(Last updated 8/31/25)
Speed Cameras
You may be aware that Middletown CT has added speed cameras.
The first Middletown speed camera was activated on June 6th on Rt 66/Washington Street immediately inside the city limits. There are two additional sites with cameras installed but not yet active, on Country Club Road and Westfield Street.
These came about due to a renewal in a 2021 state law allowing speed cameras. Initially limited to work zones only, Public Act 23-116, approved in late 2023, renewed those work zone cameras, adding "any municipality may authorize the use of automated traffic enforcement safety devices..."(1)
Middletown jumped right on that bandwagon, becoming the second municipality in Connecticut to install speed cameras; Washington CT was the first. City Ordinance 12-24 was approved by the Town Council on July 26, 2024.(2)
Soon after, the city contracted with Dacra Tech, an Illinois-based corporation specializing in "the most encompassing suite of software solutions to streamline the full scope of municipal enforcement operations across North America." With Dacra Tech's guidance the City submitted its permit request to the State, which was subsequently approved.(3)
The Washington Street cameras went live on June 6, and began issuing fines on July 7th, in accordance with state law requiring all installations to have a 30-day notification and warning period. Motorists began receiving warning tickets and citations within a couple of weeks (by law, motorists are required to receive those within 30 days).
On July 28th, seven weeks into the program, the City's Police Chief, Erik Costa, sent out a press release touting its success: (4)
Total Citations Issued: 9,819
Middletown Residents Cited: 1,021
Total Revenue Billed: $606,000
Total Revenue Collected: $30,790
Note these "citations" represent the initial three weeks of service after the fines began. Further, the $$/citation averaged almost $62; given a vehicle's first citation is $50 with $75 for all subsequent, this implies many vehicle owners had already been cited more than once within that three week period. It is not noted in the release whether the owners were informed of the first fine before receiving subsequent fines.
The release also notes "violations", which implies it includes the warning tickets sent out prior to citations being issued:
Violation Breakdown by Speed over (35mph) Limit
10–14 mph, 72,006
15–19 mph, 52,947
20–24 mph, 20,100
25+ mph, 6,990
There is no indication of the total traffic monitored through that area during this study.
"The 85th Percentile"
If one were to review the Dacra Tech traffic study more in depth then some interesting information can be gleaned. Page 19 of that permit details the speed/traffic flow study for the Washington Street installation and one bit of data sticks out like a sore thumb: the posted 35mph speed limit was complied with by less than 1% of all traffic through that area.
In other words, the speed limit was exceeded by more than 99% of all traffic.
Generally speaking, traffic engineers will set speed limits at the 85th percentile speed, or that speed at which, or below 85% of the traffic is driving. The basis for that specific number statistical; it is just below one standard deviation above the mean of a "normal" statistical population and it represents the expectation that at least 85% of motorists are driving rationally and reasonably for the road and environmental conditions. See MUTCD, et al.
The traffic study for this location indicates the 85th percentile of flow was 58mph; recall the speed limit is posted at 35mph. Even if we think only half of motorists are driving rationally, the 50th percentile speed was 51mph. And if even we can't believe that half of motorists is being rational then note the posted 35mph speed is actually at the 1-percentile, meaning 99% of motorists traveling through that location were violating the speed limit.
Do we really believe that 99% of all motorists are driving irrationally in that area, averse to and ignorant of the consequences to themselves and those around them? I personally find that very hard to believe.
This implies to me that no engineering discussions went into the decision to set the speed limit at 35mph, nor the decision to install speed cameras at a location where there was 99% noncompliance. It implies that this was purely a political decision.
The optimal response to try to reduce traffic speeds in that area should have been to focus on engineering changes such as "road diets" or changing the environment to make the area appear more dangerous (road lines, more signage, etc) thus positively affecting motorists' behavior.
I can't find any evidence that this was even considered.
The Location
State Rt 66, colloquially known as the "CT 66 Expressway"(5), is a somewhat-rural stretch of highway from I-91 to the city limit of Middletown. It begins at the eastern terminus of Interstate 691 at I-91 and effectively serves as a main artery into Middletown from its west.
The highway was upgraded from a two-lane meandering road to an expressway in the mid-2000s. It is a four-lane undivided highway, with clear shoulders, large-radius curves, and good visibility. It has at-grade side roads, increasing in number as one travels east, with three intersections with stop lights before entering Middletown proper. Its major safety concerns are the lack of a median or center barrier and the aforementioned at-grade intersections, but with the wide lanes and curves and excellent visibility it does not present itself as a significant danger to a motorist.
Despite these mid-00s improvements, the speed limit was never updated and the entire stretch of Rt 66 from I-91 to Middletown is still posted at 40 mph. In fact, per UConn/CTDOT's Connecticut Crash Data Repository, it is rare to find any significant incidents along that stretch of highway except at the three red light intersections (none of which are located within the town limits of Middlefield CT).(6)
Anecdotally, one can easily conclude that the vast majority of traffic are traveling at more like 55-60 mph since that speed limit is significantly underposted, rarely enforced, and widely ignored.
The new Middletown Rt66/Washington Street speed cameras were placed approximately 400 feet inside the Middletown city limits. A 35mph speed limit sign was erected right at the city limit, giving unaware motorists 400 feet and very little time to comprehend and respond.
Was the speed limit reduced for this camera...?
Not having noticed this 35mph sign before, I referenced Google Street View and followed Rt 66 eastbound from I-91 into Middletown.
As one crosses Jackson Hill/Higby Road traveling east, Rt 66 gradually becomes more commercial, with some business access and residential at-grade access. Per Street View photos, in September/November 2024 there was a 40mph speed limit sign immediately east of Higby/Jackson Hill (in front of Victory Church) which is approximately one mile upstream from the city limit and the camera location; there are two additional 40mph signs 3/4-mile upstream of the cameras (in front of the old Smithland/Agway parking lot) and another 40mph sign 1/4-mile upstream of the cameras (abeam a small shopping plaza with Rooted Hair Salon). The next speed limit sign one encountered in Sept/Nov '24 was a 35mph sign roughly 3/4 mile past the city limit line and 1\8-mile past the Home Depot Plaza entrance.
Therefore, prior to the planning of the installation of these cameras, the regulatory speed limit at its location was 40mph. This 35 mph zone 400 feet before speed camera was added within the last several months.
This brings up two significant questions:
- When was this new speed limit implemented?
- Why was it changed?
- Who approved it and on what basis?
Why was this location selected for the speed cameras?
This brings up the significant concern as to why this location was selected, and by what process.
- Given the 40mph speed limit in that area was being exceeded by over 99% of the traveling public, why was the posted speed limit further reduced to 35 mph? What was the expectation of that regulatory change?
- Was this speed limit reduction implemented before or after the traffic flow study (for which stats against 35 mph were generated)? If before, how long before the study was taken?
- Once presented with the results of the traffic study, did the City consider resetting the speed limits to a more-rational level that met standard engineering practices? If not, why not?
- Alternatively, if the City instead desired to reduce speeds in those areas, did it consider engineering changes to affect motorists' behavior? If not, why not?
- Was the camera vendor, who stands to accrue significant revenues from these this automated enforcement devices, involved in the site selection and/or the posted speed limit reduction?
So is this a Speed Trap?
The National Motorists Association defines a "speed trap" as,
"A speed trap exists wherever traffic enforcement is focused on extracting revenue from drivers instead of improving safety, made possible by speed limits posted below the prevailing flow of traffic."
We often like to think of a speed trap as someone like Roscoe P. Coltrain hiding behind a billboard along a highway at the city limits of a small southern town, waiting to pick off motorists right where the town speed limit changes, despite there being no significant changes in the safety of the road at that location.
Well, Middletown certainly has a (new) lower speed change right at the city limits, despite no change in the safety/congestion. And we don't have a billboard, and we don't have Roscoe sitting there watching.
Instead, we have an automated camera.
So one has to ask, "isn't this a classic speed trap?" I suppose that's up to you to decide...
And what of the other locations in Middletown?
Middletown has contracted two other speed cameras installations, one on Country Club Road near Moody School, and one on Westfield Street in front of Spencer School. Both are rumored to be going active around the end of September. Each location has its own problematic installations.
Country Club Road
The Country Club Road camera location is east of Moody School, immediately adjacent to where one can imply the school zone existed (though that was never clearly marked). It has a default (non-school) 25mph speed limit. That area has never had compliant school zone speed limit signage, instead relying on yellow cautionary signage; further, it never had flashing school zone signs to indicate where the zone began and ended and when a school zone was in effect, nor did it have compliant signs on Higby Road which ends immediately in front of Moody School.
That area is slowly being brought into signage compliance and it appears that the City will accept the road's default 25mph as the speed limit through the Moody School area instead of spending the funds to erect flashing school zone signs.
However, the speed cameras are placed at the bottom of a drainage creek valley with somewhat-steep approaches and blind crests on both ends. There is reasonably-adequate signage warning of the upcoming speed camera but if one were to simply lift off the throttle and not actively brake then the momentum of the vehicle over the crest will carry it above the posted speed limit, with the camera measuring its speed immediately over the blind crest (a classic Roscoe P tactic). If the vehicle were actually doing slightly over the speed limit, the significant drops will accelerate the vehicle to possibly over the enforced speed limit.
Such placement again brings thoughts of Roscoe sitting over the other side of the crest, waiting...
Country Club Road Traffic Study
This location could potentially generate significant revenue. Its regulatory speed limit has always been 25mph but the traffic study for that location indicated an 85th percentile speed of 46mph, with 50th percentile at 41mph. Of the 8,488 speed recordings in the study, only 75 (not a typo) were compliant with that 25 mph speed limit, an over-99% non-compliance rate.
See "ATSD Municipal Plan, page 27.(3)
Westfield Street/Spencer School
Westfield Street is a 30 mph default road speed limit, with a 20mph school zone speed at Spencer School bracketed by compliant flashing school zone signs. The camera is placed in the center of the school zone immediately in front of Spencer School. The City has been slowly working to get that camera and speed limit signage into compliance.
Anecdotally I can offer that the school speed limit has generally been ignored simply because it seems that the lights are always flashing most of the time day, even during the summer and on holidays, despite little or no visual activity at the school. There are no signs indicating when the school zone is in effect. When the lights are flashing all the time and there are no children present and/or there's only a handful of cars in the parking lot, one tends to ignore the flashing lights. Call it the "Cry Wolf" Effect.
The City had recently erected new regulatory 20mph speed limit signs bracketing Spencer School, overriding the default 30mph speed limit for that road (see photo). They sat like this for some time but within the last few weeks the tree branches have been cut away and "When Flashing" and "School Zone" signs are now erected above and below that sign. There's no flashing lights on that pole, but there is a yellow flashing lights behind it with another, now-redundant 20mph school sign.
It seems like the City is working to get its non-compliant signage in order, and that could explain why it's taking more time to get these other camera locations activated.
This does not addresses the concern regarding whether the speed cameras will be synced to the flashing signs; is that going to happen? It is possible? So if the lights are not flashing then the speed limit - and, more importantly, its enforcement via speed camera - should revert to the 30mph speed limit; will the cameras comply to that?
I have submitted a request to the City regarding when when this school zone will be in effect. As of the latest update, I have not received a response.
Spencer School Traffic Study
The traffic study showed the 85th percentile speed at the Spencer School location was 41mph (50th percentile was 35mph); no notation was offered in the study if the flashing school zone lights were ever in operation during that study.
However, it further shows that the minimum speed tracked through was 26mph. This means that with a 20mph regulatory speed limits had exactly zero motorists in compliance with that speed limit!
See "ATSD Municipal Plan, page 23.(3)
Similar questions:
- Were the 20mph school zone lights flashing at all during this traffic study? If so, when and how did this affect the results?
- Did the City instead consider engineering changes to affect motorists' behavior? If not, why not?
Where else are these things going?
I'd heard a rumor, backed up from a different source, that Middlefield is considering adding a speed camera along its portion of Rt 66 near the reservoir; you know, that mostly-rural 4-lane highway I described about coming off I-91 where the posted 40mph speed limit is widely ignored?
That would be a revenue gold mine for Middlefield...and would not improve safety one bit. As noted, a casual glance at UConn's Connecticut Crash Data Repository (https://www.ctcrash.uconn.edu) indicates almost all crashes along Rt 66 in Middlefield were at intersections (Rt 147, Jackson Hill, Ballfall, Higby) many with front-to-rear hits, some single-car collisions with poles/terrain on snowy/icy road conditions, plus some "same direction" side swipes. Not clear how cameras would stop these...
But putting an automated speed camera on a major arterial with an underposted speed limit will most certainly bring the coin to the Town of Middlefield, for sure.
Summary
Under the auspices of Vision Zero, the State of Connecticut and the City of Middletown have embarked on a program of speed "enforcement" via automated means. However, while the goal is laudable these implementations seem to have been done more for financial punishment of motorists for otehrwise-rational behavior, rather than as a means of adjusting behavior. And given these financial incentives, both for the private companies that provide the equipment and services and for the municipalities that are accepting revenue from them, these cameras are very likely to increase in number and locations.
In the case of Middletown CT, three locations were chosen for these cameras and the required speed studies were completed as required. Yet despite clearcut evidence that the speeds in these three areas were significantly under-posted - or maybe because these areas were underposted - the cameras were still placed there, further endangering the safety of motorists and others. Further, clearly in contrast to this engineering evidence, the City further reduced the speed limits in one of areas, for reasons undermined.
What can an interested motorist, taxpayer, and voter do about these cameras?
First, know where these speed traps are. As they grow in number there will be public notifications, required by state law, coupled with 30 days of warnings-only. Report these locations into travel apps if they do not already exist (e.g., Waze, Google, Maps).
Second, ensure you keep your speed through these areas below the citation boundary. In Connecticut, this will be 10mph over the posted speed limit. Installations of these devices by private companies exist primarily for the revenue they generate; if you significantly reduce the revenues from these devices then they will become far less tempting to these private companies ("starve the beast").
Third, let our local business know if you are choosing to avoid any of those areas due to the presence of the cameras. Convincing business owners that the local speed trap is costing them money, or is about to cost them money, can be quite effective.
Fourth, let your elected officials hear your displeasure. These cameras came about due to explicit changes in laws at the State level, and active implementations at the local levels (in Middletown, it was the city's Common Council). Let these representatives know that you do not support these measures, and vote accordingly.
Ask our mayoral and council candidates where they stand on this issue. Ask them to invest money into actual, credible, productive engineering changes toward safety, not toward revenue-generating fines.
Middletown's reputation will suffer for this. Note that Middletown will be electing a new mayor this Fall; find out where your preferred candidate stands on this issue.
Finally, the State requires regular status reports from the municipalities so we should demand that this information be made public as soon as it is available.
If we continue to see even a fraction of the reported $200k in citations per week, as noted in that press release from Chief of Police Erik Costa, then this will blow up big time. And Middletown's reputation will suffer for it.
More information as it becomes available.
(1) https://cga.ct.gov/2024/ba/pdf/2024HB-05328-R000273-BA.pdf
https://www.middletownct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/26422/PA23-116 [sic]
(2) https://www.middletownct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/26421/City-Ordinance-Ch-99-Use-of-ATESD
(3) https://www.middletownct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/26420/Approved-ATESD-Permit
(4) https://middletownct.gov/CivicSend/ViewMessage/Message/266587
(5) Originally known as Rt 6A, Rt 66 was intended to be a continuation of I-691 through the south end of Middletown, across its own bridge into Portland, then onward to Marlborough, intersecting Routes 9, 2 (at the non-existent "Exit 14", which is still missing to this day), and continuing to the meet the existing Rt 6 in the Columbia-Willimantic area and then possibly on to Providence. Those plans for I-691 were scrapped some half-century ago. Once the re-numbering of exits is completed on Rt 2, this "ghost exit" will be lost forever. See http://www.nycroads.com/roads/I-691_CT/
(6) https://www.ctcrash.uconn.edu/. These intersections are Baileyville Road/Rt 147, Higby/Jackson Hill Road, and BallFall Road/Rt 217. None are within the city limits of Middletown.
Comments
Post a Comment