Memphis Shelby Crime Commission

An Introductory Background Report on Automated Traffic Enforcement

Submitted 7 March 2001

Automated traffic enforcement has been used in Europe, Canada and Australia since the 1970s, and subsequently in Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and South Africa. These countries use photo enforcement for a variety of infractions and purposes: speed control, red-light running, other traffic violations, overweight vehicles, fee collection and accident reduction. Photo enforcement programs provide 24-hour enforcement coverage and use established regulatory laws and agencies to monitor behavior as a means to improve traffic (and public) safety. Successful programs require strategic planning, financial resources, evaluated implementation and maintenance.

Automated Enforcement in the United States

The Federal Highway Administration (FWHA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation reports that red light running accounts for almost 100,000 automobile accidents, over 90,000 injuries, and is associated with over 1,000 deaths annually. A better understanding about the dynamics of traffic accidents and fatalities has driven official concerns about traffic safety, and the consequent use of photo enforcement to reduce traffic offenses, accidents and fatalities. Currently, some form of photo enforcement is being used in approximately 70 cities in 13 states, including Washington, D.C. Not all jurisdictions have experienced success with automated enforcement and several of the original FHWA pilot programs have been discontinued, reportedly due to loss of public support. In the United States, automated enforcement has most successfully been used to address red-light running and toll collection, rather than speed control.

In 1992, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority introduced automated enforcement at grade crossings for one of its transit lines: gate violations reportedly decreased by 90% at some of the automatic enforcement pilot locations. Over the past decade in the United States, public safety officials in American cities have turned more frequently to automated enforcement to enhance community safety through traffic control and management. At its annual conference in 1999, the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution supporting state enactment of legislation to enable "cities to implement photo enforcement programs for red light running, speed, and public highway rail grade crossing violations."

There are nine important dimensions that public officials must address when considering photo enforcement¹: partnerships (including the judiciary); legislation; education and media campaigns; vendors; lag time (between offense and citation); opposition and privacy concerns; revenue and program management; selecting sites for enforcement; and current traffic signaling systems. Each of these issues will be discussed briefly below.

1. Partnerships. In jurisdictions that have implemented photo enforcement, partnerships between a wide range of agencies and advocates play a large role in the success of the programs. Generally, partnerships center around public and traffic safety agencies and personnel. Several programs examined in a recent FHWA summary report on photo enforcement indicated that program organizers were able to parlay specific (or targeted) traffic safety activities into a broader level of community support. This is necessary to begin, build and maintain public infrastructure and support for these programs. Some coalitions have grown to include healthcare professionals, police and fire personnel, professionals, parents and educators, and other safety advocates in addition to traffic police and traffic engineers.

In New York City, in anticipation of articulated public opposition and legal challenges to photo enforcement, the planning process included members of the administrative judiciary who would hear appeals for these violations. In this case, strategic planning effectively addressed a major implementation problem of both issue-tailored legislation and targeted program development by including one of the major processing elements of planned system into the system design process. Addressing procedural and evidentiary problems in advance of program implementation avoids significant difficulties and delays during implementation.

In San Francisco, the automated enforcement partnership involved the police, municipal court, public works, the City and District Attorneys, public health, and parking and traffic personnel. Police officers review all citations before they are issued; working with the City Attorney and the Court, the Police Department developed policies and procedures for reviewing and monitoring citations.

2. Legislation. There is a continuing debate about the penalties that should be applied to automatically enforced traffic violations. This program element varies by jurisdiction: several states, including Michigan, have experienced legal difficulties related to photo enforcement, particularly issuing citations by mail. Additional legislative restrictions may govern the uniformity and handling of photo enforcement evidence, including using Department of Motor Vehicle records for driver identification, vehicle registration information, and violator notification.

3. Education/Media Campaigns. A national pilot campaign for automated traffic enforcement was initiated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 1995; each of the initial programs established seem to consider both public education and media campaigns an essential element of developing awareness of automated enforcement and support for increasing safety through this method of enforcement. Campaigns may include public safety announcements, press conferences, billboards, bumper stickers, and other outreach programs. The FHWA's "Red-Light-Running Campaign Strategic Guide" lists twelve elements in a sample campaign, including staffing, opinion polls, traffic assessment; coalition building; baseline offense measurement; customized marketing materials, and data collection, among others.

The emphasis on the education component of these programs indicates that automated enforcement is part of a larger strategy to change behavior and to improve public safety. Most automated enforcement advocates agree that red-light running (and other traffic violations) constitutes a public health problem. Some campaigns include information about the economic and health costs associated with traffic accidents and fatalities. Opinion poll research undertaken as part of these initiatives has begun to reveal specific characteristics of violators; understanding violator dynamics has implications for both public education campaigns and offender behavior management.

4. Vendors. Selecting any technology vendor can be problematic for a municipality or county, as it raises a host of financial, operational, equipment and management issues. A list from the photo enforcement program in Oxnard, California presents a comprehensive overview of the issues to be considered: cameras; installation of poles and cabinets; installation of detection loops; installation of warning signs; distribution of pre-enforcement notices; equipment maintenance; staff training; processing of all program elements; community and media relations; expert witness testimony; toll-free (bilingual, if necessary) violator information line; information management and data reporting.

There is no standard automated enforcement program, and advocates insist that each program must be tailored to both the city or county as well as suitable to the individual enforcement locations targeted. In most cases, jurisdictions lease cameras and processing equipment, and manage the enforcement process with the assistance of vendors. In others, however, jurisdictions use "turnkey" operations in which the vendor owns, installs, maintains, and operates the system. Depending on the jurisdiction and program elements, vendors may act as educators, advocates and advisors to implementing jurisdictions, suggesting locations, buffers and thresholds for enforcement.

A well-prepared strategic planning group that can articulate desired program elements and anticipated program effects will best be able to manage the interrelated processes of program design and vendor selection. It is important to always remember that while automated enforcement programs are public safety initiatives for the sponsoring jurisdictions, they are an income-generating activity for potential vendors.

5. Lag Time. One of the chief concerns about automated enforcement systems appears to be the "lag time" between the violation and notification of the violator. As with conventionally-issued traffic citations, there must be minimal time between the violation, the issuance of a citation, and the resolution of the matter in order for drivers to remember the incident, to reduce unnecessary or unfounded appeals, and to ensure that fairness and justice are served.

6. Program and Revenue Management. Viable photo enforcement programs must consider funding sources, camera site location, projected revenues (and alternative plans in the event of shortfalls), penalties, handling of evidence and follow-up enforcement. One major source of controversy about these programs is the perception that they are designed solely to generate revenue for the sponsoring jurisdiction. In actuality, these programs generate significant equipment and personnel costs, regardless of whether they are jurisdiction-managed or vendor-managed. Several cities in California reported that the cost of the programs was not recouped by the fines levied and collected: subsequent legislation raised the fines for such offenses, and these increases have generally covered program costs. One way to manage potential concerns over perceived "speed-trapping" is to designate all program revenues to non-enforcement public safety purposes. The revenue issue should be considered during the program design process.

Some states use fines only to punish offenders; some states assess points to the violator's license. Assessing points increases the burden of evidence on the state, requiring clear establishment of the driver's identity. In California, which assesses points, this burden of identify reduces the citation issuance rate; estimates indicate that the issuance rate would double in San Francisco to over 50% if the requirement were only to photograph the violator's license plate.

7. Selecting Enforcement Sites. In the San Francisco program which reported a 42% drop in red-light running after six months of photo enforcement, five criteria were used to determine intersections to be targeted by automated enforcement. These were: number of collisions caused by red-light running; suggestions from community groups; suggestions from the Police Department; geographical dispersion; and political and historical factors. Other facts to consider are the installation logistics (sidewalk space, conduit space) and the attendant costs of working around developed urban infrastructure to make such a system workable, and not vulnerable to vandalism or destruction.

One method for managing equipment costs is to rotate a fixed number of cameras through various locations in the jurisdiction at regularly scheduled intervals in order to increase public awareness and perception of the program. Several automated enforcement programs report spillover-effects that appear to reduce similar violations at non-monitored intersections.

8. Current Signaling Systems. Most sources caution (and are correct to do so) that photo enforcement should not be the first approach to reducing violations and increasing safety. To improve traffic safety and management, many advocates recommend using all current possible enforcement and non-enforcement education mechanisms before undertaking an automated enforcement system. This means optimizing current traffic signaling systems to function at the highest level, including delayed green signals, optimizing light cycle times, extending or shortening yellow-light duration, and re-timing lights to promote smooth traffic flow. These measures also include assessing signal size and location, and using prominently displayed, easily understandable signage and markers.

9. Opposition and Privacy Concerns. There is substantial opposition in many states to automated enforcement, particularly for speeding offenses. In Florida, Nebraska and Michigan, opposition has prevented legislation to make workable programs; opposition in both Massachusetts and California has led to restrictions on the type and scope of programs. In some cases, police officers resent the intrusion of automated enforcement into what was once exclusively their enforcement domain.

In order to develop an effective photo enforcement program in Memphis, each of these nine dimensions must be considered carefully. A brief overview of the dimensions in terms of development of automated enforcement in Memphis appears below.

1. Partnerships. At the formative level, great consideration must be devoted to which agencies, organizations and community groups will be involved with the initiative. A lead agency must be designated. Supporting partners and a comprehensive program plan must be developed in terms of identified and articulated program goals. In Memphis, necessary partnerships between city and county law enforcement and traffic safety personnel must be cultivated. Additionally, due to commuting patterns, some participation by officials from Mississippi and Arkansas must be included in order to address the matter of pursuing violations and citations for citizens from these states who drive in Memphis.

In order to develop community-based support, advocates recommend involving community groups in the process by sending a specific list of potentially enforceable intersections to community groups, rather than soliciting a general list of candidate intersections.

2. Legislation. In Tennessee, a recent ruling by the Attorney General appears to have removed legal barriers to local authorities pursuing automated enforcement as a method of accident reduction and public safety. However, information-sharing issues with Department of Motor Vehicles (potentially in three states) regarding drivers' license and vehicle registration information may necessitate the drafting of special agreements between program partners and the vendor. Additionally, depending on whether program developers decide that only fines or fines and points are to be assessed, some supporting legislation may be required.

In California, state law enables photography of the driver violator, but requires the omission (or blocking out) of passengers in the evidentiary photographs sent to violators with their citations.

4. Lag Time. Program organizers must develop standards regarding the desirable and maximum allowable time elapsed between a violation and citation issuance. This and related issues must be considered carefully during the design process, including vendor selection. What types of problems are to be anticipated with the new technology systems? Will new information systems be required? How will these interface with existing systems? How will problems in processing be resolved?

9. Vendors. The City of Memphis must select a vendor with the demonstrated capacity to develop and manage an automated enforcement program in a major city or similar jurisdiction. The vendor should candidly address issues of revenues, likely obstacles, problem resolution mechanisms, and long-term program maintenance.

Dr. Robyn R. Mace
Memphis Shelby Crime Commission
50 N. Front Street, Ste. 650
Memphis, TN 38103
rmace@memphiscrime.org
901-527-2600 p
901-527-5300 f