How Much Is Being Collected?
In many cities, school zone cameras generate significant sums in a short amount of time. For example, New York City collected an estimated $187 million in fines in 2020 alone. When the city expanded to 24/7 operation in 2022, the program issued $32.8 million in fines in just four weeks. Albany, NY brought in about $5.25 million in less than a year, retaining around 39% of that revenue for city use. In Savannah/Chatham County, GA, fines from these cameras reach into the millions annually, split between law enforcement, schools, and the private vendor that runs the system. Even smaller cities like Niceville, FL have seen six-figure revenues in just weeks of operation.
Typical Distribution of Fine Revenue
| Region | Total Revenue | Distribution Breakdown |
|---|---|---|
| New York City | $187M (2020); $32.8M in 4 weeks (2022) | Funds go into general municipal operations. |
| Albany, NY | $5.25M | ~39% (~$2M) to city. Remainder unspecified. |
| Savannah/Chatham, GA | Millions | 62.5% police, 5% schools, 32.5% vendor. |
| Niceville, FL | $95,500 | $60 city, $20 state, $12 school district, $5 crossing guard, $3 law-enforcement training. |
Other Notable Examples
Revenue-sharing agreements vary widely. In New Orleans, LA, a 60/40 split with the school board was approved, but bureaucratic delays kept millions in escrow. Previously, all funds went to the city’s general operating budget. Statewide in Georgia, from 2019 to mid-2024, school zone cameras generated over $112 million in fines. Cities and camera operators split these revenues, with vendors often taking about 25% per ticket issued. This has led to concerns about whether these programs are driven more by safety or profit.
Why the Distribution Matters
While proponents argue that cameras protect children and deter speeding, critics say the revenue structures create perverse incentives. When a police department, city, or private vendor stands to benefit directly from each ticket issued, the temptation to expand enforcement—and even lower ticketing thresholds—can grow. Transparency is key to maintaining public trust.
- Allocating funds to schools or safety programs can help justify the program to the public.
- When most funds go to law enforcement or private vendors, critics see it as “profit-based enforcement.”
- Disputes over revenue-sharing agreements, as seen in New Orleans, can delay the intended community benefits.
Impact on Communities
In some cities, school zone camera revenue has been used for infrastructure improvements, crossing guard salaries, and road safety campaigns. In others, it has simply padded the general fund with no visible safety improvements. The difference often comes down to how the revenue is allocated—and whether local governments commit to transparency about where every dollar goes.
The Safety vs. Revenue Debate
Supporters point to reduced speeding and safer school zones. Opponents argue that the focus on revenue undermines the safety mission. Some states have attempted to regulate how much vendors can take or mandate that a percentage of funds go directly to school safety measures. Without clear safeguards, there’s a risk the cameras will be seen primarily as a cash cow rather than a safety tool.
Final Thoughts
School zone speed cameras are here to stay in many U.S. cities. But for these programs to maintain legitimacy, officials must ensure revenue is distributed fairly and transparently, with clear investments back into the community and school safety. Whether the public views them as protection for children or just another municipal moneymaker will depend largely on how the funds are used.