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.
5 The research approach for this project included a detailed literature review, review of legis- lation, survey of jurisdictions, targeted telephone surveys, and site visits. The research objec- tive was accomplished through the following nine tasks: ⢠Task 1: Develop an Inventory of Current and Past Programs. ⢠Task 2: Conduct Critical Review of Literature. ⢠Task 3: Construct Matrix of Legal Requirements. ⢠Task 4: Best Practices and Lessons Learned. ⢠Task 5: Prepare Interim Report and Meet with Panel. ⢠Task 6: Conduct Additional Research/Surveys. ⢠Task 7: Develop and Submit Draft Guidelines. ⢠Task 8: Submit Draft Guidelines to Stakeholders. ⢠Task 9: Submit Final Report. The tasks for this project were broken into two phases. Phase I consisted of Tasks 1 through 5, and Phase II consisted of Tasks 6 through 9. The remainder of this chapter presents the approach for each task. Phase I Phase I tasks resulted in various documentation which was supplied in the form of Appen- dixes A through G. These appendixes are available on the TRB website by searching for NCHRP Report 729. Task 1. Develop an Inventory of Current and Past Programs In Task 1, the research team assembled a list of current, past, and planned red light and speed camera programs. The list maintained by IIHS formed the basis for this list. The researchers amended this list with contact information for each agency, and also added some agencies that were not included in the IIHS list. The project team developed an online survey instrument, which was sent to the panel for review. The revised survey was distributed to the list of current and past programs in December 2008. In all, 358 jurisdictions were contacted for participation in the survey. The detailed survey findings are included as Appendix A. The list of agencies that responded to the survey is provided as Appendix B. A total of 78 agencies responded. The list also includes the number and type of cameras maintained by the agency and the date the program was initiated. C h a p t e r 2 Research Approach
6 automated enforcement for Speeding and red Light running Once the online survey was closed, the project team developed a list of jurisdictions to contact for a follow-up phone interview. Selection of the jurisdictions was based on the age and type of the program and the quality of information provided in the online survey. Twelve jurisdictions were contacted about participating in the phone interview; seven of the twelve agreed to partici- pate in the interview. A list of the jurisdictions interviewed, along with the person interviewed and the date and time of the interview, is provided in Appendix C. The key results of this task are discussed in Appendix G. Task 2. Conduct Critical Review of Literature In Task 2, the research team conducted a critical review of literature on automated enforce- ment to determine the effect of the program, cost effectiveness, resource requirements, and per- spective of the public. Studies published in the United States, as well as international studies and policy studies, comprise this literature review. Appendix D provides a summary of the literature review. The key results of this task are discussed in Appendix G. Task 3. Construct Matrix of Legal Requirements In Task 3, the project team compiled the enabling legislation from each of the 50 states by using the law database LexisNexis and reviewed each stateâs legislation. The information reported in the survey was used to pursue some of the municipal ordinances. The team reviewed, sum- marized, and constructed a state-by-state matrix of the legal requirements for initiating and operating automated speed and red light camera enforcement programs. This task was initially completed as part of Phase I in 2009. The project team revised the matrix in 2011 during Phase II to provide the most up-to-date legislation. This matrix is included in Appendix E. Task 4. Best Practices and Lessons Learned In Task 4, the project team summarized best practices and lessons learned as compiled in Tasks 1 through 3 of this research. This includes information from currently operating and terminated programs. Appendix F includes a summary of a workshop at the TRB 2009 annual meeting that discussed some considerations for successful programs. The results of this task are discussed in Appendix G. Task 5. Prepare Interim Report and Meet with Panel In Task 5, an interim report was prepared and presented to the panel. The report documented the activities and findings of the first four tasks. Phase II Task 6. Conduct Additional Research/Surveys The project team conducted in-depth surveys of four jurisdictions that have demonstrated successful automated enforcement programs. Site visits were conducted for the City of Portland, Oregon; the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia; and the City of San Diego, California. Information from the City of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was obtained through correspondence and telephone discussions. The case study reports can be found in Appendix H, included herein.
research approach 7 Tasks 7 and 8. Develop and Submit Draft Guidelines Using the findings of Phase I and the case studies, a guidance document was developed in Tasks 7 and 8. The guidelines for automated enforcement are included in Chapter 3. Task 9. Submit Final Report This report is the product of Task 9. It documents the activities and findings of the research project.
