What percentage of Ontario's traffic fine revenue comes from speed cameras?

1. No single provincial percentage in current reporting — only city/program totals

There is no source among the provided results that calculates “what percentage of Ontario’s traffic fine revenue comes from speed cameras” for the whole province; available stories give program-level dollar figures (Toronto’s ASE receipts, Waterloo Region projections, and smaller municipalities’ returns), not an Ontario-wide share or percentage of total traffic fine revenue ^{[1] [6] [7]}. If you need a province-level percentage, the necessary data — total traffic fine revenue for Ontario and total ASE revenues across all municipalities for the same period — is not presented in these items (not found in current reporting).

2. Toronto: a large, well-documented example, but not representative by itself

The Globe and Mail reports that Toronto issued 550,997 ASE tickets and collected $30,375,059.90 from its 150 automated speed cameras from Jan. 1 to Aug. 31, 2025; other local reports and officials say gross ASE fine revenue for Toronto in 2024 was around $37–40 million ^{[1] [3]}. Those figures show ASE can generate significant funds in big cities, but they cannot be extrapolated to an Ontario-wide percentage without province-scale revenue data ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Municipal variation: some programs are large, some revenue‑neutral

Reporting stresses wide variation: some municipalities saw “millions” from single cameras (one Toronto camera reportedly issued more than 65,000 tickets and took in nearly $7 million prior to 2025), while smaller programs recorded more modest returns (Sudbury ≈ $750,000 in 2024) or were considered revenue-neutral (Guelph) ^{[4] [7] [8]}. That spread means aggregate provincial shares depend heavily on which municipalities ran programs and for how long — data not compiled in these sources ^[7].

4. How municipalities used ASE revenue — claims and counterclaims

Multiple accounts note provincial guidelines or municipal claims that ASE revenues are earmarked for road safety, not general coffers: Ottawa and other cities say millions from ASE went to road-safety projects ^[9]. Toronto officials highlighted ASE funding for crossing guards ($31.2 million) and traffic-safety personnel ($3.9 million), arguing loss of that revenue threatens programs ^{[2] [5]}. The province framed cameras as a “cash grab” and cited concerns about revenue motives, prompting the ban ^{[10] [5]}.

5. Political and policy context behind the numbers

Premier Doug Ford publicly criticized ASE as revenue-driven and advanced legislation to ban municipal speed cameras; the government then announced a $210-million Road Safety Initiatives Fund to replace ASE-funded measures ^{[10] [4] [5]}. Municipal leaders and police associations pushed back, arguing cameras are evidence‑based safety tools and noting reinvestment guidelines for ASE revenue ^[7]. These competing viewpoints influence how the same dollar figures are interpreted — safety investment vs. “cash grab” narratives ^{[7] [10]}.

6. What would be needed to produce the percentage you asked for

To compute the percentage of Ontario’s traffic fine revenue coming from speed cameras you would need: (a) total ASE revenue across all Ontario municipalities for a defined period, and (b) total traffic fine revenue for Ontario (provincial and municipal totals or a clear definition of the denominator) for the same period. The sources provided give pieces (municipal ASE figures, provincial policy responses) but not the complete numerator+denominator dataset (not found in current reporting) ^{[1] [6] [7]}.

7. Practical next steps and caveats if you want a provincially comparable figure

Recommend obtaining: municipal financial statements or consolidated ASE revenue reports, Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General/transportation aggregate offence revenue data, and a clear definition of “traffic fine revenue” (municipal only vs. municipal+provincial). Keep in mind municipal program length and scope vary — a simple statewide percentage could mask that variation and the policy debate about reinvestment and safety outcomes ^{[7] [9]}.

Limitations: these conclusions rely only on the provided articles and statements; none of these items compute an Ontario-wide percentage or provide complete provincial revenue totals necessary for that calculation (not found in current reporting).