ADOT doesn't have any traffic reports from El Mirage. And city officials have refused New Times' repeated requests for copies of the traffic studies and crash data they were supposed to provide to ADOT.
No matter -- we obtained police officials' e-mails that show that between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2011, there were 39 traffic collision at the Grand/Primrose intersection before the cameras were installed.
The e-mails raise questions about whether safety is really at issue.
Of the 39 reported collisions, 30 were non-injury accidents. Five others caused "non-incapacitating" injuries to those involved. And three others caused "possible injury." One is listed as "blank."
Other city documents show that between 35,000 and 44,000 vehicles daily travel along Grand Avenue, including through the city's stretch of the state highway that leads to places like Wickenburg and Las Vegas.
Even assuming the low end of that estimate, that's nearly 13 million cars a year passing through El Mirage.
Or, that's about 39 million cars moving through that intersection over that three-year period when there were 39 collisions -- 30 of which caused no injuries to those involved.
During that time, there was a 0.0001 percent chance of getting into a car accident at the intersection. And the chances were infinitesimal of getting into an injury accident.
The statistics are the type of ammunition anti-photo-enforcement advocates would use to make a case for shutting down El Mirage's cameras -- because, how can the city claim with a straight face that cameras are there to make the intersection safer?
Photo-enforcement cameras have not been popular in Arizona.
In fact, after installing cameras aimed at catching speeders in 2008 on state freeways and highways, Arizona officials caved to mounting public pressure and shut down that photo-enforcement program in 2010.
Some live cameras remain peppered throughout the state in cities such as Tucson, Show Low, Prescott Valley, and Globe. And, of course, El Mirage's camera on U.S. 60, or Grand Avenue.
These cities are supposed to justify that they need the cameras, and ADOT grants permission for cities to dig up the roadway to install them.
But if city officials haven't provided a crash study to ADOT, why were the cameras installed?
ADOT tells New Times that they have no traffic studies or crash reports from El Mirage. And, again, El Mirage has ignored repeated requests for the information.
El Mirage officials did tells us that Redflex, the for-profit company that installs these cameras, has the data.
Redflex wouldn't return our calls, but a message on their voice mail advises callers that they do not maintain city-specific data and directs them back to the city.
Tim Tait, a spokesman for ADOT, told us earlier that El Mirage officials told ADOT during a meeting they had the traffic information and that they said the intersection was a public-safety concern.
ADOT, Tait says, leaves the decision to install cameras to catch speeders or red-light runners up to individual cities.
"It's a local public safety issue," he says.
There are two problems with ADOT's position.
1) That is not what the written agreement between ADOT and El Mirage states, and 2) e-mails between the city and the state agency show that those studies are "required."
El Mirage officials have to "provide the proper documentation to ADOT for justification of photo enforcement based on an adverse crash history and other necessary information," according to the agreement.
In turn, ADOT's traffic-engineering group will "review current ... speed studies, crash history reports...and other detailed reports that verify the necessity of the proposed photo-enforcement system submitted by the City."
E-mail exchanges between ADOT and El Mirage in July 2011, when the cameras were about to go up on Grand Avenue, show that ADOT put on hold the city's permit -- effectively stopping Redflex from installing the cameras.