text:
Technical Evaluation of Photo Speed Enforcement for Freeways
Final Report 596
Prepared by: Craig A. Roberts, Ph.D., P.E., Principal Investigator Jamie Brown-Esplain, Research Engineer AZTrans: The Arizona Laboratory for Applied Transportation Research Northern Arizona University Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Flagstaff, AZ 86004-5600
October 2005
Prepared for: Arizona Department of Transportation 206 South 17th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 In cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. The report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers' names that appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. Government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers.
This ATRC report is available on the Arizona Department of Transportation's Internet site.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
4. Title and Subtitle
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
5. Report Date
Technical Evaluation of Photo Speed Enforcement for Freeways
October 2005
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author
8. Performing Organization Report No.
Craig A. Roberts, Ph.D., P.E., Co-Principal Investigator Jamie Brown-Esplain, Co-Principal Investigator
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
AZTrans: The Arizona Laboratory for Applied Transportation Research Northern Arizona University College of Engineering and Natural Sciences Civil and Environmental Engineering Department P.O. Box 15600 Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5600
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
11. Contract or Grant No. JPA 05-011T / H6704 01L
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 206 S. 17th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85007 ADOT Project Manager: Stephen R. Owen, P.E.
FINAL REPORT November 2004 - October 2005
14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
Extreme speeding on urban-area freeways contributes to increased crashes resulting in fatalities, property damage, and increased maintenance and public safety costs. Photo speed enforcement systems (speed cameras) that automatically sense a speeding vehicle and photograph it and its driver have proven effective at reducing speeding violations, primarily on city streets and arterials. The use of this technology on high-volume, high-speed, multi-lane freeways is technically much more challenging, and largely untested. This research investigates if the current offerings of vendors can provide a viable technical solution in this freeway environment. Twelve ideal characteristics were established that are needed for a speed camera system to operate on Phoenix, Arizona, metro-area freeways. Six vendors were interviewed. Thirteen agencies that use speed camera systems were interviewed, although none were found with sufficient freeway operating experience to provide definitive information to design a field trial. Therefore, only a conceptual field trial and accompanying test plan were developed to explore the technical aspects of potential systems. Public opinion and countermeasures on speed camera systems were researched and reported. No current vendor offering meets all of the twelve ideal characteristics that were established. Advancements in speed camera systems continue, and it is logical to predict that they can be met in the future. One new technology that shows promise is "point-to-point," which tracks average speed between two points on a roadway. This research did not address the violation processing and management activities, but noted that these must be addressed before a field trial can proceed.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
Photo Radar, Speed Enforcement, Speed Cameras, Freeways, Countermeasures, Traffic Safety
Document is available to the U.S. Public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, 22161
21. No. of Pages 22. Price
23. Registrant's Seal
Not Applicable
19. Security Classification
20. Security Classification
Symbol in ft yd mi in2 ft2 yd2 ac mi2 fl oz gal ft3 yd3 When You Know inches feet yards miles square inches square feet square yards acres square miles fluid ounces gallons cubic feet cubic yards Multiply By To Find millimeters meters meters kilometers square millimeters square meters square meters hectares square kilometers milliliters liters cubic meters cubic meters Symbol mm m m km mm2 m2 m2 ha km2 mL L m3 m3 Symbol mm m m km mm2 m2 m2 ha km2 mL L m3 m3
When You Know millimeters meters meters kilometers square millimeters square meters square meters hectares square kilometers milliliters liters cubic meters cubic meters Multiply By To Find inches feet yards miles square inches square feet square yards acres square miles fluid ounces gallons cubic feet cubic yards Symbol in ft yd mi in2 ft2 yd2 ac mi2 fl oz gal ft3 yd3
25.4 0.305 0.914 1.61
0.039 3.28 1.09 0.621
645.2 0.093 0.836 0.405 2.59
0.0016 10.764 1.195 2.47 0.386
29.57 3.785 0.028 0.765
0.034 0.264 35.315 1.308
NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3.
oz lb T ounces pounds short tons (2000lb) 28.35 0.454 0.907 grams kilograms megagrams (or "metric ton") Celsius temperature g kg mg (or "t")
g kg Mg grams kilograms megagrams (or "metric ton") Celsius temperature 0.035 2.205 1.102 ounces pounds short tons (2000lb) oz lb T
TEMPERATURE (exact)
Fahrenheit temperature foot-candles foot-Lamberts poundforce poundforce per square inch 5(F-32)/9 or (F-32)/1.8
TEMPERATURE (exact)
1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit temperature foot-candles foot-Lamberts poundforce poundforce per square inch
fc fl lbf lbf/in2 10.76 3.426 4.45 6.89 lux candela/m2 Newtons kilopascals lx cd/m2 N KPa lx cd/m2 N kPa lux candela/m2 Newtons kilopascals
0.0929 0.2919 0.225 0.145 fc fl lbf lbf/in2
SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Motivation For Research 1.2. Scope of This Research 1.3. Organization of The Report 2. CURRENT STATE OF TECHNOLOGY 2.1. General Concepts 2.2. Red-Light Running Technology 2.3. Fixed Speed Enforcement Technology 2.3.1. Vehicle Speed Subsystem 2.3.2. Vehicle/Driver Photo Subsystem 2.3.3. Speeding Violation Subsystem 2.4. Mobile Speed Enforcement Technology 2.5. New Technology: Point-To-Point 3. IDEAL SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS FOR ADOT AND DPS 3.1. General ADOT Needs 3.2. General DPS Needs 3.3. List of Ideal System Characteristics 3.4. Vendor Ability To Meet Ideal System Characteristics 4. ACCEPTANCE OF PHOTO SPEED ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS 4.1. Feedback From Owners of Deployed Systems 4.2. Relationship Between Safety And Photo Speed Enforcement 4.3. Public Attitudes To Photo Speed Enforcement 4.3.1. Attitudes From Non-Arizona Users of Deployed Systems 4.3.2. Public Opinion Survey--City of Scottsdale, Arizona 4.4. Countermeasures 5. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF FIELD TRIAL 5.1. Model Request For Proposal 5.1.1. Background 5.1.2. Purpose of Request For Proposal 5.1.3. Demonstration Site 5.1.4. Purpose of This RFP Specification 5.1.5. List of Technical Needs To Be Met 5.1.6. List of Management Needs To Be Met
1 7 7 8 9 11 11 11 12 12 14 16 17 18 21 21 21 22 23 25 25 32 35 35 39 41 45 45 45 46 46 46 47 48
5.1.7. Pricing of System at the Demonstration Site 5.1.8. Field Test Plan 5.1.9. ADOT and DPS Provided Items 5.1.10. Demonstration Site(s) Description 6. CONCEPTUAL FIELD TEST PLAN 6.1. Model Field Test Plan 6.1.1. System Goal 6.1.2. Field Test Plan Team 6.1.3. Field Test Plan Goal 6.1.4. Coordination With the Courts and Prosecutors 7. CONCLUSIONS 7.1. Gaps Between Ideal and Actual Systems 7.2. Pace of Technology Development 7.3. Recommendations APPENDIX A. APPENDIX B. REFERENCES VENDOR RESPONSES USER INTERVIEWS
49 50 51 51 53 53 53 53 53 57 59 59 62 63 65 79 107
Figure 1: Gantry-Mounted And Pole-Mounted Photo Speed Enforcement Equipment ... 13 Figure 2: Mobile Photo Speed Enforcement Equipment .................................................. 17 Figure 3: Point-To-Point Photo Speed Enforcement Schematic....................................... 18 Figure 4: Photo Jammer And Laser Jammer.................................................................... 42 Figure 5: License Plate Covers And Spray...................................................................... 43 Figure 6: Radar Detector.................................................................................................. 43 Figure 7: GPS Speed Camera Location System .............................................................. 44
Table 1: Vendor Response Matrix .................................................................................... 24 Table 2: User Matrix--Part A Questions........................................................................... 27 Table 3: User Matrix--Part B Questions ........................................................................... 29 Table 4: Combined Opinions of Scottsdale's Red Light and Speed Camera Program .... 40 Table 5: Conditioned Independent Opinions of Scottsdale's Photo Radar and Red Light Cameras ............................................................................................ 41
ADOT AZTrans Arizona Department of Transportation The Arizona Laboratory of Transportation, the research unit at Northern Arizona University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering that conducted this study. A collective term for the chain of processing and administrative functions of a photo enforcement program which complete the prosecution of the violation, including documentation of speeding events, identification of subjects, mailing of citations, coordination with the court system, etc. Department of Transport in the United Kingdom Arizona Department of Public Safety (Highway Patrol) Federal Highway Administration Intelligent Transportation Systems LIght Detection And Ranging: A sensor similar to radar except it uses electromagnetic energy waves in the visible light spectrum. It is an active sensor in that it emits light waves and detects their return. A major metropolitan area that includes the central city and the surrounding suburban communities. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices A speed enforcement technology that identifies a vehicle at two different locations that are a known distance apart along a roadway and the travel time is used to determine its average speed. The generic term widely used for any system that both senses that a moving vehicle has entered the intersection during a red light and takes a photograph(s) of the vehicle's license plate, and if required, the vehicle's driver. A sensor is mounted in a groove that is cut into the roadway surface within the traffic lane. The sensor gathers data by using the piezoelectric effect to convert mechanical energy (vehicle driving over it) into electrical energy. It operates as a point detector and speed is determined by timing a vehicle traveling between two detectors set at a known distance apart. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology: An office of both Houses of Parliament in the United Kingdom (UK) charged with providing independent and balanced analysis of public policy issues that have a basis in science and technology.
Back Shop
DfT DPS FHWA ITS LIDAR
Metro MUTCD Point-ToPoint Photo RedLight Running Camera Piezo Sensor
RAC Radar
RAC Foundation (Great Britain) ? a motorist safety advocacy and research group (independent of the Royal Automobile Club since 1999). Radio detecting and ranging: A sensor capable of detecting distant objects and determining their position and speed of movement. With vehicle detection, a device directs high frequency radio waves at a vehicle to determine the time delay of the return signal, thereby calculating the distance to the detected vehicle. Request for Proposal The behavior of drivers to slow down when passing an unusual incident on or near the roadway. Examples are roadside crashes and police vehicles, usually with lights flashing, which have pulled a vehicle over to the shoulder of the roadway. During peak traffic periods, this driver behavior can cause congestion that would not otherwise occur. Where a speeding driver of a vehicle slows down to the speed limit just before the location of a known speed camera location and then after passing it, speeds up again. The generic term widely used for any system that both senses the speed of a vehicle and, if speeding, takes a photograph(s) of the vehicle's license plate, and if required, the vehicle's driver. An intensive law enforcement operation. A speeding sweep operation is one that concentrates on speeding violations, usually in a targeted area, using several officers. Technical Advisory Committee: a group of stakeholders and advisors for the research project.
RFP RubberNecking
Slow-Down / Speed-Up Speed Camera Sweep Operation TAC
Motivation for the Research Extreme speeding on urban-area freeways contributes to public opinions that the freeways are unsafe, as well as increased crashes that result in property damage, injury, and fatalities. For transportation agencies such as the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), this is an area of significant concern that means more crash cleanup, more infrastructure damage, more repairs, more tragedy and loss for all involved, and potential liability exposure. For emergency response agencies it means increased exposure to high-speed traffic when responding to crashes. These areas are also critical to the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS), which is responsible for enforcing speed limits, and for working with ADOT to promote safe public travel and to reduce the effects of high-speed crashes on urban freeways. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) now exist to accurately enforce safe municipal speed limits using camera-based technology. These enforcement technologies are generically called "speed cameras" and have been effective on municipal streets and arterials. As of 2005, at least 75 countries rely on such cameras to enforce speed limits, especially on high-risk roads, including Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and Taiwan. Compared with other countries, municipal police in the U.S. have used speed cameras on a limited basis, but their use is expanding. Cameras currently are in use in municipalities in several states, including Arizona, California, Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and the District of Columbia. Whereas speed cameras have been proven on municipal streets, it is technically a much more challenging operating environment to attempt to employ these devices on highvolume, high-speed, multi-lane freeways such as the Phoenix metro (metropolitan) area system managed by ADOT and DPS. The technical problems arising from such a deployment are the focus of this research: Research Question: Can any current offerings of vendors of photo speed enforcement systems provide a viable technical solution that will accurately measure the Phoenix metro regional freeway speeding problems, given the needs and constraints of ADOT and DPS? Additionally, can a conceptual trial deployment and accompanying field test plan be developed to demonstrate the technical aspects of potential systems, should it be desired to conduct one in the future? It is important to note this research question is limited to the technical aspects of a photo enforcement system. Whereas a violation management system would also need to be studied in detail to fully examine the viability of photo speed enforcement, these aspects are beyond the scope of this report. Current State of Technology The first automatic systems to be widely deployed in the United States were red-light running systems. These programs generally proved successful, which led to the use of speed cameras by some U.S. municipalities. The international success of speed cameras 1
has driven the technology. For example, by 2004, the United Kingdom had successfully deployed 6,000 photo speed cameras, and the number continues to grow. Photo speed enforcement systems use three subsystems: Vehicle Speed Subsystem, Vehicle/Driver Photo Subsystem, and Speeding Violation Subsystem. The Vehicle Speed Subsystem typically relies on a radar or LIDAR (LIght Detection And Ranging) sensor to determine the speed of a vehicle, or, it uses an in-pavement sensor. When a vehicle is speeding, this triggers the Vehicle/Driver Photo Subsystem, which takes two photos, one of the driver and one of the rear license plate. This requires two cameras, whereas only one camera is needed if (a) the vehicle has a front license plate or (b) the enabling legislation does not require that the driver's picture be recorded. A data record is formed with the speed information coupled with the photos of the driver and license plate for each violation. The last subsystem, Speeding Violation Subsystem, is not part of this research. Its functions are to use the records created by the first two subsystems to identify the driver of the speeding vehicle, issue that person a speeding violation, and prosecute the person if guilt is not admitted. The speed cameras can be mounted overhead in gantries or at the side of the road (sidefire). Side-fire cameras have limitations on the total number of lanes over which they can successfully capture data. Overhead mounted cameras eliminate this problem because each camera captures a single lane at a relatively close distance to traffic, but this requires more cameras than do side-fire applications. In addition to fixed locations, photo radar cameras can be mounted in mobile devices. This technology takes two basic forms: (a) moving a camera/sensor from fixed location to fixed location and (b) mounting a camera/sensor in a van or tethered to a vehicle. The concept behind moving the camera/sensor between various fixed locations is to spread driver behavior changes over a larger area, without requiring complete systems at each fixed location. The concept behind mounting a camera/sensor in a van is somewhat similar to a typical law enforcement officer using a radar gun in his/her patrol vehicle to issue speeding citations. The ability to "automatically" record violations in the mobile photo enforcement van and later issue citations can be said to increase the efficiency of such a unit versus a patrol vehicle. It is important to note that the mobile unit is quite limited in its function, whereas an officer in a radar-equipped patrol vehicle can instantly switch to other safety functions based on observed information or radio calls. One new concept being tested at some international sites uses "point-to-point" tracking technology. This technology identifies a vehicle at two different locations along a roadway, which are a known distance apart, and the travel time is used to determine its average speed. This technology substitutes a vehicle recognition system for the radar/LIDAR/in-pavement speed sensors. All vehicle license plate numbers are digitally read and recorded when they pass the first instrumented point and as each vehicle passes the second point it is digitally read and recorded again. License plate identification software is used to match the license plates of a vehicle passing both points. If no match is obtained or if a vehicle is not speeding, the data is automatically erased. The benefit of this system is that it avoids the "slow-down/speed-up" driver behavior along a roadway
that can occur at camera locations known to drivers. This technology shows great promise for freeway applications. Ideal System Characteristics The project's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) developed the following list of 12 ideal characteristics for a Photo Speed Enforcement system to be effective on the Phoenix metropolitan area freeways. Many complex interactions can occur between a system and the other activities and goals of ADOT and DPS. The TAC witnessed presentations and/or demonstrations by six vendors and solicited their input based on their knowledge and experience. 1. Mobile deployment options to aid in DPS speeding "sweep" operations. 2. Easily relocatable from one site on a freeway to another. 3. Acceptable light flash intensity. 4. Color photography is desirable to enhance driver/license plate recognition. 5. Identify (ID) both driver and rear license plate. 6. Vendor's compensation is not tied to revenue. 7. System costs are definable by vendor. 8. Download data in electronic format without entering freeway. 9. No technical bias in identifying violations. 10. No sensors placed in pavements that require lane closures for maintenance. 11. Maintain federal roadside crash safety standards for all devices. 12. System can cover five lanes of freeway traffic in one direction. Detailed information was obtained from six vendors (ACS, Peek Traffic Corporation, American Traffic Solutions, LaserCraft, Traffipax. and Redflex) regarding their current technologies in photo speed enforcement. Most vendors can meet a majority of the 12 ideal characteristics, but no vendor can meet all of them at this time. Acceptance of Photo Speed Enforcement Systems Thirteen agencies were interviewed via email and phone that have used or are currently using a photo speed enforcement system. Most of the users report strong public support of their enforcement system, with only two out of thirteen stating that there was an even split in public support. Seven of these organizations were either currently implementing or had implemented the enforcement system on major highways. Three of these jurisdictions, one in Madrid, Spain, one in New South Wales, Australia, and the last in the City of Zurich, Switzerland, are implementing their automated systems on highways with three or more lanes of traffic in each direction. But while these conditions are similar to the Phoenix metro freeways, they lack some specific features that complicate the technical aspects of deploying a vendor's system. Four systems are mobile systems and have or are using their systems on multiple lanes of traffic, but these require manual setup and/or manual monitoring. They typically target only one specific lane using manual efforts. The link between speed and safety is well established by research over the last several decades. What is less well documented is the relationship between photo speed 3
enforcement and safety. The effectiveness of speed cameras in reducing speeds, and the number of road crashes and casualties, is widely debated and depends on several factors: (a) the causes of road crashes and the extent to which speed in excess of the limit is a factor, (b) the potential for offenders to be identified, and (c) public attitudes to speed cameras. It is not straightforward to draw conclusions on the impact of speed camera use from aggregate crash statistics. Trends can arise from many factors (e.g., other road safety measures) in addition to speed enforcement. However, research about deployed systems does generally support a link between improved safety and use of the systems. Specific supporting research is cited in this report from the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Queensland, Australia, British Columbia, Canada, and Washington D.C. Public opinion regarding the use of photo speed enforcement systems varies from country to country and from city to city. Generalizations cannot easily be made. Differences in the cultures of countries may have an impact. Opinions supporting the systems center on (a) driver behavior changes that decrease collisions and improve road safety and (b) freeing law enforcement officers to focus on other tasks. Opinions opposing the systems include (a) accusations of fund raising, (b) placing an over-emphasis on speed, (c) privacy issues, and (d) concerns that slow-down/speed-up behavior occurs which negates real speed reduction. Specific opinion surveys are cited from the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Washington D.C. The City of Scottsdale, Arizona, began operating speed cameras in its municipality approximately seven years ago. The City has found the program to be successful based on its goal of improving safety, as measured through various statistics dealing with reductions in the number of violations, number of collisions, and number of fatalities. It has also sampled public opinion on approximately an annual basis about its combined red light and speed camera program, and has found that a majority of its citizens support the combined program and its expansion. A limited survey of opinion has been conducted on just the speed cameras alone, without the red light cameras, and the majority of this sample also has viewed them favorably. This research also considers countermeasures, which are devices used to counteract enforcement programs. No independent research was found that documents the effectiveness of countermeasure devices. Most system vendors are familiar with the common types of countermeasures and in general do not regard them as particularly effective. Laws exist in many states, including Arizona, that prohibit some of these countermeasures. Conceptual Design of a Field Trial and Test Plan Based on the system characteristics identified as ideal for the Phoenix metro area freeways, no existing system was found that has been deployed long enough to serve as a model for the development of a field trial. Therefore, a conceptual Model RFP was developed, whose purpose is to raise several likely topics that should be considered. It can serve as a guide to prepare an actual RFP, should it be desired to do so at some point in the future. It includes a Conceptual Field Plan to gather the data needed to evaluate the performance and suitability of a vendor's system for meeting ADOT's and DPS's needs.
Conclusions Advancements are being made in photo enforcement systems and it is logical to predict that the ideal technical attributes identified in this research could be met by one or more vendors in the future. One new technology that shows promise is point-to-point tracking, which determines average speed between two points on a roadway. At this time, however, gaps exist between the current vendor systems and the ideal system characteristics needed for the Phoenix metro area freeways. Additionally, this research project has focused exclusively on the technical aspects of a photo enforcement system. Whereas the violation processing and management elements will also need to be studied in detail to fully examine the viability of such a photo enforcement system, these aspects are beyond the scope of this project. Until the enforcement management process issues are addressed, no recommendation can be made from this study regarding the usefulness of proceeding with a field trial of photo enforcement for freeways.
Extreme speeding on regional freeways in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area appears to have reached a critical level for the Arizona Department of Transportation, for the Arizona Department of Public Safety, and for their emergency services partner agencies. However, it is technically very difficult on a high-speed, high-volume, multi-lane freeway to obtain accurate speed data to document this problem. A variety of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) now exist that purport to be able to both accurately collect such data and effectively enforce the speed limits using camerabased technology. While these systems have proven effective on municipal streets with fewer lanes traveling at lower speeds, few if any systems are currently operating on the multi-lane, high-speed types of freeways that exist in the Phoenix metro area. Extreme speeding creates significant safety problems, as well as economic issues, that are difficult to reduce with current enforcement methods for both technical and resource reasons. Technically, methods like intensive "sweep" enforcement are effective in the area of focus, and they do have an impact through publicity to affect other motorists, but the magnitude of the Phoenix regional freeway system makes it difficult to obtain a system-wide impact. Another technical impediment is the high volume of traffic. During several times of the day, on-the-road enforcement can create congestion due to typical "rubber-necking" motorist behavior in the area of a vehicle pulled over by a DPS officer. In other words, enforcement causes congestion and congestion creates its own types of safety problems. Effective enforcement using current methods requires sufficient manpower and equipment to cope with excessive speeds and extreme speeding ? a growing problem on the Phoenix area's expanding freeway system. DPS faces higher average speeds and traffic volumes on more highway miles, with fewer resources and a growing retention problem. The Metro Highway Patrol Division is now (October 2005) under-strength by more than 50 officers, and recruiting falls short due to state budget constraints. Without substantial resource increases, which may be unrealistic given legislative resource pressures in many other areas, a solution using ITS technology could prove highly costeffective. The evaluation of the technical aspects of the ITS photo speed enforcement tools and methods is the focus of the research in this project and gives rise to the research question that was investigated. In a before and after study of photo speed enforcement in Norway, a 26 percent reduction in injury crashes was reported at sites that had high accident rates and density. For sites that did not conform to the warrants, the reduction was only five percent, which was not statistically significant. The results of a meta analysis that combined the effects of automated enforcement reported in Australia, England, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Norway indicated a 17 percent reduction in injury crashes (Stuster et al 1998).
The primary objective of this project was to investigate this research question: Research Question: Can any current offerings of vendors of photo speed enforcement systems provide a viable technical solution that will accurately measure the Phoenix metro regional freeway speeding problems, given the needs and constraints of ADOT and DPS? Additionally, can a conceptual trial deployment and accompanying field test plan be developed to demonstrate the technical aspects of potential systems, should it be desired to conduct one in the future? In order to accomplish this, an initial research work plan was developed and approved by the project's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The work plan was modified during the progress of the research, as guided by unfolding results and unforeseen problems encountered. The TAC also approved these modifications. It is important to note that this work plan is limited to the technical aspects of a photo enforcement system. Whereas a violation processing and management system would also need to be studied in detail to fully evaluate the viability of a photo enforcement system, these aspects are beyond the scope of this report. The final research work plan consisted of the following major tasks: Phase 1 1. Conduct a literature search and Internet search of speed enforcement on highspeed, high-volume, multi-lane, limited-access urban freeways. 2. Conduct a vendor survey/review of current photo camera and related technologies for freeways. When possible, have vendors give presentations to the TAC. 3. Conduct interviews with selected practioner agencies. This will not include the entire universe of state DOTs and international agencies. Instead, it will include those agencies identified through vendor information as to the systems they have deployed, agency referrals to other agencies they believe have or are considering system deployment, and others identified through the course of the research. 4. Evaluate vendor systems for potential deployment effectiveness regarding possible public perceptions and potential countermeasures by drivers and private entrepreneurs. Phase 2 5. Develop a conceptual design of a trial deployment and field test in the form of a "Model RFP" that can be used as the conceptual basis to develop an actual RFP, should it be desired to do so in the future. 6. Develop a conceptual field test plan to evaluate the trial deployment and field test, which will be referenced in the Model RFP developed in Task 5. 7. Complete an ADOT-ATRC Final Report and a Research Note. 8. Make a final presentation to ADOT and partner agency senior management. Be available to assist in other presentations to interested parties as requested. 8
The project was formally initiated in November 2004. The initial meeting with the project sponsors and technical advisors was held on December 7, 2004, at ADOT's Traffic Operations Center in Phoenix. The research was actively guided by a Technical Advisory Committee whose stakeholder / member sections are listed below: Technical Advisory Committee Membership ADOT, State Traffic Engineer ADOT, Transportation Technology Group ADOT, Traffic Engineering Group ADOT, Risk Management ADOT, Communication and Community Partnerships Arizona Department of Public Safety Maricopa Association of Governments City of Scottsdale, Traffic Engineer Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety Federal Highway Administration Arizona Attorney General (advisory only)
The report is organized into chapters that address each element of the research work. If additional detail is deemed relevant, it is included in an Appendix. The organization scheme for chapter topics and location focuses on understanding the outcomes rather than the chronological flow of work. As is typical with most research, unanticipated problems were encountered that were not envisioned in the work plan. However, unless these have a direct bearing on the results, they are not reported here. A detailed Table of Contents is given to assist the reader in finding topics of interest.
The worldwide development of photo speed enforcement systems has been driven by a combination of need and technology availability. The need for an automatic system to enforce speed laws is driven by both the desire to use public safety monies in a cost effective manner, and by the growth of traffic volumes that typically outstrip traffic capacity in most large metropolitan areas worldwide. This outstripping creates greater safety problems for the motoring public. The first example of automatic traffic control reported in the research literature was the photo-radar installed in May 1973 on Autobahn A3 between Cologne and Frankfurt, Germany. While crude by today's technology, the basic elements of this early system are still what are used today. (Sagberg 2000) As of 2005, at least 75 countries rely on cameras to enforce speed limits, especially on high-risk roads, including Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and Taiwan (IIHS 2005). Compared with other countries, speed cameras have only been used on a limited basis so far by U.S. police. Cameras currently are in use in communities in several states, including Arizona, California, Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and the District of Columbia (IIHS 2005). The technology to create a complete system to provide automatic speed enforcement has evolved in response to the need, but relies on technologies largely developed in different fields for different applications. Conceptually, three basic elements are needed for an automatic speed enforcement system: 1. Vehicle Speed Subsystem: senses the speed of a vehicle as it travels within the path of the system. 2. Vehicle/Driver Photo Subsystem: photographs the identifying characteristics of the speeding vehicle and, if required, its driver as the vehicle travels within the path of the system. 3. Speeding Violation Subsystem: identifies the owner, and if required, the driver of the speeding vehicle, issues a speeding violation, and prosecutes the violation if guilt is not admitted. This study focuses exclusively on the technology aspects of the first two subsystems. 2.2. RED-LIGHT RUNNING TECHNOLOGY
The first automatic photo systems to be widely deployed in the United States were "redlight running" systems. The most severe consequence of running a red light is a rightangle collision in the intersection. At typical municipal arterial speeds, this type of collision often results in fatalities or severe bodily injuries, accompanied by extensive property damage. During the 1990s, many municipal agencies were seeing an increase in the frequency of these types of collisions and were willing to test automatic systems.
Testing these types of systems requires cooperation between the traffic-engineering agency, the public safety agency, and the traffic courts. All of these groups are within the control of a municipality when dealing with traffic law violations in their city. Typically, local public support was behind "doing something" about red-light running in "our" city. For these reasons, it was relatively easy and quick for a municipality that was experiencing red-light running problems to test these systems. One impediment often was a requirement by the state legislature to provide legislation allowing the city to legally use the system, or at least to verify that it was allowed under home rule statutes. The Phoenix metropolitan area was an early adopter of red-light running systems, including the cities of Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, Phoenix, and Mesa. The frequency of these types of violations was regarded as being among the highest in the nation, often documented by accident and insurance reports. One contributing factor was the geometric layout of the metropolitan street system. Most cities west of the Mississippi were laid out on a grid system. In addition, the Phoenix metro area made an early commitment to a strong interconnectivity in its grid system, which included multi-lane arterials on a regular basis, typically every quarter mile. These multi-lane arterials typically have a 35-45 mph speed limit and unrestricted sight distances ahead to the next stop light. These conditions make it easy for a driver to see an "opportunity" to "beat" the red light. Additionally, increasing traffic volumes added two inducements to drivers who were willing to break the law and run the red light rather than stop. First, higher traffic volumes typically lead to longer traffic signal cycle times so drivers know that if they miss the green light, they will have to wait a long time until they get the green light again. Second, higher traffic volumes cause traffic engineers to coordinate their signals along a long stretch of arterial so that a driver going the speed limit can have all green lights as s/he drives through a series of intersections. So a perceived benefit of "running" through the red light (but just at the end of the yellow light) is that the driver can probably catch the green light at the next traffic signal. Red-light photo enforcement systems were originally deployed in Europe, and most of the original vendors were European companies. Many of these vendors set up operations or partnered with American companies to bring this technology to the United States. The only difference between a speed enforcement system and a red-light running system is that one captures a vehicle speeding and the other captures a vehicle running the red light. 2.3. FIXED SPEED ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY
An automatic speed enforcement system is closely related to an automatic red-light running system, since many technical and management systems overlap. In fact, some vendors' designs will do both in the same system. 2.3.1. Vehicle Speed Subsystem 184.108.40.206. Sensors Almost all vendors use a form of radar sensor to instantly sense the speed of a vehicle. Two vendors (one exclusively and another as an option) use a LIDAR sensor, which works in the same fashion as radar, except it emits energy in the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Some vendors can use an alternative in-pavement piezo sensor (pressure-sensitive strip), which requires a vehicle to run over it to sense its 12
presence. To capture speed, two piezo sensors are embedded in the roadway at a small distance apart and speed is calculated based on the elapsed time in between. Regardless of the sensor type, the purpose is the same: (1) determine the speed of the vehicle and (2) determine if it is in violation of the speed limit. Capturing speed is complicated by where the sensor is located relative to the vehicle. A sensor can be located overhead (gantry) or at the side of a road (side-fire) (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Gantry-Mounted and Pole-Mounted Speed Camera Equipment Photos on left show gantry-mounted equipment; photos on right show pole-mounted, side-fire equipment. [Source upper left and lower right: Road Traffic Technology 2005] [Source upper right: Traffipax 2, 2005] [Source lower left: LaserCraft 2005]
A gantry-mounted sensor typically only monitors one lane of a roadway--the one directly under it. A side-fire sensor typically is directed across the roadway and senses multiple lanes. A disadvantage of a side-fire sensor is that when a vehicle in a nearby lane blocks a vehicle in a far lane, the vehicle speed in the far lane cannot be sensed. Because the gantry-mounted sensor only looks down at one lane, no vehicle can block it. However, this requires that one sensor be used for every lane monitored, whereas a single side-fire sensor can monitor more than one lane. The same pros and cons apply to a pair of inpavement piezo sensors, which also can sense only one lane. Side-fire sensors have technical limits of how many lanes they can capture, which is simply a function of distance from the sensor. The farther lanes are more technically difficult to sense than the nearer lanes. As mentioned earlier, vehicles in lanes near the sensor can block vehicles in far lanes, and the more lanes that are being sensed, the greater the probability that the farthest lane will be blocked by vehicles in one or more of the nearer lanes. 22.214.171.124. Sensed Versus Target Speed Another function of the subsystem is to compare the sensed speed of a vehicle against the threshold speed. In practice, the threshold speed is a value that is controlled by the agency. If a grace interval is to be used, then the threshold speed is set as the actual speed limit plus the amount of the grace interval. Some systems can also sense the type (classification) of vehicle in some circumstances as a function of length. If there are different speed limits for large trucks and vehicles, then these systems can use a different threshold speed for each. Once it has been determined that a vehicle is speeding, the Vehicle/Driver Photo Subsystem is activated. The information about the vehicle's speed is passed to this subsystem so it can be recorded simultaneously with the photos that will be taken. 2.3.2. Vehicle/Driver Photo Subsystem 18.104.22.168. Film and Digital Photography Early systems used film cameras, which required retrieval of the film at the camera, and is still available from some vendors. Currently, almost all (if not all) systems now use digital photography to capture photos of the driver and the vehicle. The photos are typically only taken when the vehicle is sensed to be moving above the set target speed. The detailed speed information from the Vehicle Speed Subsystem is merged digitally with the photos to create a record of the speeding violation. Two critical issues with this record are privacy of the driver and post-capture tampering with the record. To help guard against these issues, many vendors encrypt the data as soon as the record is made. Typically a remote speed sensor (radar and LIDAR) is housed with the camera and can be side-fire or gantry mounted. It is important that the speed is sensed and the photo is taken simultaneously. 126.96.36.199. Number of Cameras Required A critical issue is where the license plate(s) is located. If a vehicle has a front license plate, a single photo may serve to simultaneously capture both the license plate and the driver image. If the vehicle only has a rear license plate, as is the case in Arizona, then two photos have to be taken. When these two photos are taken is a critical issue. If the photos are taken at exactly the same time, then it is perhaps easier to defend that the 14
photo of the front of the vehicle matches the photo of the rear of the vehicle. This requires two cameras, in an arrangement commonly called a master and a slave. This arrangement forces the slave camera to fire at the same time the master camera fires. However, this arrangement requires the two cameras to be located at two different locations, not a trivial issue. If only one camera location is used, the photos of the driver and the vehicle must be taken at different times, albeit with a very small time interval in between. Two cameras are still required, but the first one faces the oncoming driver and the other faces the opposite direction. So the first camera takes the first photo of the driver and then the second camera waits the required time for the vehicle to pass and then takes the second photo of the rear of the vehicle (license plate) as it is going away from the camera. These two images are merged, with time stamps, along with the speed sensor information into the record of the speeding violation. 22.214.171.124. Illumination Required Illumination is required to obtain the best photographs, which typically takes the form of a flash tube and optimized lamp reflector. It must be capable of providing adequate illumination under all light and weather conditions, including rainy night-time conditions. The flash system must also be safe for passing motorists. Many citizens are concerned about frontal flash and may claim that it is unsafe to expose a driver to such a bright light. While the flash is intense, it is of very short duration. According to one source (PhotoCop 2005), there are no cases of recorded accidents resulting from flash units used in photo enforcement. In some cases red filters are used over the flash units to reduce the effect, but these are most frequently used with black and white film since they produce poor color images. Flash intensity is critical. The best quality photographs are obtained with a lower flash position, and relatively close proximity to the vehicle/driver being photographed. More flash intensity is required as the distance to the vehicle/driver increases. Recall that sidefire units must take photos across several lanes. Lighting the interior of a vehicle for purposes of driver identification is equally problematic. Some vendors with extensive experience have faced and conquered most side-fire flash challenges across two lanes of roadway but little, if any, experience exists across four and five lanes, especially at the high speeds typical on the Phoenix metro freeway system. 22.214.171.124. Maintenance Maintenance is a critical issue on high-speed, multi-lane freeways for safety, cost, and congestion reasons. The location of devices that must be maintained greatly affects their desirability in a freeway application. A lane closure for maintenance is not only an expensive process but always carries a safety risk. A person on an overhead gantry with traffic flowing below typically does not require a lane closure, but does pose a safety risk. Working at the side of a freeway also poses a safety risk and a cost to protect the worker. It is generally easier to work on the right shoulder than the left shoulder. If the space outside the left shoulder is too narrow, it requires a lane closure to work within it. At some locations the space outside the right shoulder can be so narrow that it also requires a lane closure to work in it.
Access to equipment, typically the camera, may be required for reasons other than maintenance. For example, the system deployment plan may include switching a camera among multiple locations in order to minimize the known "single point" enforcement effect. Also, the data from the system must be downloaded on a regular basis. In some systems this downloading can be done remotely through wireless. If it cannot be accessed remotely, then the storage device either will have to be visited on a regular basis, which can be problematic, or a hard wire must be used for downloading, perhaps via a cell phone modem. 2.3.3. Speeding Violation Subsystem While evaluating this subsystem is beyond the scope of this project, obviously the Speeding Violation Subsystem is also required for a complete photo speed system to function. It should be noted that the speeding violation subsystem requires considerable adaptation to the individual requirements of the jurisdiction where the system is deployed. The conceptual functions of this subsystem are listed below from the perspective of a single violation. These functions depend primarily on management systems rather than technology and are people-intensive functions. These are in simple outline form and were adapted from the actual process currently used by a major city in the Phoenix metro area that has extensive experience in both photo red-light running and photo speed enforcement (City of Scottsdale, Arizona, 2005): ? ? The record from the Vehicle/Driver Photo Subsystem is retrieved for processing. The owner of the vehicle is identified through license plate records. If the owner of the vehicle and the person in the photo of the driver do not appear to be of the same gender, then the owner is voluntarily asked to identify the driver. The violation citation is issued, typically by mail. Depending on the requirements of the jurisdiction, the citation may include the photo of the driver. The person cited is typically given three choices: (a) plead guilty and pay a fine, (b) plead innocent and ask for a court date, or (c) prove that the photo of the driver is not the person cited, in which case the citation will be voided. The violation is transferred to the court. If the recipient of the violation proves that it is not his/her photo, the citation is dropped; this information is transferred to the court. If a citation is contested, the citation is defended in court. If a citation is ignored, provide process service after a set period of time from date of issue; this information is transferred to the court.
? ? ? ?
Since these functions are manpower intensive, it is often this subsystem that is the most critical in the selection process for an agency. Some vendors supply all of these services on a contract basis or will provide only those elements that an agency may not want to do internally.
As contrasted by the fixed speed enforcement technology as previously discussed in Section 2.3, mobile devices are available. This technology takes two basic forms: (a) moving a camera/sensor from fixed location to fixed location and (b) mounting a camera/sensor in a van or tethered to a vehicle. The concept behind moving the camera/sensor between various fixed locations is to spread driver behavior changes over a larger area, without requiring complete systems at each fixed location. The motivations for this can be economic or managerial. The economics are straightforward--fewer camera/sensor units are required. Management reasons might include reducing the complaint of creating a speed trap and/or a desire to limit the number of citations issued per month, perhaps because of court loads. The concept behind mounting a camera/sensor in a van is somewhat similar to a typical law enforcement officer using a radar gun in his/her patrol vehicle to issue speeding citations (see Figure 2). The ability to automatically record violations in the mobile photo enforcement van and later issue citations can be said to increase the efficiency of such a unit versus a patrol vehicle. It is important to note that that the mobile unit is quite limited in its function whereas an officer in a radar-equipped patrol vehicle can instantly switch to other safety functions based on observed information or radio calls. These include helping stranded motorists, removing drivers under the influence, and answering radio calls for assistance for a wide variety of needs. Conversely, many municipalities do not use police officers to operate the mobile vans, but use technicians instead.
Figure 2: Mobile Speed Camera Equipment Photo on left shows entire system (except for slave camera) mounted inside a van. Photo on right shows a slave camera (this one also includes a radar sensor) that would be deployed away from the van in order to take two simultaneous photos of the front and the rear of a vehicle. [Source: Traffipax 2005] The mobile van includes the record storage equipment as well as the camera/sensor. Because the unit is mobile, it enforces different speed limits depending on location. Therefore, the mobile van must include equipment to make these types of adjustments as well as set-up and configuration adjustments. If a two-camera system is used, then the 17
slave camera must be located some distance from the mobile van and is typically connected to the van via a cable. A regular law enforcement vehicle can be adapted for use instead of a mobile van. This gives the officer operating the system the ability to provide other functions if the need arises. However, if two cameras are used, an officer must first recover the slave camera/sensor before he/she can move away from the location where the photo speed enforcement was taking place. The slave could be abandoned with hopes of recovering it later. 2.5. NEW TECHNOLOGY: POINT-TO-POINT
One exception to the typical instant sensing of speed by means of a radar or LIDAR sensor is to use two (or more) sensor points along a roadway that yield the average speed of a vehicle between those points. The sensor points can be considerable distances apart. This is currently being tested in some parts of the world (see Figure 3). Since it is not actively deployed yet, it is not part of this study, but it may have future application and is developing rapidly.
Figure 3: Point-to-Point Photo Speed Enforcement Schematic [Source: Gatsometer 2005] The concept of this system is that instead of instantly sensing speed at a single point, the vehicle is identified at two different locations that are a known distance apart along a roadway, and the travel time is used to determine speed. This is called point-to-point or section control speed enforcement technology and gives the average speed over the distance between the two points. This technology substitutes a vehicle recognition system for the instant speed sensor. All vehicles are recorded when they pass the first instrumented point and as each vehicle passes the second point it is recorded again. The recorded information of the individual vehicle at the second point is compared to all the recorded vehicles at the first point to determine a match. When matched, the times that the vehicle passed each point along with the known distance between the two fixed points is used to determine if a violation has occurred. If it has, the rest of the process is 18
essentially identical to that already discussed for the fixed technology. If a violation has not occurred, typically the record is immediately deleted. The vehicle recognition system can rely on different technologies. A technology currently being tested "reads" the photo of a license plate using computer algorithms to yield the license plate number, which is used to make a match. Another technology that is possible, but not known to be in use, is to use an electronic tag that is carried on the vehicle, each having a unique number that can be used to make a match. The use of vehicle electronic tags is increasing for such uses as automatic toll collection and truck port-of-entry clearance. In the future, an electronic tag could be imbedded into the vehicle license plate. Point-to-point systems are being tested in Scotland (BBC News 2005), Australia (RTANSW 2005), the Netherlands (BVOM 2005 and Gatsometer 2005), and Austria (Efkon 2005). While this type of system is potentially more expensive, it eliminates some of the "known point" aspects of speed enforcement wherein a driver slows to obey the speed limit where a camera/sensor location is known to exist and then speeds up again right after it. A potential drawback of the system is that it is ineffective when a driver leaves the roadway between the known points.
Photo speed enforcement is extensive worldwide. However, systems on multi-lane, highspeed freeway applications are not deployed and proven. Some agencies are currently implementing such programs. Madrid, Spain, is an example, but they do not have explicit programs that address all of the issues encountered on Phoenix metro area freeways. Therefore, the TAC extensively discussed the characteristics that an ideal system should have to serve the needs of the Phoenix metro area freeways. These ideal characteristics were formalized into 12 items to serve as the guide in developing a future pilot implementation. 3.1. GENERAL ADOT NEEDS
ADOT has the mission to provide products and services for a safe, efficient, costeffective transportation system that links Arizona to the global economy, promotes economic prosperity, and demonstrates respect for Arizona's environment and quality of life (ADOT 2005). Within this mission, ADOT is responsible for the design, operation, and maintenance of the state highway system, which includes all traffic control devices. The primary goal of ADOT is safety for the traveling public and its own employees. It constantly strives to improve safety through a variety of traffic control devices as well as design features. Its maintenance and operations functions are always examined in detail so as not to compromise worker or motorist safety, and wherever possible, to improve it. The increase in traffic volumes has seen the advent of new technologies being deployed to combat congestion. Some examples are HOV lanes, dynamic message signs (DMS), a traffic operations center, real-time camera monitoring of traffic conditions, and webbased motorist advisory information. All of these systems deploy new technologies without degrading safety and often enhance it. ADOT supports the goal of speed enforcement on the Phoenix metro area freeway system because it is well aware that the current high levels of speeding are known to contribute to higher collision rates and generally compromise public safety. Photo speed enforcement systems appear to be one potential way to accomplish the agency goals, if the technology can be proven to be technically effective in this application. However, the overarching concern for the State is that a photo speed enforcement system must never compromise the safety of the motoring public or ADOT or DPS employees. 3.2. GENERAL DPS NEEDS
DPS has the mission to protect human life and property by enforcing state laws, deterring criminal activity, assuring highway and public safety, and providing vital scientific, technical, and operational support to other criminal justice agencies (DPS 2005). Within this mission, DPS enforces the traffic laws on the state highway system. It too has an overarching goal of protecting the safety of the motoring public and its employees. It constantly seeks ways to deploy its resources in the most cost-effective manner possible to fulfill its overall responsibilities.
Photo speed enforcement systems appear to be one potential way to assist DPS in a cost effective manner, if the technology can be proven to be technically effective in this application. When a DPS officer is actively conducting speed enforcement on the freeways, either individually or as part of a group sweep activity, the officer is enforcing all the traffic laws at the same time, not just speeding laws. The officer can respond to more critical needs, such as a driver under the influence, based on the officer's experience and observations, which are lacking in an automatic system. An ideal system would be able to assist an officer in the field in real time to enforce traffic speed laws. 3.3. LIST OF IDEAL SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
The TAC developed the following list of 12 ideal characteristics for a Photo Speed Enforcement system to be effective on the Phoenix metro area freeways. Many complex interactions can occur between a system and the other activities and goals of ADOT and DPS. In addition to factoring in these goals, the TAC viewed presentations and/or demonstrations from six vendors and solicited each vendor's knowledge and experience during question and answer sessions. The goal of the 12 selected attributes is to provide the ideal list of characteristics that are believed to best serve the motoring public and the needs of both ADOT and DPS. 1. Mobile System: The system needs to be a mobile system in order to be used by the DPS in real time, as part of DPS sweep operations. The mobile system need not be in a van, but could be. If a large enough system was acquired, the mobile aspect might be a sub-set of equipment to meet just this need. 2. Easily Relocatable: This system needs to be easily relocatable in order to avoid a "spot" speed enforcement that becomes known to drivers. Such a spot can lead to unsafe driving behavior when motorists quickly slow down just before the camera/sensor and then speed up after passing it. To avoid this, users should be able to pull the system in and out easily ("plug and play") and relocate it. 3. Acceptable Light Flash: The system needs to have an acceptable light flash so that drivers are not blinded as they drive by the operating system; a "no-light flash" such as infrared may be a viable option. This driver-distraction issue is a priority over any color photographic features that the system may offer. Of particular concern will be the competing needs to have a flash intense enough to reach across several lanes (side-fired) but still not "blind" the driver in the closest lane. 4. Color Photography Desirable: Color is a desirable option, but is secondary. Current users report that color is far more defensible in court (for example, the color of the vehicle is easily observed). Although black and white technology is acceptable, the ideal system would have both color and an acceptable flash intensity. 5. Identify Both Driver and Rear License Plate: The system needs be able to identify both the driver and the rear license plate, which appears to require front-and-rear photos.
6. Vendor Compensation Not Tied to Revenue: The cost of the services of a vendor should not be tied to the revenue generated by the system to avoid any conflicts of interest. The "back office" operation could be wholly conducted by the State, or by the vendor, or shared. This should remain an option. 7. System Costs Are Definable: The system costs needs to be accurately estimated by the vendor. The cost estimation should include details of the cost to sell the equipment to the State, to train employees of the State to run the system, what the fixed fee or charge per citation options would be, etc. 8. Download Data in Real Time: The system needs to download data electronically in real time from the camera/sensor unit(s) and transmit it to the "back shop" operations. It is unsafe to require an employee to continually download data at the unit itself. 9. No Bias in Identifying Violations: The system needs to give equal representation of all roadway speed activity. There should be no bias due to vehicle classification, traffic volume, lane position, speed range, or other factors. 10. No Devices in Pavement: The system must not be invasive to the existing pavement because this increases the frequency of lane closures, each of which carries safety risks. 11. Maintain Roadside Crash-Safety: The system needs to satisfactorily address NCHRP 350 roadside crash-safety requirements. 12. Covers Five Lanes: The system needs to cover five freeway traffic lanes. 3.4. VENDOR ABILITY TO MEET IDEAL SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
Six vendors (ACS, Peek Traffic Corporations, American Traffic Solutions, LaserCraft, Traffipax, and Redflex) were interviewed by phone and/or email regarding their available technologies in photo speed enforcement. They were each sent a matrix to fill out, and follow-up questions were addressed through phone calls. A matrix shown in Table 1 summarizes their respective answers. This matrix shows that all vendors believe they can meet ideal system specifications with the following exceptions: 1. Mobile System: ? ? American Traffic Solutions cannot meet this desired characteristic. LaserCraft cannot meet this desired characteristic. Their DTMS System and LaserCam II are designed primarily to photograph vehicles and their license plates from behind. 2. Identify Both Driver and Rear License Plate:
3. No Bias in Identifying Violations: All vendors who use side-fire systems will have this problem because it is related to the physics of side-fire and not to any particular vendor. Specifically, during heavy traffic, vehicles in nearer lanes block speeding vehicles in farther lanes from being identified.
Table 1: Vendor Response Matrix Desired Characteristic 1. Mobile System 2. Easily Relocatable 3. Acceptable Light Flash 4. Color Photography Desirable 5. ID Both Driver & Rear License Plate 6. Vendor Compensation Not Tied to Revenue 7. System Costs Are Definable 8. Download Data in Real Time 9. No Bias in Identifying Violations 10. No Devices in Pavement 11. Maintain Roadside Crash-Safety 12. Covers Five Lanes
Peek Redflex Traffic Traffipax yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
ACS yes yes yes yes
American Traffic Solutions LaserCraft (ATS) no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
yes(1) yes yes yes
yes(1) yes if gantry used yes
yes(1) yes yes yes
yes(1) yes yes yes
yes(1) yes yes yes
yes(1) yes yes yes
Any side-fire camera by any vendor will have bias because of the physics of nearer lanes blocking farther lanes. This is eliminated for gantry-mounted cameras. Table only includes summary information; see APPENDIX A (page 65) for extensive details and context of Vendor responses. 24
Thirteen organizations that have used or are currently using a photo speed enforcement system were interviewed via email and phone. These organizations are: a. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department b. Madrid, Spain c. City of Boulder, CO d. Minnesota Department of Transportation e. City of Charlotte, NC f. Calgary Police Service, Calgary AB, Canada g. City and County of Denver, CO h. City of Beaverton, OR i. City of Atlanta, GA j. City of Zurich, Switzerland k. Jonkoping County Police, Jonkoping, Sweden l. New South Wales Government under management of Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales, Australia m. City of Portland Police Bureau, Portland, OR A questionnaire was formulated with extensive guidance from the TAC. This resulted in the following 20 questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Who is your vendor? Is your system a mobile/portable technology? Have you used this system in a freeway environment? What is the speed of the roadway on which the system is deployed? How long has your system been in place? How do you handle multiple lanes? What type of detection technology do you use? What are your infrastructure requirements (power, connections, structural, etc.)? How many staff does it require to run your system? What is your system's ability to record incidences and transmit them to a central processing facility? Can you capture information on digital format for download? What type of processing services do you use to issue tickets? How successful are you at getting matches with license plates? 25
14. Do you have front and rear license plates? 15. What are your success rates? 16. How effective is your system? (Are you seeing a reduction in crashes or seeing any positive results?) 17. What is the public perception of your technology? 18. What type of countermeasures do you observe? 19. What is the annual cost of the system? 20. What is the annual revenue generated? The answers from each organization were recorded on a questionnaire form. They were summarized in a highly abbreviated format in Table 2 and Table 3 for ease of overview. However, these abbreviated entries lack detail, which is needed for a complete understanding of the unique circumstances of each agency. The reader is encouraged to consult the full detailed questionnaire responses listed in APPENDIX B (page 79). All of the users report strong public support of their enforcement system except for two that stated there was an even split in public support. Calgary Police Service stated that public support was positive to the degree that there were requests to specifically use photo speed enforcement in certain communities. In Madrid, Spain, the interviewee reported that the public has become more aware of tragedies and deaths related to high speeds and 65% of the public is in favor of the enforcement system (with 15% opposed and 20% who do not have an opinion either way). Of the thirteen organizations interviewed, seven were either currently implementing or had implemented the enforcement system on major highways. Three of these seven agencies--in Madrid, Spain, New South Wales, Australia, and Zurich, Switzerland--are implementing their automated systems on highways with three or more lanes of traffic in each direction. The other four highway applications are mobile systems. Those agencies have used or are currently using the enforcement system on multiple lanes of traffic but require manual setup and/or manual monitoring. They typically target only one specific lane using manual methods. Usually, a law enforcement official or other trained personnel will park in a roadside vehicle and target a specified lane. Using the information from the enforcement device(s), violators are either addressed immediately or their information is stored for later download and ticket processing. Other systems are manually set up and left in place to automatically record violations. The equipment is later retrieved and the information downloaded from the equipment and processed.
Table 2: User Matrix--Part A Questions Agency Name
Vendor Name ACS.
System used in freeway conditions? Yes, but this has slowed down and now the majority of applications are on residential and arterial roads. Yes.
Speed on road of system deployment? 45-50 mph on freeways and 25-40 mph at other sites.
How are multiple lanes addressed? Fixed and mobile units that shoot a narrow beam across the lanes.
Type of detection used? Radar.
1. District of Columbia Metro Police Department
27 2. Madrid, Spain Peek: (Equip. made by LaserCraft but Peek distributes) ACS. N/A. Peek Traffic. 3. City of Boulder, CO 4. Minnesota DOT 5. City of Charlotte, NC.
120 km/h (80-85 mph) on freeways, 90 km/h (55 mph) on 5-6 lanes of traffic, and 100km/h (62 mph) on regular twoway, two-lane roadways. 20-30 mph. Varied. 35-55 mph.
Gantry and roadsidemounted systems.
LIDAR and Radar.
No. Yes, but only in work zones. No.
We do not handle multiple lanes. The cameras covered all lanes. Can use on one lane only.
Radar. Radar. Laser ? ProLaser II.
Table 2: User Matrix--Part A Questions (continued) 6. Calgary Police Service 7. City and County of Denver, CO. 8. City of Beaverton, OR. 9. City of Atlanta, GA. 10. City of Zurich, Switzerland. 28 11. Jonkoping County Police, Jonkoping, Sweden. 12. New South Wales government Sensys Traffic. Traffipax and Redflex. ACS. 13. City of Portland Police Bureau, Portland, OR. Multa Nova. ACS. Redflex. LaserCraft. Traffipax/ Robot. Yes. No. No. Yes. Yes, polemounted systems only. No. 30 ? 110 km/h (18-68 mph). 25-35 mph. 20-45 mph. 55 mph. 120 km/h (75 mph) on freeways and 80 km/h (50 mph) on country roads. 50, 70, and 90 km/h (31, 43 and 56 mph). 110 km/h (68 mph). Cameras monitor up to 4 lanes of traffic. 2 lanes handled while mounted in van. 2 lanes handled at the most. Officer-operated laser gun. 3 lanes covered by Traffipax systems. Radar. Radar and Wet Film. Radar. Laser ? ProLaser II. Radar and loops.
We do not handle multiple lanes. Lane specific sensors-piezo electric.
Piezo and Laser-based speed measurement. Radar and Gatsometer camera system.
20, 30, 35, and 45 mph.
2-3 lanes of coverage.
Table only includes summary information: see APPENDIX B (page79) for important details and context.
Table 3: User Matrix--Part B Questions
Agency Name Ability to record and transmit incidences to a central processing facility? None.
Success rate at getting matches with license plates? Not available.
Front and rear license plates? Yes, but only picture of rear plate is needed. Yes, but only take picture of rear plate.
Type of countermeasures observed
Annual cost of the system (US Dollars) $475,000 per month.
1. District of Columbia Metro Police Department
Sprays and obstructions.
2. Madrid, Spain 29 3. City of Boulder, CO 4. Minnesota DOT
Technically feasible, but do not have authority to do this.
Over 95%.
Approx. $126,000 to $151,000 per system per site. $436,000 in 2004. Not available.
Yes, we take a picture of both. Took picture of rear plate only.
Plate covers and sprays. None.
Very accurate.
Table 3: User Matrix--Part B Questions (continued) 5. City of Charlotte, NC None. Approx. 90%. No, only rear plates. Sprays, tag covers, and tape as intentional. Bike racks and trailer hitches as unintentional. Plastic plate covers and trailer hitches. None. Sprays and plate covers. Not available.
6. Calgary Police Service 7. City and County of Denver, CO 8. City of Beaverton, OR 30 9. City of Atlanta, GA 10. City of Zurich, Switzerland
None. None. Transmit data via Internet if digital speed van is used. None. Transmit date via phone or fiber optic line.
Moderate to high rates. Very successful. 4% registration loss and 15% gender matching loss. None. 96% of Swississued license plates.
No, rear plates only. Yes. Yes.
Not available. $1.4 million annually. Not available.
Not available. Yes, but take picture from rear to capture motorcyles.
Laser detectors. None.
Not available. Not available.
Table 3: User Matrix--Part B Questions (continued) 11. Jonkoping County Police, Jonkoping, Sweden None. 100% if license plate is available. Currently use human recognition, but see 80% success rates with electronic plate reading. 7% loss due to clarity of license plates, 14% loss due to gender matching, and majority due to loss of driver picture. Yes, but only picture of front is required. Yes, but only take a picture of one plate. Not available. $210,000 per year.
12. New South Wales government
Transmit data via telecommunications line (similar to 56K in U.S.).
Plate obstructions and sprays.
Confidential information.
13. City of Portland Police Bureau, Portland OR
License plate covers and sprays.
$35,000 to $40,000 per month to ACS.
Table only includes summary information: see APPENDIX B (page79) for important details and context.
The goal of all traffic law enforcement is to improve safety for the traveling public. The logic behind automated photo speed enforcement is that it will improve safety at a reduced cost compared to traditional speed enforcements that are manpower intensive. But any enforcement method, whether automatic or traditional, affects the behavior of motorists in both positive and negative ways. Therefore, agencies attempt to document the net overall effect of automated photo speed enforcement systems. Countries and agencies that use photo speed enforcement usually investigate the safety trends that might be affected. Typically the longer a system has been operating, the more data has been collected and the more analysis has been preformed. Great Britain initiated the enabling legislation in 1991 (ROSPA 2005) and by 1994 had 6,000 speed cameras operating in England, Scotland, and Wales (Institute of Advanced Motorists 2005). Great Britain's experience is summarized in a recent publication of The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), an office of both Houses of Parliament, charged with providing independent and balanced analysis of public policy issues that have a basis in science and technology. This POST report succinctly summarizes the issues, data, and research regarding safety and speed cameras in the United Kingdom (UK) and provides an introduction to the issues. It is quoted extensively below (in British style & spellings): ISSUES The effectiveness of speed cameras in reducing speeds, and the number of road crashes and casualties, is widely debated and depends on several factors: ? ? ? The causes of road crashes, and the extent to which speed in excess of the limit is a factor. The potential for offenders to be identified. Public attitudes to speed cameras.
These points, along with an overview of the available research evidence, are considered below. The causes of road crashes: Research by the Transport Research Laboratory has found that crash risk rises the faster a driver travels, with a driver travelling at 25% above the average speed being 6 times more likely to be involved in a crash. Even where speed is not the cause of the crash itself, it may worsen the consequences of crashes that occur for other reasons, e.g. aggressive or drinkdriving, following too closely behind another driver, or weather conditions. Are speed cameras effective? While it is generally agreed that cameras are effective in certain situations where crashes are caused by excessive speed, there are conflicting views on whether the UK safety camera scheme has reduced overall road casualty figures. This is due to differing interpretations of the available data, some of which are discussed [below] [...]. 32
Use of data: It is not straightforward to draw conclusions on the impact of speed camera use from aggregate crash statistics. Trends can arise from many factors (e.g. other road safety measures) in addition to speed enforcement. Also, the way the data are presented is a key factor: for example, casualties per 100,000 population, or per distance travelled. Results can also vary depending on how data are expressed, e.g. injuries, serious injuries, deaths, or a combination of these. Finally, comparisons of areas with different policies need to consider factors such as size of area, population, the type of road network, car usage, and geographic features. [...] Data from camera sites: The Home Office and the DfT [Department of Transport] quote research showing that numbers of people killed or seriously injured are reduced by 35% at camera sites, (taking into account the existing long term downward trend). [...] Overall crash rates: [...] DfT figures for numbers killed or seriously injured in UK road crashes between 1990 and 2002 [shows a downward trend]. Some critics, including a minority of academics and motoring organisations, argue that the introduction of speed cameras has slowed the long-term downward trend in crashes [...]. However, the DfT believes that their effect on longterm national trends is more likely to be positive, based on research which found that areas with cameras had greater overall reductions in casualties than areas without. [...] Speed cameras have recently been introduced in France, where the success of the British scheme has been cited as motivating the adoption of this particular approach. Speed cameras have also been credited with a 36% reduction in crashes and 74% reduction in fatalities at camera sites in Australia. Problems identifying and prosecuting offenders The effectiveness of speed cameras as enforcement tools depends on whether offenders can be successfully prosecuted. There are various ways drivers might attempt to avoid prosecution, some of which apply to any camera type [...] while some specific problems arise with certain types of cameras. With rear-facing cameras, which do not photograph the driver, the following scenarios can occur: ? Denying knowledge: a registered keeper can claim not to know who was driving the vehicle when the offence occurred. However, the keeper can be charged with failing to nominate the offending driver, which carries a maximum fine of ?1,000 and 3 penalty points. A recent government report on road traffic penalties recommended increasing this to 6 points. Use of `spare' licences: an offender can avoid licence points by paying another driver to accept responsibility, or using the licence of a nondriver, e.g. an elderly relative. It is not possible to know how often this occurs in the UK.
In the case of front-facing cameras, identification of speeding motorcyclists is a problem, since they currently only have rear licence plates. The percentage of motorcyclists exceeding 40 mph limits in urban areas is three times higher than with car drivers [...]. The police are concerned about the growth of crashes involving motorcyclists and several operations have been undertaken in an attempt to reduce casualties. Other methods of avoiding prosecution: ? Registering vehicles: For unregistered vehicles or for those sold on and not registered by the new owner, driver identification is not possible. New rules from 1st April 2004 make it the registered keeper's responsibility to inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to whom a car has been sold. The registered keeper of a vehicle also cannot be traced if the vehicle is registered abroad. ? Cloning of number plates: The DfT states that some number plates are `cloned' to evade identification. Since January 2003, the sale, supply, and registration of number plates has been regulated to attempt to overcome this. Radar and laser detectors: These warn drivers of speed cameras in advance, by scanning radar frequencies and detecting laser beams respectively. They have been legal in the UK since 1998 and are widely available. Devices which evade detection by jamming frequencies are still illegal. (The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology 2004)
While the UK has arguably the most extensive experience with photo speed enforcement, a few other countries have also performed research on their systems. Three highlights of research from other countries are listed below as well as one from the District of Columbia: ? Hong Kong conducted a pilot test for a speed enforcement camera system and evaluated it for effectiveness according to three aspects: injury traffic accidents, speed measurements, and enforcement. A before-and-after study showed that the system had reduced the number of speeding vehicles by over 65% and archived a 23% reduction in the number of traffic accidents involving injuries. (HungLeung, 2000) Queensland, Australia, introduced a speed camera program in 1997 using vans at 500 sites, which had grown to 2,500 sites by 2001. A study investigated the crash effects of the program over a four-year period, which resulted in an estimated reduction in fatal crashes of around 45% in areas within 2 km of speed camera sites. Corresponding reductions of 31%, 39%, 19%, and 21% were estimated for hospitalization, medically treated, other injury, and non-injury crashes respectively. In terms of total annual road trauma in Queensland, these savings represent a 32% reduction in fatal crashes, a 26% reduction in fatal to medically treated crashes combined, and a 21% reduction in all reported casualty crashes. 34
The benefit cost ratio estimated for the program over the period from its introduction to June 2001 was 47. Comparison of the estimated crash reductions and program operational measures showed variations in estimated crash reduction over time were strongly related to the size of the overall program and the density of enforcement. Periods of program growth were also associated with larger crash reductions beyond that expected from the increasing size of the program alone. Higher levels of true randomness in selection of speed camera sites for operation were also associated with higher levels of crash reduction when comparing differential performance of the program across police regions in Queensland. (Newstead 2003) ? British Columbia, Canada, instituted a speed camera program involving 30 cameras. Researchers found a 7 percent decline in crashes and up to 20 percent fewer deaths the first year the cameras were used. The proportion of speeding vehicles at camera sites declined from 66 percent in 1996 to fewer than 40 percent a year later. Researchers also attribute a 10 percent decline in daytime injuries to the speed cameras. And although nearly 250,000 tickets have been issued, nearly two-thirds of those surveyed in British Columbia said they favor the program. (Oesch 2002) The District of Columbia's Photo Radar Speeding Reduction Program, initiated in 2001, has reduced aggressive speeding in DC's photo radar enforcement zones. During July 2005, just 3.7 percent of all vehicles monitored by photo radar were traveling above the threshold speed established for the program, compared to rates of 4.4% in July 2004, 7.8% in July 2003, and 9.7% in July 2002. Prior to the program, the aggressive speeding rate was 31% in July 2001 (initial warning period) and 25.5% in August 2001 (first month of ticketing). Since the summer of 2001, aggressive speeding on DC roadways monitored by photo radar has been reduced from almost 1 in 3 motorists speeding aggressively at the beginning of the program to about 1 in 30 motorists in recent months of 2005. (Metropolitan Police Department 2005) PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD PHOTO SPEED ENFORCEMENT
4.3.1. Attitudes from Non-Arizona Users of Deployed Systems Public opinion regarding the use of photo speed enforcement systems varies from country to country and from city to city. Some conclusions have been drawn from the experiences of agencies that have in-place systems. Differences in the cultures of countries may have an impact. It does appear, however, that the methods used to introduce a new system and the openness regarding its operation are key factors regardless of culture differences. As previously stated, the UK has the most extensive experience with photo speed enforcement systems, dating from 1991. They have explored the question of public acceptance in detail and the issues are well summarized in the same publication previously cited by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. The POST report is again quoted extensively below (with British style & spellings):
Public attitudes to speed cameras Experiences overseas show that public support can have a major impact on the success of camera schemes. High levels of support for speed cameras in Australia have been attributed to openness, publicity, and communication, which lessened concerns that the scheme was a revenue-raising exercise for the authorities. However, in Canada, despite initially encouraging road safety results, two provinces removed their speed cameras as a result of adverse public opinion. Public attitudes to speed cameras in the UK are mixed. Some widely voiced opinions, both for and against the use of speed cameras, are outlined below: Opposition to speed cameras Objections centre mainly on the following points: ? Accusations of revenue-raising: [A Partnership is the enforcement agency, the courts, and the roadway authority. UK-wide these Partnerships pool all fines into a central federal fund, from which the costs of installation and operation are paid to the Partnerships and the excess is claimed by the federal government.] The idea that cameras are a revenue-raising tool for the Partnerships, and thus for the government, is prevalent amongst the general public and in the media. Numerous groups and websites exist to promote this view. However, the income generated in excess of operating costs is relatively small (?4.3 million in 2001/02 [from a total of ?15.7 million of speeding fines]). There are also claims that cameras are sited for maximum profitability rather than for greatest safety benefits. A review carried out by the DfT in March 2004, in response to these claims, concluded that all cameras were correctly sited according to the guidelines in force at the time of their installation. The AA Motoring Trust has voiced concerns that such claims may result in a loss of public support for speed cameras and for the agencies involved in the Safety Camera Partnerships. ? Over-emphasis on speed: Organisations such as the RAC Foundation argue that over-emphasis on speed enforcement leads to a neglect of other types of illegal driving behaviour. For example, drink driving, dangerous driving, and driving while disqualified, are not detected by speed cameras. There have been criticisms of the Durham Road Casualty Reduction Partnership (which covers the one area not taking part in the Safety Camera scheme), which believes that these other factors cause more crashes than speed and that cameras will not help to solve its road casualty problem. Similarly, cameras are criticised by some for replacing traffic patrols. Supporters of the scheme argue that the use of cameras frees up police time and resources to deal with other traffic issues. Human rights: Several challenges have been made to the system under the Human Rights Act on the grounds that requiring people to identify themselves as the driver equates to self-incrimination and violates the right to silence. However, in December 2000 a ruling was upheld on a 36
Scottish case, which confirmed that the process does not infringe any human rights. ? Limited impact on speed: There are concerns that the effectiveness of cameras could be limited, as drivers may slow down for cameras but speed up afterwards. However, there is some evidence that slight speed reductions are maintained over wider distances.
National news coverage of speed cameras, especially in the tabloid press, has been largely negative. The word `scameras' has been widely used and campaigns have been run to discredit the Partnerships by suggesting that safety is not their primary aim. Vandalism of cameras is often reported in the press, with cameras shot at, spray painted, set on fire, and even bombed. Support for speed cameras Local support Many community organisations have mounted campaigns for cameras to be installed at particular locations. Some have erected fake speed cameras, operated their own speed detection equipment, or even blockaded roads in an effort to tackle speed-related problems in their communities. A recent survey suggests that, nationally, over 10,000 requests for cameras are received by Partnerships each year, not all of which qualify. National Support Many groups, including road safety and transport organisations such as Transport 2000 and the Slower Speeds Initiative, champion the use of speed cameras. These two organisations mounted a legal challenge in 2003 against the requirement that cameras should be yellow and sited conspicuously and, as a result, covert cameras can be used. Transport 2000 is also campaigning for a change to siting rules, arguing that communities should not have to wait until a certain level of death or injury has occurred before they qualify for a camera. Over 30 organisations are part of a Safer Streets Coalition, which calls for the enforcement of speed limits to be given a much higher priority through the use of cameras, more resources for traffic police, and more frequent and severer penalties for speeding offences. (The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology 2004) While the UK's experience addresses the issues, it is within the context of the UK driving and political environment. The perceptions of motorists in any location are highly influenced by their specific environment. This local attitude and participation in speeding varies depending on several factors, which may include the normal behavior of the drivers regarding speeding, the degree of congestion, the accident history in the area, the physical arrangement of the roadway network, the amount and types of traffic control devices, the amount of media attention on traffic issues, and the level of enforcement. These types of factors make it difficult to generalize the experiences of one locale to another. Below are listed some results of opinion sampling from areas where photo speed enforcement systems are deployed. However, public opinion is not static and can change from year to year.
The Canada Safety Council recently commissioned a survey to find out how Canadians feel about traditional traffic enforcement, including roadside checks, radar, speed traps, and visibility of police in the community, and how receptive they are to the use of high tech devices to enforce traffic laws. The Environics Research Group interviewed 2,114 adult Canadians between December 22, 2000, and January 15, 2001. A majority of 55 percent of Canadians think the general level of traditional traffic enforcement by police, including roadside checks, radar, speed traps, and visibility of police in their community, is about right. A significant minority, 38 percent, think there is not enough enforcement. Few (5%) think there is too much enforcement. Canadians were informed that electronic enforcement involves using cameras instead of police to identify vehicles that speed or run red lights. The owner of the vehicle is fined but no points are assigned to anyone's driving record. More than eight in ten Canadians (84%) support the use of photo radar to identify vehicles that break the speed limit in school zones. Just 15 percent are opposed. Moreover, the proportion who strongly support (65%) is more than seven times that who strongly oppose (9%). Two-thirds of Canadians (67%) support the use of photo radar to identify vehicles that break the speed limit on the highway. One-third (32%) are opposed. Moreover, the proportion who strongly support (39%) is twice that who strongly oppose (19%). These results are reported to be accurate to within +/-2.2 percent at a 95 percent level of confidence. (Environics Research Group 2001). A later survey was done in September 2003 and the results closely parallel the earlier one reported here. (Decima teleVox 2003)
Australian residents were surveyed about a range of issues relating to driving speeds, speed infringements, perceived and preferred speed enforcement tolerances, and attitudes towards speed enforcement measures. Telephone interviews were conducted during May 2002, with a sample of 2,543 people aged 15 years and over residing in the mainland States of New South Wales (NSW), Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia. While most people say they normally drive within the speed limit, six in ten indicate that they sometimes drive at higher speeds. Many admit to exceeding posted limits by 10 km/hr or more, in both urban 60 km/hr zones (33% of drivers) and rural 100 km/hr zones (46% of drivers). On average, one in five drivers has been booked for speeding in the past two years, though this varies between States: from a low in NSW (12%), to a high in Western Australia (30%). A majority of people in all jurisdictions think that speed limits should be enforced with a tolerance of 5 km/hr or less; substantial minorities favor a zero tolerance approach, in both urban (29%) and rural (24%) speed zones. The community generally believes that enforcement intensities should either stay the same or increase; there is little support for any reduction in current enforcement levels, including the number of speed cameras and the severity of penalties. Overall, 40% of the community supported an increase in the number of speed cameras, 42% supported an increase in speed limit enforcement, and 23% supported an increase in the severity of speeding penalties. Relatively few people favored a reduction in any of these items. 38
Most licensed drivers agreed that "the possibility of being fined" (83%) or "the possibility of losing demerit points" (75%) are important factors in speed selection. At the same time, most people (80%) agreed "driving safely for the conditions is more important than staying under the speed limit." Less than a third (31%) of people agreed with the proposition that "keeping up with traffic is more important than driving within the speed limit," however, males (41%) were much more likely than females (22%) to hold this view. Support for this statement was also more prevalent among people who had recently been booked for speeding, particularly those booked in the previous six months (48%). Two-thirds (67%) of those who had been booked said they were detected by speed camera and almost a third (30%) by a mobile patrol vehicle (police car or motorcycle). This was consistent across all States except for Queensland, where half (51%) said they were booked by speed camera and 43% by mobile patrol. Licence holders who had been booked for speeding were typically males in their early 20s. Almost three in ten 20 to 24 year olds reported being booked or cautioned for speeding. There was a clear linear decline in the likelihood of being booked after the age of 24, culminating in less than one in ten being booked after the age of 59 (9%). (Mitchell-Taverner, Zipparo, and Goldsworthy 2003) ? A telephone survey was conducted among 500 residents of Washington, DC approximately 9 months after speed cameras were introduced in August 2001. Almost two-thirds of drivers said speeding was a problem in the District. Considerable awareness of speed cameras was found and overall, 51 percent of drivers favored speed cameras versus 36 percent opposed. Support for camera enforcement was higher among middle-aged and older drivers, among drivers who had not received a speeding ticket in the mail and did not know anyone who had, and among drivers who said speeding was a problem in the District. (Retting 2003)
4.3.2. Public Opinion Survey--City of Scottsdale, Arizona The City of Scottsdale, Arizona, began operating cameras for red-light running in early 1996 and added photo speed capabilities in 2002. The City has found the program to be successful based on its goal of improving safety, as measured through various statistics dealing with reductions in the number of violations, number of collisions, and number of fatalities. (City of Scottsdale 2005) The City considers it critical to inform its citizens about the program and to sample their opinions regarding it. They have conducted seven public opinion surveys, beginning with one in May 1996 before installing the first photo enforcement cameras. Since then, they have conducted essentially annual surveys and asked identical questions each year. Using identical questions each year provides strong confidence in the resulting trends. The most current 2005 survey collected its public opinions in December 2004. Each survey was conducted by Behavior Research Center, an independent Phoenix-based firm that provides opinion research to public and private sector clients (http://www.brcresearch.com/). Each telephone survey had a randomly selected sample size of approximately 400 adult, licensed drivers who resided within the corporate boundaries of 39
Scottsdale. The sampling error varies depending on the sample size. If all of the approximately 400 respondents would be in a group that responds to a question, then at the 95% confidence level the sampling error would be about +/- 5% of percentage stated. Almost all of the survey questions combine the two different types of photo enforcement and typically use the phrase "photo radar and red light cameras." Using this phrasing, several survey questions delve into the effectiveness of media advertising of the programs, perceptions about safety, and effects on driving behavior. In general, the results show that a majority of the sample supports Scottsdale's existing program, which includes both red light and photo radar cameras, and its expansion (see Table 4). Table 4: Combined Opinions of Scottsdale's Red Light and Speed Camera Program QUESTION: "In general, do you support or oppose the use of photo radar and red light cameras?" Support Oppose Not Sure 6% 7% 5% 5% 5% 6% 7%
TOTAL 77% 17% Male Female GENDER 71% 22% 82% 13%
AGE 18 to 24 71% 24% 25 to 34 81% 14% 35 to 54 70% 24% 55 and over 83% 10% Note: Table Reads Across [Source: Behavior Research Center 2005]
One question specifically separated red light and photo radar cameras and shows a significant majority are "more favorable" towards both. This question carried a prestatement that conditions the response: "Statistics show that, 35% of collisions are due to speeding and 6% of collisions are due to running red lights" (see Table 5).
Table 5: Conditioned Independent Opinions of Scottsdale's Photo Radar and Red Light Cameras QUESTION: "Statistics show that, 35% of collisions are due to speeding and 6% of collisions are due to the running of red lights. In light of this, are you more favorable or less favorable towards: (READ EACH)" No More Less Difference Unsure Photo radar Red light cameras 71% 79% 13% 11% 14% 8% 2% 2%
Note: Table Reads Across [Source: Behavior Research Center 2005] 4.4. COUNTERMEASURES
Countermeasures are devices used to counteract enforcement programs. Several countermeasures to photo speed enforcement have been identified through searches on the Internet and interviews with current users of photo speed enforcement systems. No independent research was found that documents the effectiveness of countermeasure devices. Most system vendors are familiar with most common types of countermeasures and, in general, do not regard them as particularly effective. Through the Internet search, the following types of countermeasures have been identified: ? ? ? ? ? ? Photo/Laser Jammers Radar/Laser Diffusers License Plate Covers/Sprays Radar/Laser Detectors Waxes/Coatings to Reduce Radar/Laser Detection GPS Speed Camera Location Systems
Photo Jammers use a sensor to detect the camera flash and instantly flashes the license plate with a burst of white light. This downward flash across the license plate purportedly exposes it with white light so that the camera cannot capture the license plate number. Laser Jammers add laser "noise" to the reflected signal and purportedly cause the speed gun display panel to remain blank (see Figure 4).
Figure 4: Photo Jammer and Laser Jammer Top photos from photo jammer ads; photo on bottom from laser jammer ad. [Source top: Photo Jammers 2005] [Source bottom: Laser Jammers 2005] Laser diffusers are designed to detect and deactivate the laser light signal transmitted by the enforcement laser. It purportedly deactivates the speed measurement ability of the laser gun and gives the driver time to react and reduce their speed. The driver is given audible and visual warnings. License plate covers incorporate a thin diffusion lens and are designed to counteract both speed and red light running overhead cameras. One brand incorporates a plastic cover with light-reflecting crystals. This purportedly serves to overexpose speed and red light running cameras by reflecting a flash back to the enforcement device. Sprays work in a similar fashion in that they purportedly facilitate a reflection of the flash from the enforcement camera back to the device (see Figure 5). Radar/Laser Detectors detect enforcement devices by detecting the electromagnetic energy emitted from the enforcement device (radar/laser speed gun) that hits the invehicle device. The in-vehicle detector alerts the driver of the presence of radar/laser enforcement, purportedly in sufficient time to allow the driver to reduce speed if needed (see Figure 6). Waxes and coatings are sold for use in conjunction with radar/laser detectors and purportedly serve to reduce a vehicle's reflectivity of radar/laser electromagnetic energy.
Figure 5: License Plate Covers and Spray Photo on bottom left from spray ad; other photos from ads for covers. [Source top left photo: Reyer and Associates 2005] [Source all other photos: Phantomplate, Inc. 2005]
Figure 6: Radar Detector [Source: Escort 2005] The widespread use of photo speed enforcement in some areas has led to the introduction of GPS technology to warn that a driver is approaching a known location of a photo enforcement camera. These devices integrate a vehicle-mounted GPS unit with a database of known camera locations (Figure 7). One web source in Great Britain states: 43
These [devices] constantly know where you are, using the GPS satelites, and have a database of all known camera, speed trap, accident blackspot locations and warn you as you approach them. They don't pick up radar, so they don't give you false alarms. As more Gatso's etc [brand of photo speed camera] are added every day (4,300 of them in March 2004 [in Great Britain]), the manufacturers need to keep updating their database to keep your list up to date. Most of these GPS devices also record the common places for mobile speed traps. As they don't pick up radar they won't defend you against a policeman using a radar gun in a new location, but they will against the 4,300 cameras that are currently installed. All of the devices need to be connected to the manufacturers every few weeks to update their data with new sites. They all do this by using a modem to connect to the Internet/direct and downloading the new data. Some of the units come with a modem and others assume you have one. (Gander 2004)
Figure 7: GPS Speed Camera Location System [Source: RoadPilot Limited UK 2005] Countermeasures identified by current users of photo speed enforcement systems include those previously mentioned, such as plate covers, sprays, and laser detectors. Other countermeasures include intentional obstructions such as duct tape and/or electric tape and unintentional obstructions such as trailer hitches and bike racks. For the most part, current users of photo speed enforcement systems report that the majority of countermeasures are ineffective. Additionally, many countermeasures are illegal in Arizona and in many other jurisdictions, so some current users of speed enforcement systems did not have any experience to report. North Carolina prohibits tag covers while Colorado state legislation has made it illegal to obstruct license plates. The District of Columbia passed a law to have a $500 fine associated with placing any obstructions on license plates, while Spain banned all use of countermeasures. 44
Although several photo speed enforcements systems are deployed worldwide, none meeting all the desired characteristics for the Phoenix metro freeway system could be found that have been deployed long enough to serve as a model for the development of a field trial. Therefore, the project team proceeded to develop a conceptual "Model RFP." Note: The purpose of the conceptual Model Request for Proposal (RFP) detailed in this chapter is to raise several likely topics that should be considered when an actual RFP is prepared. An actual RFP would only be prepared if a demonstration program was funded at some time in the future. The sole purpose of the language and format of this Model RFP is to describe these likely topics and is not written in the style that would be needed for an actual RFP. It can serve as a guide for anyone who might prepare an actual RFP, should it be desired to do so in the future. It includes the Conceptual Field Plan detailed in Chapter 6. Chapters 5 and 6 together are written as a complete document, therefore they duplicate some information reported elsewhere in this report. 5.1. MODEL REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Model Request for Proposal Arizona Department of Transportation High-Speed, Multi-Lane Photo Speed Enforcement System Evaluation at a Demonstration Site 5.1.1. Background Extreme speeding on urban-area freeways contributes to increased crashes that result in property damage, injury, and fatalities. For transportation agencies, this means more crash cleanup, more infrastructure damage, more repairs, more liability risk, and more tragedy and loss for all involved. This is an area of real concern for the public safety agencies responsible for enforcing speed limits and for transportation agencies responsible for safe public travel and for reducing the effects of high-speed crashes on urban freeways. It is technically very difficult on a multi-lane freeway to obtain accurate speed data to document the problem. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) now exist to accurately collect such data on municipal streets, along with camera-based technology to effectively enforce safe municipal speed limits. These enforcement technologies are generically often called "speed cameras" and have been effective on municipal streets and at intersections; they are becoming accepted and used across the country. The challenges of effective photo speed enforcement are much greater on high-speed, multi-lane, limited-access urban freeways, especially in heavy traffic volumes. However, a few system vendors have or are developing systems to meet these challenges and they are being deployed in limited numbers in the United States and Internationally. Evaluation of practical ITS enforcement tools and methods to address this need is a 45
practical, logical, and urgent step to identify ways to address a growing safety and economic problem. 5.1.2. Purpose of Request for Proposal The Arizona Department of Public Safety (hereinafter called "DPS") and the Arizona Department of Transportation (hereinafter called "ADOT") want to evaluate the current technology for measuring speeds and enforcing limits on Arizona freeways. This RFP is designed to solicit proposals from system vendors who can provide technically viable systems to do this. The demonstration system(s) will be used to collect the data needed to evaluate the technical feasibility of the systems both to collect speed data and to provide a system to use this data to enforce speed limits on Arizona freeways. This data will be used to inform decisions by Arizona's leadership in evaluating the merits of deploying such systems on Arizona's freeways. 5.1.3. Demonstration Site It is anticipated that one demonstration site will be used and a single system vendor will be selected to provide their proposed photo enforcement system at the site. However, DPS and ADOT reserve the right to select a single vendor for more than one site and/or to select multiple vendors to provide their systems at different sites or the same site. The demonstration site(s) will be a typical freeway location in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The selected system vendor(s) will install and operate their system at the site for the period of time specified. The system will then be removed from the site by the system vendor and the site returned to pre-installation conditions. All DPS and ADOT policies and regulations will be observed at all times and all Arizona laws will be observed. A description of the demonstration site(s) is provided in Section 5.1.10. 5.1.4. Purpose of This RFP Specification This is not a detailed construction specification and it is not a detailed performance specification. It is written from the perspective of the ideal needs a system must have to be most useful to DPS and ADOT. It is the responsibility of every system vendor who submits a proposal to provide explicit details of how these ideal DPS and ADOT needs will be met. Of equal importance, every system vendor will provide explicit details of any and all deviations from these ideal needs that their system will have. System vendors must be candid in their descriptions. DPS and ADOT acknowledge that probably no photo enforcement system will be able to provide all of their ideal needs given the current state of technology. Furthermore, since currently there is not a substantial deployment of photo enforcement systems in freeway applications, DPS and ADOT will not be able to develop explicit criteria for evaluating the system vendor proposals before the proposals are received and reviewed. The following sections describe the Technical and Management Needs that must be addressed in a system vendor's proposal. Each section asks for detailed information. The intent of seeking this information is to allow ADOT and DPS to evaluate a system vendor's submitted proposal in two ways. The first evaluation will assess the ability and extent of the proposed system to meet each need described in the RFP. The second evaluation will be to assess how a proposed system compares to all other submitted proposals. These two evaluations will include both the technology and service 46
components proposed by the vendor. The remaining component that will be considered is the cost of the demonstration site system. A system vendor will be chosen based solely on a comparative review of proposals received by DPS and ADOT. DPS and ADOT will base their selection by using their own experience and the information supplied by each vendor to estimate which system might perform best for the demonstration site(s). 5.1.5. List of Technical Needs To Be Met The system vendor will provide a system that meets these technical needs. The proposal will provide explicit and detailed information on how each need will be met. If a need cannot be met or can only partially be met, the proposal will provide explicit and detailed information on how it deviates from the stated need. The ideal list of DPS and ADOT technical needs are as follows: 1. The system identifies, through clear photographic evidence, both the driver and the rear license plate. 2. The system is a relocatable system. Users, whether they are vendor staff or ADOT/DPS employees, should be able to pull the system (or significant components of the system) in and out easily and relocate it as needed (hereinafter called "plug-and-play" ability). The purpose of this feature is to encourage safe vehicle speeds over the entire freeway system versus a single location on the system. 3. The system complies with NCHRP 350 roadside crash-safety requirements. The equipment itself does not have to have been crash tested if the support system used has been crash tested for similarly placed loads and is on the ADOT Approved Products List. 4. In addition to Item 2, the system would be mobile so that it would be able to be used by the DPS in "real time" as part of a DPS speed enforcement "sweep" operation. The mobile system need not be in a van. 5. The system collects required data in real time and can download all required data in real time to a remote user, such as a data processing center. 6. The system uses low-light flash or a flash outside the visible spectrum, such as infrared. This driver-distraction issue is a priority over any color photographic features that the system may offer. Of particular concern would be the competing needs to have a flash intense enough to reach across several lanes (side-fired) but still not "blind" the driver in the closest lane. 7. The system will collect color photos, although black and white technology is acceptable. The ideal system will have both color and a low flash system. 8. The system will give equal representation of all roadway speed activity. There will be no bias toward vehicle classification, traffic volume, lane position, speed range, or other factors. 9. The system is not invasive to the existing pavement. 10. The system will cover five traffic lanes in a single direction.
5.1.6. List of Management Needs To Be Met The system vendor will provide a system that can meet the potential future management needs for a day-to-day operational system. While this RFP is for a demonstration site only, the selected system must be able to function in a fully deployed day-to-day environment. The proposal will therefore provide explicit and detailed information on how each management need will be met. If a need cannot be met or can only partially be met, the proposal will provide explicit and detailed information on how it deviates from the stated need. The ideal list of DPS and ADOT management needs are as follows: ? Option 1: Estimated cost of services of vendor for an actual deployed system in ongoing, day-to-day operation. Services are to include all management, construction, operations, and maintenance needed. An example of pricing might be a combination of monthly lump sum cost, a per site lump site cost, and a per citation cost. The proposal may use whatever scheme the system vendor believes is most fair and competitive. The one restriction is that cost of these services will not be tied to the revenue generated by the system. Option 1A: The vendor provides all ongoing services and equipment on a "turn-key" basis. Option 1B: The vendor provides all ongoing services on a "turn-key" basis and the equipment is sold to the State. Although the State will own the equipment, the vendor will provide all services needed for construction, operations, and maintenance. ? Option 2: Estimated cost of services of vendor for an actual deployed system in ongoing, day-to-day operation. State will entirely own and operate the complete system. Option 2A: Vendor provides all ongoing construction and maintenance services. State provides all operations and management services. State owns all equipment. Vendor provides all training and other support services needed by the State to operate and manage the system. An example of pricing might be a combination of equipment costs, software costs, training cost per employee, and monthly maintenance cost per site. The proposal may use whatever scheme the system vendor believes is most fair and competitive. The one restriction is that cost of these services will not be tied to the revenue generated by the system. Where pricing is based on units, the number of units needed will be provided. For example, if the cost of training is proposed on a per employee basis, the number of employees needing such training will be specified. Information about the sites and traffic conditions are provided in Section 5.1.10. This information is correct to the best of ADOT/DPS's knowledge at the time it is provided, but the vendor is responsible for verifying any information crucial to the proposal. Differences between the information provided by ADOT/DPS and actual conditions during the vendor's contract will not be a basis for a change in the vendor's contract scope, terms of payment, or schedule.
Method(s) of processing photo speed enforcement data to provide speed violation citations. Note that the costs of these activities are included in Options 1 and 2 above. Method(s) of providing chain-of-evidence for speed infraction citations that meets court evidence requirements. Note that the costs of these activities are included in Options 1 and 2 above. Method(s) of providing testimony supporting contested speed infraction citations in court(s). Note that the costs of these activities are included in Options 1 and 2 above.
5.1.7. Pricing of System at the Demonstration Site The total cost to ADOT and DPS of providing a system at the demonstration site will be detailed in the system vendor's proposal. Besides a dollar value, each pricing component will include a detailed description of specifically what is provided in that component and, as appropriate, what is not included in that component. The vendor may organize the pricing components to best suit the vendor's own needs. The vendor's pricing will include everything needed to install, operate, and uninstall the demonstration site. The vendor's proposal will not be contingent in any way on ADOT and/or DPS providing anything to the vendor that is not already specified in the RFP. 188.8.131.52. Period of Continuous Standard Operation at the Demonstration Site The vendor will operate the system at the demonstration site for a continuous period of 12 calendar months in a mode of standard operation. "Standard operation" is defined as operating the system in a manner equivalent to how the system would be expected to operate as part of a fully deployed system, should one be deployed by ADOT and DPS in the future. Time periods the vendor needs to construct, calibrate, maintain, or perform any tasks that make the system unavailable for standard operation will not be counted as a part of this continuous 12 calendar month period. It is anticipated that the 12-month period will be continuous with no interruptions to perform any tasks that stops the system from functioning in standard operation mode. If such interruptions should occur, then the 12 months time will be the sum of continuous intervals of standard operation. However, no interval will be included in the sum that has a duration of less than 2 months of uninterrupted standard operation. 220.127.116.11. Demonstration Period and Schedule of Activities The period of time from when the vendor receives notice-to-proceed (hereinafter called "NTP") until the vendor's final withdrawal activities from the site are inspected and approved is called the "demonstration period." The maximum demonstration period allowed will be 18 months. The proposal will provide a schedule of all vendor activities throughout the demonstration period beginning from NTP. The schedule will be in the form of a Gantt chart. 188.8.131.52. Equipment To Be Provided and Its Ownership All equipment needed to construct, calibrate, operate, maintain, and manage the vendor's system at the demonstration site will be included in the proposal. All costs to remove the equipment from the site will be included in the proposal. The vendor will own the equipment at all times. Since the demonstration site is on the State Highway System, all 49
ADOT construction and maintenance guidelines, policies, and specifications will apply to the system vendor's equipment. 22.214.171.124. Construction To Be Provided All construction needed to install, calibrate, operate, maintain, and manage the vendor's system at the demonstration site will be included in the proposal. All costs to remove the constructed appurtenances from the site will be included in the proposal. Since the demonstration site is on the State Highway System, all ADOT construction guidelines, policies, and specifications will apply to the system vendor's construction. 18.104.22.168. Calibration To Be Provided All services and equipment needed to set-up and calibrate the vendor's system at the demonstration site will be included in the proposal. Calibration will be done throughout the demonstration period as least as frequently as would be done for a system if it were in standard operation in a fully deployed system. Additional calibration will be done as needed for the field test plan that will be done during the demonstration period. Since the demonstration site is on the State Highway System, all ADOT maintenance guidelines, policies, and specifications will apply to the system vendor's activities. 22.214.171.124. Operation To Be Provided All services and equipment needed to operate the vendor's system in standard operation mode at the demonstration site and/or at the vendors remote data processing location will be included in the propos
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.