The River Forest village board has decided to take a baby step forward and instructed village hall staff to gather information about installing red light cameras at busy intersections in town, despite the fact that one board member is vocally opposed to the installation.
The long-running discussion involves installing cameras at the village’s two busiest intersections, Harlem and Lake and North and Harlem, which are intended to generate tickets for motorists running red lights and decrease the number of accidents. The discussion continued at a July 18 meeting of the board.
Trustee Catherine Adduci, who is married to a lobbyist for a red light camera vendor, recused herself from the discussion.
Trustee Susan Conti said she’s still not convinced that the number of accidents over the past five years warrants such drastic measures, and suggested the village try less extreme options first. Other options, she said, might include an extended yellow light, a green arrow, or a no turn on red policy.
“I think we’re putting the cart before the horse,” she said.
Conti added that the most compelling argument she’s heard in favor of the cameras is the fact that the busy intersections make it difficult for River Forest police officers to enforce traffic regulations in those areas. According to Police Chief Gregory Weiss, officers are often hesitant to do traffic stops in that area due to the heavy traffic.
But Conti said she still doesn’t think the red light cameras are necessary, and many River Forest residents share her opinion. “I’ve talked to many residents around town and found that very few support it,” she said.
But River Forest Village President John Rigas continued to lobby in favor of the red light cameras.
“You’re not going to find someone who is in support of getting a ticket,” Rigas said.
“So you don’t think the residents should have a choice?” Conti asked Rigas. She added that the main goal of the red light cameras was to increase the safety to motorists at busy intersections, something residents would surely be in favor of if it were a large enough problem. But Conti said that the evidence doesn’t support that claim.
“From the evidence that Chief Weiss sent us at the last meeting, there were five injuries (at the Lake and Harlem intersection) over three years,” Conti said, adding that the numbers show that the intersections are not as dangerous as has been suggested.
Trustee James Winikates agreed, saying he doesn’t believe the cameras would make a big difference in terms of safety. But he also said that there are two aspects of the proposal that he does like; the fact that red light cameras represent another way to use technology to help efficiently enforce the law, and that the signs alone notifying motorists of the presence of red light cameras at those intersections would likely modify their driving behavior. “They’re going to abide by the law,” he said.
The board later revisited the suggestion of an extended yellow light, but Rigas said he would oppose that option. He claimed that people in the neighborhood would grow accustomed to the extended yellow light, and eventually it would lose its effectiveness.
But Conti said the same argument could be made for the red light cameras.
Trustee Carmela Corsini said she too was hesitant to sign off on the red light cameras. She said she’s also not convinced that there is a safety issue, and is highly concerned with the costs associated with the cameras. “The cost benefit is going to be a big issue for me,” she said.
The board finally directed Village Administrator Eric Palm and village hall staff to look into more detailed information about the red light cameras, and revisit the discussion at a later date.
Curfew change
In other business, the board voted to change the village ordinance on curfew for minors. The curfew ordinance currently states that residents under 17 years old are not allowed to be out in public places in the village between midnight and 6 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday mornings, and between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. Sunday through Thursday, unless those minors are accompanied by an adult or engaged in certain activities outlined in the ordinance.
The vote changed the ordinance to include minors under 18 years old. This change brings the River Forest ordinance in line with the curfew ordinance in Oak Park.
Despite earlier objections, Conti agreed to the change this time around, having learned that kids under 18 are forbidden to be out driving during the curfew hours, according to state law.
“I agree completely that we should have a consistent ordinance [with Oak Park],” she said. “I was struggling with that we were the ones that had to change it.”
Pilot for new garbage containers
Also at the meeting, the board voted to approve a Toter pilot program, which will outfit one block of residences along an alley with the wheeled, rollout plastic refuse and recycling bins. The village currently uses smaller containers with no wheels or attached lids.
The Roy Strom Refuse Removal Service, which currently provides waste collection services to the village, is not in favor of a village-wide changeover to Toter bins. Representatives from the refuse removal service, in a discussion with village officials, said that the change would be operationally and economically inefficient.
The board was divided on the need for such a change. “It will keep the alleys neater and cleaner,” Rigas said.
But Conti argued that her rough estimates showed that to implement the Toter program throughout the village would cost some $58,000. She said that’s not an amount she’s willing to spend on an unnecessary item, especially in the current economy.
Adduci said the current refuse removal system works just fine. “We don’t have a problem to solve, and the hauler doesn’t want to do it,” she said, adding that if residents want the Toters, the village shouldn’t have to foot the bill.
Corsini said that she is in favor of the fact that the Toters would be “greener and cleaner.
The board finally approved spending $2,900 on the pilot program, which will apply to the 500 block of Monroe.