Might “Asset Recycling” Be Key To Infrastructure Investment?

The Trump administration’s proposed federal budget calls for spending $200 billion over 10 years to “incentivize” infrastructure investment by state and local governments. One key to the strategy is reportedly “asset recycling” — selling or leasing infrastructure assets to the private sector and using the proceeds to pay for upgrades, maintenance, and new infrastructure.

Like the forms of recycling that we are all familiar with, infrastructure recycling is about making something new out of what already exists. In the infrastructure context, the starting point is the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of public investment that has already been made in roads, bridges, airports, utilities, waterways, and other infrastructure assets. Infrastructure recycling uses public-private partnerships (“P3s”) to tap this existing capital investment to fund new priorities.

This process unfolds in three interrelated steps:

1. Public sector infrastructure owners unlock the capital investment that is “trapped” in existing infrastructure assets by selling or leasing them to private investors through P3s. The terms of the concession arrangement typically provide for the long-term maintenance and/or improvement of the asset.

2. The public sector “recycles” the proceeds realized from these P3 transactions to pay for new infrastructure — enabling significant investment in public infrastructure at little additional cost to taxpayers.

3. As assets mature and become good candidates for P3s, the cycle repeats to enable continuous investment and renewal.

As reported in Governing,

Could what worked in Australia — essentially a garage sale of government-owned infrastructure — work in the United States? Maybe, but we’ve got some big challenges. In addition to the reluctance of local officials to give up control of infrastructure, current tax law provides powerful disincentives to the selling or leasing of assets. Assets that are sold or leased must not only repay associated tax-exempt debt, but state and local governments would also have to finance any new debt that is incurred on a more expensive, taxable basis.

Those challenges aren’t insurmountable, as Indiana has shown. In 2006, the state leased the Indiana Toll Road, netting $3.5 billion after repaying $300 million of tax-exempt debt. The state put the proceeds into its infrastructure fund, which has since financed other transportation assets without taking on any additional debt or imposing tax increases.

Useful Links

Previous Conduit Street Coverage: Counties Provide the “Local Lens” for Infrastructure Package

Previous Conduit Street Coverage: Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Will Favor States, Localities with Money Lined Up, Chao Says

Read the Full Article from Governing

Trump Announces Proposal To Privatize Air Traffic Control

U.S. President Donald Trump plans to focus attention on his infrastructure agenda this week – and it started with an announcement of his plan to privatize control over the air traffic control system, reports The Washington Times The move would place a new, quasi-governmental nonprofit over the system, rather than the Federal Aviation Administration, which oversees it now. From The Washington Times:

The bold move to dislodge air traffic control (ATC) from the Federal Aviation Administration and create a quasi-independent, nonprofit corporation to do the job is a fitting kickoff for Mr. Trump’s weeklong focus on his infrastructure agenda.

Like the rest of the plan, it is more government reform than spending spree and faces furious pushback form the left and the Washington establishment. …

U.S. air traffic control is the largest and most complex system of its kind in the world. As with much of America’s infrastructure, however, ATC is aging and in bad need of modernization.

“There are enormous benefits for all U.S. citizens in doing this and we are very excited about this,” said [Director of the president’s National Economic Council Gary] Cohn.

A non-government ATC, he said, will save money for passengers, upgrade the system from land-based radar to a GPS system and improve efficiency and safety.

Critics warn that privatization could risk safety and national security. They argue that this could lead to the creation of a mega company dominated by major airlines and there would be little incentive for it to support general aviation and rural airports. …

“There is money to make sure rural airports get protected,” Mr. Cohn said of the administration’s plan.

At a Rose Garden event Monday, Mr. Trump will announce a set of legislative principles for an overhaul of air traffic control that he is sending to Congress.

Mr. Trump is scheduled to deliver remarks Wednesday beside the Ohio River in Kentucky to highlight plans for long-overdue upgrades to inland waterways. He will hold listening sessions Thursday at the White House with governors and mayors, and end the week at the Department of Transportation talking about highway and railway projects.

The president’s budget proposal included $200 billion for an infrastructure program that is supposed to leverage a total public-private investment of $1 trillion over 10 years.

Central to the plan are proposals to slash regulations and streamline permits, cutting the average approval process for highway projects and other major construction from 10 years to two years or less.

Governing reported on President Trump’s infrastructure plan in its report on his proposed budget:

Trump has promised a $1 trillion investment in our nation’s infrastructure. His budget finally provides some clues as to how he’ll do that.

For starters, Trump proposes spreading $200 billion in federal investment out over 10 years, starting with $5 billion in 2018, ramping up to $50 billion by 2021 and then gradually sinking back to $5 billion.

The budget says the federal investment will be supplemented with “incentivized non-federal funding,” expedited projects and revising or eliminating cumbersome regulations. “Simply providing more federal funding for infrastructure is not the solution,” the budget reads. “Rather, we will work to fix underlying incentives, procedures and policies to spur better and more efficient infrastructure decisions and outcomes across a range of sectors, including surface transportation, airports, waterways, ports, drinking and wastewater, broadband and key federal facilities.”

The Takeaway: While the outline of infrastructure priorities is a start, most folks are worried about the overall picture. Namely, Trump’s proposed budget cuts more than $2 billion from the Department of Transportation next year.

Mass transit is also of particular concern. According to Moody’s Investors Service, transit agencies rely on federal funding for nearly half of their capital funding. Trump proposes eliminating any new grants from the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Investment Program. The rationale: “Future investments in new transit projects would be funded by the localities that use and benefit from these localized projects,” according to the budget.

State Highway Solicits Input On Traffic Impact Guidelines 

The Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration (SHA) is continuing its work updating its Access Manual to make it more customer service-oriented, and continues to coordinate with counties and municipalities to seek their input. The most recent draft of most of the Access Manual is available here. However, the most recent draft of the traffic impact study (TIS) and mitigation guidelines, which SHA continues to receive input from a number of counties from, is available here.

SHA continues to solicit feedback on these guidelines, and will accept comments through the month of June. Comments may be sent to AMForum@sha.state.md.us. Please copy MACo Associate Director Barbara Zektick at bzektick@mdcounties.org on any county comments submitted. 

In general, the guidelines defer to counties’ Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances (APFOs), where they exist – but SHA may require additional study or mitigation for any development that requires an SHA Access Permit and “generates 50 or more peak hour trips.” Specifically, the latest draft states:

Many counties/jurisdictions have established Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances (APFOs) which outline their requirements for TIS report preparation. The following list summarizes situations regarding the appropriate application of county/jurisdictional APFOs and MDOT-SHA guidelines:

• At the discretion of the MDOT SHA District Engineer, a TIS may be required by MDOT-SHA for any proposed development that generates 50 or more peak hour trips, or any redevelopment that generates 50 or more peak hour trips over the existing site development.

• For those counties/jurisdictions that have not established their own APFOs relating to traffic impact studies, where MDOT-SHA determines the potential for a significant roadway safety concern where an MDOT-SHA Access Permit is needed, MDOT-SHA’s traffic impact study guidelines and procedures should be followed.

• In some cases, where MDOT-SHA determines the potential for a significant roadway safety concern attributable to the proposed development, or redevelopment may not be adequately addressed through County/jurisdictional APFOs, the following supplemental guidelines and procedures established by MDOT-SHA for traffic impact study report preparation and traffic mitigation may be necessary. Any questions with respect to applicability to these supplemental guidelines and procedures should be established during initial scoping for the TIS.

• In cases where no MDOT-SHA Access Permit is needed, the following guidelines and procedures established by MDOT-SHA may be used as guidance for the applicable county/jurisdiction where development or redevelopment is proposed.

State Suspends Purple Line Work 

The Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) is scaling back work on the Purple Line so long as the project is held up in court, reports The Washington Post. MDOT has told Purple Line Transit Partners, the project’s contractor, to stop executing new construction contracts, procuring certain materials and equipment, and hiring new staff. MDOT also plans to postpone hiring new staff for the project or acquiring any more land.

[MDOT Secretary Pete] Rahn made the announcement one day after the Maryland Attorney General’s Office said it would appeal a May 22 ruling in a 2014 lawsuit opposing the project. The court order requires the state to redo the line’s ridership forecasts to reflect Metro’s decline. The Purple Line would be operated separately from Metro, but about 27 percent of the light-rail line’s passengers are expected to be people transferring to and from the subway.

In a mid-May filing seeking a speedy decision in the lawsuit, Rahn warned that the state would have to suspend Purple Line work starting Thursday unless it had a “foreseeable path” to $900 million in federal grant money. The state won’t be eligible for that money until the project’s environmental approval is restored as part of the lawsuit appeal.

As of Thursday, he wrote, Maryland would “no longer have sufficient cash flow” to keep the project moving in anticipation of being reimbursed with federal aid. The entire project could be canceled about 60 days after a suspension of “ongoing project activities,” Rahn told the court.
It was unclear whether this suspension was enough to start a 60-day clock or what money the state will use to continue ongoing Purple Line work. Rahn’s statement also didn’t expand on a mention that “further steps should be anticipated as more information is available.”

Cargo Pours Into Port At Record Levels

Thanks to the widening of the Panama Canal, the Port of Baltimore once again sets a new record this quarter, with overall cargo intake increasing 4.8 percent. The port processed 2.56 million tons of cargo this last quarter, up from 2.4 million tons in the first quarter last year. Vehicle cargo increased 6 percent and container cargo increased 8 percent.

The Baltimore Business Journal reports:

The Port of Baltimore has handled more cars than any other U.S. port for six consecutive years while container growth was driven by the larger ships coming into the port through the widened Panama Canal.

The Port of Baltimore is one of only four U.S. East Coast ports with the necessary infrastructure — like a 50-foot deep berth and “super cranes” — to handle the larger container ships. Last year, a record 538,567 containers crossed the port’s public piers and brought in more than 10 million tons of general cargo for the first time.

The Port of Baltimore has also been recognized for efficiency by the Journal of Commerce. The port averages about 71 container moves per hour per berth, a rate faster than any other major American port.

Purple Line Takes Yet Another Blow

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon issued an opinion on Monday, May 22 further delaying activity on the Purple Line until the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) completes another environmental review of the project. Reports Bethesda Magazine

The ruling in the long-running court case seems likely to result in further construction delays—and possible cancellation of the project—and could jeopardize federal funding slated for the project. The state had planned to start construction on the line that would connect Bethesda with New Carrollton in Prince George’s County late last year. The ruling comes more than a month after Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh had requested a decision in the case, warning that continued construction delays would cost the state about $13 million per month.

Last August, Leon postponed the project and ordered updated projections to account for WMATA’s “deterioration and declining ridership.” The delay has stopped the project in its tracks, preventing the FTA and Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) from executing the project’s Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA), through which the U.S. grants Maryland $900 million toward the project. FTA filed almost immediately for the judge to reconsider his ruling. Further exacerbating the gravity of the delay, President Trump’s proposed fiscal 2018 budget eliminates all funding for transit projects which do not have executed FFGAs.

From Leon’s opinion:

On November 22, 2016, I issued an opinion and order instructing the FTA to critically evaluate the significance of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”) Metrorail’s recent safety issues and ridership decline to determine whether a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“SEIS”) was required for the Purple Line Project. …

…. I find that defendants have failed to take the requisite “hard look” at the potential impact that WMATA’s ridership and safety issues could have on the Purple Line Project and conclude for the following reasons that an SEIS that addresses these issues is in fact required. …

On August 3, 2016, I … found that the FTA’s conclusion that MetroRail’s ridership and safety issues would have no effect on the Purple Line was arbitrary and capricious. As a result, I vacated the [Record of Decision (“ROD”)] and instructed the defendants to prepare an SEIS as expeditiously as possible addressing these issues. …

Here, plaintiff’s expert declarations, at a minimum, raise serious questions about the defendant’s assumptions about WMATA Metrorail and its future impact on the Purple Line. By failing, yet again, to grapple with plaintiffs’ submissions, the FTA failed to take a hard look at all of the information in the administrative record that could inform the agency about the impact that WMATA Metrorail’s ridership issues could have on the Purple Line Project. As such, the FTA’s resulting refusal to prepare an SEIS was arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that, consistent with NEPA’s procedural requirements, the defendants shall prepare an SEIS addressing them as expeditiously as possible.

FTA submitted an analysis to the court last December which examined five vastly different ridership forecasts, and concluded that in any of of those cases, the Purple Line would meet its intended goal to establish an improved east-west transit connection in the service area – to justify its case that an SEIS was not, in fact, warranted. “Surprisingly, neither FTA nor MTA attempted to critically assess or discern which of these five wildly disparate scenarios is actually most likely to occur,” Leon wrote in his opinion.

Governor Hogan has issued the following statement:

Bethesda Magazine coverage and the opinion are available here.

Pittsburgh And Uber’s Automated Vehicles: Buyer’s Remorse?

Nine months after the City of Pittsburgh welcomed Uber with open arms to experiment its driverless cars on its streets and many bridges, local government officials are showing signs of buyer’s remorse, reports The New York TimesConcerns abound regarding the company charging for rides it promised for free, failure to create enough jobs, and withdrawal of support for the city’s application for a federal transportation grant.

Mayor Bill Peduto came under fire during his primary for reelection, when challengers criticized his failure to get a community benefits agreement with Uber in writing beforehand. (He still won.) Comptroller Michael Lamb has called on Uber to share more traffic data, calling the relationship “an opportunity missed.” And, despite Uber representatives’ encouraging words about available jobs for neighbors of the company’s driverless vehicle testing track, the company has not hired any recommended neighboring community members.

From the article:

The deteriorating relationship between Pittsburgh and Uber offers a cautionary tale, especially as other cities consider rolling out driverless car trials from Uber, Alphabet’s Waymo and others. Towns like Tempe, Ariz., have already emulated Pittsburgh and set themselves up as test areas for self-driving vehicles. Many municipalities see the experiments as an opportunity to remake their urban transportation systems and create a new tech economy.

Yet Pittsburgh shows the clash of private-versus-public interests that can result. The lessons are college course level “101,” said Linda Bailey, the executive director of the National Association of City Transportation Officials.

Uber “is a business, and they want to make money,” she said. “With Pittsburgh, we learned we need to present the city’s needs upfront.”

Uber, to its credit, has indicated a willingness to review a draft community benefits agreement, and has offered to share some data, as well. The company indicates it has created 675 jobs in the area.

Uber has benefited Pittsburgh in some ways. The company has raised Pittsburgh’s profile, and its Advanced Technologies Center there, which Uber opened for driverless research in 2015, has revived the former steel mill neighborhood known as the Strip District.

Yet city officials and residents are reconsidering even those benefits, especially as Uber has recently grappled with several controversies. Those include a Justice Department criminal investigation into Uber’s use of a software tool to deceive law enforcement. Some Pittsburghers also objected to [Uber chief executive Travis] Kalanick’s being a member of the Trump administration’s business advisory council this year.

In January, Pittsburghers for Public Transit, a nonprofit representing bus drivers and riders, organized a #DeleteUber social media campaign and a street demonstration against the company’s decision to continue airport service when taxi drivers had halted rides to protest the Trump administration’s travel ban.

Molly Nichols, executive director of the group, said Uber had called to ask her to cancel the protest, which ultimately went ahead.

“The warning signs about Uber’s questionable business practices were all over the place, and the mayor should have recognized that and worked harder to create a partnership that was more equitable,” Ms. Nichols said.

She added that there might be longer-term problems from autonomous vehicles, including automation’s effect on Uber’s 4,000 drivers in the city. Parking fees also make up about 15 percent of Pittsburgh’s revenue, and the city has not said how those funds would be replaced if fewer people owned and parked cars and used driverless services instead, she said.

Mr. Peduto, a third-generation Pittsburgher, has perhaps had the most noticeable change of heart. …

In early 2016, Uber had indicated it would support Pittsburgh’s application for a federal grant to redo local transportation, according to Mr. Peduto. He asked Uber to commit private funds to enhance the proposal. Uber said that the request had come too late and that the desired amount — $25 million — was too much. Pittsburgh didn’t win the federal competition.

In January, Mr. Peduto was also surprised to get billed for a ride home in an Uber autonomous vehicle. “Travis Kalanick had told me the rides would be free and a service for the public,” he said.

Uber said it had always intended to charge for driverless rides. …

“When it came to what Uber and what Travis Kalanick wanted, Pittsburgh delivered,” Mr. Peduto said. “But when it came to our vision of how this industry could enhance people, planet and place, that message fell on deaf ears.”

 MACo represents county governments’ interests on the Maryland Autonomous and Connected Vehicle Working Group. See Conduit Street coverage of its meetings here.


Annapolis Struggles to Balance Growth With Traffic, Quality of Life Issues

A Capital Gazette article (2017-05-07) highlighted the ongoing challenges a developed area faces as it continues to plan and grow. The article focused on the city of Annapolis, and the struggle the municipality faces as it seeks to balance its existing quality of life against the need for further growth and development. According to the article, Annapolis is facing significant residential growth:

Based on the city’s most recent report, there are 689 proposed residential units in the development pipeline and city officials expect more growth as developers feel more confidence in the economy.

That number — listed in the April monthly report — doesn’t include retirement communities, which could bring another influx of 529 age-restricted units for retiring seniors or those that need health care. Those projects are listed on the report, but their unit counts aren’t listed as they are not traditional residential properties. That number also doesn’t include new developments near Annapolis, such as the 293-unit apartment complex behind the Double T Diner.

The article described the strains large developments can place on traffic and services while at the same time providing new tax revenue and a shield against rising property taxes. The article discussed the city’s recent push for requiring impact studies that take into account other approved developments, as well as the need for a comprehensive look at development:

This prevents developments from building in a vacuum, [Annapolis Chief of Comprehensive Planning Sally] Nash said. As for the comprehensive plan, it’s Nash’s job to ensure it is met when approving developments.

That can be a challenge when the comprehensive plan has conflicting goals, such as pushing for the city to have 50 percent tree canopy while also targeting areas, some of which have forested acres, as places for potential growth.

“It’s a balance,” Nash said. …

Some of the struggles with the slew of development is in large part due to older projects that have been moving through the development pipeline, said Mayor Mike Pantelides.

These new developments show that Annapolis is a desirable place to be, but there needs to be consideration on the size of the incoming projects, like Parkeside Preserve, which are too big, said Pantelides. …

“I’m certainly not happy with the way things are going,” Pantelides said. “These large, massive ones, at the end of the day it doesn’t benefit the residents of Annapolis.”

A greater focus needs to be placed on the potential for growth as well as projects that have already applied, said Alderman Ross Arnett, D-Ward 8. …

“One of the problems is that when planning looks at things, they only take on what has been applied for,” Arnett said. “They don’t take a comprehensive approach to looking at traffic.”

The article also discussed the City’s beginning of its Forest Drive Sector Study, which will take a long-term development approach to setting zoning around Forest Drive, Bay Ridge Road, Aris T. Allen Boulevard, and Eastport.


Counties Provide the Local Lens for Infrastructure Package

It’s Infrastructure Week in the nation’s capital and across the country as local governments and others make the case for renewed federal investment in our nation’s roads, bridges, and transit. Of course, the elephant in the room is what may emerge from the Trump administration or Congress on this front.

The National Association of Counties (NACo) has long stressed the importance of modernizing the nation’s infrastructure system, especially because counties own and maintain the largest share of public road miles – 46 percent of the total nationwide, 230,000 bridges – or four out of every ten nationwide, and are involved in the operation of a third of the nation’s airports and public transportation systems.

In Maryland, counties own and maintain 74 percent of the public roads. Local governments own and maintain 83 percent of our transportation network.

According to Route Fifty,

These facts make it clear that counties can offer important insights into prioritizing transportation infrastructure needs—through the local lens where people live and work. Although we’ve made significant progress locally, we can’t do it alone. We need a strong partnership with states and the federal government to accomplish our transportation infrastructure goals.

When it comes to roads, our nation’s infrastructure program has long depended on the federal gasoline tax. Since 1993, consumers paid 18.4 cents per gallon toward the Highway Trust Fund, the main federal funding mechanism for road and bridge improvement and construction projects. While inflation has risen 65 percent since then, the gas tax has seen no increase.

What else has changed? In 1993, cars were not getting over 30 miles per gallon, and the idea of a viable hybrid was in its infancy. Today, hybrids are more mainstream, using the roads without consuming much gas and contributing to the gas tax. Electric vehicles with no gas tank also share our roads without contributing to the gas tax. Combine this with inflation and increased construction costs, and it’s easy to see that the American infrastructure funding model has been stuck in neutral for over two decades. It’s time to kick things into high gear.

Congress has shown no appetite to raise the federal gas tax, both sides of the aisle fearing political repercussions at the ballot box. Meanwhile, our roads have deteriorated and our airports have become overly congested. While Congress has passed numerous pieces of legislation to aid our infrastructure network since 2000, no real infusion of funds was conceived until the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as “the stimulus.” This provided over $103 billion toward infrastructure improvements.

Fast forward to 2017 and a new presidential administration. President Trump has declared infrastructure investment as one of his top domestic priorities. Leaders on both sides of the aisle are receptive to an infrastructure package, with the trillion-dollar question being: How are we going to pay for it? Tax credits? Public-Private Partnerships? Municipal bonds? A federal infrastructure bank? A pot of money at the end of the rainbow?

Depending on whom you ask, the answers will yield different opinions. The real answer, however, is all of the above.

Tax credits, while incentivizing industry to undertake projects, will not be viable across our vast topography. P3s, while having a proven record of success, will not benefit our most rural and remote communities, where it’s nearly impossible to attract private-sector investments. Nor do they work for small and medium-sized projects due to their high transaction costs. Therefore, the administration and Congress must make available every tool in the toolbox and include all the options listed above.

Airport improvements may provide an easier solution. According to the United States Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics, airlines in 2015 profited almost $4 billion from checked bags alone, allowing for a newer and more efficient fleet. Airports, on the other hand, generate revenue from the Airport Improvement Fund and what is called the passenger facilities charge (PFC), included on each ticket at $4.50. The RSMeans Construction Cost Indexes indicates that the current value of the maximum $4.50 PFC is worth roughly half of what it was when it was implemented in 2000. Raising this fee, even nominally, would allow our airports to expand capacity, invite greater competition among airlines and provide for a better traveler experience. Additionally, it would reduce the reliance on the federal government for airport funds, freeing up that money for other infrastructure projects.

Counties are pleased with the prospect of a new infrastructure package and regulatory reform that could streamline projects. We stand ready to work with Congress and the administration to improve our roads, bridges, airports and other infrastructure that keeps our nation moving forward.

From the big urban areas, majestic mountains, rural landscapes and everything in between, all of America needs a transportation facelift. It would provide jobs, improve quality of life and increase safety. Ensuring that no communities are left behind will be paramount and the true measure of success.

Useful Links

Previous Conduit Street Coverage Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Will Favor States, Localities With Money Lined Up, Chao Says

Previous Conduit Street Coverage: President’s Budget No Boon for Local Infrastructure

Previous Conduit Street Coverage: U.S. Infrastructure Gets “D+”; 24% of MD Roads in Poor Condition

Baltimore to Award Nearly $10M to Two Companies to Restart Speed, Red Light Cameras

Baltimore City officials plan to award contracts worth nearly $10 million on Wednesday to two companies that will relaunch the city’s once-troubled speed and red light camera system as early as June.

The Baltimore Sun reports:

American Traffic Solutions will be paid $5.4 million to run the city’s speed camera system and Conduent Inc. will be paid $4.2 million to run the red light camera system, according to a proposal under consideration by the city’s spending panel. A third firm, MRA Digital LLC, will be paid $80,000 to calibrate the cameras annually.

Mayor Catherine Pugh plans to relaunch Baltimore’s speed and red light camera system to generate $8 million in revenue for next fiscal year and get drivers to slow down. The five-year contracts include two options to renew for two years each.

City Council President Bernard C. “Jack” Young, who is chairman of the five-member Board of Estimates that will vote on the contracts Wednesday, said he supports the mayor’s proposal.

In announcing the program’s return in March, Pugh said the cameras have “always been considered a revenue-producing tool.” But, she said, they also would encourage safer driving.

Young said city transportation officials have assured him the program will have better oversight scrutiny than previous iterations. Tickets will be reviewed by the companies, a transportation official and a police officer.

All camera locations will be published on the city’s website before the program launches. The program will begin no earlier than June and then will issue warning citations for a month. And it will be a much smaller system: 10 red-light cameras, 10 fixed speed cameras and 10 portable cameras.

Maryland law allows jurisdictions to issue $40 speed camera tickets to vehicles traveling 12 miles per hour or more over the speed limit. Red light camera tickets carry a $75 fine.

Useful Links

Previous Conduit Street Coverage: Baltimore Speeds Up Speed Camera Relaunch

Read the full article from The Baltimore Sun