Alternative Truck and Bus Inspection Strategies (2006)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTION STRATEGIES SURVEY METHOD The researcher team coordinated the survey that was admin- istered under this project with a survey that was being admin- istered by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) on behalf of FMCSA. The FMCSA project is exploring what role existing or emerging wireless technology can play in the commercial vehicle safety inspection process. Once the survey questions were finalized, staff from CVSA developed an on-line version of the survey. The survey was distributed to 69 CVSA member jurisdictions via e-mail. Respondents simply needed to click on a link to the survey that was included in the e-mail message in order to respond to the questions. A total of 25 responses were received— representing a 36% response rate. The final survey that was distributed included 28 ques- tions, primarily multiple choice, for respondents to reply to. Several of the questions were open-ended and provided respon- dents an opportunity to provide more detail about what enforce- ment strategies they are using, how effective these strategies are, and the areas that they wish to improve. The survey results were augmented with interviews with a series of stakeholders. The interviews included a geographic and demographic cross section of the enforcement commu- nity, as well as the motor carrier and motor coach industries. Interviews were conducted with the following: • Representatives from 11 state agencies responsible for the regulation of the motor carrier and motor coach industries; • Four state trucking associations; • Two national industry associations—one representing the motor carrier industry and one representing the motor coach industry; and • Representatives from FMCSA. Some of these interviews were conducted exclusively for this project, while others were done in conjunction with related studies. PRINCIPAL RESULTS The survey results confirmed that a majority of jurisdictions are struggling to keep pace with increasing commercial truck/ bus traffic and shrinking enforcement resources. These trends, in large part, are driving jurisdictions to adopt more alterna- tive inspection strategies. The highlights of the survey results include the following findings: • A trend toward conducting roadside inspections at mobile or virtual inspection facilities, as opposed to fixed weigh stations; • Vehicles are targeted for inspection predominantly to find “high-risk” drivers. Identifying at-risk vehicles and carriers is a lesser priority to enforcement personnel— as is identifying high-risk cargo; • Jurisdictions use a broad range of tools used to select a vehicle for inspections, including visual inspection of the vehicle, electronic screening technologies (e.g., PrePass), weigh-in-motion (WIM) sensors, and advanced sensing technologies (e.g., detecting radiological, biological or chemical cargo); • Approximately 58% of the respondents use an electronic screening algorithm (e.g., ISS, SafeStat) to help them determine which vehicles to target; and • When asked what technologies are needed in the future, the majority of respondents indicated the need for enhanced on-board sensors that would notify field per- sonnel of potential problems with the vehicle or driver. The survey results are tabulated in Appendix C. DISCUSSION On the basis of survey results and supporting interviews, there appears to be consensus that alternative inspection tech- nologies are necessary and the desired trend for future enforcement activities. State personnel perceive these alter- native technologies as a key strategy to “do more with less” as they are confronted with rapid growth in commercial vehi- cle traffic and stagnant or declining enforcement resources. The industry perceives these alternative strategies as a means to “level the playing field” and ensure that carriers that are not meeting their safety obligations do not receive an unfair com- petitive advantage over those that do. There also appears to be consensus among the stakehold- ers that the current alternative inspection strategies for select- ing commercial vehicles and drivers for an inspection are insufficient. Seventy-four percent of respondents indicated 4

5more frequently are at a disadvantage as compared to carriers operating in states with less frequent updates that enjoy a “grace period” between when a crash or inspection occurring and their being reported to FMCSA and included in the screening algorithm calculation. It is important to note that the state personnel also noted a concern about data quality. Obtaining more robust data (67%) was listed second only to decreasing crashes (88%) as a prior- ity for a respondent’s inspection program. Further, the survey results indicate that the alternative strate- gies currently available may not meet the operational realities of roadside enforcement. Sixty percent of respondents indi- cated that their “jurisdiction’s commercial vehicle inspection program (is) aimed at identifying” high-risk drivers. Unfortu- nately, there currently is no driver-focused alternative strat- egy and only 8% of respondents indicated that their current selection tools are most effective at identifying high-risk driv- ers. FMCSA currently is working to develop a driver-focused algorithm (Inspection Selection System-Driver [ISS-D]) and is augmenting the Commercial Vehicle Information Systems & Networks (CVISN) architecture to improve the sharing of commercial vehicle driver data. The survey also indicated that states are modifying their enforcement strategies to include mobile and virtual enforce- ment operations. These operations—made possible through in-vehicle and roadside-based technology—are allowing jurisdictions to expand their enforcement efforts off of the highways and onto smaller roads, including roads that are known bypass routes around fixed inspection stations. Stake- holders have recommended that FMCSA support the devel- opment of virtual roadside sites through the development of deployment templates and identification of “best practices.” The movement toward mobile inspection facilities also reveals a need to improve wireless communications. that they rely on a visual inspection of a vehicle/driver to determine the type (level) of inspection that should be per- formed, even though a majority (58%) of them use a screening algorithm as part of their roadside operations. This indicates that roadside personnel do not have sufficient confidence in the roadside tools to use them exclusively. Industry representa- tives noted a similar level of skepticism regarding the current set of screening tools. In particular, industry representatives noted the following concerns: • The “rules of the game” (e.g., how the selection algo- rithms work, the data used in the current screening algo- rithms) are not widely known and/or understood by the industry; • The current inspection selection aids may not identify the correct vehicles for targeted enforcement; • Quality issues (e.g., associating a crash with the wrong motor carrier) in the data used by FMCSA to calculate the screening algorithms undermines the accuracy of the screening decisions; • The lack of “at fault” determinations for the crash data used in the calculation of screening algorithms is unfair and may result in a carrier being targeted for enforce- ment actions based on incidents that were beyond its controls (e.g., having its vehicles rear-ended by another vehicle); • Once a carrier is deemed “high-risk” by the screening algorithm and targeted for enforcement, it is difficult to be removed from the list because the “high-risk” deter- mination is a “self-fulfilling prophecy” in that a roadside inspector will be predisposed to look for a violation on a vehicle of a “high-risk” carrier; and • The varying frequency in which states submit their safety data to FMCSA creates an “uneven playing field,” whereby carriers operating in states that update FMCSA