Texas.PDF

FINAL REPORT

Automated Enforcement of Traffic Signals:

A Literature Review

13 August 2001

Robert P. Maccubbin

Barbara L. Staples

Dr. Arthur E. Salwin

Contract sponsor: Federal Highway Administration

Contract No.: DTFH61-00-C-00001

Project No.: 0900610D-02

Department: Q020

ES - 1

Executive Summary

Implementation of automated enforcement programs for traffic signals is increasing in the United

States. Fines assessed by the programs, which are based on photographs or videos captured

automatically when a vehicle enters the intersection after the signal has changed to red, range

from $50 to $271 dollars. The cameras used in the systems cost about $50,000 to $60,000, with

installation, including detectors, equipment cabinet, and mounting pole, adding approximately an

additional $25,000. Monthly operating costs are approximately $5,000. In the U.S., a private

sector contractor that receives a portion of the fine revenue collected from the systems typically

undertakes installation and operation. Public opinion surveys reported in the literature indicate

significant public support for the programs. The percentage of survey respondents approving of

the systems ranges from approximately 60% to 80%.

Impacts of the systems on the safety of the transportation system are difficult to assess. There is

substantial literature documenting a significant decline in the number of vehicles committing

traffic signal violations at enforcement sites, ranging from 20% to 87%. However, the few

independent analyses of the occurrence of crashes at these sites offer no definitive indication of

whether the camera systems impact this important measure of transportation safety. An early

Australian study indicated significant reductions in crashes due to implementation of camera

enforcement, while a later study found that over time there were no significant changes in crash

behavior due to the systems (though the small number of crashes experienced at the studied sites

clouded the results). Studies of the systems in use in Scotland found both a significant crash

reduction and that the most significant impact on violation behavior was a decrease in vehicles

entering the intersection between 0.5 and 5 seconds into the red phase. A study of citywide

crashes over the same time period found that red light cameras were likely one of several factors

contributing to the overall decline in accidents. A graduate student study of two intersections

with automated enforcement in Howard County, Maryland indicated a positive impact of the

systems on right-angle crashes. A Mitretek analysis of data provided by Howard County on

crash experience at each of the 25 enforced intersections in that county indicated that the

reported reduction in both right-angle and rear-end collisions were statistically significant.

Several factors were identified that cloud the interpretation of reported safety impacts, including

study design issues and the influence of other traffic safety improvements concurrent with the

implementation of red light cameras.

This report makes several recommendations for further research into the impacts of red light

camera systems. Despite the inherent difficulties of long term transportation safety impact

studies, one or more such studies performed by an independent agency on a U.S. red light

camera system would provide a better understanding of the impact that red light cameras have on

U.S. driver populations. A second effort that may help document any safety impact of these

systems would be a detailed review of automatic camera recorded violation data from several

jurisdictions to determine if red light violations at particular times during the red phase are more

likely to result in crashes, and whether or not red light camera systems in the U.S. are

significantly reducing these types of violations. The final recommended area of further research

in this area is benefit/cost analysis of the systems. The ability of the systems to reduce crashes

should be compared to the costs of operating the systems as well as the total value of fines

assessed to signal violators.

Table of Contents

1. Overview 1

2. Operation of Red Light Camera Programs 1

2.1 Background 1

2.2 Costs 2

3. Transportation Safety Impacts of Red Light Cameras 3

3.1 Reported Safety Impacts 4

3.2 Review of Independent Analyses 7

4. Public Opinion of Red Light Cameras 9

5. Studies in Progress 9

6. Recommendations for Further Research 10

7. Annotated Bibliography 12

8. Cost Bibliography 19

1. Overview

This document presents the result of an extensive review of available documents regarding

automated enforcement of traffic signal compliance undertaken by Mitretek Systems. The

literature regarding the operation and impacts of systems that automatically enforce driver

compliance with the red phase of traffic signals is extensive. However, reviewing the available

documents for independent analyses of these systems yields very few examples. Efforts to

assess the safety impacts of these systems by independent evaluators (not connected to the

agencies or vendors operating the programs) have been made in Australia, the United Kingdom,

and, to a lesser extent Howard County, MD. Each of these studies, as well as the remainder of

the sources reviewed during this effort, indicate a significant reduction in the number of drivers

running the red light. Crash reduction results are mixed and generally inconclusive. An early

Australian study (South, et al., 1988) indicated significant reduction in crashes several years after

the initiation of the program in Melbourne, Australia, while a follow-up study (Andreassen,

1995) several years later found no significant reduction in collisions due to the system. Two

studies in Scotland (Halcrow Fox, 1996 and Ray, 1995) indicate significant benefits from the

cameras. A graduate student project assessing the system in Howard County, MD (Butler, 2001)

also indicated positive impacts of that system on crashes and violations. The remainder of the

literature consists primarily of statistics reported by the operating agencies and press reports of

camera program results.

The following section of this report describes the operational arrangements surrounding camera

programs in the United States, including typical contracting arrangements and the fines and

penalties associated with the programs. The third section of the document describes the reported

impacts of the systems on violations and collisions, including a more detailed discussion of the

few independent analyses of red light camera programs. Next, this report briefly summarizes the

results of several public opinion surveys described in the literature. Section 5 lists several

research projects regarding red light cameras known to be underway. The body of the report

concludes with several recommendations for further research into the impacts of red light

cameras. An annotated bibliography of the sources collected in this review follows the body of

the report.

2. Operation of Red Light Camera Programs

2.1 Background

States with legislation authorizing the use of photo or automated enforcement of red-light

running (RLR) include, but may not be limited to: Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware,

Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia,

Washington, and the District of Columbia. Some states (Ohio, for example) have "home rule"

wherein a local ordinance is all that is needed to enact a camera enforcement program.

In most cases, once authorized by the state legislature, a municipality determines whether or not

to use automated RLR enforcement. Federal Highway Administration guidance recommends

that localities perform an engineering review of intersections selected for enforcement, including

“approach geometry, signal timing details, and other relevant engineering features.” This review

will help ensure that the red light running problem at the identified intersections is due to driver

behavior rather than engineering shortcomings (FHWA, undated). Most municipalities contract

with a vendor(s) to install the camera system with associated infrastructure, and to operate the

back office processing. A police officer typically reviews violation photos prior to a citation

being mailed to the vehicle owner. Requirements for proving and adjudicating the violation vary

from state to state. Some states require only pictures taken of the rear of the vehicle while others

require rear photos as well as pictures of the driver. These requirements factor into the cost of

the camera system and the back office processing. Two-to-three pictures are usually taken of the

violation. Some states require that only color photos be taken while others permit color (to prove

red phase) and monochrome (vehicle license plate).

2.2 Costs

RLR fines associated with photo enforcement systems vary by state and city. Review of the

literature indicates that these fines range anywhere from $50 to $271. Depending on the state’s

law, a portion of the fine goes to the state treasury with the remainder going to the municipality.

The contractor receives a percentage, ranging anywhere from 15% - 56%, of the municipality’s

portion of the fine in return for installation of the camera system, leasing the equipment, and

providing the violation processing. Some states do not receive a portion of the fine, with all

revenue going to the municipality and vendor. Some states, California, for instance, use frontal

photography to acquire an image of the driver and use this to assess negative points on a driver’s

driving record for red-light violations.

Most contracts are based on a sliding scale fee wherein as the number of violations processed

increase, the percentage of the fine to the contractor decreases. Information is available for fines

and percentage paid to vendors as well as for camera system and equipment installation;

however, no specific information is available for the cost of the back office processing. The cost

of this processing as well as for the camera and associated equipment are folded into the

negotiated cost per violation fee charged by the vendor. See Table 1 for additional information.

Sources for this cost information can be found in the Bibliography.

Based on Mitretek’s literature search, the major vendors active in photo RLR enforcement

include: Peek Traffic Inc., EDS, U.S. Public Technologies (USPT) - purchased by Lockheed

Martin IMS and soon to be purchased by Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), Traffipax,

Redflex Traffic Systems, Nestor Traffic Systems, and LaserCraft. Contractor teams may also

form to implement these systems. For example, EDS, whose role tends to be in performing the

back office processing, may team with a camera vendor. Camera vendors are typically European

including: Gatsometer’s Gatso RLC, Robot (distributed in the U.S. by Traffipax), and Peek’s

Guardian. Lockheed Martin tends to purchase the 35-mm wet film Gatsometer camera systems.

Many of the first cameras used for RLR enforcement are 35-mm wet-film; however, the trend is

to move to digital technology which alleviates the need to retrieve and replenish film as in the

wet-film technology cameras. Peek cameras are digital; Gatso are available in both wet-film and

digital. Digital and standard video systems are also available. Nestor Traffic Systems provides

video camera detection and photo technologies.

Wet-film, 35-mm red-light cameras range in cost from $50K - $60K. Installation costs are

around $25K and include installation of the camera, and associated equipment (e.g., pole, loop

detectors, cabinet foundation). Monthly operating costs are approximately $5K per camera

system. The standard digital red-light camera system from Peek Traffic is for a three-lane

approach and includes a total of four cameras: 3 monochrome and 1 color. Each of the three

monochrome cameras are trained on a single lane, and the color camera is pointed to photograph

the entire intersection and to show color of traffic signal. The cost of the camera system is

approximately $100K and includes the camera and installation of associated equipment (e.g.,

poles, loop detectors, cabinet). Costs decrease by $2.5K for a two-lane approach and $5K for a

one-lane approach.

Table 1. Operating vendors, fines, and revenue distribution for several U.S. cities with

automated RLR enforcement.

Site Vendor Fine Fine Split

Phoenix, AZ Lockheed Martin $175 $93 vendor, $82 city

Mesa, AZ Lockheed Martin $170 $74.01 state, $95.99 city with $48.50 going to vendor

San Francisco, CA $271 $123 state, $148 city/county

Split to city/county: $48.50 vendor, $99.50 to further

program, educational campaign, and equipment

vendor

Santa Rosa, CA $271 $100 vendor

San Diego, CA Lockheed Martin $271 $70 vendor

Baltimore, MD Lockheed Martin $75 15% - 35% of fine to vendor

Howard County, MD Traffipax/EDS $75 Sliding scale. State receives no revenue from fines.

Washington, DC Lockheed Martin $75 $26 vendor (as much as 40%), $49 city

Lakewood, WA $71

Marietta, GA LaserCraft $70

Garland, TX* Lockheed Martin $75 $74.50 vendor, $0.50 city

Wilmington, NC Peek Traffic $50 $35 vendor, $15 city

Greensboro, NC Peek Traffic $50 $35 vendor, $15 city

High Point, NC Peek Traffic $50 $35 vendor, $15 city

Charlotte, NC Lockheed Martin $50

$50

$100

1st notice: $28 vendor, $22 city

2nd notice: $23 vendor, $27 city

3rd notice: $76 vendor, $24 city

Oahu, Hawaii* Lockheed Martin $77 As much as $50 vendor, $27 city

Fairfax, VA USPT $50 $20.85 vendor, $29.15 city

* Automated camera enforcement program in start-up phase.

3. Transportation Safety Impacts of Red Light Cameras

This section discusses the impact of red light camera systems on safety at intersections. The

statistics used to describe the performance of the systems are violation and crash reductions.

This section first presents reported reductions for many of the locations making use of red light

cameras. The section concludes with a review of the few independent analyses of these systems.

3.1 Reported Safety Impacts

Table 2 lists the cited violation and crash reduction figures revealed in this research effort for

many of the jurisdictions using red light cameras. Reported violation reductions range from 20%

to 87%, with half of the jurisdictions reporting between 40% and 62% reductions in red light

violations. The quality of sources for the data in Table 2 varies widely. Violation reduction

figures are typically from newspaper or trade press articles, cited as obtained during interviews

with representatives of the operating agency, or cited in secondary sources referencing these

types of sources. As described in a few of these sources, violation reductions are most often

computed by comparing the number of violations recorded by the camera systems during the first

months of operation with the same statistics from later time periods. A few of the studies

collected data on the number of transgressions prior to commencing enforcement, either with the

enforcement camera itself or through review of video recordings of the intersections. Despite the

general lack of data collection during a true “before” period, there has been widespread reporting

of large violation reductions.

Most of the crash reduction figures cited in Table 2 come from sources similar to those for the

violation reductions, and therefore should not be taken as reliable independent evaluations of the

systems, with several notable exceptions (discussed in Section 3.2). The agencies responsible for

the camera programs in Howard County, MD, Wilmington, NC, and Charlotte, NC, have

released documents citing reductions in right-angle collisions at the enforced intersections.

Discussions with local transportation engineers in Howard County and Wilmington indicate that

these figures were based on review of police reported incidents at the intersections before and

after the implementation of the camera systems. The Wilmington data indicates an increase in

rear-end collisions at enforced intersections, similar to the impact described by many other

locations. Howard County data indicates a reduction in rear-end collisions at the majority of the

25 enforced intersections at that county. In Wilmington, staff reviewed the police reports to

eliminate collisions occurring at driveways near the enforced intersection.

While conflicting results sometimes appear in the crash reduction figures cited in Table 2, the

majority of the reported cases indicated some reduction in crashes. An important issue clouding

the results of these reports is the lack of a significant amount of experience with the camera

systems. The figures given are based on one to two years of experience with little to no analysis

of trends over time, and therefore cannot reveal whether the programs have a lasting impact. In

addition to these local reports, there have been several attempts to independently assess the

impacts of red light camera systems on crashes at enforced intersections, as described below.

Table 2. Violation and crash reductions for various RLR enforcement programs.

Site

Violation

Reduction Crash Reduction Source Type(s) Source(s)

Arizona

Scottsdale, AZ 62% Trade Press Article “Applications Increase…”, 2000

California

Oxnard, CA 42%

29% reduction injury

crashes, 32% reduction

right-angle crashes

Insurance Institute

for Highway Safety

(IIHS) Studies

Retting, 1999

Retting, 2001

San Francisco,

CA 42% Conference Paper Fleck and Smith, 1999

Santa Rosa, CA yes yes Newspaper Article “Exposed: SR…”, 2001

Los Angeles, CA 75% Conference Paper Rocchi, 1999

Colorado

Boulder, CO 37% 57% Newspaper Article “Speeders may be…”, 2001

District of

Columbia

Washington, DC 56% Newspaper Article “Red-light Cameras.”, 2001

Florida

Polk County,

Florida

7.3%

FHWA Synthesis

Report

Synthesis and Evaluation…,

1999

Fort Meade, FL 50% Conference Paper Rocchi, 1999

Maryland

Howard County,

MD 42-62%

21-44% at individual

intersections Agency Data

“Maryland House of

Delegates…”, 2001

Michigan

Jackson, MI 83% Synthesis Report ITE, 1999

New York

New York, NY 34%

60-70% reduction in

angle crashes at one

site FHWA Website FHWA, undated

North Carolina

Charlotte, NC 20%

24% reduction at

enforced intersections,

20% reduction in

crashes caused by RLR Agency Report

“Safelight Charlotte: First-Year

Report.”, undated

Greensboro, NC 20-25% Newspaper Article “Cameras curb red…”, 2001

High Point, NC 20% Newspaper Article “City Shoots for…”, 2001

Wilmington, NC 40-60%

26% reduction in right-

angle and 8% increase

in rear end, 22% decline

in total collisions Agency Brochure

“Safelight Wilmington: First

Year in Review.”, 2001

Virginia

Fairfax, VA 44% IIHS Study Retting, August 1999

Table 2. Violation and crash reductions for various RLR enforcement programs. (cont.)

Site

Violation

Reduction Crash Reduction Source Type(s) Source(s)

Australia

Melbourne,

Victoria, Australia

(1995)

0% reduction in right-

angle crashes at

enforcement locations,

increase in rear-end

collisions

Independent

Evaluation Andreassen, 1995

Melbourne,

Victoria, Australia

(1988)

32% decrease in right-

angle crashes and 10%

decline in injuries

Independent

Evaluation

South, 1988

Perth, WA, Aus

40% right-angle crash

reduction at enforced

intersections, little

change in average

number of rear-end

crashes

Independent

Evaluation

Office of the Auditor General,

1996

Queensland,

Australia 70% Agency Website

“Technology versus the

Lawbreakers.”, undated

South Australia

33% reduction in serious

right-angle crashes, 5-

10% increase in rear-

ends Conference Paper Rocchi, 1999

Sydney, Australia

50% reduction in angle

and right-turn opposing

collisions, 20-60%

increase in rear-end

collisions Conference Paper Rocchi, 1999

Victoria, Australia 30% Synthesis Report ITE, 1999

Canada

Victoria, BC 73% Conference Paper Rocchi, 1999

Hong Kong

Hong Kong 40% Conference Paper Rocchi, 1999

Singapore

Singapore 40% Conference Paper Rocchi, 1999

United Kingdom

Essex, England

88% reduction in injury

collisions Conference Paper Rocchi, 1999

Glasgow,

Scotland

69%

62% reduction in injury

accidents

Independent

Evaluation

Winn, 1995

Nottinghamshire,

UK 60% Rocchi, 1999

3.2 Review of Independent Analyses

An early Australian study (South, et al., 1988) indicated significant reduction in crashes two

years after the initiation of the program in Melbourne, Australia. This study considered data

from five years prior to installation of cameras and two years following installations between

August 1983 and November 1984. A follow-up study (Andreassen, 1995) several years later,

considering after data through 1989 to provide equal five year “before” and “after” periods,

found no significant reduction in collisions due to the system, and an increase in rear-end

collisions similar to that described in the first study. The study was based on comparisons of

police reported crashes at each of 41 enforcement sites. Due to several changes in the police

report format during the study periods, individual crash reports were reviewed to classify crashes

appropriately. The study attempted to compare crashes at the selected sites with crashes in all of

Victoria; however, problems with the database reports for red light running crashes and crash

coding on the reports obtained led the author to conclude that results of this analysis were

unreliable. Notably, Andreassen also stated that the low crash frequencies at the camera

installations in Melbourne made them poor locations for the assessment of safety impacts due to

the camera program.

A report by the Office of the Auditor General for Western Australia (Office of the Auditor

General, 1996), describes a significant benefit of a 40% reduction in right angle crashes at the 44

enforced intersections in Perth over a ten-year period. This was compared to very little change

in the rate of such collisions over all 920 signalized intersections in the city. The study also

found no significant change in the frequency of rear-end collisions at the locations. The report

includes a chart presenting the right angle crash frequency at each set of intersections; however,

it gives no description of the technique used to develop the statistics presented.

Studies performed in Scotland (Halcrow Fox, 1996 and Winn, 1995) indicate significant benefits

from the cameras. The Winn study found a 62% reduction in collisions caused by RLR at

camera sites in Glasgow when comparing data from police accident records from “before” and

“after” periods of 3 years each. The accident records tallied for each site were filtered to include

only those reports that indicated RLR contributed to the crash. A second component of the Winn

study was an analysis of the change over time in the number of vehicles violating the signal

during various segments of the red phase. The study used data collected by observers and

records from the automated camera systems to document the time into the red phase that

violations occurred. Data gathered during before, interim, and after surveys periods including

manual observation revealed that the decline in violations was most significant during the

periods 0.5 to 1 second into the red and in the period 1-5 seconds into the red. These time

periods accounted for 42% and 29%, respectively, of the total number of infringements at the

sites and the number of infringements in these time bands declined by 69% and 67% between the

before and interim surveys. Violation rates remained approximately the same between the

interim period, when only warning notices were issued, and after periods. The only time band

surveyed that did not show a decline in violations was the period greater than 5 seconds into the

red phase. Violations in this segment of the phase accounted for less than 1% of the recorded

infringements, while the remaining 29% of violations occurred during the period at the beginning

of the red phase (0 to 0.5 seconds into the phase).

The later Halcrow Fox study (Halcrow Fox, 1996), which included a review of police accident

reports and traffic volume data covering the period from 1989 to 1995, found that camera

enforcement was just one of several traffic safety improvements contributing to a citywide

reduction in collisions at signalized intersections in Glasgow. For example, the study notes a

significant reduction in accidents caused by pedestrians crossing carelessly, and cites engineering

and education efforts as possible reasons for this portion of the overall decline in crashes. With

regard to accidents caused by RLR, the study found that both injury and non-injury crashes

caused by this behavior declined between 32% and 35% citywide, accounting for a similar

percentage of the total crashes in the analysis periods before and after camera enforcement

began. The decline in RLR crashes accounted for 20% of the decline in all crashes at signalized

intersections. Another notable finding of the study was that “injury accidents caused by red light

running declined more sharply at junctions away from the camera sites suggesting that factors

such as junction improvement, traffic management and increased vigilance may have been

important in reducing red light running accidents across the whole area.”

A graduate student thesis assessing the system in Howard County, MD (Butler, 2001) indicated

positive impacts of that system on right-angle crashes. This study involved comparison of police

reported right-angle collisions at two camera locations for before and after periods of 18 months.

The number of crashes occurring at these sites was compared to totals from a sample of non-

enforced intersections in Howard County and a “control” group of intersections along arterials of

similar traffic volumes and development patterns in Pennsylvania. The study found that the

improvement between the before and after period at red light camera (RLC) intersections in the

county was not significant at a 95% confidence level, but was significant at the less stringent

90% confidence level. Due to small reductions in the number of crashes at the other sites, the

study found no statistically significant differences between the changes at the RLC and non-RLC

intersections in Howard County, nor between the non-RLC sites in Howard County and several

control sites in Pennsylvania.

Mitretek analysis of data provided by Howard County (“Maryland House of Delegates

Commerce and Government Matters Committee Automated Enforcement Review: Red-Light

Running Detection Camera Systems”, 2001) indicated statistically significant reductions in the

total number of both right-angle and rear-end crashes at camera enforced intersections. The

analysis excluded 3 atypical intersections located at the terminus of freeway sections (though

each of these locations recorded reductions in crashes as well). Telephone interviews with the

Howard County Traffic Engineer revealed that the data was obtained from queries of a database

of crashes recorded at the enforced intersections. The measured reductions were a 42.5% decline

in right-angle collisions and a 29.5% reduction in rear-end crashes at the enforcement sites. Chi-

squared and paired-T statistical analysis found these results to be significant at a confidence level

of 1%. Chi-squared analysis did not find the 21.8% decrease in “other” types of crashes at the

enforced intersections to be statistically significant, however the paired-T test did indicate the

change was significant. Data used in this analysis reflected crashes occurring at each site during

“before” and “after” periods that varied from one intersection to the next. All “after” time

periods concluded on 15 December 2000, while before periods began on appropriate dates before

the implementation of cameras in order to provide “before” and “after” periods of equal duration

at each site. The date of implementation of the enforcement program at each intersection varied

from 18 February 1998 to 26 August 1999, resulting in “before” and “after” periods ranging

from 15 to 32 months at each intersection.

4. Public Opinion of Red Light Cameras

Reports in the literature have demonstrated strong public support for red-light camera

enforcement programs, ranging from roughly 60% to 80% of survey respondents favoring the

systems. Again, the quality of the references providing these statistics varies widely, with few

providing details on sample size or survey techniques. Results of an opinion survey of AAA

members indicate 77% of the organization’s membership supported RLC programs (Anderson).

A trade journal article mentions that a 1999 survey found 78% support for RLC enforcement in

Scottsdale, Arizona, where cameras have been in operation since 1997 (“Applications Increase

for Automated Traffic Violation Enforcement”, 2000). Charlotte, North Carolina’s first annual

report on their red light camera program reported that in 1997, prior to implementation of the

program, 80% of Charlotte citizens felt that camera enforcement would be beneficial in reducing

red light running (“SafeLight Charlotte: First-Year Report”, undated).

Random sample surveys conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in five

cities with RLC programs and five cities without programs found that, in each city, over 75% of

respondents favored the camera programs (Retting and Williams, 2000). A 2000 journal article

(Wissinger, 2000) cited a 1995 IIHS nationwide survey that found 66% of respondents were in

favor of the programs. The most recent national survey identified in this literature review, a

1999 survey sponsored by the organization Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, found 74%

of those surveyed in favor of the programs (Harris, 1999). Reports of public opinion of red light

camera enforcement programs in the literature reveal strong support for the programs. However,

it is also noteworthy that very few people are undecided about their position on red light

cameras. This is reflected in the generally low numbers of people responding with no opinion in

the surveys (Polk, 2000).

5. Studies in Progress

The following studies on this subject are known to be in progress as of July 2001:

• NCHRP Synthesis 32-03, “Impact of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Crash

Experience” will collect and document the reported impacts of red light camera

enforcement on crash experience, both at enforced intersections and areawide.

• A joint FHWA/ITE study entitled “Engineering Safer Intersections to Prevent Red Light

Running” is also underway. The study, expected to be available in Spring 2002, will

document appropriate methods for improving intersection safety through efforts to curb

red light running. The report will identify engineering measures that are necessary prior

to the installation of red light cameras.

• The Australian association of transport agencies (Austroads) will soon begin a research

project aimed at developing guidelines for setting up and operating intersection signals

with red light cameras. The project, expected to take about 12 months to complete, will

include a comprehensive review of the literature, analysis of crash data and consultation

with experts.

• A survey effort is ongoing in North Carolina to assess the opinions of North Carolina

motorists regarding the red light camera enforcement programs in operation in that state.

6. Recommendations for Further Research

Each of the existing independent analysis makes an attempt to assess the long-term impacts of a

system that is affected by a variety of external influences that can also impact traffic safety. This

is a characteristic of traffic safety impact studies that is probably difficult to overcome. While a

long-term study may provide a better indication of any lasting impact of the systems on

intersection safety, this longer time frame also allows a greater opportunity for other, necessary,

improvements that can also impact safety, such as intersection and pedestrian safety

improvements. The result is that the safety impact of the camera systems remains unclear.

Despite the inherent difficulties of long term transportation safety impact studies, one or more

such studies performed by an independent agency on a U.S. system would provide a better

understanding of the impact that red light cameras have on U.S. driver populations. These

studies should include an evaluation of violation and crash trends from several cities, to capture

changes in these statistics over time under different driving environments. A second effort that

may help document any safety impact of these systems would be a detailed review of automatic

camera recorded violation data from several jurisdictions. In a manner similar to the Scottish

study (Winn, 1995), such an analysis should review the time into the red-phase that violations

are occurring. Reviewing the time of violations would help determine if the violation reductions

achieved were impacting all violators, or having a more significant impact on those violating the

signal immediately after it changes to red.

Comparisons of violation records with crash data collected after the commencement of camera

programs could help better define the relationship between violation reductions and a reduced

occurrence of crashes. Reviewing crash records for locations with automated enforcement and

associating each crash with a corresponding violation recorded by the camera could determine if

red light violations at particular times during the red phase are more likely to result in crashes.

Analysis of the change in the number of violations occurring at different time intervals within the

red phase could then help determine whether or not red light camera systems in the U.S. are

significantly reducing the types of violations most associated with crashes. It is unlikely that a

significant number of crashes would occur during video-recorded or manually observed survey

periods prior to automated enforcement. Such a study would therefore need to rely on data

collected after enforcement begins to assess the relationship between the time of violations and

crashes. The study could be enhanced by the collection of violation data before enforcement

begins in order to obtain a better “baseline” than is possible when the only violation data

collected is done automatically via the camera systems after enforcement begins.

Another area of potential research in this area is benefit/cost analysis of the systems. The

research efforts described above could provide an estimate of the impact of the systems in terms

of crash reductions. This estimated benefit could be compared to the costs of operating the

systems as well as the total value of fines assessed to signal violators.

7. Annotated Bibliography

Government Funded Research, Conference Papers, and Other Technical References

Andreassen, David. A long term study of Red Light Cameras and Accidents. Research Report

ARR 261. Australian Road Research Board. February, 1995.

• Contains statistical analysis of crash records for sample of intersections in Melbourne,

Victoria, Australia. Found no significant decline in right-angle crashes at RLC sites,

questioned location of sites given low crash frequency.

Butler, Pamela Crenshaw. “A Quantifiable Measure of Effectiveness of Red Light Running

Cameras at Treatment and Non-Treatment Sites.” Howard University Thesis.

Washington, DC: May, 2001.

• Contains statistical analysis of right-angle crash experience at two Howard County

intersections. Found that reductions in crashes at the intersections were not

statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, though they were close. No

significant differences between the changes at the RLC and non-RLC intersections in

Howard County, nor between the non-RLC sites in Howard County and several

control sites in Pennsylvania.

Datta, Tapan K. et al. “Red Light Violations and Crashes at Urban Intersections.”

Transportation Research Record 1734. pp. 52-58

• Discusses comparative study of intersections with and without all-red intervals, no

discussion of RLC impacts

Fleck, Jack L. and Bridget B. Smith. “Can We Make Red Light Runners Stop? Red Light Photo

Enforcement in San Francisco, California.” San Francisco Department of Parking and

Traffic Press Release. March 1999. <http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/dpt/press.htm> (also

published as TRB preprint (see ITE report…))

• SF reduction in violations during pilot program, probably original source for 42%

figure

Halcrow Fox. “Accidents at Signal Controlled Junctions in Glasgow.” The Scottish Office,

Central Research Unit. 1996.

• Crash reductions at all signalized intersections in Glasgow considering 3-year period

before and after automated enforcement. Report mentions other safety initiatives and

intersection improvements underway which may have influenced citywide decline in

crashes.

Hansen, Sharon C. “Photo Enforcement: ITS Meets Controversy.” BRW Inc. Phoenix, AZ.

undated

• Contains results from Mesa, AZ local report (see below)

Harris, Louis. “The Third Survey of Attitudes of the American People on Highway and Auto

Safety.” Prepared for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. September 1999.

• Presents results of nationwide survey questioning 1,005 people over the age of 18.

Included a question asking if respondents would favor a statewide law permitting

cities in their area to develop red light camera programs.

Hill, Stephen, John McFadden, and Andrew Graettinger. “Methodology for Evaluation the

Applicability of the use of Automated Enforcement for Traffic Safety in Alabama.” TRB

2001, paper #01-0515.

• Contains lit. review including Howard County figures, also Charlotte data (from 1

year report), though quotation (or data) is inaccurate (quotes 22 crash reduction

figures for 20 RLC intersections)

Institute of Transportation Engineers. Automated Enforcement in Transportation. ITE

Informational Report. December 1999.

• Table of violation reductions.

ITE Technical Council Task Force 4TF-1. Determining Vehicle Signal Change and Clearance

Intervals. August 1994.

• “Presents some of the various methods used to determine lengths of yellow change

intervals and red clearance intervals.”

Kent, S. et al. “Red Light Running Behaviour at Red Light Camera and Control Intersections.”

Monash University Accident Research Centre – Report #73. [undated executive

summary] <http://www.general.monash.edu.au/muarc/rptsum/es73.htm>

• Report found no statistically reliable differences in red-light encroachments between

RLC and non-RLC sites at sample of intersections in Melbourne, also no reliable

difference in crashes at the two sets of sites

“Maryland House of Delegates Commerce and Government Matters Committee Automated

Enforcement Review: Red-Light Running Detection Camera Systems.” Howard County,

MD. January 18, 2001.

• Before/after right-angle and rear-end crash data from Howard County

McFadden, John, et al. “Implication of Automated Enforcement of Red Light Running on

Traffic Records and Law Enforcement. International Forum on Traffic Records and

Highway Information Systems. undated

• Cites violation results from other reports.

Office of the Auditor General, Western Australia. Improving Road Safety: Speed and red Light

Cameras, The Road Trauma Trust Fund. Report No. 1. May 1996.

• Discusses operation of speed camera, red light camera, and related Road Trauma

Trust Fund programs in and around Perth, Western Australia. Provides statistics on

frequency of right-angle and rear-end crashes at enforced intersections and compares

to frequency at all Perth intersections. No discussion of methodology for obtaining

statistics.

Office of the Auditor General, Western Australia. Public Sector Performance Report 1998.

Report No. 12 – December 1998.

• Update to 1996 investigation, no data on changes in violations or crashes

Passetti, K. “Use of Automated Enforcement for Red Light Violations.” August 1997, CVEN-

677 Advanced Surface Transportation Systems, Department of Civil Engineering, Texas

A&M University, College Station, Texas.

• Violation reductions from U.S. sites, also findings of no change in violations with

initiation of RLR through small programs in the Netherlands (3 sites) and Polk

County, Florida (4 sites). 1988 Australian crash reduction findings.

Photo Enforcement of Traffic Laws. NCHRP Synthesis 219. Transportation Research Board,

National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995.

• Safety impacts chapter discusses safety impact of automated speed enforcement.

Literature review during this project found 11 speed camera programs worldwide and

stated that these programs were more prevalent than red-light camera systems.

Polk, Amy. “Automated Enforcement: What Works, What Doesn’t.” ITE Districts 1 & 7

Annual Conference. Niagara Falls, Ontario. 6-10 May 2000.

• Conference presentation reviewing experience with automate enforcement programs.

Porter, Bryan E. “Red Light Running from Virginia to the Nation.” Old Dominion University,

Department of Psychology. 49

Annual Meeting of the Southern District ITE

Conference. Williamsburg, VA. April 23, 2001.

• Discusses impact of education and traditional enforcement programs in Virginia

(small percentage changes in violations and crashes increase during program, decline

after)

Public Technology, Inc. “Is Photo Enforcement For You? A White Paper for Public Officials.”

undated

• Discusses the issues surrounding photo enforcement as a solution to red-light running

and lists states that have red-light camera legislation.

Red Light Running in Iowa: The Scope, Impact, and Possible Implications. Final Report. Iowa

State University, Center for Transportation Research and Education. December 2000.

• Reviewed only table of contents, RLR violation and crash data are in body of report,

appears the sections are literature reviews, rather than new data (see summary report).

Red Light Running in Iowa: The Scope, Impact, and Possible Implications. Summary Report.

Iowa State University, Center for Transportation Research and Education. December

2000.

• Summary of a larger final report (listed above), contains violation data in form of

literature review, but no data from this project

Retting, Richard A., et al. “Changes in Crash Risk Following Re-Timing of Traffic Signal

Change Intervals.” IIHS Report, September 2000.

• Retiming signals to comply with ITE recommended practice yields crash reductions

greater than those in a control group.

Retting, Richard A. and Sergey Y. Kyrychenko. Crash Reductions Associated with Red Light

Camera Enforcement in Oxnard, California. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Report. Arlington, VA: April 2001.

• Statistical analysis of crash occurrences in four California cities. Oxnard, with RLC,

and three others without RLC. Found significant reduction in right-angle and right-

angle injury crashes at all intersections in Oxnard, however, these statistics were not

computed for other cities. Comparison of citywide crash occurrences found reduction

in Oxnard, though the figures for two of the control cities also declined, with Santa

Barbara having the largest reduction in crashes.

Retting, Richard A., et al. “Evaluation of Red Light Camera Enforcement in Fairfax, Va.,

USA.” ITE Journal. August 1999. pp. 30-34

• Violation reductions, public opinion survey. Comparison of violation rates per

10,000 vehicles at enforced sites and in non-enforced (control) sites both in Fairfax

and adjacent counties.

Retting, Richard A., et al. “Evaluation of red light camera enforcement in Oxnard, California.”

Accident Analysis and Prevention 31 (1999). pp. 169-174.

• Violation reduction, public opinion surveys

Retting, Richard A., et al. “Prevalence and characteristics of red light running crashes in the

United States.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 31 (1999). pp. 687-694.

• Discusses demographic characteristics of red light runners

Retting, Richard A., and Allan F. Williams. “Red Light cameras and the perceived risk of being

ticketed.” looks like Traffic engineering and control Journal from June 2000. TEC 2000.

• Results of telephone surveys on acceptance and awareness of RLC

Retting, Richard A., et al. “Red-Light Running and Sensible Countermeasures: Summary of

Research Findings.” Transportation Research Record 1640. Transportation Research

Board. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998.

• Literature review of other research, including violation and crash reduction citations,

primarily IIHS work.

Retting, Richard A. “Reducing Red Light Running Crashes: A Research Perspective.” ITE

Annual Meeting 2000. Nashville, TN. August 2000.

• References other IIHS figures, Oxnard, opinion survey

Rocchi, Sarah. “A Review of the Road Safety Benefits of Red Light Cameras.” ITE

International Conference. Kissimmee, Florida, 1999.

• Tables of violation and collision impacts, varying quality of sources for these figures

Smith, David M. et al. “Automated Enforcement of Red Light Running Technology and

Programs: A Review.” Transportation Research Record 1734. pp. 29-36

• Presents same results data as “Synthesis and Evaluation…” FHWA report

South, D., et al. Evaluation of the red light camera program and the owner onus legislation.

Road Traffic Authority (Victoria, Australia). Report SR/88/1. 1988

• A copy of this report was not obtained during this literature review. However, it is

cited and discussed in numerous other references, most thoroughly in Andreassen,

1995.

Stevens, Sean C. “Benefits from Camera Technology Outweigh Privacy Issues.” Georgetown

University School of Foreign Service. Program in Science, Technology, and

International Affairs.

• Not a scientific paper, more of a discussion of the issues (written in first person)

Synthesis and Evaluation of Red Light Running Automated Enforcement Programs in the United

States. FHWA Report [FHWA-IF-00-004]. September 1999.

• Violation reductions from NYC, San Francisco, Polk County, Howard County,

reference to crash reduction in Polk County, though authors stress need for additional

data

Turner, Shawn, and Amy Polk. “Overview of Automated Enforcement in Transportation.”

Prepared for publication in ITE Journal. June 1998.

• Primarily summarizes implementation efforts and technologies

Winn, Ray. “Running the red and evaluation of Strathclyde Police’s red light camera initiative.”

The Scottish Office, Central Research Unit. 1995.

• Violation rates and collision reductions at enforced intersections in Glasgow.

Violation rates (infringements/infringement opportunities) from observer records,

collision reductions from query of crash records for intersections with primary

causation being “red light running.”

Wissinger, Leanne M. et al. “Using Focus Groups to Investigate Issues of Red Light Running.”

Transportation Research Record 1734. pp.38-45. Washington, DC: 2000

• Lit. review of customer opinion surveys, presents results of focus group efforts

Local Reports

Anderson, Lon. “Candid Camera.” AAA World. November/December. pg. 7

• Discusses AAA position on red light cameras, cites Fairfax, VA violation reduction

and Howard County, MD injury crash reduction.

“Applications Increase for Automated Traffic Violation Enforcement.” The Urban

Transportation Monitor. December 22, 2000. pg.1+

• Describes several ongoing automated enforcement efforts in U.S. Results of public

opinion survey in Scottsdale, Arizona.

“Cameras curb red-light violations; officials say 20 percent to 25 percent fewer drivers are

running red lights where a camera has been installed.” News & Record, Greensboro,

North Carolina. April 21, 2001.

• Violation reductions for Greensboro program.

“Cameras proving to cut accidents.” Editorial. Wilmington Morning Star. Wilmington, NC.

May 26, 2001.

• Crash reduction quotes from Wilmington traffic engineer.

“Cameras Reduce Accidents, Report Says.” The Washington Post. Washington, DC. January

29, 2001.

• Mentions new report from Howard County on crash reduction, available February

2001.

“City Shoots for 10 Red Light Cameras.” High Point Enterprise. High Point, North Carolina.

June 9, 2001

• Quote from city traffic engineer gives violation reduction.

“Fewer Collisions, Injuries and Deaths Result from City Crack Down on Red Light Running.”

San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic Press Release. April 7, 1998.

<http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/dpt/press.htm>

• Series of press releases and copy of a paper regarding San Francisco RLR

enforcement and public education effort. Violation, collision reduction and cost

information.

FHWA. “Safety – Stop Red Light Running Red Light Camera Effectiveness.” FHWA website,

undated. <http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/srlr/effect.htm>

• Crash reduction and violation trends from U.S. and abroad. Few references given.

“Photo Red Light Enforcement Program.” City of Fairfax, Virginia.

<http://www.ci.fairfax.va.us/police/photoredlightenforcement.htm>

• Gives decline in violations per hour at the 8 monitored intersections. Also cites IIHS

study of 44% decline.

“Red-light Cameras.” The Washington Post. Washington, DC. January 14, 2001.

• Includes violation reduction reference.

“SafeLight Charlotte: First-Year Report.” undated.

<http://www.charmeck.nc.us/citransportation/programs/safelight/report1.htm>

• Violation trends (fluctuations during first year due to increase in number of enforced

intersections and improvements in performance of equipment). Crash reductions

cited overall and for select intersections. No description of data collection

methodology.

“SafeLight Charlotte: Annual Report: August 1999 – July 2000.”

<http://www.charmeck.nc.us/citransportation/programs/safelight/report2.htm>

• These reports discuss crashes at enforced intersections before and after program

began. However, reporting is incomplete and varies between this annual report and

the previous first-year report, making it difficult to draw conclusions from the data

presented.

“Safelight Wilmington: First Year in Review.” Brochure, City of Wilmington, NC. 2001

• Collision data 1 yr before and after enforcement began at 10 intersections. Spoke

with Jim Flechtner, City of Wilmington: crash figures were from reviewed police

reports for all 10 enforced intersections.

"Speeders may be on camera." The Daily Camera. Boulder, CO. June 14, 2001.

• Includes violation and crash reduction data for red light camera system.

“Support Grows for Cameras at Intersections.” Daily Press Middle Peninsula Edition.

Williamsburg, VA. April 25, 2001.

• Fine, revenue and violation data for Charlotte, NC.

“Technology versus the Lawbreakers.” Queensland Police Service. undated

<www.police.qld.gov.au/qps/info/technol/p_break.htm>

• Describes program in Queensland Australia, cites violation reduction study by

Queensland Department of Transport.

Vinzant, Janet C. and B.J. Tatro. “Evaluation of the Effects of Photo Radar Speed and Red Light

Camera Technologies on Motor Vehicle Crash Rates.” Prepared for the City of Mesa

Police Department. March 1, 1999.

<http://www.ci.mesa.az.us/police/traffic/march_1999_report.htm>

• Report discussing trends in crash rates for two years following implementation of

RLC and speed cameras in Mesa. Intersections were divided into four quadrants with

implementations of RLC and speed cameras in one quadrant, RLC alone in a second

quadrant, speed cameras in another, and no automated enforcement in the fourth

quadrant. Crash rates declined in all four quadrants, including the control segment.

Study states that it did not attempt to control for other actions that may have

improved safety.

“What do red-light cameras see?” Atlanta Journal and Constitution. April 23, 2001. pg. 2C.

• Quote on violations and crash rates from Lt. Glenn Hansen of Howard County, MD

police.

8. Cost Bibliography

Government Funded Research, Conference Papers, and Other Technical References

FHWA. “Safety – Stop Red Light Running Cameras Implementation Issues.” FHWA website,

undated. <http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/srlr/implementation.htm>

Polk, Amy. "Review of Automated Enforcement Programs in the Washington, D.C. Area." ITE

International Conference. Kissimmee, Florida, 1999.

“Red Light Cameras Questions and Answers”. [Source: 1998, IIHS, 23-Nov-98] [ver. 3/12/99]

from the FHWA Safety CBU website.

Local Reports

“Cameras could be ticket for bad drivers.” The Honolulu Advertiser. Honolulu, Hawaii. July 2,

2001.

“Cameras curb red-light violations; officials say 20 percent to 25percent fewer drivers are

running red lights; where a camera has been installed.” News & Record, Greensboro, North

Carolina. April 21, 2001.

“Cameras still to be installed; City red-light plan unfazed by House.” The Dallas Morning News.

Dallas, Texas. May 18, 2001.

“City Shoots for 10 Red Light Cameras.” High Point Enterprise. High Point, North Carolina.

June 9, 2001

“Click! You're caught! Police turning to cameras to stop red-light running.” The Associated

Press. October 11, 1999.

“Despite rising costs, red-light plan worth it.” The Arizona Republic. Phoenix, Arizona. May 9,

2001.

“Exposed: SR red-light cameras empty.” The Press Democrat. Santa Rosa, California. March

29, 2001

“Frederick Police Consider Installing Red-light Cameras.” The Washington Post. Washington,

DC. April 26, 2001.

“Red-light Cameras.” The Washington Post. Washington, DC. January 14, 2001.

“SafeLight Charlotte: First-Year Report.” Report from

http://www.charmeck.nc.us/citransportation/programs/safelight/report1.htm. Charlotte, North

Carolina.

“SafeLight: State's first photo enforcement program.” Press Release from

http://www.charmeck.nc.us/citransportation/programs/pressel/press1.html. Charlotte, North

Carolina. April 13, 1998.

“Slow: You're on traffic camera.” The News Tribune. Lakewood, Washington. April 2, 2001.

“Success Spells Loss of City Business For Red-Light Camera Manufacturer.” The Daily Record,

Baltimore, Maryland. December 11, 1999.

"The State: Capturing Red-Light Runners Creates Red-Faced Officials.” Los Angeles Times. Los

Angeles, California. June 3, 2001.

“Traffic light spy cams reduce crashes, study says; 29% drop in injury crashes logged at 11

corners in California city.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. May 6, 2001.

“What do red-light cameras see?” The Atlanta Journal and Constitution. Atlanta, Georgia.

April 23, 2001.

Phone Conversations

Phone conversation with Ian Cardozo, Peek Traffic Inc., June 14, 2001.

Phone conversation with Brenda Black, City of Mesa, Arizona, June 19, 2001.

Phone conversation with David Valle-Schwenk, City & County of San Francisco, Traffic

Engineering Division, June 21, 2001.

Phone conversation with George Frangos, Howard County, Maryland, Traffic Engineering

Division, June 21, 2001.