If given the green light, Rhode Island’s most populous – and maybe the loudest – municipality will be the first in the state to install detection cameras citywide to address an often violated but rarely enforced prohibition against excessive noise.
Providence Mayor Brett P. Smiley, who has made improving the quality of life a hallmark of his administration, hopes to quiet down the city streets and help mitigate what researchers have long believed are the harmful public health and environmental effects of excessive decibels from traffic, modified exhaust systems, muffler-less motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles.
But first, the administration needs Smith Hill lawmakers to change the state’s Automated Traffic Violation Monitoring Systems Law because the devices would expand the way the city is enforcing traffic laws through automated equipment. The city uses speed and red-light cameras, and also installed Flock cameras that read license plates in 2022.
City officials have insisted the cameras are primarily aimed at changing behavior rather than boosting revenue.
Similar programs have been deployed in other cities nationwide. In Rhode Island, Newport launched a noise-monitoring pilot program in late 2023. At first, Newport officials had considered using police checkpoints to monitor vehicles as they pass but found that idea “too problematic,” city spokesperson Thomas Shevlin said.
Instead, the city ran a five-month trial with noise sensors attached to a roadside police trailer that usually holds a device measuring traffic speeds. During the trial, police didn’t issue tickets to noise violators. The city is now considering expanding the program, which will use artificial intelligence-powered software to identify noise sources and track where and when noise is created.
Shevlin says Newport is not looking to issue fines initially, first mailing warning letters to violators.
In addition to identifying the specific sources of noise violations, the software is also able to use the data to project noise levels onto an interactive map to identify problem areas and times of day.
Most state and federal agencies keep environmental pollution data in the public domain, said Anthony Pacheco, CEO of Warren-based American Ecotech LC, which sells air- and noise-monitoring devices to government agencies and private businesses across North America.
Pacheco has noticed a growing community awareness of noise pollution and says a technical advancement such as a cloud-based web service allows for easy access to the data and creating detailed reports.
Pacheco says sensors usually range between $1,500 to $3,000 each, not including cameras.
“Of course, we would love to see more of it,” he said.
Smiley spokesperson Josh Estrella said the cameras would be utilized for noise violations “made in traffic only,” but he said it is too early to speculate about vendors and costs. The enabling legislation was introduced in the House on Jan. 31 and was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. In the meantime, Estrella said, the administration is reviewing best practices from other cities.
“Excessive noise complaints are among the top complaints we hear from residents,” he said. “For many, it is a frustrating issue because the noise ordinance has been in place for years but has been rarely enforced.”
Still, some have constitutional questions.
Hannah Stern, spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island Inc., said the organization has concerns with “the continued implementation of technologies capable of community surveillance without appropriate public oversight and transparency.”
The ACLU is waiting to see the final proposal but will be monitoring issues such as the type of data being collected, how long it is retained, who has access to the data, where it is being stored and whether enforcement is equitable across neighborhoods and racial demographics.
“One of the major problems with how quickly municipalities are moving to deploy this type of camera surveillance technology is that our state policies have not caught up to the realities of the technology,” Stern said. “If surveillance technologies are being deployed without understanding how this impacts the privacy of all residents in the city, and without clarity on how this data is being collected and used, this creates tremendous privacy concerns.
“It is a massive problem that municipalities are seeking to implement these technologies because of this, and we are very concerned that the limits we do have in statutes are being expanded rather than narrowed,” she said. “Our position has always been that community surveillance does not improve public safety.”
Meanwhile, those who believe noise pollution is a largely ignored public health and environmental problem are open to the idea of noise cameras.
John Wilner, spokesperson for the volunteer group Providence Noise Project, says 2022 city data shows that of the 5,499 noise complaints for loud parties or music submitted to the city, the Providence Police Department only issued 19 citations.
“That’s a staggering indictment of the city’s demonstrable unwillingness to enforce its own noise limits,” he said.
The proposed noise cameras would only detect violators in traffic – not at house parties – but the Providence Noise Project still will be keeping tabs on the program if it becomes reality.
“We’ll be focusing on … where they’re deployed and ensuring that substantiated violations of noise limits lead to citations, convictions and actual payment of the fines assessed,” Wilner said.
