Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

3.0 TRUCK-WEIGHT ENFORCEMENT MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS
Pages 5-9

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 5...
... development process was to consider an operational definition of truck weight enforcement M.O.E.s. Following this step, the project team developed a set of objective criteria against which to evaluate candidate M.O.E.s.
From page 6...
... Validation A field validation study was conducted to confirm the sensitivity of candidate M.O.E.s to actual truck weight enforcement activity. Candidate M.O.E.s were tested in a four-state evaluation effort that applied matched sets of weigh-in-motion (WIM)
From page 7...
... of the total Gross Weight Violation, Proportion observed truck sample which exceeds the legal gross weight limit. The extent to which average measured Gross Weight Violation, Severity gross weights for the observed sub-sample of gross weight violators exceeds the legal gross weight limit.
From page 8...
... The results confirmed the validity of the following M.O.E.s: Tandem-axIe Weight Violation Severity, Bridge For~nula Violation Proportion, and Excess ESAL Seventy. Georgia Mobile truck-weight enforcement operations, utilizing an obtrusive portable roadside weigh scale, were conducted at a rum interstate location.
From page 9...
... A number of factors were seen to affect M.O.E. sensitivity to enforcement procedures, including actual truck weight/configuration charactenstics, shipping commodity demands, observed truck sample size, and WIM equipment vanables.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.