GPSJ VIDEALERT

12 GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SECTOR JOURNAL AUTUMN/WINTER 2015/2016

Is MEAT still fit for purpose when procuring CCTV-based traffic systems?

There is an additional and important element that is not being factored into the decision-making process when procuring CCTV-based traffic systems. This is the return on investment (ROI) from issuing penalty charge notices (PCN) that can be achieved by different systems. The fact is that not all systems are the same, and the different levels of intelligence they possess will have a direct impact on the number of contraventions that can be captured in real-world environments. Many ANPR vendors are still supplying analogue cameras and processors using standard ANPR software that generates evidence packs when it detects number plates not on a whitelist.

The Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) will not certify such systems for anything other than bus lanes as it generates unacceptably high level of false alerts in more complex environments such as yellow boxes and banned turns where there are high volumes of moving vehicles. To get over this, vendors often state that they use “video analytics” to detect all moving traffic offences and back this up with videos that show how it works. However, it is rare to find vendors showing videos of offence detection in crowded traffic scenes because quite simply they cannot reliably and accurately capture offences in congested areas. It is important to appreciate that not all ANPR and video analytics

products are the same and the MEAT analysis should also be applied to the way that systems perform in real world traffic situations relating to the number of actual PCNs detected – this will vary by vendor, sometimes very significantly. To illustrate this, the chart below demonstrates how a council acquiring a system for 10 locations, each with the potential to generate 2,500 PCN per month at an average of £60 per PCN, should apply MEAT. Even though Product A is twice the price of Product B, it generates 10% more PCNs providing a better ROI than the cheaper alternative. In fact, even if Product B was free, it would still be better for a council to buy Product A.

As soon as the potential revenue becomes part of the MEAT equation, councils must choose the product that produces the best ROI outcome, i.e. PCN revenue minus the cost of the system. There is increasingly a strong case for future tenders to include a Proof of Concept stage within their scoring and evaluation where products are scored on the basis of the number of offences they actually capture. This is common practice within the private sector, where it is often referred to as a technology “bake off”, and will help ensure that councils continue to deliver best value for their tax payers in the current difficult economic climate.

It is almost “de rigueur” these days in tenders for councils to state that they are seeking the “most economically advantageous tender”, MEAT in short. But has the time come to review the way CCTV-based traffic systems are tendered and acquired?

Product

A

B

Cost per location

£10,000

£5,000

Cost per 10 locations

£10,000

£5,000

TotalPCNs

25,,000

22,500

Total PCNRevenue

£1.5 million

£1.35 million

ROI

1,400,000

1,300,000

By Tim Daniels, Sales and Marketing Director, Videalert Ltd

gpsj_winter_2016.indd 12 05/02/2016 14:10