When a city considers automated enforcement, the first numbers on the table often come from the vendor. These companies don’t just sell cameras, they pitch financial outcomes. From projected ticket volumes to cost recovery timelines, enforcement vendors shape how cities frame the economics of deployment before a single contract is signed.

ROI comes before infrastructure

Vendor presentations frequently include sample forecasts showing expected revenue per camera, violation rates, collection assumptions, and net program gains. These projections are designed to show the system “pays for itself” and to position safety outcomes as financially sustainable through fine revenue. Cities use these models to justify launch budgets and calm council concerns.

Procurement rarely starts from zero

While cities technically write their own forecasts, the inputs often come from vendor case studies, existing client data, or internal calculators provided during early discussions. In some cases, vendors assist directly with the modeling or embed projected ROI into procurement language. This means the budget logic behind public enforcement infrastructure may originate with a private company.

Impacts on deployment and program goals

When a vendor projects 30,000 tickets per year per camera, that expectation doesn’t just shape council debate, it can influence site selection, staffing assumptions, and long term program funding. If actual volumes fall short, cities may revisit placement or question the viability of expansion. In this way, early vendor forecasts become self fulfilling program constraints.

Questions for oversight

• Are vendor projections included in public procurement files?
• How much influence do vendors have over forecast assumptions?
• Should cities be required to disclose vendor provided financial models?

Related Questions

• Do cities build revenue forecasts before deploying traffic cameras?
• Do cities set violation targets to meet enforcement revenue goals?