Ontario’s recent decision to remove municipal photo-radar cameras has left a clear gap in neighbourhood road safety. Cities like Ottawa relied on automated speed enforcement in school zones and collision hotspots because the cameras measurably brought down speeds and reduced risky driving; the provincial move to turn those systems off is already scheduled to happen in mid-November.
Here’s a possible solution worthy of discussion. It’s just one opinion, but with few options left to pursue, one that might be worth considering.
Barrhaven — with its mix of arterial shortcuts, busy school routes and residential crescents — can protect its streets by replacing fixed cameras with roving speed-enforcement teams: small, mobile units of trained traffic officers who work five days a week, at varying hours and in constantly changing locations. Funded through the ticket revenue they generate, these teams can deliver the deterrent and behavioural change benefits of photo-radar, while avoiding some of the political and technical downsides of permanent cameras.
Why roving teams could be the answer:
1. Unpredictability increases compliance.
Fixed cameras teach drivers where to slow down; roving teams teach drivers that speeding can be enforced anywhere, any time. The psychological effect of not knowing when enforcement is present encourages sustained compliance across the network.
2. Wider coverage with smarter deployment.
Teams can be dynamically deployed to streets that data say are problematic — school drop-off routes on weekday mornings, arterial shortcuts during afternoon peaks, and residential corridors on weekend evenings. That flexibility lets Barrhaven respond to seasonal and time-of-day patterns in speeding.
3. Human officers handle more than a photo.
A roving unit can address stunt driving, dangerous lane changes, impaired or distracted driving, and immediate hazard mitigation — enforcement actions cameras can’t take on their own.
4. Community visibility and engagement.
Officers on the ground can liaise with schools, community associations and businesses, providing education and a human presence that reinforces safe behaviour.
Designing a fair revenue-funded model
Using ticket revenue to fund enforcement is sensible — it keeps the program self-sustaining — but the devil is always in the details.
A recommended model for Barrhaven:
• Transparent accounting: All ticket revenue, costs and program spending should be published monthly so residents see the program’s net effect (enforcement, education, infrastructure). This avoids the “cash grab” perception. (Ontario’s recent rhetoric about cameras amplified that concern.) 
• No quotas: Officers must not have ticket quotas tied to pay or promotion. Performance metrics should prioritise speed reductions and collision declines, not ticket counts.
• Data-driven site selection: Deployments should be set by a mix of collision history, community complaints, and speed-study data — not by where tickets are easiest to collect. Ottawa’s ASE pilots and subsequent audits showed measurable compliance benefits when enforcement focused on high-risk locations. 
• Variable hours and locations: Teams should work five days per week across morning, midday, afternoon and evening shifts — with schedules rotated weekly to prevent patterning. Posting a general enforcement window (e.g., “roving teams operating weekdays”) keeps deterrence while protecting operational unpredictability.
• Community reporting and feedback: A simple online form where residents can nominate problem streets, supported by periodic public reports on deployments and outcomes, gives the public a voice and ensures accountability.
Operational considerations
• Small mobile units (one vehicle and two officers) allow rapid movement between sites; a central dispatch can reassign teams in real time to emergent hotspots.
• Technology support such as in-car radar/lidar and dash cams improves evidence quality, but human verification prevents wrongful fines.
• Education first, enforcement second during initial roll-out: use “education weeks” with warnings before implementation to reset driver expectations.
Measuring success
Success should be judged by reductions in average speeds, decreased 85th percentile speed at monitored locations, and fewer collisions — not just dollars collected. Regular independent audits (every 6–12 months) will show whether roving enforcement meaningfully improves safety and equity.
A smart pilot for Barrhaven
Start with a 12-month pilot covering several high-priority corridors and school zones, publish baseline speed and collision metrics, and report quarterly. If the pilot achieves sustained speed reductions and fewer injuries, scale the model across the ward. If not, adjust deployment, hours, or combine enforcement with physical calming (speed cushions, raised crosswalks) and repeat.
Conclusion
Removing photo-radar needn’t mean losing the safety gains Barrhaven has achieved. Roving, revenue-funded enforcement teams — if transparently run, data-driven, and audited — can maintain deterrence, expand coverage, and address dangerous driving behaviours that cameras miss. With the right design and community oversight, Barrhaven can turn a policy disruption into an opportunity to build a fairer, more effective road-safety program.
Roving traffic enforcement teams: a smarter, fairer way to control speeding in Barrhaven
Ontario’s recent decision to remove municipal photo-radar cameras has left a clear gap in neighbourhood road safety. Cities like Ottawa relied on automated speed enforcement in school zones and collision hotspots because the cameras measurably brought down speeds and reduced risky driving; the provincial move to turn those systems off is already scheduled to happen in mid-November.
Here’s a possible solution worthy of discussion. It’s just one opinion, but with few options left to pursue, one that might be worth considering.
Barrhaven — with its mix of arterial shortcuts, busy school routes and residential crescents — can protect its streets by replacing fixed cameras with roving speed-enforcement teams: small, mobile units of trained traffic officers who work five days a week, at varying hours and in constantly changing locations. Funded through the ticket revenue they generate, these teams can deliver the deterrent and behavioural change benefits of photo-radar, while avoiding some of the political and technical downsides of permanent cameras.
Why roving teams could be the answer:
1. Unpredictability increases compliance.
Fixed cameras teach drivers where to slow down; roving teams teach drivers that speeding can be enforced anywhere, any time. The psychological effect of not knowing when enforcement is present encourages sustained compliance across the network.
2. Wider coverage with smarter deployment.
Teams can be dynamically deployed to streets that data say are problematic — school drop-off routes on weekday mornings, arterial shortcuts during afternoon peaks, and residential corridors on weekend evenings. That flexibility lets Barrhaven respond to seasonal and time-of-day patterns in speeding.
3. Human officers handle more than a photo.
A roving unit can address stunt driving, dangerous lane changes, impaired or distracted driving, and immediate hazard mitigation — enforcement actions cameras can’t take on their own.
4. Community visibility and engagement.
Officers on the ground can liaise with schools, community associations and businesses, providing education and a human presence that reinforces safe behaviour.
Designing a fair revenue-funded model
Using ticket revenue to fund enforcement is sensible — it keeps the program self-sustaining — but the devil is always in the details.
A recommended model for Barrhaven:
• Transparent accounting: All ticket revenue, costs and program spending should be published monthly so residents see the program’s net effect (enforcement, education, infrastructure). This avoids the “cash grab” perception. (Ontario’s recent rhetoric about cameras amplified that concern.) 
• No quotas: Officers must not have ticket quotas tied to pay or promotion. Performance metrics should prioritise speed reductions and collision declines, not ticket counts.
• Data-driven site selection: Deployments should be set by a mix of collision history, community complaints, and speed-study data — not by where tickets are easiest to collect. Ottawa’s ASE pilots and subsequent audits showed measurable compliance benefits when enforcement focused on high-risk locations. 
• Variable hours and locations: Teams should work five days per week across morning, midday, afternoon and evening shifts — with schedules rotated weekly to prevent patterning. Posting a general enforcement window (e.g., “roving teams operating weekdays”) keeps deterrence while protecting operational unpredictability.
• Community reporting and feedback: A simple online form where residents can nominate problem streets, supported by periodic public reports on deployments and outcomes, gives the public a voice and ensures accountability.
Operational considerations
• Small mobile units (one vehicle and two officers) allow rapid movement between sites; a central dispatch can reassign teams in real time to emergent hotspots.
• Technology support such as in-car radar/lidar and dash cams improves evidence quality, but human verification prevents wrongful fines.
• Education first, enforcement second during initial roll-out: use “education weeks” with warnings before implementation to reset driver expectations.
Measuring success
Success should be judged by reductions in average speeds, decreased 85th percentile speed at monitored locations, and fewer collisions — not just dollars collected. Regular independent audits (every 6–12 months) will show whether roving enforcement meaningfully improves safety and equity.
A smart pilot for Barrhaven
Start with a 12-month pilot covering several high-priority corridors and school zones, publish baseline speed and collision metrics, and report quarterly. If the pilot achieves sustained speed reductions and fewer injuries, scale the model across the ward. If not, adjust deployment, hours, or combine enforcement with physical calming (speed cushions, raised crosswalks) and repeat.
Conclusion
Removing photo-radar needn’t mean losing the safety gains Barrhaven has achieved. Roving, revenue-funded enforcement teams — if transparently run, data-driven, and audited — can maintain deterrence, expand coverage, and address dangerous driving behaviours that cameras miss. With the right design and community oversight, Barrhaven can turn a policy disruption into an opportunity to build a fairer, more effective road-safety program.
Related Posts