1 / 19

Gatso

Gatso. Experts in traffic Enforcement. Philip J. Wijers Director Government Affairs Gatso Traffic Enforcement. PRI World Congres The Role of Local Govenments in Road Safety Improvements. Local Public Private Partnerships in Road Safety Enforcement

tamera
Download Presentation

Gatso

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Gatso Experts in traffic Enforcement

  2. Philip J. Wijers Director Government Affairs Gatso Traffic Enforcement PRI World Congres The Role of LocalGovenments in Road SafetyImprovements Local Public Private Partnerships in Road Safety Enforcement Holiday Inn, 21 – 22 May 2014 Skopje, Macedonia

  3. Index Background Objectives Essential preconditions Enforcement as a PPP Service Concept and Service Scope Service Process Challenges and Advantages Recommendations

  4. Background

  5. Background • Development and mobility • Rapid rise in road safety victims • Limits to manual enforcement • Different from manual enforcement • Automated enforcement is not the sole solution • Police focus on enforcement which cannot be automated

  6. Why is speed important and why are we enforcing? A 1% reduction in mean speeds leads to a 2% reduction in injury accidents, a 3% reduction in serious injury accidents and a 4% reduction in deaths. (Aarts, L. & van Schagen, I. (2006), based on Nilsson (1982))

  7. Do you remember? Ek=½mv² In which the kinetic energy of an object is equal to half the mass multiplied by the squared speed of that object.

  8. Objectives • Create an enforcement environment with a high subjective chance of apprehension • Secure stable political and administrative support for road safety and enforcement • Maintain a high level of public support for enforcement • Avoid and counter any link with ‘revenue generation’ and ‘taxes’ • Actively communicate road safety benefits of enforcement

  9. Essentialpreconditions • Suitable legal framework • Vehicle, owner/driver administration • License plate management, design and quality • Legal and data integrity • Minimise court processing • Suitable processing infrastructure • Sufficient fine levels • Early payment incentive, late payment penalty • Publicity, trust and public support

  10. Enforcement as a PPP service • Privatisation of government services: tolling, health care, vehicle inspections, parking enforcement, garbage collection, etc. • Elements of road safety enforcement also privatised, e.g. provision and management of traffic enforcement cameras, ticket processing, fine collection, etc. • Company considerations may be mixed with road safety issues • Private party enforcement is a touchy subject due to fines and profits

  11. PPP Enforcement concept • With little or no initial public sector investment a private party provides a certain jurisdiction with enforcement related services • Requires national regulatory clearance and compliance • Triangle PPP discussion with municipality and police • Private-public cut can be made earlier or later in the process • Decide on number of camera’s and locations • Longer term contract • Non-payment and legal escalation • Publicity, public trust, transparency and support

  12. Publicity

  13. Potential service scope • Installation and supply of cameras and back office equipment • Confirmation, certification, calibration and data security • Back-office staffing • Fine collection, administration and transfer • Transparency through internet access • Service and maintenance • Accounting and reporting • Staff background check and privacy compliance • Publicity and public relations

  14. Service process • Monitoring (traffic count, average speed, traffic flow, other stats) • Detection • Confirmation (by police or authorised official) • Vehicle and owner address Identification • Matching violation severity with fine • Processing of fine notification (letterhead municipality) • Fine-collection • Delayed processing and court • Publicity

  15. Potential challenges • Political backlash • Less control • Profit and revenue may be mixed with road safety objectives • Political cameras • Sensitivities police activity scope • Public acceptance • Requires solid legal and administrative infrastructure • Fine levels

  16. Advantages • Lower or no initial investment • Lower capital expenditure, reduced overhead and staffing • Predictable cost structure • Transfer of risk • Better managed and higher efficiency • Skilled operational staff with higher utilisation • Better use of police and administrative resources • Competition and flexibility to change operator • Economies of scale • Forces operational and financial transparency, reduces ‘fine leakage’ • More innovation due to latest technologies and applications

  17. Recommentations • Road safety and public interest should remain key benchmark • Revenue can never be an objective • Avoid per ticket and percentage revenue, focus on per camera fees • Consider legal, administrative and operational aspects • Use independent parties for type approval and calibration • Any revenue to be used for further road safety improvements • Maintain control over other road safety enhancements • Review road safety improvements and change cameras locations • Ensure an open vendor contracting process, including public participation and remain transparency throughout the contract • No enforcement without publicity

  18. PublishorPerish

  19. Thank you for your interest and attention Contact and further information: p.wijers@gatso.com - www.gatso.com

More Related