oversight

Traffic Enforcement: Funding of Automatic Red-Light and Speed Enforcement Technologies

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2003-02-21.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548



          February 21, 2003

          The Honorable Todd Tiahrt
          House of Representatives

          Subject: Traffic Enforcement: Funding of Automatic Red-Light and Speed
          Enforcement Technologies

          Dear Mr. Tiahrt:

          A number of cities and counties have implemented photo enforcement programs to
          improve traffic safety. These programs use cameras to identify drivers running red
          lights or speeding and issue tickets to owners of identified vehicles. Such programs
          are eligible for funding through Department of Transportation (DOT) highway
          funding programs.

          The former House Majority Leader and you asked us to examine the role that federal
          funds have played in the local deployment of photo enforcement devices and the
          amount of revenue generated by photo enforcement programs. In subsequent
          discussions with your staff, we agreed to (1) identify local jurisdictions that are using
          photo enforcement devices—red-light cameras or photo radar (speed cameras)—on
          federal-aid highways (i.e., roadways eligible to receive federal aid) ; (2) identify local
          jurisdictions that have received federal funding for photo enforcement; and (3)
          determine, for those jurisdictions that have received federal funding, how much
          revenue their photo enforcement programs have generated and the amount of that
          revenue received by private contractors.

          As agreed with your office, we limited our review of photo enforcement programs to
          those 73 jurisdictions that had been identified by the Insurance Institute for Highway
          Safety as having photo enforcement programs (see enc. I). We developed the data on
          these programs through a telephone survey of officials within the 73 jurisdictions and
          further supplemented the data with information requested from DOT. We did not
          independently verify the information provided by these sources.

          Of the 73 jurisdictions we contacted, we identified 65 local jurisdictions that were
          operating photo enforcement programs at the time of our survey (Oct.-Nov. 2002).
          Through the survey or information provided by DOT, we determined that 40 of these
          jurisdictions were operating photo enforcement devices on federal-aid highways.
          Five jurisdictions had received federal funds totaling about $508,000 for photo
          enforcement over the last 6 years. These jurisdictions had collected a total of about
          $50.4 million in fines from these programs and paid about $46.2 million to private
          contractors to operate the programs. Two of these jurisdictions reported that the


                                                  GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
revenues from their photo enforcement programs were greater than the program costs,
while the other three reported revenues less than program costs. The share of program
revenues paid to contractors varied greatly among these five jurisdictions.

On December 6, 2002, we briefed your office on the preliminary results of our review.
The slides in enclosure I contain updated information that we collected to supplement
the briefing.

AGENCY COMMENTS

We provided DOT with a draft of this report for review and comment. DOT agreed with
the information in the draft and provided technical comments, which we incorporated as
appropriate.
                                          _____

We conducted our work from October through December 2002 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

We plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days after its date. At that time, we
will send copies of this report to interested congressional committees; the Secretary of
Transportation; the Administrator, Federal Highway Administration; and the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The report will also be
available on GAO’s home page at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-
2834 or guerrerop@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report were Sharon Dyer, Judy
Guilliams-Tapia, and Robert White.

Sincerely yours,




Peter F. Guerrero
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Enclosure I




    Traffic Enforcement: Funding of Automatic Red-Light and
    Speed Enforcement Technologies




3                          GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure I



                              Objectives

    We agreed to
    (1) identify local jurisdictions that are using photo enforcement devices—
        red-light cameras or photo radar (speed cameras)—on federal-aid
        highways;
    (2) identify local jurisdictions that have received federal funding for photo
        enforcement; and
    (3) determine, for those jurisdictions that have received federal funding,
        how much revenue their photo enforcement programs have
        generated and how much of that revenue was paid to private
        contractors.




                                                                                       2




4                               GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure I



                            Scope and Methodology

   • We agreed to review the 73 jurisdictions identified by the Insurance
     Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) as having red-light camera and/or
     photo radar programs.

   • We conducted a phone survey of these jurisdictions in order to
     accomplish our review objectives. In our phone survey, we asked
     whether the jurisdiction had an active red-light camera or photo radar
     program, whether it used these devices on federal-aid highways, and
     whether it had received any federal funds for the research and
     development or deployment of photo enforcement devices.




                                                                                       3




   5                            GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure I




        J u ris d ic tio n s id e n tifie d b y IIH S u s in g p h o to e n fo rc em e n t
        A rizo n a                             S a n F ra n cisco                     C h a rle s C o u n ty                                        O h io
        C h a n d le r                         S a n Jo se a                          C h e v erly                                                  D ay to n
                a
        M e sa                                 S a n Ju a n C a p istra n o           C o lle g e P a rk                                            T o le d o
                               a                            b
        P a ra d ise V a lle y                 V e n tu ra                            C o tta g e C ity
                    a
        P h oe n ix                            W e st H o llyw o o d                  F o re st H e igh ts                                          O re g o n
        S co ttsd a le a
                                                                                      G re e n be lt                                                B e a ve rto n a
        Tem pe                                 C o lo ra d o                          H o w a rd C o u n ty                                         M e d fo rd a
                                                            a
        C a lifo rn ia                         B o u ld e r                           H ya ttsville                                                 P o rtla n d a
        B e ve rly H ills                      D e n v er a
                                                                                      L au re l
        C u lve r C ity                        F o rt C ollin s a
                                                                                      L an d o ve r H ills                                          Tennessee
        C u p e rtin o                                                                M o n tg om e ry C o u n ty                                   G e rm a n to w n
        E l C a jo n                           D e la w a re                          M o rn ing sid e
        F re m o n t                           W ilm in g to n                        P rin ce G e o rg e ’s C o u n ty                             V irg in ia
        F re sn o                                                                     R ive rda le P a rk                                           A le xa n d ria
                                                                               a
        G a rd e n G ro ve                     D is tric t o f C o lu m b ia                                                                        A rlin g to n
        In d ian W e lls                                                              N e w Y o rk                                                  F a irfa x C ity
        Irvine                                 G e o rg ia                            N e w Y o rk C ity                                            F a irfa x C o un ty
        L o n g B e a ch                       D e ca tur                                                                                           F a lls C h u rch
        L o s A n g ele s C ity                                                       N o rth C a ro lin a                                          V ie n n a
        L o s A n g ele s C o u n ty           M a ry la n d                          C h a rlo tte
        O xn a rd                              A n n e A ru n d e l C o u n ty        F a ye tte ville                                              W a s h in g to n
        R e d w o o d C ity                    A n n a po lis                         G re e n sb o ro                                              L ak e w oo d a
        S a cra m en to C ity                  B a ltim ore C ity                     H ig h P o in t
        S a cra m en to C o u n ty             B a ltim ore C o u n ty                W ilm in g to n
        S a n D ie go                          B e l A ir
                                               B la d e n sb u rg

        S ource : Insura n ce In stitu te for H ig hw ay S a fety.
        a
            IIH S ide ntified the se 1 3 jurisdiction s a s ha ving ph o to radar prog ram s. A ll but 1 o f the se jurisdictions— S a n
            Jo se— w a s also on IIH S ’s list of jurisdictio n s w ith red light cam era p rog ram s.
        b
            T he IIH S w ebsite ide ntifie d b oth V entura a nd S a n B uen a V entura as ju risdictio ns w ith red-lig ht cam e ra p rog ram s.
            B o th of th e se n a m es a re use d b y th e sam e ju risdictio n.




                                                                                                                                                                           4




6                                                                           GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure I



                                                                     Scope and Methodology

  •        In addition, we obtained information from the Department of Transportation
           (DOT).
               •      If a jurisdiction did not know whether its photo enforcement devices were
                      located on federal-aid highways, we requested information on the locations
                      of these devices and asked the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to
                      make this determination.
               •      FHWA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), at
                      our request, also asked their field offices to identify uses of federal funds for
                      local photo enforcement programs. If we determined, either through our
                      phone survey or through DOT, that a jurisdiction had received federal
                      funding for photo enforcement, we sent a follow-up survey to the jurisdiction
                      requesting information on its program revenues. 1




   1   We requested information on program revenues only if the jurisdiction had received federal funds within the previous 6 years.


                                                                                                                                         5




   7                                                                              GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure I



                         Scope and M ethodology

    • W e contacted 73 jurisdictions and com pleted our phone
      survey for 72 of them.
    • W e did not independently verify the responses we received
      from local jurisdictions.
    • Our review did not include an exam ination of the safety
      benefits of local photo enforcem ent programs.




                                                                                  6




8                          GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure I



                              Results in Brief

  • Of the 72 jurisdictions that completed our phone survey, 65 said that they have
    active photo enforcement programs. Of these 65, we identified 40 that are
    operating photo enforcement devices on federal-aid highways.
  • Five of the jurisdictions have received federal funds for photo enforcement within
    the previous 6 years.
  • Two of these jurisdictions reported that the revenues from their photo
    enforcement programs were greater than the program costs, while three others
    reported revenues less than program costs.
  • The share of program revenues paid to contractors varied greatly among these
    jurisdictions.




                                                                                           7




   9                                GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure I


                          Photo Enforcement Programs
                          Operated by Local Jurisdictions

     • Of the 72 jurisdictions that we interviewed, 65 have active
       photo enforcement programs.
     • Of these 65 jurisdictions,
        • 52 reported operating red-light camera programs only,
        • 11 reported operating red-light camera and photo radar
           programs, and
        • 2 reported operating a photo radar program only.
     • See Enclosure II for further information.




                                                                                    8




10                           GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure I


                                                                  Jurisdictions Reporting Use of Photo
                                                                  Enforcement Devices on Federal-Aid Highways

   • In identifying local jurisdictions that report using photo enforcement devices (red-
     light cameras and/or photo radar) on federal-aid highways, we used the
     definition of federal-aid highway in 23 U.S.C. 101 as any roadway eligible to
     receive federal aid.1
   • Of the 63 jurisdictions with active red-light camera programs:
            • 8 told us that they are using cameras on federal-aid highways.
            • 21 told us that they are not.
            • 34 said that they do not know whether their cameras are on federal-aid
              highways. We obtained information on the locations of cameras for all of
              these jurisdictions, and FHWA determined that 32 of them operate cameras
              on federal-aid highways.2




     1FHWA       provides funds to states and other entities for roadway construction and improvement projects through various programs, such as the National Highway System program, and
         related accounts. Roadways that are eligible to receive such funds include interstates and freeways, among others.
     2   Red-light camera locations are intersections where cameras have been installed. The jurisdiction for which we did not obtain this information was New York City. The director of the
         city’s red-light camera program told us that the city does not distribute information on the locations of its cameras.


                                                                                                                                                                                            9




   11                                                                        GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure I


                                                                       Jurisdictions Reporting Use of Photo Enforcement
                                                                       Devices on Federal-Aid Highways

     • Of the 13 jurisdictions that told us they have active photo radar programs:
                 • 3 told us that they are using these devices on federal-aid highways.
                 • 7 told us that they are not.
         • 3 said that they do not know whether their devices are on federal-aid
            highways. We obtained information on the locations of photo radar devices
            for 2 of these jurisdictions and FHWA determined that both of them operate
            cameras on federal-aid highways.1
     • In total, we were able to identify 40 jurisdictions that operate photo enforcement
       devices on federal-aid highways. These jurisdictions operate 39 red-light camera
       programs and 5 photo radar programs.2




     1   Jurisdictions may equip vehicles with these devices and use them in various locations.
     2   Four of these jurisdictions operate both red-light camera and photo radar programs.


                                                                                                                                        10




12                                                                                    GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure I


                                                                    Jurisdictions That Received Federal
                                                                    Funding for Photo Enforcement

     •     On the basis of responses to our phone survey and information we obtained
           from DOT, we identified 5 jurisdictions that have received federal funding for the
           research and development or deployment of photo enforcement technologies
           within the previous 6 years:1
               •     Beaverton, Oregon
               •     Decatur, Georgia
               •     Howard County, Maryland
               •     Lakewood, Washington
               •     Washington, D.C.




     1 Two of these 5 jurisdictions, Howard County, MD and Washington, D.C., were identified as operating photo enforcement devices on federal-aid highways. In addition, officials of

     the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) informed us that FHWA has provided them with $1.83 million in Surface Transportation Program funds for a Caltrans-
     sponsored project to purchase and install red-light cameras and make improvements on a state route leading to the Golden Gate Bridge. Caltrans expects to start the project in the
     next few months. The city and county of San Francisco will operate the red-light cameras after they are installed. We did not ask San Francisco for program revenue information,
     because this project has not yet started.


                                                                                                                                                                                          11




13                                                                           GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure I




     Federal support of local photo enforcement programs since October 1996
                                            Name of
     Jurisdiction         Source of funds Recipient       Funding period                                            Amount         Purpose
     Beaverton, OR        NHTSA grant       City of       12/98-9/99                                               $106,410        Support public awareness
                          (Section 157)a    Beaverton                                                                              activities related to pilot red-
                                                                                                                                   light camera program
     Decatur, GA                   NHTSA grant                   City of           10/02                           $105,219        Reimburse the city for capital
                                   (Section 402)b                Decatur                                                           expenses associated with the
                                                                                                                                   installation of red-light
                                                                                                                                   cameras
     Howard County,                FHWA grant                    Howard            Fall 1996-98                      $80,000       Support public awareness
                                                 b
     MD                            (Section 402)                 County Police                                                     campaign and technology
                                                                 Dept.                                                             trials related to establishment
                                                                                                                                   of red-light camera program
     Howard County,                FHWA grant                    Howard            7/97-2/99                         $75,000       Evaluate digital red-light
     MD                            (Demonstration                County Dept.                                                      camera technologyc
                                   Projects                      of Public
                                   Program)                      Works
     Lakewood, WA                  Surface                       City of           1/01-12/02                        $72,000       Fund pilot red-light camera
                                   Transportation                Lakewood                                                          program
                                   Program
     Washington, D.C.              FHWA grant                    District of       9/94-11/01                        $70,000       Evaluate D.C.’s red-light
                                   (Research,                    Columbia                                                          camera program
                                   Development,                  Dept. of
                                   and Technology                Public Works
                                   Program)
     Source: DOT and local jurisdictions (data), GAO analysis.
     a
     Seat Belt Incentive Grant Program.
     b
     State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program.
     c
     According to the manager of this R&D project, digital red-light camera technology was tested at 4 sites--3 in Howard County and 1 in Montgomery County. Montgomery
     County’s participation in the project consisted of allowing access to the signal system at this one site; it did not receive any project funds.


                                                                                                                                                                          12




14                                                                 GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure I


                                                                 Program Revenues and Expenditures:
                                                                 Beaverton, Oregon


      Red-light camera program
                                                                                                       Amount collected         Amount paid to          Other
                                                      Number of            Amount billed                 from motorists                private       program
                                                                                                                                                              a
      Fiscal year                                 tickets issued            to motorists                        to date           contractors    expenditures
      2000-2001 (July 1, 2000-                              1,070              $137,388                       $135,558               $129,946        $289,659
      July 31, 2001)
      Program began January
      23, 2001
      2001-2002 (July 1, 2001-                                 2,858                354,260                           345,053          449,398          35,471
      June 30, 2002)
      2002-2003 (July 1 2002-                                  1,461                141,060                           122,039          161,224             184
      November 20, 2002)
      Total                                                   5, 389               $632,708                         $602,650          $740,568        $325,314
      Source: City of Beaverton, Oregon.

      Note: All data are as of November 20, 2002.




      a
          Program expenditures, such as local personnel and overhead costs, other than payments to private contractors.


                                                                                                                                                                  13




15                                                                                 GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure I


                                                    Program Revenues and Expenditures:
                                                    Decatur, Georgia


      Red-light camera program
                                                                              Amount collected                 Amount paid         Other
                                   Number of           Amount billed            from motorists                    to private    program
      Fiscal year              tickets issued           to motorists                   to date                  contractors expendituresb
      2003                                158                $9,480                       $870                    $100,000a      $6,919c
      Program
      began
      October 24,
      2002
      Source: City of Decatur, Georgia.

      Note: Data reflect the period October 24, 2002, the date the program began, through November 21, 2002.




      a
      Initial capital expenditures for equipment.
      b
      Program expenditures, such as local personnel and overhead costs, other than payments to private contractors.
      c
      Includes computer and high-resolution printer, supplies, and salary for part-time employee.


                                                                                                                                            14




16                                                              GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure I


                                                              Program Revenues and Expenditures:
                                                              Howard County, Maryland




         Red-light camera program
                                                                                              Amount collected                          Amount              Other
                                            Number of          Amount billed to                 from motorists                            paid to        program
         Fiscal year                    tickets issued              motorists                           to date              private contractors    expendituresb
         1998                                   12,729                      NA                              NA                                NA              NA
         1999                                   31,352                      NA                              NA                                NA              NA
         2000                                   30,828                      NA                              NA                                NA              NA
         2001                                   26,004                      NA                              NA                                NA              NA
         2002a                                  21,284                      NA                              NA                                NA              NA
         Total                                 122,197             $9,076,330                       $8,372, 269                       $3,079,478       $2,325,000
         Source: Howard County, Maryland Police Department.

         Note: NA : Annual data not available.




         a
             As of December 9, 2002.
         b
             Program expenditures, such as local personnel and overhead costs, other than payments to private contractors.



                                                                                                                                                                    15




17                                                                           GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure I


                                                                 Program Revenues and Expenditures:
                                                                 Lakewood, Washington




     Red-light camera and photo radar programs
                                                                                            Amount collected                         Amount            Other
                                           Number of            Amount billed to              from motorists                          paid to       program
     Fiscal year                       tickets issued                motorists                       to date              private contractors   expendituresc
     2001                                      13,520               $1,189,734                     $581,102                         $443,838        $330,000
              Red-light
               cameraa                            5,266                      403,084                            NA                   204,247              NA
                      b
          Photo radar                             8,254                      786,650                            NA                   239,591             NA
     2002                                        16,488                           NA                       642,340                   461,569         207,000
              Red-light
                camera                            4,185                             NA                               NA                   NA              NA
            Photo radar                          12,303                             NA                               NA                   NA              NA
                  Total
      Red-light camera                            9,451                             NA                         NA                         NA              NA
      Total photo radar                          20,557                             NA                         NA                         NA              NA
                  Total                          30,008                             NA                 $1,223,442                   $905,407        $537,000
     Source: City of Lakewood, Washington.




     Note: NA: Annual data not available.
     a
     Program began July 1, 2001.
     b
     Program began April 1, 2001.
     c
     Program expenditures, such as local personnel and overhead costs, other than payments to private contractors.



                                                                                                                                                                16




18                                                                              GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure I


                                                               Program Revenues and Expenditures:
                                                               Washington, D.C.




         Red-light camera program
                                                                                               Amount collected                      Amount             Other
                                           Number of             Amount billed to                from motorists                        paid to       program
                                                                                                                                                             b
         Fiscal year                   tickets issued                 motorists                          to date          private contractors    expenditures
         1999                                    6,082                 $456,150                         $91,759                       $38,400              NA
         2000                                 146,662                10,999,650                       7,204,673                     2,782,693              NA
         2001                                  99,387                 7,454,025                       6,410,271                     2,528,393              NA
         2002                                  82,631                 6,197,325                       5,505,299                     2,188,310              NA
         2003a                                   6,933                  519,975                         442,155                       190,000              NA
         Total                                341,695               $25,627,125                     $19,653,157                    $7,727,796              NA
         Source: Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C.

         Note: NA: Annual and summary data not available.




         a
          Through October 2002.
         b
          Program expenditures, such as local personnel and overhead costs, other than payments to private contractors.



                                                                                                                                                                 17




19                                                                              GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure I


                                                          Program Revenues and Expenditures:
                                                          Washington, D.C.



        Photo radar program
                                                                                    Amount collected
                                     Number of           Amount billed to             from motorists                 Amount paid to     Other program
        Fiscal year              tickets issued               motorists                       to date             private contractors    expendituresb
        2001                             31,220               $980, 375                     $420,584                         $997,774              NA
        2002                            351,909              21,896,145                   19,073,039                        7,653,867              NA
        2003a                              18, 191                1,648,150                    1,079,516                     576,186               NA
        Total                             383,129               $24,524,670                  $20,573,139                  $9,227,827               NA
        Source: Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C.


        Note: NA: Data not available.




        a
        Through October 2002.
        b
        Program expenditures, such as local personnel and overhead costs, other than payments to private contractors.


                                                                                                                                                         18




20                                                                       GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure II

Information Obtained on 73 Local Jurisdictions Identified by Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety As Using Photo Enforcement



                                                          Red-light                       Photo radar         Federal
                           Responded      Active red-   cameras used                     devices used     funds received
                          to telephone   light camera   on federal-aid    Active photo   on federal-aid      for photo
                                                                   a                                a                  b
        Jurisdiction         survey         program       highway        radar program     highway         enforcement
 Arizona
     Chandler                 a              a
     Mesa                     a              a                                a
     Paradise                 a              a               a                a               a
     Valley
     Phoenix                  a              a                                a
     Scottsdale               a              a               a                a               a
     Tempe
 California
     Beverly Hills            a              a
     Culver City              a              a
     Cupertino                a              a
     El Cajon                 a              a
     Fremont                  a              a
     Fresno                   a              a
     Garden Grove             a              a
     Indian Wells             a              a               a
     Irvine                   a
     Long Beach               a              a               a
     Los Angeles City         a              a
     Los Angeles County       a              a
     Oxnard                   a              a               a
     Redwood City             a
     Sacramento City          a              a               a
     Sacramento               a              a               a
     County
     San Diego                a              a               a
     San Francisco            a              a               a
     San Jose                 a                                               a               a
     San Juan                 a              a               a
     Capistrano
                              a              a
             c
     Ventura
     West Hollywood           a              a
 Colorado
     Boulder                  a              a               a                a
     Denver                   a                                               a
     Fort Collins             a              a               a                a               a
 Delaware
     Wilmington               a              a               a
 District of Columbia         a              a               a                a               a                 a
 Georgia
     Decatur                  a              a                                                                  a
 Maryland
     Anne Arundel             a              a               a
     County
     Annapolis                a
     Baltimore City           a              a               a
     Baltimore County         a              a               a
     Bel Air                  a              a
     Bladensburg              a
     Charles County           a              a               a
     Cheverly                 a              a               a
     College Park             a
     Cottage City             a              a               a
     Forest Heights           a
     Greenbelt                a              a               a
     Howard County            a              a               a                                                  a
     Hyattsville              a              a               a

21                                                  GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding
Enclosure II



                                                                    Red-light                            Photo radar            Federal
                                  Responded        Active red-    cameras used                          devices used        funds received
                                 to telephone     light camera    on federal-aid      Active photo      on federal-aid         for photo
                                                                             a                                     a                     b
            Jurisdiction            survey           program        highway          radar program        highway            enforcement
          Landover Hills               a                a               a
          Laurel                       a                a               a
          Montgomery County            a                a               a
          Morningside                  a                a               a
          Prince George’s              a                a               a
          County
          Riverdale Park               a               a                a
      New York
          New York City                a               a
      North
      Carolina
          Charlotte                    a               a                a
          Fayetteville                 a               a
          Greensboro                   a               a
          High Point                   a               a                a
          Wilmington                   a               a                a
      Ohio
          Dayton                       a
          Toledo                       a               a                a
      Oregon
          Beaverton                    a               a                                   a                                       a
          Medford                      a               a                                   a
          Portland                     a               a                                   a
      Tennessee
          Germantown                   a               a                a
      Virginia
          Alexandria                   a               a
          Arlington                    a               a                a
          Fairfax City                 a               a                a
          Fairfax County               a               a                a
          Falls Church                 a               a                a
          Vienna                       a               a                a
      Washington
          Lakewood                    a                a                                   a                                       a
      Total                           72               63               39                 13                  5                   5

Source: GAO’s analysis of data obtained from phone surveys and DOT.

Note: GAO analysis of data obtained from telephone survey and DOT.
a
 Check marks indicate either that the jurisdiction told us it is using photo enforcement devices on federal-aid highways or that FHWA
has determined, on the basis of information provided by the jurisdiction, that the jurisdiction is using such devices on federal-aid
highways. We did not independently verify the responses or information we received from local jurisdictions.
b
 Check marks indicate either that the jurisdiction told us it had received federal funds for photo enforcement research and
development or deployment or that FHWA and NHTSA provided us with information on federal funding received by the jurisdiction.
c
    The city of Ventura is also known as San Buena Ventura.




(545029)

22                                                            GAO-03-408R Traffic Enforcement Technologies Funding