Outsouring of enforcement services is on the increase internationally as highway and traffic authorities seek further support in resources and expertise from the private sector. Jon Masters reports. Signs of a significant company making moves into a new market can usually be read as indication of likely growth in that particular sector. Q-Free’s expansion from tolling operations into general traffic enforcement could be viewed as surprising as it is moving into what are relatively mature and consolidating m
Authorities in Malaysia are making use of Jenoptik’s enforcement services.
Outsouring of enforcement services is on the increase internationally as highway and traffic authorities seek further support in resources and expertise from the private sector. Jon Masters reports.
Signs of a significant company making moves into a new market can usually be read as indication of likely growth in that particular sector.108 Q-Free’s expansion from tolling operations into general traffic enforcement could be viewed as surprising as it is moving into what are relatively mature and consolidating markets in developed countries.
In the US, for example,4186 Xerox has grown its enforcement business over the past year against a backdrop of less overall market growth compared with previous years. According to the company’s vice president for operations in photo enforcement, Lewis Miller: “The market has become somewhat stable. Some authorities are deciding against outsourcing of their enforcement services, so business growth is relatively neutral in the US, but it’s growing internationally.”
What Q-Free has actually done, in effect, is take the logical step of expanding its expertise in enforcement of toll payments, into a Managed Services business. The growth anticipated is in highway authorities seeking more support from the private sector for a wide variety of different enforcement services.
“We’ve set up a dedicated business unit for this after looking at how customers are focusing on their core business. It used to be that clients would look after the detail themselves, but there are mature vendors that can do this now,” says Q-Free’s technical director for Managed Services, Kym Farrell.
“Public authorities are looking more for procurement of a service rather than a contract specifying a certain quantity of technology. They’re asking for outcome or performance-based services, where the emphasis is less on how it’s done and more about delivering the required outcomes, typically because they do not have the specific software knowledge.”
The degrees of outsourcing vary considerably from one contract or agency to another, says Miller. Xerox provides enforcement services for around 50 different authorities in the US. Virtually all have specified services to a different degree.
“There are some components of the overall process that are never outsourced. Decisions on whether to prosecute a citation are taken by relevant law enforcement agencies and adjudication is done by an authority or judiciary department. And in Xerox programmes, the decision on where to carry out enforcement, where to place cameras, is carried out by the authority as well,” says Miller.
“Elements that are outsourced are typically the acquisition and maintenance of enforcement equipment, plus some processing and hosting of data, acquisition of necessary information on vehicle ownership and various elements of public relations and communication.”
“Benefits also come from our ability to leverage good value from suppliers. We have strong and long-standing relationships with equipment suppliers and we can pass on economies of scale, which is a big plus for government departments and agencies given the pressure on their financial resources.
“Outsourcing of enforcement services creates the potential to save money through development of efficiencies,” Miller says.
79 Jenoptik Traffic Solutions is another leading supplier of managed traffic services, including mobile speed enforcement in Australia and red light enforcement in Toronto in Canada – which the company claims to be the largest such operation in North America. “We also support similar programmes in the Netherlands, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and a number of other countries,” says Hans-Holger Küster, operations manager of Jenoptik’s Traffic Service Providing business.
“In the German market, for instance, which functions on a decentralised basis, outsourcing of enforcement is becoming more prevalent as many municipalities are struggling to reach traffic safety targets against pressures of tight public budgets and expanded responsibilities,” Küster says.
Jenoptik includes traffic analysis, project planning and conception and financing in its list of enforcement services, as well as equipment installation and maintenance, data preparation and customer service.
“We have witnessed growing demand for such programmes around the world in the last few years and are expecting the trend to continue well into the future,” Küster says.
This does not necessarily mean that Jenoptik collects and retains enforcement receipts. The common approach is for clients to receive all revenue generated then pay its supplier a regular fee providing it meets defined service level agreements.
“Revenue sharing models are available, but these are less popular because it is difficult to get public support for them. One option is to establish a payment mechanism whereby the monthly fee is partly performance-based, set at a certain fixed rate per usable violation dataset,” says Küster.
The obvious difficulty with linking supplier payments to enforcement revenues is the possible perception that vendors are incentivised to issue more penalty charge notices.
“This is a misconception because it is always the authority that makes the final decision,” Miller says. Furthermore, the same incentive could be seen to apply to the government organisation in question. ‘A means for raising money’, is a common accusation levelled at all traffic enforcement.
Nonetheless, outsourcing to a private sector supplier inevitably raises concern over the possibility for corrupt practice. Public perceptions have not been helped by the recent prosecution of a112 Redflex company director in the US (see NEWS) - although this was for corrupt dealings to secure contracts, rather than in operation of the service.
There have also been well documented reports of drivers being found to have been incorrectly charged for speed and red light offences. In Baltimore, errors in back office systems were found to have failed to identify anomalous camera evidence. However, only five of the 83 cameras were found to be at fault, representing 0.5% of citations issued.
“While we present choices to them, ultimately it is down to authorities to make decisions on how to ensure we are hitting our service level agreements with appropriate audit mechanisms.”
According to Xerox’s Miller, rules on how cameras are set up are frequently established as a legal requirement. Equipment calibration is set contractually and carried out by authorised third parties.
“In Maryland, authorities test equipment themselves on a daily basis,” he says. “Traffic enforcement is never going to be popular, but society does not want the safety hazards of vehicles speeding. Everyone wants to know enforcement is being done fairly and transparently. It’s important for people to understand how these programmes work and they have must always have the opportunity to contest tickets they receive.”
On-demand enforcement in the UK
Highway authorities in the UK have started taking advantage of a new on-demand service for the installation of temporary or permanent enforcement at discrete locations. The ‘civil enforcement as a service’ (CEaaS) solution launched by7513 Videalert, which features high definition digital cameras and the company’s web-based digital video software platform, has gained manufacturer certification from the UK 1837 Department for Transport.
“CEaaS is a fully-hosted service proposition for rapid deployment of cameras, without the additional internal IT costs, equipment procurement and delay associated with conventional enforcement projects,” says Videalert director Tim Daniels.
A highway authority in North London is the first to make use of CEaaS for enforcement of a vehicle weight restriction applied to one route in the London Borough. Two more authorities are looking to use the service for enforcing a multitude of different moving traffic orders, says Daniels. CEaaS is offered on the basis of a fixed monthly fee, or on a fixed fee per penalty notice issued.
“It’s important to note that councils do not need to install any Videalert software or related hardware in their offices to use this service,” Daniels says.
Twin video cameras are placed at height, linked to automatic detection software and a ‘rapidly deployable server’ mounted on the same pole. This gathers and transmits an ‘evidence pack’ via 3G or 4G wireless communication to a central server at Videalert’s offices. “Council officers can then access and review the evidence using a standard web browser,” Daniels says.
“We can easily apply specific business rules to the software to establish trigger alerts for different violations. This makes the system very powerful, because a lot of detailed logic can be applied to suit individual locations.”
Signs of a significant company making moves into a new market can usually be read as indication of likely growth in that particular sector.
In the US, for example,
What Q-Free has actually done, in effect, is take the logical step of expanding its expertise in enforcement of toll payments, into a Managed Services business. The growth anticipated is in highway authorities seeking more support from the private sector for a wide variety of different enforcement services.
“We’ve set up a dedicated business unit for this after looking at how customers are focusing on their core business. It used to be that clients would look after the detail themselves, but there are mature vendors that can do this now,” says Q-Free’s technical director for Managed Services, Kym Farrell.
Shifting approach
Farrell is mainly referring to government organisations that do not have technology as their core concern. He says: “The ITS market has evolved from both the customer and vendor sides. A shift to a different approach is occurring.“Public authorities are looking more for procurement of a service rather than a contract specifying a certain quantity of technology. They’re asking for outcome or performance-based services, where the emphasis is less on how it’s done and more about delivering the required outcomes, typically because they do not have the specific software knowledge.”
The degrees of outsourcing vary considerably from one contract or agency to another, says Miller. Xerox provides enforcement services for around 50 different authorities in the US. Virtually all have specified services to a different degree.
“There are some components of the overall process that are never outsourced. Decisions on whether to prosecute a citation are taken by relevant law enforcement agencies and adjudication is done by an authority or judiciary department. And in Xerox programmes, the decision on where to carry out enforcement, where to place cameras, is carried out by the authority as well,” says Miller.
“Elements that are outsourced are typically the acquisition and maintenance of enforcement equipment, plus some processing and hosting of data, acquisition of necessary information on vehicle ownership and various elements of public relations and communication.”
Force multipliers
Principal benefits are numerous, Miller adds. With Xerox doing more of the ‘non-criminal prosecution’ parts of the process, outsourcing of enforcement services becomes a ‘force multiplier’ for allowing better use of police resources, he says.“Benefits also come from our ability to leverage good value from suppliers. We have strong and long-standing relationships with equipment suppliers and we can pass on economies of scale, which is a big plus for government departments and agencies given the pressure on their financial resources.
“Outsourcing of enforcement services creates the potential to save money through development of efficiencies,” Miller says.
“In the German market, for instance, which functions on a decentralised basis, outsourcing of enforcement is becoming more prevalent as many municipalities are struggling to reach traffic safety targets against pressures of tight public budgets and expanded responsibilities,” Küster says.
Jenoptik includes traffic analysis, project planning and conception and financing in its list of enforcement services, as well as equipment installation and maintenance, data preparation and customer service.
“We have witnessed growing demand for such programmes around the world in the last few years and are expecting the trend to continue well into the future,” Küster says.
Public perceptions
Financial arrangements are an important and potentially sensitive aspect of outsourcing enforcement services. According to Jenoptik, a further principal benefit on offer is full capital financing and zero monetary risk for clients.This does not necessarily mean that Jenoptik collects and retains enforcement receipts. The common approach is for clients to receive all revenue generated then pay its supplier a regular fee providing it meets defined service level agreements.
“Revenue sharing models are available, but these are less popular because it is difficult to get public support for them. One option is to establish a payment mechanism whereby the monthly fee is partly performance-based, set at a certain fixed rate per usable violation dataset,” says Küster.
The obvious difficulty with linking supplier payments to enforcement revenues is the possible perception that vendors are incentivised to issue more penalty charge notices.
“This is a misconception because it is always the authority that makes the final decision,” Miller says. Furthermore, the same incentive could be seen to apply to the government organisation in question. ‘A means for raising money’, is a common accusation levelled at all traffic enforcement.
Nonetheless, outsourcing to a private sector supplier inevitably raises concern over the possibility for corrupt practice. Public perceptions have not been helped by the recent prosecution of a
There have also been well documented reports of drivers being found to have been incorrectly charged for speed and red light offences. In Baltimore, errors in back office systems were found to have failed to identify anomalous camera evidence. However, only five of the 83 cameras were found to be at fault, representing 0.5% of citations issued.
Corrupt practices
“The possibility for corrupt practice is a core concern and accuracy is understandably a principal focus for clients. But services have to comply with strict regulatory requirements and any problems with performance are potentially a big risk to our business,” says Q-Free’s Farrell.“While we present choices to them, ultimately it is down to authorities to make decisions on how to ensure we are hitting our service level agreements with appropriate audit mechanisms.”
According to Xerox’s Miller, rules on how cameras are set up are frequently established as a legal requirement. Equipment calibration is set contractually and carried out by authorised third parties.
“In Maryland, authorities test equipment themselves on a daily basis,” he says. “Traffic enforcement is never going to be popular, but society does not want the safety hazards of vehicles speeding. Everyone wants to know enforcement is being done fairly and transparently. It’s important for people to understand how these programmes work and they have must always have the opportunity to contest tickets they receive.”
On-demand enforcement in the UK
Highway authorities in the UK have started taking advantage of a new on-demand service for the installation of temporary or permanent enforcement at discrete locations. The ‘civil enforcement as a service’ (CEaaS) solution launched by
“CEaaS is a fully-hosted service proposition for rapid deployment of cameras, without the additional internal IT costs, equipment procurement and delay associated with conventional enforcement projects,” says Videalert director Tim Daniels.
A highway authority in North London is the first to make use of CEaaS for enforcement of a vehicle weight restriction applied to one route in the London Borough. Two more authorities are looking to use the service for enforcing a multitude of different moving traffic orders, says Daniels. CEaaS is offered on the basis of a fixed monthly fee, or on a fixed fee per penalty notice issued.
“It’s important to note that councils do not need to install any Videalert software or related hardware in their offices to use this service,” Daniels says.
Twin video cameras are placed at height, linked to automatic detection software and a ‘rapidly deployable server’ mounted on the same pole. This gathers and transmits an ‘evidence pack’ via 3G or 4G wireless communication to a central server at Videalert’s offices. “Council officers can then access and review the evidence using a standard web browser,” Daniels says.
“We can easily apply specific business rules to the software to establish trigger alerts for different violations. This makes the system very powerful, because a lot of detailed logic can be applied to suit individual locations.”
