• Introduction
• ITS Applications
  • Safety Information Exchange
  • Electronic Screening
  • Electronic Credentialing
• Hazardous Material Incident Response
• International Border Electronic Clearance
• Administrative Processes
• Onboard Safety Monitoring
• Conclusions
• References

INTRODUCTION

Intelligent Transportation System applications are used to improve a range of freight and commercial vehicle operations with the aim of enhancing vehicle and fleet performance and reducing administrative costs. The information infrastructure enabled by ITS, combined with the institutional relationships from state to federal levels, allows the exchange of fleet information that is essential for sound and competitive commercial vehicle (CV) operations.

ITS applications to CV fall into two categories:

1. Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN), which includes Safety Information Exchange, Electronic Screening, and Electronic Credentialing applications; and
2. The Commercial Vehicle Operations Program. CVO, which was formed as a cooperative effort involving the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), states, motor carriers, and other transportation stakeholders. It encompasses the development, testing, and deployment of technologies that aim to enhance the safety and efficiency of commercial trucking operations.

   ITS/CVO applications address many concerns of the trucking industry and include Hazardous Material Incident Response, International Border Electronic Clearance, Administrative Processes, and Onboard Safety Monitoring.

   Read a 2004 FMCSA Professional Capacity Building Program presentation on goals for CVO safety. (Requires PowerPoint™) http://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/T3/session18/T3_S18-19-20.PPT

ITS APPLICATIONS

• Safety Information Exchange
• Electronic Screening
• Electronic Credentialing
• Hazardous Material Incident Response
• International Border Electronic Clearance
• Administrative Processes
• Onboard Safety Monitoring

Safety Information Exchange

Safety Information Exchange systems use software applications to monitor CVs by collecting driver and vehicle data, distributing safety and credential snapshots to roadside agencies, and checking safety history before granting credentials.

State administrative offices and the state law enforcement agencies can use this information to make better-informed decisions about which vehicles to inspect at the roadside as well as who should receive credentials and permits based on safety performance history. Additionally, it helps focus inspection on high-risk carriers.

Safety information is exchanged via two main applications: SAFER and CVIEW.

Safety and Fitness Electronic Records system (SAFER)

SAFER is an FMCSA communications nexus that works on a national level to provide users with timely electronic access to vehicle safety and credential data via one or more wide area network (WAN) communication links. It also provides standardized carrier and vehicle data in the form of data "snapshots" and reports.

A snapshot is a concise electronic record of a carrier's safety report, identification, size of fleet, types of commodities transported, roadside out-of-service (OOS) inspection summaries, and crash information. Snapshots can also include carrier compliance review reports, safety inspections, citations, credentials, and tax information. State inspectors record safety inspection records using Aspen and the SAFER Data Mailbox.

Aspen is a software application that a client uses to record and transmit inspections electronically from roadside stations to administrative centers; clients upload this data on a daily basis to their respective state systems and forward the data to the SAFER system.

The SAFER Data Mailbox (SDM) facilitates the exchange of information between roadside inspection sites and administrative centers by acting as a temporary repository for data files and messages. Information is stored in the SDM for 45 days.

SAFER automatically records vehicle inspection data and exchanges safety data among agencies within a state and among other states. Subscribers can request that specific "snapshots" be sent to them automatically when substantial changes occur.

SAFER was developed by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, is maintained by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, and is under contract to the FMCSA.

SAFER web site: http://www.safersys.org/

Commercial Vehicle Information Exchange Window (CVIEW)

CVIEW is essentially identical to SAFER, except that it works on a state level. CVIEW

• exchanges both intrastate and interstate snapshots of vehicles (e.g. connects to SAFER to exchange interstate snapshots) and
• communicates directly with the state roadside system (Aspen) and several legacy credentialing and safety information systems within the state.

Information flows between SAFER and CVIEW as follows:

1. CVIEW receives registration and fuel tax information from state legacy systems via legacy system interfaces (LSI).
2. CVIEW sends interstate credential data received from the state legacy systems to SAFER via the subscription process.
3. SAFER receives interstate credential data from the national LSI system.
4. SAFER receives interstate credential data from other states via CVIEW or its equivalent.
5. CVIEW receives interstate credentials data from SAFER via the subscription process.
6. CVIEW sends inter-and intrastate credential data to the roadside via the subscription process.

Source: CVISN Guide to Safety Information Exchange, Baseline Version V1.0, POR-99-7191, V1.0, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,  February 2002. Link to Report

Benefits of Safety Information Exchange

• Ensures that safer vehicles are operating on the roadways by offering state inspections officials improved access to carrier, vehicle safety, driver safety, and credentials information; unsafe vehicles can be identified and operators required to do maintenance.
• Allows for more in-depth inspections of high-risk vehicles.
• Improves the consistency and effectiveness of enforcement and compliance programs for commercial vehicles.

Implementation Barriers

• Officials can find it difficult to upload updated inspections results in a manner that is timely enought to be useful.
• Lack of software interoperability hinders efficient access to safety information (i.e. there are several types of safety data management software beyond those produced by CVISN, as seen here: http://infosys.fmcsa.dot.gov/).

Electronic Screening

Electronic Screening (or Clearance) is a roadway inspection system that allows trucks with good safety records to bypass screening sites, while requiring trucks with poor or questionable safety records to stop for further inspection. Each state decides upon the criteria it will use to determine whether a truck should pull off the road for confirmation of its safety compliance. These criteria are usually based on driver and vehicle safety records.

The screening process can take place while the truck is in motion, thus saving time by eliminating the need for unnecessary detailed manual inspections. In fact, it is nearly impossible to physically inspect each truck that passes by a screening facility; most often this type of inspection process can cause long lines of trucks at the station's entrance, which can back up dangerously into highway off-ramps. Recognizing the need to enforce roadway safety, nearly half of the states in the U.S. and close to 7,000 motor carrier fleets currently participate in e-screening programs.

Screening Processes and Technologies Used

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Tags
One type of transponder, the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag, has the potential for widespread application across a number of platforms. RFID is an alternative to traditional automatic identification and data capture applications (such as barcodes). One of the technology's most common uses is the identification of vehicles at toll crossings and weigh stations. An RFID tag consists of an integrated circuit chip and antenna encased in a protective shell. Tags can be embedded in or attached to objects. In the past, incompatibility factors have posed a problem for fleets using RFID and other transponder technologies. Regional and national carriers had to maintain different transponders for different toll roads and crossings and different weigh stations. State-to-state consortiums and the development of a Fusion transponder in 2003 have facilitated interoperability somewhat. However, complete, nationwide interoperability may take years to achieve.

Although this is a less common application, RFID is also used to track shipments by transmitting information via radio frequencies as vehicles move freight through gates and docks. Using RFID, fleets can ensure that the correct products are shipped at the correct times to the places where they are needed. While some fleets, such as Wal-Mart's, now use RFID to track shipments, RFID's application to tracking shipments has yet to become widespread. Studies have shown that RFID may not yet be ready for widespread application to shipment tracking due to accuracy and interoperability factors.

Read a Commercial Carrier Journal article on RFID technology, http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=47339

Read the U.S. DOT's report on Freight Management and Operations standards http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/publications/sec_tech_appx/sec04.htm

Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC) Transponders
Several types of technologies are used to facilitate roadside screening. Most commonly, trucks are equipped with a transponder that sends the vehicle and carrier ID, as well as time of last screening, via dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) to a roadside reader (go to Automatic Vehicle Location report). Once this bundled information has been screened at the roadside, the driver is signaled via DSRC to either continue on or stop for closer inspection. This transponder can also be used to pay tolls electronically (go to Electronic Toll Collection report). Before it can participate in electronic screening, a motor carrier must enroll in the electronic screening programs offered by each state in which it operates and install transponders in each of its vehicles.

Software Applications
Working in tandem with the DSRC transponders are the Safety and Fitness Electronic Records (SAFER) system and the Commercial Vehicle Information Exchange Window (CVIEW):

• SAFER is a web-based, communications nexus that stores and distributes timely, electronic access to vehicle safety and credential data via one or more wide area network communication links. For more detailed information on SAFER, see the Safety Information Exchange section.
• CVIEW is a software application that exchanges both intrastate and interstate snapshots of vehicles within the state (i.e. via the SAFER program). For more detailed information on CVIEW, see the Safety Information Exchange section.

Source: CVISN Guide to Electronic Screening, Baseline Version 1.0, POR-99-7193 V1.0, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, March 2000. Link to report.

Weigh-in-Motion
Weigh-in-motion (WIM) sensors are also used to screen commercial vehicles and are frequently used in conjunction with electronic screening systems. WIM technologies include plates and loop detectors that collectively measure a truck's weight, axle weights, axle spacing, speed, gross weight, and vehicle height. This information can be processed while the truck is moving at up to 55 mph and is sent to the scale house within one second.

Electronic Screening Programs
The electronic screening of vehicles’ safety records and classification information is currently implemented across many states and through three main programs, each of which provides similar services and uses the same transponder type. While interoperability between these systems is not difficult, future integration of other ITS processes, such as electronic toll collection, may call for updated transponder technologies. The three main electronic screening systems at work in the U.S. are:

• Heavy Vehicle Electronic System (HELP) PrePass™
• NORPASS
• Oregon’s Green Light Program

Heavy Vehicle Electronic License Plate (HELP) PrePass™ is the largest North American electronic screening program. The PrePass™ Service Center manages pre- and post-enrollment verification checks of carriers and provides transponders for vehicles. At the roadside station, transponder-equipped vehicles are checked against a pre-clearance list and weighed using WIM equipment. More information can be found at the HELP PrePass™ web site: http://www.prepass.com/

HELP PrePass™ currently operates in:

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

North American Pre-clearance and Safety System (NORPASS) sends safety and credential records via an enrolled vehicle list to roadside stations. Weight enforcement may be conducted using WIM or weight compliance history. A NORPASS transponder can be used in the NORPASS member and partner states named below. There is no charge for registration or participation in these states. To be able to participate in PrePass™ in addition to NORPASS, a PrePass™-compatible transponder must be obtained.

NORPASS Web site: http://www4.norpass.net/index.htm

NorPass currently operates in:

• Alaska
• Georgia
• Idaho
• Kentucky
• Utah
• Washington

Green Light
Green Light, the Oregon DOT's electronic screening program, has been operating since 1997. As of May 2005, there were 22 Green Light sites. Scales in the roadway weigh trucks in motion at high speeds as they approach the station, while automatic vehicle identification devices look for signals from a palm-sized transponder mounted inside the truck's windshield. The transponder contains a 10-digit number that is used to identify the carrier and truck. A computer processes this information, verifies the truck size and weight, checks the carrier's registration and safety records, and sends a green light signal back to the transponder if the truck is "good to go" past the station.

According to the Oregon DOT Web site, Oregon has made significant advancements related to electronic screening of truck traffic and is far ahead of most states in its deployment of intelligent transportation systems. The Oregon Green Light Weigh Station Pre-clearance System employs Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) transponders mounted on truck windshields. The transponders are compatible with PrePass™ and NORPASS and allow interoperability between the different systems.

Benefits of Electronic Screening

• time savings are estimated at 1.5 to 4.5 minutes per bypass
• carriers with good safety records will have fewer inspections
• weigh station traffic is reduced, thus there is less of a chance that freight vehicles will queue up at a station and spill out into freeway off-ramps. The cost of building newer, bigger weigh stations to accommodate increased CV congestion is also avoided.
• inspectors can focus their efforts on high-risk carriers

Implementation Barriers

The primary barrier to implementing electronic clearance is the lack of interoperability between different systems. This barrier has been partly overcome with the establishment of an interoperability agreement between PrePass™ and NORPASS. But it is a "one-way" agreement. Under it, qualified motor carriers enrolled in NORPASS can operate in the PrePass™ network, but not the other way around.

Electronic Credentialing

Operating a commercial vehicle in the United States requires many different types of "credentials," or forms of evidence that indicate if a CV meets specified qualifications. Electronic credentialing is a cost-effective way to check the status of a CV’s credentials. It entails the use of software to send credentials applications to a given state and to retrieve credential status for evaluation at roadside stations.

While many credentials are nationally recognized and required, some states have their own sets of credentials requirements. In general:

• Vehicles must be titled and registered.
• Some credentials are required for carriers, vehicles, or drivers that will operate only within a single state (intrastate), and different credentials are required for those that will be operating in multiple states.
• Carriers must have adequate liability insurance and be authorized to carry certain types of cargo (e.g. hazardous materials and household goods).
• Special permits are required to operate vehicles that are over the standard legal weight or size.
• Drivers must be licensed to drive whatever size of vehicle they intend to operate and must meet medical standards.
• Carriers must pay fuel taxes for operating vehicles in each jurisdiction.

Credentialing Process and Technologies Used

Credentials administration comprises electronic credentialing, interstate credentials data and fee exchange, and interagency (within a given state) credentials data exchange. The typical flow of information in an electronic credentialing system is as follows:

1. A carrier will apply for credentials, file tax returns, and make payments. It will send all of this information to a state CV administration system, which processes applications and tax returns, issues credentials, and accepts payments.
2. The state CV administration system will send the carrier's information to the given state's clearinghouse, which will determine the fees due or owed.
3. The state's clearinghouse will share the carrier's credential and tax information with other sate clearinghouses.
4. Information about fees due or owed are sent from the clearinghouse back to the state CV administration system, which processes this information and sends it to the carrier.
5. The carrier takes note of fees due or owed and sends payments back to the state CV administration system.

States exchange interstate credentials data with other states through Safety and Fitness Electronic Records (SAFER) snapshots. The states that use CVISN have implemented a state Commercial Vehicle Information Exchange Window (CVIEW) system that collects information from the state credentialing systems. CVIEW then forwards the credentials snapshot segments to SAFER, and SAFER distributes the snapshot data to subscribers. (See the Safety Information Exchange section for more information on these programs.)

Benefits of Electronic Credentialing

Electronic credentialing provides efficient retrieval and processing of credentials and promotes roadway safety by making it easier to ensure that CV operators are complying with credential requirements.

Implementation Barriers

• Electronic credentialing has not yet reached widespread deployment, largely because of the lack of interfacing between new and legacy—or archival—databases and software systems.
• Different carriers prefer different types of software and data communications; a universal technological approach is still under development.

The Future of E-Credentialing

In a 2004 report, the FMCSA outlined goals for the future of e-credentialing, specifically, that:

• CVO information systems support uniform, reliable and complete data exchange standards for all identified credentials.
• Enrollment/application processes share common data elements and are consistent with state and federal e-business practices and rules.
• Credentials will only be issued to drivers, vehicles and carriers who are compliant with all applicable regulations and laws and are not security risks.
• It reduces complexity and redundancy for users by offering access to multiple credentials from a single source.
• It increases the kinds of e-credentials that are available (e.g., oversize/overweight permitting, HazMat).
• It improves the process for enrolling in multiple e-screening programs, e-toll, and other multi-jurisdictional programs through provision of linkages to all programs.
• It enhances interfaces and systems for information sharing to provide improved access to more current and accurate credentials information for authorized stakeholders.

Where is Electronic Credentialing Implemented?

• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Kentucky
• Maryland
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Oregon
• Virginia
• Washington

Case Study

Washington
The process for commercial motor carriers to apply for and receive credentials has seen significant improvements with the introduction of electronic credentialing, according to a 2004 case study published by the FHWA. Washington has converted its legacy licensing system to enable carriers and service bureaus to conduct credentialing transactions via the Internet. The system is connected to the state's CVIEW system. Eighteen motor carriers and eight service bureaus are now participating in the e-credentialing process. The success of Washington's e-credentialing program is due in part to the high level of support it has received from the motor carrier industry. In addition, the program has benefited from participating in FMCSA-sponsored information exchanges and planning programs aimed at bringing together information from other states and stakeholders during the program's development and deployment. Plans for the future include expanding the number of commercial motor carriers participating in e-credentialing.

Link to Washinton report: http://cvisn.fmcsa.dot.gov/WhatsNew/Washington/Washington.htm

Hazardous Materials Incident Response

According to the FMCSA, the transportation of hazardous materials poses the biggest security risk to the motor carrier industry. There are over 800,000 shipments of hazardous materials each day in the U.S. Daily there are about 300,000 shipments of large quantities of flammable liquids and gases such as gasoline and propane. Due to the routine nature of such shipments and the absence of a history of terrorists threats, security for these shipments has remained low. However, such shipments could be used to create major fires or explosions in the event of a crash. Shipments that pose a still greater risk are explosives and poisonous gases. Such shipments are less frequent and more closely guarded.

The FMCSA has found that by applying technological solutions such as remote vehicle tracking systems, off-route alert systems, vehicle disabling systems, and electronic ignition locks, the security risks posed by transporting hazardous materials are significantly reduced. The FMCSA joined with the U.S. DOT to conduct a Safety and Security Technology Field Operational Test in 2003 and 2004. The final report for the project was published November 2004. The test focused on four HazMat transportation scenarios: Bulk petroleum, bulk chemical, less-than-truckload and truckload explosives industries. Technologies tested were

• Wireless mobile communications
• In-vehicle technologies
• Personal identification
• Mobile data management
• Vehicle tracking

Read the executive summary at http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13844.html.

The U.S. DOT and the FMCSA have also developed a Hazardous Materials Program. The goal of this program is to enforce hazardous materials regulations and identify and evaluate high-risk and non-compliant carriers. Compliance with program rules was required beginning January 1, 2005. Under this program

• A motor carrier must hold a safety permit issued by the DOT and keep a copy of the permit or other proof of its existence in the vehicle in order to transport certain hazardous materials.
• Intrastate carriers must apply for a USDOT number and undergo a compliance check.
• Drivers are required to communicate with carriers frequently and document communications.

Read the FMCSA Final Rule for hazardous materials safety permits http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/rulemakings/04-14654-hazmat-safety-permits.htm

Application of ITS Solutions to Emergency Management
If an accident involving hazardous materials should occur, ITS systems can be used to measure the severity of the crash through on-board sensors, determine its location though various positioning systems and communicate this information to emergency responders.

Benefits of Hazardous Materials Incident Response

• Reduced traffic congestion because of more timely and more appropriate response to crash-related spills
• Increased safety for cargo carriers, travelers and emergency responders because of more accurate information about the degree, locationand type of crash and hazardous material releases

Implementation Barriers

• Institutional obstacles to collaborative working relationships between the various levels of safety enforcement
• Driver resistance to electronic tracking systems out of concerns for privacy
• Cultural attitudes and budget constraints that might make carriers resistant to investing in such systems

Where Is Hazardous Materials Incident Response Implemented?

SafeStat and Emergency Response Systems are in use across the U.S.

Links:

• Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security Operational Test
• Federal Hazmat Regulations and Interpretations from the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety
• Transportation Safety Institute: HazMat
• 2005 Report on SafeStat Data Reporting

International Border Electronic Clearance

The International Border Clearance (IBC) program was initiated by the U.S. DOT to facilitate faster, safer vehicle inspections at border crossings by reducing the need for manual inspections and evaluations of trucks entering the U.S. Without some form of automation, inspections become necessarily rushed at peak travel times, making it easier for customs and safety violations to go undetected.

Electronic Border Crossing Process and Technologies Used

1.    Declarations: Before a commercial vehicle arrives at a border, trading firms (typically through customs brokers) electronically file the appropriate declarations to U.S. Customs through the North American Trade Automation Prototype (NATAP) in Wachington, D.C. In current tests, the Freight and Trade Processing System (FTPS) receives this data and makes it available to state motor vehicle enforcement agencies that perform credentials and safety screening of the carrier, vehicle, and driver. Each agency returns its pre-arrival screening results to the border via the FTPS.

2.    Screening and Credentialing: When a commercial vehicle arrives at a border crossing, a dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) transponder onboard transmits its unique identifier to a roadside reader. This reader communicates with the local trade processing system, which forwards the unique identifier to NATAP. NATAP then retrieves the appropriate pre-arrival screening results and returns the results to the customs inspector. The inspector may use that information to determine if further inspections are necessary.

Benefits of Electronic Border Crossing

• allows trucks to more quickly pass through border inspection points
• reduces overall congestion at border crossings
• improves accuracy of of inspections, ensuring greater safety in the transportation of goods across borders

Implementation Barriers

• freight and commuter users need to be convinced of the benefits of electronic border clearance (i.e. before they agree to contribute to clearance projects)
• international agreements between bordering countries are essential for the effective implementation of border clearance systems; likewise, coordination between the state and Federal levels can greatly facilitate clearance operations.

Where Is Electronic Border Crossing Implemented?

ITS technologies have been deployed at border crossings in the U.S., including:

• Buffalo, NY
• Detroit, MI
• El Paso, TX
• Laredo, TX
• Nogales, AZ
• Otay Mesa, CA

The Ambassador Bridge International Border Crossing System (ABIBC)
The Michigan DOT has implemented IBC technologies at ports of entry along the U.S.-Canadian border. The initial Field Operational Test used a system of in-vehicle transponders and roadside positive identification and classification equipment to gather pre-processed information for use in assessing the crossing status of a vehicle, its contents, and its occupants, and to collect tolls. This test found that dedicated short-range communications transponders were a feasible means of identifying and evaluating trucks bearing cargo. Time spent at border crossings can be reduced by as much as 50% under the ABIBC system.

Link to report on Border Clearance in Detroit, MI (PDF)

Laredo, Texas
The Texas Transportation Institute and the Center for Transportation Research at the University of Texas at Austin have implemented a computer-aided clearance and tracking system for use at U.S.-Mexican borders. This project is still in progress.

Link to Briefing Paper on Border Crossing Project in Laredo, TX (PDF)

Nogales, Arizona
In 1998, the Arizona DOT implemented the Expedited Processing at International Crossings (EPIC) Field Operational Test. For this test, a transponder was mounted on the inside of the windshield. When the CV passed an automated vehicle identification (AVI) reader, its onboard transponder would transmit an identification number, which in turn activated the EPIC system and communicated with the driver. While the EPIC computer checked the truck and driver’s status, the truck continued to proceed. The transponder in the truck’s cab either lit up green, allowing the truck to enter Arizona, or red, meaning the truck would have to stop in order to stop and resolve problems before proceeding.

The EPIC system showed that border clearance times could be reduced and that administrative processes could run more efficiently. The average time saved is estimated to be between 8.8 and 12.9 minutes. The pre-clearance of vehicles reduced the average approximate travel time through the compound by over 80% (25 minutes). The ADOT is currently developing a joint state-Federal port to improve coordination of border clearance.

Administrative Processes

Commercial vehicle administrative processes help ensure that commercial vehicles operate legally on the roadways. These processes include the automatic collection and recording of travel distance, fuel purchase, and trip and vehicle data by jurisdiction. This information is useful in preparing fuel tax and registration reports for affected jurisdictions. Electronic administration for commercial vehicles can replace manual paperwork processing, thus greatly reducing processing times throughout various segments of CV administration.

In 1998, FHWA sponsored four Field Operational Tests (FOT) related to CVO administrative processes; three of these dealt with the electronic submittal, processing, and distribution of vehicle credentials and permits. The fourth focused on providing carriers and state agencies with a system for capturing apportioned mileage and forwarding it for use in the reconciliation of registration and fuel tax funds among states. Individual results and evaluations of these FOTs can be found in the ITS Cross-Cutting Study of Commercial Vehicle Operations. (PDF)

One of the implemented FOTs was the Southwest Electronic One-Stop Shopping (EOSS). The EOSS system provided a PC-based application to be installed on carrier and state agency computers. Users could access either of the two functional modules–the Information module or the Credential module. Using the Information module, the user could access information regarding what credentials were required to operate legally in any given state. Using the Credential module, carriers or service bureaus could complete applications either manually or by uploading information from their internal system, identifying associated fees, arranging for electronic funds transfer to pay for the credentials, printing or submitting the application electronically, and printing certain credentials.

Representatives from 15 motor carriers, and various agencies from the states of Arkansas, Texas and Colorado, participated in the operational test. In general, these FOTs demonstrated more efficient credential and permit application processes that reduced data entry and retrieval costs.

Benefits of CVO Administrative Processes

• ensure that CVs operate legally on the roadway
• allow for cost-efficient automatic collection and recording of travel distance, fuel purchase, and trip and vehicle data
• reduce processing times throughout CV operations

Implementation Barriers

• lack of coordination among agencies
• fear among drivers that electronic tracking systems are an invasion of their privacy
• lack of uniform administrative regulations and policies across the U.S.
• absence of uniform identifiers for motor carriers, vehicles, and drivers
• absence of interoperable data management software

Where Are CVO Administrative Processes Implemented?

Across the U.S.

Onboard Safety Monitoring

An onboard safety system senses and monitors the safety status of the vehicle, driver, and cargo of a commercial vehicle. Although these systems are not yet widely implemented, many commercial trucking companies and government-sponsored research groups have been testing prototypes. While truck manufacturers have focused their efforts on creating devices that monitor vehicle performance, government research groups have been investigating technologies that monitor driver performance.

Vehicle Performance

Several U.S. trucking companies are currently working on comprehensive designs that can:

• monitor brakes, lights, tires, air pressure, speed, steering, and the electrical system and alert drivers when these components fail or require maintenance
• automatically log mileage via GPS
• apply radar technologies to "cruise control" features, allowing the truck to adapt its speed when it detects objects in its path
• use e-mail systems that can send warning signals to drivers, such as "roadside assistance needed" or "fuel purchased"
• monitor vehicle gauges via a multi-function display

Driver Performance

Complementing technologies that strive to ensure vehicle functionality are those designed to measure driver alertness and fatigue. In the most comprehensive study of driver fatigue conducted to date, the Driver Fatigue and Alertness Study (coordinated by the Essex Corporation), a significant finding was that driver alertness and performance were more consistently related to time-of-day than to time-on-task; episodes of drowsiness were eight times more likely between midnight and 6 a.m. than during other times. Included in this study was the U.S. DOT’s research on technologies that could be used to detect driver fatigue. Of these, the most promising index of fatigue was PERCLOS, the video-based scoring of eye closures by trained observers. PERCLOS testing is still underway, as are most driver fatigue sensors. For more information on PERCLOS, see the U.S. DOT and NHTSA report Evaluation of Techniques for Ocular Measurement as an Index of Fatigue and the Basis for Alertness Management. Equally informative is the FMCSA Web Site on Driver Fatigue.

Benefits of Onboard Safety Monitoring

• fewer fatigue-related accidents
• improved freight performance due to more carefully monitored drivers and vehicles
• more precise mileage tracking and vehicle location and more efficient and productive CV operations

Implementation Barriers

Drivers fear that electronic monitoring of their vehicles’ performance is an invasion of their privacy; vehicle monitoring technologies are primarily created within the development units of private, truck manufacturing companies, so that widespread implementation is dependent on CV companies choosing to invest in safety monitoring research and testing.

Where Is Onboard Safety Monitoring Implemented?
Across the U.S.

CONCLUSIONS

As more and more trucking businesses are becoming technologically integrated organizations, they are requiring more sophisticated and cost-effective information systems to remain competitive. With an eye towards safety and productivity, these companies are looking for ways to more closely monitor individual vehicle and driver performance.

The widely implemented ITS/CVO programs in safety information exchange, electronic screening, and electronic credentialing propose lower-costing means of maintaining safe roadways by focusing inspections on high-risk vehicles. Similarly, the growing number of electronic border clearance initiatives can limit time-consuming inspections at borders to those vehicles with non-compliant or questionable credentials. Hazardous Materials Incident Response systems can likewise safeguard the roadway by ensuring the safe transportation and storage of HazMat by closely tracking HazMat vehicles and responding quickly to HazMat-related accidents.

The less common but equally notable onboard safety monitoring systems can automatically update drivers and fleet managers on the condition of their vehicles, thus reducing costs that can result from overdue maintenance checks.

While some of the ITS/CVO technologies have become established in the motor carrier industry (i.e. CVISN is nationally implemented), others are still in their early stages (i.e. onboard safety devices are being developed by only a handful of private trucking companies). Widespread implementation of the any ITS/CVO Program seems to hinge on the success of institutional collaborations (i.e. state-Federal relationships) and user acceptance of new technologies.

REFERENCES

2005 FMCSA Professional Capacity Building Program presentation on goals for CVO safety. http://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/T3/session18/T3_S18-19-20.PPT

Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Highway Administration Highway & Vehicle Technology Group, Intelligent Transportation Systems Field Operational Test Cross-Cutting Study: Hazardous Materials Incident Response, McLean, Virginia, September 1998. http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/4vr01!.pdf

Colker, David, Truckers hit high-tech road: On-board computers, satellite navigation and night vision are steering big-rig drivers toward the future, Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2001. http://ntl.bts.gov/card_view.cfm?docid=11387

Federal Highway Administration , CVISN Electronic Credentialing for Commercial Vehicles in Washington State: A Case Study, Publication Number FHWA-JPO-04-029 , September, 2004. http://cvisn.fmcsa.dot.gov/WhatsNew/Washington/Washington.htm

Federal Highway Administration, CVISN Operations Rescource Guide 2004 http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13947_files/body_sec5_cvisn.htm

Federal Highway Administration, CVISN Safety Information Exchange for Commercial Vehicles in Connecticut: A Case Study, Publication Number FHWA-JPO-04-030, September, 2004. http://cvisn.fmcsa.dot.gov/WhatsNew/Connecticut/Connecticut.htm

Federal Highway Administration, Evaluation of Techniques for Ocular Measurement as an Index of Fatigue and the Basis for Alertness Management, DOT HS 808 762, April 1998. http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/edlbrow/7D01!.pdf

Federal Highway Administration, Intelligent Transportation Systems at International Borders: A Cross-Cutting Study: Facilitating Trade and Enhancing Transportation Safety, April 2001. http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov//JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/8V601!.PDF

Federal Highway Administration, 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, December 2000. http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov//JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/@@201!.PDF

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Evaluation of the Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) Model Deployment Initiative (Tech Brief), Publication Number FMCSA-MCRT-03-006, November 2002. http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safetyprogs/research/briefs/CVISN_TechBrief.pdf

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Hazardous Materials Safety and Security Technology Field Operational Test:Volume I: Evaluation Final Report Executive Summary (Part 1) http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety-security/hazmat/fot/eval-rpt-summary-part1.htm

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security Operational Test
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety-security/hazmat/fot/sowsot.htm

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Motor Carrier Technologies—Fleet Operational Impacts and Implications for ITS/CVO (Tech Brief), Publication Number FMCSA-MCRT-00-008, March 2000. http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/pdfs/tb00-008.pdf

Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, CVISN Guide to Credentials Administration, Preliminary Version P.2, POR-99-7192 P.2, August 2000.

Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, CVISN Guide to Electronic Screening, Baseline Version 1.0, POR-99-7193 V1.0, March 2002.

Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, CVISN Guide to Safety Information Exchange, Baseline Version V1.0, POR-99-7191, V1.0, February 2002.

Lantz, Brenda M. An Evaluation of the Impacts of ITS/CVO Technologies on Safety and the Associated Benefits Throughout the Supply Chain, Phase I: A Review of Literature and Case Study Analysis, North Dakota State University, August 2000. http://www.ndsu.edu/ndsu/ugpti/MPC_Pubs/pdf/MPC01-117A.pdf

Richeson, Kim E. , Applied Introductory Guide to CVISN, POR-99-7186 P.2, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, February 2000.

Texas Transportation Institute at the Texas A&M University System, Center for Transportation Research at the University of Texas at Austin, Briefing Document on Texas Model Border Crossing Project, January 2002. http://bordercross.tamu.edu/plans_docs/briefing_document.pdf

Author: Carli Cutchin

Updated: August 2005