Automated Traffic Safety Cameras

Overview

Effective June 6, 2024, RCW 46.63.210-.260 regulate city and county use of automated traffic safety cameras to detect certain traffic violations. These new laws replace RCW 46.63.170, the now-repealed law addressing this topic.

RCW 46.63.220(2) requires every jurisdiction seeking to use traffic cameras to first adopt an ordinance authorizing their use. Jurisdictions with ordinances already in effect before enactment of the new laws should consider amending the ordinances to replace any RCW 46.63.170 references with applicable references to the new laws.

Permitted Automated Traffic Safety Camera Uses

Washington cities and counties can use traffic cameras to detect stoplight violations (RCW 46.63.230), railroad grade crossing violations (RCW 46.63.240), and speed violations occurring at certain locations (RCW 46.63.250). Traffic safety camera use by cities with populations exceeding 500,000 is limited to the purposes and locations outlined in RCW 46.63.260.  

Placement of Traffic Safety Cameras

Traffic camera placement requirements are detailed and require careful review and analysis. For instance, jurisdictions must install traffic cameras in ways that minimize the impact of the camera flash on drivers.

Jurisdictions can also only place cameras in certain areas, including multi-arterial intersections, railroad grade crossings, and the following roadway zones defined in RCW 46.63.210: 

• school speed zones;
• school walk zones;
•  public park speed zones;
•  hospital speed zones; and
• and roadway work zones.

Cities are allowed to place and use cameras on state highways that are also classified as city streets as long as they notify the State Department of Transportation before installation.

Jurisdictions cannot place cameras at limited access facility on ramps.

Traffic Safety Camera Signs and Recordings

Jurisdictions must clearly mark traffic safety camera locations at least 30 days before camera activation by posting signs readily visible to approaching drivers. Signs placed after June 7, 2012, must also meet Department of Transportation specifications and guidelines. Cameras may record images of only violating vehicles and their license plates and must not reveal the faces of the vehicle’s driver or its passengers. Cameras can only capture images while violations are occurring.

Automated Traffic Safety Camera Infractions

Infraction notices can be issued by:

• law enforcement officers;
• trained and authorized civilian employees of law enforcement agencies; or
• local public works or transportation department employees (working under the supervision of qualified traffic engineers).

If non-law enforcement employees issue traffic camera infractions, they must be “sufficiently trained and certified” to review infractions and issue notices. This training must be provided by either qualified peace officers or traffic engineers in the jurisdiction’s public works department.

Jurisdictions must process traffic camera infractions in the same manner as parking infractions. RCW 46.63.220 includes additional procedures, including public records considerations and infraction notice requirements, that jurisdictions using these cameras must follow.

Compensation and Use of Revenue

Counties and cities must base compensation paid to traffic camera vendors or manufacturers on the value of the equipment and services they receive, not on the fines, penalties, or revenues that the camera equipment generates.

Effective June 6, 2024, RCW 46.63.220 restricts how jurisdictions can use traffic camera revenue.

Jurisdictions with ordinances in effect before January 1, 2024 that direct this revenue use are exempt from these revenue restrictions. The exemption allows these jurisdictions unrestricted use of funds they receive from existing traffic cameras placed under their ordinance, and from new cameras added to locations that expand the jurisdiction’s camera program by up to 10%.

Jurisdictions with no traffic camera program in effect before January 1, 2024 that later create one are limited to using safety camera revenue to cover certain traffic camera program costs and pay for specified traffic safety activities, including construction and preservation projects that can include (but are not limited to) complete streets approach projects under RCW 47.04.010, road design projects to reduce traffic speed, and safety enhancements for users of active transportation (defined in RCW 36.70A.030). Starting four years after installing traffic safety cameras, these jurisdictions must also deposit 25% of their noninterest camera revenue into the RCW 46.68.480 Cooper Jones active transportation safety account.

RCW 46.63.220 adds other traffic camera revenue use restrictions based on a jurisdiction’s population:

• Jurisdictions with populations of 10,000 or more must spend at least a proportionate share of their traffic safety camera revenue (excluding program operation costs) on undertaking the permitted traffic safety activities in census tracts with household incomes in the lowest quartile (determined by the most currently available census data) and in areas that have injury crash rates above the jurisdiction’s average.
• Jurisdictions with populations under 10,000 must use the Department of Health’s environmental health disparities map to “inform” their permitted traffic camera revenue use.

Analysis and Reporting Requirements

Before adding or relocating a traffic safety camera to any proposed location, a jurisdiction’s legislative body must prepare an analysis of the location that includes equity considerations of the traffic safety camera’s placement on the location’s livability, accessibility, economics, education, and environmental health.

Cities and counties using traffic cameras must also post an annual report on their websites showing the number of traffic crashes that have occurred at each camera’s location, and the number of infraction notices generated from each camera. Starting January 1, 2026, this required annual report must also indicate the percentage of traffic camera revenue used to pay the jurisdiction’s camera program costs, and how the jurisdiction used any revenue that exceeded those costs.

Records Management

Photographs, electronic images, or any other personally identifying data from traffic safety cameras are for the exclusive use of jurisdiction employees authorized to issue traffic safety camera infractions. They may not be released to the public or used in court proceedings that are unrelated to camera violations (RCW 46.63.220(11)).

For information on the retention of traffic camera footage, see our page Retention Requirements for Law Enforcement Records.

Court Decisions

Below are selected court decisions pertaining to traffic safety cameras, and specifically whether or not the use or authorization of such cameras is subject to initiative or referendum.

• City of Longview v. Wallin (2013) – Wallin sponsored a citizen initiative to restrict Longview’s traffic camera ordinance. In response, Longview asked the superior court to declare that Wallin’s initiative was beyond the scope of local initiative power, which was granted. Wallin appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the superior court’s decision in Longview’s favor based on Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Government v. City of Mukilteo (2012), another case decided while Wallin’s appeal was pending. Mukilteo held that a locality’s ability to enact traffic camera ordinances is granted by the state legislature and not subject to initiative (see below).
• Eyman v. McGehee (2013) – After the City of Redmond enacted an traffic camera ordinance, a group of citizens filed an initiative petition to challenge the city’s traffic camera system with the city clerk. When the clerk failed to transmit the petition to the county auditor, the initiative proponents sued, asking the superior court to require the clerk to do so. The superior court denied the request and the proponents appealed. The appeals court affirmed, holding that although  city clerks have a mandatory legal duty to transmit initiative petitions to the county auditor, a court may review a petition’s substance to determine its validity, which is "exclusively a judicial function." So, despite a city clerk's duty, a court may still decline to order a clerk’s compliance if it determines that the order is a useless act for an invalid petition.
• Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Gov't v. City of Mukilteo (2012) – Because the legislature expressly granted authority to the governing body of the city of Mukilteo to enact ordinances on the use of traffic safety cameras, the subject matter of Proposition 1 is not within the initiative power.
• American Traffic Solutions v. City of Bellingham (2011) – Initiative No. 2011-01 exceeds the lawful scope of local initiative power; it is not a valid ballot measure.

Examples of Local Automated Traffic Safety Camera Programs

Below are a few selected examples of local government traffic camera programs in Washington State, including code provisions, reports, FAQs, informational materials, and RFPs.

This is not intended to be a complete list of all jurisdictions that use  traffic safety cameras.

Ordinances/Code Provisions

• Bellevue Municipal Code Ch. 11.49 – Red lights and school zones
• Federal Way Municipal Code Sec. 8.05.090 – Red lights and school zones
• Issaquah Municipal Code Ch. 10.42 – Red lights and school zones
• Lake Forest Park Municipal Code Ch. 10.06 – Red lights and school zones
• Lakewood Municipal Code Sec. 10.04.040 – Red lights, railroad crossings, and school zones
• Lynnwood Municipal Code Ch. 11.18 – Red lights, railroad crossings, and school zones
• Moses Lake Municipal Code Ch. 10.48 – Red lights, railroad crossings, and school zones
• Pierce County Code Ch. 10.42 – Red lights only
• Spokane Municipal Code Ch. 16A.64 – Red lights and school zones. Includes sunset date; city has been using 5-year reauthorizations.
• Tukwila Ordinance No. 2612 (2019) – School zones only; includes analysis of proposed intersections, implementation timeline, FAQs, and information materials distributed to school district staff, students, and parents.
• Wenatchee Municipal Code Ch. 8.06 – Red lights and school zones

Websites/Annual Reports

• Fife Safety Camera Enforcement – Includes reasons for installation, annual reports, FAQs, and information on how revenues will be spent.
• Issaquah Camera/Photo Enforcement – Annual report and information on how to respond to a citation.
• Lake Forest Park Photo Enforcement Program – FAQs and annual reports
• Kent Photo Enforcement Program
• Renton Photo Enforcement FAQs
• Seattle:
  • Red Light Cameras
  • School Zone Speed Cameras
• Spokane Photo-Red & Photo-Speed Traffic Safety Programs – Includes FAQs, annual reports, and videos.
• Wenatchee Automated Traffic Safety Program – FAQs and annual report

Requests for Proposals

• Fife School Zone Speed Cameras RFP (2019)

Recommended Resources

Below are some useful resources that provide additional information about automated traffic cameras.

• Crosscut: Are WA Traffic Cameras Reducing Dangerous Driving or Making It Worse? (2022) – Analyzes traffic camera data from three cities.
• Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: Red Light Running – Information about red light cameras, including how to maintain public support.
• National Conference of State Legislatures: Automated Enforcement Overview – Information about traffic safety trends and state legislation.
• Texas Transportation Institute: Speed Cameras: An Effectiveness and a Policy Review, by David K. Willis (2006) – Concludes that speeding enhances crash risk and severity and that speed cameras reduce both speeding and crash severity. Implementation issues, however, are highly problematic, and a poorly implemented automated speed enforcement program can easily undermine public support.
• U.S. Federal Highway Administration: Signalized Intersection Safety – Includes data and information regarding red-light running and cameras.