said.

Some studies found that red-light running dropped 40 percent to 60 percent after the cameras were in use for six months to a year.

Photo radar systems are less common and haven’t been as thoroughly studied. But one 2002 study in Washington, D.C., found that traffic speeds at seven selected sites dropped, and the proportion of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more than 10 mph declined significantly.

The Colorado cities of Boulder and Fort Collins have both used red-light cameras. A Boulder study of four intersections found that violations dropped from 153 daily in 1998 to 66 daily in 2003, and accidents dropped from 18 per year in 1998 to eight per year in 2003.

In Fort Collins, red-light cameras helped reduce broadside accidents at a very busy intersection between 1998 and 2005, even as traffic volume went up. But traffic engineers were concerned that rear-end collisions skyrocketed at the same location, from 20 in 1998 to 53 in 1005.

They then increased the yellow-light interval by one second, and that took care of the problem.

Closer to home, a 2002 pilot study of three busy intersections in Overland Park and Olathe caught thousands of red-light runners over six to seven months. (The cameras photographed violators, but no tickets were issued.) Olathe had as many as 33 red-light violations per day at Santa Fe Street and Mur Len Road.

Overland Park traffic engineer Brian Shields said the data had been collected to convince the Kansas Legislature that “red-light running is not just a phenomenon on the East and West coasts.”

Shields hopes that lawmakers will consider a state law endorsing red-light cameras in 2007.

“Overall, we got information that showed exactly what we thought it was going to show. There was a problem,” Shields said. “Now it’s just a matter of convincing the Legislature and getting their blessing.”

Public perception

In Missouri, cities are taking a different approach, seeking to pursue red-light cameras through local ordinances rather than through a state law.

Missouri cities can learn from others’ missteps.

In San Diego in 2001, a judge dismissed 300 red-light camera citations, saying a private vendor had too much control over the program. A different vendor took over in 2003, but lawyers filed a statewide class-action lawsuit contesting the program.

In 2002, the California state auditor cautioned that when vendors get paid per ticket, they have an “inherent interest in maximizing the number of citations,” which can increase the public perception of manipulation of the system.

Perhaps the most vociferous critic of red-light cameras is Dick Armey, a former U.S. House majority leader. In a 2001 report, Armey said some cities were raking in millions of dollars in fines and suggested they were a “hidden tax being levied on motorists today.”

He cited one camera at a tricky intersection in Washington, D.C., that produced $1.5 million in fines over six months. District police eventually removed the camera.

Vendors recommend that Kansas City police control the issuance of the tickets and place cameras only where red-light running is the biggest problem. Most programs recommend public awareness campaigns and the placement of warning signs before the cameras go live.

While a few cities have lost money on the systems, most have received thousands of dollars in new revenue. Kansas City Police Chief Jim Corwin has said he will only endorse the use of cameras if he’s convinced that the motivation is public safety, not making money.

Some residents have wondered how much money Kansas City would have to shell out for such a program. One vendor, American Traffic Solutions, says the city wouldn’t have to pay anything upfront. The company would pay for the installation — which could run $100,000 per camera — and could then be paid back over time by getting a portion of the fines.