CHAPTER 9.  DISCUSSION

 

 

            The intent of the CVISN MDI evaluation effort was to furnish information to various stakeholders on the desirability of making investments in CVISN or related transportation programs.  This information came in two forms:  a comprehensive benefit/cost analysis, which considers the relationship between total costs and total benefits to society, and a detailed information on costs and benefits (especially in terms of increased highway safety) that are of interest to specific stakeholders.  Below we discuss some implications of our major findings and present a view CVISN’s future deployment plans.

 

 

9.1       Implications of Findings

 

            For stakeholders, such as Congress or U.S. DOT, who are concerned with the relative costs and benefits of investments in Intelligent Transportation Systems, the CVISN benefit/cost analysis (Chapter 8) presents a comprehensive economic comparison of costs (including start‑up and recurring costs) versus the value of the total benefits.  The analysis was performed by projecting the costs and benefits of deploying CVISN on a national scale based on measured costs and benefits obtained from the earliest deployments of CVISN.  Other stakeholders, such as states and motor carriers, are concerned with costs to their own organizations and the way in which CVISN impacts their operations.  To illustrate how the benefits and costs vary under different levels and types of deployment, our analysis was performed for two different scenarios involving electronic credentialing and three scenarios for roadside enforcement.

 

            While there may be some uncertainties related to certain start-up costs or the small numbers of states and motor carriers that were able to provide useful cost information, the analysis of credentialing operations demonstrates that electronic credentialing is a worthwhile investment.  Even at 50 percent deployment (i.e., 50 percent of credentialing transactions handled electronically), the benefits (i.e., cost savings) exceed the costs by factors of 6 to 20, depending on certain operating features.  Furthermore, the benefit/cost ratio is expected to be even larger once states deploy electronic credentialing for special permits.  Our analysis considered only the IRP and IFTA credentialing operations because cost information related to special permits, such as oversize/overweight and HAZMAT, were not available.  But most believe that costs to deploy the additional systems will be relatively small because the special permit systems are built as add-in modules based on the IRP infrastructure, while the benefits can be substantial—especially to the motor carrier who requires fast turnaround on such applications.

 

            Even though electronic credentialing has demonstrated the potential for significant cost savings, much needs to be done before these cost savings can be realized.  Although there is a strong commitment from states to deploy electronic credentialing, only three or four states have achieved any level of success.  This is because of the many technical challenges in integrating diverse computer systems.  Also, the solution in one state might not be applicable to another because the systems differ from state to state.  Nevertheless, some of the software systems developed for one state have found applications in other states.

 

            Another factor affecting the success of electronic credentialing is the recruitment of motor carriers.  The CVISN motor carrier survey (Chapter 7) suggests that most carriers are receptive to the idea of end-to-end electronic credentialing.  But questions remain about how the carriers will communicate with the states electronically.  One of the major architecture issues under consideration by the states, as well as FMCSA, is whether to use computer-to-computer interfaces between the state and motor carriers or a web-based person-to-computer interface.  FMCSA is in the process of developing recommendations concerning these issues.  However, it appears that both types of solutions may be needed to attract a sufficient number of carriers to make the investment economically feasible.

 

            The benefit-cost analysis of CVISN roadside enforcement technologies demonstrates the need to integrate safety information exchange and electronic screening technologies.  Three scenarios were presented and analyzed.  The first scenario, representing an actual deployment involving the use of Aspen and ISS in combination with manual prescreening of trucks, produced a benefit-cost ratio of 0.6.  Although this implies that the economic benefit of such a deployment does not justify the costs, it is important to understand that this scenario represents only a partial deployment of CVISN roadside enforcement technologies.

 

            From a development perspective, it makes sense to think of safety information exchange (i.e., laptop computers, Aspen, ISS, SAFER Data Mailbox, CVIEW) and electronic screening (i.e., DSRC, transponders, AVI) as separate systems.  However, these systems are designed for integrated application.  In particular, it is not practical to use ISS to select vehicles for inspection without some automated means of identifying vehicles and making decisions.  Our analysis of Connecticut’s experience using ISS with manual pre-screening (the motivation for Scenario RE‑1) demonstrated that inspection selection efficiency (number of out‑of‑service orders per 100 vehicles inspected) increased by 2 percent over pre‑CVISN methods.  It was estimated that deploying this type of system nationwide would reduce the number of truck‑related crashes by only 84 crashes per year.

 

            On the other hand, our simulation of using ISS in combination of with electronic screening (Scenario RE‑2), which assumes that all low-risk carriers (determined by FMCSA’s SafeStat rating system) enroll in the electronic screening system and will be permitted to bypass inspection sites, demonstrates that the inspection selection efficiency could be increased by greater than 11 percent.  It was estimated that this type of deployment would eliminate 589 crashes per year.

 

            The benefits of CVISN roadside enforcement technologies could be greatly enhanced in two ways.  The first method was illustrated in Scenario RE‑3.  If motor carriers and drivers became aware that the states have significantly increased their ability to target inspections on high-risk carriers and drivers, the carriers might invest more in vehicle maintenance and the drivers might improve their compliance with safety regulations in order to avoid inspections and (more importantly) out-of-service orders.  Although to date there is no evidence that this deterrence effect will occur, our analysis demonstrates that a hypothetical 25 percent reduction in violation rates, along with the use of ISS and electronic screening, will help avoid nearly 10,000 crashes.

            The second way in which CVISN benefits could be enhanced is by improving the quality of data and analysis algorithms upon which inspection selection decisions are based.  In initiating the Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS), FMCSA recognizes that new information is needed to understand the mechanisms that cause truck crashes.  It is anticipated that data from the LTCCS can be used to identify the types of vehicle defects and driver violations that are responsible for large numbers of crashes.  This will make it possible to develop more advanced inspection selection algorithms that can target carriers based on their compliance with these more relevant risk factors.

 

 

9.2       A View of the Future

 

            As noted in a recent U.S. DOT report (What Have We Learned 2000), rapid changes in technology, especially in the areas of computer electronics and communication, make it difficult to predict where CVISN technology will be in 5 to 10 years.  Some technologies used in roadside operations, such as weigh-in-motion (WIM) equipment, and software systems, such as Aspen (including ISS), are already widely deployed.  FMCSA is planning to examine new technologies capable of identifying commercial vehicles not equipped with transponders.  Automated inspection technologies, such as those used to detect defective brakes, are still being developed and tested.

 

            Growth in electronic screening is expected to continue, both in terms of the number of states participating and number of screening sites.  Carrier enrollment, a key to success, is heavily dependent on solving interoperability issues.  Furthermore, as states decide the type of bypass criteria to use, they must communicate these criteria to the carriers and, to the degree possible, establish some level of uniformity within key corridors.

 

            The types and amounts of safety information that will be used to support roadside inspections or to select vehicles for inspection are likely to change dramatically as faster and less costly wireless communication technologies become available.  Systems like the SAFER Data Mailbox will permit greater use of vehicle-specific safety data (e.g., prior inspection results) during vehicle inspections.  Collection and dissemination of other types of data, such as driver information and crash and citation data, will be integrated into roadside systems like Aspen and CVIEW—necessitating continued development and refinement of these systems.

 

            Although electronic credentialing got off to a slow start, recent successes and the desire to reduce costs will help promote further deployment.  It now appears that multiple solutions, including PC- and Web-based systems as well as current “paper” systems, will be needed to satisfy the various needs of a diverse industry.  The International Registration Plan (IRP) and International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) clearinghouses, which are being developed to facilitate distribution of funds among states, are still in the early stages of deployment.

 

            One of the key lessons learned over the past few years is that collaboration among states and industry, in cooperation with the Federal Government, is key to success.  Through the mainstreaming program and corridor coalitions, states have been working together to identify and solve technology problems.  Many of the issues presented in this report were identified and discussed extensively in such forums.  As key stakeholders in the future deployment of CVISN, their views on what works and does not work must be considered in charting the future direction of this technology deployment.

 

            Under the CVISN model deployment initiative, federal and state government agencies worked together with the motor carrier industry to develop and deploy cost-effective information systems and communication networks that support motor carrier safety.  Working together, government, the motor carrier industry, and private sector stakeholders developed and are deploying a specific set of capabilities in the areas of safety information exchange, interstate (IRP/IFTA) credentials administration, and roadside electronic screening.

 

            Building on this foundation, the federal government will continue to support state efforts to develop and implement CVISN Level 1 capabilities and explore additional capabilities beyond those identified for Level 1 deployment.  Collecting additional safety and other ITS/CVO-related data electronically and sharing that information among the states and federal government will enhance roadside inspection and enforcement activities and will equip state and federal enforcement personnel with information to better identify unsafe and potentially suspect motor carriers, their drivers, and vehicles.

 

            Finally, as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, our nation and, in particular, the U.S. Department of Transportation have focused attention on the need to ensure the security of our transportation system.  Over the next decade, an environment in which timely and accurate motor carrier, commercial vehicle, and driver data are shared electronically among authorized stakeholders will be required.  The CVISN information and communication systems were originally designed to improve transportation safety and the efficiency of commercial vehicle operations.  However, the deployment of these systems presents opportunities to significantly improve transportation security at the same time.  Information sharing is a critical enabler for helping to ensure transportation security while maintaining the efficiency of freight operations.  For example, legitimate transporters of hazardous materials will be able to apply for and receive appropriate credentials in a timely manner and operate with minimal delays for roadside screenings and inspections.  Also, the sharing of information among states and the federal government will enhance inspection and enforcement activities and allow enforcement personnel to better focus their efforts on the high-risk motor carriers, drivers, and vehicles as well as potential security threats that involve transportation of hazardous materials.

 

 

9.3       Future Data Requirements

 

            Although the CVISN benefit/cost analysis demonstrated that CVISN is a good investment for the country, additional benefit and cost data are needed to promote and expand the deployment of CVISN.  This information is needed by Congress and U.S. DOT to evaluate further investments at a national level.  The information is also needed by participating states, especially those in the early stages of deployment, to assess expenditures and establish priorities at the state level.  Also, because the magnitude of the benefits of CVISN depend on the level of deployment, it is important to monitor the progress of deployment closely across the country.

 

            The CVISN cost analysis (Chapter 6) was based on actual cost data obtained from a few states that were among the first to deploy CVISN technologies and services successfully.  The major cost elements included one-time start-up costs as well as annual recurring costs to operate CVO administrative and roadside services both before and after deploying CVISN.  As CVISN technologies mature and expand and more efficient solutions are developed, this cost information will need to be updated and new analyses performed to help participating states forecast their costs and cost savings.  Also, it is important to obtain cost data from many different states in order to provide more accurate cost information to states with different infrastructure and organizational structures.  The initial cost analysis presented in this report provided a template for specifying the data elements to be collected from participating states; however, more detailed guidelines are needed to ensure consistent and accurate reporting of deployment and operational costs.

 

            The primary benefits of CVISN roadside technologies include reductions in CMV‑related crashes, which result from (1) improved efficiency of the vehicle selection process during roadside inspections (more OOS orders per vehicle inspected) and (2) improved compliance with driver and vehicle safety regulations.  While it is important to continue collecting data on the frequency and causes of CMV-related crashes, additional kinds of data are needed to demonstrate that CVISN technologies are having the desired impacts.  Examples of roadside enforcement data that are needed to document CVISN benefits include vehicle and driver OOS rates for motor carriers in different safety risk categories, electronic screening bypass rates, and trends in safety compliance rates as CVISN becomes more widely deployed.  The latter requires specially designed studies to ensure that estimates are not biased by vehicle selection criteria.

 

            Tracking the deployment of CVISN technologies and services is important for several reasons:  (1) it measures one aspect of a successful program – user acceptance, (2) the deployment status in individual states is needed to help Congress and U.S. DOT in making future funding decisions, (3) the data can be used to identify additional sources of data for monitoring benefits and costs, and (4) the level of deployment is a key variable in estimating benefits and costs on a national scale.  Examples of deployment tracking data that are useful for these purposes include numbers of

 

·        Carriers participating in electronic credentialing

 

·        Different types of credentials that can be processed electronically

 

·        Credentials (by type) processed electronically

 

·        States participating in IRP and IFTA clearinghouses

 

·        Carriers/trucks enrolled in electronic screening programs

 

·        Active electronic screening sites

 

·        Inspectors using Aspen or equivalent to conduct inspections

 

·        Vehicles screened using the Inspection Selection System

 

·        Past inspection queries performed on trucks during inspections.

 

Previous studies (Radin 2000, PTI 2000) obtained deployment-tracking data during the early phases of CVISN.  This information should be updated; however, it may be more efficient to request all three types of data (costs, benefits, and deployment status) at the same time, with appropriate guidelines and instructions.

 

 

9.4       Reference

 

Pennsylvania Transportation Institute (PTI), Survey of Motor Carrier Safety Activities – Interim Technical Memorandum 2 (Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania), January 2000.

 

Radin, S., “Tracking State Deployments of Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks:  1998 National Report,” EDL No. 13082 (U.S. DOT, Washington, D.C.), May 30, 2000.

 

What Have We Learned About Intelligent Transportation Systems?  Chapter 6, “What Have We Learned About ITS for Commercial Vehicle Operations?  Status, Challenges, and Benefits of CVISN Level 1 Deployment,” (Washington, D.C.:  U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, December 2000), www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov, EDL No. 11316, pp 107–126.