VTrans and lawmakers discuss obstacles to automated speed-enforcement pilot; agency seeks statutory fix

Lawmakers and Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) staff on April 8 examined implementation problems with a legislatively mandated automated speed-enforcement pilot for work zones, with witnesses saying the pilot cannot be run under current statutory procedures and proposing an administrative-penalty alternative.

The pilot, as passed last session, authorized automated law-enforcement (ATLE) in up to three work zones at a time on interstate limited-access highways beginning July 1, 2025, with an 18-month pilot period through the 2026 construction season. Under the enacted language, cameras operated by a third-party vendor would capture license plates; the law required a civil-vehicle citation (VCVC) be issued so the first recorded event could be recorded as a $0 VCVC warning and subsequent violations trigger monetary penalties.

Jeremy Reed, chief engineer at VTrans, told the committee the law’s design created practical and legal obstacles. ‘‘We have identified a fatal flaw in that it is a VCVC that has multiple reasons why it’s a fatal flaw,’’ Reed said. He said federal and state requirements—most notably the need under state law to confirm active-duty military status (the Soldiers and Sailors provision)—and the VCVC process require a sworn law-enforcement officer to review and sign packets prepared by the vendor.

Reed said State Police and other law-enforcement partners have told the agency they lack the capacity to receive camera packets, perform Soldiers-and-Sailors checks, sign VCVCs and mail them out. ‘‘We cannot, issue a VCVC,’’ he said in committee testimony. Reed and committee members discussed a likely legislative fix: convert the VCVC warning/penalty mechanism into an administrative penalty (similar to an E-ZPass violation or parking ticket) that would not require sworn officers to process each citation.

The pilot’s mechanics and penalties were described during the hearing: the automated system targets vehicles traveling 10 mph or more above the posted limit in active work zones; the first detected instance triggers a mailed warning with the license-plate image (the $0 VCVC), and a second detection within the defined period generates an $80 penalty plus court fees under current practice. Committee members and VTrans staff flagged two practical problems: the $0 VCVC currently requires a response to the Judicial Bureau (or else court penalties can attach), and the added court fees can substantially increase the monetary cost of a subsequent penalty.

Representative Tom cited out-of-state evidence that warnings followed by targeted enforcement reduced speeds and subsequent offenses. Committee members asked whether converting to an administrative penalty would preserve the public-safety effect; Reed said an administrative penalty could be designed to carry clear consequences and allow the pilot to run without requiring law-enforcement officers to sign each notice.

Committee members also raised privacy and vendor questions. Reed confirmed the pilot envisioned third-party camera vendors to collect evidence and that VTrans would require vendor vetting and an RFP; law enforcement historically would have performed the final verification and issuance under the current statute.

Timelines: Reed said the agency had paused full deployment because of the VCVC processing issue but could deploy the pilot quickly once statutory language is changed; he estimated a revised schedule could allow outreach and limited deployment in the next construction season if the committee acts this session.

Ending: Committee members signaled interest in drafting clarifying statutory language to allow an administrative penalty process, to address Soldiers-and-Sailors checks and to reduce or eliminate the Judicial Bureau response requirement for $0 warnings so the pilot can begin without overtaxing law-enforcement resources.