Automated Enforcement: Policies Matter

 

By Robert Ferrin, PTMP

The IPMI Policy & Legislative Cohort administered a survey aimed at identifying the most pressing industry policy topics.  Among the top issues are policies around new technologies that could revolutionize parking management by reducing friction. One of the highest friction points in an operation is the ability to consistently facilitate curbside compliance, aka parking enforcement.  As curbside demands have exponentially increased, the parking enforcement tools in our policy toolbox have generally remained the same.

I’m not here to write about the legislative barriers to reduce friction in the parking enforcement process (there are many) or the growing number of case studies of cities that have embarked on their automated enforcement journey (that number is growing).  What I’m here to write about today are the policies that your organization should be thinking about when you are able to reduce the friction in your parking enforcement process and move towards automated enforcement.  Before we begin, what do I mean by automated enforcement.  For the purposes of this discussion, automated enforcement is the ability to utilize fixed or mobile camera technology to identify a parking violation and process that parking violation without placing a parking citation on the violating vehicle.

Imagine for a minute your organization has the legislative ability to implement automated enforcement.  Would you be able to implement by the end of the week, month, year?  Here are just a few policy topics your organization should think about when moving towards automated enforcement:

  • Violation Types – does it makes sense to automate enforcement for all violation types? Are there more severe safety related parking violations that should be prioritized for an initial rollout of automated enforcement?
  • Payment/Appeal Deadlines – mailing a parking citation to a registered owner adds time to the notification process. Do your payment and appeal deadlines need to shift to accommodate this new process?
  • Violation Fine Structure – cities that have implemented automated enforcement have seen citation issuance increase exponentially. Knowing this may occur, are there opportunities to revise the fine structure for certain violations? This may be an opportunity to introduce first-time warnings, early payment discounts, or progressive pricing for repeat violators.

Don’t get me wrong, the legislative framework to allow for automated enforcement is a top priority to enable your organization to leverage new and emerging parking enforcement technologies.  Equally as important is your policy framework for administering an automated enforcement program. Policies matter, and when developed in a comprehensive manner can lead to long-term success for your operation.  Let’s keep the conversation going on Forum Online Community and the dedicated “Policy and Legislation” community.

Robert Ferrin, PTMP is a Mobility & Parking Senior Project Manager with Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. and is serving his third term on the IPMI Board of Directors.  Robert can be reached at robert.ferrin@kimley-horn.com.