Speed Cam Report to County Council 2014

8/12/2019 Speed Cam Report to County Council 2014

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/speed-cam-report-to-county-council-2014 1/17

School Zone Speed Camer

Report to the County Counc

Howard County Police Department

William J. McMahon, Chief of Police

March 2014



1School Speed Camera Report to the County Council 2014

Howard County Department of Police

Executive Summary

The Howard County Police Department has been successfully operating a speed camera

program in school zones since enabling legislation was passed in Howard County in May, 2011.

Our program was designed to provide police with another tool to address residents’ number-

one complaint: speeding on residential and school zone roadways. You will find in this report

that our program has done just that by providing additional support to our traditional speed

enforcement efforts.

Our research shows that the program reduced speeds on 71 percent of our school zone

roadways in 2013. It has also reduced the number of collisions occurring on those roadways by

27 percent. The program is having the effect we’ve worked for from the beginning. Drivers are

changing their behaviors and roads around schools are getting safer.

The program generated 20,789 speed citations to vehicle owners in 2013, a decrease of 13

percent when compared to 2012. This decrease shows that drivers are slowing down in schoolzones and getting our message that they should be obeying the posted speed limits.

To date, since its launch in late 2011, the program has funded itself and collected approximately

$22,000 in funds over the costs of running the program. That money has already been

earmarked for school, traffic and pedestrian safety projects.

Speed camera programs in some jurisdictions outside Howard County continue to be scrutinized

and in some cases, modified, or even temporarily shut down. I can personally assure you that

the problems faced in other programs do NOT exist in Howard County, as our program uses

different technology and processing methods. More importantly, we provide rigorous oversight

of our entire program, from site selection through citation review.

The following report is an analysis that addresses all the reporting requirements of the county

code. I am confident that you will agree that the speed camera program in Howard County

continues to be effective, efficient, fair, and a true benefit to the safety of those who travel in

our school zones.





Contents

The following is an overview of the legislation involving school zone speed camera

enforcement. This report is broken down into the major reporting areas as required in

Howard County Code Title 21 Traffic Control & Transportation Subtitle 6 Speed Camera

Monitoring Systems.

Section 1. Enforcement Activity to Include Location and Frequency of the

Placement of Speed Monitoring Systems.

Section 2. Citation Information to include Violations Photographed, Rejected,

Issued, Appealed and Final Adjudication

Section 3. Collision Information, a Comparison of Collisions Before and After

Enforcement

Section 4. Updated Speed Surveys

Section 5. Financial Information to include Program Costs, Vendors Fees,

Total Fines Collected, Excess Fines, Use of Excess Fines

Section 6. List of School Zones highlighting any changes

Section 7. Major Problems/ Irregularities

Section 8. Program Recommendations





Program Overview:

Speed camera legislation was introduced before the Howard County Council in the

spring of 2011. The legislation authorized the Department of Police to use speed

monitoring systems in school zones. The overall goal of the speed camera program was

to change behavior and encourage drivers to slow down.

In May 2011, the County Council passed Council Bill 13-2011, authorizing the use of

speed cameras in Howard County. A 30-day warning period began on October 15, 2011

and the program began issuing civil citations on November 16, 2011.

The Howard County program began with two manned, mobile systems, which do not

require roadway improvements or roadway construction, resulting in no inconvenience to

the public. Only members of the police department who are certified to operate the

camera system and equipment are permitted to staff the vans.

At the start of the 2013-2014 school year in August, we added two additional speeddetection instruments. These instruments, called portable computer unit (PCUs) are

housed in cabinets that are bolted to concrete pads. The PCUs are being used in school

zones where the road configurations make it challenging to safely use the speed camera

vans. These portable units allow the department to address speeding issues in school

zones without impeding traffic or causing unnecessary distractions to drivers where

space is limited and it would be unsafe to do so.

School zone speed enforcement takes place Monday through Friday from 6 a.m.-8 p.m.

During the school system’s winter and spring breaks, we operated one van and both

PCUs, concentrating our enforcement activities in school zones where activities were

taking place. During the summer break, we concentrated our efforts at schools thathosted summer school and recreational programs.

Every designated school zone is posted with advanced warning notification consisting of

a “School Zone” sign, a sign displaying the speed limit, and a “Photo Enforcement” sign.

In addition, all roadways where the speed camera vans will be assigned are listed on the

HCPD website at least a week in advance.





Our program is designed as an additional tool to supplement the efforts of patrol officersto slow down speeding drivers. Our efforts in 2013 have resulted in 243 days of

enforcement, totaling 7,172.40 hours and the issuance of 20,789 civil speed camera

citations. During the same time period, our patrol officers, who are tasked with a

multitude of responsibilities, such as responding to emergency calls, writing reports, and

handling investigations, spent 1,239 hours conducting speed enforcement and issued

2,914 speed citations in school zones and residential areas. You can see that the

automated speed camera program allows us to focus on speeding in school zones in a

way we simply otherwise could not.

These enforcement efforts have resulted in a lowering of the 85th percentile speed by as

much as 15 MPH on 71percent of the school zone roadways, since the program began

in October 2011.

A more complete look at our enforcement efforts is provided in the report sections below

and in Appendix C.





Section 1. Enforcement Activity to Include Locations/Frequency of Placement

A brief synopsis of each school zone enforcement roadway is provided below; the 2013

complete listing is available in Appendix A, which includes actual dates, time and hours

worked. Roads receiving speed camera enforcement are based on the locations with

the most significant speeding problems, as determined by surveys taken of eachroadway. Residents may request additional attention be given to roads where they

observe speeding problems.

School Location Hours Citations

Atholton Elem. 6600 Seneca Dr 49.73 6310100 blk. Donleigh Dr 33.69 1

Atholton High 6500 blk. Freetown Rd 220.06 405

Bellow Springs Elem. Old Stockbridge Rd @ Elem School 89.21 16

Bethel Christian Acad. 8400 blk. Savage Guilford Rd 9.01 3

Bollman Bridge Elem/ Vollmerhausen Rd@ Bethel Christian 144.48 1078

Patuxent Valley MS/ EB 9100 Blk. Vollmerhausen Rd 31.23 9

Bethel Christian Acad.

Bonnie Branch MS/ Ilchester Rd 168.61 411Ilchester Elem/OLPH

Bryant Woods Elem SB 10400 Blk. Green Mtn. Circle 23.85 0

Bushy Park Elem 14000 Blk. Carrs Mill Road 204.67 347

Centennial HS/ Centennial Ln @ Centennial Woods Ln 189.18 1690Burleigh Manor MS

Centennial Lane Elem NB Centennial Ln @ Culverene Road 44.80 187Centennial Ln @ Breconshire Rd 185.07 527





Chaplegate Christian 2700 Marriottsville Road 56.01 8

Clarksville ES/ NB 121 Blk. MD Route 108 22.83 3River Hill HS SB MD Rt. 108@Broad Meadow Ln 25.08 5

Clarksville MS/ 6700 Blk. Guilford Rd 56.60 26Pointers Run ES

Clemmons Crossing ES 10300 Blk. Quarterstaff Rd 56.49 27

Columbia Academy 10300 Blk. Old Columbia Rd 204.55 794

Cradlerock ES/ EB 6600 Blk. Cradlerock Way 31.25 36

Lake Elkhorn MS WB 6700 Blk. Cradlerock Way 56.47 123NB Cradlerock Way @ Melting Shadows Ln 1.00 0

Dayton Oaks ES 4600 Blk. Ten Oaks Rd 239.09 610

Deep Run ES 6700 Old Waterloo Rd 130.75 190

Ducketts Lane ES 6500 Blk. Ducketts Ln 23.35 23

Dunloggin MS/ WB 9100 Blk. Northfield Rd 15.37 18Northfield ES

Elkridge ES/ Montgomery Rd 120.61 198Elkridge Landing MS

Ellicott Mills MS/ 4400 Blk. Montgomery Rd 85.18 36Veteran ES

Folly Quarter MS/ Triadelphia Rd 142.23 849Triadelphia Ridge ES WB Triadelphia Rd @ Hunt Ridge 28.78 53

Forest Ridge ES 9500 Blk. Gorman Rd 245.05 339

Fulton ES/Lime Kiln MS/ MD Rte 216 @ School Complex 50.66 10Reservoir HS





Glenelg Country 12700 Blk. Folly Quarter Rd 57.88 7

Glenelg HS Burntwoods Rd 266.47 4973400 Blk. Sharp Rd 48.54 22

Glenwood MS 2600 Blk. MD Rte 97 46.84 9

Gorman Crossing ES EB Skylark@ Winter Sun Rd 42.37 4

Murray Hill MS WB Skylark@ Winter Sun Rd 11.95 1

Guilford ES Oakland Mills Rd 166.53 57

Great Star Drive Great Star Dr@ Eastern Star Way 165.63 565

Hammond MS/ES 10500 Blk. Graeloch Dr 16.02 7

Hammond HS Guilford Rd 39.08 10

Hollifield Station ES Rogers Ave@ Patapsco Valley Dr 241.52 19158600 Blk. Stonehouse Dr 11.62 0

Jeffers Hill ES Tamar Dr 187.42 10129100 Blk. Old Montgomery Rd 14.96 6

Laurel Woods ES SB N Laurel Rd@ Covered Wagon Dr 24.53 51NB N Laurel Rd@ Old Lantern Way 80.98 94

Lisbon ES Frederick Rd 90.62 161

Long Reach HS SB 6100 Blk. Old Dobbin Rd 5.42 3EB Tamar Dr@ Old Dobbin Rd 163.90 1677WB Tamar Dr@ Autumn Ridge 166.20 1660

Manor Woods ES Frederick Rd 137.94 296

Marriotts Ridge HS/ Old Frederick Rd 22.35 0Mount View MS

Mayfield Woods MS EB 7900 Blk. Mayfield Ave 19.50 0

Mt Airy Bible Acad. 16800 Blk. Old Frederick Rd 38.07 20

Mt Hebron HS St Johns Ln @ Old St Johns Ln 196.88 720

Oakland Mills MS/HS Kilimanjaro Rd 156.25 370

Phelps Luck ES 5300 Blk. High Tor Hill 94.83 82

Phillips School Whiskey Bottom Rd 149.22 919





Rockburn ES Montgomery Rd 16.47 5

Running Brook ES SB 5200 Blk. West Running Brook Rd 12.27 0

St Augustine School NB 6000 Blk. Old Washington Rd 127.12 223

St Johns Lane ES St Johns Ln 275.37 616

St Johns Parish Day EB 9200 Blk. Frederick Rd 12.63 2

St Louis School 6300 Blk. Ten Oaks Rd 131.03 137

St Paul’s Resurrection North Chatham Rd 67.01 62

Stevens Forest ES Stevens Forest Rd 85.22 92

Swansfield ES Cedar Ln 300.88 774

Talbott Springs ES Whiteacre Rd 71.15 90

Thunderhill ES SB 9300 Blk. Mellonbrook Rd 22.98 7

Waterloo ES/ Old Montgomery Rd 135.63 138MD School for Deaf

Waverly ES EB 10200 Blk. Wetherburn Rd 3.05 0EB Old Frederick RD@ Wetherburn Rd 34.23 19

West Friendship ES Frederick Rd 173.23 323

Worthington ES SB 4500 Blk. Doncaster Dr 41.57 43WB 4600 Blk. Roundhill Rd 11.07 9

The five locations where the fastest speeds occurred are listed below:

Ten Oaks Road – Dayton Oaks elementary School – 77 MPH in a 35 MPH zone

Centennial Lane – Centennial High School – 72 MPH in a 35 MPH zone

Whiskey Bottom Road – Phillips School – 71 MPH in a 35 MPH zone

Triadelphia Road – Folly Quarter Middle School – 64 MPH in a 30 MPH Zone N. Laurel Road – Laurel Woods Elementary School – 59 MPH in a 25 MPH zone

Citations were issued in all five of these instances and they have all been paid.





Section 2. Citation Information to Include Violations Photographed, Rejected, Issued

In 2013, there were a possible 21,898 violations recorded by our detection equipment,

but 20,789 citations were mailed. The difference in the number of possible violations

recorded and the number of those violations mailed is due to our multi-level review and

rejection of citations based upon our strict quality-control measures. That process isdiscussed further in Section 7. Violations may be rejected for a number of reasons,

which are detailed in a full report under Appendix B.

Many of the citations are rejected during our “Post Print Review and Rejection” process.

During that process, a police employee reviews each citation to ensure that it meets our

strict criteria for mailing, even if the electronic image appears acceptable.

During the process, we rejected 256 printed citations for the following reasons:

unclear registration plate;

lack of a fixed object in the photo; photos were too dark;

photos were generally unclear; or

registration plate was obstructed.

Even though these 256 violations were acceptable when viewed on the computer due to

the ability to enlarge the photographs, we rejected them upon reviewing the final paper

product. This is done to enhance public confidence in the program.

Emergency vehicle operators were also issued citations if they were detected to be

exceeding the threshold speed and were not on emergency calls. In total, 129

emergency vehicles (fire and police, including those from out-of-county) were detectedspeeding. Of those, 79 were on emergency calls; the remaining 50 cases resulted in

citations being issued. Payment was made by the responsible party, unless it could be

demonstrated that they were, in fact, on an emergency call.

Thirty-two non-emergency Howard County government vehicles were detected

exceeding the speed limit resulting in citations being issued. The fines associated with

these citations were paid by the individual driver from personal funds. School buses,

which are owned by contractors, received 5 speed camera citations during this reporting

period. Those citations have been paid.





Of all vehicle owners who received citations in 2013, 47 chose to appear in court:

Cases Adjudicated in Court 2013

Month Cases

Scheduled

Guilty Not Guilty % Guilty % Not Guilty

January 2013

12 11 1 91.66 8.33

February 2013

7 7 0 100%

March 2013

1 1 0 100%

April 2013

2 2 0 100%

May 2013

1 1 0 100%

June 2013

5 5 0 100%

July 2013

2 2 0 100%

August 2013

7 6 1 85% 15%

September 2013

2 2 0 100 %

October 2013

5 5 0 100 %

November 2013

3 3 0 100%

December 2013

0 0 0 -

2013 Totals47 45 2 95.74% 4.25%

*Judges have used some judicial discretion in hearing these cases and have made two findings

of “not guilty” of the total 20,7 89 citations issued. None of these findings involved questions or

concerns about the validity of the equipment or the program.

Section 3. Collision Information / Comparison

During our initial study and consideration of speed cameras, we conducted a 5-year

review of collisions in school zones. We found that overall; we averaged 166 collisions

per year, including 14 personal injury and 148 property damage. Our recent review of

the 2013 school zone collisions shows a total of 120 collisions, a 27 percent reduction

from our initial 5-year study. Of those 120 collisions, 13 were personal injury and 107

were property damage.





Section 4. Updated Speed Surveys

Every school zone in Howard County was surveyed for speed, both before the speed

camera program was launched, with research beginning in 2009, and again during thecurrent school year. These enforcement efforts have resulted in a lowering of the 85th

percentile speed by as much as 15 MPH on 71 percent of the school zone roadways,

since the program began in October 2011.

Appendix C shows the completed surveys on each roadway and contains both the pre-

and post-enforcement study information.

Both the pre- and post-enforcement surveys were conducted in school zones for a 48-

hour period when school was in session for both days.

Section 5. Financial Information to Include Program Costs

Fiscal Year 2013: During FY13, the speed camera program cost a total of $687,649.00

to operate. Those costs included $359,310.00 to the vendor, $319,481.00 in personnel

costs, $8,858.00 in general operating costs. The program received $707,527.00 in fines

collected from citations paid during that time period, plus $19,063.00 in fees from our

partners resulting in funds collected over program costs of $38,941.00.

Total

Program

Costs

Vendor BillsPersonnel

Costs

Operating

Costs

Citations

Paid

Misc

Payments

(Charles

County)

Funds

Collected

Over Costs

Dollars 687,649.00 359,310.00 319,481 8,858.00 707,527.00 19,063.00 38,941.00

-50,000.000.00

50,000.00100,000.00

150,000.00200,000.00250,000.00300,000.00350,000.00400,000.00450,000.00500,000.00550,000.00600,000.00650,000.00700,000.00750,000.00

FY 13 FUNDING DATADATA PROVIDED BY THE HOWARD COUNTY BUDGET OFFICE





Fiscal Year 2014, (July – December 2013): The program has cost $439,444.00 to

operate. These costs included $255,743.00 to the vendor, $179,367.00 in personnel

costs and $4,334.00 in other operating costs. The program has received $448,280.00 in

citation payments and $6,932.00 in partner (Charles County) payments, resulting in

$15,768.00 in funds collected over program costs.

See Appendix F for Expenditures & Encumbrances Spread Sheets for FY13 and FY14.

In total, since its inception in late 2011, the program has collected approximately

$22,000, which is being directed to school, traffic and pedestrian safety projects, as

required by state law.

Total funds collected over costs:-$32,475(FY12) + $38,941(FY13) + $15,768(FY14: July – Dec. 2013) = $22,234

The Howard County Department of Public Works has identified the first round of projects

to be undertaken with these funds.

Bryant Woods Elementary: pedestrian refuge island at Green Mountain Circleand Windstream Drive;

Stevens Forest Elementary/Oakland Mills Middle: curb bump-outs at FarewellRoad near Woodblock Row;

Ilchester Elementary: crosswalk and detectable surface at Ellis Lane andIlchester Road;

Glenelg High School: sidewalk addition on Sharp Road near Celbridge Drive;

Total

Program

Costs

Vendor BillsPersonnel

Costs

Operating

Costs

Citations

Paid

Misc.

Payments

(Charles

County)

Funds

Collected

Over Costs

Dollars 439,444.00 255,743.00 179,367 4,334.00 448,280.00 6,932.00 15,678.00

0.00

50,000.00

100,000.00

150,000.00

200,000.00

250,000.00

300,000.00

350,000.00

400,000.00

450,000.00

500,000.00

FY 14 FUNDING DATADATA PROVIDED BY THE HOWARD COUNTY BUDGET OFFICE





Pedestrian safety on Old Dobbin Lane: add detectable surface to ADA rampsand crosswalk and add warning signs near shopping center;

Pedestrian safety on Shaker Driver: add pedestrian ramps and crosswalkconnecting Columbia Association pathway and a play area.

Section 6 List of School Zones and Any Changes

In response to a Photo Enforcement Sign change in the Maryland Manual on Uniform

Traffic Control Devices (MD MUTCD) we decided to be proactive and change out our

Photo Enforced Signs with the new sign School Speed Photo Enforced sign. The MD

MUTCD did not set a deadline for this change, but we decided the best course of action

was to make the sign change prior to any mandates.





Appendix D provides a list of all schools and locations where police are authorized to

conduct automated speed camera enforcement.

The Department of Public Works – Traffic Engineering Division reports that other than

the sign changes, they added a School Zone on Ducketts Lane for the new elementary

school and a School Zone on St. Johns Lane at Old St. Johns Lane to accommodate

students walking to Mt. Hebron High School.

See Appendix E for details on these new School Zones.

Section 7. Major Problems or Irregularities

The program has not encountered any major problems in 2013.

Minimal public opposition: For the most part during 2013, driver opposition to the

program has diminished greatly. In the past, drivers have yelled obscenities at theoperator, thrown water bottles at the van and, in once case, a driver shot a marble at the

van. We have no known similar cases in 2013 and while the occasional obscenity has

been yelled at the van operators, those types of incidents have also tapered off.

However in early September we had two incidents where PCU cabinets were

vandalized. A cabinet on Burntwoods Road was burned, resulting in a total loss of the

cabinet and its contents, a total of $15,000, which was covered by the vendor. On the

same evening, a cabinet on Tamar Drive was spray painted. Neither of these incidents

caused us to lose any enforcement time due the vendor’s ability to provide a spare

cabinet. We have not been able to identify the suspects in either case.

Media coverage of speed camera problems outside of Howard County: While speed

camera programs in other jurisdictions have been criticized and questioned by the media

and the public, the Howard County program has been acknowledged as a successful

model. Complaints in other places are not applicable in Howard, as our program uses

different technology (laser, not radar) and a different quality-control, review and

oversight process

In fact, a December 2013 editorial in the Baltimore Sun highlighted the success ofHoward County’s speed camera program, and suggested that Baltimore City “ would dowell to read the report Howard County Police Chief William J. McMahon filed in March

about that county’s speed camera program…in terms of doing more with less, Howardis hard to beat.” See Appendix G for the entire editorial.

Here's how the Howard system works:

STEP ONE: One of our two mobile vans, with equipment leased at a monthly rate

from Xerox, is dispatched to a school location to identify speeding vehicles. Because





the units are mobile, there are technicians that operate each van. Those technicians

are Howard County police employees. The laser camera is checked hourly for

accuracy. The technicians capture data, and then return to a county office to

download that data. The Howard County Program Administrator selects the

enforcement locations not the vendor.

Beginning in August 2013 we began utilizing the PCUs and the process of running

that instrument is similar to that of the van only that it is secured to the ground in a

cabinet. Our technicians operate theses systems in the same manner as the van,

monitoring the violations as they occur, conducting hourly tests all via a wireless

connection.

STEP TWO: The downloaded data is sent to the vendor, which formats it and returns

it to the county in form that allows our employees to verify whether the data and

image meet our criteria for determining if a violation occurred. This is the first step

where the vendor touches the data. But note that Xerox is compensated at this stage

based on the amount of data that Howard County employees send to them. They

have no control over the number they receive, or the locations where the violations

come from, and thus cannot control their income. The per-citation fee actually goes

down when the number processed goes up. If Howard sends 100 violations, Xerox is

paid to process 100.

STEP THREE: The formatted data is reviewed by a Howard County police civilian

employee, different from the technicians in the van, to insure that violations occurred.

STEP FOUR: Those alleged violations are then approved by a sworn Howard

County police supervisor.

STEP FIVE: The vendor is then told to hit the "print" button on violations approved by

the supervisor. This is the second step where Xerox is involved.

STEP SIX: Howard County police then verify that the printed image is of sufficient

clarity to justify a violation notice. Only then is it mailed to the vehicle owner.

Again, of those six steps, just two involve the vendor. In every sense, the Howard

County Police Department operates the program, not Xerox. And vehicle owners with

questions or concerns speak directly with a Howard County employee, not the

vendor.

Additionally we conduct our own independent tests of our systems each month to ensure

their reliability. These tests reaffirmed what we have believed and known since the

inception of our program, that the Vitronic PoliScan is an accurate and reliable Speed

Detection Instrument.





Section 8. Program Recommendations

The Howard County Speed Camera program continues to show success by reducing

speeds in school zones and reducing collisions.

Our program was designed as an additional tool to supplement the efforts of patrol

officers in furtherance of one of our department goals: Save Lives, Prevent Collisions

and Facilitate the Efficient Movement of Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic. The days and

hours of documented enforcement show that this program is a dedicated resource which

truly enhances our ability to improve safety in school zones.

The County Code authorizes the use of eight speed camera systems and during 2013,

we expanded our program from two detection units, both vans, to four total detection

units with the addition of two PCUs. We recommend the continued use of these four

systems at this time. We also recommend a continuing review to identify any additionalschool zones that may benefit from the use of a portable unit.

An additional School Zone will be established and be eligible for Automated

Enforcement when Thomas Viaduct Middle School opens in the fall of 2014.

We continue to believe that the Howard County Speed Camera Program serves as a

model for other jurisdictions.

Documents

Speed Cam Report to County Council 2014