EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks Model Deployment Initiative (CVISN MDI) is funded by the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) and managed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). The purpose of the CVISN MDI is to demonstrate the technical and institutional feasibility, costs, and benefits of the primary ITS user services for commercial vehicle operations (CVO). As part of its mission to provide strategic leadership for ITS research and deployment, U.S. DOT’s ITS Joint Program Office, in cooperation with the FMCSA, commissioned an independent evaluation of CVISN benefits and costs. This report presents the goals, methods, and findings of that evaluation.

CVISN is a collection of information systems and communications networks that support CVO. These include information systems owned and operated by governments, motor carriers, and other stakeholders. The CVISN program provides a framework or “architecture” that enables government agencies, the motor carrier industry, and other parties engaged in CVO administrative, safety assurance, and regulatory activities to exchange information and conduct business transactions electronically. The goal of the CVISN program is to improve the safety and efficiency of CVO.

Current CVISN services and technologies consist of three functions or application areas:

· Safety Information Exchange technologies to facilitate the collection, distribution, and retrieval of motor carrier safety information at the roadside. These data help in‑transit FMCSR compliance enforcement staff focus scarce resources on high-risk carriers and drivers, in turn helping to reduce the number of crashes involving commercial vehicles.

· Electronic Screening systems, which allow commercial vehicles that maintain good safety and legal status to bypass roadside inspection and weigh stations. This saves time and money for participating carriers and allows states to devote more resources toward removing unsafe and noncompliant carriers.

· Electronic Credentialing systems for electronic submission, processing, approval, invoicing, payment, and issuance of credentials; electronic tax filing and auditing; and participation in clearinghouses for electronic accounting and distribution of registration fee payments among states.

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.

Figure ES-1 depicts the three major CVISN areas and their relationships, as the systems are intended to operate, spanning both the credentials administration and the roadside safety/enforcement areas. The CVISN credentialing technologies include information systems and networks that provide electronic links between motor carriers and state agencies and between the state agencies and various national clearinghouses and databases. At the roadside, CVISN information and communication technologies permit roadside enforcement staff to direct drivers on the highway to either bypass or enter weight and inspection stations. They also provide enforcement staff with up-to-date safety and credentialing information from state or national motor carrier databases.

Overview of Key Findings

Although certain aspects of this evaluation are based on limited data from early deployments, it is clear that CVISN is a good investment for the United States. CVISN can produce substantial cost savings for states and motor carriers, improve the efficiency and fairness of commercial vehicle operations, and most importantly, save lives. However, to achieve these benefits, CVISN must be deployed nationwide according to consistent standards, and its major systems (electronic credentialing, electronic screening, and safety information exchange) must be fully integrated. Some of the major findings from this evaluation and the implications for future deployment are highlighted below.

Safety

Deployment of CVISN safety information exchange and electronic screening technologies has the potential to produce important safety benefits. The CVISN Inspection Selection System (ISS), used in combination with manual prescreening to select commercial vehicles for inspection, was demonstrated in limited field tests to increase the number of out-of-service (OOS) orders issued by 2 percent compared to traditional (without ISS) screening methods. A crash avoidance model estimated that under this type of limited deployment (without electronic screening), the use of ISS would result in 84 fewer commercial vehicle crashes per year nationwide by removing unsafe vehicles and drivers from the roadway. Further analysis demonstrated that if ISS were combined with electronic screening (allowing low‑risk carriers to bypass inspections), approximately 600 commercial vehicle-related crashes could be avoided per year, compared with the baseline scenario. Although limited deployment made it impossible to demonstrate that improved enforcement strategies will deter motor carriers and

Figure ES-1. Overview of CVISN Functions

drivers from violating safety regulations, the analysis demonstrates that a modest 10 to 25 percent reduction in safety violations could help to avoid between 4,000 and 10,000 commercial vehicle crashes each year. These findings suggest that CVISN safety information exchange and electronic screening technologies can result in significant safety benefits, but only if these technologies are widely deployed, fully integrated, and combined with innovative enforcement and outreach strategies.

Cost

Electronic credentialing could offer substantial cost savings to states and motor carriers, depending on the level of motor carrier participation. Annual operating costs to the states for credentialing can be reduced by almost 35 percent, offsetting the start-up costs to deploy CVISN. The savings, mostly attributable to lower labor costs, is expected to result in some state staff persons becoming available to work on other priority assignments. The analysis in this report focused on International Registration Plan (IRP) and International Fuel Task Agreement (IFTA) credentialing. For electronic screening and safety information exchange at the roadside, CVISN deployment costs were found to be reasonable when viewed in the context of a state’s existing roadside enforcement operations. Electronic screening and safety information exchange do not offer states the direct economic savings and payback that electronic credentialing does, except through improvements in transportation safety.

Customer Satisfaction

The general awareness throughout the national trucking industry of CVISN‑type initiatives is very low — especially among smaller trucking companies. Among the motor carriers and drivers who are aware of these technologies, the major concern is the standardization of rules and procedures across states, and improved differentiation as to which vehicles or firms most merit inspection. State CVO administrators are generally enthusiastic about deploying CVISN, and using safety information exchange technology has become integral to the jobs of most CVO roadside inspectors.

Benefit/Cost Analysis

Benefit/cost ratios, considering start-up costs, operating costs, and crash avoidance over the expected life of CVISN systems, ranged from 0.6:1 (not economically justified) for a minimal deployment of roadside enforcement technologies to 40:1 (highly beneficial) for full deployment of electronic credentialing. However, the benefit/cost ratios for both types of systems are highly dependent on the level of deployment and the degree to which these systems are integrated within a state and deployed and operated consistently between states.

The remainder of this executive summary describes the status of CVISN deployment across the nation, summarizes the evaluation goals and methods, presents additional findings, and discusses implications of these findings for future CVISN deployment.

CVISN Deployment Status

The CVISN MDI began in 1996 with two “prototype” states—Maryland and Virginia—and eight “pilot” states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) developed a three-step strategy for states embarking on CVISN deployment: planning, design, and deployment. In the planning step, a state attends two ITS/CVO training courses and develops an ITS/CVO business plan. For design, a state attends a third training course and participates in a series of three CVISN deployment workshops to complete a CVISN Program Plan and Top-Level System Design. Once the plan is accepted by FMCSA, a state can proceed with deployment, based upon the availability of federal and state resources. An initial goal of the CVISN Program is to have every state reach an “ambitious but achievable” level of deployment, called Level 1. To accomplish Level 1 deployment, states must

· Establish an organizational framework among state agencies and motor carriers for cooperative system development.

· Create a State CVISN System Design that conforms to the CVISN Architecture and can evolve to include new technology and capabilities.

· Implement all the elements of three capability areas, as described in Table ES‑1. These systems must be implemented using applicable architectural guidelines, operational concepts, and standards.

Table ES-1. CVISN Level 1 Deployment

Safety Information Exchange

- Use of Aspen (or equivalent software for access to centralized safety data) at all major inspection sites

- Connection to the Safety and Fitness Electronic Record (SAFER) system so that states can exchange “snapshots” of information on interstate carriers and individual vehicles

- Implementation of the Commercial Vehicle Information Exchange Window (CVIEW), or equivalent, system for exchange of intrastate snapshots and for integration of SAFER and other national/interstate data.

Electronic Screening

- Electronic screening at one or more fixed or mobile inspection sites

- Readiness to replicate electronic screening capability at other sites

Electronic Credentialing

- Automated processing (application, state processing, issuance, tax filing) of at least International Registration Plan (IRP) and International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) credentials; readiness to extend to other credentials [intrastate, titling, oversize/overweight (OS/OW), carrier registration, and hazardous material (HAZMAT)]. Does not necessarily include electronic payment of fees or taxes.

- Connection to IRP and IFTA Clearinghouses

- At least 10 percent of transaction volume handled electronically; readiness to sign up more carriers; readiness to extend to branch office where applicable.

Source: Richeson (2000)

To date, at least four states (Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Washington) have demonstrated Level 1 capabilities in all three areas, and many other states have made significant progress in one or two areas. The CVISN initiative is now being expanded to other states. According to the FMCSA, eight of the 48 contiguous states have been fully funded to achieve Level 1 deployment by September 30, 2003. An additional 30 states have indicated that they expect to complete Level 1 deployment by September 30, 2003, dependent upon receiving FY 2001 federal ITS deployment or state resources to support CVISN deployment. CVISN deployment Level 2 is currently being defined. The following summarizes the deployment status of CVISN from a national perspective:

Safety Information Exchange Deployment

The use of motor carrier and vehicle-specific safety performance data by state agencies conducting roadside inspections has grown significantly in recent years. As of December 1999, 42 states (84 percent) were using Aspen and more than half were connected to the Safety and Fitness Electronic Record (SAFER) system (PTI 2000, Radin 2000). By January 2002, all fifty states and the District of Columbia had access to SAFER and more than half of the states were using SAFER on a regular basis. Also, sixteen states have at least partially implemented CVIEW capabilities for managing information on intrastate carriers. The use of SAFER Data Mailbox to upload inspection reports from the laptop computers to SAFER and download past inspection reports on individual vehicles is also growing.

Electronic Screening Deployment

Starting in the early 1990s, field operational tests (FOTs) such as Advantage I-75 (Interstate 75 corridor), HELP/Crescent (I‑5 corridor), and Oregon Green Light demonstrated the technical feasibility and time-saving benefits of using electronic screening systems for commercial vehicle operations. In particular, these tests proved that dedicated short‑range communication (DSRC) technologies can provide reliable communication between moving vehicles and roadside enforcement operations. However, most of the growth in electronic screening has occurred since the emergence of three programs: HELP (Heavy Vehicle Electronic License Plate) PrePass, NORPASS (North American Preclearance and Safety System), and Oregon’s Green Light. Table ES‑2 shows how enrollment is distributed among the three programs.

Table ES-2. State and Motor Carrier Participation in Electronic Screening Programs

Numbers of:	Pre-Pass	NORPASS	Green Light
States	21	6	1
Trucks	186,796	15,000	15,000
Companies	7,989	800	1,100

Electronic Credentialing Deployment

Although most states are committed to deploying electronic credentialing, these systems have not yet achieved the same level of widespread deployment as have roadside systems. This result primarily stems from the many technical challenges involved in establishing interfaces between new and legacy, or archival, databases and software systems.

To date, four states (Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Washington) have successfully demonstrated Level 1 capabilities for electronic credentialing. These states are now working with a limited number of carriers to test and refine the systems that were developed. Some additional development is continuing as issues are identified. The experiences of these states, as well as those of the other seven CVISN Pilot states, are being shared with others through mainstreaming efforts and training workshops sponsored by FMCSA.

Evaluation Goals and Methods

The CVISN evaluation strategy was developed in cooperation with state and federal government agencies and industry partners. During the planning stages of the CVISN MDI, over 100 individuals representing various government and industry organizations participated in an evaluation workshop in which potential benefits and costs were identified and initial evaluation priorities were established. In subsequent meetings with the partners, evaluation priorities were refined and evaluation methods were established. The primary goals of the evaluation project were to document the benefits of CVISN when fully implemented and to conduct a comprehensive benefit/cost analysis to determine if the investments in CVISN are justified.

Because of limited resources and the expectations that most CVISN states would not achieve Level 1 deployment within the timeframe of the evaluation project, it was necessary to focus the evaluation effort on a few states that were expected to make progress at deploying specific CVISN services and technologies. Five states (Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, Oregon, and Virginia) were chosen to support the data collection effort. The data obtained from those states were used to extrapolate or extend the results to a national level. It is recognized that since the evaluation effort began, many other states have achieved significant progress at deploying CVISN services and technologies. Their successes are briefly discussed in Chapter 3. However, in keeping with the primary goals of the evaluation, this report focuses on projecting the benefits of CVISN in the areas of safety, cost savings, and customer satisfaction and conducting a comprehensive benefit/cost analysis of CVISN at full deployment. The goals and methods established for each study area were presented in an evaluation plan (Battelle 1998) and are summarized below.

Safety Benefits Methods

The safety benefits analysis addressed four research questions:

· What is the impact of CVISN on the numbers of crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large CMVs?

· What is the impact of CVISN on rates of driver and carrier compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR)?

· To what extent does CVISN help roadside safety enforcement officials identify high‑risk commercial vehicles and motor carriers?

· To what extent does CVISN help roadside safety enforcement officials identify OOS violators?

Because safety benefits could not be measured directly (e.g., by comparing the number of truck‑related crashes before and after deployment), a crash avoidance probability model was developed. Direct measurement was impractical given the scope of this study, the limited, evolutionary deployment of CVISN, and the relative rarity of truck crashes in a fixed time period. The model predicts the number of crashes avoided under various scenarios, each defined by specific assumptions concerning the future deployment of CVISN. The analysis relied on several inputs including historical rates at which out-of-service (OOS) orders were issued, national crash/injury/fatality rates involving large trucks, and probabilities that certain OOS conditions will contribute to a crash. Estimates of these inputs were obtained from the literature or from data collected in several special studies conducted in states that previously deployed, or were in the process of deploying, CVISN safety information exchange and electronic screening technologies. Connecticut, Kentucky, and Oregon participated in the safety benefits analysis.

Cost Analysis Methods

The cost analysis (a precursor to the more formal benefit/cost analysis also performed in the CVISN MDI evaluation, and discussed below) considered three major cost-related questions:

· What are/were the baseline costs associated with CVO processes prior to CVISN technology deployment?

· What are the one-time start-up costs to the states to deploy CVISN systems, and what are the key drivers or major elements contributing to those costs?

· What recurring (annual) capital and labor, operating, and maintenance costs do states incur as they use CVISN technologies, and what are the key drivers or major elements contributing to those costs?

Cost data were obtained in a series of on-site, in-person interviews with state agencies and with motor carriers participating in electronic credentialing programs. The main emphasis in the cost study was state government (i.e., transportation and public safety/enforcement agency) operations, costs, and potential savings.

Actual dollar values for start-up (non-recurring) and annual (recurring) costs to the states were reported, and compiled to determine realistic unit costs for various elements required in baseline (pre-CVISN) and post-CVISN commercial vehicle operations. This approach made it possible to determine CVISN deployment costs and the costs to perform commercial vehicle operations at various levels of deployment.

Although cost data were obtained for most of the major components of CVISN used in credentialing and roadside operations, the data collection effort was limited to the few states that had sufficient experience with the deployment and operation of these systems. Most of the credentialing cost data came from two states, Kentucky and Maryland, and the majority of the cost information for CVISN electronic screening and safety information exchange services came from Connecticut, Kentucky, and Virginia. The primary sources of information on motor carrier credentialing costs were the few carriers that were among the first to participate in electronic credentialing in Kentucky.

In addition to the unit cost breakdowns by discrete cost elements, statewide deployment scenarios were projected, based on extending the known unit costs to a typical state’s scale of operation.

Customer Satisfaction Measurement Methods

To measure customer satisfaction with CVISN, several surveys and other measures were planned and carried out. These included

· A national motor carrier survey

· A driver survey

· Interviews with state CVO administrators

· Surveys and focus groups with state CVO inspectors.

A mail survey of motor carriers was designed to be representative of the trucking industry throughout the contiguous 48 states. A stratified random sample of motor carrier firms was selected from the mid-1999 records of firms in the federal government’s MCMIS Census database. By design, the stratified sample contained much higher proportions of larger firms and ones with registered home addresses in five “CVISN focus” states: Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, Oregon, and Virginia. Several rounds of surveys resulted in a final total of 158 completed responses for quantitative and qualitative analysis.

A qualitative survey was conducted with 61 truck drivers intercepted at large rest/refueling stops located adjacent to major truck routes in Connecticut and Kentucky. These two states have implemented significant electronic credentialing initiatives, and have been the focus of other, complementary evaluation activities. Sample quotas were set to ensure the representation of owner-operators and of drivers employed by firms of varying sizes. Using in‑depth, semi-structured personal interviews, all of the respondents were asked about roadside safety and weight inspections. The owner‑operators were also asked about electronic credentialing methods.

Less formal methods were used for evaluating the satisfaction of state CVO administrators with CVISN technologies. Evaluation contractor staff participated in many meetings, conferences, and other forums, where the attitudes of state administrators and other CVISN stakeholders were directly solicited and discussed in detail.

Attitudes and opinions of state motor carrier inspectors regarding the use of CVISN roadside enforcement technologies were addressed through focus groups and a formal survey conducted as part of a separate DOT-sponsored evaluation of the I-95 Corridor Coalition and SAFER Data Mailbox FOTs (Battelle 2000). Over 50 inspectors from six eastern states (Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island) participated in the focus groups, and approximately 370 inspectors from these states completed formal questionnaires. Topics included background information, system usage, satisfaction, and perceived benefits.

Benefit/Cost Analysis Methods

The formal benefit/cost analysis (BCA) performed in the CVISN MDI examined the ratio of benefits to costs. The primary benefits of CVISN included

· Roadside Enforcement Benefits

- Crashes avoided

- Transit-time savings [including operating and maintenance (O & M) and air and noise pollution]

· Electronic Credentialing Benefits

- Operating cost savings to states

- Operating cost savings to carriers

- Inventory cost savings to carriers.

The costs included

· Roadside Enforcement Costs

- One-time start-up costs to states

- Replacement capital costs to states in future years

- Increased operating costs to states

- Increased operating costs to carriers

- Increased out-of-service (OOS) costs to carriers

· Electronic Credentialing Costs

- One-time start-up costs to states

- Replacement capital costs to states in future years.

Three scenarios for roadside enforcement and two scenarios for electronic credentialing were developed to provide a context in which to understand the balance of costs and benefits across a system’s life cycle. 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.

Benefits were analyzed in the areas of safety, efficiency, productivity, mobility, and energy/environment. The cost of CVISN for the purpose of this BCA consists of the one‑time start‑up costs and the on‑going costs of CVISN programs, including equipment replacement at appropriate intervals. More specifically, these CVISN costs include the incremental capital and operating costs of the hardware and software, including computers and electronic data communications, and labor and administrative overhead costs for performing the functions associated with CVISN.

Findings

Safety Benefits Results

Various CVISN technology deployment scenarios were derived from the hypotheses that CVISN roadside enforcement technologies are expected to have two types of impacts related to roadside safety:

A. The “direct” benefit of improved targeting of enforcement activities on high-risk carriers resulting in more OOS orders for the same number of inspections performed

B. The “indirect” benefit of increased compliance with motor carrier safety regulations resulting from stricter enforcement.

The impacts of CVISN technologies on roadside enforcement operations were evaluated through special studies conducted in participating states. The following results, obtained from CVISN pilot states, provide useful insight into these effects; however, the degree to which these results are statistically representative of future deployments could not be determined:

1. A study of roadside inspection selection strategies at four Connecticut inspection sites [two using the CVISN Inspection Selection System (ISS) and two without ISS] demonstrated that using ISS, in combination with manual prescreening, to select commercial vehicles for inspection increases OOS orders by approximately 2 percent for the same number of inspections, i.e., a 2 percent increase in inspection efficiency.

2. Analysis of this same inspection selection strategy under the added assumption that “low‑risk” carriers would be permitted to bypass the inspection sites, demonstrates that electronic screening, with full participation by all low‑risk carriers, could increase inspection selection efficiency by more than 11 percent. That is, they will issue 11 percent more OOS orders for the same number of inspections performed.

3. A two-year study was conducted in Oregon to determine if the deployment of roadside screening and safety information exchange technologies would affect safety compliance rates in the state. The study was unable to demonstrate that CVISN roadside deployment will increase compliance with safety regulations. However, this may be due to the limited scope of the study or delays in the deployment of the safety information exchange technologies (Aspen and SAFER) in Oregon.

These estimated and assumed effects of CVISN deployment, along with results from the literature, were applied to a crash avoidance model to predict the numbers of truck‑related crashes and associated injuries and fatalities that would be avoided under each of the above roadside enforcement scenarios. Results of this analysis are illustrated in Figure ES‑2.

Figure ES-2. Estimated Number of Truck-Related Crashes Avoided Under Various CVISN Deployment Scenarios and Assumptions

We began by estimating the benefits of roadside enforcement operations without CVISN. According to the analysis, 4,423 truck‑related crashes are avoided each year because states conduct more than 2 million roadside inspections and remove unsafe vehicles from the roadway. This pre-CVISN situation represents the baseline scenario against which we compare various post-CVISN deployment scenarios. For example, if all inspections nationwide were performed using ISS with manual pre-screening, as is currently done at two Connecticut sites, and achieve the same 2 percent improvement in inspection selection efficiency, the number of crashes avoided due to roadside enforcement is estimated to increase by 84 crashes to 4,507. This represents a “CVISN benefit” of 84 crashes avoided. A similar analysis estimated that the 11 percent increase in inspection efficiency resulting from having low-risk carriers enroll in electronic screening would result in 589 fewer crashes nationwide, because more inspections would be focused on high-risk carriers. Assuming that targeted enforcement will result in improved compliance with safety regulations, the model illustrates the potential safety benefits that can be realized. If, for example, we assume a 10 percent reduction in safety violation rates, it is estimated there will be 8,755 avoided crashes, which, compared to the baseline scenario, corresponds to a CVISN benefit of 4,332 fewer crashes. Similarly, if we assume a 25 percent reduction in violation rates the CVISN benefit would be 9,945 fewer crashes. However, to date there is no evidence that such a reduction in safety violation rates will occur.

The crash avoidance analysis demonstrates that CVISN deployment has the potential to produce important safety benefits. However, unless there is also a significant improvement in the compliance with motor carrier safety regulations, either due to the deployment of CVISN or some other increase in roadside enforcement activities, CVISN will make only minimal contributions to FMCSA’s goal of reducing the numbers of injuries and fatalities by 50 percent by 2010. For example, in 1998, approximately 127,000 persons were injured in truck-related crashes. However, the numbers of additional injuries avoided under the CVISN deployment scenarios shown in Figure ES‑2 were estimated to be 26 (using ISS with manual pre‑screening), 181 (using ISS with electronic screening), and 1,335 to 3,063 (using ISS, electronic screening, and 10 to 25 percent reduction in violation rates).

The report discusses a number of uncertainties associated with this analysis. The most significant concern involves the accuracy of literature-derived crash causation probabilities, which are based on limited data. However, FMCSA recognizes that certain improvements to crash data collection and analyses are needed.

Cost Analysis Results

Electronic credentialing could offer states substantial cost savings, depending on the level of motor carrier participation. Up-front investments averaging $700,000 were required for one state to deploy an end-to-end IRP credentialing system. However, annual operating costs to the states, which ranged from $63 to $138 for each carrier account administered by the state before CVISN, can be reduced by almost 35 percent. For the additional investment of $65,000 to add a system for end-to-end processing of IFTA credentials, states could realize greater annual cost savings.

For electronic screening at the roadside, the one-time capital cost to deploy basic screening equipment (automatic vehicle identification, or AVI; and weigh-in-motion, or WIM) at a single weigh station was reported by Kentucky to be $150,000. Upgrading this site further to electronic snapshot capability was reported to cost nearly $375,000, above and beyond the $150,000 for basic screening equipment. Annual capital replacement costs and annual operating costs would increase by approximately $75,000 per site to support full CVISN electronic screening.

For Safety Information Exchange at the roadside, a statewide upgrade to Aspen capability was reported by Connecticut to cost the state $31,000 for infrastructure upgrades, plus $4,800 for equipment and training for each enforcement unit (one patrol car and one officer or inspector). Upgrading to wireless telecommunication and SAFER mailbox capability adds an additional cost of $1,000 per unit. Statewide deployment of CVIEW or equivalent, which could be used to support both electronic credentialing and roadside enforcement activities, was reported by Kentucky to cost $325,000. Accompanying increases in annual capital and annual operating costs (again assuming no change in the state’s labor costs for enforcement patrol officers/inspectors following CVISN deployment) were reported to be approximately $88,000 per state and approximately $1,400 per mobile unit.

Motor carriers participating in pilot tests of electronic credentialing reported saving between 60 and 75 percent of their costs for credentialing, with minimal start-up costs. The reported time savings to the motor carriers is also substantial, at greater than 60 percent. One of the best benefits of electronic credentialing is the capability for carriers to print their own credentials without waiting for the mail or traveling to the state agency offices. This enables carriers to put new vehicles into operation more quickly.

The cost estimates reported in this document have important limitations: only a few states have enough experience with CVISN to provide adequate data for this analysis. Thus, the study focused on those states with the most advanced deployment of the system or that were expected to make significant progress in deploying CVISN for credentialing and/or roadside enforcement operations. The methodology for analyzing and presenting the cost information acknowledges that each participating state has unique characteristics and policies. No attempt was made to determine if these costs are applicable to other states.

Several other factors hindered the collection and analysis of cost data. For example, computers, infrastructure, and facilities are often maintained (and, thus, their operating costs are accounted for) by agencies that may be different from those engaged in the CVO functions. Second, operation and maintenance costs are often lumped together with other cost items, making it difficult to isolate those costs directly related to credentialing and other CVO functions. Reasonable assumptions were made, as documented in the report.

Customer Satisfaction Results

The motor carrier survey analysis led to the following main conclusions:

· The general awareness throughout the national trucking industry of CVISN‑type initiatives is very low.

· Relatively few firms collect or analyze data about their roadside inspections. However, the survey respondents’ estimates of the mean amount of time involved per inspection (19 minutes for size/weight checks and 45 minutes for safety checks) are quite similar to earlier estimates from the ATA Foundation survey.

· The levels of satisfaction expressed with current roadside check procedures were generally lower than for credentialing, despite the fact that (on a per firm basis) the amount of reported time involved per year was considerably less. However, there seems to be significant agreement that the types of roadside checks made are appropriate.

· Responses to questions about electronic screening methods expressed concerns about cost‑effectiveness for the company and expansion of state regulation.

The qualitative survey of truck drivers suggests the following conclusions:

· There was fairly universal condemnation of two practices that drivers regarded as inherently unsafe. The first is the setting up of temporary inspection sites at the side of the road, pulling over trucks for inspection. The second is the long waiting lines (tailback) of trucks at scalehouses extending back out onto the highway.

· Other changes that would improve inspections from the drivers’ viewpoint include more standardization of rules and procedures across states (or greater cross‑state coordination of inspection findings), and improved differentiation as to which vehicles or firms most merit inspection.

· Approximately half of 59 drivers interviewed had some personal experience of electronic screening. PrePass was much better known than other electronic screening systems.

· Among the drivers with personal experience of electronic screening, the opinions about it were markedly positive, in net. Time savings were the primary reason.

· On average, the 19 owner-operators in our sample each spent 11.9 person‑hours per year and paid a little over $340 per year in costs to obtain credentials and permits.

Among state CVO administrators, safety information exchange technology is believed to facilitate the inspection process and help focus inspection resources on high-risk carriers (i.e., those with poor safety records). Almost all states are deploying Aspen or equivalent software because state safety officials recognize that the use of safety information at the roadside enhances the inspection process and helps inspectors focus on high-risk carriers. Although most states are committed to deploying electronic credentialing, these systems have not yet achieved the same level of widespread deployment as seen with roadside systems.

State CVO inspectors participating in interviews and focus groups reported the following:

· Using Safety Information Exchange technology has become integral to the jobs of most roadside inspectors. This technology can save time and improve the speed and accuracy of data reporting. Other benefits reported include greater credibility with the motor carriers.

· ISS is perceived to help inspectors identify high-risk carriers.

· Computer-based inspections are seen to represent a significant improvement over previous, paper-based systems, making the work of inspectors more efficient.

Benefit/Cost Analysis Results

Table ES-3 summarizes the results of the BCA for the six CVISN scenarios evaluated. These calculations used a 7 percent discount rate over a period of 25 years, as discussed in Chapter 8. All costs are rounded to the nearest million dollars, and expressed as U.S. dollars in 1999.

For the three roadside enforcement scenarios, the benefit/cost ratio (BCR) ranges from 0.62 to 5.0, depending on the scenario. For the simplest roadside enforcement scenario, RE‑1, which is the upgrade to Aspen without electronic screening, the BCR is less than 1.0, showing that Aspen by itself is not justified on the basis of economics alone. For the roadside enforcement scenarios that involve electronic screening (RE‑2, RE‑3, and RE-3*), the BCRs increase considerably, as do the present values (NPVs) of the net benefits of these improvements. For Scenario RE‑2, which assumes no change in compliance behavior, the NPV is over $2.5 billion. With improved compliance behavior (assumed hypothetically), which is an important objective of these systems, the increase in the NPV is truly impressive, totaling nearly $6 billion for Scenario RE-3* and over $10 billion for Scenario RE‑3. Therefore, the systems involved in the two roadside enforcement scenarios that include electronic screening and travel time savings to carriers are economically well justified, even with the use of the more stringent 7 percent real discount rate.

Table ES-3. Summary of CVISN Benefit/Cost Analysis Results

Scenario	$, in Millions (rounded)			Benefit/Cost Ratio
Scenario	Total Benefits	Total Costs	Net Present Value	Benefit/Cost Ratio
RE‑1. Upgrade to Aspen only	69	112	–43	0.62
RE‑2. Electronic screening with no change in safety violation rates	5,301	2,636	2,665	2.0
RE‑3. Electronic screening with a 25 percent reduction in safety violation rates	12,995	2,601	10,394	5.0
RE‑3*. Electronic screening with a 10 percent reduction in safety violation rates	8,379	2,622	5,757	3.2
EC‑1. Electronic credentialing in states without VISTA	558	45	513	12.5
EC‑2. Electronic credentialing in states with VISTA	339	8	331	40.4

The electronic credentialing scenarios are characterized by huge BCRs. For Scenario EC‑1, the benefit/cost ratio is 12.5, meaning that the total benefits of electronic credentialing for states not using the third-party Vehicle Information System for Tax Apportionment (VISTA) are more than 12 times as large as the total costs. For states using VISTA, i.e., states in which aspects of credentials administration are managed via a private contractor service (Scenario EC‑2), the BCR is over 40. Therefore, the electronic credentialing elements of CVISN easily pass the important BCR criterion for determining whether such systems are economically justified.

The BCA results for electronic credentialing are strongly influenced by the level of deployment (i.e., percent of accounts/transactions handled electronically), as shown schematically in Figure ES-3. There is a breakeven deployment percentage, at which the BCR will equal 1.0 (i.e., the costs of EC will equal the baseline or pre-EC costs). It is important to note that the ratios shown for electronic processing of IRP credentials assume 100 percent deployment of CVISN technology and full adoption of the system by all motor carriers operating in a state. Such deployment may be some years in the future.

Figure ES-3. Costs of Electronic Credentialing With and Without CVISN

Where a = one-time statewide start-up costs to deploy EC.

For EC in states currently operating without VISTA, the breakeven deployment size in percentage terms is less than 10 percent. This is easily seen from Table ES‑3 when it is considered that the total costs are start-up and replacement capital costs that are fixed statewide, while the cost saving benefits vary linearly with the number or percent of carriers using EC. Thus, the line representing “Costs with EC” in Figure ES-3 is really flat. For Scenario EC‑1, the breakeven percentage deployment (equal to the inverse of the BCR) is 8 percent at a 7 percent real discount rate. Similarly for EC in states with VISTA (Scenario EC 2), the break‑even percent deployment is only 2.5 percent. At deployments above these levels, electronic credentialing is economically justified with rapidly increasing BCRs, reaching the BCRs shown in Table ES‑3 at 100 percent deployment.

Implications of Findings

For Congress or the 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. The analysis assumed a hypothetical instantaneous deployment.

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. Currently, there are three distinct approaches that are being pursued: a web-based system that uses a standard internet browser to connect to the states’ web site to submit and retrieve credential applications and responses, a stand-alone personal computer (PC)-based program called a Carrier Automated Transaction (CAT) system, and a system that involves making special modifications or upgrades to existing fleet management systems to communicate directly with state registration systems. It appears that all three types of solutions may be needed to meet the needs of a diverse population of motor carriers.

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 Scenarios RE‑3 and 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 hypothetical reductions in violation rates of between 10 to 25 percent, along with the use of ISS and electronic screening, will help avoid between 4,000 and 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.

Future Data Needs

Additional benefit and cost data are needed to promote and expand the deployment of CVISN. This information is needed to evaluate further investments at national and state levels. As CVISN technologies mature and expand and more efficient solutions are developed, cost and benefit 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.

Additional kinds of data are also needed to demonstrate that CVISN technologies are having the desired safety impacts where they are deployed. 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.

Examples of deployment tracking data that may be useful include numbers of

· Carriers participating in electronic credentialing

· Different types of credentials that can be processed electronically

· States participating in IRP and IFTA clearinghouses

· Carriers/trucks enrolled in electronic screening programs

· Inspectors using Aspen or equivalent to conduct inspections

· Vehicles screened using the Inspection Selection System.

Organization of This Report

The main body of this report (Volume I) is arranged in nine chapters as follows:

1. Introduction

2. Services and Technology

3. Deployment Status

4. Evaluation Goals and Approach

5. Safety Benefits

6. Costs

7. Customer Satisfaction

8. Benefit/Cost Analysis

9. Discussion.

In addition, an appendix in Volume II presents supporting information and detailed data that resulted from the evaluation.

References

“Evaluation of the I-95 Commercial Vehicle Operations Roadside Safety and SAFER Data Mailbox Field Operational Tests,” Draft Evaluation Report from Battelle to U.S. DOT ITS Joint Program Office, June 29, 2000.

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.

Richeson, K.E., “Introductory Guide to CVISN,” The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, report to U.S. Department of Transportation, POR-99-7186, Preliminary Version P.2, Laurel, Maryland, www.jhuapl.edu/cvisn, February 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,” EDL No. 11316, pp 107‑126, (U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.), www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov, December 2000.