The Texas Red Light Camera Shutdown

The Largest Red Light Camera Shutdown in U.S. History

On June 1, 2019, Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1631. The statewide ban on photographic traffic signal enforcement took effect the next day.

Within one week, 57 of the 61 Texas cities operating red light camera programs had shut them down.

Before Texas acted, most research on camera removal involved one city at a time. Houston, for example, shut down its program after a 2010 referendum. Other studies examined small groups of cities that ended their programs over several years.

Texas created something much larger: dozens of camera programs ended almost simultaneously, while four cities continued operating under grandfathered vendor contracts.

That makes the 2019 shutdown a rare natural experiment.

No published study has yet measured what happened at Texas camera intersections after the June 2019 shutdown at the intersection level.

This project is designed to fill that gap.

Why This Matters

Four features make the Texas shutdown especially useful for research:

• Scale and timing. Dozens of cities ended camera enforcement within days of the same statewide law taking effect.
• A continuing comparison group. Leon Valley continued operating cameras under a grandfathered contract that runs through 2039. Amarillo, Balcones Heights, and Humble also shut down later than most Texas cities, creating additional comparison points.
• A severity question, not just a crash count question. The central dispute is whether cameras reduce the most harmful crashes, even if they increase less severe rear end crashes.
• Intersection level analysis. Camera locations can be mapped, allowing researchers to compare changes at individual intersections rather than relying only on statewide totals.

What House Bill 1631 Did

House Bill 1631 banned photographic traffic signal enforcement throughout Texas.

According to TxDOT, the law took effect on June 2, 2019, one day after Governor Abbott signed it. Some accounts state that the ban took effect later in 2019, but the effective date was immediate.

The law included a limited exception. A city could continue its camera program if:

• Its camera ordinance and vendor contract existed before May 7, 2019; and
• Its contract did not contain a provision allowing termination if the Legislature banned red light cameras.

Four cities qualified for that exception.

The statewide program was not financially insignificant. According to the Texas Comptroller, as reported by KERA News, red light cameras generated more than $706 million statewide after 2007. Half of net revenue supported trauma care funding.

Houston alone mailed more than 800,000 camera tickets valued at approximately $44 million between 2006 and 2010.

Sources: TxDOT red light camera pages; HB 1631 bill record; House Research Organization analysis (PDF); revenue figures attributed in the text.

What Existing Research Shows

The existing evidence falls into two categories:

• Studies measuring what happened after cameras were installed.
• Studies measuring what happened after cameras were removed.

The findings are not identical, but they show a consistent tradeoff: cameras tend to reduce right angle crashes and increase rear end crashes.

Evidence From Texas Camera Programs

The Texas A&M Transportation Institute evaluated camera programs while they were operating. Its research included the following findings:

• An Empirical Bayes study of 254 signalized intersections in 32 Texas jurisdictions found that red light running crashes decreased by 20%, right angle red light running crashes decreased by 24%, and rear end crashes increased by 37%.
• An earlier comparison group study of 296 intersections in 39 Texas communities found a 26% decline in total crashes, a 19% decline in right angle crashes, and a 44% increase in rear end crashes.
• The TTI research concluded that cameras produced a statistically significant safety benefit primarily at intersections that already experienced at least four red light running crashes per year. At lower volume locations, the benefit was not statistically significant.

The basic pattern is consistent across studies:

What researchers disagree about is whether that tradeoff improves overall safety, especially when deaths and serious injuries are considered.

What Happened When Houston Turned Off Its Cameras?

Houston provides the closest pre 2019 example of a Texas city removing red light cameras.

After a voter referendum in November 2010, Houston shut down cameras at 66 intersections. Economists Justin Gallagher and Paul Fisher studied 12 years of geocoded Houston crash data, using Dallas camera intersections and Houston intersections without cameras as comparison groups. Their research was published in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy in 2020.

The study found that the number of red light tickets fell by 99.9% in the year after the shutdown. That suggests the cameras clearly affected driver behavior, even though total crash counts changed little.

The authors also found that roughly three times as many Houston crashes occurred within 200 feet of an intersection as occurred at other distances. That finding is why the planned Texas study uses a 200 foot radius around each camera intersection.

A separate Texas A&M Transportation Institute analysis of 48 Houston intersections (Ko and Wunderlich, Journal of Safety Research, 2017) found:

• Red light running crashes fell 37% when cameras were activated.
• Red light running crashes rose 20% after cameras were deactivated.
• Right angle red light running crashes increased 23% after deactivation.
• Crashes also increased at nearby intersections that never had cameras, suggesting that enforcement may have affected driver behavior beyond the camera locations themselves.

Houston is important, but it is not a complete answer. It involved one city, 66 intersections, and a shutdown that occurred nine years before the statewide Texas ban.

Why the Red Light Camera Debate Depends on What You Count

The red light camera debate often appears contradictory because different studies measure different outcomes.

Some studies focus on total crashes. Others focus on fatal crashes. Both approaches can produce valid findings, but they answer different questions.

Both findings can be true at the same time.

Right angle crashes are generally less common than rear end crashes, but they are often more severe. A vehicle struck from the side at speed has less structural protection than a vehicle involved in many rear end crashes. That means a camera program could leave total crash counts relatively unchanged while still affecting serious injuries and deaths.

NHTSA estimates the average economic cost of one traffic fatality at $1.6 million. When the value of lost quality of life is included, the comprehensive cost rises to $11.3 million. FHWA's national camera evaluation ties angle, rear end, and other crash costs to injury severity for the same reason.

For that reason, the planned Texas study will not rely only on crash counts. It will also weight crashes by injury severity and estimated economic cost.

National Context

IIHS reported 1,119 deaths from red light running crashes in the United States in 2024, up from 711 deaths in 2014. That is an increase of nearly 60% over 10 years. More than 141,000 people were injured in red light running crashes in 2024.

About half of the people killed in these crashes were not the drivers who ran the red light. They were passengers, occupants of other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users.

Texas Has Camera Reports, but the Crash Counts Cannot Be Taken at Face Value

Texas law required camera cities to file annual reports with TxDOT. Cities used Form 2321 before activating cameras and Form 2322 after activation. These reports were intended to identify camera locations and report crash information by crash type.

The reports are available through TxDOT's red light camera annual report archive. They appear to be the obvious source for evaluating the programs. They are not reliable enough to serve as the primary crash dataset.

We reviewed Leon Valley's Form 2322 report for July 2024 through June 2025 and checked whether the internal numbers added up:

TxDOT states that the reports are published as submitted and were not verified by the agency for completeness or accuracy.

The city reports are useful for certain purposes:

• Identifying camera intersections.
• Confirming activation and shutdown dates.
• Identifying citation counts.
• Reviewing signal timing information where reported.

However, the crash counts must be rebuilt using TxDOT's Crash Records Information System, or CRIS.

The raw records for the build are already public and identified. So far this project has pulled:

• Form 2321 pre activation reports covering 25 camera cities, and Form 2322 post activation filings for 2018 through 2023, from TxDOT's red light camera report archive.
• Leon Valley's current Form 2322 filing, from TxDOT's live site, reproduced and checked above.
• Camera locations, activation dates, shutoff dates, and citation counts drawn from those filings and from contemporaneous public reporting.
• The archived Texas Tribune red light camera data application, which mapped Texas camera locations, citations, and revenue during the program years.

The same caution applies to anecdotal reporting about individual intersections. For example, the Dallas Morning News reported in February 2020 that crashes at one Dallas intersection had "quadrupled" after cameras were shut off. The reported comparison was two crashes in the five months before the ban and eight crashes in the roughly five months after.

That is not enough information to establish a meaningful trend. It is a small number of events at one location, measured over unequal time periods, at an intersection selected because of its crash history. It illustrates the evidence gap. It does not resolve it.

A Public Methodology Set Before the Results

This page is a pre registration of the planned analysis.

The methodology is being published before the final model is run so the study parameters are visible in advance. The purpose is simple: the research question, comparison groups, time periods, and outcome measures should not be selected after reviewing the results.

study_element,pre_registered_design
"Research question","Did crash type and crash severity change at Texas intersections that lost red light cameras after June 2, 2019?"
"Primary treatment group","Camera intersections in approximately 57 cities that shut down programs in June 2019"
"Staggered shutdowns","Amarillo from September 2022; Balcones Heights from June 2024; Humble from July 2024"
"Control group A","Leon Valley, where cameras remain active under a contract through 2039"
"Control group B","Matched non camera signalized intersections in the same cities"
"Control group C","Signalized intersections in San Antonio, which did not operate a camera program"
"Crash radius","200 feet from each intersection center"
"Pre shutdown period","June 1, 2016, through May 31, 2019"
"Post shutdown period","July 1, 2019, forward; June 2019 excluded"
"Primary outcomes","Angle crashes, rear end crashes, total crashes, injury crashes, and red light related crashes"
"Statistical models","Poisson and negative binomial regression with intersection and month fixed effects"
"Severity weighting","KABCO injury codes mapped to FHWA unit crash costs and NHTSA injury cost estimates"
"Robustness checks","Repeat analysis without 2020 to 2021 data; compare 150 foot and 250 foot radii; exclude cities with less than 90% geocoding completeness"

What the Study Will Test

The analysis will examine whether the shutdown changed:

• The number of angle crashes.
• The number of rear end crashes.
• The total number of crashes.
• The number of injury crashes.
• The number of crashes coded as red light related.
• The overall severity weighted economic cost of crashes.

The study is designed to test competing possibilities fairly.

The final release will include:

• The intersection level dataset.
• City by city findings.
• A map of camera intersections and comparison sites.
• The underlying CRIS query methodology.
• Clear reporting of uncertainty and data limitations.

To protect privacy and prevent misleading percentage changes based on very small numbers, intersections with fewer than five crashes during either comparison period will be shown as a dash rather than a percentage. No individual person will be identified.

The Planned Dataset

The final dataset will contain one row per camera intersection per month, in this structure:

Illustrative structure only. The example values show the format of a row, not measured results.

That structure is what will make the dataset original even though every underlying record is public: this project selects the intersections, defines the inclusion rules, links locations to crash records, creates the time windows, builds the controls, calculates the measures, and documents the methodology. Original research frequently uses public government data.

Proving Fault After a Red Light Crash

The statewide ban did more than end an enforcement program. It also removed one potential source of evidence.

When two drivers disagree about who had the green light, fault may now depend more heavily on the evidence that remains available after a crash. That evidence can include:

• Vehicle event data recorders, which may show speed, braking, steering, throttle position, and other information from the seconds before impact.
• Traffic signal timing records, which can help establish the signal sequence at a particular intersection.
• Private video footage, including business surveillance systems, home doorbell cameras, dash cameras, and nearby traffic cameras.
• Witness statements, especially from drivers, pedestrians, or nearby business employees.
• Physical evidence, including impact angles, vehicle damage, debris fields, skid marks, and final vehicle positions.
• Crash reconstruction evidence, where the collision involves serious injuries, disputed fault, or significant financial consequences.

The direct answer to a common question is this:

This section is educational only and is not legal advice.

How the Study Works, and Where It Can Fall Short

This page presents the evidence base, the known weaknesses in publicly available records, and the study design that will be applied to the CRIS data. The final findings will be published with the underlying dataset and methodology.

1. Source of Crash Data

The planned analysis will use TxDOT's Crash Records Information System as the primary source for crash counts. CRIS includes reportable Texas crashes from 2014 forward and may include information such as:

• Crash coordinates.
• Date and time.
• Manner of collision.
• Contributing factors.
• Injury severity under the KABCO framework.
• Other crash level fields needed for intersection level analysis.

City camera reports will be used only for camera locations, activation dates, shutdown dates, citation counts, and signal timing information.

2. Why the Study Uses a 200 Foot Radius

Gallagher and Fisher found that crashes were substantially more concentrated within 200 feet of Houston intersections than at other nearby distances. The 200 foot radius follows that established design. The study will also test 150 foot and 250 foot radii to determine whether the results depend on the chosen distance.

3. Known Confounding Factors

No observational study can eliminate every alternative explanation. The primary risks include:

• COVID-19 traffic changes in 2020 and 2021. The study will use matched control intersections and will rerun the analysis without those years.
• Regression to the mean. Camera programs were often installed at high crash intersections. The study therefore uses multi year pre shutdown periods and comparison intersections rather than relying on simple before and after counts.
• Signal timing changes. Cities may have adjusted yellow light timing, traffic signal phasing, or intersection design after camera removal. Available signal timing records will be reviewed, and locations with documented changes will be flagged.
• Vehicle safety technology. Automatic emergency braking and other safety systems may have reduced rear end crashes over time, affecting camera and non camera intersections alike.
• Geocoding quality. The analysis will test whether results change when cities with lower geocoding completeness are excluded.

4. Source Discipline

Several widely repeated claims about Texas red light cameras could not be verified through primary sources or clearly attributed reporting. Those claims are not included here.

This study will distinguish between:

• Verified public records.
• Published research.
• City reported data that can be used for location or program history but not as a definitive crash count.
• Findings generated from the CRIS analysis.

Primary Sources and Research Used in This Project

This project cites primary publications only. Read them yourself:

• TxDOT: Red Light Cameras
• TxDOT Red Light Camera Annual Reports
• Leon Valley Form 2322 (2025)
• HB 1631 Bill Record
• HB 1631 House Research Analysis
• TxDOT Crash Records Information System

• Gallagher and Fisher (2020)
• Ko and Wunderlich (2017)
• IIHS Research on Red Light Running
• FHWA Red Light Camera Safety Evaluation
• NHTSA Crash Cost Study (DOT HS 813 403)

The Texas A&M Transportation Institute's statewide camera evaluations, including the 2012 Empirical Bayes study of 254 intersections by Ko, Geedipally, and Walden, are cited by name; the relevant TxDOT archive location restricts automated access. Revenue figures attributed to the Texas Comptroller are reported through KERA News.

Public Interest Traffic Safety Research

This research project was prepared by J. Alexander Law Firm as public interest traffic safety research.

The page relies on aggregate, anonymized public information and published research. It does not identify crash victims, drivers, passengers, pedestrians, or other individuals. It does not use crash data to contact any person.

This material is provided for educational purposes only. It is not legal advice.

The project was reviewed by Josh Alexander, founder and managing attorney of J. Alexander Law Firm.

Related research: The Texas After School Crash Window and The Most Dangerous Intersections in Texas.

Published September 22, 2026. This page presents the pre registered research design before completion of the CRIS analysis; final findings will be published with the underlying dataset. Media and research inquiries: use the firm contact page.