The Law Behind Red Light Cameras in Abington

     As many residents know, on April 11, 2013 the Abington Board of Commissioners approved an ordinance allowing the use of automated red light cameras at three township intersections. Naturally, this controversial ordinance has resulted in numerous questions, concerns and accusations from the public, and a litany of promises and representations from the township representatives and officials.     

     Notably, the legal authority for Abington Township to install and enforce these cameras has been missing from this healthy public dialog.  Residents should take comfort that nearly all aspects of these red light cameras are regulated under the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code (Title 75), Section 3117; officially entitled “Automated red light enforcement systems in certain municipalities”. 

     Section 3117 addresses many of the questions and concerns expressed by the public, while also enforcing the factual information provided by the Township.  For example, subsection (e) mandates that the citation shall be $100 or less, so there should be no concerns that the citation price will rise absent a legislative amendment.  Also, subsection (q) specifically states that the yellow light change interval shall conform to the permit issued by the Department of Transportation (PennDot) or Abington Township.  As such, the law forbids the camera vendors from shortening the yellow lights to collect more fine money as some have theorized.  At the same time, Section 3117(g) enumerates the defenses if one were to receive a notice of a violation, including the defense that the vehicle owner was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation.  Additionally, subsections (m) and (n) dictate the process of paying fines and the right to a hearing.

    Although Section 3117 does explain many of the details and requirements that Abington and the camera vendors must follow in relation to these red light cameras, it also raises questions that will need to be answered as this camera enforcement system is implemented.

     First, many residents were disappointed to discover that the money earned from these cameras will not go directly to the Township.  Rather, we have been told that money earned will first go to the camera vendor (who assumingly will be deemed the “system administrator” as defined under the law) to cover the costs of “maintaining” the cameras at each intersection.  We were told that this would be an estimated $5,000 per month per intersection.  Additionally, we were informed that if the intersections did not generate the costs of maintaining the cameras, then the vendor would operate at a loss, and the Township would not, at any time, be required to make a payment to the vendor.  However, if the fine income exceeds the costs of “maintaining” the cameras, then the additional funding would go back to PennDot for traffic related grants.         

     Section 3117(m)(2) directly addresses these representations.  Namely, it states that the system administrator (the camera vendor) shall remit the fines collected “less the systems administrator’s operation and maintenance costs” to the Motor License Fund to be used by PennDot for a “Transportation Enhancements Grant Program”.  Notably, this language specifically states “operation and maintenance costs” and not simply the maintenance costs for the cameras.  Accordingly, the public should know the value of the administrator’s operation costs.  Otherwise stated, how much will the camera vendors charge to facilitate the ticketing, hearing and collection process?  Is this cost included in the estimated $5,000 per intersection costs provided?  Since we have been told that the camera vendor cannot profit from the maintenance of the cameras, it should be anticipated that the vendor’s profit will come from the vendor’s operation costs.  Would the Township have to pay the vendor for any of these operation costs? 

     These questions become more pertinent in light of Section 3117(o), which addresses compensation to the camera manufacturer or vendor.  Although subsection (o) does address the commonly expressed concern that the vendor will be compensated based upon the number of citations issued, and specifically prohibits this method, it also states that the compensation paid to the vendor shall be based upon the “value of the equipment and the services provided or rendered in support of the [camera system].”  Once again, the public should know and question the value of these services rendered by the vendor before the vendor is selected.

     Another question arising from this provision is whether Abington Township can or will receive any money from the “Transportation Enhancements Grant Program”.  Notably, 3177(m)(2) states that “[p]riority shall be given to applications seeking grant funds for transportation enhancements in the municipality where the automated red light camera system is operated.”  As a result, it would appear that Abington Township would be on a short list of municipalities that are given “priority” to receive this grant money that is awarded “on a competitive basis subject to a selection committee established by the Secretary [of PennDot]”.  Accordingly, it would appear that the Township would receive an economic benefit, albeit indirectly, from implementing the camera system.  In the future, we should be asking how much, if any, grant money we receive?  Also, how are we spending the grant money once received?                           

     Residents have also expressed concern that an element of human interaction would be missing from the ticketing process.  In response, we have been told that an Abington Police officer will review and sign each alleged violation resulting from the cameras.  Residents should be aware that there is nothing in the law that specifically provides for supervision by a police officer.  Rather, Section 3117(j) would appear to give this power to the camera vendor, or a subcontractor chosen by the vendor, in stating that the, “system administrator may hire and designate personnel as necessary or contract for services to implement this section.” Can the Township maintain control over the vendor to include this promised human element?   

     Furthermore, many residents may be surprised to know that any ticket disputes would not initially be heard at a hearing by the elected magisterial district judge, as is the case with other traffic citations.  Rather, Section 3117(n)(2) specifically states that if there is a request for a hearing, “the system administrator shall in a timely manner schedule the matter before a hearing officer”.  Furthermore, this “hearing officer” shall be “designated by the municipality.”  Only after this hearing would the ticketed person have the right to appeal the decision to the magisterial district judge.  In this case, it would be safe to assume that there would be additional costs for the appeal.  This raises a number of questions:  How will the “hearing officer” be selected?  What would be the costs of the appeal?  For that matter, what would be the administrative costs, if any, that accompany the initial $100 fine.  For anyone who has received a $25 traffic ticket, but ended up paying hundreds of dollars to the court system in costs, these are very real, unanswered questions. 

     In conclusion, I would encourage everyone to review Section 3117 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code to learn more about this process.  In doing so, the provision will likely answer many of your questions, calm many of your fears, and foster additional questions that need to be addressed as we proceed forward.  Fortunately, the Board of Commissioners had enough foresight to include a one year sunset provision for this ordinance in case the negatives outweigh the benefits of the camera system.  In fact, Section 3117 itself is mandated to expire on July 15, 2017 unless extended by legislative action.  Although we may continue to debate the need, statistics and motivations behind the installation of these cameras, I am sure that we can all agree that the public will benefit from the questions and answers that arise from this provision.