BACKGROUND 

Automated traffic enforcement technology is widely used as a supplement to law enforcement officers. Deployment of automated enforcement in the United States has increased in recent years for a number of reasons, including improved deterrence of targeted traffic violations, societal questioning of the use of law enforcement officers for routine traffic enforcement, and increasing officer vacancy rates in many law enforcement agencies. Despite widespread and growing use of automated enforcement and reported safety benefits, a number of questions are routinely raised. 

• How effective are different types of automated traffic enforcement in the United States, and how widely are they accepted? 

• How can automated traffic enforcement programs best be designed, implemented, and managed to (1) inspire confidence and trust and (2) increase compliance with traffic safety laws? 

• What program approaches and program architecture are best suited to address (1) the perception that automated traffic enforcement is used primarily to generate revenue; (2) the belief by some that privacy infringements outweigh documented safety benefits; and (3) concerns that certain communities are overrepresented and overburdened by this traffic enforcement strategy? 

Answering such questions would help state highway safety offices (SHSOs), policymakers, and other stakeholders shape traffic safety laws and public policy on the use of automated traffic enforcement. To the extent possible, guidelines developed through this project shall be relevant to current and future applications of automated traffic enforcement, including (1) various types of violations targeted, and (2) various technologies deployed. 

OBJECTIVE 

The objective of this research is to develop guidelines for (1) authorizing, implementing, and operating automated traffic enforcement programs that inspire confidence and trust and (2) assessing public opinion and concerns regarding automated traffic enforcement by jurisdictions using, or considering the use of, this technology. 

RESEARCH PLAN 

The research plan should (1) include a kick-off teleconference with the research team and BTSCRP convened within 1 month of the contract’s execution; (2) address how the proposer intends to satisfy the project objective; (3) be divided logically into detailed tasks necessary to fulfill the research objective and include appropriate milestones and interim deliverables; and (4) incorporate opportunities for the project panel to review, comment on, and approve milestone deliverables. 

Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following tasks. 

PHASE I 

Task 1. Review and synthesize literature and existing information. Materials should be drawn from a variety of published and unpublished sources regarding (1) the public’s and other stakeholders’ concerns about trust, support, and acceptance of various forms of automated traffic enforcement and (2) safety outcomes associated with the use of various forms of automated traffic enforcement. This effort should focus on domestic information and may consider relevant international information. 

Task 2. Conduct a survey targeting law enforcement agencies, transportation agencies, and school districts with existing or terminated automated traffic enforcement programs to collect information regarding (1) the authority to conduct automated traffic enforcement; (2) the design of automated traffic enforcement systems; (3) public concerns and acceptance; (4) efforts used to gauge public concerns and acceptance; (5) strategies employed to address concerns and improve public trust and acceptance; and (6) effectiveness of the programs with respect to changes in the targeted violations, crashes, and injury severity. Survey results will be used to identify candidates for interviews and case studies to be conducted under Phase II. Proposed sample sizes and sampling methodology should be provided.  

Task 3. Prepare an interim report that documents the work completed in Tasks 1 and 2. Update the work proposed for Phase II.

PHASE II 

Task 4. Conduct interviews and case studies of lessons learned from BTSCRP-approved communities with (1) longstanding automated traffic enforcement programs, (2) recently implemented or piloted programs, and (3) programs that have been terminated due to sunset provisions or other reasons. Interviews should span a broad range of stakeholders in each community, including automated traffic enforcement program operators, community-based organizations, and policymakers. 

Task 5. Draft guidelines and outreach materials for use by SHSO, policy makers, law enforcement agencies, departments of transportation, and other organizations responsible for (1) planning, implementing, and managing automated traffic enforcement programs and (2) assessing public opinions and concerns regarding automated traffic enforcement.  

Task 6. Make all preparations for a workshop that will include at least 15 diverse representatives of SHSOs, law enforcement agencies, departments of transportation and other organizations to (1) present the proposed guidelines outreach materials developed in Task 5 and (2) collect participant feedback. At a minimum, workshop preparations shall include issuing invitations to BTSCRP-approved participants and preparing a final list of attendees; providing travel support for workshop attendees (other than panel members and BSTCRP staff); providing catering services for all participants, including panel members; preparing name tags for all participants; and preparing PowerPoint presentations and any handouts. 

Task 7. Prepare an interim report that documents the work completed in Tasks 4 through 6. Update the work proposed for Phase III.

PHASE III 

Task 8. Conduct the workshop; revise the draft guidelines and outreach materials based on feedback gathered during the workshop. 

Task 9. Final deliverables should include (1) guidelines; (2) a final research report documenting the entire research effort and findings; (3) prioritized recommendations for future research; (4) presentation material; and (5) a technical memorandum on implementation.

STATUS: Proposals have been received in response to the RFP. The project panel will meet to select a contractor to perform the work.