Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
1 Speeding and red light running are significant problems for both highway safety and traf- fic violations. Both have a significantly large impact on fatal crashes; however, both of these behaviors can be greatly affected by enforcement. Automated enforcement is a tool that can be utilized by states and local agencies to reduce the prevalence of excessive speeding and running red lights, as well as to improve roadway safety for all users. Although automated red light camera and speed camera enforcement systems have been used in other countries for more than 30 years, it has been only in the last 20 years that they have been used in the United States. Much can be learned from agencies that operate a successful automated enforcement program. Understanding what makes a program successful is essential so that other agencies can either improve their programs or start programs of their own. The goal of this research was to find out which automated enforcement programs have been successful and what contributed to their success, as well as which programs have been unsuccessful and to draw lessons from their experiences. This was accomplished through a comprehensive assessment of automated speed and red light running enforcement activity in the United States and Canada, which led to the development of guidelines to assist agencies in implementing and operating successful automated enforcement programs. Over 350 jurisdictions with current or past automated enforcement programs were con- tacted by survey and phone as part of the assessment. In addition to the survey, an extensive literature review was conducted to determine the effect of the programs, cost effectiveness, and resource requirements, and to get the perspective of the public. Legislation from each of the 50 states was compiled and reviewed to summarize state-by-state legal requirements for initiating and operating automated speed and red light camera enforcement programs. Site visits were conducted for the following: ⢠City of Portland, Oregon; ⢠City of Virginia Beach, Virginia; and ⢠City of San Diego, California. Information from the City of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was obtained through cor- respondence and telephone discussions. These four cities were identified as having suc- cessful automated enforcement programs. A case study report was developed for each of these cities. The case studies provide information on the initiation of the program, enabling legislation, program structure, and program operation for each of the cities. In each city, program personnel were asked to identify elements that have contributed to the success of their program. Key elements included having a solid engineering foundation, employing a multidisciplinary approach, regular monitoring and evaluation, and ensuring that the entire S u m m a r y Automated Enforcement for Speeding and Red Light Running
2 automated Enforcement for Speeding and red Light running program is transparent to the public and the media. The overall goal of any automated enforcement system should be to reduce crashes. The practices identified in the case studies were used to develop the guidance presented in this report for the initiation and operation of an automated enforcement program, either for red light running or speed violations. The guidelines include information on problem identification, enabling legislation, program structure, site selection, program monitoring and evaluation, and resource requirements. The guidelines are intended to be used by agen- cies that currently have programs, as well as agencies interested in starting a program. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcement agencies, highway engineers, legislators, and elected officials. During the process of collecting information and reviewing best practices, various gaps in the available knowledge on speed enforcement and red light enforcement emerged. These gaps are discussed and can potentially be filled in subsequent research efforts. As this report shows, several well-run programs exist. Four of these programs are high- lighted in the case study reports included herein as Appendix H. Appendixes A through G are not published herein but are available on the TRB website by searching for NCHRP Report 729. Agencies can learn from these jurisdictions and use their noteworthy practices when implementing their own programs. As programs expand and additional research is conducted, the guidelines should be updated.
