The Boulder City Council is expected to pass a resolution this week to allow the Boulder Police Department to place vans equipped with speed cameras on some of the city’s busiest roads where most crashes occur.
The resolution identifies two dozen street segments — including Broadway, 28th Street and Foothills Parkway — where the city hopes to place the photo radar vans.
Exactly when the vans will arrive on these roads hinges on future guidelines from the Colorado Department of Transportation, which owns many of the corridors where the city wants to install speed cameras, according to city officials.
The city is seeking to expand its photo enforcement program, which first launched in 1998, following the passage of SB23-200, a 2023 state law. The law allows cities to add “automated vehicle identification systems” to more of their streets. It took effect in June 2023.
Previously, state law only allowed cities to issue citations using speed cameras in school zones, residential neighborhoods, construction areas or streets bordering a city park.
As such, the city has long been prohibited from using speed cameras on its arterial roadways, where most traffic crashes occur. About a third of severe traffic crashes in the city involve drivers speeding, according to the city’s latest Vision Zero report. In 2023, three people died in speeding-related crashes in Boulder, city officials said.
The new law is “essential to achieving the city’s vision zero goal,” Devin Joslin, principal traffic engineer for the City of Boulder, told the Transportation Advisory Board in November 2023. All members of the board, which advises the city council on transportation issues, said they supported the resolution to expand the city’s use of photo enforcement.
The newly instated Boulder City Council is expected to pass the resolution. A majority of councilmembers last year adopted a policy statement that allowed the city to lobby in support of SB23-200.
Joslin said city officials are speaking with the Colorado Department of Transportation to receive “concurrence” before placing the cameras on state-owned roads. He said during a meeting last month that CDOT is still developing guidelines for photo enforcement.
“It’s difficult at this time to estimate exactly when and how many sites will become operational immediately,” he told the Transportation Advisory Board. “We will be working with CDOT to finalize the designation to allow for deployment on these state-owned corridors.”
Jared Fiel, a spokesman for the Colorado Department of Transportation, said the department has been developing guidelines to ensure that deployments of speed cameras on the state highway system meet the requirements of state law.
“We have been coordinating with the [City of Boulder] and will evaluate their requested corridors and associated data once all information has been provided to us. As not all information has been received by CDOT we have not begun our evaluation process. That evaluation will include speed of vehicles, crash data and citation data,” Fiel told Boulder Reporting Lab in an email. He added that the department is “supportive of the use of these systems in the appropriate circumstances as they have been shown to slow vehicles by up to 15%.”
Critics of traffic cameras view photo enforcement as a questionable means of generating revenue. Others argue the tickets, which are first sent by mail, violate a person’s constitutional right to face their accuser. But the cameras avoid using police officers to pull people over, a process that can be dangerous for officers and the driver. Studies show speed cameras reduce speeding. The goals of the city’s photo enforcement program include “increasing safety, reducing accidents and increasing compliance with traffic laws,” as stated on the city’s speed camera tickets.
From 2008 to 2019, the number of crashes from people running red lights dropped from an annual average of about 21.1 crashes per year to 5.6 crashes per year, Aisha Ozaslan, a city spokesperson, told Boulder Reporting Lab in an email.
The city’s speed cameras use a radar beam to detect the speed of a vehicle. If a vehicle is speeding, the system takes a photo of the license plate and the driver. The owner of the vehicle may then receive a warning or ticket in the mail.
The City of Boulder now has 180 locations where vans are equipped with speed cameras and 11 red-light cameras to detect if people blow through red lights. The city is considering using the red-light cameras to also determine whether people are speeding, Joslin told the Transportation Advisory Board.
The city generated $2.5 million from photo enforcement in 2022, according to Charlotte Huskey, a budget officer for the City of Boulder. The city anticipates the number of citations and fines will increase with the expansion of the photo enforcement program, according to a city staff memo.
Speeding tickets from traffic cameras are $40, except in school or construction zones, where the fines are double. The city charges an additional $60 if the owner of the vehicle does not respond to the ticket. An officer can issue a summons for the vehicle owner to appear in court for an unpaid ticket.
The city employs five full-time and two part-time photo enforcement officers, according to officials. The 2024 budget for the Boulder Police Department includes money for one additional full-time officer to assist with the program, according to city officials. The budget also includes funding for one more photo radar van.
Here are the corridors where the city is seeking to place traffic cameras, as stated in the resolution:
- Broadway – US 36/28th Street to CO 119/CO 7 (Canyon Boulevard)
- CO 93 (Broadway) – CO 119/CO 7 (Canyon Boulevard) to south city limits
- Folsom Street – Valmont Road to Colorado Avenue
- US 36/28th Street – Broadway to S Boulder Road/Table Mesa Drive
- 30th Street – CO 119 (Diagonal Highway) to Baseline Road
- CO 157 (Foothills Parkway) – CO 119 (Diagonal Highway) to S Boulder Road/Table Mesa Drive
- 55th Street – Valmont Road to CO 7 (Arapahoe Avenue)
- 63rd Street – CO 119 (Diagonal Highway) to south city limits
- Lookout Road – 63rd Street to 75th Street
- Spine Road – Lookout Road to S. Orchard Creek Circle/Wellington Road
- Violet Avenue – Broadway to US 36/28th Street
- Iris Avenue – Broadway to US 36/28th St
- CO 119 (Diagonal Highway) – US 36/28th Street to 47th Street
- Valmont Road – Folsom Street to 55th Street
- Valmont Road – 55th Street to east city limits
- Pearl Street/Pearl Parkway – US 36/28th Street to 55th Street
- CO 119 (Canyon Boulevard) – west city limits to CO 93 (Broadway)
- CO 7 (Canyon Boulevard) – CO 93 (Broadway) to US 36/28th Street
- Arapahoe Avenue – Broadway to US 36/28th Street
- CO 7 (Arapahoe Avenue) – US 36/28th Street to east city limits
- Colorado Avenue – Folsom Street to CO 157 (Foothills Parkway)
- US 36 (Baseline Road) – CO 93 (Broadway) to US 36 Westbound Ramp
- Baseline Road – US 36 Westbound Ramp to east city limits
- Table Mesa Drive/S Boulder Road – Lehigh Street to east city limits
Update: This story was updated at 8 a.m. on Dec. 6 with a comment from the Colorado Department of Transportation.
Hi John, Thanks for covering transportation issues in Boulder. Less commuter cars on the road speeding to work, past the 225 Bus stopped at Nylan, I presume to keep to the schedule. I own a car and am fortunate to have a bus pass from CU so it funds reducing my carbon footprint. I wonder where all of the kind folks who donate to environmental organizations are. In there cars, having “done their duty” by making a donation instead of reducing their GHG emissions? Until RTD offer express service on major thoroughfares, with quick EV van services to shuttle folks from inside residential neighborhoods to bus stop points (that aren’t looking like abandoned patches of ground) cars will come the roads (EV or not).
Good, the speeds on some of these roads are insane, especially Iris and Foothills. It won’t take long for drivers to get the message. I’m all for Big Brother when it comes to speeding.
I love how the city expands photo radar while only having one code enforcement staff for keeping our neighborhoods safe and free of student trash and furniture dumping.
It sounds like you should raise that issue independently of this one, since they aren’t really related.
Thank you for heads-up on this. I know you will keep us informed of the progress. I am not sure who at the city informed you of the current ticket charges. But I received one and a couple of people I know have received them and no one has ever been charged $40. They are always $75. And yes, I believe the City of Boulder uses many ticket issuances for the sole purpose of revenue generation. But if it gets some of the crazy drivers in Boulder to slow down, I am all for it.
It’s my understanding state law caps the penalty a city can charge for speed camera tickets at $40 (except in school and construction zones) and $75 for red-light camera tickets. Let me know if that was not the case with your tickets. Either way, I’ll plan on confirming the charges and correct the story if necessary. Thanks,
John
You are right. It was a red light ticket. I bicyclist who had crossed the road late had gotten my attention and I missed the yellow light until it was too late! Thanks for clarification
“The goals of the city’s photo enforcement program include “increasing safety, reducing accidents and increasing compliance with traffic laws”
But also “The city generated $2.5 million from photo enforcement in 2022”
Sure……
One important part of the law that the report did not mention is that it mandates that the city will still have to post signage 300 feet ahead of each mobile photo radar/speed camera van (i.e. an “automated vehicle identification system”).
For mobile photo radar vans, this appears to be no different than before–there will still be those temporary warning signs being taken up and down. For permanent systems, like the red-light cameras, it will appears that they will also work about the same as before?
(Parenthetically, I am also genuinely curious whether permanent signs are less effective than temporary signs, as people find changes in their environment more salient. But I’m not sure whether a comparison is possible if all the speed cameras are temporary mobile photo radar vans while all the red-light cameras are permanent installations…)
I also would question whether the mobile vans will be of much use on corridors like most of Broadway, Canyon or 28th, where there are no on-street spots for the city to remove parking from the public domain in order to station them there. I would expect more permanent cameras to be needed on such corridors, but apparently the city council hasn’t funded any? It suppose it will be interesting to see if the state permits the city to station vans along the shoulders of those highways that are wider, such as Foothills–but as the article mentions but does not explore, it seems unlikely for safety reasons.
Finally, the article also leaves it unclear whether the city’s new mobile photo radar vans will be manned (as seems to be current practice) or unmanned (which seems to only apply to the red light cameras). Perhaps this has to do with how the courts have interpreted the constitutional right to confront one’s accuser? That point was only briefly mentioned in the brief summary of anti and pro speed camera arguments, but it seems like it would be an important part of the enforcement budget.
In short, it seems like the city council’s choice to fund mobile, as opposed to permanent, “automated vehicle identification systems” may not be as widespread or as effective as the city promises along the arterial corridors. It’s important for reporters to not to just repeat the city’s claims about what they are doing, but to question whether they are actually able to do what they claim to be doing.
Text of law quoted below:
(d) (I) The state, a county, a city and county, or a municipality
SHALL not use an automated vehicle identification system to detect a
violation of part 11 of this article ARTICLE 4 or a local speed ordinance
unless there is posted an appropriate temporary OR PERMANENT sign in a
conspicuous place not fewer than three hundred feet before the area in
which the automated vehicle identification SYSTEM is to be used
notifying the public that an automated vehicle identification SYSTEM
is in use immediately ahead. . The requirement of this SUBSECTION (2)(d)(I) shall not be deemed satisfied by the posting of a permanent sign or signs at the borders of a county, city and county, or municipality, nor by the posting of a permanent sign in an area in which an automated vehicle identification SYSTEM is to be used, but this SUBSECTION (2)(d)(I) shall not be deemed a prohibition against the posting of such permanent signs.
[…]
(A) POST A PERMANENT SIGN IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE NOT FEWER
THAN THREE HUNDRED FEET BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE CORRIDOR AND A PERMANENT SIGN NOT FEWER THAN THREE HUNDRED FEET BEFORE EACH CAMERA WITHIN THE CORRIDOR THEREAFTER OR A TEMPORARY SIGN NOT FEWER THAN THREE HUNDRED FEET BEFORE ANY MOBILE CAMERA;
My understanding (from the materials in a transportation advisory board meeting) is that they will first add speed radar capability to existing red light cameras, because it’s fast, cheap and easy, and these intersections are where the greatest danger lies. Then they will expand where their current mobile vans can go to include arterials. They may put some pads down for the vans to park. Finally, they will eventually (in later years) install permanent speed radar cameras on arterials and other streets with documented crashes and/or bad speeding.
Road design that forces drivers to follow the speed limit is the best solution to crashes, but it takes decades and lots and lots of money to build. So the automated radar seems like a good short-to-medium term approach. Most of the money they currently raise goes back to the operations of the cameras (the vendor and other program costs) and it is not at all a cash machine for the city. And photo tickets are effective at decreasing speeding and crashes.
This feels like a band-aid to an open wound. We’ve accepted the existence of these stroads, a result of poor planning and a failure to adjust to increased drivership over the decades. Instead of allowing straight, wide – and subsequently high speed – roads to cut through our city and sacrificing prime land to awful traffic, we should separate high speed roads from people. I am not suggesting I have any plan for how to do this, but when pedestrians are faced with high speed vehicle traffic, pedestrians eventually always lose. High speed traffic diversion, traffic calming, a robust transit program, and improved (and separated) bike pathways are a start.