Here’s a good New Year’s resolution for motorists traveling through Hamilton, Middletown and New Miami: Slow down.

New Miami police have certified more than 9,700 violations since installing two mobile speed cameras in the village Oct. 1 and collected more than $210,000. That’s more than double the $101,300 generated by its police levy and 2012 general fund budget appropriation.

In Hamilton, $486,655 has been collected so far this year from citations issued to motorists caught by the city’s speed camera SUV. Meanwhile, Middletown’s 14 red-light cameras — located at eight “high accident” intersections in the city — generated $186,580 for the city’s general fund in 2012.

Speed cameras and red-light cameras have stirred controversy in several communities throughout the state, including New Miami, Hamilton and Middletown. Critics of the devices say speed cameras are just a money grab for the municipalities and villages that use them, while proponents contend their use improves safety on local roads.

“It’s been a very successful program and it’s slowed down people coming through town,” New Miami Police Chief Kenneth Cheek said of the speed cameras along U.S. 127. “The brake lights are evidence of that success.”

The systems are working, according to police. In Middletown, there was a drop in red light citations in 2011 with 4,620 citations from the 5,377 citations issued in 2010. However, that number has increased to 5,033 citations between Jan. 1 through Dec. 8.

In New Miami, Cheek said people are slowing down as the number of citations issued has decreased. Hamilton Police Chief Scott Scrimizzi said on Ohio 129 — where the speed SUV was primarily located near a school zone — drivers routinely slow down, because they know the speed camera truck may be operating there.

“We have people who like it, and we have some people that don’t,” Cheek said.

Scrimizzi said the speed cameras are a safety tool and a force multiplier for a department like his, where the ranks have shrunk to 103 officers.

“No one likes getting a citation, but I really believe this is a fair system,” Scrimizzi said. “It’s definitely working.”

During the first 10 days the cameras were in operation, New Miami recorded 1,000 speed violations. Cheek said most of the violations have been issued to out-of-town motorists. Village Fiscal Officer Belinda Ricketts said about 1,600 tickets have been dismissed by police and no citations have been appealed so far.

Cheek said the one-mile stretch of U.S. 127 that goes through the village has a 35 mph speed limit, but before the cameras went into operation, thousands of vehicles traveling along it daily average between 46 and 48 mph.

The cameras will photograph any vehicle traveling 11 mph over the speed limit, and violators will be fined $95 per offense, he said. Of that amount, the village receives 60 percent or $57 while the remaining 40 percent or $38 goes to Optotraffic LLC of Lanham, Md., who owns the cameras and administers the program.

The violation is a civil penalty and it is not reported to insurance companies or to the state and it does not assess points on a drivers license.

The revenues that the village receives goes into its General Fund.

One resident said at first he was against the speed cameras in the village, but said he’s since changed his mind after learning how the cameras were set.

“I don’t have a problem with it because they are set at 11 mph over the speed limit,” said Larry Marlow of New Miami. “If you’re going more than 11 mph over the speed limit, you deserve a ticket.”

Marlow, who is also a truck driver, said he believes the cameras are more than fair and knows some residents may disagree with him. He also said most of the cameras are issued to motorists from outside the village and the revenues help the village with various projects.

Initially, there were three cameras, two on U.S. 127 and the other was on Seven Mile Avenue. Cheek said speed camera ticket violations are down to about 50 a day and added that the village is only operating the two cameras on U.S. 127. He said he voided about 1,600 speed camera tickets from the third camera, which was removed in mid-October because neither he or his officers liked the location of that camera.

Cheek said some of the revenues that the village has received have been used to purchase and upgrade computers at the police station as well as installing computers in the village’s police cruisers. In addition, the revenue has also been used to pave the parking lots at the Village Hall and at the police and fire departments.

He said the cameras will be moved in the next few weeks to monitor some of the residential areas of the village.

Earlier this year, Scrimizzi requested permission from Hamilton City Council to move the speed camera truck to problem areas around the city instead of near school zones and parks. Some residents have also requested the speed camera truck on their streets to address a specific problem area. The locations of the speed camera truck are listed on the police website each week.

As a result of that change, the city has seen an increase in speed camera violations and revenue in 2012.

Hamilton police Sgt. Steve Henderson said from Jan. 1 through Nov. 30, the speed camera had been deployed for just under 2,252 hours and has assessed 704,485 vehicles. Of that amount, Henderson said 13,826 were at or greater than the enforcement speed and that 12,223 violations were sent to motorists.

As a result, the speed camera has generated $486,655 for the city between Jan. 1 and Nov. 30, according to the city’s finance department. That is up from the $264,593 that was generated in 2011 and the $89,592 for part of 2010 when the program was implemented, according to the finance department. All of the revenues are placed into Hamilton’s General Fund.

Hamilton’s speed camera program, which is operated by Redflex Traffic Systems in Arizona, has a three-tiered program. A violation is issued when a vehicle exceeds the speed limit by nine miles an hour in a school zone; 12 mph in a 25 or 35 mph zone; and 14 mph in a 40 mph zone.

“It’s clearly went up when we went from school zones and went to problem areas,” Scrimizzi said. “We also get a lot of requests to place the car in various neighborhoods.”

Middletown, who also contracts with Redflex, issued 5,033 red light camera citations between Jan. 1 through Dec. 8. This is up from the 4,620 red light camera citations issued in 2011. The red-light camera program started in 2005 and has been very controversial.

The city receives 55 percent of the $100 fine if there are fewer than 150 paid citations per intersection in a month. That is increased to 70 percent if the number of paid citations per intersection exceeds 150 a month.

However, the city has seen a jump in revenues generated in 2012 over 2011. From Jan. 1 through Nov. 30, 2012, the city has generated $186,580, which is already up from the $164,031 for all of 2011.

When the program began in 2005, the city generated $133,000 in revenues from the cameras. However, that decreased over the next two years. The city saw its fewest revenues in 2008 and 2009 when it changed camera vendors. In 2008, $55,800 was generated and in 2009, only $51,912 was generated for the city. However, in 2010 revenues nearly quadrupled as the cameras generated $201,636, but dropped again to 2011.

Over the eight years of Middletown’s program, the red light cameras have issued 32,214 citations that has generated more than $1.04 million for the city’s General Fund and over time, the number of citations have decreased as motorists learn to slow down at these intersections. Police have also moved cameras to other locations as crashes have decreased in previous intersections. In addition, police believe there has been a “ripple-effect” as officer-initiated citations have also seen a decrease from 2010 to 2011.

In the past two years, the number of citations issued at the eight monitored intersections has dropped by 750.

In 2010, the cameras recorded an average of 448 red-light violations a month at all intersections. The monthly average dropped to 385 in 2011.

Earlier this year, Middletown police Maj. Mark Hoffman said the program had been “effective.”

He also said police have also learned why some intersections have more crashes than others. Some of the contributing factors include older, smaller traffic signals, traffic signal poles not be as visible as others and trees blocking traffic signals. When those issues are addressed, police said, the number of crashes went down, allowing the city to remove the cameras from certain locations.

Hoffman said camera placements are evaluated by police every three to four years. Police officials can determine based on statistical data if cameras should remain, move to another location or just be removed.

Staff Writer Michael Pitman contributed to this report.