This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-408R entitled 'Traffic Enforcement: Funding of Automatic Red-Light and Speed Enforcement Technologies' which was released on March 24, 2003. This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 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 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: Signed by Peter F. Guerrero [See PDF for image] [End of figure]