Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Enforcement Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs school‑zone speed cameras as stoplight camera contract is renewed
Summary
Police and public‑works staff told council that expanding automated enforcement to school zones could reduce severe crashes, but that adding speed cameras will raise contract costs and requires a city ordinance and an implementation plan.
Virginia Beach police and public works staff briefed City Council on the city’s red‑light camera program and on options to add automated speed enforcement in school and construction zones as the city negotiates a new camera contract.
Deputy Police Chief William Zalms reviewed the Photosafe stoplight camera program’s history, enforcement rules and results. The stoplight program, first piloted in 2005 and reinstated in 2009 after state legislation, uses 11 intersections selected with Public Works for high crash rates or pedestrian safety concerns. Zalms said the cameras have coincided with reductions in crashes—an average 37 percent reduction in nine of 11 monitored intersections, with some locations seeing 60–70 percent drops.
Zalms presented the new legislative authority at the General Assembly to allow automated speed enforcement limited to school and work zones. Under the contemplated model, a speed camera would issue a civil penalty (the proposal in law sets a $100 civil penalty) for vehicles traveling at least 10 mph over the posted limit; violations would not be reported as DMV points or to insurers. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and other studies cited by staff indicate speed camera programs reduce severe crashes and modify driver behavior.
On finance, staff said the existing Photosafe program has generated approximately $1.8 million in annual revenue, with current expenditures a little over $1 million. The new vendor contract being procured could nearly double contract costs (to about $1.8 million) for stoplight enforcement alone. Adding speed cameras would add ongoing equipment/service costs—roughly $2,300–$3,900 per camera per month, staff estimated—so any revenue projection should account for higher contract costs and an initial compliance period when violation counts tend to be high until behavior changes.
Zalms reviewed regional comparisons and early experience elsewhere: when Norfolk initially deployed school‑zone devices, violations were high at the program outset; other jurisdictions reported revenue but also rapid declines as driver behavior adjusted. Staff suggested that any ordinance authorizing speed enforcement should direct net revenue (beyond program costs) toward a CIP for traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures. Council members including Rosemary Angeloff and others expressed general support for prioritizing school‑zone enforcement and for routing surplus revenue to safety projects; several council members asked staff to return ordinance language and to stage any construction‑zone enforcement for a later briefing because construction enforcement is sporadic and can be operationally complex.
Ending: Council gave direction to pursue stoplight enforcement procurement and to prepare ordinance language and implementation plans for school‑zone speed enforcement, with construction‑zone enforcement to return for future council consideration.
