2.0 Perceived Barriers and Limitations to Deployment of CVISN Technologies
Despite the successful deployment of CVISN technology by many States and motor carriers (as documented in Sections 3 and 4 below), barriers to widespread adoption remain. Among the purposes of both business cases was to learn more about carriers' awareness of and attitudes toward CVISN, and to characterize any actual or perceived institutional and business impediments to further deployment. Table 1 lists the main concerns given by State transportation officials and motor carrier association representatives in the 2006 report (indicated by the ♦ symbol) and concerns given by motor carrier company representatives in the 2007 report ( X ). The table is organized according to the three CVISN functional areas. The table shows that several of the concerns were voiced by both groups of respondents.
| Concern | Concern Applies To SIE | Concern Applies To ES | Concern Applies To EC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Increased government regulations | ♦ | ♦ X | ♦ |
| Inequities in distribution of benefits | ♦ | ||
| Perceived reliance on untested or unstable technology | ♦ | ♦ | ♦ |
| Consistency of the standards that govern CVISN implementation | ♦ | ♦ X | ♦ X |
| High adoption costs for CVISN services | ♦ X | ♦ | |
| Willingness of drivers to comply with implementation | ♦ | ♦ X | ♦ |
| Privacy concerns connected with the ready access to records | ♦ | ♦ | ♦ |
| Sharing information might affect company's competitiveness | X | ||
| Lack of information about capital and operating costs | X | X | |
| Different operating conditions in different states | X | ||
| Inconsistent payment mechanisms across states | X | ||
| Administrative duties to keep transponder records updated | X | ||
| Not all permits are available electronically in all states | X | ||
| Multiple passwords needed for different state systems | X |
Key:
SIE = safety information exchange
ES = electronic screening
EC = electronic credentialing
♦ = from FHWA (2006)
X = from FHWA (2007)
Motor Carrier Industry. Portions of the motor carrier industry consider the CVISN program as increased government regulation and as a route to expanded revenue collection. Some motor carriers are also concerned that sharing electronic screening information with the government could impact their competitiveness.
There is some lack of clarity on the benefits of CVISN technology adoption. Carriers are concerned that the distribution of benefits from participating in CVISN is not equitable, favoring larger carriers more than smaller carriers. The lack of information on capital costs, maintenance costs, added costs to support interoperability between States, and the lack of quantitative information on benefits is seen as a barrier to adoption of CVISN technologies, especially by smaller carriers. The quantitative cost and benefit information presented below is intended to address these kinds of information needs.
Carriers are concerned that the system would benefit certain groups of drivers, particularly those with clean records. Carriers also perceive that CVISN could be used to track vehicles and to determine driving patterns for hours-of-service (logbook) enforcement, or in an accident investigation situation. Drivers also perceive barriers to CVISN deployment. In general, drivers do not expect to benefit directly from CVISN technology, and they tend not to trust computers or government agencies to fairly track and monitor their operations. Inconsistent interpretation of permitting requirements across jurisdictions makes some drivers reluctant to use on-line credentialing.
Lack of incentives or mandates for motor carriers to participate in electronic screening is seen as another barrier to adoption. The time savings from electronic screening is relevant only in States where motor carriers must routinely stop at weigh stations. For companies operating in other States, there is little incentive for motor carriers to participate in a voluntary screening program.
Lack of standardization of electronic credentialing and electronic screening across States has been cited as a barrier to adoption. Motor carriers desire standardization of bypass guidelines for screening vehicles across all States. Motor carriers have cited the need to have one nationwide transponder and the need to make current data uniformly available across jurisdiction in an accurate, consistent manner to increase interoperability. Standardization of formats for various types of processes involved with obtaining electronic credentialing and screening permits and increasing the number of permits and applications available online across States would also be considered beneficial. Creating a one-stop shop for e-credential administration would be welcomed by the motor carrier industry. Finally, consistently providing for electronic payment for services would help carriers complete permit and credential applications in a timely manner.
State Government. Barriers to CVISN deployment within State government include the following:
- Difficulties in crossing jurisdictional or organizational boundaries, particularly when computer and information technology resources are distributed across several functions and operated by agencies outside the control of the transportation/public safety agencies.
- Integration of State legacy systems and data resources with new, different data exchange requirements needed by CVISN functions.
- Lack of funding from in-State and external sources, to support the needed hardware and infrastructure to support real-time data sharing. For example, internal security, border security, and hazardous materials transport have recently been emphasized, leaving information technology, administration, and safety initiatives with fewer opportunities for funding.
- Need for coordinated marketing of CVISN initiatives.
- Difficulties brought about by turnover of experienced staff in key information technology and "program champion" areas.
A discussion of past, current, and future approaches that carriers and government agencies may use to overcome some of these barriers is presented in Section 5.