The Committee on Pedestrian and Traffic Safety is now called to order for May 13th, 2025.
We will now have a roll call to establish quorum.
Chairman LaSpada, present.
Vice Chair Cruz may be hopping online.
Alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Robinson.
Alderman Yancey.
Alderman Chico.
Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Moore via the Internet.
Now, we'll be with you in just one moment.
Alderman Curtis.
Vice Mayor Burnett.
Alderman Irvin.
Alderman Knudsen is on his way.
Alderman Lawson.
Alderman Martin.
And Alderman Manahopnoy.
We have 10 members present.
We have a quorum.
Alderman Curtis, good to see you, sir.
Yes, sir.
We also have non-member Villegas with us.
Good morning, sir.
Committee members, Cruz and Moore have requested to participate in the meeting remotely pursuant to Rule 59.
Can I have a motion to allow Alders, Cruz and Moore to participate remotely?
Alderman Irvin.
So moves.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those in favor, say nay in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Alderman Moore.
Alderman Moore is present.
Great to have you, sir.
Alderman Cruz, Vice Chair Cruz.
Hey, there we are.
Promote to you, panelists.
Great to have you with us, Vice Chair Cruz.
Here.
Thank you.
Great to have you, Vice Chair.
At this time, we will begin the public comment period.
Out of respect for everyone's time, each speaker is limited to three minutes.
Our first speaker is George Blakemore.
Let me count these people here.
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.
Why is it only seven people here?
The people are telling you something.
They're tired of it.
It's more Alderman here than it is people.
They're tired.
They're tired of this doo-doo, this democratic machine.
They're tired.
You made me do this.
You made me hate you.
I didn't want to do it.
But all the time, you knew it.
By your action, all y'all are Democrats.
There's a safe pool down here.
Mr. Blakemore, why don't you talk about what's going on with the agenda?
I'm totally against parking where one person can have a prohibit.
He can have private parking on city streets.
You need a garage.
When you pay your tax, all that money is for the streets.
And you're going to let a certain group of people in a neighborhood have free parking for some tax.
That's undemocratic.
Go back to the empty seat.
Go back.
Nobody's here.
That's how they can get away with this doo-doo.
Mr. Blakemore, I've seen you saying doo-doo and S-H-I.
I'm going to say nigger, too.
Where are they?
Who would allow an altman to use the term nigger?
And you forgive him.
Pause.
So that is strike number one.
That's not language that we're going to have.
If you choose that word again, I want to inform you, that's going to be strike two.
And that's going to be it.
Strike number one.
You, but nobody is above the law.
Man, what you want to do, you want the tribe to come and sign a complaint on me and say,
Mr. Blakemore can't come back until August the 9th.
If an altman used this term and you didn't cite him, why are you citing me?
Why are you citing me?
Are you of the altman above the law?
You all are bullying.
Don't bully me.
I'm not the one.
I am not the one.
Who do you think you are?
Why didn't you tell, why didn't you tell the altman, the same thing that you, that you're telling me?
Why didn't you do this?
Let me.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Mr. Mark J. Wallace.
Thank you, Mark.
Nobody.
What's that?
Good afternoon.
My name is Mark Wallace.
I'm the executive director of Citizens to Abolish Red Light Cameras, and we are opposed to the city expanding speed cameras for the following reason.
Now, we have provided all 50 aldermen with an analysis of the city's own crash data pre-implementation and post-implementation of red light cameras.
So you all have received an email of that, and each one of the members of the committee has received one of the speed cameras pre- and post-implementation in your wards.
Following our analysis on the photo enforcement of speed cameras before and after implementation, evidence of the analysis suggests that the city should refrain from expanding the use of speed cameras.
Through FOIA, we have discovered that the radar equipment's accuracy is off by 0.62 miles per hour, as admitted by the company that calibrates the cameras from the city's own information.
This discrepancy implies that individuals ticketed for driving six miles per hour over the posted speed limit.
In fact, only were driving 5.38 miles per hour.
Notably, over 30% of all speed camera tickets issued were reported at 26 miles an hour in school safety zones or 36 miles per hour in park safety zones.
Our analysis of accidents pre- and post-speed camera implementation reveals little to no reduction in accidents within one-eighth of a mile of speed cameras, park safety zones, or school safety zones.
Comparing crash data for the 162 existing camera locations with the currently announced 16 new camera locations shows that there is basically the same percentage of accidents currently at the 16 locations that have never had speed cameras there as to the 162 that have had cameras for 10 years.
The city of Chicago is well aware of specific studies and reports that consistently show photo enforcement provides little traffic safety improvements.
I can outline several reasons why the Chicago City Council should vote no to expand speed camera.
programs based on common arguments and concerns. Studies suggest that speed cameras do not
significantly reduce accidents or improve safety in the long term. We argue that speeding
behaviors can be better addressed through education and awareness campaigns and rather
solely relying on automated enforcements. The automated speed camera program started in 2014.
The number of speed violations. Thank you, sir. Our next speaker is, and forgive me if I pronounce
your last name wrong, Joseph Negro. Thank you. Good afternoon. It is Joseph Negro. I'm a native
Chicagoan and living in the 41st Ward. As an Uber and Lyft driver, I see it becoming harder and harder
to make ends meet, and I believe the council should pass the fair share ordinance currently in workforce
committee. I'll speak to pedestrian and traffic safety in a moment. But first, when I started 10
years and 27,000 rides ago, it was able as a driver to make a decent living. We would get guaranteed 80%
of the fares that passengers paid. Today, I'm lucky if the algorithms give me 50%. The fair share
ordinance would eliminate the profiteering algorithms and rebalance the system in favor of Chicago's
passengers and drivers. So passengers won't get gouged, and drivers will be able to continue to
earn a living. Driving safety is a big problem. Just a few weeks ago, another driver was attacked.
Despite doing everything right, they tried to rob and carjack him. When that failed, they brutally beat
him with a gun, leaving him in pain and with $40,000 in dental work. It's a sad thing to say that for a driver,
being lucky, means he wasn't shot and made it home safely to his family. The ordinance requires the
companies to make meaningful improvements to safety with transparency mechanisms to keep them
accountable. That part of the ordinance is left open, allowing the companies to implement changes.
I would ask everyone here to help us get this ordinance passed, and that this committee should get
involved with the safety improvement process, especially working with the companies to fix
problems with passenger pickup and drop-off, either with designated zones or prompting passengers to
request pickup on side streets out of traffic. I regularly get rides asking me to pick up passengers
in a bus or bike lane. Streets like Milwaukee have multiple bike lanes, parking lanes, and travel lanes
that meander back and forth. Imagine trying to navigate all that safely while still trying to
look for a place to pull over. As passengers and drivers, we know that something is wrong with the
current system. It is broken. However, this system has been intentionally built by these mega
corporations. Over a decade of paying programmers to write millions of lines of code that exploit us with
every transaction. Your constituents need you to stand up for us. This should be unanimous. We need you
to look out for our interests, not to protect these billion-dollar corporations and their
algorithms. Please pass the fair share ordinance now. Thank you.
Thank you, Joseph. Our accounting vice mayor Burnett, for purposes of the forum, and
Alderman Knudsen as well. Good to have you, sir. Our next speaker is Patricia Puente Blancas.
Good afternoon. My name is Patricia Puente Blancas. I'm here because I have a concern about the cars
driving like crazy. Okay, especially on the month of September, the Mexican Independence Days,
the car keep on passing the red light. This is what they state, cash me if you can. Unfortunately,
I'm sorry, if you can please put some red lights enforcement lights, enforcement lights, sorry,
I got mixed up. So that the people that are passing the red lights on purpose, it will hurt their pockets.
And not only that, but the city needs the money. The law enforcement cannot do their job because they are
not permitted to follow the cars when they are passing the red lights. So let the people that are passing
the red lights, pay the tickets. Please put a red light enforcement. Hopefully, when they get the
tickets, they will stop passing the red light. The red light enforcement cameras will be paid off
by the same people that are passing the red lights. When the people, you know, hopefully like that,
the people will start abiding by the law. You know, accountability. The Chicago Ordinance 912-060
specifies that, this is another case, sorry. The Chicago Ordinance 912-060 specifies that the standing
parking or using parking or using a bus stop line occurs a fine of $90. Right here in front of LaSalle
Street, in front of City Hall, city cars are parking their car in front of the bus stop.
What gives them that privilege? The people cannot even get off the bus because the city cars are
there. I mean, you know, their cars are parked there. Ensure the rule of law and making real the
promise of equal justice under the law. Not just because you work for the city, you are allowed
to park your car in front of the bus stop. Thank you very much. Have a nice day. Thank you, Ms. Landis.
Our final speaker is Cyrus Dalashati or Dalabati. Apologies if I'm never there. It's all good.
Hi, I'm Cyrus Dalashati. I wrote a bunch, but basically I'm here to support, state by support
for speed cameras, respectfully. I feel like they work. Drivers know where they are. We slow down
when we know there's a camera there. I feel like the main issue is taxing people for whom $50 is a lot
of money. You know, I mean, somebody who is coming home from their second job where maybe it was slow
and they only made $50 all day getting a ticket for $50 going six miles an hour of the limit.
I feel like it's pretty easy to not do that. You can install cameras. It's going to be pretty quick
to compile a list of the top 200 crazy drivers in Chicago. You don't have to fine everybody,
but you can start to acquire that data at least. And so I am just here to say that I support that.
So thank you. Thank you very much. This concludes the public comment period. The committee also received
one written comment that was emailed out to committee members. Our first order of business
is the Rule 45 report from April, which was sent out via email and distributed to committee members.
Can I have a motion to approve the April Rule 45 report? All the women, Manah Hoppenworth,
so moves. All those in favor of passing the report say aye. All those opposed say nay. In the opinion
of the chair, the ayes have it. We will now begin with the items before the committee. We are going to go
out of order to begin with the routine items, starting with the direct introduction ordinances
on pages two and three. Can I have a motion to recommend approval of all direct introduction
ordinances on pages two and three by the same roll call vote as was applied to determine quorum?
Alderman Martin, so moves. Hearing no objections, so ordered. Let us turn to pages four through seven
for the recommended portion of the agenda. For items three and five on page four, we received
substitute ordinances that make changes to the language per CDOT's recommendation. These substitutes
were distributed via email and handed out today. Can I have a motion to accept these two substitute
ordinances? Alderman Quinn, so moves. Hearing no objections, so ordered. And can I have a motion to
recommend approval of all recommended items on pages four through seven, including the accepted
substitutes for items three and five on page four by the same roll call vote as was applied to determine
quorum? Alderman Lawson, so moves. Hearing no objections, so ordered. We will now turn to pages eight
through 14 for the no recommendation portion of the agenda, which are items that receive no recommendation
from city departments. These ordinances were submitted as overrides.
are on the agenda at the request of the alterperson, or do not require departmental approval.
For items 9 and 11 on page 13, as well as item 5 on page 14, we have received substitute ordinances
that also make changes to the language per CDOT's recommendation. These substitutes were emailed and
distributed today. Can I have a motion to accept these three substitute ordinances?
So moved by alterperson Lamont Robinson, hearing no objections, so ordered. And can I have a motion
to recommend approval of all no recommendation items on pages 8 through 14, including the
accepted substitutes for items 9 and 11 on page 13 and item 5 on page 14, by the same roll call vote
as was applied to determine quorum. I'll give this one to Alderman Quinn. So moves, hearing no
objections, so ordered. Now we will return to page 1 of the agenda. Item 2 on page 1 is a
municipal code amendment sponsored by Alderman Martin 02024-0016753, amendment of municipal code
section 9-100-030, allowing city to vacate final determination of liability on certain parking
slash standing violations for vehicles reported to enforcement agencies as stolen. We also have a
substitute for this item that was emailed out and distributed today. I will pass to Alderman Martin
to speak to this item and the substitute. And we also have Christopher Cobb from the Department of Law
to present and answer any questions. Alderman Martin. Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, colleagues.
The genesis of this ordinance was that over the last several years, we've received a number of
complaints from constituents about stolen vehicles, vehicles that have been carjacked, racking up tickets
that add insult to injury when it comes to getting a notice in the mail that the car that was stolen
from you racked up tickets that you are responsible for. So in talking with Department of Finance and others,
we are looking to address this issue in several ways. One is making sure that it's easier to get
the police reports associated with these thefts and carjackings so that someone doesn't have to go down to
35th and Michigan to get that report and deal with their insurance. So work is underway with CPD.
Second is to empower the Department of Finance. If a resident reaches out and says, here's information
I have. My car was stolen. It was carjacked. Can you please waive this ticket? This empowers the Department
of Finance to do that. So we would like to, moving forward, obviously, meld the systems between CPD
and Finance so that they could do this proactively without a resident reaching out to them. Those
systems currently can't speak to one another right now. So this is the next best option.
In short, when a resident reaches out to the Department of Finance saying, here's the situation,
Department of Finance will confirm that that theft ultimately occurred, then the ticket will go away.
We've received assurances from the Department of Finance that it would take approximately two weeks
after passage of this amendment, should passage occur, to advertise this option and provide the
phone number on their website and then other notices that they share out. Happy to answer any
questions and would appreciate the committee's favorable consideration.
Does anyone have questions for either Alderman Martin or Mr. Cobb?
Thank you, Chair. Maybe just real quick. I want to better understand what is happening now,
right? So I understand the systems, two systems from Finance and CPD aren't talking to each other,
but do you have residents, and I think vehicular issues are going up, and so this is becoming more
of an issue, but are residents getting bounced from one to the other when it comes to the ticket itself?
I'll let Chris chime in on this, but my understanding is it's primarily an issue with Department of
Finance, even if it starts with someone contacting CPD, and ultimately what's been flagged for us is that
people have gone all the way to contesting an administrative hearing and saying this is a real
hassle for me to have to go downtown, contest this. Typically they are successful in doing so,
but our goal ultimately is to remove them as early on in the process as possible so that ideally
they wouldn't even get this ticket issued or they would get a subsequent notification that was
waived proactively, but until those systems are able to talk, them being able to reach out to
Finance quickly to get this dealt with so they don't have to go through the administrative hearing
process. That's what we're hoping to do. Chris, have I misrepresented anything?
No. Hello, everyone. This is on. Christopher Cole with the Law Department. Alderman Martin, I think you
captured the current situation well. I can't speak for the Department of Finance,
but I do believe that is the current circumstances. I'll also add that this ordinance would authorize
the department to vacate the determinations after they've gone through the full administrative
adjudication process. Right now, if that happens and then they contact the department that
adjudication was founded on a stolen vehicle, they'd have to go to circuit court to get that
administratively reviewed. So this will allow the controller to do that himself.
Great. Thanks to you both. I'm glad you brought this forward. I'd make the motion if there's no
other questions. Well, there's going to be a motion to accept the substitute first.
Can I make both? You know what? I know. I'm asking for a lot, Chair.
Yes, indeed. In this committee, I know.
Any other questions for Alderman Martin? All right. Well, with that said, Alderman Lawson moves to
accept the substitute hearing. Actually, let's do this all on the record. I am requesting a motion to
accept the substitute ordinance SO 2025-0016735. Alderman Lawson, so moves. Hearing no objections, so
ordered. Following thereafter, I am requesting a motion to recommend approval of this substitute
ordinance SO 2025-0016735 by the same roll call vote as was applied to determine quorum. Once again,
Alderman Lawson so moves. When hearing no objections, so ordered. Thank you very much,
Alderman Martin, for your leadership on this matter. Really appreciate it. We will report
these items out at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Moving on to our final order
of business, item one on page one, which is a subject matter hearing in accordance with the
resolution sponsored by Alderman Villegas on the installation of speed cameras at various locations
in Chicago during 2025. We have Commissioners Tom Carney and Managing Deputy Commissioner
Veig Krishnamurthy present from the Department of Transportation to speak to this item approaching
the dais. But before they begin, I will pass to Alderman Villegas, who wishes to speak.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Listen, I thought that this
conversation was needed, given the fact that during the last budget, there was discussion around 50
cameras being installed and some of the discussion around revenue. And I wanted to make sure we were
focused on public safety. And so, Chairman, thank you for allowing this hearing to occur, because I think
it's important that we get things under record. We do have legislation that was passed in Springfield
that specifically talked about data-driven installations. And so, I want to make sure that we're following
the law. And we do have corresponding ordinances as well that speak to that. And so, I want to make sure
that the codes, the code, and some of the subsequent language is being adhered to. And so, we know that
in Chicago, at one point, we led the nation in bankruptcies as relates to fines and fees.
We want to make sure that we're not putting our citizens of Chicago in a position where we can
reclaim that title of number one in bankruptcies for citizens. So, we just want to get some answers.
I've had some discussions with colleagues. Some want to make sure that the law is being adhered to as well,
the spirit of the law. And so, I just have a couple of questions. But, Mr. Chairman,
if you wanted to allow the department to speak first, and then how do you want it to work?
If we may, let's do the presentation. Thank you.
And then we'll move to questions and comments, first from yourself and then the full committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Corney and Managing Deputy Commissioner Christian Amurthy, thank you for being with us.
Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee, for having us here today to
present. I'm Tom Carney, Commissioner, Chicago Department of Transportation. I wanted to share
some top-level opening remarks and from what I see and information that I think would be useful for
the members of the committee. And then I'll turn it over to my colleague, Vig, to walk us through the
PowerPoint. I wanted to level set that this decision to ask...
the 50 cameras, certainly, you know, safety in mind, but it also in how we interact with
members of council, there was a backlog for many years of requests from council
seeking speed cameras at various locations. We had some words that would, it was almost like
right on cue, they would re-up their letter to ask again. And certainly behind those requests
are members of the community, whether it's parents, concerned parents or principals or,
you know, parents from the schools that were very vocal and letting their elected official know that
there's a problem at this location, there's a safety concern. So this effort that we've embarked on
in 2025 has really gone a long way to addressing some of these locations that were well documented
as being areas of concern in our city, safety and crash-wise. And what will be reflected here in
the PowerPoint today, there's kind of three things that I see that I really want to drive home
to members of the committee here.
These cameras, when they go in at these locations, the data shows that after the cameras are in,
there's a lower number of crashes. And that's a good thing for our city and for our residents and
folks using the public way. And then another data point is behind lower crashes, there's data that
shows there's lower speeds, right? And that's another good thing in terms of promoting the safety
going forward. And then the third factor is because there's lower speeds, if you look at these
locations, the number of citations goes down. It trends down because people are slowing down
and they're going through these safety zones, whether park or school, they're going through it at a safer
speed. So those three data points trend for all the cameras. And we'll go into a little bit more on
that in the presentation. A couple of final high-level thoughts is to keep in, for everyone to keep
into context, if you look at New York City, they have over 2,300 speed cameras in their city. I want
to repeat that, 2,300. So we were going from 162 to 212. We're adding 50. So if you give that some
context of 2,300 versus a little over 200. And I think it speaks to what I think is what this has
enabled and further enabled is, you know, we view, we get requests from council for traffic studies and
looking at ways to solve problems. And we view it as a toolbox. And we at the Department of
Transportation like to present tools to the wards to figure out what's the right fit to address the
concerns at that location. It might be, it might be putting, you know, pedestrian refuge island. It
might be adding curb extensions. It might be adding speed humps, you know, whatever's going on at these
different locations. And this is allowing us to have another tool in the toolbox because it might
be at a location that the best way to have a safer condition out there is a speed camera. So
the department and the wards and our city having an extra tool in the toolbox is a good thing
for the overall safety and greater good. So again, those are some just top line bits of information I
thought would be useful for the members of the committee to have. At this point, I'll turn it
over to Managing Deputy Christian Murthy to walk us through the PowerPoint. Thank you, Commissioner.
Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon. Big Christian Murthy, Managing Deputy Commissioner CDOT.
Pardon technical difficulties. All right. Good afternoon again. So I just wanted to start as the
commissioner said, and we are here to discuss the topic of traffic safety. As represented in this
chamber several months ago, we talked about the, or in the committee room, the progress that has been
made over the past years, which is good progress towards making our streets safer. And in the period 2021
to 2023, Chicago did experience a 27% decrease in traffic fatalities citywide. But nevertheless, in spite of
that progress, there are still in 2024, over 100 Chicagoans killed in traffic fatalities. And so as
commissioner said, we really do need all the tools in the toolbox in partnership with council and
communities to continue to get that number towards vision zero. Now, the speed cameras, as the commissioner
mentioned, they are really designed to change behavior in order to reduce crashes. And to put into
context, the number of speed camera citations that are issued on an annual basis, in the year 2024, it was
approximately 2.25 million citations across 162 locations citywide. To give 2.25 million citations some
context, that equates to about 0.3% of all the traffic that passed those cameras. So literally hundreds of millions of
vehicles passing by. And every small percentage of those vehicles actually received a citation.
Now, that being said, it is still a big concern in terms of what we hear about from
council members, from community members, that what does that mean? It means that on average, there are
still 35 dangerous speeding events where someone is traveling either six miles over or even beyond that
over the speed limit, or even three, you know, speeding events per hour on average per camera. So we can
think about, you know, sitting in this chamber for an hour, that could be three vehicles zooming by in
front of LaSalle Street when someone's trying to get to that across the street to wherever they're going.
In terms of how we can validate the behavioral effect of the cameras, as the commissioner said, there's a few
metrics. One of them, we did look at the rate of people who get multiple tickets. So approximately 75% of
individuals or license plates who received one speed violation in 2023 did not receive a second violation
within a year. So in addition to the warnings that are associated with the program, there is some data to
show there that when the first actual violation is received, there's an effect on behavior change in
terms of we don't see those same license plates show up in the data set within a year. Then in 2021,
the department commissioned a independent study by researchers at UIC to specifically try to measure the
safety effect of the cameras. And their conclusion was a 12 to 15% reduction in crashes, as well as
serious injuries and fatalities over that study period. And that translates to looking at the cameras
as a whole over those years of analysis, almost 200, you know, serious injuries or injury crashes
avoided. So the magnitude of that effect is very comparable to other cities. We benchmarked against
New York, and they also see about 15% reduction in crashes at camera locations compared to non-camera.
May I ask a brief point of clarification? You said an average of 75% of drivers don't receive
a second ticket. The slide shows a range of between 66 to 84%. Can you explain the range? Is that based
off of the geographic location of the camera? Yes, Mr. Sherman, the two different data points are
because the analysis was conducted separately for the park zone locations and the school zone locations.
I will have to get back to you on which statistic reflects the 66%, whether it's park or school,
and the 84%. That's fine. But on average, across the system, it's around three quarters. Thank you,
sir. So in terms of what we want to see, speeding violations decrease is another indicator of behavioral
change across the city. If we take the reference period of March 2021 through the spring of 2022,
and compare that to our last 12 months, essentially spring 2024 through this spring, there's been a 65%
reduction in speeding citations issued through the cameras throughout the city. And the interesting thing
is this applies both to the 6 to 10 mile per hour violation as well as the 11 plus mile per hour
violation. So the good news is, we'll see this in the next slide, is that all citation types,
whether it's the 6 to 10 over the speed limit or the 11 plus are coming down. Again, indicative of
behavior change.
to see that reduction.
In terms of speeding, looking at the same reference period,
these data reflect the speeds of vehicles passing by the 162 cameras that are recorded.
So the cameras essentially collect data on what is the condition of the camera.
And looking at that reference period,
we see a, on average, two-mile-per-hour reduction over this time period.
And I know that sounds like a small number,
but referencing other discussions we've had around speeding and speed limits,
we've sort of talked a lot about how even small reductions in speed
can have a very significant impact on safety.
Pardon me, sir, because, again, it's very compelling,
but I think because the font is very small,
I think it's worth drawing attention to the numbers on your y-axis.
I feel like that's illustrative of the actual speeds that folks are driving.
Yes, thank you, Chairman.
So prior to the reference period,
the average speed at the speed camera system-wide was around 22 miles per hour.
And I will flag that the average is sort of that.
It cancels out those individuals who are driving at or below the speed limit
with those who may be driving, you know, 40 or 50 miles per hour,
which we do see those super-speeding incidents.
And in terms of the average, in the last 12-month period,
it's approximately 20 miles per hour.
Thank you.
All right.
So in terms of the program design itself,
we follow the state law.
Audemars, as you mentioned,
and the enabling statute from the state of Illinois,
which allows Chicago to operate a speed camera program within child safety zones,
defines this area shown in green,
which is a considerable amount of the city.
And those are the areas that are one-eighth mile from a park or school.
The state legislation requires cameras to be placed
or enables cameras to be placed only within these defined safety zones.
And for reference,
there are approximately 1,600 potential safety zones within the city of Chicago
based on location of our parks and schools.
On top of that, we have a city council ordinance,
which authorizes only up to 20% of these potential state-authorized safety zones
to actually be equipped with an enforcement camera.
So that would be in the range of approximately 300.
And then prior to the work the department started in 2025,
there were approximately 85 of the 1,600 safety zones actually equipped.
So it's a small percentage of the total possible safety zones within the city.
Further looking at data in terms of when crashes occur,
these multicolored squares are indicative of the rows, if you will,
are the days of the week,
and the columns are the hours of the day.
This data is available in CEDAWT's 2023 annual crash report,
and as part of the tracking,
we do to understand in terms of time of day and day of week
when are crashes occurring.
The darker the color, the more severe the problem.
The school and park safety camera hours are outlined in yellow and orange, respectively.
And this is meant to show that, by and large,
the cameras operate in the hours where there are many of the crashes occurring.
That's not to say that we actually see some severe crashes in the overnight hours,
particularly on the weekends,
which is hours that in Chicago, due to the enabling statute, the cameras do not operate.
But nevertheless, they are targeted towards that set of hours and days when many of the crashes are occurring.
Now, in terms of the process, if you will, to develop a location,
as the commissioner said, it really starts with a concern.
And that concern can be represented both through qualitative data,
the observations, the experiences, the things we hear directly from constituents, from council,
as well as quantitative data, which we presented earlier this year on the annual reporting that CDOT does
to track crashes, crash trends, crash locations citywide.
So those two data streams are then go into a compliance check.
So is a request or particular location that might even be of interest for a speed camera
in compliance with the state law in terms of the distance to school and park requirements?
So if not, the process ends there, no camera.
The second step beyond that is contextual understanding.
So as the commissioner said, there are many, many tools in the toolbox,
and we want to understand, you know, is this a location that are there other site-specific things going on
that this might be a very good location for another tool,
or likewise not a good location for a camera based on contextual factors.
So that may lead to other countermeasures being suggested either in addition to speed cameras
or in replacement two.
Next step is communication, both at the community level as well as the citywide level.
The wards that we work with all have their own tailored process that works for the community
to make sure that as we work towards safer streets,
we're really engaging the right types of feedback and input and community data and making a decision.
But we also publish all our camera locations and the citations data associated with them on the city's open data portal.
And that is part of a commitment to communication in terms of transparency of where these cameras are,
what types of citations are they generating,
so that the analysis that CDOT does can also be replicated independently by academics
or other interest groups as they wish.
And then finally, the last step is compliance hit again.
The camera program does require a variety of statutory compliance measures in terms of reporting.
And so on an annual basis, all the data and evaluation metrics related to cameras are published in an annual report.
The 2023 annual report is available online, and the department will be soon releasing the 2024 report.
As part of that report, we provide the individualized camera data on number of citations,
as well as before and after analysis on safety.
Now, more specifically about the current location of cameras
and the work the department is doing this year,
As Commissioner Carney mentioned, we started the year with about 40 locations on request from communities,
from wards that were essentially on backlog.
This year, we started to re-engage with members of council on those requests
and essentially re-verified, are these backlog requests still of concern?
Perhaps, you know, things change within communities.
There are issues that emerge, and there's issues that have been flow.
So we re-evaluated, are these locations still in compliance with the state law
and is the level of concern both in terms of quantitative and qualitative data there?
We also heard locations of emerging concern, that over the last few years, things change,
traffic patterns evolve, and new locations came to the department's request.
As a result of that process, we've identified 34 locations to date,
of which 23 have been installed, and 11 are in design and construction.
And conversations are ongoing with members of council, some of you here as well,
for other locations, continuing to evaluate them and coordinate community process.
The map simply shows the blue dots of the existing 162 locations prior to 2025,
and the red dots, I'm sorry, it's small, are those locations identified to date.
And then in conclusion, there's also CDOT's ongoing data analysis.
This is a map we've seen probably before, talking about speeding and the concerns citywide around speeding.
The darker the color, the more prevalent the incidence of, you know, what we call super speeding,
where you see those incidents of people traveling 50 miles an hour.
It may only be one or two vehicles, but the level of danger associated with that is very high.
And, you know, below that, there's the 40-mile-per-hour speeding and the 36-mile-per-hour speeding.
We cross-referenced this data set with the eligible safety zones from a couple of slides ago,
and then took the top 33 or one-third of high crash locations that intersect those two data sets
where we see the most speeding and where we see the eligible safety zones
and provided that information to the relevant wards where those conditions exist,
and that's about 30 wards where that, you know, intersection of high-speeding
and potential camera eligibility through state law exists.
So correspondence and communication are ongoing as well regarding that analysis.
That concludes the presentation, and we welcome discussion and questions.
Thank you.
Gentlemen, I appreciate the data and the information very much.
I've learned new things just in the last 15 minutes here.
I've learned new things just in the last 15 minutes here.
only works when it's grounded in trust and transparency and accountability, and I'm
glad that we're providing a space for that. I will toss first four questions to Chairman
Vigas. Alderman Vigas. Thank you, Chairman, and I've learned a lot, too, and I appreciate this
presentation, so thank you for that. Just have some questions. I did get some of the questions
answered based on the presentation. In accordance with our ordinance, it says the amount of the
fine for speeding shall be subject to or set forth by Section 9-10-020D. Do we know how much
that fine is? Is that a question for finance or for you, how much that fine is currently?
We know how much it is. I mean, 6-10 is the 35, and then over 10 miles or 11 and over is
$100. $100. Okay. All right. Thank you for that. The 20% of all eligible safety zones says
that it shall be equipped with automated speed cameras. You mentioned that there's 160 cameras
right now. 50 would bring it to about 212. Is that accurate? Yes, Alderman. So there's a small
decision between how the state measures a safety zone and a camera. One safety zone is associated
with a particular school or park. So the current number of safety zones associated with the 162 cameras
is about 85, meaning on average, some safety zones have more than one camera. An example might be,
you know, a school that's at the corner of Western and 79th Street, and there may be a camera on 79th
and Western. With our locations that we've implemented in 2025, we have implemented one camera per safety
zone. So the overall number of safety zones is a little lower than the total number of cameras
themselves. So I want to make sure I'm getting this correct. So the example you use, 79th and Western,
you could have a speed camera there for the park and for a school if they're within the proximity of
the one eighth of a mile. Is that accurate? What I meant to say is if there's a single school,
there could be two physical cameras, one on Western Avenue, perhaps, and one on 79th Street,
both associated with the same school, because the concern is, let's say, on both streets.
I gotcha.
So the number of cameras themselves is not what the state law or city ordinance tracks. It's those
number of schools or parks that have enforcement associated with them.
I gotcha. Thank you for that. And then the Commissioner of Transportation shall divide the
city into six geographical regions for purpose of installing automated speed enforcement systems.
Um, what's the percentage per region right now? How does that look like?
Um, so we can, we can get that as a follow-up to break it out a little bit. Okay. How that looks.
Okay. And, and, and I think that's important because, uh, Chairman Laspato talked about trust and I want,
we want to make sure that it's not concentrated in certain areas, that there's some diversity amongst the, uh,
camera installations. Um, and then you talked about the Alderman can make recommendations for
sites, but obviously it's just a recommendation because you still have to go through the process
of the safety zones and the state requirements. That's correct, right? Correct. Okay. Um, this is
the one I'm really interested in hearing from you, Commissioner. So the net proceeds received from civil
penalties imposed for a violation of an automated speed, speed enforcement system pursuant to this
chapter. After deducting all the non-personnel personnel costs associated with the operation
and maintenance, what's the percentage, what's that dollar amount for personnel, non-personnel that we
use based on the civil fines? So like where does the revenue from the fines go? Yes. It goes to the
general fund. Right. Could you, could through the chair, if you could let me know what that looks like
for personnel and non-personnel. Sure. And then the other proceeds that are there,
since this is general, this is, uh, this revenue is generated off the, the usage of roads. Does that
additional funds, those additional funds that are above personnel, non-personnel used for
infrastructure improvements, is it, is it applicable through the lockbox scenario that
that's currently in place with the city or is that? No, no. So that's revenue that's fluid that we can
use for different, different types of buckets. It's a yes. And if I may, it's kind of a yes and no,
because if you, could you speak to how state law dictates the four purposes that automated speed
enforcement revenue can be directed towards? Sure. Chairman, um, this is something we can follow up
more through the chair with, um, information from OBM and DOF. But, um, as you alluded to, yes,
there are statutory language, um, which I would defer more to the law department. I think Chris left the
room, uh, on what exactly those four categories are. Um, my understanding is it is not necessarily
appropriated into a specific fund, um, but OBM and finance may be able to better, uh, speak to how
they track the, um, total amount of money, as you said, non-personnel and personnel costs associated
to it. And then spending associated with those four buckets. Alderman Villegas, we can provide
that to you through the chair. I'm more interested in that surplus above the personnel, non-personnel.
How's that money used? Is it strictly earmarked for like lockbox scenario for infrastructure improvements?
And then short answer is no, it like, doesn't come back to see that the program for infrastructure.
And is that, is that per ordinance, per policy, like, because if it's being, if the revenue is
being generated for, from a transportation standpoint, I'm of the opinion that it should
stay with transportation in order to continue to, uh, educate, uh, drivers, but also at the same
time, improve, um, calming, you know, speeding measures within, within the, the city. So if that's
a policy idea or ordinance, I'd be interested in looking at it to make sure that CDOT is, uh,
receiving those necessary funds in order to, uh, not penalize, um, the citizens. And then listen,
you know, we were talking about putting some of these cameras up. Um, could you tell me how many
cameras we've taken down based on the education, right? I mean, the whole purpose is to educate
citizens. We see that the data that you provided shows that there's a reduction, but at some point,
uh, I had an intersection where the camera was removed and CDOT at the time had told me that
the, the numbers had calmed down. And so they were going to take a look at, um, re, re, uh,
reinstalling it in a different location. So can you tell me how many cameras we've taken down
since the programs had in place? Yeah, I don't know the, um, exact number. Maybe Vic knows. I do know
that we have worked with wards where there's been scenarios where they feel that the, um, the situation
has improved at, at one school or park. And then we've looked at, um, the data bears that out.
And then there might be a, uh, uh, another school or park where there's areas of concern that is,
it's a better fit at the time. So we've certainly worked with, uh, several wards on that, um, on,
what kind of a one for one move. Um, I don't know, do you know the exact number? Um, in 2021 and
onward after the UIC study, there were a group of 16 locations that were moved as a cohort based on
that, um, type of valuation. And then in addition to those 16, uh, the commissioner said, the program
has been running for almost, uh, more than 10 years. So there have been those, uh, incremental
relocations, which, uh, we'd have to dig back and see how many, but the 16 was the largest adjustment
in recent, uh, history. At that time, when you put down the 16, how many did we put up the other
16 somewhere else? Correct. The 16 were relocated. Okay, cool. If you could provide that other
information through the chair. Appreciate it. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, chair. Uh, so far in
the queue for questions, we have Audemann Lawson followed by Audemann Martin. Audemann Lawson.
Great. Uh, thanks again, chair. Uh, just a couple of quick questions. Um, I think you said we're at
162 cameras now. How long have we, roughly, how long have we been about that number?
Approximately eight to 10 years. So the, the life of the, the, uh, program, um, safety zones.
So one eighth of a mile of a Parker school is where the state allows us to put speed cameras,
but did I read the slide right that we're only allowed to put them in 20% of the safety zones?
Correct. Audemann. So the state statute dictates the locations that could have a
camera and then the city council ordinance, um, narrows that universe to a smaller subset.
Okay. But this 20% number is a bandaid from the state. We can't put a camera in every state.
That is a city ordinance. That is a city. Okay. Okay. So we are saying we won't put one in front
of every school and park. As passed by city council, I believe in 2013. 2013. Oh, so way back.
That was a long time ago. Um, if you pull the 50 mile an hour or over slide up again. So you notice
what's going on on the North side. Um, we don't have the opportunity to speed quite as well as other
parts of the city that have.
more narrow, wide avenues, and more space between stop signs.
I have, I think, one of the most revenue-generating red turn,
no turn on red cameras in maybe the city at Delmont and Lakeshore.
Red light versus speed cameras.
What's our number on red light cameras?
There are 300 red light cameras.
And this may be through the chair, but revenue-wise,
how does it stack up to red light versus speed cameras?
Do we bring in twice as much on a red light than speed?
That's something I'd get back to you through the chair.
It is available in the annual report, but I'd like to get you the correct number.
No, I appreciate that.
But likely, if there's double the amount of cameras, there's double the amount of violations, perhaps.
Perhaps, but I think we should check it out.
I know. You guys are so exacting, I want you to ballpark it.
So just back to the safety zones, though, the state does exempt Lakeshore Drive.
Specifically, it does not allow us to have cameras on Lakeshore.
And my lakefront colleagues, I know, were frustrated with some of that.
Are there any other roadways, all the expressways, I'm assuming?
That's correct.
So they are – the exemption of the state law is related to what they call limited access roadways,
like expressways, and specifically Lakeshore Drive.
So I guess I would like to – and I don't know how much flexibility we have because part of this is part of the budget,
but it does speak to safety.
I think, you know, in a neighborhood like mine, like I said, the map bears it out on the North Lake front.
You just don't have the ability to get up to the kind of crazy speeds we see other places.
That doesn't mean you don't see somebody going maybe 30 in front of a school for the block,
but I think more and more I'm seeing turns on red where there's pedestrians involved, blowing red lights totally.
And I think we would like to do our part on the plate front too and look at some locations that may be a better fit.
I know you guys gave us ideas for speed camera locations.
I don't think the one is very good that you gave us, because I don't think I have any that are very good, honestly.
But I think more and more we're seeing bad behavior on red lights.
Stop signs we've talked about.
That's next level.
But if we could be at all helpful with, again, stop sign, stop light behavior, no turn on red,
I think that would, you know, be a boon for us and also help our budget.
So look forward to seeing some of those numbers.
Thanks for the work on this.
Everyone needs to slow down.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Audemann Lawson.
Audemann Martin.
Thank you, Chair.
I was wondering to start if there have been any conversations with the state about modifying their limitations in terms of school and park-related safety zones.
As I'm thinking, looking at that map, the portion of 47, I'm not too dissimilar from Audemann Lawson in terms of speeding not being as prevalent in 47 as other parts.
But particularly along Ashland and especially Western, there, as you go south in the ward, other than Revere Park, Lane Tech, we don't have many school or park-related safety zones that come to mind.
Do you know why the General Assembly was so fixated on that and if there has been any discussions about taking a different, more expansive approach,
at least giving us a little bit more flexibility in terms of where we're placing these?
So I would say that in recent years, right, wrong, or the other, the conversation at the state level has been dominated by reform measures
related to certain concerns about the integrity of the programs.
So they've really honed in on that sort of looking at that lens and so like a topic that you're talking about really hasn't gotten much air or conversation at the state level.
And IDOT was very focused on trying to tighten up where misbehavior had occurred, right?
That's dominated their viewpoint.
In terms of historical, I don't know the answer to the ultimate question.
I don't really have to look back.
We have to see.
Yeah, that's not a through the chair request, to be clear.
Relatedly, I was wondering if CDOT has taken a look to see in the areas where speeding slash crashes are most prevalent,
how that overlaps with the location of specific school and park-related safety zones.
Could you clarify the question?
Yeah, so maybe put it a different way.
I'm curious how much an overlap you're seeing between the areas on this map as well, which are darker in shade.
So you're red and you're purple, and then other maps around where crashes are most frequent.
How does that compare to areas that do have the school and park-related safety zones?
Because kind of piggybacking on my previous question, I'm wondering if, based on some of the data,
the areas that are most problematic in terms of traffic safety, are they also the areas that do or do not have park and school-related safety zones?
Yeah, I see where you're going.
When we did that analysis, and I'm sorry the safety zone layer doesn't come up very well on this screen,
there was an overlap of 33 locations citywide that were both in the top 25% to 30% of worst locations for speeding,
overlapping with eligible safety zones.
But the point I think you're getting at is there's still a number of locations outside of those 33 locations that the top 20% to 25% locations is bigger than those 33.
It is, there are obviously some challenging areas where industrial areas or like where land use,
we often see the speeding problem associated with, you know, wide open streets and other land use factors where there may not be a park or a school.
But we are able to capture a good amount still, I would say, of those 33 locations citywide.
It's not an insignificant number that do overlap those two data sets.
Is that a list that you're able to share through the chair easily, those 33?
Sure, we can do that.
Great.
And then my last set of questions, in terms of the recently installed cameras, do you yet have an understanding of how many tickets there have been issued just with the new cameras,
newly installed cameras and the dollar figures associated with those tickets?
And apologies if that was referenced earlier in the presentation.
So we're not in the point of citations yet.
So they're still in warrant, depending on when they were installed, they're in their different warning periods.
So we have the data on the terms of the warning counts that we're getting so that we can share that.
But in terms of revenue or citations, that hasn't started yet.
Got it.
Yeah, through the chair, if you could provide a number of citations issued year to date.
And then finally, through the chair, looking at 2024, just overall, I'd be interested to know how many tickets were ultimately issued,
how much funding was generated based on that.
And that's all I got.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Alderman Martin.
Alderwoman Manaha Hoppenworth.
Thank you, Chair.
Hi, Digg.
Hi.
Hi, Commissioner.
Hi.
I want to first thank you for all your work that you have done with us in the 48th Ward, especially around Granville.
And I look forward to working with you about Broadway next and then eventually Sheridan Road.
And, you know, on the map, you could see that it's it's there's not much up there on the north side.
But but my ward is very tiny, you know, in comparison, very condensed.
And one of the number one reasons why people call for service is because of traffic and safety and pedestrian issues to to my office.
And and it's because of thoroughfares like Broadway, where it's very wide.
And and so I'm very I'm glad that we're getting to new speed cameras.
They have yet to come online.
I know there was a little glitch that is being worked out.
And so I'm glad for that.
But I do have a question about it, though, because you talked about the the school zones, 20 miles an hour.
So so the one next to the armory, that's that is that's supposed to be enforceable to the 20 mile per hour speed limit or the 30.
It's a little confusing to me.
I believe Alderman will make sure and clarify what the new installation is related to Broadway Armory Park.
And therefore, it would enforce the 25 mile per hour posted speed limit on Broadway.
The park zone cameras typically citywide enforce 30 unless there is a different speed limit posted.
And I believe a couple of years ago, ordinance was passed to change the speed limit on Broadway to 25 miles per hour.
Correct.
But there are signs that say that it's a school zone.
So that's at 20 miles an hour.
That's why it's a little confusing.
Yes.
So the 20 mile per hour school zone speed limit relates to state law, which allows municipalities to post a 20 mile per hour school zone speed limit.
Applicable if child present.
So.
Those 20-mile-per-hour school zone speed limits that are enabled through the state statute are not enforced by our park zone cameras.
Okay, thank you for that.
I will work with you so that we can figure out ways to, you know, make people understand how that works.
Yes, happy to follow up with you.
Thank you.
I'm interested in the relocations also.
Also, in my mind, I would like to not have to have speed cameras.
I would like people to just slow down, as Alderman Lawson was talking about.
I know that on Granville, you know, we're not going to have a speed camera there, although, you know, we've reported up to 70 miles per hour on Granville because it's such a great way to get through the neighborhood.
It has no speed bumps, and we're addressing that through other means.
In fact, today we introduced that Granville measure so that we can have a better direction of traffic.
And so that's one way.
Another, truly another way to slow people down is just through infrastructure.
But I am concerned about especially Sheridan Road.
And as you know, there were two recent pedestrian school students versus CTA buses on Sheridan, you know, coming around the corner.
And that's really unacceptable.
And I know that we have a speed camera coming online by Park 559.
So can you speak on, is it going to be enough, you know?
Certainly, it's something we're going to look at very closely once the camera goes into the citation mode.
As we saw earlier with the citywide drop-off in citations of approximately 65 percent, there is a learning curve with new camera locations.
And there tends to be a good uptake in terms of behavior change in the first few months after the camera coming online.
So we'll watch those results very closely with your award.
And also, we can, you know, put you in touch with the traffic studies team to see if there are other measures that might be suitable at that Kenmore intersection.
Yeah, terrific.
Yeah, your team is really great.
And I really appreciate working with Molly on so many things.
I look forward to, you know, Bryn Mawr and Sheridan actually moving that along as well in terms of changing infrastructure to keep people safe.
I, it's interesting to me that the revenue is going to go into our general fund and it does not come back to CDOT.
I don't know, in my mind, it would be great for the money that we actually collect through these speed cameras to come back to the wards in which they, you know, we're collecting money.
And I just would like to not have to use speed cameras, but we have to do something because truly it is, you know, we have too many pedestrian versus car accidents in front of our library, you know.
And I know that's an IDOT road.
And so I hope that we can work more with IDOT to figure out ways, you know, the refuge islands would be really helpful to get those online as well.
So anyway, I thank you for your work.
Thanks for having us here.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Alderman.
We have a hand raised online.
Alderman Moore.
Alderman Moore, are you with us, sir?
Okay.
Any other questions, comments in the room?
I will then close by saying I appreciate the data today.
I appreciate the questions from my colleagues.
I think we're moving in a place that, as we talked about, is transparent, is honest, is more equitable than the past of this city.
And I'm very grateful for that.
I feel like we don't always get to talk about where folks communicate that this has worked.
And so I want to share a story because I was down in Springfield for the Illinois Ride Walk Conference this past week.
And one of the participants, Chicago, and actually came up to me, who's a Brentano parent.
We installed a camera at Logan in Washington just a short while ago that followed after both a traffic study and urgent and persistent requests, particularly from the parent community at Brentano Elementary.
And this parent came up to me, genuinely choked up, about how much the presence of that camera had changed driver behavior, had made the perception of walking and cycling as a safe choice feel that much more safe and comfortable.
And again, too often, I think we can lean into the qualitative and anecdotal data to make justifications for policy.
Having the hard, objective facts is deeply important.
But sometimes to understand how our work changes people's perceptions of their communities and of themselves, we don't always get to talk about that.
So I'm grateful for the work that CEDAW is doing, being willing to not just do briefings, but come and present this data in a way that is forward-facing to our community and to our committee.
I really appreciate it.
That said, with there being no other business before the committee, may I have a motion to adjourn?
All the women, Manah Hoppenworth, so moves.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
We are adjourned.
Thank you all.