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 contacted 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.

Includes information on automated enforcement devices currently being used in the areas of speed enforcement, red-light traffic signal enforcement, and high-occupancy vehicle lane enforcement through summaries and discussions of current technology, experience in using the devices, legal issues, and public acceptance of automated enforcement. Tables and figures.

This synthesis will be of interest to state and local highway agency administrative and executive officers, enforcement agency personnel, attorneys, traffic engineers, and others concerned with managing and enforcing traffic laws at all levels of government. It will also be of interest to manufacturers and marketers of automated speed enforcement (ASE) technology. The synthesis describes the requirements, applications, effectiveness, and issues related to the use of ASE technology. This report of the Transportation Research Board describes the various types of ASE technology as applied in several localities, including descriptions of operational requirements and performance characteristics of these technologies. The synthesis also discusses how citations are processed, and examines the legal and acceptability issues related to ASE technology and public views on these actions. The various technologies on the market at the time of preparation of this synthesis are also described. It should be noted that, as with any application of public surveillance technology, officials are well advised to exercise proper cautions when employing such enforcement procedures.

Senate Bill 1512, which was passed into law by the 74th State Legislature in 1995, requires the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to install and operate automated highway-railroad grade crossing enforcement systems as a demonstration project. Six sites with gates, relatively high traffic and train volumes, and a minimum number of accidents, were selected for the demonstration study. Potential vendors responded to a formal request for proposals to demonstrate their abilities. Because of problems encountered at three sites, automated enforcement equipment was installed and demonstrated at three (rather than six) sites in Texas by two vendors. The equipment at the sites photographed vehicles violating the gate arms. The information was then sent to a processing center either in the form of a film canister or as a data file over a voice-grade phone line. Once at the processing center, the violation was confirmed by a clerk, who then recorded the license plate number of the vehicle and the vehicle's characteristics. After the vehicle owner information was provided by TxDOT's motor vehicle registration department, the vendor took the necessary steps to have an education letter produced. At one site, the vendor mailed the letter, and at the other two sites, the information was provided to the local police department for processing. The project clearly demonstrated that automated enforcement equipment can be used at highway-railroad grade crossings to record violations, identify the license plate and owner of the vehicle, and mail educational materials.

Tour of the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and Australia.

Automated traffic law enforcement uses unattended cameras to detect and record traffic law violations. Most commonly, these cameras are used to detect red light and speed limit violations. Nationally, the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (an independent, nonprofit organization) reports that as of April 2013, "red light cameras are used in approximately 530 communities and speed cameras are used in more than 124 jurisdictions." In Ohio, municipal authority for automated enforcement of traffic laws results from the constitutional grant of municipal home rule. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that five Ohio communities use automated enforcement only to detect speed limit violations; two communities use the devices only for red light violations; and nine communities use the devices for both red light and speed limit violations. The Ohio Revised Code addresses only limited issues related to automated traffic law enforcement.

Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche.