Category:950 Automated Traffic Enforcement: Difference between revisions

In January 2011, the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission adopted policy to regulate the use of any automated enforcement equipment on state right of way. Procedures for complying with the policy are outlined below. Applications of automated enforcement that were in place prior to January 2011 are subject to the new policy as described in EPG 950.1.6 Conditions for Intersections with Automated Red-Light Violation Enforcement Equipment Installed After January 2011.

Request for the use of automated traffic enforcement systems will be made by the city and/or county desiring to use them, with the exception of work zones. This includes permission to conduct violation studies.

950.1 Automated Traffic Enforcement at Signalized Intersections

950.1.1 Automated Enforcement of Red-Light Violations

Severe crashes at signalized intersections are usually a result of non-compliance with a traffic signal. Automated enforcement, when used correctly, is an effective tool for reducing severe angle crashes at signalized intersections. The objective of using the cameras is to improve intersection safety. However, not all intersections are candidates for automated enforcement.

To ensure red-light violations are mitigated as completely and as feasibly possible, state highway intersections requested for installation of automated red-light violation enforcement equipment will undergo an engineering review that includes a site evaluation, a crash study, and, if necessary, a violation study prior to the installation of automated red-light violation enforcement equipment. MoDOT will conduct the site evaluation and the requesting city and/or county will provide the crash study and, if necessary, the violation study. The crash study and violation study shall be reviewed by MoDOT.

950.1.2 Engineering Review

Prior to approving a site for red-light cameras, the site should be evaluated to ensure other measures have already been considered or implemented to improve safety at the intersection. Site evaluation includes a review of the intersection to ensure components of the signal are visible and conspicuous (signal heads, signs, the intersection itself) and that the timing is appropriate for the conditions (change interval, green interval, dilemma zone). The site evaluation should also consider how the addition of red-light cameras might impact the overall operation of the signal.

Crash data will be used to determine the collision types and, if possible, the contributing causes for crashes at each approach of the intersection. Specifically, collision types (right angle, left-turn right angle, right-turn right angle) and contributing causes (failure to yield, inattention, violation of the signal, etc.) that are expected to be improved by the installation of automated enforcement should be considered.

The crash study shall be compiled by the requesting city or county and submitted to MoDOT for review. In addition to simple crash data for the intersection, the study should consider how any crashes, particularly right angle crashes, may have been the result of a red-light violation. The study should clearly show whether the specified crash warrants are met (see EPG 950.1.3 Crash Warrant for Installation) and which intersection approaches are recommended for the installation of red-light cameras. MoDOT shall review the study and verify the submitted crash data to ensure the local agency’s crash records align with MoDOT’s crash report database. At the discretion of MoDOT’s District Traffic Engineer, the crash study may be completed by MoDOT if the city or county demonstrates they cannot provide the necessary data or if the submitted information is deemed inaccurate.

After reviewing the site evaluation and the submitted crash study, engineers should identify and select the appropriate countermeasures, if any, that could reduce the violations. Possible countermeasures include improving the visibility of the signalized intersection, improving the visibility and conspicuity of the signal indications and signs, revising the timing of the signal phases and signal system, adding red-light cameras, etc.. If major modifications are recommended (installing signal mast arms, adding interactive warning signs, etc.), negotiations with the city on the cost of the improvements may be necessary.

950.1.3 Crash Warrant for Installation

Cameras may be installed if an intersection (all approaches included) has at least one severe crash (fatal or disabling injury) related to red-light running in the previous 10 years AND has more than 10 red-light running crashes in the previous 5 years. Red-light running crash types are identified as right angle, left-turn right angle, right-turn right angle, and crashes involving pedestrians. Engineering judgment may be used to discard individual crashes of the types above if it can be determined that the crash was unrelated to any violation of the signal. Any crash data used to meet the warrant above shall be verifiable in MoDOT’s crash report database.

Automated enforcement is not recommended for crash types other than those listed above. If the crash warrant is met, a determination should be made as to which approaches are most likely to experience a safety benefit with the addition of cameras. If a determination cannot be made or if a request is made for cameras on an approach not deemed a good candidate based on the crash data, a violation study should be conducted to help identify the approaches on which cameras should be installed. In addition, if the crash warrant is not met and the city and/or county still wants to proceed with the installation of cameras, a violation study shall be conducted and the request be sent to the State Highway Safety and Traffic Engineer for further review.

950.1.4 Violation Study

When conducting a violation study, all approaches shall be evaluated to determine if one approach or all approaches are experiencing similar rates of red-light violations (ratio of violations to the approach volume). A violation study will be completed for each approach of the intersection and will be conducted for a duration of at least 12 consecutive hours between the hours of 6:00 am and 6:30 pm or as directed by the engineer. The start time of the violation study may vary between 6:00 am or 6:30 am depending on traffic conditions of the area and should be a representative sample of traffic volume for that specific location. Violation information shall be provided by the city and/or county. The information shall be reviewed by MoDOT and engineering judgment shall be used to determine if the violation study, in conjunction with the crash data, warrants the use of automated enforcement.

950.1.5 Approach Selection

If by reviewing the crash reports it can be determined which approaches are violating the red signal indication, cameras may be installed on those approaches. If any other approach is chosen for the installation of cameras and/or the crashes do not indicate which approach is violating the red signal indication, then a violation study is to be conducted in accordance with EPG 950.1.3 Crash Warrant for Installation.

950.1.6 Conditions for Intersections with Automated Red-Light Violation Enforcement Equipment Installed After January 2011

If automated red-light violation enforcement equipment is approved for installation, the following conditions must be met:

1. If any one approach is selected to be monitored, then any other approach at the intersection with a similar or higher rate of crashes or violations should also be enforced (ratio of crashes or violations to the approach volume).

2. A duly sworn, Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certified law enforcement officer shall review and make the determination of any violation.

3. Advance signing will be required on each intersection approach with automated enforcement as shown below. MoDOT will install the signs on state right of way and provide the signs to the city and/or county for installations on city and/or county right of way.

The PHOTO ENFORCED sign will be used for approaches where a YIELD sign is used for the right turns. The PHOTO ENFORCED INCLUDES RIGHT TURN sign will be used for approaches where no YEILD sign is present for the right turns.

4. The city and/or county shall conduct a public awareness campaign at least 30 days prior to issuing citations.

5. The city and/or county will be required to submit an annual report to MoDOT for each state highway intersection in such city and/or county which has automated red-light enforcement equipment. The report will be due January 31 and include the following information from the previous year:

a. Safety performance

i. Number of crashes

ii. Severity of crashes; number of fatal, disabling injury, minor injury, and property damage only, if able.

b. Number of citations

i. Total number and

ii. Citations by maneuver (i.e. left turn, thru or right turn), if able

6. The city and/or county must enter into a contract (TR43) with the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (MHTC) for the use of an automated red-light violation enforcement equipment system on state-maintained highways. Part of the contract will require an ordinance allowing the use and issuance of citations using automated red-light violation enforcement equipment. Once a contract is executed and a Permit to Work on Right of Way is issued, the city and/or county may proceed with the installation of the equipment.

950.1.7 Conditions for Intersections with Automated Red-Light Violation Enforcement Equipment Installed Prior to January 2011

The conditions for locations installed prior to January 2011 will be as follows:

1. Engineering or violation studies are not required.

2. A duly sworn, Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certified law enforcement officer shall review and make the determination of any violation.

3. Advance signing will be required on each approach with automated enforcement as shown below. MoDOT will install the signs on state right of way and provide the signs to the city and/or county for installations on city and/or county right of way.

The PHOTO ENFORCED sign will be used for approaches where a YIELD sign is used for the right turns. The PHOTO ENFORCED INCLUDES RIGHT TURN sign will be used for approaches where no YEILD sign is present for the right turns.

4. The city and/or county will be required to submit an annual report to MoDOT for each state highway intersection in such city and/or county which has automated red-light enforcement equipment. The report will be due January 31 and include the following information from the previous year:

a. Safety performance

i. Number of crashes

ii. Severity of crashes; number of fatal, disabling injury and property damage only, if able.

b. Number of citations

i. Total number and

ii. Citations by maneuver (i.e. left turn, thru or right turn), if able.

5. Execute a new agreement (TR43) stating the new conditions of the installation.

These conditions are for approaches with automated enforcement equipment present. If there are any additions or changes to which approach is enforced, then the installation is considered a new installation and will follow the guidance in EPG 950.1.6 Conditions for Intersections with Automated Red-Light Violation Enforcement Equipment Installed After January 2011.

950.2 Automated Enforcement of Speed Violations

Cameras may be used to assist with enforcement of state speed limit laws in school zones, work zones and Travel Safe Zones on the state highway system. Use of automated speed enforcement equipment in any other location is not allowed, except as described below in EPG 950.2.2 Automated Speed Enforcement by a Law Enforcement Officer. All requests for the use of automated speed enforcement must be approved by the State Highway Safety and Traffic Engineer. District staff should complete the Checklist for Automated Speed Enforcement and submit the information to the State Highway Safety and Traffic Engineer prior to approval.

950.2.1 Applications for Automated Speed Enforcement

For school zones, the following will apply:

1. An engineering study and violation study will be conducted prior to the installation of automated speed enforcement equipment. The city/county will provide the violation study.

2. The engineering study will consist of determining the speed limit for the school zone and shall be established based on EPG 903.19.6 Lettering and EPG 949.2.2.

3. Where school speed limit signing is installed, flashers shall be installed with the signing. The flashers are only activated at times when the school speed limit applies. The speed limit should only be active during times when children are likely to be present. See EPG 902.12.4 Speed Limit Sign Beacon for additional information.

4. Automated speed enforcement equipment will not be allowed in school zones without a reduced speed limit or flashers.

5. Installations may be either permanent or mobile equipment. For mobile installations, device must either be placed where it is unreachable by vehicles, NCHRP 350 compliant or protected from vehicular impact. Vendor must supply letter from FHWA of NCHRP compliance.

6. For permanent installations, MoDOT will provide and install the signs. For mobile installations, city/county is responsible for providing the signs and having signs present when conducting automated enforcement of speed. Signs must be crashworthy.

7. Permit will be required to allow the city to place equipment and signs on right of way.

For work zones, the following will apply:

1. Use of automated speed enforcement equipment in work zones will be reserved for those work zones that

a. Have a duration of at least 4 hours

b. Reduced speed limits are in effect

c. Normal posted speed limit is 60 mph of greater

d. Within a municipal boundary

2. MoDOT will initiate the request for the use of automated enforcement of speed in work zones.

3. Work zones must be marked by a ROAD WORK AHEAD and END ROAD WORK signs.

4. The speed limit for the work zone shall be established based on EPG 616.12 Work Zone Speed Limits.

5. Automated speed enforcement shall only occur when workers are present and allowed only for the duration of the work zone.

6. One automated speed enforcement equipment installation per work zone, even when boundaries of the work zone cross several jurisdictions. Installation is allowed to be moved to different areas within the work zone.

7. Installations shall be mobile equipment and city/county is responsible for providing the signs and having signs present when conducting automated speed enforcement.

8. For mobile installations, device must either be placed where it is unreachable by vehicles, NCHRP 350 Test Level 3 compliant or protected from vehicular impact. Vendor must supply letter of acceptance from FHWA of NCHRP compliance.

9. Permit will be required to allow the city to place equipment and signs on right of way.

For Travel Safe Zones, the following will apply:

1. Travel safe zones shall be established in accordance with RsMo 304.590 and the guidance in EPG 907.3 Travel Safe Zones. Automated speed enforcement should be noted as a strategy in the work plan and approved by the State Highway Safety and Traffic Engineer.

2. Automated speed enforcement can only be used during the duration of the Travel Safe Zone. Once the Travel Safe Zone has expired, so will the use of automated speed enforcement.

3. Installations may be either permanent or mobile equipment. For mobile installations, device must either be placed where it is unreachable by vehicles, NCHRP 350 compliant or protected from vehicular impact. Vendor must supply letter from FHWA of NCHRP compliance.

4. For permanent installations, MoDOT will provide and install the signs. For mobile installations, city/county is responsible for providing the signs and having signs present when conducting automated enforcement of speed.

5. Permit will be required to allow the city to place equipment and signs on right of way.

Conditions for Installation

If automated speed enforcement equipment is approved for installation, the following conditions must be met:

1. A duly sworn, Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certified law enforcement officer shall review and make the determination of any violation.

2. A city/county shall conduct a public awareness campaign at least 30 days prior to issuing citations.

3. For any automated speed enforcement location, advanced signing warning of the automated enforcement is required and shall be of the type below.

For mobile installations, the SPEED ENFORCED AHEAD assembly shall be used and provided by the city/county and present during times of enforcing the speed limit with automated enforcement equipment. These will probably be roll-up or portable type signs. For permanent installations, the SPEED LIMIT XX PHOTO ENFORCED assembly and END PHOTO ENFORCEMENT sign shall be used and installed by MoDOT. The downstream end of a photo enforced speed limit zone shall be identified with an END PHOTO ENFORCEMENT sign.

4. The city/county will be required to submit an annual report to MoDOT for each state highway corridor in such city/county which has automated speed enforcement equipment. The report will be due January 31 and include the following information from the previous year:

a. Safety performance

i. Number of crashes

ii. Severity of crashes; number of fatal, disabling injury and property damage only, if able.

b. Number of citations

5. Enter into a contract (TR36) with the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (MHTC) for the use of an automated speed enforcement system on state-maintained highways. Part of the contract will require an ordinance allowing the use and issuance of citations using automated speed enforcement equipment. Once a contract is executed and a Permit to Work on Right of Way is issued, the city/county may proceed with the installation of the equipment.

950.2.2 Automated Speed Enforcement by a Law Enforcement Officer

In some areas of the state, local municipalities have elected to use automated speed enforcement outside of the circumstances noted above in EPG 950.2.1 Applications for Automated Speed Enforcement. If a law enforcement officer has elected to utilize such equipment to fulfill their civic duty, then the provisions of EPG 950.2.1 shall not apply if the officer is continuously present with the equipment when in use. To meet this requirement, the officer should remain in the immediate vicinity of the equipment at all times (not across the street, not down the road, etc.). Any equipment left unattended may be treated as abandoned property on state right of way and, subsequently, removed.