HF 2681 (LSB 6358HV (1) 90)

HOUSE FILE 2681

BY  COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

(SUCCESSOR TO HSB 740)

A BILL FOR

An Act relating to the use of automated traffic enforcement systems on the primary road system.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:

    Section 1.  NEW SECTION.  321P.1  Definitions.
   As used in this chapter:
   1.  “Automated enforcement” means the use of automated traffic enforcement systems for enforcement of laws regulating vehicular traffic.
   2.  “Automated traffic enforcement system” means a system that operates in conjunction with a speed-measuring device to produce recorded images of vehicles being operated in violation of traffic laws.
   3.  “Department” means the state department of transportation.
   4.  “High-crash location” means a location where data indicates a greater frequency or higher rate of crashes when compared with other similar locations within the local jurisdiction, other like jurisdictions, or larger metropolitan areas.
   5.  “High-risk location” means a location where the safety of citizens or law enforcement officers would be at higher risk through conventional enforcement methods.
   6.  “Local jurisdiction” means a city or county.
    Sec. 2.  NEW SECTION.  321P.2  Applicability —— department approval required —— use by department prohibited.
   1.  This chapter applies only to local jurisdictions using or planning to use automated enforcement on the primary road system.
   2.  A local jurisdiction shall obtain approval from the department prior to using an automated traffic enforcement system on the primary road system.
   3.  The department shall not own or operate any automated traffic enforcement system.
   4.  The department shall not receive any financial payment from any automated traffic enforcement system owned or operated by a local jurisdiction.
    Sec. 3.  NEW SECTION.  321P.3  Use of automated traffic enforcement systems.
   1.  A local jurisdiction shall explore and implement other engineering and enforcement solutions before considering automated enforcement.
   2.  A local jurisdiction shall consider implementing automated enforcement only in extremely limited situations on interstate roads.
   3.  A local jurisdiction shall only consider automated enforcement in areas with a documented high-crash or high-risk location in any of the following areas:
   a.  An area or intersection with a significant history of crashes which can be attributed to persons exceeding the posted speed limit.
   b.  A school zone, as described in section 321.249.
    Sec. 4.  NEW SECTION.  321P.4  Justification report.
   1.  A local jurisdiction that intends to implement automated enforcement shall provide a justification report to the department by submitting a request and the justification report to the appropriate district engineer. A licensed, professional engineer knowledgeable in traffic safety shall sign the justification report.
   2.  The justification report must provide all necessary information and documentation to clearly define the area where use of automated enforcement is intended, provide evidence documenting why the area is a high-crash or high-risk location, and describe the process used to justify the need for automated enforcement.
   3.  The justification report must include but is not limited to all of the following information:
   a.  Existing traffic speeds, posted speed limits, traffic volumes, and intersection or roadway geometry, information ensuring that the existing speed limits are appropriate, and detailing how such speed limits were established.
   b.  Applicable crash history, the primary crash types, crash causes, crash severity, and observed or ascertained traffic violations. Only crashes attributable to violations of the posted speed limit shall be included in the justification report.
   c.  A comparison of crash data with other similar locations within the local jurisdiction, other like jurisdictions, and larger metropolitan areas.
   d.  The critical traffic safety issues based on the data provided pursuant to this subsection and a comprehensive list of countermeasures that may reduce the critical traffic safety issues.
   e.  Solutions or safety countermeasures that have been implemented, along with those that have been considered but not implemented, including but not limited to law enforcement activities, engineering and design changes, and public education campaigns.
   f.  Discussions held and actions taken with partnering agencies that have resources which could aid in the reduction of crashes attributable to violations of the posted speed limit.
   g.  Reasons the local jurisdiction believes automated enforcement is the best solution to reduce the critical traffic safety issues.
   4.  A local jurisdiction intending to implement a mobile automated traffic enforcement system shall include all of the following information with the justification report:
   a.  A description of the mobile automated traffic enforcement system.
   b.  The proposed duration of use of a mobile automated traffic enforcement system at each location and an indication of where the unit will be physically placed relative to the highway, including the roadway and its boundaries, such as curbs, shoulders, medians, and other relevant location characteristics.
    Sec. 5.  NEW SECTION.  321P.5  Department review.
   1.  Within ninety days of receipt of the request and a completed justification report, the department shall either approve or deny specific automated enforcement locations in the request. The department’s response time may be extended if the collection of additional data is needed, such as conducting a speed study. Incomplete justification reports shall be returned to the local jurisdiction. The department shall review the request and justification report, evaluate the process used, and determine if the proposed automated traffic enforcement system is warranted. If an automated enforcement request is approved, the department shall prepare an agreement detailing the approved use of such enforcement which must be signed by the department and the local jurisdiction.
   2.  Upon receipt by the department of a request and a completed justification report from a local jurisdiction, the department shall include the information on the department’s internet site.
    Sec. 6.  NEW SECTION.  321P.6  Systems installed, maintained, and placed.
   1.  A local jurisdiction shall install and maintain an automated traffic enforcement system in a safe manner and place the system to ensure motorist safety by reducing the chances of creating a potentially unsafe environment for motorists as follows:
   a.  In a location where the system does not impede, oppose, or interfere with free passage along the primary road right-of-way.
   b.  In a location where the system does not create a visual obstruction to passing motorists.
   c.  In a manner to avoid creating traffic backups or delays.
   2.  A local jurisdiction shall not place or park an automated traffic enforcement system in any of the following locations:
   a.  On any shoulder or median of any interstate highway.
   b.  Within fifteen feet of the outside traffic lane of any interstate highway, unless shielded by a crashworthy barrier.
   c.  On the outside shoulder of any other primary road for longer than forty-eight hours unless shielded by a crashworthy barrier.
   d.  Within two feet of the back of the curb of a municipal extension of any primary road.
   e.  Within the first one thousand feet of a change in speed limit to a lower posted speed limit.
   3.  A local jurisdiction shall not place or operate an automated traffic enforcement system within the defined limits of any road work zone, as defined in section 321.1.
    Sec. 7.  NEW SECTION.  321P.7  Required signs.
   1.  A local jurisdiction shall post permanent signs in advance of the locations where automated traffic enforcement systems are in use to advise drivers that the area is monitored by an automated traffic enforcement system.
   2.  A local jurisdiction shall post temporary or permanent signs advising that vehicle speed is monitored by automated enforcement in advance of an area monitored by a mobile automated traffic enforcement system, as agreed to by the department and the local jurisdiction.
   3.  A local jurisdiction using an automated traffic enforcement system is authorized to post permanent signs on primary access roads entering local jurisdictions that are under automated enforcement.
   4.  All signs must be in accordance with the sign manual adopted by the department.
    Sec. 8.  NEW SECTION.  321P.8  Enforcement.
   1.  A local jurisdiction shall use automated enforcement in conjunction with conventional law enforcement methods, not as a replacement for law enforcement officer contact.
   2.  If a local jurisdiction uses a mobile automated traffic enforcement system, a law enforcement agency shall own the vehicle equipped with the mobile automated traffic enforcement system and the vehicle must be marked with official decals and have an “official” registration plate issued under section 321.19 affixed to the vehicle.
    Sec. 9.  NEW SECTION.  321P.9  Calibration.
   An automated traffic enforcement system shall be calibrated by a local law enforcement officer, trained in the use and calibration of the system, at least quarterly for a fixed system and prior to being used at any new location for a mobile system.
    Sec. 10.  NEW SECTION.  321P.10  Evaluation, reporting, and reevaluation.
   1.  A local jurisdiction with active automated enforcement on a primary road shall evaluate the effectiveness of its use annually. The evaluation shall do all of the following:
   a.  Address the reduction of vehicle speeds for those sites being monitored by automated enforcement.
   b.  Identify the number and type of crashes at the sites being monitored, and compare the data for sites to the number and type of crashes at the sites before automated enforcement was implemented. The evaluation for a system that monitors an intersection only requires the data for monitored approaches.
   c.  Evaluate and document the automated traffic enforcement system’s effect on reducing the critical traffic safety issues listed in the justification report.
   d.  Provide the total number of citations issued for each calendar year that the automated traffic enforcement system has been in operation.
   e.  Certify that the automated traffic enforcement system has been calibrated in accordance with section 321P.9.
   2.  A local jurisdiction shall report the annual evaluation to the department’s office of traffic and safety on or before May 1 each year, beginning on the first May 1 following a full calendar year with automated enforcement implemented, and the report shall be based on performance for the prior year.
   3.  The department shall utilize information collected from the annual evaluation reports from local jurisdictions to assist in evaluating the continued need for such systems at each location. The continued use of automated enforcement is contingent on the effectiveness of the system, appropriate administration of the system by the local jurisdiction, continued compliance with this chapter, considering changes in traffic patterns, infrastructure improvements, and implementation of other identified safety countermeasures.
   4.  The department is authorized to require a local jurisdiction to remove or modify an automated system in a particular location.
    Sec. 11.  NEW SECTION.  321P.11  Appeals.
   Notwithstanding chapter 17A, a local jurisdiction may appeal a decision made by the department as part of this chapter by submitting a written explanation of the issue and any supporting information to the director of transportation. Once the director receives the appeal, the director shall have thirty days to respond. The director’s decision is final agency action.
    Sec. 12.  NEW SECTION.  321P.12  Rules.
   The department may adopt rules pursuant to chapter 17A as necessary to implement this chapter.
EXPLANATION
The inclusion of this explanation does not constitute agreement with
the explanation’s substance by the members of the general assembly.
   In 2014, the department of transportation (DOT) adopted administrative rules authorizing and regulating the use of automated traffic enforcement (ATE) systems on the primary road system. After judicial review, the Iowa supreme court ruled the DOT did not have authority to adopt rules regulating the use of ATE systems. This bill codifies the previously adopted DOT rules, other than those relating to the use of ATE systems monitoring official traffic-control devices.
   The bill applies only to automated enforcement used by local jurisdictions to monitor and enforce excessive speed violations on the primary road system. The DOT is prohibited from using automated enforcement or receiving related payments from local jurisdictions.
   Under the bill, a city or county (local jurisdiction) seeking to use automated enforcement is required to receive approval from the DOT. A local jurisdiction is required to submit a justification report, detailing the need for automated enforcement based on factors described in the bill. The DOT must approve or deny a local jurisdiction’s request within 90 days, unless additional time is needed to gather more data or conduct a speed study. If the DOT approves a request, the DOT must prepare an agreement which must be signed by the department and the local jurisdiction.
   The bill requires ATE systems to be installed and maintained in a safe manner and limits the locations on or along a roadway where the ATE system is permitted to be installed. The ATE systems must be calibrated quarterly, and if a mobile ATE system is used, it must be calibrated before each use at a new location. Local jurisdictions are required to post signs in advance of locations where ATE systems are used to advise drivers of such systems.
   Each year, a local jurisdiction that uses automated enforcement must evaluate the effectiveness of the ATE system and report its findings to the DOT on or before May 1. The DOT must review the annual reports and determine whether continued use of automated enforcement is justified. The DOT is authorized to require a local jurisdiction to remove or modify an ATE system in a particular location.
   A local jurisdiction may appeal a decision made by the DOT by submitting a written explanation of the issue and any supporting information to the director of the DOT. Once the director receives the appeal, the director has 30 days to respond. The director’s decision is final agency action.
   Automated enforcement must be used in conjunction with conventional law enforcement methods, not as a replacement for law enforcement officer contact.