Submitted by William W. Galvin III
Speed Cameras in Greenwich. This topic has echoes of the near-hysteria that accompanied the removal of plastic bags and the regulation of gas-powered leaf blowers in Greenwich. However, one point of agreement regarding the speed camera discussion is that everyone is in favor of pedestrian safety, particularly children walking to school.
Chief Heavey and the GPD understandably like the additional funds that will be used for traffic safety generated by speed camera ticketing. But there are significant issues not addressed by the Chief in his outreach to the community.
Maya Tichio of D-7 has done considerable work researching the history of the Town’s involvement with Blue Line Solutions, the operator of the speed cameras in Greenwich. Her analysis includes the CT General Statutes governing such pedestrian safety systems, the financial structure of the contract, the specific sites selected for speed cameras around Greenwich, and the concerns expressed by Greenwich citizens about data security.
Her document (below) is grounded in multiple third-party sources listed at the end, not personal opinion or anecdotal experience. Importantly, the issues she raises are not addressed in the speed camera-related materials circulated by Chief Heavey.
Her research on speed cameras will give Greenwich citizens a meaningful perspective not otherwise evident in recent media coverage or Town-hosted discussions.
Thanks for considering this addition to the discussion.
Bill Galvin (RTM D-7)
From Maya Tichio: RTM June 8 Vote No on Speed Cameras
RTM June 8: Regarding Call Item #33
It goes without saying that everyone is for safe streets and protecting pedestrians, especially students walking to school. In addition, given the data provided by Blue Line, speed cameras seem to be effective in slowing traffic. However, the speed cameras are in the wrong locations and the current contract fee structure is in violation of the State statute.
Consider voting NO to the Town of Greenwich submitting THIS Automated Traffic Enforcement Safety Device Plan Checklist for Submission to OSTA (“the Plan”).
– By voting no, the residents of Greenwich and the RTM will have an opportunity to give input and craft a better safety plan that conforms with the State statute and represents a consensus about how to best modify driving behavior.
The current contract with Blue Line Solutions (a portfolio company of RAF, a private equity firm), does not conform to the fee structure set out by the State statute.
– C.G.S. §14-307c (b): “If a vendor designs, installs, operates or maintains an automatic traffic enforcement safety device, the vendor’s fee may not be contingent on the number of citations issued or fines paid pursuant to an ordinance adopted under this section.”
– The Blue Line fees are contingent on the number of citations issued. The fee structure is a “Per-Citation Program: The municipality agrees to pay [Blue Line] a fee of $20 per violation incident processed and submitted to the Municipality for approval.”
– Even Blue Line alludes to this structure as non-conforming in its responses to the RFP when asking the Town for clarity in Exhibit B, Question #6: “this is often interpreted to mean a vendor can only share [meaning charge] a fixed fee per camera per month which is not in any way related to volume.”
– This matters because the State statute purposefully disincentivizes private vendors from choosing locations based on the profit potential of higher traffic volume. The intent of C.G.S. §14-307c is to select locations based on the Connecticut Crash Data Repository which shows the history of car crashes, prioritizing pedestrian safety.
Because Blue Line’s business model benefits from high traffic volume locations, the schools selected for the Plan do not align with either disproportionately risky roads with histories of car crashes or pedestrians walking to school.
– Factors to be considered when determining the locations of speed cameras, C.G.S. §14-307d (a)(1): “the history of traffic crashes caused by excessive speeding … the history of traffic crashes that resulted in the fatality or serious injury of a person at such location.”
– The May 2026 Safe Streets Greenwich, Safety Action Plan written by Stantec notes on pages 18-20: “Greenwich is unique amongst many of its peer communities in that zero traffic fatalities were reported in 2022 [and 2024]. From 2019 to 2023, … Greenwich experienced … 9 traffic fatalities. 25% of Greenwich’s severe and fatal crashes occurred on or intersecting Route 1.”
– Walkable schools like Cos Cob, Hamilton Avenue, Julian Curtiss, Riverside, Old
Greenwich and North Mianus, did not receive speed cameras. Even though no children walk to Parkway School and in the last seven years there have been no crashes or traffic stops made in that School Zone (pages 91-92 of the Plan), Parkway was inexplicably included in the 10 initial speed cameras. Likewise, other schools set back from the road, where children are predominately driven (like North Street, Brunswick School on King Street, Greenwich Academy and Eagle Hill) were also prioritized.
Other concerns include:
– Due process: Blue Line’s photo enforcement systems integrate with Flock Safety, a company which aggregates automated license plate reader data as part of a nationwide mass surveillance network. Civil liberties advocates, who argue that logging and querying driver data without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, are suing Flock Safety. This due process concern is disturbing enough for 14 states to ban automated speed enforcement systems that ticket vehicles instead of drivers (Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin). Likewise, even though automated speed enforcement is allowed in Connecticut, many towns have opted out of speed cameras (like Darien, Westport, Wilton, Ridgefield, Avon and Kent).
– Data privacy: In 2025, law enforcement agencies around the country ran millions of searches on Connecticut license plate camara data, CT Insider reported on May 15.
Fortunately, under a recent State law, this unrestricted access has been curtailed. Now Connecticut law enforcement agencies can only share license plate data with
Massachusetts, New York or Rhode Island, with the understanding the data will not be used for immigration, reproductive care or gender-affirming health care investigations. But private companies with the cameras can still share Connecticut data with law enforcement agencies across the country. While the CEO of Blue Line emphasized in the May 14 Public Hearing that Blue Line is in strict compliance with the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Service data standards, cybersecurity experts maintain that no system can assume 100% confidentiality.
– Lasting change in behavior seems questionable: Anecdotally, I have found that speed cameras may slow traffic in specific locations but the driving behavior does not translate to slowing down on alternative routes; traffic patterns seem to change to avoid areas with speed cameras. In addition, since the citation follows the vehicle and not the driver, the deterrent effect of a Blue Line citation seems tenuous, especially when it arrives a month later.
– Poor communication strategy, chaotic implementation and practical logistical issues: Enforcement hours, the reliability of the blinking lights and signage all remain unclear. The schedule of times that the cameras are in operation is overly complex and convoluted. Some think there are too many distracting signs, others think there is not enough signage for each road entering a changing speed zone.
While on the surface the Blue Line speed cameras were “free” (that is, not requiring the Town of Greenwich to pay an upfront installation cost, but rather depending on violator citation fees to pay for the speed cameras over time), nothing in life is ever really free. The speed cameras have changed the character of our historic community. The existing contract with Blue Line misaligns our town’s focus on safety for our school zones with a real incentive to drive profit margins. I urge you to vote no to the current Plan, thereby allowing time to develop a better safety plan that is more suitable for our town.
Maya Tichio, District 7
I have written this without the aid of AI, referencing these source documents:
https://www.greenwichct.gov/3072/School-Speed-Cameras
https://www.greenwichct.gov/m/newsflash/home/detail/3282#docaccess-8194e3d26f1603f71d420b0f65929acf
https://www.greenwichct.gov/2862/Safe-Streets-Greenwich
https://www.flocksafety.com/partner-program?6f47fcda_page=2
Safety Resource Center: Where Are Automated Speeding Tickets Allowed? A State-by-State Guide
FOIA-obtained Blue Line contract with the Town of Greenwich