Vendors brief committee on automated work‑zone camera pilot; say state controls citation approvals

Representatives and outside vendors told the House Transportation Committee on April 29 that automated camera systems for work‑zone safety are typically delivered as turnkey programs in which a private vendor supplies equipment and back‑office services while the state selects locations and conducts final review and approval of notices.

Victoria Ayrton, manager of government relations for Better Mobility, introduced Lou Miller, senior vice president of global operations at VeriMobility, who walked the committee through how a work‑zone automated enforcement program operates and which responsibilities a vendor can and cannot assume.

Miller said vendors provide hardware, maintenance, deployment, image capture, preprocessing and a secure back‑office system that compiles evidence and registered‑owner information. "Really the 3 things that a vendor cannot do," he told the committee, "is generally: vendors do not choose the locations for enforcement; vendors do not ultimately finally approve notices or citations that go out to the public; and vendors typically do not adjudicate contested violations." Miller said that the state or law enforcement typically performs the final administrative review of evidence and decides whether to issue a notice.

Miller described quality controls included in programs: required signage and deployment logs, independent annual calibration and daily quality checks, photographic confirmation of worker presence during deployments and a secure web‑based portal that presents images, speed data, calibration certificates and deployment logs for a reviewer. He said a reviewer with access to that portal can typically review an incident quickly and estimated "about 30 seconds" per incident in many programs, while noting the final review time is determined by the reviewing agency.

Committee members raised workload concerns and asked about contest rates and outcomes. Miller said contest rates in comparable programs are typically low — often less than 2 percent and frequently under 1 percent — and that the evidence packages are designed to be auditable and reliable in hearings. He also said vendors typically handle customer service, payment processing and printing and mailing of notices under state‑approved templates.

The committee discussed options for warnings or educational notices before fines. Miller said states can design tiered approaches but cautioned that statutory structures tying warnings and subsequent fines together can have legal effects; the committee asked for further examples. Members also discussed scope: the 2024 law authorizing a pilot limited deployments to several work‑zone sites and included worker‑presence rules, and Miller said other states with programs include New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Washington, among others.

Miller referenced publicly available case studies and said agencies that have used automated enforcement reported reductions in higher‑speed violations after deployments. The committee asked for contacts and additional data; vendors offered to provide Pennsylvania police contacts and the cited case study for committee review.

No formal action was taken; the committee said it would follow up with state police contacts and additional materials to evaluate administrative workload and program design choices.