Let me gavel, gavel, gavel, gavel.
The meeting of the Committee on Pedestrian and Traffic Safety is now called to order for September 22nd, 2025.
We will now have a roll call to establish quorum.
Chairman Laspata, present.
Vice Chair Cruz, Alderman Hopkins, Alderman Robinson, Alderman Yancey, Alderman Chico, Alderman Quinn.
I can see him, and he is present.
Alderman Moore.
Present.
Thank you, sir.
Be with you in just one moment.
Alderman Curtis, Alderman Irvin, Alderman Knudsen, Alderman Lawson, Alderman Martin, and Alderwoman Manah Hoppenworth.
We have seven members quorum.
Given our current absent of a once-and-future Alderman Burnett, we have quorum.
Alderman Moore has requested to participate in the meeting remotely pursuant to Rule 59.
Alderman Moore, you have confirmed your presence with us.
May I have a motion to allow Alderman Moore to participate remotely?
The three-way tie, and we will give this one to Vice Chair Cruz.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say nay.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
Alderman Moore is present here today by videoconference and will be counted accordingly for the roll call.
Alderman Irvin, so glad to have you with us.
Also, noting a non-member, Alderman Felix Cardona, with us today, sir.
Good to have you, sir.
We will, at this time, begin the public comment period.
Out of respect for everybody's time, each speaker is limited to three minutes.
Speakers, in accordance with Rule 58 of the City Council Rules of Order,
please refrain from profane language, obscene conduct, or disruptive comments.
Our first speaker is W. Robert Schultz III.
Good.
Tess, Tess, can you hear me?
Ah, it's gone.
Great.
Good morning.
My name is W. Robert Schultz III.
I reside in Belmont, Cragen, in Alderman Felix Cardona's ward.
Hi, Alderman.
And I'm here representing Active Transportation Alliance,
and I'm also the co-chair of the Advocacy Committee of the Transportation Equity Network.
We attempt to raise the voices of black and brown west side and south side communities
in the transportation sphere.
I'm here today because I believe on your agenda you're reviewing the report put together on fines and fees,
and I just wanted – we did participate in the development of this report.
One of my colleagues, unfortunately, is on maternity leave, so I'm taking his place.
But I was aware of the work that the working group did,
and we certainly applaud the values of transparency and effectiveness and equality as they looked at fines and fees.
There were two things that jumped out with me that I just wanted to share.
There's a lot of good information, and I do hope that the alderman and everybody that has engagement around this
takes a look at these really in-depth and great recommendations.
But I just wanted to underscore the lockbox, any fines developed from speed cameras.
Traffic fees should definitely be plowed back into traffic improvements, infrastructure improvements.
And then the other major point that I just wanted to highlight that was mentioned in the report
is that if there's a choice, we should be investing in infrastructure
because we can create streets that we call self-enforcing, that encourage drivers to slow down,
and that ultimately results in fewer traffic accidents and greater safety for pedestrians and people on bikes.
So thank you this morning for the committee that worked on this,
and I hope the alderman take its recommendations to heart.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Schultz.
Our next and final speaker is Mr. George Blakemore.
This is disgraceful.
How you steal people's my minutes.
This clock keeps there.
Anyway, it's more alderman than its people here.
Why would you have this so early in the morning?
And why are you so late?
Fines and fees.
And, and...
Trump's saying with transportation, he's going to stop it.
He's going to take some of that money away because Chicago was so corrupt.
These streets were sold out by Mayor Daley.
The streets.
And now you're scrambling for fines and fees.
This is un-American.
This is evil.
This is sinful.
Why would you have it early in the morning?
Why couldn't you have it when the time that the working poor could attend these meetings?
It's something evil here.
It's something un-American here.
And guess what?
They're all Democrats here.
Trump should come here and clean up the swamp.
Now they need fines and fees.
It's when other people, that company, that millions of dollars have been paid off.
So who?
These old ultimates.
These old low-lighted ultimates.
The black ones.
The white ones.
The Hispanic.
The Asian.
All of them.
Now they're struggling for money.
But they have money to pay for illegal immigrants coming over here from Venezuela.
Venezuela is rich.
Rich!
With oil.
Why don't they stay there?
The government treats them like pests.
Mexico.
Mexico is rich!
Do they educate their people?
No.
They consider these people the untouchables.
The untouchables.
They call them peasants.
Their own government.
So they're leaving a rich nation.
Those two nations are rich!
God has blessed Mexico and God has blessed Venezuela.
So again, it's very important for a person of Mr. Blakemore's caliber to come to these meetings.
I have history here.
I was here when old Harold Washington, the first time I voted for him, the second time in that sanctuary, I went totally against him.
And we're paying for the bad fruits.
Thank you very much.
This concludes the public comment period.
Our first order of business is the Rule 45 report of...
Accounting Alderman Chico, for purposes of quorum, good to have you with us, sir.
Our first order of business is the Rule 45 report from July, which was sent out via email and distributed to committee members.
Can I have a motion to approve the July Rule 45 report?
So moved Alderwoman Manal Hoppenworth.
All of those in favor of passing the report say aye.
I heard one.
All of those opposed say nay.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
We are going to go out of order to begin with the routine items before the committee, starting with the direct introduction ordinances on pages 2 through 7.
Can I have a motion to recommend approval of all direct introduction ordinances on pages 2 through 7 by the same roll call vote as was applied to determine quorum?
Alderman Irvin, so moves, hearing no objections, so ordered.
Let us turn to pages 8 through 11 for the recommended portion of the agenda.
For item 8 on page 8, we received substitute ordinances that make changes to the language per CDOT's recommendation.
This substitute was emailed and distributed today.
Can I have a motion to accept this substitute ordinance?
I'll give this one to Alderman Martin.
So moved, hearing no objections, so ordered.
Can I have a motion to recommend approval of all recommended items on pages 8 through 11, including the accepted substitute for item 8 on page 8 by the same roll call vote as was applied to determine quorum?
So moved, Alderman Irvin, hearing no objections, so ordered.
We will now turn to pages 12 through 16 for the no recommendation portion of the agenda, which are items that received no recommendation from city departments.
These ordinances were submitted as overrides, are on the agenda at the request of the alder person, or do not require departmental approval.
For item 9 on page 15 and items 2, 9, and 10 on page 16, we received substitute ordinances that make changes to the language per CDOT's recommendation.
These substitutes were emailed and distributed today.
Can I have a motion to accept these substitute ordinances?
As so moved, Alderman Irvin, hearing no objections, so ordered.
Item 12 on page 15 and item 13 on page 16 will be held in committee.
So can I have a motion to recommend approval of all no recommendation items on pages 12 through 16,
except for item 12 on page 15 and item 13 on page 16,
and including the accepted substitute for item 9 on page 15 and items in 2, 9, 10 on page 16 by the same roll call vote as was applied to determine quorum.
Alderman Irvin, Manah Hopenworth, so moves.
Hearing no objections, so ordered.
We will report these items out at the next regularly scheduled city council meeting.
Returning to page 1 of the agenda, we will now have the subject matter hearing reporting out from the Equity in Enforcement Working Group.
No votes will be taken on this item.
We will hear from some of our departments later, but to begin, I'm going to walk through some of what the working group discussed
and some of the final recommendations.
I believe we have printed.
I will ask that we reserve questions until everyone has spoken, and I'm going to present.
There we go.
So to commence with the presentation today, if you are interested, we didn't want to print out the full report.
Here we go.
Here's a microphone.
We didn't want to print out the full report as it is just about 38 pages,
but if you go to the QR code here or for folks watching at home, go to this QR code,
and it will take you to the full report online.
This report and the work of the working group came out of the resolution passed by city council earlier this January
as part of the Vision Zero legislative package taken up by this committee.
I'll also know Alderman Matt O'Shea with us for non-member.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Participants in the working group included my office, Alderman, also non-member Alderman Mosley and his staff,
as well as the Committee on Pedestrian and Traffic Safety.
Various city departments participated, many of whom are with us here today,
including the Department of Administrative Hearings, Department of Finance, Department of Transportation,
the Office of the City Clerk, Office of Budget Management, and the Mayor's Office of Equity and Racial Justice.
In addition, there were several community organizations, NGOs, that worked with us on the committee,
including Active Transportation Alliance, Equiticity, the Fines and Fees Justice Center,
Impact for Equity, and the Shriver Center on Poverty Law.
Why establish this working group?
If you look up on the chart today, you can see the current locations of all 202 ASE cameras across the city of Chicago,
with blue location, blue being the original 162, the red ones being the new cameras that were recently added in 2025.
We're going to talk about this as we go along, because there's things that can be mutually true and held in tension.
There's data that proves, unequivocally, that automated speed in cameras for a great many,
a majority of Chicagoans, slows down speed.
We know that ASE cameras are effective at reducing crashes.
We also know that a majority of folks do not receive a second ticket.
These are things that are true.
We also know that this is not always the perception of why we do this and how we do this in the city of Chicago.
For a lot of Chicagoans, it is viewed that our motivation is first and foremost a revenue and a fiscal one,
rather than a traffic safety motivation, that is a tension that we hold in balance.
And I know that that was a frustration and a concern for folks,
particularly when we were talking about potentially lowering the statutory speed limit in the city of Chicago.
So we know particularly that this is a concern for a lot of lower income Chicagoans and for black and Latinx Chicagoans.
And it is a...
Founded concern, whether by intention or impact, we know that 10 of the locations that issue
the most tickets are on four-lane roads, six of which are in majority black communities.
We know that eight of the 10 locations that issue the fewest tickets are in two-lane streets,
only two of which are in majority black communities. And the chart on the top from
yellow to blue indicates where most tickets are issued. The map on the right showing
where the share of paid tickets are, which is an illustration here of the challenges to keep up
with the financial burden sometimes of tickets on behalf of Chicagoans. We wanted to show an
illustration that is anecdotal, but I think speaks to general trends in the relationship
between citations and infrastructure. The location on the left is 127th Street in South Pullman.
The location on the right, Montrose in Irving Park. On the South Pullman location, that ticket started
out at 51,000 tickets issued in 2020. It grew to 78,000 plus tickets in 2024. The Montrose location,
it had seven tickets issued in 2020, 298 tickets in 2024, inarguably substantially fewer tickets
at the Montrose location. What is functionally different? Well, the South Pullman location,
you can kind of tell with the truck. And this is an up-to-date street view, is a four-lane street
without much in addition of signage or traffic calming infrastructure. The location in Irving Park,
we can see multiple signs showing pedestrian crossing, a pedestrian refuge island in the middle,
crosswalk, two-lane street with a turning lane. We wanted to put this up here to show that
infrastructure is inarguably necessary when it comes to actually reducing the number of tickets.
We know the tickets decrease on their own over time at many locations, but that is not universally true.
And this is to like, get the committee thinking about, as you already have in all of your communities,
the relationship between infrastructure enforcement and speeding, that they all kind of go hand in hand.
The good news, in the aggregate, ASE tickets have decreased safety speeds across the city.
This is taken from CDOT's own presentation a few months back.
Looking at average speeds adjacent to safety cameras have decreased consistently over the past four years.
A two-mile-per-hour reduction, but that takes it just about to 20 miles per hour,
which is very effective at reducing serious crashes in the city of Chicago.
We also know that speeding cameras are effective at reducing both crashes and serious crashes.
So, again, this is not looking at any specific location, but taking an aggregate.
At speed camera locations over the past 10 years, crashes have increased, but they have increased 2% as against 28% citywide.
Crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists have reduced 46% as opposed to just 14% citywide.
And whereas crashes that are speed-related citywide have increased 9%, they have decreased 24% in speed-related at speed camera locations.
Furthermore, again, this is taken from CDOT's research here.
The data that we have shows that the majority of Chicagoans who receive one ticket do not receive a second ticket.
And that's particularly true for 83% of drivers issued a ticket in school zones and 65% of those in park zones.
That's fantastic.
What concerned the working group and I think should concern committee members and all Chicagoans are the 13,000 Chicagoans who have received 31 to 50 tickets in the last 10 years.
The roughly just about 3,600 Chicagoans who have received 51 to 100.
And that final category there, the fact that there are companies and fleets, sometimes individuals, but most likely companies and fleets,
25 of whom have received 500-plus speeding tickets in the last 10 years.
This is concerning particularly because CDOT has shared with us that there is a correlation between the number of tickets you have received
and the likelihood that you will be the cause of a crash that causes serious injury or fatality.
We know that these drivers are on the road now.
We know that they are a risk to their communities.
What are we doing?
What can we do to reach out to them, to help them do more, to change their behavior?
I would argue that this is a real public safety concern for Chicago.
The working group met every other week for the past four months, discussed the existing and perceived concerns related to automated speed enforcement,
looked at a bunch of intended outcomes, particularly around reducing injuries and fatalities,
potentially eliminating the need for cameras in the long term.
How do we actually functionally change driver behavior?
Put together 20 draft proposals that were circulated internally,
then went forward through a community priority survey to the public that received over 1,600 responses,
and then we held three briefings for orders to get their initial feedback on these in August.
The survey, as we noted, did have over 1,600 responses.
And I know that this can be hard to read, but I'll note we had a diversity of responses across Chicagoans,
although with 61 percent, the largest majority being white Chicagoans,
we had a diversity of age groups that responded.
We also had a diversity of folks across a range of incomes that responded with 37 percent being Chicagoans making over $100,000 a year.
Why do I note that?
So I'm really glad that we had a very significant response to this survey.
Chicagoans really care about this.
It's also undeniable that our survey respondents skewed whiter and upper income than Chicago as a whole.
So when we looked at this, sometimes we would filter to understand particularly how our black and Latinx respondents felt,
and particularly how our lower income respondents felt.
And that's illustrated in particular on the right-hand side.
So whereas 57 percent of all respondents felt that tickets amounts were currently affordable,
when we filtered that to respondents making less than $55,000 a year, that response rate shrank to 42 percent.
So now we're going to, again, like briefly go through some of the top respondents' recommendations across transparency and effectiveness and equity.
These are the three buckets that we put these recommendations into.
And based off of automatic feedback, department feedback, and community feedback,
we shrank that list of 20 down to the 16 that you're going to see highlighted in the report.
So in terms of transparency, Chicagoans as a whole were interested in greater insight into where these dollars are going,
where cameras are, and how effective these cameras are.
To that extent, 71 percent of the general public supported OBM creating,
communicating more effectively and more consistently how the funds generated by ASC are used
and how they contribute to traffic safety long-term,
including 54 percent ranking this as a top three priority for them for transparency.
68 percent supported CDOT maintaining a public dashboard with ticket data, revenue use,
camera program effectiveness, and crash outcomes.
I'll note that some of this is available through the city's data portal,
but in terms of accessible data sets, not really like visualizations or illustrations of where these funds,
how these funds operate.
Finally, 62 percent of the public generally supported and 59 percent ranked as a top three concern
that ASC revenue should be placed in a lockbox to be used on pedestrian and traffic safety investments
at speeding locations, prioritizing areas of historic disinvestment.
I'll touch on this briefly because this is not a new item,
and this is not actually out of line with our own municipal code.
So Chicago's municipal code currently states that ASC revenue should be kept in a separate account
so that we do have that transparency in terms of how it's used on those four state-mandated functions.
Currently, this revenue goes into the corporate fund, which we all know what the corporate fund is,
does make it more difficult to track where those dollars are headed.
In terms of effectiveness, 61% generally supported the Department of Finance setting up incentives for good driver behavior.
60% supported CDOT reassessing camera locations where safety outcomes haven't improved.
So you might think of, for example, that 127th Street location.
60% supported targeted intervention for those repeat frequent violators.
So think about those 7,800 Chicagoans who have received 30 to 50 speeding tickets over the last 10 years.
And 57% supported noticing education infrastructure changes should be used,
or instead of speeding cameras where the desired outcomes aren't being met.
In terms of equity, ability to pay, who pays according to their means, 75% generally believe that the cameras shouldn't be indefinite solutions
for areas needing lasting, equitable solutions like street design.
I'll note that 73% ranked that from the public as a top three priority.
52% supported the Department of Finance ending the practice of adding fees and collection costs for vehicle ticket debt.
And I'm sure we'll hear about how the Clear Path Relief Program currently operates towards that end.
And 51% generally supported DOF creating options for reduced and partial payment aligning with an individual's ability to pay,
which again, like aligns with how Clear Path Relief is currently functioning.
What are the next steps for us on this?
Well, there are a couple paths.
Some of what we've discussed can happen through a matter of internal policy through the departments.
Some of it potentially through enforcement of the existing code.
So like when we think about a separate account for automated speed enforcement revenue,
the kind of dashboards that we've been talking about do not require ordinance on behalf of city council.
Other times, the measures that we've talked about may require additional ordinance measures
or could be strengthened through ordinance measures taken up by this committee and the full city council.
How we proceed truly depends on what the appetite is within this body and the full city council.
But at this point, I'm going to move towards the folks with us for departmental comment.
I would ask that we reserve all questions until everyone has spoken.
And we will now turn to Comptroller Michael Belsky.
Comptroller, thank you so much for being with us today and for your leadership and collaboration throughout the working group.
Thank you.
Can you hear me okay?
Yes, sir.
I do have a confession to make.
It wasn't a school zone, but I got pulled over for going 40 in a 25-mile-an-hour zone.
The policeman told me you can't go 40 miles an hour in a 25-mile-an-hour zone.
And then a couple days later, I got an envelope sent to me with a ticket that said, speeding fine.
And I said, well, now I don't know who to believe.
Anyway, I know this is a serious matter, so I just thought I'd try to provide some levity.
But first of all, I want to commend you.
This has been participating with your task force.
I would say this is a model in public policymaking.
It was very inclusive.
You had the administration's perspective.
You also had people from various interest groups.
And then you had a survey.
And you did a lot of research on what's going on across the country.
And I think when you have that sort of process in the light of day, you get the best outcomes.
When you don't get that sort of input, you can make mistakes.
So I commend you for that and the work you're doing here.
We absolutely share your vision of improving safety and having equity in enforcement.
And also transparency is very important for people to know where these dollars are coming in and where they're being spent.
And being spent on the right sorts of things to further promote what you're talking about.
You know, there's a notion sometimes that the city is intent on using speed cameras and other sorts of violations to collect revenue.
And that's not the position of our department.
Our department feels very strongly that safety is critical.
In a large city like this, inevitably, you're going to have conflicts between bicyclists, pedestrians, other vehicles.
That can lead to fatalities and also lead to disability.
And that is an unacceptable result for us.
So while we do collect revenues from these programs, it's all with the eye towards improving public safety and compliance.
And as you'll see in the report, as you mentioned, that there has been a big increase in compliance and also a reduction in incidents of fatalities and accidents where they do have speed cameras.
One thing we definitely share and would advocate is to have a change in state law so that we can not just have this in school zones.
I mean, I certainly understand the intent because young people are very vulnerable.
But we really should look at citywide where there are high incidents of accidents and try to be able to have more flexibility on where we place these cameras.
With respect to the equity part of this, we don't disagree.
We know that when you get fines and when you get tickets and then repetitive fines and you have to make choices between paying them or eating, it's a problem.
So we do feel, though, the Clear Path Relief Program was written and adopted with that intent.
And we also feel like the noticing period is adequate.
So while we might disagree on the way to get there for equity, we certainly share your aspiration for that.
But we feel like we're addressing it.
We also feel very strongly about improved signage, infrastructure, modifications, and education.
The more people know, the more able they are to comply.
So we support those efforts.
We know that other departments would be involved in those decisions, so we'd certainly want to welcome their input.
But on balance, it's an excellent report.
And, again, we stand with you on what you're trying to accomplish, and we're happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much, Comptroller.
I will note also that prior to your joining the city of Chicago, we could not have begun this work and gotten off to a strong start were it not for the efforts and support of then Acting Comptroller Joel Flores.
Joel, thank you very much for leading us through those early stages of this working group.
I really do appreciate it.
Now we will move on to Vic Krishnamurthy, Managing Deputy Commissioner from the Chicago Department of Transportation.
Vic, thank you again for being with us today.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you, Chairman.
Good morning, Council.
I appreciate the invitation to join you today.
It's always very germane for us to be here at your committee because traffic safety is really part of the core mission of CDOT, making our streets more safe, accessible, and inviting for all Chicagoans.
And in recent years, I'm glad to say that through collaboration and investment, we have made very meaningful progress as a city towards those goals, in some ways outpacing our peers in seeing reductions in traffic fatalities, which we'll talk about more, I believe, next month in committee on how we're doing there.
But that work, which there's a lot of that work left to do as we work towards Vision Zero, which is a city that is free from traffic violence so people can really enjoy their lives and develop their selves and their families and their careers without fear of getting around.
It's been possible through investment in partnership with this.
body and with the leadership of this body and the communities and concerned stakeholders you all
represent. We've revamped our Complete Streets Designs guidelines, and I want to notice Alderman
Martin here, who helped champion that effort amongst your colleagues. I don't know if Alderman
Silverstein is here, but we've revamped our crash legacy ordinance and how we use data to guide our
investments. So, and then, of course, through investment, we've also really scaled, made more
systematic our delivery of pedestrian safety improvements in all our projects from arterial
resurfacing to reconstruction through how we work together on the menu. But we have to center the
fact, I think, that we can't call it progress unless it reaches everyone and everywhere within the city
of Chicago. And we definitely are aware that there are people and places who experience disproportionate
harm when it comes to traffic safety. And we've spoken that, you know, in previous committee hearings,
older Chicagoans, certain communities are known places that have high crash areas, right? Black
Chicagoans. There are many reasons for this that we are working on together. But again, it's not
those great progress we're making. We want to see that reach everyone. So CDOT participated in the
working group. We were really pleased to be a part of it with your team and all the other
concerned stakeholders. Our role was presenting data and really helping facilitate the development of
the recommendations through providing the best possible facts about the program we have,
how we got here, and where we can go together. And much of those, you know, information we provided
through the working group were in the spirit of the presentation we made here in May with council
explaining the camera placement process, the effectiveness metrics, and really what goes into
the 162 cameras we have and this year's expansion of 50 more locations.
I think going forward, we really look forward to working with your committee as well as the rest of
council in terms of looking at these recommendations and how the implementation considerations can be
thought through and bringing again that spirit of continuous improvement that we have brought to
our infrastructure work and to our city as a whole to everything we do for safety. Thank you.
Thank you very much, managing deputy commissioner.
Thank you both. We can now move on to questions. I will also note that we also have with us Kieran
Coca, deputy director, and of course, Joel Flores, first deputy director from the Department of Finance,
Anthony Rizzo, deputy director of administrative adjudication, and Randy Holtzman, senior administrative
law officer from the Department of Administrative Hearings, present for questions as well.
Do we have questions or comments from the body? Yes. Audeman Lawson.
A couple of quick questions maybe. I know we had the map of the rate of payment by a precinct or
community area. What is that overall rate for an automated speed ticket? Do we have that data citywide?
And then my follow-up, as you might imagine, what opportunity do we have to collect more of that
that we're missing? Yes. I believe the overall rate we can get to you through the chair. Comptroller,
do you want to speak a bit to the collection rate or like the collection processes?
The collection processes of speed camera enforcement fines?
Sure. And is there a ballpark on the rate that we're getting anyway, right? And I don't know how
that compares to parking tickets or others. But right. Are 75 percent of the tickets we are
issuing getting paid?
Give me a moment. It's actually in the room.
We can get that to the chair. But when there's video or photos, the collection rate is higher than
just providing someone with a violation notice.
Sure. We can get that to the chair.
So your mug on it, right? You're going to pay more attention if they know your face, right?
Correct.
That's just really it. I think looking at ways that we can be collecting this revenue,
especially from these corporations that are, you know, and this is true of parking tickets,
too. You see a rental place and outside there's 25 cars. They all have tickets on them.
They could just consider it to be part of doing business. And I don't know if we're giving,
we shouldn't be having any amnesty for any corporation or fleet owner that's violating
our code that way. So that's just on the enforcement side, right? It's a lot easier to
change behavior if people are actually paying it. If they're not, there's no consequence. So
just some follow up on that through the chair. Thank you, chair.
I appreciate that, sir. The fleet piece was jarring when it came up in this space and
not within the purview of this committee, but talking about fleets that also dodge their city
sticker requirements is something that has come up in the last couple of years that we should discuss
further. Yes. Yes. Thank you, chair. Just to clarify about the data that you showed,
that there were 500 tickets for 25 fleets. Can you go back to that? 20, 25 companies, fleets.
And to your point is, these are rental? Over the last 10 years.
And is that in the purview of this working group? Is BACP in this working group as well?
BACP was not a participant in the working group. I think that is a challenge. So when we talk about
next steps, and I don't know if this is... We refer to this more broadly in the recommendation space
in terms of how we engage with folks who get consistent tickets. We had thought about that
more, admittedly, within the working group in terms of individuals. How we engage with fleets,
commercial entities is potentially something that either the law department or BACP could potentially
take up. Yeah. To Alderman Lawson's point, it isn't just them moving on the roads, but actually
parking on our streets where they park. And to his point, ticketing is just part of the
the cost of the cost of doing business. But I also had a question about the map of the later map
about where most of the tickets are and yellow. Yes. Is this map also instructive of how CDOT
is going to prioritize streets that are... that need infrastructure, not just speeding cameras,
but need infrastructure to keep it safer? How is this map being used beyond what the working group
is tasked to do? Sir, do you want to take that, Vic? Good morning. Vic Christian Murthy,
Managing Deputy Commissioner. Good morning, all the women.
The answer is yes. And I think if we just at a high level think about the decision making around
the department's infrastructure and capital investments, it's a number of things, right?
So we have our MOBEC index, which is the mobility and economic hardship index. This is something
the department looked at measures of human development, measures of mobility, how easy it is to get around
or not in terms of access to transit or other infrastructure. And then economic hardship in
terms of so many indicators and developed an aggregate index to ensure we prioritize investments
where they are going to have the greatest need as well as the greatest return on investment.
So that's in terms of equity need. In terms of mobility need and data informed design
with sets like this, we maintain our high crash network of streets and high crash areas of streets.
So for example, when we do the annual CIP briefings with council, this is one of the data sets we bring
in both to explain how we are looking at where crashes are occurring, arterial streets, local streets,
to work together in terms of what the department is programming, as well as work with council in
terms of those local investments where there's greater insight perhaps into the community
lived experience in terms of the quantitative data it may not show. So it's really a balance of
our equity index, these type of data, qualitative feedback we get through community engagement,
and then, of course, state of good repair of assets. Thank you.
Ask also, because my ward has two new speed cameras on Broadway and Sheridan, and we are at the end of we are the end of North DuSable Lakeshore Drive, North Terminus.
And so the number one and two reasons why people call for service because of traffic and traffic safety, pedestrian bike traffic safety.
And so being one of the newer cameras and number two in terms of tickets served and revenue generated, I'm also interested in the conversation of where does revenue go?
I heard you say that it goes into the general fund, but how does it get invested back into those communities that really need it most?
You know, looking at the map. And yeah, and I also just want to say thank you for your work.
This is an important group and also shout out to the to the advocates that also participated. Thank you.
Thank you. I might take a moment because I know that it's within the report, but to know like when we talk about where these revenues can go.
So the state allows expenditures in these four spaces, public safety initiatives to ensure safe passage around schools,
to provide police protection and surveillance around schools and parks, including but not limited to personnel costs and non-personnel costs,
such as construction and maintenance of public safety infrastructure and equipment initiatives to improve pedestrian and traffic safety,
construction and construction and maintenance of infrastructure, infrastructure within the municipality and after school programs.
So I know like you have a number of schools like adjacent to Broadway there.
I used to work with Jane Addams Senior Caucus that Thorndale Manor close to my heart.
But there are within those four categories. I know that there's a lot of potential utilization for those dollars that are being generated.
Yeah. Thank you, Chair. I just want to comment that the 48th Ward is not a big footprint and we have a lot of schools in the district.
So basically all of it is a school zone. And with the nine million dollar water sewer project that happened this summer and the closure of Ridge,
you know, that really was a moment where we had to work together with CDOT and DWM and OEMC because it was it was a safety issue for for the entire community because of that one street being closed off.
So thank you. Thank you for your work and the working group once again.
You're welcome. Yes. Alderman Martin.
Oh, all right. I just I have two questions. Yes, sir. Thank you.
First, looking at the specific recommendations, the first one, I think, is an interesting one incentives for good driving behavior,
because at the end of the day, I think that this could help push back on that sentiment that the installation of new enforcement technology
is simply a cash grab for the city. I'm curious beyond what's stated in these bullets, where things stand in terms of next steps,
who has ownership over that, if there's any sort of tentative timeline to say, hey,
we're hoping to report out on some potential steps that could be taken to provide those incentives.
I think creating positive incentives is probably challenging the next three months, given the 800 pound elephant I see walking around this room.
But I think coming back to that in 2026 and talking potentially with Department of Finance or others to see what that could look like or even with the city clerks department,
whether that's something that, for instance, results. I'm speaking of the dome, potentially is something that results in a discounted price for your city sticker, for example.
These are different ways we could be thinking about it.
Yeah, I appreciate that. And I think it's just something that we want to think creatively about.
And then the other question is somewhat in a similar vein, number two.
So talking about reassessing camera locations, obviously, you went through a lot of data indicating that at a high level,
camera placement has been associated with many improvements or at least not trending in as bad a direction as the places that don't have cameras.
And I understand that that was maybe more of a global analysis and not necessarily site specific to say, here are some outlier outliers in a good or bad way.
I'm curious how you're thinking about that, both in the context of automated speed enforcement,
but maybe more generally in terms of ongoing work around complete streets, as well as some one off safety related improvements that we use menu funds on.
Because at the end of the day, I think it's important that we always come back, look at what the data indicates,
because there might be some areas where you would say after that assessment, okay,
we want to really double down on these sorts of infrastructure improvements, technology improvements or other areas.
If it instead has certain characteristics that don't align with the first group, maybe we want to lean into other things.
Because at the end of the day, I don't know that there's a one size fits all approach for the sorts of improved actions and behaviors that we want to see.
And so having that nuanced approach, I think, can also be helpful in rebutting a narrative that this is just a cash grab.
I think that's, I think that's wise.
I think there's been a lot of call, particularly within the public, knowing that for purposes include infrastructure,
how can we assure that more of that revenue is going towards infrastructure at that location?
And then even thinking about, and again, this is a collaboration between finance, CDOT, the community, and the automatic office,
whether at a certain point the infrastructure in and of itself is sufficient for those traffic safety purposes.
So like I, I would say for myself, like thinking about the ward, is there a point where locations where we've had signals installed at some point,
what is sufficient is the improved infrastructure, the digital speed signage,
and to see if that in and of itself creates the same benefits that we're looking for.
Yeah, I just think that that's really important, something that we should increasingly be encouraging all of our departments to do with these technological tools at our disposal.
Because at the end of the day, if you put in one of those speed feedback signs or pedestrian refuge island or, say, an attached bump out near a senior center or a school,
I think being able to look at the data, even if you're talking about the battle of small numbers,
maybe it's been a bunch of near misses that won't be captured in the data, but some actual crashes,
even if you're just going from three to two, that's still an improvement.
Maybe there are ways to do micro surveys.
I just think that as so many people have these sorts of devices at their ready,
let's find different ways to collect that information so that we can be as responsive as possible to those solutions.
And then also shooting from the hip, maybe some of that money gets put into Aldermanic menu funds,
knowing that many of our colleagues with geographically larger wards don't have as much at their disposal mile for mile as some of our smaller wards.
So that could be something that might be a win-win to say,
we know that certain wards really need more infrastructure improvements.
And to the extent we're seeing a lot of problematic activity by way of speeding and tickets generated from that,
maybe it goes into a ward-based lockbox for ward-specific improvements.
I'm definitely hearing that.
I mean, something that we discussed, for example, is like if you, and again, like this is number one,
I would say that the granularity of data location by location,
I'm not sure how we included that in the report, but we can provide that to you through the chair.
But the idea could be like, if you really want to sever the perception that we are doing this to close a budget gap,
you could say that a percentage, say like 50, 70% of the revenue generated,
even like in the first year, goes towards the improvement of infrastructure at that location.
I think that shows to the public that our primary concern is traffic safety.
And that gives an example of like that, that's not within the municipal code.
If that is this type of action that council would like to see taken,
that would be a legislative as opposed to process-oriented next step.
Great. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Yes, Audemant O'Shea.
Four lanes of traffic.
Is Audemant O'Shea's microphone working?
In 2024, that camera gave out 94,000-plus violations.
No other camera, second-place camera didn't even come close.
What was interesting, being a border ward,
88% of the people that received those 94,000 violations were non-city residents.
So it was great.
We were getting revenue.
We were slowing traffic.
And the overwhelming majority of the recipients didn't even live in the city.
One of the bonuses of being a board award.
One of the few bonuses, right, Marty?
And I want to flip topics here.
So in late July, Chicago Public Schools, without any communication,
decided to remove crossing guards at dozens and dozens of locations across the city.
One of those locations in my ward last week, a child was hit by a car
at a location where there used to be a crossing guard.
So I know we've talked briefly about it, Chairman,
but what I would like to do is to work with members of this committee and others
to move crossing guards from under the direction of the Chicago Public Schools,
who clearly aren't that concerned about some children,
just their own children in their own system, but move that to OEMC.
And we can pay for that by the incredible revenue these speed cameras produce,
and if we're going to be adding more cameras, that shouldn't be a problem.
We could put a lockbox on the revenue generated.
But that would be one way that everybody in this building could actually deliver on
caring about all children, not just children that attend certain schools.
So I hope to work with you on that.
I appreciate your time talking about that the last few weeks, Chairman.
Thank you.
I appreciate that, sir.
I will say to the very end that you just talked about,
well, I'll just reemphasize the point.
State allowed expenditures, number one with a bullet,
public safety initiatives to ensure safe passage around schools,
including personnel and non-personnel costs.
Very much, sir, what you just spoke to.
So the point is very germane and taken.
Thank you.
Do we have any final questions or comments?
With that being said,
I want to thank all of the departments for their work and collaboration in this effort.
I want to thank the committee members for their support in the initial passage of this resolution.
And I particularly want to call out the main author and, I would say,
primary driver of the working group, Nikki here on our committee staff.
Nikki, can I ask you, can we give you just a brief applause for your work on this?
Okay.
With that being said, and with no further business before the committee,
can I have a motion to adjourn?
Audemann Martin, so moves.
All of those in favor signify by saying aye.
We are adjourned.
Thank you.