Making Fairfield’s Speed Camera Program Actually Work for Safety

By Alexis Harrison

Fairfield’s new automated speed camera program in school zones has generated headlines for all the wrong reasons: approximately 114,000 violations in just 18 days, with projections of over $3 million in June revenue once fines begin. Officials insist safety is the goal, not money, which we do not doubt.

Subscribe

The well-being and safety of every resident in Fairfield is paramount and is a collective responsibility.

However, the numbers of the speed cameras tell a different story so far. If the town wants this program to succeed instead of repeating Greenwich’s angry backlash and eventual shutdown, it must treat these cameras as a safety tool first, and fix the obvious implementation flaws immediately.

The core problem is clear from the data. Average recorded speeds of 36-39 mph in monitored zones suggest many drivers are only modestly over typical limits, yet the volume of violations is enormous. Jefferson Street and Unquowa Road alone produced roughly 72,000 citations in under three weeks.

That doesn’t scream “dangerous scofflaws.” It suggests the thresholds may be too low for real-world conditions, or that the corridors have design or traffic flow issues that cameras alone cannot solve. True safety improvements require addressing root causes, not just ticketing them.

In 2025, the Fairfield Representative Town Meeting (RTM) officially approved the amendments to Chapter 102 (Vehicles and Traffic Ordinance, Sections 102-4 to 102-17) of the Town Code. It was sponsored by a bipartisan group of RTM members including Dave Rock, Michelle McCabe, Chris Carroll, Christine Ludwiczak, Karen Wackerman, and Pierre Ratzki. These changes formally established the framework for Automated Traffic Enforcement Safety Devices (red light and speed cameras) in local school zones. At the time, then First Selectman Bill Gerber and then Fairfield Police Chief Robert Kalamaras were proponents of the program.

“The idea is to slow people down, not to ticket people,” Gerber had said of the cameras. The deliberations from 2025, which included the opportunity for the public to weigh in, can be seen here.

The rollout of speed cameras in Fairfield school has drawn significant criticism for several interconnected reasons from inadequate or confusing signage to the 24/7 enforcement in “school zones”, among other issues. The flaws in the implementation process have made the program feel punitive and revenue-focused to many, rather than purely safety-oriented. Let’s fix it.

Here are practical, effective ways the Fairfield Police Department and the Town of Fairfield could improve transparency on the speed camera program:

Be Clearer About the Actual Timing of the Speed Cameras

Many residents are frustrated that the speed cameras operate well beyond the enforcement hours posted on the warning signs. The Fairfield Police Department has confirmed the cameras run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Drivers consider it overly punitive to receive tickets late at night, on holidays, or during summer vacation when school is not in session and children are not present. (Note: While the speed limit drops to 20 MPH during school hours, the cameras continue to ticket drivers for exceeding the standard posted limit during all other times.) Unclear signage creates the impression that the speed camera program is more about generating revenue than improving safety. That doesn’t build public trust.

Dramatically better driver awareness

Selectperson Brenda Kupchick is right to worry. Drivers need unmistakable, repeated warnings before fines start hitting mailboxes. The town has upgraded to the largest MUTCD-compliant signs, but compliance with minimum standards isn’t enough when people’s wallets are on the line. Install prominent, flashing “SPEED CAMERA ENFORCED” signs well in advance of the zones. Add temporary electronic speed display boards that show drivers their actual speed and flash warnings. Run the aggressive public education campaign Chief Paris promised but make it educational, not just “obnoxiously visible.” Mail the warning letters with clear maps of camera locations, not just generic notices. Transparency reduces resentment.

Tie every dollar of revenue explicitly to measurable safety outcomes

Officials say revenue will fund “roadway safety infrastructure,” and no money goes to the police budget. Good. Once the program is fully established on June 1, publish a detailed, public ledger showing exactly where every camera dollar is spent - new crosswalks, better lighting, traffic calming measures, or school zone improvements. Set clear benchmarks: reduced average speeds, fewer near-misses reported by parents or crossing guards, and actual crash data before-and-after. If speeds don’t meaningfully drop after six months, the program needs adjustment. Revenue without visible safety gains will fuel the perception that this is just another tax.

Refine the program with data and flexibility

The town should quickly release breakdowns: percentage of violations by time of day, exact speed distribution (how many at 36 mph vs. 50+ mph?), and local vs. out-of-town drivers. This information matters. If most violations cluster during non-school hours or involve slight exceedances, adjust thresholds during off-peak times or add grace periods. Consider engineering studies for the highest-violation corridors—perhaps speed humps, narrowed lanes, or better signage for drivers unfamiliar with the roads. Cameras should supplement smart street design, not substitute for it

Minimize burden on police and maximize community trust

Using officers to review violations during launch is understandable, but Chief Paris is correct that they belong on the road. Accelerate training for civilian staff. Establish an independent oversight committee with parents, residents, and traffic experts to review program data quarterly and recommend changes. This reduces the “gotcha” feeling and builds accountability.

Learn from Greenwich without repeating its mistakes

Greenwich faced 37,000 violations in a five-day test and overwhelming resident anger. Fairfield has the advantage of a warning period and time to adjust. Use it. The state is moving toward more automated enforcement, but public support will evaporate if this feels like revenue collection with a safety sticker slapped on it.

Fairfield has a legitimate speeding problem near schools — nobody disputes that. Automated cameras can be part of the solution when deployed thoughtfully. But right now the program risks becoming a costly distraction that angers residents while delivering uncertain safety gains. By prioritizing unmistakable warnings, transparent revenue use, data-driven adjustments, and actual infrastructure improvements, officials can turn these cameras into a tool that actually slows traffic and protects children instead of just filling town coffers

The June fines are coming. The real test isn’t how much money arrives, it’s whether Fairfield’s school zones become measurably safer. The town still has time to get this right. It should use it.