Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Highways Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DOT recommends targeted, performance‑based speed‑camera authority for high‑risk state highways
Summary
Connecticut DOT staff told lawmakers that current municipal automated enforcement cannot be used on interstates or limited‑access state highways outside active work zones and recommended narrowly authorized, data‑driven state highway camera authority to address persistent speeding and severe crashes.
Connecticut Department of Transportation staff recommended that the legislature authorize a narrowly defined, performance‑based program to permit speed‑safety cameras on high‑risk state highways, saying current municipal enforcement authority does not extend to interstates and other limited‑access corridors.
"There is no authority to use speed safety cameras on limited‑access highways outside of active work zones," state safety engineer Natasha Fatu told the committee. Fatu summarized DOT screening of state roadways and said persistent speeding and high crash rates on limited‑access highways make those corridors good candidates for automated enforcement where traditional enforcement is difficult to sustain.
Fatu cited national data and Connecticut crash figures: "Nationally, about 29% of all traffic fatalities involve speeding," she said, and presented Connecticut figures showing roughly 34% of the state's traffic deaths in 2023 involved speeding. She added that limited‑access highways show particularly high involvement of speeding in fatal crashes (about 31% for limited‑access highways in DOT’s 2022–2024 analysis).
DOT’s recommended approach calls for clear program policies and interagency roles, datadriven deployment of cameras in the highest‑risk locations, public outreach and transparency, and ongoing monitoring of speed behavior and crash severity at deployment sites. "Establish clear policies, roles, and interagency coordination," Fatu told the committee, adding that Federal Highway Administration guidance recognizes speed cameras as a validated safety countermeasure.
Lawmakers asked about equity implications and whether DOT could provide analyses for state‑highway deployment similar to the municipal QCT approach. Fatu said she would pursue equity data for the committee. Committee members also discussed pilot options and asked for comparisons with other states using cameras on state roadways.
The committee did not vote on legislation at the hearing; members asked DOT to provide further data (equity screens, more municipal operational data, and clearer reporting) to inform any future statutory authorization.
