Camera support on skids
| • | Forum gives advice on dealing with tickets |
| • | Know your rights if you get a traffic-camera ticket |
By Mike Leidemann
Advertiser Transportation Writer
Lawmakers are poised to vote on repealing the state's traffic photo enforcement program despite the willingness of the firm operating it to change the way the company is paid and a number of compromises by the Department of Transportation to mollify public outcry.
The firestorm that has surrounded the use of traffic cameras to catch speeders since the program began in December continued yesterday, with construction workers, attorneys, insurance industry officials, automobile dealers, even the camera operators calling for changes at a sometimes emotional three-hour Senate hearing at the State Capitol.
"I don't think the general public will be satisfied until there is a repeal," said Sen. J. Kalani English, the Democratic floor leader.
Three state Senate committees scheduled a vote for 9 a.m. tomorrow on a bill that would all but kill the camera program.
Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Cal Kawamoto, a staunch backer of the cameras, said 15 senators had indicated they would vote to repeal the program, more than enough to take the issue out of his Transportation Committee's control.
In the House, the 19 Republican members support the repeal and have the power to force a vote should a repeal measure be stalled in the House Transportation Committee, where Chairman Joe Souki supports the program.
"If the powers that be feel as though they want to repeal, there's nothing much I can do about it," said Kawamoto, who on Monday called for a moratorium on citations until Feb. 20, the day after the first court challenges are expected to be heard.
The moratorium was designed "to give the program a chance to work. It would accommodate people who have concerns and let us work the problems out," he said.
"I commend Sen. Kawamoto for being so tenacious and steadfast in his desire to keep the program intact, but the general public just wants to get rid of it," English said. "The majority of senators feel that repeal is the best option."
Gov. Ben Cayetano chided lawmakers who want to kill the three-year pilot project without giving it a chance to succeed.
"I think the response has been kind of a knee-jerk reaction," Cayetano said.
Wesley Chun, a Nu'uanu resident, testified in favor of keeping the traffic camera program.
"Before you think about canceling this traffic camera program, before you think about protecting the rights of drivers who break the law, you have to think of our families and our safety and keep this traffic program alive," he said.
A vice president of the company operating the cameras said at the hearing it should be paid a flat fee, instead of $27 per-ticket. Critics have argued that the per-ticket fee creates an unfair incentive to issue more citations, compromising the state's argument that the program was instituted to increase safety, not raise revenue.
"I've been arguing since I've come on board that our contracts should move to a flat fee," said Maury Hannigan, a vice president of ACS, State and Local Solutions. "The per-ticket fee diminishes the program and detracts from it."
He said most of the other 56 North American jurisdictions that have contracted with ACS pay on a flat-fee basis. Hannigan said the company was willing to make any changes the state wants.
Transportation Department Director Brian Minaai told lawmakers the department was willing to make changes, including considering a moratorium, but sometimes admitted he didn't know details of the programs history, enabling legislation or operations.
"There are only so many times you can say I'll get back to you on that," said Sen. Colleen Hanabusa, (D-21st, Barbers Point-Makaha). "When the government acts in an arbitrary matter, that's when people get upset."
Many of the more than 50 people offering testimony were critical of the program, but stopped short of supporting a repeal.
"Instead of repealing this program in this election year, amend it," said Pat Oshiro of Kane'ohe. "Don't stop this project now due to unpopularity; acknowledge that some adjustments will be made to assure the public that their concerns are important."
"A repeal will clearly be seen as license to break the law," added Larry Geller of Honolulu. "The task at hand is to fix the law if it needs fixing, not to repeal it."
