Rafil Zaidi compares idling enforcement to red-light cameras and suggests DEP stopgaps

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Red light and speed cameras were kind of a watershed moment for traffic enforcement in New York City.

No longer could vehicle operators, unless they got particularly unlucky, count on breaking the law without consequence, which is still the case for most moving violations and administrative infractions of all kinds.

Idling enforcement, which uses the eyes, ears, and phones of citizens throughout the city instead of stationary cameras, brought a roughly comparable level of enforcement to vehicular air pollution.

As with the robot cameras, not for every block, intersection, or hour of the day, but enough to make operators think twice and not break the law in the first place.

The response?

Greater city revenue, greater compliance, and also some pushback.

Sound familiar?

The New York Post reported back in 2024 that the resulting vehicle plate defacement by scofflaws was soaring and costing the city $200 million a year in uncollected tolls and tickets.

Did council start seriously entertaining a bill to legalize ghost plates or restrict the use of ticketing cameras?

Of course not.

But private car drivers worried about tickets, myself included, don't have the lobbyists that the trucking and bus industries do.

So now those industries are complaining that they don't like the fines they're getting for breaking the law.

and that they'd like to go back to the good old days when getting an idling ticket was the equivalent of getting struck by lightning.

The question should not be why is there so much enforcement in these particular areas, but why isn't there better enforcement in other areas where public health and safety

I'd like to address summons delays and transfer of liability.

DEP has the ability already for a stopgap, as long as they have a backlog, to batch equipment leasing companies for priority reviews so that those fines can be passed along, and also to send non-summons heads-up letters to the named respondents as soon as new citizen complaints come in,

along with access to the video evidence.

I agree with Zach Miller 100% on that.

It's basically about flipping a switch in a computer.

Let's tell DEP to do it tomorrow.

561, 562, and 869 would be destructive.

11A would act as cover.

In this context, in combination with 561A, that would be like saying we're going to double the speed camera fines, oh, and also we're going to remove 95% of speed cameras.

DEP already has the authority to increase fines reasonably.

Only Intro 48 would improve the program.

I volunteered training air complaint program participants in the South Bronx, so I've seen that firsthand.

Thank you.